Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Thanks system and politics/group think

Options
  • 31-12-2010 9:12pm
    #1
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭


    Do you think the thanks system encourages group think among certain users whereby debates turn into popularity contests and groups of users bolster each other up as a form of social status climbing? I guess you get power cliques in any social fora but does the thanks system amplify this in any way?
    Post edited by Shield on


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Moved from Humanities to Feedback.


  • Options
    #3
    Tallon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,565 ✭✭✭✭Tallon


    Thats exactly what it does, great, ain't it? :pac:


  • Options
    #4
    Agent Smith
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 21,504 Mod ✭✭✭✭Agent Smith


    *post for thanks whoring*


  • Options
    #5
    Azure_sky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,131 ✭✭✭Azure_sky


    Personally I hate the thanks system. It just encourages cliques and discourages independent thought. Thanks does not equal logic.
    You gotta' love sheeple.:rolleyes: OP, I was just about to give you a thanks for starting this thread...damn.


  • Options
    #6
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    I think you are overthinking it to a massive extent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,206 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    Do you think the thanks system encourages group think among certain users whereby debates turn into popularity contests and groups of users bolster each other up as a form of social status climbing? I guess you get power cliques in any social fora but does the thanks system amplify this in any way?
    If the forum was populated by a hundred John McCains*...

    but no. People aren't inclined to pander or contort their world view just for some Thanks/votes. Unlike real politicians who will, in fact, tell you anything that they think you want to hear - even if it contradicts what they said hours or minutes prior. People in the forums just dont have the same motivation.

    *Just my favorite example. I can't help it, it's just genius.


  • Options
    #8
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    Overheal wrote: »
    If the forum was populated by a hundred John McCains*...

    but no. People aren't inclined to pander or contort their world view just for some Thanks/votes. Unlike real politicians who will, in fact, tell you anything that they think you want to hear - even if it contradicts what they said hours or minutes prior. People in the forums just dont have the same motivation.

    *Just my favorite example. I can't help it, it's just genius.

    Some of the posts I've read would suggest otherwise, some seem to scream for approval, esp on politics or AH, whereby people will try to be funny, sometimes resulting in no thanks, if they're especially bad posts, or populist with regards to say crime, fianna fail, etc without really adding anything new to an exploration of the topic. In that way its exactly like watching politicians quack on Vincent Browne.

    I also think this is the wrong forum for this discussion. This isn't really an issue I have with the website, most people seem to be happy with the system, it doesn't matter to me, I'm more concerned with how the system reflects on human behaviour.


  • Options
    #9
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    Some of the posts I've read would suggest otherwise, some seem to scream for approval, esp on politics or AH, whereby people will try to be funny, sometimes resulting in no thanks, if they're especially bad posts, or populist with regards to say crime, fianna fail, etc without really adding anything new to an exploration of the topic. In that way its exactly like watching politicians quack on Vincent Browne.

    My impression, however, is that such posts existed before the thanks system as well....and before the karma system which we had for a while...and, and and....

    There's never been a shortage of people willing to "add" to a discussion who aren't actually adding anything at all.


  • Options
    #10
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    bonkey wrote: »
    My impression, however, is that such posts existed before the thanks system as well....and before the karma system which we had for a while...and, and and....

    There's never been a shortage of people willing to "add" to a discussion who aren't actually adding anything at all.

    I agree, I'm just wondering whether the thanks system encourages it even moreso. For example say you have poster x who argues for a certain position. Poster y is well to do, well regarded but can be considered wrong or ill informed in many of their suppositions. Poster y argues against poster x and gets thanks from posters p, q and r. Poster p will then support poster y and will receive thanks from posters y, r and q. Poster r will support posters y and p and will receive thanks from posters q, y, and p. And so on and so forth until poster x is shouted down through the power of the group. By giving thanks to each other they attempt to give their position the appearance of absolute legitimacy, even infallibility, where it may have none, others will be dissuaded from taking on the power of the group by articulating an alternative contrary point of view and for that reason I think the thanks system can be abused by closing down avenues of meaningful debate. I'm not saying this doesn't happen without the thanks system but I believe it can certainly aid it.


  • Options
    #11
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,206 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Maybe, but personally I have never been disuadded from offering and oppossing view because of thanks-whoring. It would be really hard to verify either way. If anything it only disuaddes me from parroting what others might already be saying.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,505 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    I agree, I'm just wondering whether the thanks system encourages it even moreso. For example say you have poster x who argues for a certain position. Poster y is well to do, well regarded but can be considered wrong or ill informed in many of their suppositions. Poster y argues against poster x and gets thanks from posters p, q and r. Poster p will then support poster y and will receive thanks from posters y, r and q. Poster r will support posters y and p and will receive thanks from posters q, y, and p. And so on and so forth until poster x is shouted down through the power of the group. By giving thanks to each other they attempt to give their position the appearance of absolute legitimacy, even infallibility, where it may have none, others will be dissuaded from taking on the power of the group by articulating an alternative contrary point of view and for that reason I think the thanks system can be abused by closing down avenues of meaningful debate. I'm not saying this doesn't happen without the thanks system but I believe it can certainly aid it.

    The benefit of the thanks system is that if there is a post that say 20 people agree with, they can simply thank it rather than adding 20 "+1" posts which can really clog up a thread.

    I think you're basing your views on perhaps a skewed audience - I often thank posters I don't normally agree with on occasions when I do agree with them.

    It can be a bit pointless from time to time where there is a debate that is just going nowhere and two or three people on both sides just post and thank each other's posts, but I don't think it is the thanks function that causes such standoffs.

    Also, when you say politics in the thread title, do you mean the politics forum? I don't think it's fair to say that people are forming cliques or thanking each other out of some form of social status when they genuinely hold the same beliefs or are genuinely grateful for a well thought out or incisive comment.


  • Options
    #13
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    I like the thanks system. Far better than having the next 20 posts requoting the entire text of a post with a "hear hear" "+1" "Well said" "I agree" or "Me too" tacked on at the end. I find "thanks whoring" a pretty ludicrous concept since nobody has any way of knowing in advance how many people are going to thank their post.

    This post might get no thanks or it might get hundreds of thanks. It might even get people registering just to thank it (hardly) but I have no advance knowledge of this. Nor do I particularly care or at least I dont care as much as you do.
    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    Do you think the thanks system encourages group think among certain users whereby debates turn into popularity contests and groups of users bolster each other up as a form of social status climbing? I guess you get power cliques in any social fora but does the thanks system amplify this in any way?

    No !


  • Options
    #14
    stovelid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    Some of the posts I've read would suggest otherwise, some seem to scream for approval, esp on politics or AH, whereby people will try to be funny, sometimes resulting in no thanks, if they're especially bad posts, or populist with regards to say crime, fianna fail, etc without really adding anything new to an exploration of the topic.

    As said most of these things have pre-dated the thanks system - and will no doubt outlive the thanks system.

    I think there are some threads where maybe acolytes do back each other up with thanks but maybe they just agree with what's being said. It's very hard to verify and probably just more easy to ignore.

    It isn't really nice when a 'combatant' thanks a mod for punishing another 'combatant' who has overstepped the line in an exchange or argument - unless it's the punishment of an obvious troll or something. It seems a little bad-spirited.


  • Options
    #15
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    With regards to the thanks system being a means of driving people away from typing "hear hear", "+1" and so on why not just introduce a minimum word limit?


  • Options
    #16
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,206 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    With regards to the thanks system being a means of driving people away from typing "hear hear", "+1" and so on why not just introduce a minimum word limit?
    futile.

    /10 char


  • Options
    #17
    Rockery Woman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 593 ✭✭✭Rockery Woman


    I thank posts I agree with and ones that make me laugh. I havent made "friends" and Im a lone wolf on Boards!

    I always thought "Thanks Whore" was something people said after paying for sex:pac:


  • Options
    #18
    stovelid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    With regards to the thanks system being a means of driving people away from typing "hear hear", "+1" and so on why not just introduce a minimum word limit?

    Because highly succinct responses can be funny or meaningful in the right context. They're not all necessarily :rolleyes: or +1.


  • Options
    #19
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    stovelid wrote: »
    Because highly succinct responses can be funny or meaningful in the right context. They're not all necessarily :rolleyes: or +1.

    yes in somewhere like AH, but in politics or philosophy such responses are just glib or doctrinal.


  • Options
    #20
    stovelid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    yes in somewhere like AH, but in politics or philosophy such responses are just glib or doctrinal.

    Thanks is a site-wide function?


  • Options
    #21
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    yes in somewhere like AH, but in politics or philosophy such responses are just glib or doctrinal.

    I don't think much about the thanking of posts. Some of my posts get thanked, and I usually take it as an indication that somebody agrees with me or approves in some way of what I have said. I thank posts for similar reasons.

    There is a phenomenon that amuses me in the politics forums: sometimes a group of two or three people get together on a thread, post a good deal, and they thank one another's posts, pretty well 100%. If you argue a point with any one of them, they all take you on: it's like having several small dogs nipping at your ankles.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    stovelid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    P. Breathnach wrote: »

    There is a phenomenon that amuses me in the politics forums: sometimes a group of two or three people get together on a thread, post a good deal, and they thank one another's posts, pretty well 100%. If you argue a point with any one of them, they all take you on: it's like having several small dogs nipping at your ankles.

    It's better known as the Cycling Enthusiasts Strike Force Phenomenon.

    Post something vaguely critical of cyclists anywhere on boards and wait about an hour to see what I mean. :pac:


  • Options
    #23
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I don't think much about the thanking of posts. Some of my posts get thanked, and I usually take it as an indication that somebody agrees with me or approves in some way of what I have said. I thank posts for similar reasons.

    There is a phenomenon that amuses me in the politics forums: sometimes a group of two or three people get together on a thread, post a good deal, and they thank one another's posts, pretty well 100%. If you argue a point with any one of them, they all take you on: it's like having several small dogs nipping at your ankles.

    This is exactly what I'm referring to. You'll get certain bridgades across the forum that will essentially hijack threads and prevent further discussion to the effect that their way is the right and only way. It would happen anyway but the thanks system aids it by creating the illusion of popular validation.


  • Options
    #24
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    This is exactly what I'm referring to. You'll get certain bridgades across the forum that will essentially hijack threads and prevent further discussion to the effect that their way is the right and only way. It would happen anyway but the thanks system aids it by creating the illusion of popular validation.

    I don't think it creates such an illusion: if Poster X thanks everything that Poster Y says, and Poster Y returns the compliment, all it does is make it clear that they are effectively acting in concert. I think of such combinations as being a two-headed monster. I meet three-headed monsters also, and the occasional four-headed one.

    They don't scare me. Think of them as being like this:
    two_headed_monster.jpg


  • Options
    #25
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    stovelid wrote: »
    It's better known as the Cycling Enthusiasts Strike Force Phenomenon.

    Post something vaguely critical of cyclists anywhere on boards and wait about an hour to see what I mean. :pac:

    Truth: I drove home about an hour ago, along unlit country roads, and met two cyclists out in the dark with no more lighting than the reflectors on their pedals. I won't settle for vaguely critical: that is disgraceful.


  • Options
    #26
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    I just thank peoples posts because I agree with what they are saying(or they make me laugh!), I imagine most people are the same. Although I have to admit on the politics forum it tends to be the same people again and again.


  • Options
    #27
    RoundyMooney
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭RoundyMooney


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    Do you think the thanks system encourages group think among certain users whereby debates turn into popularity contests and groups of users bolster each other up as a form of social status climbing? I guess you get power cliques in any social fora but does the thanks system amplify this in any way?

    Wow, you're really drilling down on this one...

    Personally, I don't give two hoots about thanks, and I suspect neither does 99% of the b.ie populace.

    Those that treat it as anything more than an indication for post support, gazing into their thanks filled navels, probably need to go outside or something.


  • Options
    #28
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,505 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    With regards to the thanks system being a means of driving people away from typing "hear hear", "+1" and so on why not just introduce a minimum word limit?
    stovelid wrote: »
    Because highly succinct responses can be funny or meaningful in the right context. They're not all necessarily :rolleyes: or +1.

    +1!

    And also because people want a simple way of recognising that another poster has made a good post or given the correct answer.

    If there was a minimum word requirement of say 5 words, people would just start using:

    "+1 +1 +1 +1 +1"
    "+1 purple monkey dishwasher fart"
    "I agree with your post"

    or the like to make up their 5 words


  • Options
    #29
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #30
    thetonynator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭thetonynator


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    This is exactly what I'm referring to. You'll get certain bridgades across the forum that will essentially hijack threads and prevent further discussion to the effect that their way is the right and only way. It would happen anyway but the thanks system aids it by creating the illusion of popular validation.


    It happens the whole time in AH with the pro-cannabis anti-church pro-gay-panda-abortion-heroin-sex brigade as well . . .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    Do you think the thanks system encourages group think among certain users whereby debates turn into popularity contests and groups of users bolster each other up as a form of social status climbing? I guess you get power cliques in any social fora but does the thanks system amplify this in any way?



    IMO the Thanks system doesn't matter hugely except as (a) a means of acknowledging your appreciation for a member/post, and (b) keeping track of which members are in a clique. By their thanks shall ye know them.

    While Thanks are a useful quantitative indicator, they change nothing materially in a thread.

    On the other hand, when it comes to group think and power cliques, IMO what matters much more is the behaviour of Mods. If Mods are too close to any group in a forum (and Thanks behaviour may be an indicator of this) then popularity may matter a lot more. This is because Mods have the power to fundamentally change not only the course of a thread -- eg infractions, bans, locks -- but also the 'ethos' of a whole forum.

    The political economy of Moderatorship may be the subject of another b.ie thread...:)


Advertisement