View and sort all replies by number of likes

Is it possible for me as a user to sort my replies by the number of likes each reply received? My summary page shows my top 6 replies, but upon clicking “more” it just dumps me into my recent activity view (u/mbauman/activity/replies). Blindly tossing a ?order=likes on that url doesn’t work.

Is it possible for me as an admin (or user) to view all replies across the entire site and sort them by the number of likes they received? I can go to /top?order=likes, and see the total number of likes all posts in a thread, but I’m wanting to find a list of individual “good” posts, not the sum over all posts in a (potentially absurdly long) thread.


Given that this didn’t gain any traction as a support discussion item, I’m moving it over to the #feature category as a feature request :slight_smile:

I think advanced search could work for this, scoped to “posted by you”?

1 Like

Ah, of course, thank you. That does the ticket — just a /search?q=@mbauman%20order:likes is perfect for a single user and something like /search?q=after:2000%20order:likes works for all posts. Thank you!

1 Like

I’m interested in sorting the replies when looking at a single post. I want the replies underneath to be sorted by the number of likes. Is this possible? What kinds of hacky plugins or workarounds are possible here? are there plans to implement heirarchical reply threading (a la reddit or stack overflow), which would make this easier?

Hey Brady. What do you mean by fix threading?

hey! by threading I mean reply threading - organizing replies to replies in a heirarchical manner the way reddit or stack overflow does. I read in another post that part of the complexity of implementing this sort feature is in part due to lack of reply threading

Yes, we need it too. I hope this will be implemented soon.

yeah. These are critical features. I will be using AskBot instead because discourse does not offer it.

If discourse offered sorting replies by likes, threaded replies, and indicating one reply as the a correct answer, I would use it in a heartbeat. Alas, it does not

1 Like

With Discourse Post Voting you can sort answers by votes


We have Discourse Solved that can do this. :+1: You can see it in action in several of our categories here on Meta, including #support

1 Like

And there is one very ground rule too that is a limitation of system — from my point of view anyway. Likes don’t tell how usefull or ”right” a comment/answer is. Likes tell how much popularity it got. Totally different thing. We are very deep in thinking where triljon of flies can’t be wrong and only those users, who have competense high enough, click like-button. And that’s not the situation.

And that’s why likes should not be part of trust level, reactions are better solution for topics/posts and amount of likes can not be used as a metric telling if an answer is good, bad or even right.

So, I think the right answer here is not building system that sort answers per amount of likes (unless topic is a popularity content), but using solutions like Discourse Solved as JammyDodger offered.l

It really depends on the use-case. Coders on stack overflow (or in my case, people looking for tax advice) aren’t throwing out likes out of a popularity contest. they like a comment if the content is correct and functional. Up/down voting provides real time validation for falsifiable advice, so we can get to the truth quicker.

for softer, unfalsifiable claims, perhaps you are right

1 Like

thank you for pointing this out! great feature!

1 Like

In that case I’m afraid the answer is no. The current nature of threading in Discourse is by design and we don’t consider it something that requires fixing.

1 Like

I think it really clutters and confuses the experience, but I’m sure y’all have heard it all before. luckily Post Voting has me covered :handshake:

thanks for your help!


well actualy, if you’re talking about threading, there is a large camp of people believing that threads are more confusing than flat discussions[1].

  1. with which I agree ↩︎