Implementing a 'Like' feature for higher quality posts

[Valka D'Ur]

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

He owns the site, but rarely posts in the public areas anymore. Some admins are more active than others.

 

[nunor]

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

So ignoring equals agreeing to you? I don't think people bother to respond to useless/helpless posts, even if they completely disagree with them.

 

[Ryika]

So ignoring equals agreeing to you? I don't think people bother to respond to useless/helpless posts, even if they completely disagree with them.

I'm pretty sure that if you create "useless/helpless" posts you already know what you're doing, in that case a like-system wouldn't really do anything.

In any other case... yeah, if there's a discussion and you say something that is on topic and actually making an argument and nobody responds chances are they agree with you or at least don't disagree so much that they felt the need to respond.

Which from my PoV once again only leaves the case of "I totally need positive feedback for what I've just said!", which I still think is not worth the opportunity cost of pushing people towards conformity.

The way I see it supporting a healthy discussion and debate climate should be the number one goal of any forum feature, for anything else there's social media.

 

[Oruc]

if we get a like button we should get a dislike button, in certain places round here if you were getting dislikes then you know you're doing or saying the right things.

 

[Akka]

"like" system have absolutely not the effect of improving posting quality. On the contrary, they tend to do exactly the opposite, and more often than not people "vote" after only reading the title. I frequent quite a lot of forum, and from experience voting system are actually extremely counter-productive, often just being glorified popularity contests.

 

[gay_Aleks]

To be fair, OT is a popularity contest, so why don't we turn on voting just for OT? It'll be great. You're gonna love it.

 

[Akka]

You know, if OT makes you so hateful and salty, you might just, maybe, stay away from it ?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Well, to use the worst metaphor possible, OT is like some sort of a drug that you're addicted to - you know it's bad but you keep doing it, and the fact you're perfectly aware of your total lack of self-control only makes it worse.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There are worse things than a like system. The news site where I've been participating for most of the last decade is moving to a "real names" policy starting next week, and we won't be allowed to access our old posting history. So that means it won't be possible to know what we said (without scouring through millions of posts on hundreds of pages), what got approved, what got disabled (a lot of perfectly valid posts get disabled, due to moderator bias or gang-flagging), and so forth. It should be interesting to see how many people suddenly change their names to 'John Smith' next week. TPTB there don't care that they're going to make it much easier for people to be harassed, stalked, have their identities stolen, be targeted for spam and scams, and even fired from their jobs if their employer doesn't like their opinions on politics or religion.

We're not required to divulge anything of our RL here. So be glad of that, if you value your privacy.

 

[salty mud]

That really doesn't sound like a website worth being a part of.

Regards.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That really doesn't sound like a website worth being a part of.

Regards.

It's our taxpayer-funded national broadcaster's website. It's gone downhill for a lot of reasons, in the last couple of years, but this - along with blatantly biased moderating - is the last straw for a lot of people. I have no intention of parading my real name on there. As a left-wing voter in a right-wing part of the country, I'd just be putting a huge target on my back with a lot of people.

And one of the most galling things is that the moderators are completely unaccountable. They can disable any post they want, for any reason or just a whim, and there is no way to appeal it. Even asking how to appeal it will get the post disabled.

 

[Birdjaguar]

How about a button that reads: I have no opinion on this post. It would be an indicator that your post was not significantly moving to stimulate a reply and that you should try harder.

I think it would be a popular button that as your count climbs, it is neither positive nor negative. those who accumulate lots and lots of "no opinions" might be persuaded to change their style if it bothers them.

In addition, it gives every poster another and an and easy way to express themselves.

As a kicker, to minimize abuse, every time you click that you did not have an opinion about a post, the receiving poster would get 1/4 of a post count (or 1 pc for every 4 clicks if that works easier with the the software).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So you're suggesting a button that essentially tells the poster that you think they're boring.

Wow.

How about just scrolling past and skipping the insults?

 

[salty mud]

I'm fairly sure birdjaguar was being facetious.

Regards

 

[Akka]

There are worse things than a like system. The news site where I've been participating for most of the last decade is moving to a "real names" policy starting next week

Yeah sure, but that's basically telling to someone who don't want a kick in the balls that there are people out there getting buried alive by some mad dictator.

BTW, who can be [mentally challenged] enough to even think of a "real name" policy on the Web ? And how did he escaped his asylum ?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

BTW, who can be [mentally challenged] enough to even think of a "real name" policy on the Web ? And how did he escaped his asylum ?

Canadians have an international reputation of being nice people. Well, there are times when some of us are not that nice, and they include when commenting on CBC.ca. It got to the point where nobody is allowed to comment on any articles about aboriginal issues. Things got rather nasty last year before and during the federal election campaign, partly due to the Conservative-paid "opinion adjusters" who were posting there. After awhile it became obvious who they were, no matter what username they switched to.

Something I noticed about the "moderation" there... a comment that gets disabled (zapped so only the person who wrote it can see it, along with an obnoxious pink banner that says "Content disabled." and no reason why) in the morning could possibly get approved later in the day, after different moderators come on-shift. Some comments do deserve to be zapped, of course, but there are so many that don't violate the guidelines at all. But if enough people gang-flag it because they disagree with it, or if the moderator happens to support the opposite political party to the one the comment is referencing, chances are that the comment won't be approved. And there is NO way to appeal these decisions. I've posted there (and it actually got left up once) that I was flabbergasted that a computer gaming forum I belong to has clearly-stated guidelines, moderators who are accountable for their decisions, and a clearly-stated appeals process if posters want to challenge those decisions... yet our public broadcaster has no way for a poster to challenge a bad moderating decision. Based on the number of "likes" received for that post, there are some other people who are also flabbergasted. So take a bow, CFC.

You think CFC's PDMA rules are annoying at times? Just mention Viafoura there (the company that does the moderating; they're not actually part of CBC at all) and chances are the comment will be disabled.

As for this "real names" policy, it's supposed to make everybody "nicer." Supposedly, everything will be much more civil if everyone has to put their real names to their words. Well, trolls are going to troll no matter what name they use, and the Conservative "opinion adjusters" are going to yap about "Prime Minister Selfie"/"Junior"/ "the drama teacher"/"Justine"/"Justina" (all derogatory phrases referring to Justin Trudeau) no matter what name they post under. And the crackpot who makes the space program articles a misery to participate in with his endless spam and trolling (that the moderators do nothing to stop) will continue no matter what name he uses. At least they've promised us a way to block specific users; hopefully that means this jerk can just sit there and complain to himself and realize that absolutely nobody thinks his nonsensical rantings make any sense.

What the CBC brass has chosen to ignore is the fact that some people are going to experience very real, very negative consequences in some cases. If a person works in a Catholic school or hospital and their employers find out this person has come out in support of pro-choice, same-sex marriage, or doctor-assisted dying, that person could end up fired. And depending on how strict their families are on these issues, they could end up with domestic problems as well. The obvious dangers of harassment, stalking, and identity theft have apparently whooshed right over these people's heads.

And according to their own FAQ, they have no way to verify if anyone is really using their real name or not.

How will you enforce 'real names'?

A moderator will review the name you’ve submitted to verify that it looks like a ‘real name’. Until your name looks real, your comments will not be accepted for publication on our site.



What happens if I use a name that looks real but isn't? Or isn’t really my ‘real name’? How will you know?

We have no way of ensuring that the ‘real name’ you use to comment is really your real name. While we know that some of our community members won’t be pleased with our move to ‘real names’, we hope that the majority will see the value in promoting transparency within our online communities.



Another user is using my name. Can you stop them from impersonating me?

It is common for names to be similar, if not identical. However, we do not allow the impersonation of individuals or misleading usernames. If you feel strongly that you are being impersonated, we will need you to illustrate this for us by providing specific comment examples and profile details. Without these details, we cannot investigate properly. Send all relevant information to Audience Services and someone will get back to you.

So... in essence, they are relying on poorly-trained moderators to see if a name "looks" real, and in cases of impersonation, they refer people to Audience Services. I know from my own experience that when you email Audience Services, they almost never reply. And when they do, it's a pleasant surprise if their reply actually has anything to do with what the original issue was. After that, something might be done... but usually won't. Even if the person who contacted them is unquestionably in the right of it.

They say that no pseudonyms will be allowed, but since they will only approve names that "sound real" then how are people with aboriginal names supposed to be approved? What about Welsh names that look like alphabet soup to everyone who doesn't speak Welsh?

I predict that come June 13, there will be a lot of "John Smith" accounts, and some people have decided to become "Jennifer McGuire" - the woman who snidely says that some of us are "dwelling on the potential drawbacks."

What nobody is allowed to say there, of course, is that the company that has the moderating contract, Viafoura, is all in favor of this push for real names... because they sell them to advertisers.

So yes, our public broadcaster has betrayed us in numerous ways. If I re-register under the new system, it is definitely NOT going to be with my real name. I don't need the harassment.

 

[BvBPL]

There is already an existing thread rating system, the use of which is limited. If there were an actual need for a like system then I would expect that system to be used more frequently.

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

Valka's comment absolutely is the point. The best manner to encourage better posts is by providing personal feedback, not by pressing a button. A like system offers the appearance of feedback, but that's a thin veneer over a system that provides too little information to be useful. Say I engage in a debate over the one unit per tile system. Am I receiving likes because of the quality of my argument or because of my conclusion? One cannot tell. A like system is likely to descend into an echo chamber of people liking a post because it supports their views, not because of the quality of the post itself.

 

[Omega124]

I fully support a Like feature. I really would appreciate the validation after I write long posts that sometimes I feel get ignored in the clutter of things.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm fairly sure birdjaguar was being facetious.

Regards

Wait! What...???? Foiled again.

 

[darko82]

I love the Witcher 3 forums where you can not only give points to a post, but you can give thanks to a post. This is really nice, and all you need is a single click. Also, those points are gathered and remembered on your profile etc. It is a very good and easy system to give feedback on many topics showing everyone around how many people like it etc.