While I respect your opinions and like your 'thumbs up, thumbs down' idea, I do disagree to some extent. What is 'valuable' to one is of little or no value to another. Especially when it comes to the experience scale of developers.

Those just starting out with VFP will value basic, clear, messages with a clear resolution. Three stars given a message marking it as the resolution will hold the most value of all if the message pertains to their current problem. Yet those messages will be of little or no value to developers that have used VFP for years.
Who would determine when/if a message has 'value' and how that message scales in value to others? It is entirely too subjective I'm afraid.

If I have a problem, simple or difficult, and I do a search on the UT for anything similar, I am going to gravitate to those messages with any stars in them looking for a resolution as quick as possible. I tend to disregard 'value' markings on other forums because they are typically the opposite of what I am looking for.

Now, if I'm on a forum that marks messages by 'value' or content and I see a few that look interesting, I will look at them simply out of curiosity to see if I can learn something new. However, they more than likely have nothing to do with my current task I need to get done and am looking for help in accomplishing. That is 'free time' browsing and something we have little time to do.

I for one see this forum as very valuable and well worth the $ I pay for it. I can suffer a few mismarked threads as resolutions (when they may not be) in order to find what I'm looking for. I usually find it.

What I try to filter out are those diatribes that go on between individuals that seem to originate out of over-inflated egos and hurt feelings-now those take up the bandwidth! Oh well, no site can be perfect and sometimes we just need a little humour in our day anyway!

Just my humble opinion...

:o)



Tracy


>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