Signal to noise ratio in incidents

[Hellis 0]

I'm thinking of a 'thumbs up/down' in the incidents forum to filter out all the noise.
Generally threads go on and on without much progress unitl 6 pages in there is a description of what happened.

The idea is that users would 'thumb up' this desription and any other relevant posts or questions in the thread and then you can filter the thread when you read it.
There is always something for someone to learn from each incident but because of the low S/N ratio it's painfull to read every post that adds very little value.

[FB1609 0]

Start a new DB thread, I have a slow connection, that one is huge and should obviously be archived

[ianyapxw 0]

I'm sorry but I'll have to disagree. There are huge flaws with the system, as can be seen on reddit.

1) People won't vote on relevant information, they end up voting on popular opinions. Imagine, in the triple proxy flight incident, if we had such a system. The thread would just be flooded with people parroting "proxy flying is bad".

2) Not everybody bothers to read what others have to say, there is a huge tendency to skim through and make a snap judgement to up/downvote. Some posts may be insightful, but might be difficult to understand, which people would just downvote mindlessly.

3) Voting system discourages long, insightful posts. As people are more likely to read, and thus vote on a short post, people who want to be heard are more inclined to write something short and cut back on content.

I think it's a much better system to have a mod, or even respected community members, create a first post or edit the first post with relevant information. For example, "news report on post 3, eyewitness account on post 15, S&TA report on post 33, etc...)