Quantcast
Is the implementation of a 'like' system beneficial of detrimental?

Forums - Website Topics - Is the implementation of a 'like' system beneficial of detrimental?

Thoughts on the like system?

In favour of it 26 39.39%
 
Against it 29 43.94%
 
Neutral/don't know 11 16.67%
 
Total:66
RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:

No I don't believe that. You can keep the thread on track by just simply reviewing your previous posts and acknowledging what they collectively say.

RolStoppable said:
Your refusal actually means that you are trying your hardest to derail the thread.

Citation needed. It appears to me that this conversation that is at best tangentially related to this thread persists because you won't let this go despite my obvious disinterest to play your silly games.

RolStoppable said:
You've made the claim that I stated certain things, and that's why the like system is detrimental.

Citation needed.

RolStoppable said:

I asked  commanded you and continue to ask command you to provide completely unnecessary proof for your claim, and that's 0% on topic because my behavior on this site has nothing to do with the like system.

FTFY.

RolStoppable said:

You can repeat your line that I should stop trying to derail the thread, but that line is completely moot without any sign of me going off-topic.

As stated previously, your behavior on this site has nothing to do with the like system.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8780080

potato_hamster said:

On topic - As Rol plainly stated, if someone were to view a thread with two people arguing two sides of an issue, and one side has a bunch of likes and the other has a few or none, the one with fewer likes should be viewed as "discredited" or "unreasonable" in comparison with the side that is liked by many users. This is a clearly narrative he will use going forward on this site.

That's the claim in question. Following that, I asked you for proof to back those accusations up.

I don't think you can reasonably argue that those statements of yours do not mean that the like system is detrimental in your opinion.

If you choose to respond, include a link to the post(s) where I supposedly said what you claim I said.

Here I am choosing to respond, and not including a link to any post.  I would ask what you're going to do about it, but we both know you can do nothing.

Cut your bullshit Rol. You don't get to dictate my behavior on this site.



Around the Network

Do we really have to make half of this thread about petty disagreements?



I disagree. It's just a quality of life feature that allows people to agree with a post anonymously but I think they should add in a dislike feature too.



I think it is actually great as someone who doesn't post a lot. I often read posts that I would like to tell the author I agree with but it isn't really worth a post saying I agree or good post.



 

My Real Redneck friends


 

 

TalonMan said:
potato_hamster said:

It doesn't. That's why I've shown a hesitance to talk about it.

On topic - As Rol plainly stated, if someone were to view a thread with two people arguing two sides of an issue, and one side has a bunch of likes and the other has a few or none, the one with fewer likes should be viewed as "discredited" or "unreasonable" in comparison with the side that is liked by many users. This is a clearly narrative he will use going forward on this site.

It's painfully hard for me to admit, but I really have to agree with Rol on this. Nowhere, in ANY of his posts, did he come close to suggesting what you're saying - which is why I said, this entire debate you're currently having with him has done nothing to with the "like" functionality. 

... because apparently this isn't obvious. Here goes:

RolStoppable said:
Megiddo said:

No, in order to get a genuine like you would make some meme post, or dogpile on someone else who has an opinion in the minority. They serve no purpose other than distracting from the content of the conversation by reinforcing whichever 'side' of an argument has the most popular opinion, regardless of the content of the argument itself.

This is an argument that I see repeatedly from people who tend to hold unreasonable opinions. I suppose those people are aware of what they post, therefore a like system would tip the scale against them. Once their own posts show little to no likes while counter-arguments have lots of likes, it would be hard to sway people on the fence with FUD. Without a like system, any longer argument would appear to be balanced between both sides, essentially giving the impression that both sides are equally valid; a like system, however, could do away with such a perception quickly because observers of the argument wouldn't be completely invisible anymore.

Rol starts by pointing out that people with unreasonable opinions would have a like system "tip the scale against them". He claims that posts displaying "unreasonable" opinions would be those with "little to no likes", while counter-arguments (and by extension posts that contain what he views as reasonable opinions) would be the ones with "lots of likes". He also indicates that a like system would remove the appearance of a balanced argument, and remove the impression of both sides of an argument being equally valid. Logically then, he's indicating that posts with "little to no likes" are indicators that the arguments with them are less valid, and unreasonable.

This is clear. This is obvious. But just in case it isn't. He reinforces this again in this thread.

RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said: 

 

Case in point. Apparently people's whose posts don't have likes have unreasonable opinions vs those with more likes.

No, the point is that someone like potato_hamster knows that he holds unreasonable opinions regardless of the existence or lack thereof of a like system. The existence of a like system would make that more apparent to people at large, so a like system poses a threat.

What you quoted was my response to the statement that a like system serves no other purpose than to distract from the content of conversations.

Talon, let me ask you this, how can a like system pose a threat to those with a supposedly unreasonable opinion if posts with fewer likes do not indicate, as I put it "that the views within should be viewed as "discredited" or "unreasonable" in comparison with the side that is liked by many users"?

The only real counter argument anyone could make here is that I might have incorrectly claimed that Rol states that posts with less likes are "discredited". It would have been more accurate to use the word "invalid" to describe the opinions Rol clearly expressed.

As I said, it's plainly obvious that Rol views the like system as a tool to use to indicate which posts are "reasonable" and which ones are not.  As for whether this is a narrative he will use going forward, well, let's just see if Rol does what Rol does, or if Rol is willing to shape his behavior just to spite me.



Around the Network

⚠️

Potato and Rol - y’all need to abandon that one, fellas. It has gotten progressively worse and is really derailing the topic now.



                                                                                                                                            

Huh, when you hit a certain amount of likes, you gain the ability to give blue likes. Interesting.



   
   
theDX said:

Huh, when you hit a certain amount of likes, you gain the ability to give blue likes. Interesting.

Is this some urban legend?



TalonMan said:
RavenXtra said:
Against. Just adds an incentive to "point farm" and change their way of posting to maximize said points. Conversations should be as genuine as possible and not as an aim to gain imaginary points or attention. There was already enough of that without the Like system.

So, let me state right from the start - there is currently no code to truly "incentivize" this in any way (points, badges, vg$, etc.). Nothing. And at this point, I have no plans to add anything additional to this functionality (beyond MAYBE adding a notification to the author that their post received a "like"). I just want to make sure we are clear on this point.

There is no "dislike" button, and so long as I'm here doing coding, there never will be a "dislike" button. That would absolutely add a potentially serious negative tone to the forums, and I'm not interested in any way of having that here.

As I mentioned in the development thread (where this conversation originally sprung up), the sole reason I added this in the first place was for those situations where somebody had made a good point about something, and rather than go through wasting time (and forum space) by quoting the user just to type the word "Agreed!" - having a way to "like" a post is the most logical way to accomplish this. I honestly have a hard time understanding how something so trivial as this, could possibly be so polarizing. I know the argument to this was that rather than typing "Agreed!", you should always strive to expand on that and why it is you agree - but really, that's exactly the point of this! There are definitely times when a post is so succinct  and truly summarizes your thoughts perfectly, that there's just nothing else you could possibly add - and I believe the author really does deserve to know that you appreciated what they wrote.

 

If there was the potential to "dislike" a post which could lead to hurt feelings, or  if the "likes" had the ability to raise a post to a "higher" status (highlighting it or floating towards the top or giving it front page status), I would completely understand why people would have a hard time with this and would rally against it (heck, I'd be on the same side and would be rallying against it, too!!!!). But having (what I believe to be) a harmless way to simply let another user know that you liked what they wrote, I just don't think should be so controversial... 

...all that said, I'm still hear to listen and I will do whatever I can to make everyone happy (which I know will be DAMN NEAR impossible)!! The hardest thing about any community (and VGChartz, in particular) is the acceptance of any change! I've been here for over 10yrs, and each time Brett or I would make even the smallest of changes, there would be immediate blow-back - and so all I ask for is a little patience.  :)

 

I never said anything about the system being tied to VG$ or GamerPoints, I just said that it's yet another "Point System" for users to take advantage of and change their posting habits to accrue more of it. I just see it being a bad thing for the forum, even if its just a small change.



RavenXtra said:
TalonMan said:

So, let me state right from the start - there is currently no code to truly "incentivize" this in any way (points, badges, vg$, etc.). Nothing. And at this point, I have no plans to add anything additional to this functionality (beyond MAYBE adding a notification to the author that their post received a "like"). I just want to make sure we are clear on this point.

There is no "dislike" button, and so long as I'm here doing coding, there never will be a "dislike" button. That would absolutely add a potentially serious negative tone to the forums, and I'm not interested in any way of having that here.

As I mentioned in the development thread (where this conversation originally sprung up), the sole reason I added this in the first place was for those situations where somebody had made a good point about something, and rather than go through wasting time (and forum space) by quoting the user just to type the word "Agreed!" - having a way to "like" a post is the most logical way to accomplish this. I honestly have a hard time understanding how something so trivial as this, could possibly be so polarizing. I know the argument to this was that rather than typing "Agreed!", you should always strive to expand on that and why it is you agree - but really, that's exactly the point of this! There are definitely times when a post is so succinct  and truly summarizes your thoughts perfectly, that there's just nothing else you could possibly add - and I believe the author really does deserve to know that you appreciated what they wrote.

 

If there was the potential to "dislike" a post which could lead to hurt feelings, or  if the "likes" had the ability to raise a post to a "higher" status (highlighting it or floating towards the top or giving it front page status), I would completely understand why people would have a hard time with this and would rally against it (heck, I'd be on the same side and would be rallying against it, too!!!!). But having (what I believe to be) a harmless way to simply let another user know that you liked what they wrote, I just don't think should be so controversial... 

...all that said, I'm still hear to listen and I will do whatever I can to make everyone happy (which I know will be DAMN NEAR impossible)!! The hardest thing about any community (and VGChartz, in particular) is the acceptance of any change! I've been here for over 10yrs, and each time Brett or I would make even the smallest of changes, there would be immediate blow-back - and so all I ask for is a little patience.  :)

 

I never said anything about the system being tied to VG$ or GamerPoints, I just said that it's yet another "Point System" for users to take advantage of and change their posting habits to accrue more of it. I just see it being a bad thing for the forum, even if its just a small change.

Seeing as you didnt like the first fast and furious. I dont take your view as gospel



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions