Sorry Michel, I didn't realize that you think the system is good, and that you feel it is its actually working as intended, and as a result generating ideas and trying to make things that clearly don't work a little better is called "bad words against the UT".

I recall suggesting content rating a long, long time ago. What's here now isn't anything like that, and in my view, despite what you may feel, it's definitely not working for the reasons I explained.

There is a clear difference between "correct answer" and "valuable message". Personally I don't care much about any "one correct answer" to any particular question, but I'm very interested in "valuable messages", and I'm willing to trust good people to collectively indicate what seems to be valuable or less valuable.

The UT isn't about "correct answers". It's about community cohesiveness, shared knowledge, and insight. You, of all people, should have realized this a long, long time ago. Anything that furthers the massively silly "correct answer" feature is clear evidence that you're just not tuned-in. You don't get it. Michel, snap out of it. Wake up.

You should be doing things that allow the UT to scale, and make the UT more respectful of people's valuable time. This means getting people connected to great information as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Your goal should be to massively increase value delivered while massively decreasing the average session time. Do that and you'll be a mega millionaire. But frig with "correct answer" features and wallow forever in delusion about what works on the Internet. The choice is yours.

In other words, we all want and need, and by "we" I mean including you, is a UT where people come every day but not *need* to stay very long.

Right now, the UT is a place where people come every day and *need* to hang around, digging, digging, digging, trying to locate valuable messages. This digging costs people time, it costs you bandwidth and servers and diskspace (i.e. money)and, as a by product of all the time spent here, there is diminishing value of excessive numbers of messages generated by bored web surfers.

Websites where people come every day but don't need to stay very long are far more valuable than those where people come every day and hang around for hours. (I read a fantastic article about this recently, and as soon as I find the link I'll send it to you).



**--** Steve




>I could have used any message in this thread to reply but I'll use yours. :)
>
>I would just like to clarify a few points that are misinterpreted by some users.
>
>The purpose of the original thread, as I was given more information about the original request, is to allow the ability to the original poster to mark one of his message as a solution, assuming, in some cases, that the original poster of a thread has found its way to a solution that was not given by another member. Thus, by creating a message saying that he did solve his solution by doing this and that, with or without some help of other members, the original poster would be able to mark the message as a solution to this problem. The idea is good and it was confirmed earlier on today that we'll try to add that little additional as soon as time permits.
>
>For those who try to express the theory of relativity by using the actual in place mechanism to mark a message to a solution or a help is not related at all. That ability was did to mark a message for a solution or a thread by keeping the relation of the member who provided it and that is his only target presently. For that purpose, which is not the concern of this thread, it does the job ok.
>
>So, I really don't see the reason why a/some member(s) start to throw bad words against UT, again, especially when the/some-of individual(s) was/were among the ones who did request that ability at first.
>
>The purpose of this thread - the request/suggestion of Claudio, is something not in place presently on UT, thus something new that has be to implemented, and we will do it, as confirmed, as soon as we can.
>
>Thanks for the suggestion