Acknowledgment button or something?

[basically benign]

You all have more experience here so I would like your input on this, please:

Would it be worthwhile and useful to have a button on or near each message so members can acknowledge or agree to the post in some way? Or a button that registers 'thanks' or 'I hear you' in a members' User Control Panel, or something?

For example, there are many posts where I would like to say 'thank you' or 'I've heard you' or 'I agree' in a small way but unless I use a full blown reply the other person then I can't say something. Too many very short messages make the pages load slower and can get in the way of people interacting in the threads, I think.

With a simple click of the button (near the message) we could provide small bits of communication (akin to nodding our heads and smiling during a conversation) without increasing post length.

There is the "Scales" icon on messages that allow us to "Add to ___'s reputation" (whatever that means) however this does not seem to give any feedback to the poster and I haven't been able to discover if this has any noticeable effect in the forum other than to create a pop-up screen I need to close.

Comments, questions, concerns, or other ideas?

bb

P.S. for Admins: Do any of you know if new button is actually possible with the vBulletin software or if other forums that use this software have something like a button?

[Woody]

Hello BB
We are limited as to what functions are available because of software restrictions.

There are 2 ways of showing your approval or disapproval.

The first is via the rate this thread. Give you the option to select Excellent, Good, Average, Bad, Terrible.

Second is via the Add to ____'s reputation. That is the Scales Icon. This give you the option to Approve or Disapprove and the option to give a reason. This feature is active on this site and you can read more about how reputation works here.

PS I am still not here

[basically benign]

PS I am still not here

(Strange, I keep hearing a distant but helpful voice. Oh well, it'll probably clear up in a few days.)

bb

[paul m]

Hello BB. I am here and missing Woody. He explained the process very well, but I disagree with it and sometimes I offer free explainations.

If somebody likes or dislikes my post all they have to is say. I agree and or I disagree and post that. Over time you will see AJ, myself and Woody all doing that . I have dial-up and thats as slow as it gets and I have no problem with loading or space overruns.

Besides, I am not here to be marked( which is the only way that exists on this forum). If there is a genuine problem with my posts the moderaters will let me know. If I do well others will let me know.If I am wrong in what I said I want somebody to let me know.

Oh and by the way, I'm not saying your wrong. Your idea certainly has merit and if the forum would change to that I think it would be a good idea. But there probably not going to change. Of course Ive been wrong countless times before. Take Care. paul m

[basically benign]

(snips and mods for ease of use ...)
1. Hello BB. I am here and missing Woody .

2. If somebody likes or dislikes my post all they have to is say. I agree and or I disagree and post that. Over time you will see AJ, myself and Woody all doing that.

3. I have dial-up and thats as slow as it gets and I have no problem with loading or space overruns.

4. Besides, I am not here to be marked.

5. Oh and by the way, I'm not saying your wrong. Your idea certainly has merit and if the forum would change to that I think it would be a good idea. But there probably not going to change. Of course Ive been wrong countless times before. Take Care. paul m

Hello paul,

1. I keep hearing Woody's voice over the ether. Hmmm.

2. That's all the all the license I needed for myself. Thank you!

3. Oh good. I'm glad to hear this as it assures me there is little need for "mechanical changes" so everyone can participate.

4. That's a very good point that I never thought of. If we ever change things we will need to keep this idea in mind.

5. Nope, I understand you! I've been wrong many times and had lots of bad ideas, too. If we keep ideas to ourselves we might miss some of the good ones when we really need them. (And if I am ever wrong, please tell me, I won't take it personally. )

Based on what you said here, I do not believe we need to change anything either. But I, too, could be wrong.

Does anyone else have further thoughts/ideas/concerns?
bb

[AJ]

Would it be worthwhile and useful to have a button on or near each message so members can acknowledge or agree to the post in some way? Or a button that registers 'thanks' or 'I hear you' in a members' User Control Panel, or something?

There is a quick reply feature that could be used for acknowledging or agreeing to a post.

There is also a poll feature that can be used for giving others a quick way of adding their yes or no or other opinioins.

There is also a PM option that can be used for feedback.

I know these are not quite what you're looking for, but just things to keep in mind.

[basically benign]

There is a quick reply feature that could be used for acknowledging or agreeing to a post.

There is also a poll feature that can be used for giving others a quick way of adding their yes or no or other opinioins.

There is also a PM option that can be used for feedback.

I know these are not quite what you're looking for, but just things to keep in mind.

What are the differences between "Quick Reply" and "Quote", please?

And is personal mail enabled in the forum? I thought I read in the FAQs that it was shut off.

bb

[AJ]

Quick reply is like reply without all the bells and whistles.
PM is private message. Yes, email other member option is not active.

[basically benign]

Quick reply is like reply without all the bells and whistles.
PM is private message. (snip)

It seems that a Quick Reply means a new but quick post to the overall thread but not a reply to a person or post, where a Quote is an actual and direct reply to person or post, and allows readers to follow that conversation backwards.

Is this accurate?

bb

[AJ]

Quick reply is similar to the regular reply but you will see less options. There is a box to check if you want to quote the message in your reply. You can go to advanced and get all the options as they are in a regular reply. Clear as mud? Yes it will be a reply to the post like any other, within the thread.

Quickreply.jpg

[AJ]

Here's a regular reply screenshot.

This is what you see

Regularreply.jpg

[basically benign]

Quick reply is similar to the regular reply but you will see less options. There is a box to check if you want to quote the message in your reply. You can go to advanced and get all the options as they are in a regular reply. Clear as mud? Yes it will be a reply to the post like any other, within the thread.

Unfortunately, it is not clear.

If you look at my replies in this thread (where something is quoted), there is a small blue greater-than sign ">" immediately to the right of here: "Originally Posted by basically benign >". If anyone clicks on that sign they are taken to the entire message that was "Quote"ed (all the way to the beginning of that conversation if all the participants were kind enough to click "Quote"). This is a 'threaded' reply in the conversation.

Most of the "replies" in the entire forum ... well, I don't know what they refer to or what conversation they are referencing too much of the time (the other people in the conversation seem to know or are willing to assume, but I don't know). I think these 'unthreaded" posts are created when someone uses "Reply" or "Quick Reply" rather than "Quote". It seems that they are "replying to the thread" rather than a person and if/when they drift off-topic for the thread--the thread is over it seems.

Does this explain what my question means, AJ?

bb

[AJ]

Sort of. I guess I've never used the > thing. I try to use peoples names if I want my reply to be a response to a specific post (poster). Sometimes threads are hard to follow. The topic within threads change, and people come and go posting in it. Tis the way of our forums. I have a hard time following a thread without going back a few posts or more to see how the conversation progressed. And that's what it's like, a conversation which can end up anywhere.

[paul m]

Hello BB. I too sometimes find it hard to keep up with the method used by MDSC, especially if I've been away for a few days.

However, I know this basic format is used in many other forums that are way more active than this one, not that a big wrong , makes it right, but unfortuantely only a few companies sell forum software, and some of them are worse.

But the MDSC has a very small budget. They don't take me into their confidence, but I am guessing that they either got this one forum free or very cheaply, which is what you have to do when you don't have much money.

If I'm not mistaken they just updated to this format about 18 mths ago, I liked the old format better, but that's life. I have managed to get used to this one here(slowly) .

BTW, I'm not saying don't ask AJ questions, AJ and Woody are very good explaining things, much better than I. I'm just explaining why I'm not complaining to the MDSC about this software, even though I am not a big fan of it. Take Care. paul m.

[basically benign]

I'm sorry, everyone, I'm very lost now.

I'll try to remove some stuff so the conversation is easier to see. This is the start of what I'm asking about and the information I'm requesting:

There is a quick reply feature that could be used for acknowledging or agreeing to a post.
(snip)

What are the differences between "Quick Reply" and "Quote", please?
(snip)

Quick reply is like reply without all the bells and whistles.
(snip)

It seems that a Quick Reply means a new but quick post to the overall thread but not a reply to a person or post, where a Quote is an actual and direct reply to person or post, and allows readers to follow that conversation backwards.

Is this accurate?
bb

And I think this is where I lost everyone.

Sort of. I guess I've never used the > thing. I try to use peoples names if I want my reply to be a response to a specific post (poster). Sometimes threads are hard to follow. The topic within threads change, and people come and go posting in it. Tis the way of our forums. I have a hard time following a thread without going back a few posts or more to see how the conversation progressed. And that's what it's like, a conversation which can end up anywhere.

Hello BB. I too sometimes find it hard to keep up with the method used by MDSC, especially if I've been away for a few days.

However, I know this basic format is used in many other forums that are way more active than this one, not that a big wrong , makes it right, but unfortuantely only a few companies sell forum software, and some of them are worse.

But the MDSC has a very small budget. They don't take me into their confidence, but I am guessing that they either got this one forum free or very cheaply, which is what you have to do when you don't have much money.

If I'm not mistaken they just updated to this format about 18 mths ago, I liked the old format better, but that's life. I have managed to get used to this one here(slowly) .

BTW, I'm not saying don't ask AJ questions, AJ and Woody are very good explaining things, much better than I. I'm just explaining why I'm not complaining to the MDSC about this software, even though I am not a big fan of it. Take Care. paul m.

I'm just asking for basic info about the "Quick Reply" feature. It was stated that it "be used for acknowledging or agreeing to a post", however, when I experiment with "Quick Reply" it only allows a fast post to the whole thread but not to a specific post as stated.

I am not criticizing how people communicate in the forum. I am not criticizing the software. I am not criticizing MDSC. I am not saying anyone or anything is correct or incorrect.

I am just asking for more information because I don't understand what someone said.

bb