Implementing a 'Like' feature for higher quality posts

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't think I'd really want to be notified for a "like" on an old post...

Why not? Isn't late better than never?

I get "likes" on some of my older posts on TrekBBS days or even weeks after they were originally posted. It just happens sometimes that someone will be catching up on threads, or there might be a new person who happens on those posts. I don't mind.

As for what people like... well, most of my recent ones were for writing-related posts, and the most recent one was given because a friend and I share an appreciation for Heinlein. At least I assume he clicked "like" because I mentioned TANSTAAFL.

Still, I can't really oppose it. Though it's rarely acknowledged, reputation have an impact on motivation, and it's a feedback mechanism for that, however imperfect. The long-timers will continue to base reputation on the quality of posts as they already do, and perhaps it would be encouraging for newcomers.

I have another reason for preferring posts to "likes" here on CFC, though. As my sig and usertitle mention, I host a writing competition in A&E. Written comments are an integral part of this, as the participants are in this partly for the feedback that lets them know what people liked or didn't like about the stories or poems they produce.

Just clicking a "like" button won't do it for that, because there's no provision to say why something is liked.

And that's something to consider with a "like" feature. Some of us address multiple points in our posts, addressed to multiple posters. If a "like" is added for that post, it doesn't say which part of the post is liked, or if everything is.

 

[salty mud]

I'm for them. Likes are a good way to bust the perception of cliques for newcomers.

On the contrary. Most forums I've seen with a like feature have the same members getting flooded with likes whilst others get nothing. I can see comment chains like this:

normal member: 2 likes
normal member: 4 likes
normal member: 3 likes
more popular member: 67 likes
normal member: 4 likes
normal member: 6 likes

It doesn't matter the content or quality of the post, it just gets liked, thumb up'd, upvoted, whatever. If a more popular poster (fair enough, he may have a reputation for posting good content, but that doesn't mean every post is) comments in a chain, they'll get more likes than anyone else.

Then there's the reason of why it's being liked. Is it because it's useful? Informative? Funny? You subtly trolled someone who said something silly and everyone is sniggering at them and liking is a passive aggressive way of getting back at the other person? Or maybe you just agree with their completely subjective opinion, in which case a like is not an appropriate response at all. "I agree" would be much more fitting. Liking tends to be a very cliquey thing to do. If you like the post, write a reply explaining why.

I am strongly against this idea. It's just useless fluff, and there's nothing wrong with not having a like feature.

 

[Ryika]

Yeah, I'm pretty happy that there's no like-feature. It doesn't really add much on the positive side of things, but it does a lot of harm on the negative side.

Because the most important thing that I've learned over the years is that people generally do not downvote comments that are bad, they downvote comments that (and people who) disagree with them. You can argue against people who disagree with you but you can't do anything against being downvoted to Oblivion just because you have an unpopular opinion. Especially if people start completely replacing making a counter-argument against other people, which is what for example happens in literally any ideologically influenced Subreddit.

All such Features really encourage is conformity in those who care about it - which is usually not the people making the annoying comments anyway.

 

[nunor]

Yeah, I'm pretty happy that there's no like-feature. It doesn't really add much on the positive side of things, but it does a lot of harm on the negative side.

Because the most important thing that I've learned over the years is that people generally do not downvote comments that are bad, they downvote comments that (and people who) disagree with them. You can argue against people who disagree with you but you can't do anything against being downvoted to Oblivion just because you have an unpopular opinion. Especially if people start completely replacing making a counter-argument against other people, which is what for example happens in literally any ideologically influenced Subreddit.

All such Features really encourage is conformity in those who care about it - which is usually not the people making the annoying comments anyway.

Read the first post again please. Noone is advocating for an upvote/downvote system. You would only be able to like a post, not dislike it.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Even without downvotes, it'd be clear who is "better" - the one with more likes. And who can tell what's better?

 

[Ryika]

Read the first post again please. Noone is advocating for an upvote/downvote system. You would only be able to like a post, not dislike it.

If your post sits at +3 and the other posts around you sit at +100 that's practically the same thing.

 

[nunor]

If your post sits at +3 and the other posts around you sit at +100 that's practically the same thing.

How so? How is that the same as "being downvoted to oblivion" (as if posts were ranked by 'likes')? Care to explain?

 

[Ryika]

How so? How is that the same as "being downvoted to oblivion" (as if posts were ranked by 'likes')? Care to explain?

Because of the relation between the numbers?

The only thing that's really different between both systems is that instead of actively seeing a negative number to infer "Oh, people didn't like that post." a poster must draw that conclusion themselves, based on the fact that a specific post (assuming it's constructive in nature) doesn't have many likes while others have.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

...Let's not have a forum at all, because people will find ways to neg each other and someone's feelings might get hurt...

 

[gay_Aleks]

But how will I share my dank Gandhi memes?

 

[Buster's Uncle]

-I may have a place for that, depending on how dank they are.

 

[Ryika]

Imagine a Gandhi meme and the punchline not being that he likes to throw Atomic Bombs.

That would be innovative.

 

[CivCube]

On the contrary. Most forums I've seen with a like feature have the same members getting flooded with likes whilst others get nothing. I can see comment chains like this:

normal member: 2 likes
normal member: 4 likes
normal member: 3 likes
more popular member: 67 likes
normal member: 4 likes
normal member: 6 likes

It doesn't matter the content or quality of the post, it just gets liked, thumb up'd, upvoted, whatever. If a more popular poster (fair enough, he may have a reputation for posting good content, but that doesn't mean every post is) comments in a chain, they'll get more likes than anyone else.

Then there's the reason of why it's being liked. Is it because it's useful? Informative? Funny? You subtly trolled someone who said something silly and everyone is sniggering at them and liking is a passive aggressive way of getting back at the other person? Or maybe you just agree with their completely subjective opinion, in which case a like is not an appropriate response at all. "I agree" would be much more fitting. Liking tends to be a very cliquey thing to do. If you like the post, write a reply explaining why.

I am strongly against this idea. It's just useless fluff, and there's nothing wrong with not having a like feature.

Depends on the format. Reddit, sure, you run into those situations. I post more often on Disqus comments for news articles. I've gotten to know the regulars but I can't say one person is preferred over another.

 

[salty mud]

I'd rather not take the risk of being like reddit, thank you.

Even if the like system isn't abused, I still don't see a real purpose to it. It's ultimately meaningless.

 

[nunor]

...Let's not have a forum at all, because people will find ways to neg each other and someone's feelings might get hurt...

Couldn't have put it better myself.

I'd rather not take the risk of being like reddit, thank you.

Reddit's system has nothing to do with a forum Like/Thanks feature.

Even if the like system isn't abused, I still don't see a real purpose to it. It's ultimately meaningless.

My first post pretty much sums up its purpose. Have you read it? Do you have any concrete comments on it?

Honestly, I don’t frequent the OT and other non-Civilization-related sections of the forum, so I am completely unaware of the impact a "like/thanks" system could have on those. My proposition was based on my experience in the Civilization sections where many good posts are left without feedback, not because people don’t find them interesting, but because they simple state things in such manner they don’t need a reply other than "I agree". And I always feel those posts should be acknowledged somehow, without the need of clogging the thread with 4-letter "This" posts.

 

[salty mud]

Reddit's system has nothing to do with a forum Like/Thanks feature.

Of course it does. The only difference you're providing is that you don't want a disagree button. Replace upvote with like and it's pretty much the same thing.

My first post pretty much sums up its purpose. Have you read it? Do you have any concrete comments on it?

Yes, and I disagree for reasons I outlined in a post above.

Honestly, I don’t frequent the OT and other non-Civilization-related sections of the forum, so I am completely unaware of the impact a "like/thanks" system could have on those. My proposition was based on my experience in the Civilization sections where many good posts are left without feedback, not because people don’t find them interesting, but because they simple state things in such manner they don’t need a reply other than "I agree". And I always feel those posts should be acknowledged somehow, without the need of clogging the thread with 4-letter "This" posts.

I understand your reasoning but I don't really think people are getting upset that they aren't receiving attention for a post. And I don't think threads get clogged up at all. Every now and again someone may write "this" as a 4-letter post but people also type "yes" and "no" as responses as well, probably more frequently than people type "this." So should we have "yes" and "no" buttons as well?

 

[Ryika]

Maybe the main question about the "purpose"-thing is this:
Why do you feel the need to receive direct feedback for something you said? What do you get from that?

The way I see it you really don't get much other than affirmation that a lot of people agree with you, which in itself doesn't tell you much about the quality of your post, all it tells you that people agree with you.

Which is already evident in the fact that nobody writes a post about why they disagree with you, is it not?

 

[salty mud]

Maybe the main question about the "purpose"-thing is this:
Why do you feel the need to receive direct feedback for something you said? What do you get from that?

The way I see it you really don't get much other than affirmation that a lot of people agree with you, which in itself doesn't tell you much about the quality of your post, all it tells you that people agree with you.

Which is already evident in the fact that nobody writes a post about why they disagree with you, is it not?

This.

Spoiler :

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Honestly, I don’t frequent the OT and other non-Civilization-related sections of the forum, so I am completely unaware of the impact a "like/thanks" system could have on those. My proposition was based on my experience in the Civilization sections where many good posts are left without feedback, not because people don’t find them interesting, but because they simple state things in such manner they don’t need a reply other than "I agree". And I always feel those posts should be acknowledged somehow, without the need of clogging the thread with 4-letter "This" posts.

The Colosseum section of the forum is well-named. OT is a place for gladiators, orators, and "bread and circuses." People are already pretty vocal about praising and criticizing posts they feel strongly about (not saying that some excellent ones don't go unnoticed, and some people have said that if they agree with a post, why bother saying so?). There is a thread where people can post links and brief comments about posts they especially liked, but not a thread where posts can be criticized (that can so easily fall into trolling/flaming/criticizing the poster, not the post).

I don't think it's possible to enable the reputation system for only certain parts of the forum; if it were, I might suggest a trial run of it in the Civ sections, to see how it works. But this is something that only the admins have accesses to do, so perhaps an admin or two could add some clarification here.

(Hint: Petek? Lefty? Leif? Yoo-hoo! )

I understand your reasoning but I don't really think people are getting upset that they aren't receiving attention for a post. And I don't think threads get clogged up at all. Every now and again someone may write "this" as a 4-letter post but people also type "yes" and "no" as responses as well, probably more frequently than people type "this." So should we have "yes" and "no" buttons as well?

We really need a "5 chairs" smiley.

 

[salty mud]

I may be out of the loop but isn't Thunderfall the administrator of this site.