Thanks Buttons on Posts

[David Baxter PhD]

You will now see a new button for individual posts that looks like this:



with different colors where available for different forum styles.

Clicking on that button will insert a notation that you have thanked the member for his/her post; the number of times a member has been thanked will appear on the right above that member's posts.

Please use this rather than creating a separate post for the sole purpose of saying thank you. This is in the interest of minimizing the database size as psychlinks grows.

 

[amastie]

David,
don't mean to add to the database, but sometimes - especially if I've been supported after a difficult time - just saying 'Thanks' without a hug for example feels a bit cold. I suppose if everyone undersands that it covers a variety of ways of saying Thanks, then I can be able to just click on it and accept that the other person will recognize that it's enough. Often, I will respond not necessarily with a long post but just with a hug and a smile icon. Does such a response fill up the database more than clicking on the "Thanks"

 

[David Baxter PhD]

David,
don't mean to add to the database, but sometimes - especially if I've been supported after a difficult time - just saying 'Thanks' without a hug for example feels a bit cold. I suppose if everyone undersands that it covers a variety of ways of saying Thanks, then I can be able to just click on it and accept that the other person will recognize that it's enough. Often, I will respond not necessarily with a long post but just with a hug and a smile icon. Does such a response fill up the database more than clicking on the "Thanks"

Yes, it does. I think a Thank You is enough - the hug can be implied. The recipient of the Thank You can see both who gave the thanks and for what post.

 

[Sparrow]

Hello,

I am beginning to see the thank you annotation as a bit of a heirachy scorecard on everyones tab. Ah, maybe it's just me, and as much as a THANK YOU click can be ... expedient, one might hesitate to reply with a discourse or ... outreach of thought. Ooop! Just click Thank you. That'll do.

:budgie:

 

[David Baxter PhD]

Hello,

I am beginning to see the thank you annotation as a bit of a heirachy scorecard on everyones tab. Ah, maybe it's just me, and as much as a THANK YOU click can be ... expedient, one might hesitate to reply with a discourse or ... outreach of thought. Ooop! Just click Thank you. That'll do.

If you have something to say besides "Thank you" or "hug", there will be no objections at all. If all you want to do is say thank you, this feature allows you to do that without excessive additions to the database, server resources, and bandwidth.

 

[gooblax]

I am beginning to see the thank you annotation as a bit of a heirachy scorecard on everyones tab.

I felt that way at the beginning of the Thanks Button introduction as well. Thanks for bringing this up, Sparrow.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on the 'Thanks counts' being displayed on each posters' letterhead (for lack of a better word) or in their statistics?

 

[Daniel E.]

Does anyone else have any thoughts on the 'Thanks counts' being displayed on each posters' letterhead (for lack of a better word) or in their statistics?

Well, in some ways, it goes against the old hierarchy (number of posts, regular member vs. senior member vs. MVP, etc.). So, in that sense, it's anti-hierarchy

 

[David Baxter PhD]

Hello,

I am beginning to see the thank you annotation as a bit of a heirachy scorecard on everyones tab. Ah, maybe it's just me, and as much as a THANK YOU click can be ... expedient, one might hesitate to reply with a discourse or ... outreach of thought. Ooop! Just click Thank you. That'll do.

:budgie:

I felt that way at the beginning of the Thanks Button introduction as well. Thanks for bringing this up, Sparrow.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on the 'Thanks counts' being displayed on each posters' letterhead (for lack of a better word) or in their statistics?

Oh, I misunderstood Sparrow's point. You're just talking about the stats.

I'm tired...

But that's fine with me. Turned off now.

 

[NicNak]

I never have paid much attention to the "Thank You" counts.

It isn't really important interms of validating what I say etc. I do find it might be useful to find out what members prefer what type of topics though.

Eg. If Dr Baxter posts about Migranes and many people say thanks for the post, it shows how many people are interested in that topic or found it useful.

Dr Baxter then could refer back to that, if he choses too, to see what the most members found to be the most helpful when chosing other topics for the forum.

Interms of a member and the Thank You count. I am not going to get a free pizza from it, so it really doesn't faze me in that way.

 

[David Baxter PhD]

Note to self: Cancel pizza order.

 

[NicNak]

Note to self: Cancel pizza order.

:rofl: :funny:

 

[Sparrow]

I ate it already David.

NN, What you say is right, technically. If something (post) is very helpful, to just say...THANKS. It's quick and expedient. And perhaps you could see how many others found it helpful.

Further to David, it really can help with bandwidth, loading, speed, etc.

:budgie:

 

[NicNak]

I ate it already David.

And you didn't share



:vroom:

 

[amastie]

As I was writing this post, all four of the last posts were submitted. (Not the first time for me, I'm *so* slow <lol>) - so I'm not sure right now but from a *very* quick inspection of those new posts, I get the impression that the stats are not to be displayed. is that so?? Will leave the following reply stand as it is. (After all, I spent all that time on it :fool: )

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My only initial probem with it is that I have felt obliged to use it when I would much rather express some small response but since you assure us David that any response (other than a single thanks or hug) is ok then I have no other problem with it.

I actually think that, in one way, it is a nice to acknowledge the contribution of people in a way that has nothing at all to do with the hierarchy established by the level of contribution and commitment assessed by admin/mods. It's a peer-driven hierarchy, in which it is shown how much one's contribution resonates with (or not) among users at large. I try mostly to use the "Thanks" link *only* to say thanks and no more (typically, in response to information articles) but I admit to using both the "Thanks" link as well as writing a response. That is to ensure that a poster be credited with his/her contribution on the "Thanks" monitor, but also to receive my personal response. And I've seen others doing the same. So, clearly, at times, it is a monitor that seems to warrant a "hit" independently of what reply is given to the original post.

While I actually think that it makes sense in having a peer-based acknowledgement of the merit of contributioons, my one concern is that it immediately places anyone too shy to respond as frequently, or too unwell to reply as elequently, in the position of always staying low in the totem pole of that peer-based heierarchy - and will that not re-inforce their feeling of being low on the totem pole of their own offline social networks?

I want people to be credited with what they give but I don't want people who, for whatever reason, feel lesser for not being "seen" not to have given.

For what it's worth, my thought the be to maintain the "Thanks" link and to have displayed how many times, and by whom, a particular *post* has been thanked, but not display how many times a particular forum member has been thanked or (especially) has given thanks. (The latter is reminiscent of a chuch service in whch members of a congregration are informed of who it was that gave thanks to the Lord/the Diocese.. by contributions, typically of money). The payment may be different, but the principle is the same. By displaying only the thanks given to a particular article, and the name of those who gaves thanks for that one article, the article is highlighted and its contributor is acknowledged. It would a fitting acknowlegement, would still fit the bill for being used in place of a response but would not become, increasingly (I suspect) seen as a monitor which draws a "hit" independently of such a response.

 

[Sparrow]

I think you hit the nail on the head Amastie.
Akin to an esteemed donation basket in a church?
Or... I killed more antelope than my neighbour did?
I'm rambling the socio-ecom of it though (sorry tired)
You did say something very valid though David..

If you have something to say besides "Thank you" or "hug", there will be no objections at all.

Well said. Period.
What about someone that is very reluctant?
To even go... p e e p ?

there will be no objections at all.

Well I guess they may not even get here. But you never can tell.


:budgie:

 

[amastie]

David,
You did it! It looks *so*much better!
And you also kept the Thanks at the bottom of the posts.
:adminpower: :cool2: :happy: :dance:

 

[sister-ray]

Well said Amastie. I dont reallly like the thanking systems nor do I like the karma, smite and exhalt systems that are on some of my other boards, I dont like the fact it is displayed like some sort of score card of who has the most thanks etc, on some of my bird forums it has caused problems and has been disabled, its good to acknowledge peoples posts to say youve read it but it need to be done in way thats not like the scoring of the Eurovision Song contest

 

[amastie]

Some "Thanks" links removed?

Hi,
I've just noticed that "Thanks" links were not present in a couple of replies to articles. Is that to be the policy now - that the "Thanks" link is displayed only on certain (types of) posts??
Just curious.

 

[David Baxter PhD]

Re: Some "Thanks" links removed?

No. The Thanks button won't be visible:

1. if you are the author of a post, or

2. if you have already "thanked" that post.

If neither of those conditions is true and you don't see the Thanks button, try refreshing the page.

 

[sarek]

It is a good thing this feature is now available. I am familiar with it from a few other forums where the same software is in use and use it regularly.