Debating implementation of a Reaction/Like system

Currently viewing this thread:

rektasaurus

Squire
See, in order to scroll through these posts I had to spend 0.2 seconds that I'm never getting back. A like system could literally save lives.


But why restrict this engagement bar in the first place? Its not like we're voting for something important with likes and dislikes, its just a tiny bit of extra info to go along with posts that may indicate a post that's particularly worth reading. Extra information is always good, unless it gets in the way of other stuff, which in this case it doesn't.

I mean like I've said I think it would be cool to react to posts with icons and thumbsup or down like we can in discord. But I think it's worthwhile and fun to share ideas about how, essentially, emoticons impact discussion. I don't know about you but I can read at a fairly quick pace and I really don't need anything other than the words themselves to tell me if a post is worth reading or not. I'd much rather respond to you with this sentence after knowing you've read and responded to mine. That feels engaging to me. Clicking a button next to your post to show agreement or otherwise or telling someone to look at the points their comment has gathered is an extra step that I don't feel adds a lot for the extra work of clicking. Like if any of my posts get +100 points or -100 that doesn't feel engaging, they're just arbitrary numbers. I think this site might be a little small for a custom ad tracker or whatever but votes, I'm totally speculating, are typically used to weight keywords and that is the reason why they've become such a big part of social media, not because it's particularly more fun for the user. If algos don't do such a thing then they really should.

All that said, I'd put a (well intentioned) cookie up in your post for you if I could and I think such a thing can be fun.

For a number of reasons
119712-full.png
foucault.png
594px-I0194138400.png
I am horrified by this panopticon being the future of the internet.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Who are these people btw? I tried to include it in my above post but I can't copy-paste the quote without their images blowing up in size.
 
Last edited:
119712-full.png
Technology depressing alienating and bad, Return to monky
foucault.png
Everything is a variation on prison, power is spread everywhere and can discipline you at any time and I promise I'm not just really into BDSM
594px-I0194138400.png
Mass media ruins everything, I hope nobody invents the internet that would suck aha
 
I don't really see the point of not adding one, a reaction system will simplify the way of agreeing and disagreeing on a topic without making the post messy. And Kentucky don't quote Ted Kazynski aka Unabomber, he was mentally unstable.
 

rektasaurus

Squire
Rip Kentucky. Yeah I had to do some reverse google image searches to figure out who these people are.

The fact that the ****ing unabomber was brought up in a discussion about internet points idk if I need to point out just how much his ideas sucked or not.
 

Emil

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
The fact that the ****ing unabomber was brought up in a discussion about internet points idk if I need to point out just how much his ideas sucked or not.
It does come off as the guy wanted to portray himself as an intellectual above us all in a thread about implementing a like-system, which is a weird flex. As much as he want to portray the modern society and development/research as something purely negative, I'd suggest otherwise. Read Hararis Homo Deus or Haldanes Daedalus or the Future of Science (which I've uploaded here since the copyright is long expired) for a less political and more neutral viewpoint. The text by the unabomber isn't free from ideology by any means, nor are texts from sociologists like Foucault in this case since he's, aside from his good book Surveillir et punir, has the ridiculous idea of humans not being able to use reason to find a common sense of fairness / justice, which has been criticised, but is used as the most common contra-argument for this idea by the elite. Whether trolls are using a button or post is just a detail. Moderators exist. Rollback exist. Limitations/no dislike-button is a possibility. Even a stubborn conservative would agree there's nothing to lose in trying, unless you're stubborn on a whole other level, might as well be against any medical research or accept climate change as it's a risk/potential waste of money to fight. But let's for the sake of non-toxicity avoid continuous arguing on the same cynical level as the forementioned individual(s).

OT: No-one has really argued against the idea with factual evidence or arguments, nor Callums input. I've seen loads of speculation with some logical reasoning behind it and loads of laughing at factual arguments, but ya'll turn very emotional the moment someone sees through all the well-written crap. We've listed plenty of other forums where such a system works. I've yet to be given a good example where it doesn't work as intended.
 
Last edited:

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Dancing to electro-pop like a robot since 1984
Subforum Moderator
M&BWBNWWF&SVC
free from ideology
🤔

No-one has really argued for the idea with factual evidence or arguments. I've seen loads of speculation with some logical reasoning behind it and loads of laughing at factual arguments, but ya'll turn very emotional the moment someone sees through all the well-written crap. We've listed plenty of other forums where such a system doesn't work. I've yet to be given a good example where it does work as intended.
this is literally as accurate and as useful a contribution as the unedited version.
and simply repeating your assumptions does not make them fact.
 

Emil

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
This is literally as accurate and as useful a contribution as the unedited version.
and simply repeating your assumptions does not make them fact.
Agreed. So let's stop with the assumptions and respond to that tiny last part in my quoted post.

You may also go back to my earlier posts and give critique that's actually on-topic since it appears that even though I have, among others, given plenty of direct responses to others arguments in this thread, the sole response has been another set of speculation, even when listing sites where such a system works, and alternative implementation.

Where does the burden of proof lie? Solely on the pro-arguments? In that case we do have enough proof, what we lack of is proof that it doesn't work. So bring it forth. Factual evidence and bad community examples which is evidence for all these assumptions from the naysayers would be an excellent contribution.

If you're tired of bad arguments, imagine what I am. Although I find such a strong determination purely out of speculation on how forum users (might) act with such a system in place hilarious coming from such, ahem, veterans of the forums. Especially since such a system is entirely voluntarily to partake in, won't sort threads by default (except in the bug report/suggestions forums), but may enhance the experience, as I've repeated and proven several times, for users not spending hours and hours on end on the forums.

As I've earlier mentioned, ignoring or hiding strong evidence-based arguments in the backpages while promoting flat earth theories and wild speculations for several pages exist even without a like-system, which might rather bring such posts into the light.

Maybe the well-written crap machinery will break when such a thing occur, but that's just another theory, a Game Theory™. It might end up being the opposite, but without implementing it for a trial period, no-one truly knows how it will work on these forums. You might think badly of the majority of the forum users, meanwhile I believe many users to be good, until they're bad. Looking at other forums I use tells me that it won't be an issue worth ten or even five pages either way.
 
Last edited:

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Dancing to electro-pop like a robot since 1984
Subforum Moderator
M&BWBNWWF&SVC
@Emil i am primarily talking about your hilariously dishonest approach to the conversation, if you hadn't noticed.

you keep calling other people's posts "emotional", "speculation", accusing them of "ignoring or hiding" opposing views. yet theirs and yours are not substantially different in content, emotionality, speculation, or earnestness.

you keep assuming ill intent or negative attitudes hidden behind their points, while claiming a veneer of faux objectivity for your own.

this latest is again more of the same, attempting to discredit their motives without engaging in their arguments, while at the same time whining that people responding to you are noticing and commenting on your disingenuous spin on it all instead of answering to your oh so allegedly objective facts

the hypocrisy is genuinely hilarious.
 

Cioss

Archduke
bUt ThaT WiLl rUiN tHe fORum ExPeriEnCe.

Quick edit: Gut feeling, I have to say this was sarcasm. No, stay away from mothman.
 

Emil

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
This.
And it would be such a pleasent experience to support a position I like, to which I have nothing to add, without posting: quote"..." This.
@Emil liked this and has nothing more to add.

By the way was it worth tossing my entire response in the bin @Count Delinard? I did read your comment after posting and did a second glance to verify it wasn't derailment. It would've been appreciated if you'd rather delete what small part you considered to be derailment, rather than the whole response. As far as content goes, I said read earlier pages to Antoine, and again asked to be provided a site where such a system doesn't work as intended. If that's not to keep on track, I don't know what is.
 

Zombie Warrior

Sergeant Knight
I've been under the impression that it was the for side which has ignored the many examples which actually establish the norm while they themselves only presented exceptions which confirm the norm. However, Emil has enlightened me greatly on the matter and I now know that what the community is like at Yahoo Answers is the standard way of being for all communities on the web and abuse of the system rarely ever occurs at all, if ever (that's something reserved for the rogue communities of Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Tumblr, *some* Discord/Slack groups, Steam, Newgrounds, etc.). Even though I may be tempted to look at the many sites which don't fit the bill, I know better. I know that, although the evidence seems to be anecdotal and even trivial, what I thought was the norm wasn't and what wasn't is. Thank you Emil for making me see the truth!
 
Last edited:
I've been under the impression that it was the for side which has ignored the many examples which actually establish the norm while they themselves only presented exceptions which confirm the norm. However, Emil has enlightened me greatly on the matter and I now know that what the community is like at Yahoo Answers is the standard way of being for all communities on the web and abuse of the system rarely ever occurs at all, if ever (that's something reserved for the rogue communities of Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Tumblr, *some* Discord/Slack groups, Steam, Newgrounds, etc.). Even though I may be tempted to look at the many sites which don't fit the bill, I know better. I know that, although the evidence seems to be anecdotal and even trivial, what I thought was the norm wasn't and what wasn't is. Thank you Emil for making me see the truth!
You make the best point AGAINST what emil is advocating. Thanks for that.
 
Top Bottom