An option for the users to upvote/downvote a reply makes sense since it will distinguish helpful answers from unhelpful once.
I am sure this question would have popped up many a times and it will great if some one could educate why this is not being done.
PS: if its for lack of developer resource i understand and may i can help
We're currently working on a feature that is really close to being complete that will allow users to indicate a particular post was helpful. However, we generally don't like the negativity involved in voting down a particular response. Can you imagine spending a good amount of your valuable time responding to someone's question the best you possibly could and then the feeling you'd get by other users marking your post as inadequate? That is just not something we're comfortable allowing at the present time.
Collin Dugas wrote:
Am not sure of the negative effect though, cos stackoverflow, reddit , digg , HN have been doing it and seems to work well there.
It might work well for their content algorithms but for the community I could make an argument that it is really harmful. The comments tell a good story a lot of the time. Stackoverflow is one exception. Folks are generally nice there, it would seem. But I also don't see a whole slew of down voting.
Collin Dugas wrote:Having votes may help in moving the useful answers up the thread so that the users searching/looking at a particular thread may get the most helpful answer with minimum effort.
It would flag more helpful answers, but not necessarily move them up. JavaRanch is more of a discussion forum than a pure Q&A site. This mean the discussion has a time element and one doesn't want to move posts up/down.
Perhaps a feature could be that if a comment is icky, people could click on something to sort of request removal. And when that happens, moderators that look at that thread will see the request and could then choose whether or not to delete the post.
One thing I read recently is about providing only a "thumbs up" button (as opposed to being able to vote up or down).
Part of the issue is this: do we want conversations, do we want answers, do we want both, and do we want to differentiate between them.
I want both; at the same time I'd be *strongly* in favor of allowing correct, well-stated, cogent answers to percolate up in relevancy (which may also be an SEO win depending on implementation, and if we can pull data from "good" answer(s) and expose it explicitly).
Example: a bunch of people blather incorrect or partial solutions for a half-dozen screens. One, people might not scroll down far enough to see an answer from an authority. Two, an engine won't be as likely to ping the page as a hit because the good content isn't "front and center".
If moderators, or possibly others, could elevate the visibility of key posts, it seems like that could go a long ways towards adding value on multiple fronts.
Good editing of the questions themselves is also of value due to increased likelihood of SEO hits.
Bill cosby used to have a bit about how everybody should get one of those guns that shoot the darts with the suction cups. And you shoot bad drivers. Then cops pull over the cars that have lots of suction cups.
I think it could be fair to show only the number of thumbs up to the public, but we could have a "notify moderators" button - and then when the moderator looks at the thread, there can be some big warning symbol to show that somebody clicked on that - but only moderators can see it.