Originally Posted by
rwoman
As a TB member, I've linked this thread in my signature; perhaps doing so will give this discussion some more visibility (I hope!).
Agree a poll is a good start. It seems the perception on how may favor or are against this varies.
I think a plan is important - be it a test thread, poll, etc.
I think it seems some want the perception it's moving forward...
I think it's important to consider the negatives; as others have stated, MP definitely shows many "like" just for the sake of doing so. Of course, snark bleeds out regardless in many instances.
Agree with all of the above.
Originally Posted by
camachinist
I don't normally get into this part of Flyertalk but punched the 'new posts' button, saw this thread and thought I'd share my experiences as a moderator of another forum (different content but on vBulletin) that has used the 'like' button for a couple years.
1. I haven't seen it cut down dramatically, or even a little, on '^^^^^ this!' type responses under full quotes of another post.
2. Our system shows the members who liked a post in a list at the bottom of the post and I've noted this to have become a method where often cliques exert political pressure on postings or threads, where one member of the clique posts up a missile at a fellow member and the others chime in with likes. A system which only shows number of likes and doesn't identify members visibly to other members could mitigate the politics of that somewhat, but not completely.
3. The use of the ignore list, in our software iteration and settings by the site owner, disallows a member from liking the post of another member they have on ignore but allows the ignored member to like their post. This arrangement has also been used to harass members, especially those who have like notifications turned on in their profile.
4. The subject matter is quite different than that of Flyertalk, and perhaps more potentially contentious or inflammatory but, if I had a button to take the like system off our forum today, I'd do it right now. I don't own the site so that won't happen.
Good luck in your choices.
1. Agree. Anyone who thinks it will cut down on those is being totally naive.
2. And that could be a problem here as well, not to mention it takes up real estate when reading threads. I personally could care less about likes - the content of the post is what's important to me, not whether someone liked it or not - but I also don't want to have to read after each post how many likes it got & who did them, even if truncated. This is especially true when I'm reading on a mobile device. It's also one of the reasons that I don't frequent MP. Between the avatars & the likes it's just a big mess & makes it harder to read the actual post.
3. So, inadvertently a way to game the system. You do bring up an interesting point though, and one I'd like nsx or someone to ask IB. If by chance this moved ahead, is there the ability to disable seeing Like, as there is with turning off signatures??
4. Thanks for the input on you wish you could make Like go away on your other forum.
Thank you so much for your informative post, camachinist!
Your experience on abuse of the visible identities of voters is especially helpful. I never would have imagined that one. Apparently even simple reader feedback can be complicated.
That's a bit of the point. You're imagining a kumbaya world where everyone uses like properly (and also thinking it's going to eradicate +1s etc).
Originally Posted by
intuition
And right there you just demostrated the potential negative skewing effects of a like system.
Gather a clique of suporters and have them like your statements. Since most members won't use the feature, a small clique can upvote selected posts to stand out. If my posts all have 50 likes and your posts have just a few, it looks like my opinion is "the right one" and discussion will die down. Even though 50 likes are less than 0,01% of the member base.
I have found most posts in this thread to be informative or otherwise interesting. Would FT benefit more from me clicking like on everything I like, or from me engaging in debate on my own credentials?
Your first 2 paragraphs are indeed the problem. To answer your question on the last, I think FT would benefit more from the latter. I pay attention to content.
But I do understand your point. We don't want upvotes to become a game rather than merely encouraging valuable posts.
It's FT. It will easily become a game.
I don't think software can prevent all possible gaming. I expect any trial to demonstrate that FlyerTalk members are a cut above and therefore will not play every game they can think of to abuse reader feedback.
FlyerTalk members are more mature than typical Internet users, so it makes sense to expect proper behavior.
What a naive viewpoint & certainly not one based on FT reality, as evidenced by past experience.
Originally Posted by
kipper
If it wasn't FT, I might agree. However, by nature, many of the members "game" the points and miles system.
Agree (and some even try to do it with titles
)
Originally Posted by
GUWonder
The previous rating system that FT put up and then pulled -- because it was "abused" even on FTer birthday posts -- brings into doubt the assertion that the FT point game players won't play games to score points for or against individuals even when there is no post content to criticize unless the point is to criticize the individual or appear to be a good or bad "gang" member.
The gaming behavior that goes on (or does not go on) in trial periods may be different than the gaming behavior that goes on later -- different in nature and quantity. And then you'll say the mods can deal with it or rules can be changed?
Agree.
Originally Posted by
camachinist
That's a really good point, presuming social weight is assigned to likes and/or like totals, and brings up a couple more relevant comments:
1. On our forum, once a response to a posting has been placed, editing of any prior posting is disallowed, except by a moderator or administrator. That's very different from FlyerTalk. Even if a post doesn't follow, an existing post can only be user-edited for about 30 minutes and then it's essentially cast in stone. Any edits by moderation appear as notated at the bottom of the post similar to FT.
2. A member's 'like totals', both received and given, are displayed in their public profile and, when clicked on, a list of the precise postings they have been liked for or liked is returned and any member can peruse those postings. Experience varies but like totals can be or become a measure of social 'popularity' and the basis for political activities.
1. Eliminating the ability to edit posts is not going to fly & I guarantee that if TB wanted a lot of input (mostly negative), all TB has to do is float that balloon. People often make edits to add additional information or fix minor things or even correct wrong information.
2. Quite frankly I would HATE and totally be against like totals in a member's profile and I think others would as well. Heck, we have FTers who vote on TB elections who don't even want a I Voted icon. Which posts I've given likes to or gotten likes from is no one's business. And I know one current TB member who is super-hyper about privacy; I'm guessing that individual wouldn't like it either.
Originally Posted by
kipper
Again, knowing that TB is loathe to close forums, I doubt this would be "undone" quickly even with widespread abuse.
Agree. TB has closed only 3 forums in 13 years (and one was just folded into a larger forum). It is not the norm for TB to implement something with the idea of shutting it down shortly thereafter. The idea, IMO, of the trial run was a bit of an endgame around the normal TB procedure because the nsx knew it getting shut down after it was created probably wouldn't happen.
That's essentially a reputation feature, which I think we should explicitly exclude from any trial. People would definitely game a system which included reputation.
Like is similar to reputation. It shouldn't be, but it is & can be gamed.
Originally Posted by
GUWonder
"Likes" are a reputation feature of a sort.
Agree.
Originally Posted by
camachinist
I hope if the TalkBoard considers the addition of the feature, they'll carefully consider the value of maintaining 'helpful' votes as anonymous, much as the voting is here in this thread. Having created a lot of polls in vBulletin, I know they can identify voters or remain anonymous.
I think (if by chance this moves forward) that the likes need to be anonymous, both to avoid gaming the system & to protect FTers who do not want their likes open to the world.
Originally Posted by
GUWonder
"Helpful" or "like", it's still a rating system.
The "anonymous" rating/reputation feature -- not so "anonymous" really -- was part of what contributed to the attacks (and pack attacks) which led up to the pulling of the first FT rating system open to all posting-enabled FTers.
Agree.
Cheers.