Topic: best replies should appear first in a thread. (Read 942 times)

I think it’s a great idea to include a sorting feature, for example, sorting by most merits, sorting by latest posts, sorting by rank, etc. with your default sorting set as your default chronological order.
This way, you don’t have to mess with your existing order of posts. You can use it however you want.
If you prefer your posts to be in their default chronological order, that’s fine too.

You are right because adopting the like and upvote patter will kill the order flow if comments with most likes/upvotes are made to appear at the top. It will also make it extremely difficult for those who read every comment in a thread as they will not know the chronological order of the flow of the conversation. If you ask me, I thing the forum is fine the way it is arranged... if you stopped in a particular page, when you return you can just continue from that page and read down. In this case, you will not miss any single comment.

I think the system will be similar to the upvote on reddit, but I don't think that kind of system is suitable in all thread/OP or in all section, especially on the thread or section when the focus is just to discuss, rather than finding a solution, in the thread where the focus in discussion like this OP, I prefer a chronological order like the current system, so I wouldn't miss the context for all argument/statement that quote other replies.

However, that system might be suitable on a certain forum section like Beginner and Help where the most of the thread were made to find a solution for a certain problems, so I guess an extra option won't hurt, but it shouldn't be the default option.

It's not obvious always that the earliest replies will get merit, it depends upon the reply that is the reply according to the post or it is just spam. Mostly those replies get merit which is according to the post or someone helps each other in a way the help is needed.
Some people look at others' replies to what they said in the bitcoinTalk to that post, so sometimes there are some talks in their minds, which suddenly come to a person's mind and thus he replies to the post.
And if someone likes a person's reply and gives it merit while it is not according to the post, and another person doesn't like the reply, How could that message be kept on the front page?
Also, you will see the merit posts on the first pages and you will find other users' posts and search for them going to other pages, I don't think it's a good idea.

Agreed, I don't think DT1/DT2 should have anything to do with judging post quality - it's purpose was for trust, it should remain in that category alone.

That makes zero sense and if we continue like this way, I am afraid being a reputable member will become a burden on this forum rather than a privilege. Also, this forum is not a twitter or facebook and we shouldn't turn it into that one.

Why should they do that? Why should it become their duty?

---

Just leave things the way they are regarding to post sorting. You guys are asking for a headache for no real reason. First of all, it's not duty for DT members to read posts instead of you, don't be so lazy, reading will also help you to advance your English. Then, every opinion matters. You better report spammy posts, so, moderators can remove them. If we empty threads from spammy posts by reporting them, then we will be left with threads where every comment is on-topic and nice to read.

I think chronological responses are probably best - especially for keeping track of things.

I wouldn't mind some sort of indicator that suggests as a reply is the "top voted" or "top merited" response. Would incentivize good posting (especially for those running sig campaigns to hire actually decent posters)

And not only that. Moving the best replies to the first pages assumes that these best answers are simply given to the OP's question. But the topics are interesting not only for direct answers to the first post, but also for the discussion that arises along the way. And often very good posts may have almost nothing to do with the OP's question, but are a response or comment to what other members writing in the thread have said. If all these best posts are artificially moved to the 1-2 pages, then the consistency of the discussion will be lost and it will be unclear why a certain post is considered the best, because it will be taken out of context.

You're thinking this way about early replies having all the attention because when a user opens a thread it's the first page that appears and due to this you feel they get more attention than others which for me it's not true. There are users that still move through page to pages taking their time to read replies/opinions of different members about a topics and am saying this because I have had replies that still got merited  even at 5-7 pages upwards and other person's can attest to this for themselves too.

For research purposes and scholarly benefits a good reader must know that great treasures are not hidden on the surface and therefore must dig deep to get the best therefore for people that knows what they want they can't just rely on the first two or three pages of a thread they will hence dig deeper to more pages (and I thinks that's how a good number of my replies received the merits they got).

 Quality can't be hidden from those that take time to look for it. So where on a page it falls on doesn't really count.

If replies should be arranged in the very pattern  as you've suggested it would worsen the monotonous replies you earlier complained about in the preceding statement under number 2 of your discovery. 
And this could make replies boring having no variety of taste as everyone will want his reply to be at the first two pages which will make almost 95% of replies in a thread align more on the ideas that appears on the first two pages believing it will get to receive merits as those that are already in the first 2 pages did.

 And indirectly we will unknowingly be promoting merit phishing in the forum if such idea is given relevance as a criteria to sorting out quality post. Because the question is, who determines a quality post? It's still debatable as to who on the grounds that it's a subjective matter.

Let's base it on Ignore lists, much easier.

Like we have DT1 and DT2 lists, they can choose which reply is more relevant and valuable in the list.

And how exactly will this list of trusted users be updated? And how to reconcile this with the merit system? This will not lead to positive results, it will be even more subjective, than it is now, because there will be an even greater inequality between "trusted" users, which means - those who registered a long time ago and have many merits, and newbies and low ranks, for whom the chances of getting into the list of these trusted members will be even smaller than with the merit system.

I would like to share my idea on this matter.
The forum needs to add a like feature we have on many social media platforms or upvote type feature, but not everyone can upvote/like the replies to come on top of the thread,
some trusted users of the forums are allowed to like/upvote the replies after reading them and deciding that is it a valuable reply or not.

Like LoyceV said, it could depend on the amount of smerit the user has, but aside from what he's said,I think that every member on this forum, whether merit-source or non-source, is mostly subjective in terms of awarding merit (I agree with what Mpamaegbu said). I sometimes also think that favoritism has arisen in the merit system, where a user can still have a load of merit but can only give more merit to a user with whom they are pleased, considering the quality of the post.

I have come across a thread where the first comment was of great quality but from a low rank member, and he received just 1 merit, but the second comment was almost the same idea as the first comment but from a high rank member, so he received 5 merit from the same user that merited the first comment. I sometimes wonder why it's so, but I thought to myself, "Every member has the right to award any amount of smerit to whomever they want to, as long as it is not in a merit-abusing manner, like sending smerit to their alt accounts.

Sometimes? Really? The whole merit system is totally subjective. These mystical criteria for quality posts and contributions to the forum do not have a clear form and definition. And all this leads to a situation where users try to adapt their posts to these "standards", destroying their own style and making posts unnatural and artificial. Instead of sharing original thoughts, we often see a situation where forum members compete in repeating the same thesis, trying to make this repetition as qualified as possible. But at the same time, the greatest amount of merit is not received by these refrains, but by something new and unusual. And something that often has nothing to do with those obscure criteria that everyone likes to refer to. Moreover, in favor of the subjective nature of the merit system, also testifies the fact that usually more merits are given to those posts that have already received merits. But being the first to give credit for a post is usually difficult for some reason.

Yes, I also thought about that before dropping the comment you already quoted, but I also noticed that a lot of forum members have more s-merit, but still, when some come across a post that is not up to their standard and the post is supposed to receive even more merits, they give low merits to the post.
But when other members see that same post, they give it more merit, although it still depends on the amount of merits a user has, because I have seen a situation whereby the same post has been merited twice by the same person and I feel that the person who merited the post didn't have enough merit at first.

Nah... It would be a disaster in the merit system and who should be in charge of this group? To me if such a group is being created I feel it will damage the whole merit system, is best for it to be this way. If you think the merit system is slow then we all have to wait. The best thing to say is add more merit source to help the ones that are already in the system. People or should I say users abuse any little opportunity given to them so if that happens some might play with it, and it will also increase these account farmers to be all over the Forum.

I can understand why, defenitely the sockpuppet problem, indeed something that has plagued the trust system previously as well. Just that it came to my head and I put it up for discussion to see how people might think.

Regardless, the term best or good are relative, which has become the crux of this thread now, whether someone rewards merit to them is a separate idea. I get that, but the Noise/Signal is still high and there is no deterrent to the noise.

Still the status quo seems to be better than any change at the moment.

just no.

and if such a group is created i would simply put all these merit pointers on ignore.

Chances are it depends on the amount of sMerit the user has piling up.