Implementing a 'Like' feature for higher quality posts

[Ryika]

We've been through the general arguments against it for 5 pages now, but you're new to the conversation little girl here are my main points:

- Because both things interfere with each other. The moment I see the first "People seem to agree with me, see the like-count of my post!"-comment in these forums (assuming the like-system ends up being used that much) I'll link it here. They're certainly part of any like-enabled forum I've ever been active in.

- Most of the time not posts that are "high-quality" get likes, posts that spark an emotional reaction gain likes. That creates several problems, for example:
Like-whores who create comments for no other reason but to "be funny" and get likes
Actual High-quality post may be lost between highly-liked joke-comments
People may be discouraged from posting their opinion when they know their opinion is not the one the majority agrees with (because getting less likes than everybody around is about the same as getting actual dislikes)

(And one nzcamel's Post made me add:
- It robs you of the chance to have your opinion changed if all you do is upvote 10 posts instead of taking part of the discussion)

But no, before that part of the discussion starts again: Obviously none of that is a "big deal" on the grant scale, but so are the benefits of the like-feature not "big deals". It's about either a small change towards the negative or a small change towards the positive. I think it's towards the negative.

I'm happy to be part of the discussion if I have something to add that has not been said. I am not happy to repost someone else's post just to give it a thumbs up as that isn't actually being part of the conversation

Yeah, then... don't do it, what's the problem? Honestly, I don't understand why people feel the need to quote posts just to tell everybody they agree with a post. Your agreement is worthless to the conversation, why do you feel the need to insert it?

especially when I could be doing that with 5, 10, 15 posts...which just makes it harder for people to follow the thread as they skip over un-needed agreement posts.

Well, honestly? If that's the goal, simply out-ruling "agreement posts" would be the easiest solution. Now there may not be agreement posts anymore, now there will be like-leeching posts. And on top of that likes as a non-functional evaluation matrix.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

We've been through the general arguments against it for 5 pages now, but you're new to the conversation little girl here are my main points:

I assume you're addressing the child in the .gif? I didn't know she had posted in this thread; she's too young to join the forum.

- Because both things interfere with each other. The moment I see the first "People seem to agree with me, see the like-count of my post!"-comment in these forums (assuming the like-system ends up being used that much) I'll link it here. They're certainly part of any like-enabled forum I've ever been active in.

I expect it will be used more and more, as people get used to it. Don't tell me that if you get an "alert" message telling you that you received a "like" from someone, that you won't feel at least a tiny bit pleased. It's an unobtrusive nod of agreement from someone, and since the "like" total is only visible by clicking the poster's profile, it's not as though it's part of your sidebar information that's publicly visible to everyone.

Most of the time not posts that are "high-quality" get likes, posts that spark an emotional reaction gain likes. That creates several problems, for example:
Like-whores who create comments for no other reason but to "be funny" and get likes

You never know what will garner "likes." I belong to TrekBBS (large Star Trek forum comparable in size and membership to CFC). That forum switched to Xenforo earlier this year from vBulletin, and yeah, there were problems. But people took to using the "like" feature right away. You can even "like" people's "status posts" - located at the bottom of the forum here, but to the right side at TrekBBS. This is what's taken the place of "visitor's messages", btw, so I suggest that you (general "you") never post anything there you don't want everyone to see.

Unfortunately, at TrekBBS, there are people who also "like" troll posts (that forum's moderation policies are quite a bit more lax than CFC's), and some people engage in obnoxious "high-five" kinds of "like" actions. Still, chances are that those people are already on my ignore list there, so that's the only evidence I see that they even exist (the Xenforo "ignore" feature is more thorough than vBulletin's) and it's much easier just to shrug it off.

Actual High-quality post may be lost between highly-liked joke-comments
People may be discouraged from posting their opinion when they know their opinion is not the one the majority agrees with (because getting less likes than everybody around is about the same as getting actual dislikes)

This can be true. However, if one's will to have one's say is strong enough, go forth and post anyway. I've had a bizarre number of downvotes on CBC.ca at times, just for saying that teaching is an honorable profession (the downvoters are those who hate our current Prime Minister - whose profession before entering politics was teaching). It doesn't stop me from expressing that view elsewhere on that site.

(And one nzcamel's Post made me add:
- It robs you of the chance to have your opinion changed if all you do is upvote 10 posts instead of taking part of the discussion)

You never know what will change a person's opinion. I've upvoted a post sometimes because the person posted a link to additional information that may very well have resulted in me changing my mind on an issue, or at least learning new and interesting things.

But no, before that part of the discussion starts again: Obviously none of that is a "big deal" on the grant scale, but so are the benefits of the like-feature not "big deals". It's about either a small change towards the negative or a small change towards the positive. I think it's towards the negative.

I've been on a forum that used the "reputation" system. Green = good and red = bad. One thing I found out eventually was that there was a hidden forum that had certain requirements to access: membership for at least 2 years, a postcount of 3000 (easy to get here; not easy to get there, since that forum had a strict no-political/religious discussion policy and serial threads were not encouraged), and a minimum reputation score (I don't recall what that was). The problem was that if a member's reputation score dipped below that threshold, the hidden forum would be hidden once more, and the member wouldn't have access to their own posts in that forum.

Were there cliques of people who took advantage of this? Oh, yes. Actually, one of the admins lost his position when he was caught abusing his authority by "adjusting" one of the members' reputation scores downward by 12,000.

Could something like that happen here? I really don't think so, and that's not just because we don't have that kind of system here. Yes, there can be abuses, and there are things that need to be worked out here - for instance, what happens if someone "likes" a post that either has been, or will be, infracted for trolling/flaming? Will the person who "liked" the post also be infracted for trolling/flaming?

 

[Agent327]

I expect it will be used more and more, as people get used to it. Don't tell me that if you get an "alert" message telling you that you received a "like" from someone, that you won't feel at least a tiny bit pleased.

Actually, the 'Like' button has been a distinguished feature of facebook for years. I've never checked my Likes, ever.

Anywho, what's more disconcerting is the perceived link between popularity (number of Likes) and the quality of what's being posted. Anyone familiar with facebook (or youtube) would realize immediately no such link exists.

Case in point: number of people who 'Like' Donald Trump, a person who tells lies 70 % of the time. But perhaps they are quality lies?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Actually, the 'Like' button has been a distinguished feature of facebook for years. I've never checked my Likes, ever.

Neither have I. But then I rarely post anything on FB other than birthday messages. The last thing I posted there was political in nature, but in response to a post on the page of someone I unfriended a couple of weeks later (got tired of the continual stream of Reformacon/Wildrose crap in my inbox). I have no idea if anyone "liked" that post or even noticed it.

Case in point: number of people who 'Like' Donald Trump, a person who tells lies 70 % of the time. But perhaps they are quality lies?

He only lies 70% of the time?

 

[nzcamel]

(And one nzcamel's Post made me add:
- It robs you of the chance to have your opinion changed if all you do is upvote 10 posts instead of taking part of the discussion)

But no, before that part of the discussion starts again: Obviously none of that is a "big deal" on the grant scale, but so are the benefits of the like-feature not "big deals". It's about either a small change towards the negative or a small change towards the positive. I think it's towards the negative.

I don't see how being able to like a comment I agree with takes away my ability to read other posts that I don't agree with. You're talking nonsense.

Yeah, then... don't do it, what's the problem? Honestly, I don't understand why people feel the need to quote posts just to tell everybody they agree with a post. Your agreement is worthless to the conversation, why do you feel the need to insert it?

Being able to agree with what someone has said IS being part of the conversation; as you seem to want people to be.
Yet you hate this so much, that I cannot help but wonder if you're always on the wrong side of people liking your 'opponents' comments. I think thicker skin may do you some good....? That or staying away from forums?

Well, honestly? If that's the goal, simply out-ruling "agreement posts" would be the easiest solution. Now there may not be agreement posts anymore, now there will be like-leeching posts. And on top of that likes as a non-functional evaluation matrix.

Adding to what I said immediately above, it really feels like you want these forums to abide by your own little comfortable rules on how conversation should be. In one sense that is understandable; but seeing as we are all different in how we interpret good conversation, I think you need to chill out a bit.

Anywho, what's more disconcerting is the perceived link between popularity (number of Likes) and the quality of what's being posted. Anyone familiar with facebook (or youtube) would realize immediately no such link exists.

Agreed. I'm not sure quite why Ryika and anyone else is so hot on this. Yeah, a witty comment will usually (rightly) get likes for style rather than content; but most of us are adults who can adult, and therefore can discern that a large portion of the likes on any given post like that, are an appreciation of humour rather than an explicit endorsement of the content.

 

[Ryika]

I don't see how being able to like a comment I agree with takes away my ability to read other posts that I don't agree with. You're talking nonsense.

No, you're just not paying attention. To have your opinion challenged you must create a post, giving your opinion first. It's only when you're actually creating a post that people can disagree with your post, if you just go around liking other posts that opportunity doesn't exist.

I mean, this is the perfect example - imagine you had not responded to my post, you would have continued living not grasping what I was trying to tell you. How sad that would have been.

Being able to agree with what someone has said IS being part of the conversation; as you seem to want people to be.
Yet you hate this so much, that I cannot help but wonder if you're always on the wrong side of people liking your 'opponents' comments. I think thicker skin may do you some good....? That or staying away from forums?

Backed in the corner so much that you have to make up wild assumptions? I have given pretty clear reasons for why I think it's a net-negative, and that I think it's not a "huge deal" but instead a rather small change into the wrong direction. It's obvious that the like-feature is going to stay, and the only reason I'm arguing here is that I'm having fun doing so.

I'm not even sure why you feel the need to get so personal. When there was no like feature and the OP proposed the addition of one I gave my arguments for why I think it's not a good idea without making assumptions about his character and his motives, and now that there's a like feature and the roles have changed I'm still doing the same. The only person making this discussion personal/emotional is you.

Adding to what I said immediately above, it really feels like you want these forums to abide by your own little comfortable rules on how conversation should be. In one sense that is understandable; but seeing as we are all different in how we interpret good conversation, I think you need to chill out a bit.

Well, that's an interesting twist, but this doesn't exactly match what happened. The argument from the other side was that the like function unclutters the forums, and my simple response to that was that if "uncluttering" the forums is a priority, then simply outruling posts would have done that job as well, without the other in my opinion negative effects.

If you want my personal opinion about the "cluttering" of conversations: I have never even considered it as a problem. And by that I mean there wasn't a single moment during my time here that I ever thought to myself: "Oh boy, I wish there were fewer Agreement-posts so I would have an easier time following the discussion!" - which apparently was a problem regularly faced by the other side, otherwise they would of course not bring it as an argument for the like-feature.

And yes, obviously I'm arguing for the forum to match my personal preferences as much as possible, what else would I be arguing for?

Yeah, a witty comment will usually (rightly) get likes for style rather than content; but most of us are adults who can adult, and therefore can discern that a large portion of the likes on any given post like that, are an appreciation of humour rather than an explicit endorsement of the content.

And there's nothing wrong with it, but this directly undermines the argument that a like feature allows people to immediately see the "good" posts, as well as the argument that a like feature encourages making "good" posts in the first place. The reason this is even being pointed out is that your side is trying to make the same argument from both perspectives.

Unless of course you see making a silly joke while not adding anything to the discussion as a "good post". While I personally enjoy making such posts enough that it got me two infractions for spam/trolling I highly disagree that those could, by any reasonable standard, be considered "good" posts for the discussion itself.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Am I allowed to like posts in this thread?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Am I allowed to like posts in this thread?

Only if you actually like them. If you "like" posts you don't really like, that's being dishonest.

Personally, I've always preferred that people be honest about what they like and don't like, instead of blatantly dishonest or passive-aggressive.

 

[Agent327]

It seems we've stumbled upon another little problem. Liking posts for the sake of Liking them. But I'm sure that will enhance the quality of posting as well.

He only lies 70% of the time?

The other 30 % he's just being brutally honest.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It seems we've stumbled upon another little problem. Liking posts for the sake of Liking them. But I'm sure that will enhance the quality of posting as well.

To "like" or not to "like... that is, like, the question..." (Hamlet in the 21st century)

Actually, there is one situation in which "likes" can be very contentious, and I do think the staff needs to figure out a policy.

Example: Poster A says something that gets infracted for trolling/flaming/whatever. Poster B "likes" the post. There are no publicly-visible timestamps for "likes" - only what appears in the "liked" poster's profile. Is Poster B expressing his "like" for the post that was infracted or the infraction itself? The first could be considered an additional instance of that particular infraction, and the latter is PDMA.

I foresee problems.

 

[Ryika]

The day I get an infraction for liking a post is the day I get perma-banned for the PN I'd send that moderator in response.
Liking a post should never be seen as a response to a moderator action.

I went on a like-rant a few days ago though, giving 25-or-so to posts made by BvBPL. Without even reading them, I just wanted to test if there's a limit of likes you can give a person.
There isn't, and if I wasn't as lazy as I am, somebody would be sitting at the top of the like list with 2000 upvotes.

That probably makes me one of the active users of the like system so far.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The day I get an infraction for liking a post is the day I get perma-banned for the PN I'd send that moderator in response.
Liking a post should never be seen as a response to a moderator action.

Do you think there's a difference between expressing approval of a bad post (ie. one that clearly violates the rules) via the "Like" system and typing a post expressing approval?

I'm honestly curious about this.


As for how many "likes" you can give out in one day, it never occurred to me to wonder about that. All I know is that you're not allowed to "like" your own posts (presumably you already like them, since you posted them).

 

[Camikaze]

A policy hasn't yet been formulated, but it's clear that under any policy that would be formulated, liking a post which is purely flaming another member would earn an infraction, just as quoting the post and saying "I agree" would do so now.

 

[Ryika]

Do you think there's a difference between expressing approval of a bad post (ie. one that clearly violates the rules) via the "Like" system and typing a post expressing approval?

I'm honestly curious about this.

Expressing agreement with somebody who has just created a post that is against the rules should by itself not be worthy of an infraction either just for the "agreement"-part in ANY situation, however, obviously the person would still get the infraction for quoting (and thereby replicating) abuse, and/or being completely offtopic, because that post can by definition not be part of the topic.

Just pushing a button circumvents both of these problems, and in my opinion it's absolutely nonsensical, void of any reason, that anyone would even think that it's not the most petty and pathetic thing to give an infraction to somebody for merely pushing the like-button. I've never seen a similar thing on literally any website, no forum, no social media site (with of course the exception of like-botting and similar things).

And it's not only a non-crime, it also relies heavily on assumptions made by the moderators. Who is to say that I liked the message of that post and not just the way the insults made me laugh? Maybe I liked the grammar? Maybe I misread the post, or misinterpreted it? Or maybe I liked it before it was edited? Maybe I even liked that post by accident while moving back through the thread and liking some of the good posts I didn't want to like before I had seen how the discussion ends? There's literally no context that could be used to interpret the intentions behind me pushing a button.

Not that I'm too surprised; the "style" of moderation in these forums is about on the same level as cops who arrest people for selling some single cigarettes to a buddy who forgot to bring cigarettes himself. A few days ago I thought I had heard everything when a moderator told me that - in a theoretical scenario - saying "I disagreed with some of the infractions I received, that's why I left." as a response to the question "So why did you leave?" (assuming it's on topic) could be considered PDMA, but the fact that the moderators seem to really think about a rule against liking certain posts really tops that.

Here's a reasonable way of handling it - the way it's handled literally everywhere else on the internet:
- If a post gets an infraction all likes of that post are removed and the like-feature is disabled for that post.

If that's not possible, oh well. Then live with the fact that a person pushed a button and give an infraction to the person being abusive instead of creating nonsensical rules.

 

[Birdjaguar]

A policy hasn't yet been formulated, but it's clear that under any policy that would be formulated, liking a post which is purely flaming another member would earn an infraction, just as quoting the post and saying "I agree" would do so now.

Here's a reasonable way of handling it - the way it's handled literally everywhere else on the internet:
- If a post gets an infraction all likes of that post are removed and the like-feature is disabled for that post.

If that's not possible, oh well. Then live with the fact that a person pushed a button and give an infraction to the person being abusive instead of creating nonsensical rules.

Liking a post should not get anyone an infraction. Trying to discern the mind of someone who clicks "like" is a fool's game. An over reach. People can like a post for any number of reasons that can go beyond the content. Seconding guessing that is silly. As Ryika said, likes should just be a click and not connected to anything else. We don't need rules about who and what we can like. That will not make CFC great again.

 

[IronfighterXXX]

I went on a like-rant a few days ago though, giving 25-or-so to posts made by BvBPL. Without even reading them, I just wanted to test if there's a limit of likes you can give a person.
There isn't, and if I wasn't as lazy as I am, somebody would be sitting at the top of the like list with 2000 upvotes.

This and this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/i-like-all-of-you-❤-❤-❤.576156/

Haven't you found better way to utilize your energy than fighting with some feature on internet forum
about game yet?

 

[Ryika]

Yet another person attacking me personally instead of tackling my arguments?

 

[IronfighterXXX]

Giving random 'likes' to ridicule this feature was also not very substantive .

 

[Ryika]

I never made the argument that it is, in fact, I gave very clear reasons for why I did the upvote-thing - you even quoted my reasoning; I was interested in getting to know if there's a vote limit.
No amount of me upvoting stuff for silly reasons could in any way "ridicule" the feature, at worst it would ridicule the score list, but that list is merely an afterthought to the actual system.

Well, and my name would appear below every single post in every single forum, which I guess is a form of fame as well.

Although I think what it does show is that a max-likes-per-interval-function would be a good idea.

 

[Camikaze]

Liking a post should not get anyone an infraction. Trying to discern the mind of someone who clicks "like" is a fool's game. An over reach. People can like a post for any number of reasons that can go beyond the content. Seconding guessing that is silly. As Ryika said, likes should just be a click and not connected to anything else. We don't need rules about who and what we can like. That will not make CFC great again.

It would have to depend upon the specific content of the post that is being ‘liked’. If a post contains a whole lot of substantive content, but also happens to insult another member, then it’s hard to discern anything from a ‘like’. Is the poster liking the substantive content, or the insult?

But if the post is solely an insult, e.g. a post which simply reads, “You are an idiot”, or even more concerning, “You should go kill yourself”, then we can make a more reasonable inference from the ‘like’.

Of course, we can never know, as an objective truth, what the poster liking the post actually is intending to like. They may have intended to simply express appreciation for the sheer poetic quality of the post, divorced from its content. They may have intended to express approval of the poster’s avatar, and simply mistook how the ‘like’ function operates.

But by the same token, we can never know what the poster who has actually posted the insult intends to mean. It could be a joke between friends. There could be some cryptic pop culture reference that has been overlooked. But that necessary uncertainty doesn’t mean we’re going to let the post slide, for we are interested in the manner in which a notional reasonable member will read and react to the post. This is why the rules don’t actually require a conclusion as to the intention behind the post. It is enough to conclude that the post is reasonably likely to cause a negative reaction, even if the poster did not intend, when telling the other poster that they are an idiot, to do anything other than dispassionately state what they regard to be an observable fact. We are not confined by the epistemologically impossible.

Considering the underlying principles of the forum rules, would it make sense to not care about the action of a poster who has liked a post that is pure flaming? I don’t really see how it would – the poster who has ‘liked’ the post has evinced an objective intention to endorse the statement, which objective intention they cannot escape from by pointing to some other hidden subjective motivation which is not at all apparent to a notional reasonable member looking at the post.

The base principle is that we don’t want people using the forum in such a way as to hinder or destroy civil and productive discussion. The poster who actually posts an insult bears the primary responsibility for doing that. But a poster who expresses their direct agreement with the insult, either through posting the words ‘I agree’, or by leaving a visible mark of endorsement on the post, is also behaving in such a way as to hinder civil and productive discussion, and for that we would want to take some form of action to let them know that their behaviour is something we would not like repeated.

In terms of removing likes from posts, I do know that it’s possible to remove all likes given by a particular poster in a particular period. So within the admin control panel there is a function that causes the removal of all likes given by poster X for the last n days, and presumably this power can be conferred on moderators. I don’t know, though, whether there’s any function to allow the removal of specific likes, or likes from a specific post, nor whether that function could be conferred on moderators.