I pretty much know anyways...

“Waaaaaa, give me names before I wet my pants!"  Either write a better review or deal with it!  There are more important things in the world than the users who press the funny/helpful/unhelpful button.

Assuming this was edited to "helpful/funny/agree" I can't think of anything more calculated to take the pissing and moaning going on on here to a level likely to alter the orbit of the planet.

Well, I agree with most of you. There are pluses and minuses to helpful/unhelpful ratings. I think it's great to know that there are people out there who can appreciate your opinion, or at least your effort. On the negative note, some people tend to take it to a new personal level. My opinion is my opinion, you either like it or you don't and either way it's fine with me. With my opinion I want to help or encourage or support, what I mean is that it comes from a good place, the rest is up to you.

I'd be curious to see it, I think it might create some heat amongst those who take things personal, which could be entertaining. On the negative side, this may result in people to hold back on an unhelpful vote so as not to look like a meanie, or possibly give out a ton of helpful votes without warrant in hopes that the reviewers on the receiving end will return the favor.

Not that I care who finds me helpful/unhelpful...but...I KNOW there has to be people on this site who would take it far too personally. I don't feel like being trolled because I happened to click an unhelpful.

Not that I have anything to hide, but I strongly oppose adding disclosure of who rates helpful/unhelpful. First, though I do flag as helpful/unhelpful in good faith, I don't want to get hassled over an unhelpful vote. Second, I don't want my judgment swayed by unhelpful votes from others (i.e. I don't want to be encouraged to retaliate, even subconsciously). Third, I try to tag every review either way just to mark as read, so an unhelpful vote doesn't necessarily mean a bad review, just read but not helpful in my opinion. Fourth, as another comment noted, people equate helpful with agree and unhelpful with disagree, which is (of course) nonsense. This confusion often makes the votes irrelevant anyway.

Strangely enough, it is not difficult to empathize with the five earlier comments - all of them helpful enough to acknowledge that the 'helpful' designation is adequate to understand that others enable us to acquire clearer perspectives on matters of interest, in the sense that there is much fresh insight involved.

Unfortunately, authors' comments are sometimes subjected to 'unhelpfuls' that actually state: 'I disagree' (considerably different from declaring whether a comment is 'helpful' to understand matters better ); or 'unhelpfuls' that mean: 'I didn't know that but don't like the topic or the item under scrutiny anyway, so: NO to that.' (My father would tell of an employer of his who would respond to suggestions involving work or entertainment by stating: "Even if that were good, I wouldn't like it.")

Negative ratings give an unfair and unbalanced account of the original posting. In this respect, we might most of us be at fault to some degree or other. It would seem preferable to not know who filed 'unhlepfuls.'

A more positive feature might indicate the actual number or the percentage of 'helpfuls' that each RIA member has filed. By indirection, we'd be able to determine who the biggest curmudgeon among us is (a distinction in and of itself, in a way): would it be 'GTH', 'numbah' or 'irish'? Others? They themselves might choose to scrooge it up further. My money's on...

Let the queen-esque drama-like bitch-fest begin. . .about as bad an idea as I've heard in a long time. . .we come here for reviews, not for long strings of whining. . .why do you care about the identity of anyone who doesn't share your opinon? Quiet confidence is the best revenge anyways. . .

Hmmm...Why do we even have the "helpful or not helpful" ratings here in the first place? I'll admit I've rated a few reviews "not helpful" *blushing*, but I wouldn't complain if that rating feature were taken away entirely.

I think transparency, in general, is a good thing. It's easy to troll when you can stay anonymous, but when you attach your name (and RIA rep) to an action, it becomes a little more meaningful.

I would like to see this feature implemented.

If it is implemented, it will be retroactive, meaning folks will be able to see who is responsible for helpful / not helpful votes going all the way back to 1999 :) This might cause a little drama.