how 'bout +1 ??

I just noticed the little paragraph above the "reply" box, which points out that replies should be used when adding to the discussion, and "gratitude" doesn't imply agreement. Which is good. But what about the middle case - you might want to agree but aren't moved to add significant content to the discussion??
To pose my own counter-argument, does that mean that the choices would be read as "Yes! I agree" and "uh, thanks for playing, but you're totally wrong"? I'm not sure... I tend to minimize use of smileys in text, but maybe that would work in a 'gratitude bar' along the bottom of the post. I don't see too many sites with the gratitude concept, while it's pretty common to see posted messages that are nothing more than "+1". Some way of bringing that concept to Wacco might be good.

Well. I was going to push the "Gratitude" button, but......Yeah, you reminded me of something else that I've thought would be nice at the bottom: a smiley or something that would say "hilarious!" rather than just lumping "thank you", "brilliant", "interesting" and "hilarious" all under "Gratitude".

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I just noticed the little paragraph above the "reply" box, which points out that replies should be used when adding to the discussion, and "gratitude" doesn't imply agreement. Which is good. But what about the middle case - you might want to agree but aren't moved to add significant content to the discussion??
To pose my own counter-argument, does that mean that the choices would be read as "Yes! I agree" and "uh, thanks for playing, but you're totally wrong"? I'm not sure... I tend to minimize use of smileys in text, but maybe that would work in a 'gratitude bar' along the bottom of the post. I don't see too many sites with the gratitude concept, while it's pretty common to see posted messages that are nothing more than "+1". Some way of bringing that concept to Wacco might be good.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I just noticed the little paragraph above the "reply" box, which points out that replies should be used when adding to the discussion, and "gratitude" doesn't imply agreement. Which is good. But what about the middle case - you might want to agree but aren't moved to add significant content to the discussion??
To pose my own counter-argument, does that mean that the choices would be read as "Yes! I agree" and "uh, thanks for playing, but you're totally wrong"? I'm not sure... I tend to minimize use of smileys in text, but maybe that would work in a 'gratitude bar' along the bottom of the post. I don't see too many sites with the gratitude concept, while it's pretty common to see posted messages that are nothing more than "+1". Some way of bringing that concept to Wacco might be good.

---

+1

Patrick Brinton

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:

+1

Patrick Brinton

---

yeah, yeah....

Bottom line is that it is work - like hundreds of dollars...(it needs to work on the website, individual emails and the digest, plus ideally searchable and reportable).

But I'll see if there's a way to make it easier. In the meantime, I have bigger fish to fry. Big Smile

And I like the general "I acknowledge you for this worthy contribution" concept. V

It has been a while since I did any programing, so this may be a naive suggestion, but could you not just reproduce the exact functionality of the Gratitude feature and call it something else?

Patrick

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:

It has been a while since I did any programing, so this may be a naive suggestion, but could you not just reproduce the exact functionality of the Gratitude feature and call it something else?

Patrick

---

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...06-10_1149.png

Easier said than done. It has a lot of "moving parts". Interface, processes, database tables, etc, and it all needs to implemented in lots of different places while working within the underlying software system (vBulletin).

There's is another "thank you" system available that is more flexible but it would also need a lot custom/Wacco extensions. I'm not anxious to open another can of technical worms...