By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Website Topics - "Likes" Enhancement

 

Should "Likes" display the list of users?

Yes! 51 63.75%
 
No! 29 36.25%
 
Total:80
JEMC on 25 April 2018
potato_hamster said:
JEMC said:

If you're that affraid of what others will think, you can still like the post and then quote it and explain that, while you don't agree with his/her opinions, at least you understand why he/she thinks that way... and then share your own ideas, thus leading to more and better discussions.

As for people misbehaving and using the likes to attack someone. First you (or well, "we" as a whole) should be more proactive and report those wrong doers so mods can do their job. Sometimes mods don't do anything because they arrive late as no one has warned them about what was happening before. Give them the benefit of doubt there's always time to complain later.

I'm not at all afraid about what others would think, like not even a little bit. I do, however, expect it to affect the way conversations are had in the future on this site in a negative way. Like systems automatically add a degree of popularity or implied "correctness" to conversations.

As for reporting, I've also had enough experience with the reporting system to have a more cynical opinion about it than you appear to have. That's all I'm willing to say about that.

The problem with how other sites handle the like/dislike system is that posts are displayed regarding the number of likes/dislikes they have, which can led to a fight to have the most popular post and be featured fist. It's already stated that this would not be the case here, and that postd will still be displayed in chonological order.

Seriously, I've been (as a lurker, but still) on many forums with a like or thanks or reputation system where it was far from a problem. It's more a problem of how it's implemented, and the guys here seem to be doing the right steps in that regard, and how the userbase uses it.

Besides, a couple users have already posted ways to reduce even more the possibility of abuse by making it only visible to the author of the post or by simply giving us the option to see or hide the names of those that have liked the posts.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Around the Network
potato_hamster on 25 April 2018
Aeolus451 said:
potato_hamster said:

But as I've already told you, Anonymity also allows for the highest degree of dishonesty. That is also self evident. They can pretend to have any opinion, thoughts, feelings, say whatever they want, act in whatever way they want, and face literally no consequences for it. It can be completely dishonest to express an opinion you actually don't have to hurt someone else, and it also means that mobs can form and actions can be made more extreme because of anonymity. Look at 4Chan. Look at trolling in general. Look at how many anonymous threats internet users get. This happens because these users are anonymous and because there will be no consequences for their actions. Sure anonymity allows for absolute honesty, but it also allows for absolute toxicity. It's very much a double edged sword.

Just take this site here. Imagine every user had to use their real name on their user accounts. Just imagine how many less moderations would be made in the run of a day But since we do use user names, you're already anonymous, therefore whether you know the usernames of those who like posts is completely irrelevant. It's not like a user liking a post automatically means that they agree with the opinions expressed within that post anyways, so why does it matter to you if the usernames are displayed with the likes?

Someone being mean on the net is not dishonest. Alot of the behaviour you're describing isn't dishonest either. The intention behind trolling isn't dishonest but how someone goes about it can be honest or dishonest. Sure, anonymity brings out some of worst sides of people but it allows for the greatest range of topics to be discussed including the taboo. It's a completely worthwhile double-edged sword to have especially with all the activists out there trying to go after people's jobs or ruin others' lives over shit posts. 

So people can like whatever they want on this forum without any kind of repercussion. Why do you want to know who likes something? It's just an anonymous like system. It's not we're talking about allowing people to be shitty to others on here and getting away with it.

So people saying things they do not believe to hurt someone, or performing hurtful actions they would never perform just to hurt someone isn't dishonest? It sounds to me that you need to go back and look up what the word "dishonesty" means.

I personally don't care about the like system in any way, but acting like adding an extra layer of anonymity to an already totally anonymous message board is completely necessary to ensure more honesty is just patently ridiculous.



potato_hamster on 25 April 2018
JEMC said:
potato_hamster said:

I'm not at all afraid about what others would think, like not even a little bit. I do, however, expect it to affect the way conversations are had in the future on this site in a negative way. Like systems automatically add a degree of popularity or implied "correctness" to conversations.

As for reporting, I've also had enough experience with the reporting system to have a more cynical opinion about it than you appear to have. That's all I'm willing to say about that.

The problem with how other sites handle the like/dislike system is that posts are displayed regarding the number of likes/dislikes they have, which can led to a fight to have the most popular post and be featured fist. It's already stated that this would not be the case here, and that postd will still be displayed in chonological order.

Seriously, I've been (as a lurker, but still) on many forums with a like or thanks or reputation system where it was far from a problem. It's more a problem of how it's implemented, and the guys here seem to be doing the right steps in that regard, and how the userbase uses it.

Besides, a couple users have already posted ways to reduce even more the possibility of abuse by making it only visible to the author of the post or by simply giving us the option to see or hide the names of those that have liked the posts.

Why not just make the like total of likes a post has only visible to the author if you really want to take the teeth out of any like system?



CrazyGamer2017 on 25 April 2018
fatslob-:O said:

@Bold Massive difference, it's not just about me being targeted. He'll probably put his cross hair on those WHO LIKED MY POST ... 

You really believe some people on this forum is going to go ballistic at the people who likes a comment? But they will not go ballistic if the person who likes the comment makes a comment instead of liking a comment?

In other words someone writes "I hate Republicans, they suck". If I put a "like" on that comment I'll be hunted down and I'm dead? but if I DO NOT like that comment but simply reply "I agree, Republicans are the worst and I hate them too". Then I won't be hunted down and targeted? Why would someone want to target me if I LIKE a comment he takes offense at but at the same time he won't target me if I WRITE a comment  he takes offense at?  That absolutely makes no sense to me.

In the meantime I noticed your comment I'm replying to right now has one "Like". So MODS I need to know who liked Fatslob's comment cause I'm supposed to hunt that person down, since I disagree with Fatslob. I'm not hunting Fatslob down cause he WROTE his opinion, I'm just going to hunt down whoever liked his opinion, cause I'm fine with people WRITING their opinion in the forum but "LIKING" an opinion? Well that's where I draw the line and I say hunting season is on!



CrazyGamer2017 on 25 April 2018
JEMC said:

As for people misbehaving and using the likes to attack someone. First you (or well, "we" as a whole) should be more proactive and report those wrong doers so mods can do their job. Sometimes mods don't do anything because they arrive late as no one has warned them about what was happening before. Give them the benefit of doubt there's always time to complain later.

If I may venture an opinion I think moderating a like is going too far. If a post is considered worthy of moderation then fine cause when you post a comment you write in clear words a message which can then be subject to moderation but moderating a simple "like" seems to be over the top. feels more like a politically correct thing to do. As others have said you can like a comment for different reasons and simply liking someone else's comment is in my opinion too vague to deserve moderation.

What would be next then? Moderating everybody that does not clearly disagree with a post that gets moderated? Cause not disagreeing implies agreeing?



Around the Network
JEMC on 25 April 2018
potato_hamster said:
JEMC said:

The problem with how other sites handle the like/dislike system is that posts are displayed regarding the number of likes/dislikes they have, which can led to a fight to have the most popular post and be featured fist. It's already stated that this would not be the case here, and that postd will still be displayed in chonological order.

Seriously, I've been (as a lurker, but still) on many forums with a like or thanks or reputation system where it was far from a problem. It's more a problem of how it's implemented, and the guys here seem to be doing the right steps in that regard, and how the userbase uses it.

Besides, a couple users have already posted ways to reduce even more the possibility of abuse by making it only visible to the author of the post or by simply giving us the option to see or hide the names of those that have liked the posts.

Why not just make the like total of likes a post has only visible to the author if you really want to take the teeth out of any like system?

And thus making it pointless to a point where there is no reason to keep it like you want? Sorry, but that's not going to happen.

CrazyGamer2017 said:
JEMC said:

As for people misbehaving and using the likes to attack someone. First you (or well, "we" as a whole) should be more proactive and report those wrong doers so mods can do their job. Sometimes mods don't do anything because they arrive late as no one has warned them about what was happening before. Give them the benefit of doubt there's always time to complain later.

If I may venture an opinion I think moderating a like is going too far. If a post is considered worthy of moderation then fine cause when you post a comment you write in clear words a message which can then be subject to moderation but moderating a simple "like" seems to be over the top. feels more like a politically correct thing to do. As others have said you can like a comment for different reasons and simply liking someone else's comment is in my opinion too vague to deserve moderation.

What would be next then? Moderating everybody that does not clearly disagree with a post that gets moderated? Cause not disagreeing implies agreeing?

Maybe I haven't expressed myself as I should, but I wasn't talking about moderating people for liking (or not) a post, I was talking about moderating them for harassing someone either in that thread, in others or through messages or the wall, because he/she liked a post they didn't or because he/she didn't like a post they did.

No one has to be banned for thinking differently, but they should if they start attacking those that don't think like they do.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

potato_hamster on 25 April 2018
JEMC said:
potato_hamster said:

Why not just make the like total of likes a post has only visible to the author if you really want to take the teeth out of any like system?

And thus making it pointless to a point where there is no reason to keep it like you want? Sorry, but that's not going to happen.

Woah, hey hold up now. I keep being told the like system is completely innocuous. I keep being told that it in no way indicates the correctness or popularity of a post. I keep being told it will not affect how conversations are had on this site. How can all of that be true, but yet the removal of the public display of the number of likes would make the system "pointless"?

Tell me this, if removing the public display of the number of likes makes the like system "pointless", what is the point in displaying the number of likes?



JEMC on 25 April 2018
potato_hamster said:
JEMC said:

And thus making it pointless to a point where there is no reason to keep it like you want? Sorry, but that's not going to happen.

Woah, hey hold up now. I keep being told the like system is completely innocuous. I keep being told that it in no way indicates the correctness or popularity of a post. I keep being told it will not affect how conversations are had on this site. How can all of that be true, but yet the removal of the public display of the number of likes would make the system "pointless"?

Tell me this, if removing the public display of the number of likes makes the like system "pointless", what is the point in displaying the number of likes?

It makes it pointless because it removes any meaning to it. What would be the point of introducing a like system only to make it invisible?



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

potato_hamster on 25 April 2018
JEMC said:
potato_hamster said:

Woah, hey hold up now. I keep being told the like system is completely innocuous. I keep being told that it in no way indicates the correctness or popularity of a post. I keep being told it will not affect how conversations are had on this site. How can all of that be true, but yet the removal of the public display of the number of likes would make the system "pointless"?

Tell me this, if removing the public display of the number of likes makes the like system "pointless", what is the point in displaying the number of likes?

It makes it pointless because it removes any meaning to it. What would be the point of introducing a like system only to make it invisible?

What meaning is it supposed to have?



JEMC on 25 April 2018
potato_hamster said:
JEMC said:

It makes it pointless because it removes any meaning to it. What would be the point of introducing a like system only to make it invisible?

What meaning is it supposed to have?

You should ask Talon, not me. But why are you arguing against it if you don't know what meaning it is supposed to have?



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.