I don't know how exactly it's going to work. I do find myself sometimes telling myself - neither or both, but again how's it going to work?

Don't need it. . .and many of these changes aren't necessary to begin with. . .

I think neutrality can be expressed by not voting on a given comment. Unlike VV, I don't feel the pressing need to mark a review as read.

As I've stated in other comments in this list, the best alternative to requiring either a comment explaining an unhelpful vote or disclosing who and how members are voting (two of the current options) is to offer a third option, namely neutral. This feature wouldn't stop the trollers (nothing will) but would allow members to mark the review as read without tagging it as helpful (when it isn't really either) or unhelpful (which has a negative connotation). While I still think that the "unhelpful" vote is especially useful for one-liners, etc. and would still use it, I would personally use a neutral third option much more if only to mark the review as read (as stated earlier). UPDATE: Not to start a flame war, but ridge's unhelpful is evidence of my prior claim that people seem to confuse "unhelpful" with "disagree". This suggests that the confusion is more common than I realize. Moreover, perhaps others don't read the prior comments before posting one themselves, as I try to do. Alas, no worries though.

Nah. I'm lazy. I barely use the helpful/not helpful as it is. It seems kind of ironic to take that effort to express your neutrality.