Implementing a 'Like' feature for higher quality posts

[nunor]

There are some forums (eg http://www.skyscrapercity.com) which have a 'Like' feature, where you can publicly like another forumer's post, and everyone has a likes-received count (ie, the number of times people liked your posts) below their avatar. Eg:

A feature like this would have considerable benefits for the CivFanatics forum and for our community, namely:

Less short, meaningless posts and less potential spam

• Sometimes forumers write 7-character posts just to express their agreement with another poster: "I agree". This wouldn't be necessary if there was a way to publicly express agreement with a single click, such as the 'Like' feature.

Less 'waste' of good posts and good forumers

• On the other hand, many forumers can't be bothered to write a short post expressing their agreement or liking of a good post. This means that very high-quality posts, although tacitly well-received, are many times left without response, which can discourage their writers.
• A 'Like' feature assures the author that people read and liked his/her post, and encourages him to write more.

Better quality of posting

• Being able to be "liked" and having a better likes-recieved count encourages forumers to write posts of higher quality, with higher chances of being liked.
• At the same time, the absence of a 'dislike' button means anyone is safe to post more controversial views without fear of being disliked.

To sum up, every benefit points to an ultimate result: an overall higher quality of posting in these forums. And, of course, better posting attracts better posters!

What do you think?
I really look forward to being able to like your posts in a near future!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There's nothing to stop you from liking peoples' posts now. If you really, really like them, you could always leave a Visitors' Message saying so, or a PM. And somewhere in OT there's a "Brought to you by CFC" thread for posts people would like to acknowledge.

 

[nunor]

That's absolutely not the point. The point is to implement a system that encourages posters to write better posts.

 

[gay_Aleks]

You think that people would write better posts just so that they could have a fictional number go up? Really?

 

[nunor]

You think that people would write better posts just so that they could have a fictional number go up? Really?

That's how the human mind works. People like recognition and feel encouraged by it. Just go over to the Skyscrapercity forums and see by yourself.

 

[gay_Aleks]

If someone wants to write a [excrement] post, he will do it. And no amount of shiny numbers will make him not do it.

Just look at OT.

 

[nunor]

If someone wants to write a [excrement] post, he will do it. And no amount of shiny numbers will make him not do it.

Just look at OT.

I didn't say it will stop people from writing "excrement posts", I said it will definitely encourage them to write more goodposts, and encourages those who already do it to do it even more frequently.

In addition, people like to have feedback on their posts and the Like feature is a simple and effective way to publicly show appreciation without cluttering the message boards.

It's far from being a "fictional number", as you called it. It is like an automatic community-awarded medal. It is a number that shows how much recognition and appreciation you have among the community, and how much valued your posts are.

 

[leif erikson]

There have been several threads on this topic over the years.
Please see this one from 2011.

And another from 2010.

 

[gay_Aleks]

What baffles me more is, why do you need X amount of people telling you that this is a good post? Can't you decide it for yourself? (Let's not walk into the 'what is a good post' thing. That's off to the deep end.)

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That's absolutely not the point. The point is to implement a system that encourages posters to write better posts.

It also encourages people to write "zinger"-type posts that may be moderately clever, but not necessarily good.

You think that people would write better posts just so that they could have a fictional number go up? Really?

Over at TrekBBS, I currently have 126 "Likes". Those were earned the hard way, not the easy way. If "Likes" were all I wanted, all I need to do is go to the "CBS is suing Axanar" thread and post that Alec Peters is an idiot, and I'd get a couple hundred within a couple of days.

I'll admit that I do feel pleased when I see that number go up. But then I didn't have to change my posting style to get them. It's just that the forum changed from vBulletin to Xenforo several months ago, and the admins decided to try some new things. It seems to be working all right so far.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Over at TrekBBS, I currently have 126 "Likes". Those were earned the hard way, not the easy way. If "Likes" were all I wanted, all I need to do is go to the "CBS is suing Axanar" thread and post that Alec Peters is an idiot, and I'd get a couple hundred within a couple of days.

I'll admit that I do feel pleased when I see that number go up. But then I didn't have to change my posting style to get them. It's just that the forum changed from vBulletin to Xenforo several months ago, and the admins decided to try some new things. It seems to be working all right so far.

That's commendable, but I'm afraid that most of CFC (most notably, everyone's favourite forum, OT) wouldn't follow your selfless motives, unfortunately.

 

[nunor]

What baffles me more is, why do you need X amount of people telling you that this is a good post? Can't you decide it for yourself? (Let's not walk into the 'what is a good post' thing. That's off to the deep end.)

Well, it baffles me that you seem not to understand that forums are places to dialogue with other people within a community made up of very different and diverse people. This is not a blog or a diary. What's the point of posting if you don't get feedback?

The 'Like' feature allows to better clear up the difference between "posts that don't get responses because they're not useful" and "posts that don't get responses because they are generally well accepted, a lot of people agree with them, and they don't need further discussion".

Take, for example, this thread, http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=568025, where "oldtimers" are asked to give their opinion on the new Civ6. This thread has attracted many lurkers and old-time forumers, but many of those posts do not get replies, because there's nothing to discuss. It would be nice, nevertheless, to be able to show appreciation for those posts, in an adequately simple way, that doesn't require multiquoting every post and adding a smiling face in the end -- which is actually considered spamming.

There have been several threads on this topic over the years.
Please see this one from 2011.

And another from 2010.

Thank you for the links. As you've said, those threads are 5 and 6 years old, so I think a new discussion is justified.

I've skimmed through those and the most frequent complaint I see with this system is that it is "too Facebook-y", when this has nothing to do with Facebook. Facebook is a medium where you post to your friends; it is completely different from a forum like CivFanatics, which is, as I already said, a medium where you post to a diverse community of people from all over the world.

If people dislike the term "Like" because of Facebook, just call it another thing - "Thanks", "Agree", whatever.

But I can't see a solid argument against the implementation of this system, and I see only good reasons to do it.

That's commendable, but I'm afraid that most of CFC (most notably, everyone's favourite forum, OT) wouldn't follow your selfless motives, unfortunately.

Well, as you know, some forum sections do not count towards your postcount. I don't think it would be difficult to turn off that feature for off-topic sections.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

I believe the feature in vBulletin is called "Thanks".

I see no harm in it, though I agree with the objections that it would do no rea; good. -But if it was my call, I'd tend to weigh the 'no harm' more heavily, and give it a try. It's different than something like thread rating or up/down voting, that lend themselves to malicious uses...

 

[gay_Aleks]

Well, as you know, some forum sections do not count towards your postcount. I don't think it would be difficult to turn off that feature for off-topic sections.

Unfortunately, as it turns out, most OTers take postcount rather seriously. They'd raise a lot of noise.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well, it baffles me that you seem not to understand that forums are places to dialogue with other people within a community made up of very different and diverse people. This is not a blog or a diary. What's the point of posting if you don't get feedback?

Feedback comes in the form of replies, people quoting your post in full or in part, or sometimes via Visitors' messages or PMs. I've had messages from people saying they liked my post, and I appreciate those. I've also sent similar messages to other people.

Well, as you know, some forum sections do not count towards your postcount. I don't think it would be difficult to turn off that feature for off-topic sections.

Once upon a time this happened on another forum I was at (I'm not there anymore). One of the site owners decided that the only posts that would count would be those talking about the product he was selling, and the rest were of no value whatsoever.

Of course people were angry - especially when you consider that some of the areas of that forum required a minimum post count threshold to access and there was an ongoing game (over a period of many years) that was post count-dependent on what ranks people achieved in that game. We logged on one morning and discovered that most of us had dropped several ranks (I had just achieved Queen - one of only four women on that forum who ever made it that high).

It led to a huge argument, branched off into other arguments, the the fallout was (among other things) three breakaway forums happening - two of which I'm currently on staff as a co-admin.

Unfortunately, as it turns out, most OTers take postcount rather seriously. They'd raise a lot of noise.

Yes, it wouldn't be pleasant. I'm not someone who thinks that having a huge post count makes one a better person, but I do think it's one of the ways to indicate how productive and interested a person is in contributing to the community.

That's why I rarely post in the serial threads, btw. It annoys me when I go to the trouble to compose a good post and it's later thrown in the equivalent of the basement and literally forgotten by the forum software.

 

[nunor]

Feedback comes in the form of replies, people quoting your post in full or in part, or sometimes via Visitors' messages or PMs. I've had messages from people saying they liked my post, and I appreciate those. I've also sent similar messages to other people.

Again, you're completely missing the point, and it seems you're doing it on purpose too. As a former moderator, I just assume you know very well that nothing you've listed is comparable to a Like/Thanks/Agree feature. And I've already explained why, so I'm not going to enter an endless circle.

I'm not someone who thinks that having a huge post count makes one a better person, but I do think it's one of the ways to indicate how productive and interested a person is in contributing to the community.

You seem to imply you value quantity over quality. That would explain why you dislike the feature I am proposing.

I see no harm in it, though I agree with the objections that it would do no rea; good. -But if it was my call, I'd tend to weigh the 'no harm' more heavily, and give it a try. It's different than something like thread rating or up/down voting, that lend themselves to malicious uses...

My thoughts exactly. I must say I'm surprised by the way this idea is being met with such resistance and reactionism, since it does virtually no harm. Plus, it is disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, which is very unfortunate.

I only ask that you at least consider giving it a try.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Again, you're completely missing the point, and it seems you're doing it on purpose too. As a former moderator, I just assume you know very well that nothing you've listed is comparable to a Like/Thanks/Agree feature. And I've already explained why, so I'm not going to enter an endless circle.

How about not assuming, 'k?

As a former moderator here, and as someone who's had experience with various kinds of forums that used some kind of approval system, I can see all sides of it. It's harmless enough in a forum community where people are mostly friendly and there are no cliques who engage in mass-"liking" (or the opposite, as may be applicable on some sites).

There will be some resentment on some peoples' parts when they've taken the time to compose an excellent post and not only does nobody comment on it - but it doesn't even garner any "likes." Some people just don't bother clicking on likes, positive reputation, or whatever system is used.

You seem to imply you value quantity over quality. That would explain why you dislike the feature I am proposing.

Oh, really? Then explain how there are people who have been here for much less time than I have, yet they have over twice as many posts.

The situation is even more pronounced at the other forum where I spend a great deal of time. I joined TrekBBS in 2007. Right now I have 6,820 posts there. There are members of that forum whose post counts are literally off the chart. The highest post count listed in the FAQ is 32,000. There are some people who have well over 100,000. They got a significant number of those by posting in that forum's equivalent of serial threads and chat threads. And while I've done my share of posting in the serial threads there, I prefer to participate in discussions, not the forum equivalent of sitcom one-liners.

Note that I'm not saying that people with high post counts don't have quality posts. Most do. But unless these people are spending many more hours per day here than most are able to, a significant number of those posts will not be discussion-related.

My thoughts exactly. I must say I'm surprised by the way this idea is being met with such resistance and reactionism, since it does virtually no harm. Plus, it is disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, which is very unfortunate.

I only ask that you at least consider giving it a try.

As I said, whether or not such a system can do harm depends on the forum community. I've seen situations where they've caused a great deal of harm and hard feelings.

 

[Light Cleric]

Unfortunately, as it turns out, most OTers take postcount rather seriously. They'd raise a lot of noise.

...Why, exactly?

 

[CivCube]

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

 

[Quintillus]

I don't see in harm in it per se, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to have a total per-user "like" count, versus a per-post count. Per-use would encourage trying to inflate that global number, detracting from the actual goal of having good discussion. Only having it per-post would provide a way to quickly acknowledge a useful post, without causing a competition for global likes

I do see the potential benefits in providing a good way to say thanks for, e.g., a good reference post, and doing so for old threads without necroing them. Although I don't think I'd really want to be notified for a "like" on an old post any more than for a "Thanks!" post necro.

I'm dubious of it causing any increase in post quality. Sure, five "likes" and no replies may be a bit more motivating than just no replies, but the really high-quality stuff tends to already get replies, and the people who continually post high-quality stuff will do it regardless. I also do not recall Facebook's post quality increasing after they introduced "likes" in 2009.

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.