Funny, though I figure the actual comparison group would be all of us, just during a few weeks prior to finding out about the Likes. And, I suppose, us again for a few weeks after.
I will say this. I think this experiment is a tiny bit dangerous. Behavioural economics has shown that people are more upset with losses than with never-haves. So, when Tom yanks the Likes, it’s going to actually upset more people than if he’d never introduced them at all.
Some folks like being upset, and they’ll create some drama if they find the level too low for their comfort. So why disappoint them?
That is an interesting point. It’s probably why Obamacare has become more popular recently.
Plus icon is superior. That is all.
If Tom gets whacked out of his frickin’ mind, possibly on psychedelic mushrooms, and decides to stick with likes, we can generate some sort of consensus on plus, up-arrow, or heart in the default themes.
And assuming Tom doesn’t say otherwise, I’ll be duplicating some themes with likes disabled.
You guys are way over-thinking this.
And I’m giving you a “like” just because my “like” to your post is a platitude.
Not every like has to be heartfelt. Sometimes it is just to express agreement. Nothing more, nothing less. Especially given that this board wouldn’t accept a “I AGREE” as the body of a post. Even if it did, a simple “I AGREE” post doesn’t even add anything to the conversation. It is just a distraction. A like button is exactly the kind of technical solution needed for someone to just show that s/he/they agree with a post, and no more, without cluttering a conversation.
Of course, if someone starts farming “like” in the board, there is a problem. But the problem isn’t ultimately with the system that allows “likes”, but with the person doing the farming. You can argue that a generic “like” encourages this kind of behaviour, and encourages everybody to be as vacuous. But I would say the narcissistic need for “likes” is a social malaise, and it is all too easy to blame a technical implementation as the source of the social problem.
Take Facebook. Facebook wants you to “like” stuff, and want people to “like” your stuff so Facebook can keep you there longer, and keeps serving you ads. The business model of Facebook exploits “likes” and hence narcissism for its own benefits. The business model I think is the issue, not the implementation of “like”.
If you don’t think it adds to a conversation as a post, why is it suddenly worthwhile when it has even less to contribute?
Likes would make more sense to me if they were only visible to the person who authored the post. After all, if you want to tip your cap to someone, no one else besides the person you’re complimenting needs to see that.
Besides worrying, unfounded or not, about likes having a negative affect on how people post, my biggest worry is that likes will be used to gate people towards “liked” posts and away from unliked posts. We already have threads with a lot of likes highlighted in a different color on one screen. What is the purpose of that if not to push people towards the threads with more likes?
Because for some reason on a discussion forum, it’s important to be able to express affirmation to something without having anything to add to it. Similar to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZF5Id_AdXA as I said.
@Pod I said prior to that, that if someone wanted to genuinely thank someone for something, they could simply reply with such or send a PM. I’ve done it on here before to many users (Bruce Geryk, LMN8R, Triggercut and Jason McMaster off the top of my head). Bruce was so surprised by it that he mentioned it on a Tom V Bruce episode.
You don’t like people posting platitudes, and now you’re saying that it’s a good thing that they can now offer both verbal and non-verbal platitudes.
Your argument is really quite terrible wumpus.
In a dinner table conversation, you don’t have to verbally express “I agree with what you are saying”. You can just nod along. And other people see that you agree. And perhaps that’s the whole point: to express to others that you agree with something, without necessarily adding anything to it. A “like” can be used for just that in a discussion board: public demonstration of approval, without adding anything to a conversation. Of course you CAN say outright “I agree” on the dinner table, but nodding along, can be just as well. And if “like” is here to stay, then it is a option you can use IN ADDITION to other options to voice approval in the board.
Of course people can use it for platitudes. A thoughtless “like” along with a gazillion other likes just so you can be one of the cool kids. Sure. Even nodding along in a dinner table conversation sometimes is platitudinous. But the user has the ultimate responsibility on how s/he/they use the “like” button. Blame the player not the game (unless there is a clear reason the game encourages and exploits bad behaviour).
What I dislike about this approach, is seeing someone post an experience needing or hoping for support onlyy to wind up with 100 likes and two meaningful posts. It might feel good to get 100 likes or even give them, but it sure is better when someone has something to contribute.
I mean I get it. On FB you get 100 people telling you Happy Birthday that you never hear from throughout the rest of the year so maybe a candle or something would be better than that… but when I view FB I see these posts with all these likes, and now wows and frownies and burnies, but instead of everyone liking the fact someone went to a new restaurant or played a new game… sure be nice to know if they went to it or played it too. Wait, you say no, no this gives someone a chance to give me feedback to do neither, but you know what, I know damn well my younger cousins have had those experiences but they just prefer to browse posts in mass and like in semi-automatic style… because it’s easy.
It’s not as if I don’t get it though. There have been posts around here where I want to say hey I hear you, you matter, but it felt too weird to post that as the first engagement ever between us even if I have been reading their post for years and just never replying… like seems better, maybe more appropriate than hey I am thinking of you… I don’t know. That’s why I can adjust no matter what but easy buttons are taking over everything and before long you get your aunt calling you worried that you didn’t like something because, well, because you didn’t “like” it.
Except despite how many claims you try to make, Discourse doesn’t live in a bubble. I know what this does because this is not the ONLY social media I use nor is it the only message board. It’s not as if my experience is drawn in a vacuum… dick move on the comparison by the way.
For the record, I hate platitudes. I don’t give them and hate receiving them (but do not express my disapproval out of politeness, after all I could be mistaken in my interpretation, sometimes when people say a generic “you are in my prayers” they do really mean that).
The point is, “like” is not always platitude. Whether a “like” is platitude says more about the person doing the “liking” rather than the “like” button itself.
This is not the only message board in existence nor the only one I use @wumpus. You can’t possibly think that is unusual.
A “like” isn’t a nod or a hug. It’s a “like”, and don’t think that we, as a virtual society, have fully decided what that means. Having a heart icon, vs a thumbs up icon, vs a + icon all suggest different things, and I suspect that they will be used differently.
And it’s contextual. Liking a snarky joke about likes doesn’t mean the same thing as liking a post about your father in law dying, or whatever. In one case it means “lol”, in the other, it means “”. You don’t even know for sure I that the like-er and like-ee are interpreting it in the same way. The fact that one of the largest social networks has migrated to a range of different reactions supports the idea that a single “react” button is not necessarily a uniformly effective solution.
I don’t have a real point here, just to say that I don’t think that, sociologically or whatever, this is simple solved problem the way you seem to think it is. I don’t think you can just assert it’s purely additive. You’re assuming that everybody is using them in the exact same way that you do, despite vociferous evidence to the contrary.
Sure, what is your data?
Seems like such a subjective thing, not sure how you would prove it one way or the other. But I’m willing to look at what you have to present.