By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
potato_hamster on 25 April 2018
Edit Thread
TalonMan said:

Hmmm...    ...lots going on here between @potato_hamster and @JEMC and I honestly haven't been following this exact argument as closely as I would have liked...   ...and to go back now and re-read all of the posts you guys have written at this point, seems like too much work for me. :P

I'm going to take a wild stab here, and guess that JEMC is more inline with the thinking and implementation of this from the start. The SOLE PURPOSE of adding this, was to have a simple way to say "Agreed!" - without having to waste time (and forum space), just to quote a user and submit that. That was the entire point. It's also the same reason there is no "dislike" button. Think about how this forum has run to date:

 - Users can always respond "Agreed!" to a thread at anytime - no additional verbiage needs to be added to that statement, because you're simply stating the fact that you agree with what the author said, and you're letting everybody else know you agree, as well!
 - Users could NEVER just type "Disagree!!" and not fill in the appropriate "Why" part of that statement. They would be laughed out of the forums or, more likely, reported to mods for spamming.

Agreeing with a poster requires no reasoning for why you agree with that person - you agree with them, case closed. If you DISagree with a poster though, you damn well better have (or at least, attempt to have) solid reasoning to backup your statement.

 

And as write this post, I start to see why I should have always had the names of the "likes" public knowledge - because if the original (and entire) intent of this functionality, is to replace the "Agreed!" or "+1" or "Well said!" type posts (which obviously have a username tied to them), then "liking" a post should have the same exact effect by showing who is doing the "liking". By hiding the names, this is definitely subject to abuse - consider it akin to typing "Agreed!" with the username and avatar blocked out.

I did say when I started this thread, that if the decision is to open up the names to the public, I would wipe out the table and start fresh (with users having the advanced warning that others will KNOW which posts they "like") - which is exactly how stating "Agreed!" in a post, works today. So really, if the goal was to allow for a way to replace the "Agreed!" posts, why wouldn't we want to display the names???

 

And for the record, I will state this all one more time so it's perfect clear for everyone (even though I've said it dozens of times already):
 - There will not be a "dislike" button added - please do not ask for it, it's just not happening.
 - The "likes" will never influence forum posts (the way they do in article comments) - posts will remain in chronological order, the way they always have been.

 

counter point:

like != agree.