# on voting threads up and down



## machadinho

Dear Mike,

There're *200*  threads in the English Only forum on how to distinguish *relations* from *relationships*. I'd very much like to know the difference but I simply don't have the time to wade through them all.

Does the software running this forum allows for voting *threads* up and down ? (Threads not answers)

Please, enable it if does.  It would *make life easier * for everybody, both for people asking questions, and people like me who mostly answer questions.

Please, I beg, enable it. Just voting threads up and down. We don't need any silly reputation-point system such as in StackExchange.

Thank you.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

machadinho said:


> Does the software running this forum allows for voting *threads* up and down ?


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "voting up and down"..
Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, duplicated threads can be a problem. It means there are still too many people who don't use the forum search or the dictionary before posting a new question


----------



## machadinho

The search engine doesn't help much when it gives you 200 thread to wade through.

The basic idea is that threads have a dynamic, changing score. Not particular posts in a thread, but the thread itself.

Suppose you find a thread helpful, relevant, informative, illuminating, and so on.
You vote it up by clicking on an upwards arrow ⬆.
And the thread score is increased by 1.

Suppose it doesn't answer your question but it's okay.
You leave it alone, and its score remains the same.

Suppose it's just noise, offtopic, etc.
You vote it down by clicking on a downwards arrow *⬇*.
The thread score is diminished by 1​
In this way, we will be able to *sort*  search results by score. Useful threads will appear at the top, passable threads in the middle, and noise at the bottom of the page.


----------



## Karton Realista

machadinho said:


> Suppose it's just noise, offtopic, etc.


Then you ask the modarator to close/delete the thread/some of the posts? Isn't too much off-top against the rules?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

machadinho said:


> The search engine doesn't help much when it gives you 200 thread to wade through.



I know it doesn't at this point, but if people had used the search function when there were only few *"relations* vs. *relationships" *threads, there wouldn't be 200 now! 
Please see this

*Was this thread useful?*


----------



## machadinho

@Karton Realista, I don't believe it's offtopic. But moderators seldom carry out this sort of request. I've been reporting posts for the past few months since I was warned against enforcing forum rules myself. I'm no moderador. I was asked to use the report button instead. Okay. I started using it. Moderators *flatly* ignore me. I'm not using it anymore. Let me report a few useless relation-relationship threads, some of which are sheer noise, and see if I'm lucky in the EO forum. 

@Paulfromitaly, thanks for the pointer. I fully understand what you keep saying: this and other such features, which as it seems foreros have been requesting for ages now, *assume* that people use the search engine to begin with, while they don't. You're right. But are you not suggesting it follows from this that there is nothing we can do, are you?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

machadinho said:


> But are you not suggesting it follows from this that there is nothing we can do, are you?


We used to have a button at the bottom of each thread to let readers say whether they had found the discussion useful or not.
The problem is that when there are 200 threads on the same topic people obviously can't be bothered to read them all and they just assume it's ok to open the unpteeth duplicate (if 200 people did it, why shouldn't I do it too?)
There's only so much you can do now when there are dozens of duplicated threads about the same topic, unfortunately...


----------



## valdemar

Paulfromitaly said:


> We used to have a button at the bottom of each thread to let readers say whether they had found the discussion useful or not.
> The problem is that when there are 200 threads on the same topic people obviously can't be bothered to read them all and they just assume it's ok to open the unpteeth duplicate (if 200 people did it, why shouldn't I do it too?)
> There's only so much you can do now when there are dozens of duplicated threads about the same topic, unfortunately...



I think a button to say whether they have found the discussion useful is no the same as a button to let people know that a thread is worthwhile. Also, a button alone doesn't do much if you find a thread that is actually useless. That's why I think a system of two buttons to vote as suggested would be a good idea. And by the way that's one of the reasons I tend not to use the searching system of WR, instead I mostly use google to search in the whole domain because somehow it returns the most popular results at the top, which generally I think are the most relevant and useful.  Also I don't see much problem in the duplication of threads when they are useful because it has happened to me a lot of times that even when the tittle is basically the same, the content is different in terms of context and that's  great because after reading a few of those threads then my questions are totally clear. The problem is mostly with the relevance because there's no way to know which of them are best.


----------



## merquiades

Voting on threads is against the spirit of this forum.  What could be done when someone is opening a new thread is clicking on a required check box stating "I have made a search in this forum to make sure my question has not already been asked by someone else in the past".  To give relevancy to the thread and make sure the question is crystal clear another check box could be required "I have clearly stated my context and given a precise example."  Sure some people could just check them anyhow and post the new thread, but if half the people pay attention we would have 100 threads on relations/ relationships instead of 200.   Personally I hate opening a link and reading 5 words from the original poster: Help. Explain me difference relation/relationship.


----------



## machadinho

Why is voting on threads against the spirit of this forum?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

valdemar said:


> Also, a button alone doesn't do much if you find a thread that is actually useless


I beg to differ.
If people click that button and let us know a thread is useless or provides inaccurate information, we can remove it and cut down the number of discussions on the same topic.
Removing all the useless threads would also assure that threads which weren't removed are worth reading and provide useful information.


----------



## merquiades

machadinho said:


> Why is voting on threads against the spirit of this forum?


Imagine you take the time to post a question that is a great importance to you and everyone starts voting it down.  Others may then decide not to bother answering.  Your thread is shot down because of the subjective criteria of other members.  All inquiries are in theory equal as are foristas.  This is not the same as a moderator intervening to close the thread, demanding clarity or reminding the original poster of the rules.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

merquiades said:


> Imagine you take the time to post a question that is a great importance to you and everyone starts voting it down. Others may then decide not to bother answering. Your thread is shot down because of the subjective criteria of other members


I agree with you, however this would happen only if people could vote a thread, not if people simply reported a useless thread, as the mods would read it before removing it.


----------



## machadinho

merquiades said:


> Imagine you take the time to post a question that is a great importance to you and everyone starts voting it down.  Others may then decide not to bother answering.  Your thread is shot down because of the subjective criteria of other members.  All inquiries are in theory equal as are foristas.


You have a point.  This is precisely why I don't like those StackExchange forums: shooting down users and shutting down questions, besides people being routinely downright rude to each other all the time and it's okay.  They have this misconception that one is disrupting  them if one asks a question they don't like for whatever reason. Why are they online looking for questions to answer to begin with if to ask a question is to disrupt someone?

So, I will support whatever keeps us from not becoming a StackExchange forum.

However ...

Notice I'm suggesting voting on threads, not individual questions or answers, much less users, but *threads*. I repeat, threads.  There is no point in voting down an unanswered question. We agree on that. What I'm suggesting is to be able to vote a thread down if it's either redundant or noise, or to vote a thread up if it's relevant or illuminating for the purposes of *sorting* search results by usefulness.


----------



## merquiades

I don't know how you could separate *questions* from *threads*.  Voting down a thread is also voting down the question asked by the original poster.  If I am browsing word reference ready to comment on a subject and I view -10 on a thread I probably wouldn't bother clicking to help the person.  I'd think, woe, there must be something really wrong or flawed with the original post.  So I'd ignore.  I know the question could have been excellent and the 4th or 5th contributor gave mediocre answers but I probably wouldn't think that spontaneously.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

machadinho said:


> Notice I'm suggesting voting on threads, not individual questions or answers, much less users, but *threads*. I repeat, threads.


Please read this - We have already discussed it

*Like button*


----------



## machadinho

Paulfromitaly said:


> Please read this - We have already discussed it
> Like button


I've just read it. Thanks. It's obviously not on the same topic. And it's not really a _discussion,_ is it? At any rate, as @valdemar pointed out, this present thread here is *not* about *liking*. The issue is not closed. And even if the other thread were on the same topic --- it's not --- this is not a language-related, matter of fact issue that can be answered once for all, is it?



merquiades said:


> I don't know how you could separate questions from threads.  Voting down a thread is also voting down the question asked by the original poster.


Yes, voting down a thread includes voting down a question, for the *trivial* reason that a question is the OP of a thread. But voting a thread down is *not* the same as voting down a question.

Suppose Alice asks "what is the difference between relation and relationship" in 2007, and during the following days her thread receives a few more or less *helpful* answers.

Suppose José asks the very same question in 2012, and the question receives a single but *illuminating* answer.

Suppose Kurt asks the very same question again in 2014, and his question receives a "Did you search the forums for an answer before asking? Please take a look at Alice's and José's threads. I'm sure you'll find an answer there" answer.

Suppose poor Machadinho in 2016 wants to know the difference between relation and relationship, and comes across those *threads* which Alice, José, Kurt have opened among 197 other threads that others have opened on the same issue.

Machadinho patiently reads a dozen or so, and among them Alice's, José's, and Kurt's threads, and then Machadinho votes José's thread *up*, Kurt's *down*, but leaves Alice's alone. This Machadinho did because of the *answers* those threads provide as wholes, not because of the questions, for the simple reason that *the questions are the same*.

And then merquiades in 2017 wants to know the bloody (always wanted to use this word!) difference between relation and relationship, and thanks to poor Machadinho, merquiades goes directly to José's, and then maybe to Alice's thread, or at least is spared the pleasure of having to read Kurt's thread with a 24-hour deadline hanging above his head.​


----------



## Paulfromitaly

machadinho said:


> and then Machadinho votes José's thread *up*, Kurt's *down*


Would you be so kind to explain to me what the difference between "voting José's thread up" and "liking José's thread" is?
Liking a thread means giving a thread a  because you find it useful.
Voting a thread up means... giving a thread a  because you find it useful.
I still can't see any difference.

Having said that, I do understand your annoyance when you find a hundred threads about the same topic because I feel the same!


----------



## machadinho

Liking a thread is expressing a *feeling*: the thread makes you feel pleasure.
Voting a thread up is expressing a *judgment*: the thread is good.

And being good is not the same as being pleasurable.

Now it's your turn to be kind and explain why you're opposing my suggestion.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

machadinho said:


> Liking a thread is expressing a *feeling*: the thread makes you feel pleasure.


I believe you have overlooked some of the meanings of the verb "to like" - Liking a thread means giving a thread the "thumbs up", that is, giving positive feedback because you have found it useful and helpful, or in other words, what you call "voting up".
My opinion on this "liking/voting" matter is expressed here

*[URL='http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/was-this-thread-useful.2081719/']Was this thread useful?[/URL]*
Personally, I don't think this is the solution to the increasing number of duplicate threads.


----------



## machadinho

I agree it's not a solution to the increasing number of duplicate threads.
It's a solution to filter duplicate threads out.

I apologize. I missed your post in the like-button thread. Where is it?


----------



## valdemar

Paulfromitaly said:


> I beg to differ.
> If people click that button and let us know a thread is useless or provides inaccurate information, we can remove it and cut down the number of discussions on the same topic.
> Removing all the useless threads would also assure that threads which weren't removed are worth reading and provide useful information.



Well, If you're thinking about a button that is not just for clicking but to open up a box to introduce a reply then you're right, except that it would be easier for people to just click a button if they are lazy. And of course if you want to make a distinction between giving the thumbs up or down and saying that a thread is useful a solution would be a system of buttons with the labels: really useful,  useful, need more discussion, irrelevant, unanswered, vote to delete, ..., etc. this would help to filter the threads appearing the more useful at the top and then the rest. At the same time it would filter the ones that are useless and could be deleted, and also if someone wanted to answer threads he could filter those that are unanswered.


----------



## mkellogg

I see that I'm late to this discussion, but I think we should bring back the "Was this thread useful?" button.  That way, if somebody goes through the trouble to find a "relations/relationships" thread that he or she really likes, he or she can say so and others will be more likely to find it in the future.


----------



## machadinho

Thank you, Mike. How would one know what threads are useful?

@Paulfromitaly, you're running together 2 distinct issues:

(i) how to *stop* people from opening duplicate threads? (I don't know.)
(ii) how to *filter* useless duplicate threads *out*? (Voting.)​


----------



## mkellogg

machadinho said:


> How would one know what threads are useful?


This would have to be shown in the dictionary somehow.  It might be something simple like putting the number of "votes" in parentheses:
relations/relationships (3)

Also, if threads with more posts tend to have better answers than shorter threads, we could easily show the number of posts in the thread.  This could be done much more easily.


----------



## machadinho

Could it be shown in the forums' search results as well?


----------



## mkellogg

Changing the forum search results is much more difficult than changing the results in the dictionary, but if you are looking for words in the title of a thread, the dictionary search is probably better.


----------



## valdemar

mkellogg said:


> I see that I'm late to this discussion, but I think we should bring back the "Was this thread useful?" button.



I think it would be really helpful. Actually I don't remember of that button but I think as I said in my previous reply  it should be great to have something like this:

Was this thread useful?-- Very useful-- Need more discussion -- Vote to delete -- Report

The label "need more discussion" is useful  in case the question  has some comments but hasn't been answered, is very poor, or is inconclusive related to the last post, etc.  I think people who are willing to contribute by answering questions would like this function


----------



## Kelly B

I haven't formed an opinion yet on adding a usefulness rating to threads. I certainly don't object, and I agree it's not the same thing as liking individual posts.

I do want to encourage people to report individual threads that are useless, when you find yourself looking at one.
I can completely understand a moderator's reluctance to deal with the gigantic mess you get from certain search results. Deleting one thread, on the other hand, isn't so bad. I spend most of my time in Fr-En, and I've found that team to be very responsive to this sort of report.

edited to add: Reporting to suggest title changes to old threads can be helpful too, for example to make titles more specific. That helps searchers choose ones that correspond to their own contexts.


----------



## machadinho

I reported 5 "noise" threads on the notorious relation-relationship distinction in the English Only forum yesterday, and I must say they were all promptly deleted. Thank you, moderators.


----------



## wildan1

I will echo the comment that you are very welcome to provide moderators with feedback on a useless discussion via the Report button.

Sometimes the discussion is more focused than the title the OP has given it. We often do give such discussions a more precise title so it does not end up being a duplicate entry when in fact two discussions starting with the same basic title actually are discussing different aspects.

And then there is merging and clean-up. Speaking (only) for the French-English forums, I can say that our team does this regularly behind the scenes. And we appreciate members' suggestions for merging similar discussions (and alternatively, sometimes splitting discussions that end up covering two distinct themes).


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Also the It-En forum mods have been doing that for years and I can say that there are hardly any duplicated threads in the En-It forums.


----------



## Chimel

Just to say: I fully support Machadinho's suggestion. Of course, you can report useless threads to the mods, but I think his system would be far more efficient. Suppose just 20% of the people who use the forum every day would vote: it's like industrial production as opposed to handmade! 

Sure, Merquiades also has a point:


merquiades said:


> I don't know how you could separate *questions* from *threads*.  Voting down a thread is also voting down the question asked by the original poster.  If I am browsing word reference ready to comment on a subject and I view -10 on a thread I probably wouldn't bother clicking to help the person.  I'd think, woe, there must be something really wrong or flawed with the original post.  So I'd ignore.  I know the question could have been excellent and the 4th or 5th contributor gave mediocre answers but I probably wouldn't think that spontaneously.



But perhaps, you could arrange things so that voting on threads is only possible after a period of time (a week? a month?). So, even if you find a new discussion irrelevant, you couldn't vote at the moment, when most people comment, giving the person who asked the question a chance to find some help. You would only vote afterwards, on "inactive" threads.

Just do it !


----------



## Cagey

machadinho said:


> There're *200*  threads in the English Only forum on how to distinguish *relations* from *relationships*. I'd very much like to know the difference but I simply don't have the time to wade through them all.


I realize that this is aside from your main point, but I wonder how you did your search.
When I search for relationships relations, I get three threads (at the moment).
If I use the singular form, I get about 17: relationship relation.
(Some of the titles contain additional words that could help you choose the most useful thread.)


----------



## machadinho

I guess my search results returned separate messages, not threads.


----------



## Chimel

Anyway,when there are more than 7 or 8 similar threads, you are at a loss. You pick up one or two at random, but if you are somewhat unlucky, you leave it as it is.

In the English-French forum, there are at least 57 threads with "I look forward, to look forward, look forward" in their title (and I didn't take an extreme example). If you look for "look forward to your success", there is only one and that's OK. But quite often you need general information about the structure as such, whether it is "look forward to meeting you", "to hearing from you" or whatever. And that's when you can feel discouraged...


----------



## Peterdg

Chimel said:


> Anyway,when there are more than 7 or 8 similar threads, you are at a loss. You pick up one or two at random, but if you are somewhat unlucky, you leave it as it is.


A couple of days ago I checked 278 entries in the CREA to prove my point (see here). You guys shouldn't give up that easily.


----------



## wildan1

I'll just repeat my comment in message #31 above, Peterdg:


> ...And we appreciate members' suggestions for merging similar discussions (and alternatively, sometimes splitting discussions that end up covering two distinct themes).


Please just click on "Report" when you see such duplication--we're happy to work on cleaning that up.


----------



## Peterdg

wildan1 said:


> I'll just repeat my comment in message #31 above, Peterdg:


Wildan,

I don't understand your comment; probably you interpret my post in a different way than what I was intending to say.

My point was that sometimes, when you want to find something, you have to struggle through quite an amount of information. So be it. I'm happy when I can find the information that I'm looking for, even if that means I have to dig into several hundreds of entries.

It seems that everybody wants to be served on the spot nowadays, without too much effort. Nevertheless, the world is not perfect. But, it's great when you do find what you are looking for, even if it requires some effort.

By the way: the "CREA" is the "corpus referencial del español actual" and has nothing to do with WRF, except that it often used and quoted as a valuable reference.


----------



## Chimel

Peterdg said:


> My point was that sometimes, when you want to find something, you have to struggle through quite an amount of information. So be it.


If there is nothing to do about it, then so be it, yes. But it seems to me that Machadinho suggested quite a simple way to make searching more comfortable, so why make things unnecessarily difficult? (perhaps it's technically complex, then of course it would be a point).

Are you the kind of guy who puts stones in his rucksack when it's too light because a true rambler always walks with at least 15 kg on his back?


----------

