Poll on the forthcoming software update: likes and reputations
PlushForums is about to update the software this site runs on, and they say the new version will make it possible to turn off the reputation system, meaning the "likes" that accrue to members.
If we did turn it off, my personal preference would be to retain likes for posts, but detach them from members--but I wouldn't be surprised if that's not an option in this release, because likes for a post just are likes for the member who posted it. If so, it's something I would ask for in the next features request e-mail I send to them, if other people here think it's a good idea.
So what do you think?
If we did turn it off, my personal preference would be to retain likes for posts, but detach them from members--but I wouldn't be surprised if that's not an option in this release, because likes for a post just are likes for the member who posted it. If so, it's something I would ask for in the next features request e-mail I send to them, if other people here think it's a good idea.
So what do you think?
Comments (65)
On the other hand, perhaps it's distracting in a bad way.
To lose the 'likes' altogether would be disadvantageous, I think.
@Bitter Crank I don't always have the time or inclination to say what I think as effectively as I can. Likewise for others. And in such cases I don't see why one shouldn't be permitted to simply like a comment instead.
But, on second thought maybe you're right that the value of registering the likings of posts does outweigh the disvalue of registering the accumulated likings of posters; I'm feeling equivocal now...
Option two would be my second choice because it seems to me that the reputation system is unproductive enough to undercut the value of likes. I've seen sites that run largely on reputation, and it affects the behavior of everyone on them—including, and sometimes especially, those who claim most that they couldn't care less. It can also be discouraging to those who are newer in a way that a simple system of likes typically is not. Anyone can get a few likes with a strong post, after all. But a reputation system tracks seniority as much as—and often more than—ability.
At the risk of writing a "me too" post, I agree wholeheartedly. There should be no overt signs that could be interpreted as hierarchical or of denoting seniority visible next to members' icons as it may bear the false suggestion that a particular post is more valuable than another for reasons above and beyond its content. This would go for post count as well as a posters' number of likes. I suppose an exception would be the icon that identifies staff as there is some practical benefit for members to know immediately who the staff are (although it's not crucial as the staff are listed in the members section too). In contrast, I see no benefit at all in reading a post to immediate knowledge that the poster has a lot of likes or that they've posted a lot. If we want to know more about a member's competence, the best way to do it is to look through their post history and that's available on their profile page.
I heard a story recently. Foucault was in an interview and made the suggestion that for one year the books in France should be published without authors, that people should read the books before being influenced by things outside the text. The point being there are always going to be elements which affect how a post is taken, outside of the post itself. We have the names on the post, we get to see how other people react to the post in their comments, we see how people react to other contributors in general. I don't think I've ever read a post before checking who wrote it, reputation always precedes content. I'm don't actually think anything you said was wrong, just thought that was an interesting aside, how can we speak about this topic and not argue about the role of an author? :)
Anyways, I'm going to put it out there, I like likes. On top of the ability to say 'I agree' without putting superfluous posts in a thread, its nice to let someone know that you liked what they wrote. And it's nice when others like what you write.
Also I completely agree that that rep is a huge problem, it creates a hierarchy and in-groups. At the moment I don't care about the cumulative likes, mostly because I'm already familiar with the posters here so checking the likes won't give me more information about how much weight to give a post. I wouldn't want a new poster to come in an feel somewhat excluded because they don't have any reps.
The uncomfortable side of likes to me is the idea of being trained like one of Skinner's rats. I've long since come to terms with the fact that my posting style [s]has likely[/s] has been influenced by likes in ways that I am not aware of. I had this idea a while ago that if you took a normal poster and started 'rewarding' them when they were a bit short with others, sprinkling in some dislikes when they were helpful, you could eventually turn them into an arsehole. Of course we are also heavily influenced by how others interact with us through their posts but it doesn't feel as overt and sinister.
So I'm undecided. First preference is definitely keep likes and remove the counter but for the second preference I lean slightly towards keeping things as they are though I see downsides with it.
Damn it, what am I doing? One more like and I'm in the top 10, I should have written something short and witty instead of this long meandering post.
Did you do that to me? Or have I just been an arsehole of my own accord?
As for seeing other reactions, maybe I think y is a good reply to x until I see someone else break it down as part of their explanation for why response z is better. This might prove enlightening while also preventing me from wasting effort on defending y. Alternatively, it might help me formulate y', which is an improved version of y that overcomes the objections motivating z. So all in all, we have an improved level of discourse.
And of course, seeing how others respond gives me an idea of the forum's norms and what sort of responses are expected. In a forum with high standards then, this again raises the level of discourse. And even in a forum without high standards, it at least helps bring the level of discourse to the appropriate level. None of these are undue or undesirable effects, so they don't seem as objectionable as a reputation system.
One possible objection here might be that certain names will inevitably gather certain reputations within the community anyway (and certainly within the minds of individual members). Thus a person with a strong reputation might receive undue deference and a person with a weak reputation might receive undue umbrage. It might also act as filter such that one occasionally reads a bad post by Famous Frank while ignoring an excellent post by Newbie Nicholas. This, I take it, is in the background of Foucault's proposal.
The first issue strikes me as more of a problem than the second. However, completely anonymous systems often end up with members treating everyone else as Newbie Nicholas rather than showing the sort of restraint they might muster for dealing with Famous Frank. So complete anonymity might actually exacerbate the problem more than using names would.
However, this strikes me as less of a problem in a community like this than it might be in the field of published work. For one, our biggest filter is more likely to be in the form of which discussions we read and participate in. I doubt many people read individual posts at random. Instead, they are reading all new posts to a discussion they have decided to follow. This is different from a situation where there might be ten books on topic A, and so you have to pick whether to read the one by Established Esther or Debut Debbie.
Quoting shmikBut how would one control for the natural tendency of the internet to do precisely the same thing without provocation? ;)
Quoting PneumenonI have no idea if that is possible, but I agree with @Baden that it's not nearly as big an issue on a forum like this where you have to go to someone's profile to see their post count.
To see a post with likes, no matter its content, subconsciously makes people think it is superior to other posts that don't have likes. I have found myself only focusing on the posts with likes and ignoring the ones without any.
I can see both sides to this. But whatever happens, as I said, will at least likely end up pleasing more people than the present system does.
Nah you were part of the control group.Quoting BadenDidn't notice :)
Hey , these issues largely come down to taste so I didn't intend to present an argument just some thoughts. This does happen and I get the feeling that it's influence is greater than that of rep. It's pretty annoying when you see people get behind a good poster whose made a bad argument. I've never been on a forum that had reps so can't compare what they are like.
Of course I don't think that we should post without names. The point was that in a forum context we can't reach the ideal of looking only at the content of the post and maybe we shouldn't be aiming for it.
In the end theirs nothing really at stake in these discussions. It gives people a chance to voice their opinions but I doubt there has been one person who changed what they wanted to vote for after reading the posts.
Quoting shmikNo problem. I agree that taste is going to be a large part of it.
Quoting shmikI'm not sure we can achieve this in any context. It's less a problem of format and more a problem of human nature. So I take your point, but I do think there are smaller and larger influences, and that we make the most progress by focusing on the larger influences—especially if they can be removed with minimal loss.
Quoting darthbarracudaI still don't think this is true. In addition to the reasons I have already presented, I think it would make longer conversations difficult to follow. We often find ourselves needing to refer back to previous points we have made (perhaps to build on something we have already said, or to clear up a misinterpretation, or some other reason). But even if this were true, I think the point you make about community is strong enough to counterbalance whatever we lose by attaching usernames to our posts.
Completely agree.
Now if I post an argument that details a position that I am passionate about, and garners likes, it's nice to see other people appreciating my ideas.
Kind of strange.
Only aspects of it are. Forums and other forms of dialogue are naturally social, but introspection and unshared thoughts are not. Both can count as doing philosophy.
If enough people who voted for option 3 (which is not possible) would prefer the all to the nothing, kick up a fuss about it here.
(Y)
Quoting jamalrob
No great loss.
(Y)
Ditto!
Meow!
GREG
Quoting Postmodern Beatnik
Sure. My statement was very ambiguous. What I was getting at is that philosophy hacks away at the foundations of our world view in a rather inconsiderate way. It has no concern for what we feel or want, and can destroy our self-image. Doing this kind of thing in the company of others can be very anti-social in that it causes discord and distress. But that's philosophy, it's hard and nasty. To ease this we should be polite and considerate. But I think having likes and other social pokings is a distraction from the business of philosophy, which has precisely no regard for such things. If we were not such social creatures likes and dislikes would be of little interest, but being what we are we tend to first pay attention to how much rep someone has got before we read what they have to say, or we skim down the page of posts to first look at the ones with the most likes or dislikes, to see what has affected people the most. Maybe that's a good thing, but it's not philosophy. I understand that forums are also about building social relationships. But that can happen anyway without likes and dislikes.