# special mark to special posts



## replicante7

I was wondering if it is possible to create a new feature. (Yes, I know it would be quite a job! ).I´ll try to explain:

Sometimes there are exceptional posts into the threads. Some of them because they show new points of view, others because they explain in an easy way difficult questions, and so on. (Really, I came to think about this after reading a brilliant comparisson between English and Spanish in a lazarus post a few days ago).
Then I ask if it would be possible to mark this posts. An option (similar to flag, but in an opposite way) to be used by foreros. Maybe it would be a mark where the forero can choice between a few kinds of marks, in order to make it easy future mark clasification (and also mods valoration).

This is the "dreamed" new feature:

1. A mark icon (it could be placed near to flag).
2. When the forero click over it, a new little window shows radio buttons (options to choose).
3. The options could be something like: "gramatic", "vocabulary", ( I am sure that other foreros can suggest better options than me ).

Now, I don't know if I have explained in a propper way what I am asking. I hope that mods, developpers an foreros could understand what I have tried to say.


----------



## Jana337

We used to have a reputation system but it didn't work so well (hearsay, I don't remember it ). I casually know a forum that uses it. The feature generates one half of their traffic - clannish thinking is rampant and so are petty fights. As a consequence, quality is not very high in the list of evaluation criteria. And in their equivalent of Comments and Suggestions, they won't stop squabbling about it.


----------



## replicante7

Thanks for your quickly answer, Jana.
A lot of traffic is no good.
But I know I explained very badly the idea.  I am going to explain a little more (sorry!): The "dreamed feature" is only for an exceptional use, not to rank every post. Maybe the icon it could be not in every post, as the flag, but as a tool in another place.
 I think it would be useful to create an "special posts" DDBB . A way for searching special posts. Because sometimes there is an special post among 30 threads with 20 post each one. Also, because this "special keeping" would allow WR further uses of interesting topics.
Thanks, Jana.


----------



## lsp

Jana, we had _both_ a member-reputation feature _and_ a post-ranking feature. Both were used carelessly and both became meaningless. There is no way to create a standard for what is a "good post," it seems. Members added and subtracted rankings according to very individual criteria.


----------



## replicante7

lsp said:


> Jana, we had _both_ a member-reputation feature _and_ a post-ranking feature. Both were used carelessly and both became meaningless.



A member-reputation feature? Oh, God!, mine would be underground: I don't know about it. And nothing about post-ranking feature, either.

(I am looking for an ostrich hidding its head icon...)


----------



## replicante7

I have just read in other thread this Belen's post. It explains better than I did what I was trying to explain about  "special post marks" into a thread:



belen said:


> When the forums started, we didn't have the off topic rule, it was something that came up when the forums "grew up" and "matured"
> Sometimes, one of the old threads is revived and I realize that, even if I have participated in it as a forero, believe me, it's a pain having to read through 30 chatty posts to get to the point of the thread.




I had explained very badly my idea before.  This Belen post refers to chattering and offtopic posts in the past, before the WR deleting rules. But, nowadays, sometimes it is also a difficult job to follow a thread trying to read new points of view or arguments related to the main topic, due to many posts that, without being offtopic, are not relevant. I guess that if one can mark "special or relevant posts" it would be easier to follow a long thread.
(My apologizes, Belen, for using your words to say what I wanted to say.
Thanks for them)


----------



## belén

No problem Replicante!

Ok, I understand your point. And my question is: doesn't "subscribing to a thread" give you a similar thing to what you are asking?

At least it is a secure way not to lose track of that particular question you are interested in...


----------



## replicante7

belen said:


> Ok, I understand your point. And my question is: doesn't "subscribing to a thread" give you a similar thing to what you are asking?
> At least it is a secure way not to lose track of that particular question you are interested in...


Thanks Belen. It is difficult to me to explain in English. I'll try to answer your question:
Yes, I know that I can keep all the threads  in "Suscribed threads". But I miss some tool to mark "relevant" posts. An example: Now I am suscribed to a thread started by Pitt. There are more than 40 posts into that thread. At this moment it´s easy for me follow the thread because I have been following it since its beginning. 
But, if I hadn´t follow it and I would arrive just now to the thread it would be very difficult to find the important posts into it (2 or 3 from lazarus, some from Jellby and maybe 2 from Pitt). That is the point. If foreros can mark in some way, maybe I could follow in a easy way the thread, skipping non relevant posts.  What do you think about this? I repeat that is difficult to me explain all the idea in English (and quickly). Thanks, again.


----------



## jann

I understand quite clearly, replicante7 

I see two possible means of implementing this sort of thing.

1.  Public: Members could rate threads or even individual posts.  Ratings would be visible to everyone.  

2.  Personal: Each member could rank threads and/or posts in a way that was visible _only to them._  This would be a way of marking your own "favorites" at the thread level (highlighting your favorite subscribed threads) or at the post level (highlighting your favorite posts within the subscribed thread).

As Jana and lsp mentioned, we used to have Method 1 in place.  It didn't work out very well, so it was removed.  I wasn't here, so I can't give details.   As for method 2, I don't know if it is technically possible in the current version of our vB forum software.  Even if it were possible, it might slow the forums.

Moderators often add useful links to the Resources thread in the given forum.  If someone posts a link that you find particularly useful, you might consider using the red triangle (in the upper right corner of that post) to suggest to the moderators that the link be added to the appropriate Resources thread.  But it is true that some useful posts just don't belong in Resources...

If subscribing to threads is not a satisfactory way for you to keep track of the ones you find most useful, you could always create a bookmarks folder in your web browser and bookmark threads and even single posts.  This has the advantage that you can customize it exactly as you like (a bookmarks folder for the subjunctive, another for letter-writing, etc).

These are just a few ideas...


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

If I understand well replicante7 idea (which I'm quite unsure, sorry if I misunderstood you!), the idea would be to have your own personal stickies. Relevant posts marked only for yourself, nobody else would know. 
I concur it would be a good feature. 

Edit: oops, am I that slow? Now I read Jann post, I guess I understood her method #2. As it is sometimes a pain to look for a post we had subscribed among thousands of them. If we can rank them, it would be easy to find them. And a "relevant post" for me might not be relevant at all for someone else...


----------



## replicante7

Thanks, jann. I am glad for your "understanding of my plead". (Specially because now I´m happy: I was able to explain something).
It´s a good idea to create folders for differents topics and save individual post links as  bookmarks.  I´ll do it.
But I´m afraid that my pleading refers to "public marks" (no rating all posts, just a mark to "relevant" posts according to the topic thread). It´s useful to me that you had explained both ways, public and personal. I hadn´t think about the second one.
My idea is that someone that is looking into a long thread could skip non relevant posts. By example, someone to get into the thread because he was looking some expresion into the Dictionary and follows a link from "forums where that expressions appears" (or something like this, I don´t remember how is that title link in the Dictionary site).
Also foreros who are looking into old long threads, I mean threads started before the forero could have read them. Sometimes I have been reading "old" threads. If the tool I am describing could exist I guess it would be easier to go around reading. And, also, to use the WR information in further times. But this "further use in the future"  is another  topic. 
I am not saying that the "non relevant" posts must be unnecessary. Most of them are necessary, for instance posts claiming for more context or asking for clarifications. But, in order to follow the thread arguments, they are not relevant posts.
This is too long. Sorry!


----------



## .   1

replicante7 said:


> Most of them are necessary, for instance posts claiming for more context or asking for clarifications. But, in order to follow the thread arguments, they are not relevant posts.


Some threads would make utterly no sense if the context requests were removed as the response to the request for context is so often context based and must be read in conjunction with the request for context or the message is blurred yet again.
I can vaguely see what you seek but I suspect that it is impossible and some things must be savoured slowly rather than skimmed.

.,,


----------



## replicante7

. said:


> I can vaguely see what you seek but I suspect that it is impossible and some things must be savoured slowly rather than skimmed.
> 
> .,,


It´s my fault that you can can see only vaguely what I tried to explain. Sorry!
I agree with you in that some things must be savoured slowly, rather than skimmed. (By the way, if my "explanation" suggested you this sentence, it was an awful explanation). Thanks, next time I should be better.


----------



## jlan

Jana337 said:


> We used to have a reputation system but it didn't work so well (hearsay, I don't remember it ). I casually know a forum that uses it. The feature generates one half of their traffic - clannish thinking is rampant and so are petty fights. As a consequence, quality is not very high in the list of evaluation criteria. And in their equivalent of Comments and Suggestions, they won't stop squabbling about it.


 


jann said:


> I understand quite clearly, replicante7
> 
> I see two possible means of implementing this sort of thing.
> 
> 1. Public: Members could rate threads or even individual posts. Ratings would be visible to everyone.
> 
> 2. Personal: Each member could rank threads and/or posts in a way that was visible _only to them._ This would be a way of marking your own "favorites" at the thread level (highlighting your favorite subscribed threads) or at the post level (highlighting your favorite posts within the subscribed thread).
> 
> As Jana and lsp mentioned, we used to have Method 1 in place. It didn't work out very well, so it was removed. I wasn't here, so I can't give details.  As for method 2, I don't know if it is technically possible in the current version of our vB forum software. Even if it were possible, it might slow the forums.
> 
> Moderators often add useful links to the Resources thread in the given forum. If someone posts a link that you find particularly useful, you might consider using the red triangle (in the upper right corner of that post) to suggest to the moderators that the link be added to the appropriate Resources thread. But it is true that some useful posts just don't belong in Resources...
> 
> If subscribing to threads is not a satisfactory way for you to keep track of the ones you find most useful, you could always create a bookmarks folder in your web browser and bookmark threads and even single posts. This has the advantage that you can customize it exactly as you like (a bookmarks folder for the subjunctive, another for letter-writing, etc).
> 
> These are just a few ideas...


 
Hi there Jana & Jann 

sorry if this topic has been taken up in another thread since, haven't checked the newer ones, but could it be that the* rating* feature you refer to, Jann, didn't work at the beginning because there were too few users? *Maybe now that the number of users has increased dramatically, we would obtain a more nomal distribution of ratings*, better reflecting the general opinion, as individual ratings would have less wait the more ratings there are. I would advocate being able to *rate threads, not posts*, and maybe this could be limited by *being able to rate only older threads*, that have been started a few moths back or so at least, so as to avoid (or at least considerably limit) the petty wars Jana mentioned.

greetings


----------



## mkellogg

Hi jlan,

I'm not convinced that rating threads will ever work well.  People just don't take the time to vote.  This does remind me of the idea to let people save their favorite threads and posts in a public list.  I think that could be more useful.

Mike


----------

