I'm new here (and to the pc and prog world) as you can tell. And I'm not going to vote for that reason. But if i may, since basically it's me and those like me that I think you're mostly referring to.
At first I either didn't see the "Thanked" option or was more interested in posts>then title, to give it any attention. I looked at the # of posts to tell me how many times someones been around the block, however it can be misleading because high experience could have just joined or not be very active, then i considered their title, which I now know everyone in that post bracket has. If there were a "joined" or "since" (not sense ha ha!) date it could be more helpful to members in showing the -time vs activity- involvement in helping others with their knowledge and experiences, and of keeping the site healthy.
it helps the poster determine whose input has been deemed reliable and helpful in the past. If they can see that a large number of prior posters have found someones input helpful and reliable in the past, why isn't that something that should be taken into account? I'm not suggesting that these numbers in any way mean someone is "better" than someone else, only that their input has been dependable over a period of time. Nor does it mean that the advice from someone with few "thanks" will be wrong and the advice from someone with a lot will be right - it's merely an indicator of historical performance - but an indicator that can be taken into account when evaluating whether or not to follow posted advice.
I'm hoping I'm not so abnormal that I would be so different from others. Because I don't consider a thank you as necessarily being reliable, helpful yes. And so far I've only seen only low thanks %-ages. Look! 9,300 posts but only 600 times helpful or reliable? Input dependable or dependable input? I don't think a thanked count should be used a an indicator.
Here's why:
It was only after some replies to my 1st and only post that I recognized there was a thanked. My thought was it was merely a way of thanking someone for replying to my post, which i did, even tho I may not have liked the reply or felt it did nothing to help resolve my questions or issue. I was thankfull that someone took the time to read and reply. Because after all, this is what's important, people getting involved and at least trying to help others, even if it's unsuccessful but not harmful. So why not thank anyone that replies, and Authors for that matter, for at least being here, and taking part? With the current option there's no way of saying how thankfull you are, what you're thanking for, or if you're participation actually helped the solving of the thread. Even if there was a way to only acknowledge someone if they had a direct bearing on a resolve, imo it would fall short in the results because the Author would in most cases have to come back to acknowledge the positive. Only after reading this thread did I realize the importance of the effect the + feedback may have on the unknowing.
A Genius with 13,000 posts but is only thanked 500'n sumpthin times? A mastermind with 16,000 posts and thanked 140sumpthin times? I don't believe the "thanked" option is really working as intended.
My feeble opinion - Posts/Joined/Title
BTW! Thanks (oh yeah-->for reading this).
Did I win anything? I certainly hope not!
Poll