dislike feature

Artful_Badger

Czarcasm wrote: »

Never mind, forget I asked tbh

I'm just wondering why the dislike feature is treated like a feature thats either of benefit or not with the users "right" to dislike stuff irrelevant. People dont see the benefit, I get that. I dont see it either.

Yet the thanks feature is seen as a different thing entirely and mention of limiting peoples ability to thank posts is met with such opposition with arguments of thought crime, people should be able thank what they want, who are you to tell people what they can or cannot thank etc. when its the same thing. A feature thats either of benefit or not with the users "right" to thank others posts irrelevant.

Just an observation on how people treat these things is all.

Czarcasm

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm just wondering why the dislike feature is treated like a feature thats either of benefit or not with the users "right" to dislike stuff irrelevant. People dont see the benefit, I get that. I dont see it either.

Yet the thanks feature is seen as a different thing entirely and mention of limiting peoples ability to thank posts is met with such opposition with arguments of thought crime, people should be able thank what they want, who are you to tell people what they can or cannot thank etc. when its the same thing. A feature thats either of benefit or not with the users "right" to thank others posts irrelevant.

Just an observation on how people treat these things is all.

Well if you don't like a post (or dislike it, if you like), then you can report the post, and as for disabling thanks on the post, well, the only way you can say 'no thanks' is to not thank the post!

Disabling thanks on individual posts like you're suggesting would be a logistical nightmare to implement and maintain. The idea is to create less work, not more work for volunteers.

Artful_Badger

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well if you don't like a post (or dislike it, if you like), then you can report the post, and as for disabling thanks on the post, well, the only way you can say 'no thanks' is to not thank the post!

You cant report a post because you dont like it, the report post feature is to report posts you feel need dealing with. I dont get the last bit, the issue is with people thanking posts and +1ing abuse, insults etc.

Disabling thanks on individual posts like you're suggesting would be a logistical nightmare to implement and maintain. The idea is to create less work, not more work for volunteers.

As I have already said its a relatively "small job", and one that isnt going to be implemented by volunteers. Its the tech team who make such changes and I'd be pretty sure they are all employees of boards.ie.

Czarcasm

Artful_Badger wrote: »

You cant report a post because you dont like it, the report post feature is to report posts you feel need dealing with. I dont get the last bit, the issue is with people thanking posts and +1ing abuse, insults etc.

You absolutely CAN report a post because you don't like it, in fact it's one of the basic rules of forums is that rather than engage with an abusive poster, you report their post. If you feel people are abusing the thanks function in a sinister fashion, then everyone is encouraged to PM the Moderators to escalate their complaint and let the Moderators deal with it.

I don't particularly like the thanks feature myself and would disable it completely because I often feel that it encourages people to look for validation for their opinion rather than just express their opinion and contribute to the discussion, dice fall where they may. But that's again another issue, so you can imagine how I feel about the introduction of a 'dislike' button.

As I have already said its a relatively "small job", and one that isnt going to be implemented by volunteers. Its the tech team who make such changes and I'd be pretty sure they are all employees of boards.ie.

Yeah, it's not actually a small job at all Badger. It takes development time, and that's a scarce commodity in Boards HQ, not to mention the number of consultations that would have to take place with the various stakeholders. It's a feature that has to be maintained by volunteers that are Moderators and you're adding to their workload. I can imagine that people giving up enough of their time to moderate forums wouldn't be too enthused about your idea of making more unnecessary work for them.

Renegade Mechanic

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm just wondering why the dislike feature is treated like a feature thats either of benefit or not with the users "right" to dislike stuff irrelevant. People dont see the benefit, I get that. I dont see it either.

Yet the thanks feature is seen as a different thing entirely and mention of limiting peoples ability to thank posts is met with such opposition with arguments of thought crime, people should be able thank what they want, who are you to tell people what they can or cannot thank etc. when its the same thing. A feature thats either of benefit or not with the users "right" to thank others posts irrelevant.

Just an observation on how people treat these things is all.

What you say is true, but at the end of the day I'd reckon way way waaaaaaaay more people will spitefully use the dislike option on their disliked persons post than will use the like option another person's post because the person they dislike disagrees with it, ( Jesus even writing that made me feel bitchy... ) because its easier.
Thats why I think its a bad idea but tbh, I dont care much for either system, like or dislike I saw that thread about the thanking of actionable posts and the very first thing I thought was 'really? Is it genuinely not enough to plainly see by the red or yello card beside the post that a mod has dealt with it and doled out punishment accordingly but people are actually bothered aswell by the fact that there are people thanking it? reeeealyyy' :eek:

But yeah, in short adding a dislike imo will just make it easier for people to be dicks. At least the current system requires a little more effort so keeps the phallus count at a more manageable level.

Artful_Badger

Czarcasm wrote: »

You absolutely CAN report a post because you don't like it, in fact it's one of the basic rules of forums is that rather than engage with an abusive poster, you report their post. If you feel people are abusing the thanks function in a sinister fashion, then everyone is encouraged to PM the Moderators to escalate their complaint and let the Moderators deal with it.

Reporting a post because you dont like it and reporting it because someone is being abusive or in your opinion doing something wrong are different things entirely. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying there. But even reporting it doesnt do anything but get the post edited, not always removing the offending material. The thanks will remain, and they cannot be actioned as thanks are too ambiguous. I dont want to go through this all again here as I dont want to hijack the thread.

I don't particularly like the thanks feature myself and would disable it completely because I often feel that it encourages people to look for validation for their opinion rather than just express their opinion and contribute to the discussion, dice fall where they may. But that's again another issue, so you can imagine how I feel about the introduction of a 'dislike' button.

Well in that case you dont fall into the category of having a conflicting argument. The issue I was raising was treating the thanks button as something other than a feature that people have some inherent right to use.

Yeah, it's not actually a small job at all Badger. It takes development time, and that's a scarce commodity in Boards HQ, not to mention the number of consultations that would have to take place with the various stakeholders. It's a feature that has to be maintained by volunteers that are Moderators and you're adding to their workload. I can imagine that people giving up enough of their time to moderate forums wouldn't be too enthused about your idea of making more unnecessary work for them.

I put small job into quotation marks for that very reason. I spoke to Ronan in site development about it and he said it was a relatively small change all things considered even if there's no such thing as a small change. That came from the guy who would most likely be the guy who implemented it who probably has enough on his plate as it is. Not me.

As for consultations with stakeholders I'm not sure that would happen.... Also once implemented there would be zero maintenance and zero extra workload for volunteers. If anything there would be less given carded posts would automatically lose the thanks feature and there would be no need for schmucks like me to draw attention to people thanking such posts as you recommended above.

I agree with you about limiting the work on volunteers. Thats why I dont see any reason not to implement what I suggest. It makes a non issue of an issue and removes any need whatsoever for mods to have to spend their time addressing it and according to the tech team its a relatively small change if they choose to go ahead with it.

I see upsides but no downsides on this one tbh. But thats a different issues than what this thread is concerned with. Here I am just curious as to why people see the thanks feature as more than a mere feature but that doesnt extend to a dislike feature.

Artful_Badger

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

What you say is true, but at the end of the day I'd reckon way way waaaaaaaay more people will spitefully use the dislike option on their disliked persons post than will use the like option another person's post because the person they dislike disagrees with it, ( Jesus even writing that made me feel bitchy... ) because its easier.
Thats why I think its a bad idea but tbh, I dont care much for either system, like or dislike I saw that thread about the thanking of actionable posts and the very first thing I thought was 'really? Is it genuinely not enough to plainly see by the red or yello card beside the post that a mod has dealt with it and doled out punishment accordingly but people are actually bothered aswell by the fact that there are people thanking it? reeeealyyy' :eek:

But yeah, in short adding a dislike imo will just make it easier for people to be dicks. At least the current system requires a little more effort so keeps the phallus count at a more manageable level.

I agree with everything about the dislike feature but want to address the bold bit. Its not about the post being dealt with its the abuse of the thanks feature in thanking posts that are abusive. If I called you an "ignorant piece of shít" (you're not btw ) and you reported me (because you would be offended and I'd need a swift boot up the hole) and a mod came along and posted "Badger banned". Thats me dealt with. But what about when 4/5/6/7 (or in the case of the post that led me to starting that other thread 20/30) thanked that post insulting you.

Thats no less of an issue than the issues people want to avoid from a dislike feature, in fact its ten times worse. Its not disliking for the sake of it, its liking hatred and abuse towards someone.

Czarcasm

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I see upsides but no downsides on this one tbh. But thats a different issues than what this thread is concerned with. Here I am just curious as to why people see the thanks feature as more than a mere feature but that doesnt extend to a dislike feature.

It really comes down what Ropedrink said that agreeing with a post, or thanking the post, doesn't need discussion as to why you agree with them, but if you disagree with a post, it adds to a discussion if you can articulate your reasons as to why you disagree with the post rather than just a -1 and leave it there.

Artful_Badger

Czarcasm wrote: »

It really comes down what Ropedrink said that agreeing with a post, or thanking the post, doesn't need discussion as to why you agree with them, but if you disagree with a post, it adds to a discussion if you can articulate your reasons as to why you disagree with the post rather than just a -1 and leave it there.

Ropedrink was dead on when he said "The point is to facilitate discussion". The thanks feature was implemented to do that by removing +1, this, agree etc. A dislike feature probably wouldnt facilitate discussion so there's no need for it.

But my point was about the thanks feature being seen as more than just a feature to facilitate discussion.

Renegade Mechanic

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I agree with everything about the dislike feature but want to address the bold bit. Its not about the post being dealt with its the abuse of the thanks feature in thanking posts that are abusive. If I called you an "ignorant piece of shít" (you're not btw ) and you reported me (because you would be offended and I'd need a swift boot up the hole) and a mod came along and posted "Badger banned". Thats me dealt with. But what about when 4/5/6/7 (or in the case of the post that led me to starting that other thread 20/30) thanked that post insulting you.

Thats no less of an issue than the issues people want to avoid from a dislike feature, in fact its ten times worse. Its not disliking for the sake of it, its liking hatred and abuse towards someone.

First off: You'd be dead right:D
Mainly though, I actually can see where people might have an issue with that but I myself, and I suspect or hope....pray even, quite a lot more folks, genuinely wouldn't be pushed about it. If anything I almost find it advantageous. If I find a post that is in particularly poor taste, Ill look at the thanks list to make a mental note of who to avoid

Femme_Fatale

A "dislike" button would be the equivalent of a bunch of people posting "I disagree" and nothing more (even though it may be accompanied with an explanation, but there would likely be numerous cases of people not bothering to explain why they disagree, which would lead to friction; it comes up on TheJournal.ie with people complaining about the disagree button). There's nothing especially wrong with that, but it's not conducive to discussion, the very essence of which is to explain counter-opinions.

As said, the "like" button obliterates reams of "+1" posts, which are also a waste of space, but at least elaboration is not generally required in the case of agreement.

K-9

Seriously, if a thanks function gets people borderline paranoid, I'd hate to see what a dislike function would do to them!

carzony

can i have this thread locked? seems it's been lots of hassle to staff (mods)


thanks

Femme_Fatale

Nah, no hassle for the mods - shur they have a choice to get involved or not.

Didn't see any staff getting involved - aren't their usernames Boards.ie: Name? Oh yeh Dav is staff.
Think it's still the type of thread though where regular members/mods/admins/staff can choose or not to get involved.

nesf

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Think it's still the type of thread though where regular members/mods/admins/staff can choose or not to get involved.

Yeah, it's a site policy thing so it's really staff/admin territory so anyone else can ignore it if they want to.

dr.fuzzenstein

Personally I think it would be a helpful feature.
Let's just say someone posts in a thread on North Korea and says "It's all lies and Kim Whatshisface is a glorious and brilliant leader!". (This has happened)
I can't downvote that, so now I am forced to reply to that post and say "I think you where dropped on the head as a child".
At least that's what I'd like to say, but I am not allowed by board rules to tell a dickhead that he is, well, a dickhead.
So now there's a dickhead post and a dickhead reply. Others join and before you know it, there's 20 pages of nothing but trolling and counter-trolling.
If there was a dislike button, said dickhead would post his mental diarrhoea and earn himself several hundred downvotes.
If this was reflected in a ratings system, everyone could immediately see that poster D. Head has his post downvoted severl hundred times and that he has a very bad score.
This will tell people immediately "dickhead alert!" and they will know to ignore the post and the poster.
I know my dickheads on boards, but not everyone does, so they still fall for the bait and feed the troll.
I would be all for it. Even if I make it on the dickhead list myself. It's just democracy.

Turtwig

Too often posts who adopt a contrary position are labelled as trolls. Contrary positions, the spice of discussion, would simply be down voted in oblivion.

Regarding your example. Don't reply, reply the post.

dr.fuzzenstein

Jernal wrote: »

Too often posts who adopt a contrary position are labelled as trolls. Contrary positions, the spice of discussion, would simply be down voted in oblivion.

Regarding your example. Don't reply, reply the post.

I someone makes a valid point it will elicit discussion.
A lot of people disagree simply for the sake of it and state opinions they do not believe in, they are not even interested in discussion, but in derailing a thread with an obvious baiting statement.
I know who they are most of the time and I know to ignore them.
A lot of people don't, they will reply and the whole thing will kick off.

Artful_Badger

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I someone makes a valid point it will elicit discussion.
A lot of people disagree simply for the sake of it and state opinions they do not believe in, they are not even interested in discussion, but in derailing a thread with an obvious baiting statement.
I know who they are most of the time and I know to ignore them.
A lot of people don't, they will reply and the whole thing will kick off.

It cant be avoided though. Some of the time those people have a point but it just goes against popular opinion. They are accused of being trolls and trying to derail threads etc simply because they are one vs many.

You should be able to tell by the standard of posts on a given topic if a poster is worth bothering with. And if they are not then just dont reply ad let it kick off if its gonna kick off. Its not always the one making the contrary point thats in the wrong.

Arthur Beesley

MugMugs wrote: »

Just Thank a post and then unthank it! Simples!

Yeah, great idea. I thanked your post then unthanked it. Did you spot that? Thought not.

dr.fuzzenstein

Artful_Badger wrote: »

It cant be avoided though. Some of the time those people have a point but it just goes against popular opinion. They are accused of being trolls and trying to derail threads etc simply because they are one vs many.

You should be able to tell by the standard of posts on a given topic if a poster is worth bothering with. And if they are not then just dont reply ad let it kick off if its gonna kick off. Its not always the one making the contrary point thats in the wrong.

Yes, the poster that said Kim Jong Un was a brilliant leader and NK a shining example that every other country should follow was expressing a valid opinion that really helped the debate on that thread.
Actually it completely ruined and derailed a promising thread that could have been very interesting. Some people with actual insight did not get to make much of a contribution, or what they said got completely pasted over with sh*te.
You can't ban someone for saying NK is a brilliant country and a lot of people don't have the sense to spot posts like that for what they are.
OK, it was in AH, that forum is littered with the corpses of threads with potential like a WW1 battlefield. Maybe I'm expecting too much, but I think it is a valid idea. In the end, I'll go with whatever gets decided.

dr.fuzzenstein

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Yeah, great idea. I thanked your post then unthanked it. Did you spot that? Thought not.

I think you didn't spot the tongue lodged firmly in cheek...:pac:

Frank Lee Midere

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Personally I think it would be a helpful feature.
Let's just say someone posts in a thread on North Korea and says "It's all lies and Kim Whatshisface is a glorious and brilliant leader!". (This has happened)
I can't downvote that, so now I am forced to reply to that post and say "I think you where dropped on the head as a child".
At least that's what I'd like to say, but I am not allowed by board rules to tell a dickhead that he is, well, a dickhead.
So now there's a dickhead post and a dickhead reply. Others join and before you know it, there's 20 pages of nothing but trolling and counter-trolling.
If there was a dislike button, said dickhead would post his mental diarrhoea and earn himself several hundred downvotes.
If this was reflected in a ratings system, everyone could immediately see that poster D. Head has his post downvoted severl hundred times and that he has a very bad score.
This will tell people immediately "dickhead alert!" and they will know to ignore the post and the poster.
I know my dickheads on boards, but not everyone does, so they still fall for the bait and feed the troll.
I would be all for it. Even if I make it on the dickhead list myself. It's just democracy.

That would work - for you - only as long as people agree with you. Someday you might see your "Kim is a monster" post being downvoted because far leftists had taken over a sub-forum. In short you are assuming that your choice of ideology is common and normal and that just isn't true on the Internet. The very existence of Down-voting attracts cliques and ideologues. The most ideological people are the most motivated.

Artful_Badger

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, the poster that said Kim Jong Un was a brilliant leader and NK a shining example that every other country should follow was expressing a valid opinion that really helped the debate on that thread.
Actually it completely ruined and derailed a promising thread that could have been very interesting. Some people with actual insight did not get to make much of a contribution, or what they said got completely pasted over with sh*te.
You can't ban someone for saying NK is a brilliant country and a lot of people don't have the sense to spot posts like that for what they are.
OK, it was in AH, that forum is littered with the corpses of threads with potential like a WW1 battlefield. Maybe I'm expecting too much, but I think it is a valid idea. In the end, I'll go with whatever gets decided.

That's just one example though. I've seen it many times that a poster just wants to derail and troll like that but I've also seen it many times that a poster has a valid point but just gets dismissed as a troll because its going against the grain.

For that example you can fix one problem with down voting but it immediately causes another one. I dont think the balance would work out in everyone favour if it was introduced tbh.

Zaph

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

If there was a dislike button, said dickhead would post his mental diarrhoea and earn himself several hundred downvotes.
If this was reflected in a ratings system, everyone could immediately see that poster D. Head has his post downvoted severl hundred times and that he has a very bad score.
This will tell people immediately "dickhead alert!" and they will know to ignore the post and the poster.

Basically this is karma in reverse. It's giving people a score and letting others make of it what they will. However once upon a time Boards did have a karma system where people could give each other "up-votes", for want of a better description. It turned into a free for all where people thanks-whored for sh*ts and giggles and the score each poster had was essentially meaningless. There was no way to deduce whether a poster was a good poster because they had a high score or because they played the thanks-whoring game. This would turn into exactly the same, except that people could gang up on other posters, either for the laugh or maliciously, and the score assigned to that person would become meaningless. This is why, despite repeated requests for a feature such as this, Boards will never go down that road again. The existing thanks system is as far as it goes, so if someone posts something completely moronic you just need to come up with a more inventive way of telling them that they're a dickhead without resorting to personal abuse.

dr.fuzzenstein

Zaph wrote: »

Basically this is karma in reverse. It's giving people a score and letting others make of it what they will. However once upon a time Boards did have a karma system where people could give each other "up-votes", for want of a better description. It turned into a free for all where people thanks-whored for sh*ts and giggles and the score each poster had was essentially meaningless. There was no way to deduce whether a poster was a good poster because they had a high score or because they played the thanks-whoring game. This would turn into exactly the same, except that people could gang up on other posters, either for the laugh or maliciously, and the score assigned to that person would become meaningless. This is why, despite repeated requests for a feature such as this, Boards will never go down that road again. The existing thanks system is as far as it goes, so if someone posts something completely moronic you just need to come up with a more inventive way of telling them that they're a dickhead without resorting to personal abuse.

That's never been a problem, it's just a matter of giving people enough rope.

Zaph

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That's never been a problem, it's just a matter of giving people enough rope.

That's true. Morons have a way of making it easy for you if you're prepared to wait a while.

Arthur Beesley

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I think you didn't spot the tongue lodged firmly in cheek...:pac:

I think you may be right.