none
When can you add "Wrong Answer" and/or "Down-Vote" button on forums? RRS feed

  • Question

  • I think I read something about "Unpropose as answer" but, when one moderator has marked another moderator's forum response as "The Answer," there is no way for the community to "DOWN-VOTE" and/or "MARK AS POSSIBLE [WRONG] ANSWER." This is a badly needed feature. Here's the example where a Moderator marked an answer that is NOT an answer to the asker's question - really not even close:

    http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/e132fc1d-738f-41ee-ba29-0d7b780ca89a/how-to-change-preserve-favorites-websites-data-in-ie-8-from-a-command-prompt

    I hate to have points taken away from someone, but a wrong answer is a wrong answer. We badly need some way to bring these things to moderators' attention. Only option I saw is "Report as Abuse." And, if it is "lazy moderation," then I suppose that would qualify as "abuse." Looks like someone didn't truly 'read' the question and, instead, said, "Oh, I'll just mark this response as the answer."

    Further down in that post, I actually submitted a "successfully-tested method" of doing what the Asker needed to do.


    tnjman

    Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:26 AM

Answers

  • I think that problem with that thread (and others) is that the mod marked as answer because of a lack of a reply from the OP.  This is a ridiculous policy that serves no purpose other than to pad the number answered threads vs. unanswered ones.  If someone with the same problem had come in before the 18th of Sept, they would have hit the marked "Answer" and not been helped at all.  Also, threads that are marked as answered have a much lower rate of being read and replied to in general.  So an incorrectly marked thread is likely to stay that way unless the OP comes back to complain.

     

    What is needed instead of a downvote or a "Not the Answer" button is a change in the policy of marking answers.  However I think that is probably even less of a priority than fixing the problems with the new forum revamping...so in other words...good luck with that.


    • Proposed as answer by MisterJenks Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:34 PM
    • Marked as answer by TNJMAN Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:50 PM
    Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:01 PM
  • Well, thanks. I, personally, didn't "hope" for any such thing as 'deciphering and producing' an animated GIF - Glad to see you can laugh at yourself (and others). My understanding is that the particular issue is, indeed, just a tad more complex than the "preserve favorites website data" checkbox (the privacy useallowlist entry). The change actually involves two pieces which, in my testing, appeared to involve possibly 2 keys and/or a combination of flags. I did do the 'procmon' thing, as I mentioned and, probably being a bit bleary-eyed at the time, I was unable to track down the 'useallowlist' item - though I did, indeed, find that entry in the various threads mentioning changes to varoius history settings.

    So, since a "single key change" did not seem to accomplish what that person wanted/needed; I chose the simpler route of "differential IE settings;" in other words, grab those sections off a good reference machine and apply them to the machine that needs the settings.

    In reference to any moderator's 'integrity;' I never questioned that - I simply mentioned that, when one moderator marks another moderator's answer, nobody really can counter-vote or contest that answer - I should have been more clear: If ANY moderator marks ANYONE's posting as an answer, then none of us "mere mortals" can really contest that marking - without discourse like you and I are performing. There's no true formal "Correct-the-answer" process that we can follow; nothing we can do to "flag bad answers." And it makes TechNet look bad, since, as you intimated, the language barrier of the very persons involved, including the "asker," may be at play as well; therefore, there's no fault necessarily on the "asker," nor is there necessarily fault of the moderator who marked the answer; it falls to TechNet overall, to take responsibility for "correcting wrong/bad answers" and/or "removing a thread that never obtained a correct or proper answer."

    At any rate, all tongue-in-cheek aside, thanks for the reply.


    tnjman


    To push this one step further, TechNet really should have a "retired question bucket" and, if the 'asker' of a question never cares to come back and follow up, the thread should be placed in that bucket. After all, if the asker truly cares, the asker will return and follow up on the question, right? So, let's put an arbitrary 60-day-limit on "Asker-Abandoned-Questions." After that time frame, send to bit bucket. If it's important, that asker or other askers are free to return and Re-ask at any time. Sound good? Good.
    • Edited by TNJMAN Tuesday, September 24, 2013 10:17 PM propaganda
    • Proposed as answer by MisterJenks Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:34 PM
    • Marked as answer by TNJMAN Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:50 PM
    Tuesday, September 24, 2013 10:11 PM

All replies

  • I think that problem with that thread (and others) is that the mod marked as answer because of a lack of a reply from the OP.  This is a ridiculous policy that serves no purpose other than to pad the number answered threads vs. unanswered ones.  If someone with the same problem had come in before the 18th of Sept, they would have hit the marked "Answer" and not been helped at all.  Also, threads that are marked as answered have a much lower rate of being read and replied to in general.  So an incorrectly marked thread is likely to stay that way unless the OP comes back to complain.

     

    What is needed instead of a downvote or a "Not the Answer" button is a change in the policy of marking answers.  However I think that is probably even less of a priority than fixing the problems with the new forum revamping...so in other words...good luck with that.


    • Proposed as answer by MisterJenks Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:34 PM
    • Marked as answer by TNJMAN Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:50 PM
    Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:01 PM
  • Well, thanks. I, personally, didn't "hope" for any such thing as 'deciphering and producing' an animated GIF - Glad to see you can laugh at yourself (and others). My understanding is that the particular issue is, indeed, just a tad more complex than the "preserve favorites website data" checkbox (the privacy useallowlist entry). The change actually involves two pieces which, in my testing, appeared to involve possibly 2 keys and/or a combination of flags. I did do the 'procmon' thing, as I mentioned and, probably being a bit bleary-eyed at the time, I was unable to track down the 'useallowlist' item - though I did, indeed, find that entry in the various threads mentioning changes to varoius history settings.

    So, since a "single key change" did not seem to accomplish what that person wanted/needed; I chose the simpler route of "differential IE settings;" in other words, grab those sections off a good reference machine and apply them to the machine that needs the settings.

    In reference to any moderator's 'integrity;' I never questioned that - I simply mentioned that, when one moderator marks another moderator's answer, nobody really can counter-vote or contest that answer - I should have been more clear: If ANY moderator marks ANYONE's posting as an answer, then none of us "mere mortals" can really contest that marking - without discourse like you and I are performing. There's no true formal "Correct-the-answer" process that we can follow; nothing we can do to "flag bad answers." And it makes TechNet look bad, since, as you intimated, the language barrier of the very persons involved, including the "asker," may be at play as well; therefore, there's no fault necessarily on the "asker," nor is there necessarily fault of the moderator who marked the answer; it falls to TechNet overall, to take responsibility for "correcting wrong/bad answers" and/or "removing a thread that never obtained a correct or proper answer."

    At any rate, all tongue-in-cheek aside, thanks for the reply.


    tnjman


    To push this one step further, TechNet really should have a "retired question bucket" and, if the 'asker' of a question never cares to come back and follow up, the thread should be placed in that bucket. After all, if the asker truly cares, the asker will return and follow up on the question, right? So, let's put an arbitrary 60-day-limit on "Asker-Abandoned-Questions." After that time frame, send to bit bucket. If it's important, that asker or other askers are free to return and Re-ask at any time. Sound good? Good.
    • Edited by TNJMAN Tuesday, September 24, 2013 10:17 PM propaganda
    • Proposed as answer by MisterJenks Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:34 PM
    • Marked as answer by TNJMAN Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:50 PM
    Tuesday, September 24, 2013 10:11 PM