The data-driven proof of the failed experiment should be an increase in the number of low-effort .gif replies, which we haven’t had for a couple years now.
I assume that you have some peer reviewed research to back up this hypothesis? Or is this just another distraction to keep the people from knowing the truth!
Only when I’m taking the piss in this thread Tim ;)
EDIT: do low-effort, meme-inspired Youtube replies count as low-effort .gif replies?
What? I’ve been putting in minimal effort for over 10 years now, and then only when I can’t get away with no effort. And I probably have more gif posts to my name than just about anybody else!
Really you should edit for less sentence structure and clarity, for the authentic experience.
Is it peanut butter jelly time already?
Heyyyyy, that’s my schtick!
Except for only 9 years (oh, happy late forum birthday to me!). So I guess. . . I’m a copycat?
Wait! That’s even lower effort than the low effort guy!
Score one for Armando, baby!
And don’t forget that dive, nee Pogue, has been here 11 years. Meaning that he actually tried for that first year, you were lazy out of the gate!
Score another for the Penblade.
I beg to differ.
Argh, hoist on my own leotard.
All we really need is anecdotel data. Yea, I would like that.
I was pretty apathetic when it came to likes, or mildly against, but I’ve found one use for them; to allow the reader to indicate agreement or appreciation for a good post, days later.
I’ve always found it somewhat weird when someone (often myself) replies to an “old” post, and especially in a fast-moving thread, such as some movie and P&R threads. The like button is an elegant solution, and possibly even an optimal one, lest others (rightfully) point out that the conversation has moved on.
Why does a reader need to be able to indicate agreement or appreciation? This isn’t exactly Westminster with several hundred backbenchers who serve little purpose but to make guttural noises of support for a good statement/argument.
A) A person’s post/argument should be able to stand on its own merit, not several replies saying “hear-hear” or many likes indicating to the reader that this post is good and should have more attention paid to it.
B) If a post deserves genuine appreciation (e.g. Jason McCullough’s various modding threads), then it deserves genuine appreciation. It doesn’t have to be a post, it can be a PM. Either way, a single button click is as meaningless and empty as the various facebook solidarity campaigns where you showed your depth(dearth) of empathy and grief by clicking a button to add a flag to your profile photo.
Certain elements of QT3 have had a tendency to circlejerk reply to each other when one of the group is replying against an unpopular opinion (I can remember it as far back as the Brad Wardell lawsuit). They can be hear-hear replies, jokey-nasty replies, or what have you. Likes while less invasive, have had similar effects on many forums I’ve used (including one that added likes to ultimatebulletinboard in 2002). It’s an invitation to groupthink and bullying, particularly as more and more people have quit the forum.
As an aside, I can’t understand how Wumpus hasn’t been banned for his disgraceful posts earlier in this thread. I’ve seen many banned here for less.
I have to disagree. Being able to appreciate another person’s post with ease, and not needing to clutter up a thread is only a net good. I find PMs unnecessarily intrusive and detracts from the forum experience.
As for @wumpus, and being disrepectful, maybe this a mark of the regime shifting to a more open and inclusive forum, where the ruling class is more lenient of outside views. Less North Korea, more Vietnam.
But keep in mind, this is all still just a smoke screen meant to distract us to what really is going on! Thread titles are the true enemy.