New Feature -- Gratitude

[RobertJasiek]

Perhaps a function to star particularly valuable factual content would be something Robert (and others) might like.

It does not work. It would instead measure how easily factual contents is understood by beginners (of a factual topic). This I observed for Google groups (?) star ranking of a few of my rec.games.go articles. The Rules FAQ got 5 stars (maximum). Threads with mathematical propositions and their proofs about new endgame or pass-fight research got 1 star (minimum). Did the readers expect to be taught mathematical proving or application for go players already at the moment of new research discovery? If so, why did they not even ask where they did not understand the contents? The ranking of those threads merely indicated the related reader's missing own understanding of, in that case, mathematical contents.

What might work is a keyword tag system like on SL: "theory", "advanced", etc. However, why overload a discussion forum with nasty formalism? Better avoid such things entirely!

[topazg]

Robert, I don't believe this is turning into an anti-Robert personal attack. It seems to boil down to the following:

1) We have a gratitude system
2) You really don't like the way it functions
3) Most other active people do like it, or are ambivalent to it

If you were leading the hordes of people that felt that the current system was broken, abused, or causing problems, suddenly there is a genuine case to reassess the usage of a gratitude system. As you seem to be entirely on your own (at least in this particularly thread), it's unlikely that your opinion is going to have any impact. People like the system more than they dislike it, hence it is serving a useful purpose to the community, even if you personally think it is misleading and unhelpful.

Please don't stop raising your opinions, as everyone that is active on here should have their opinion heard. Please also accept that they are just your opinion (in this case, that the gratitude system is flawed), other people seem to hold different opinions (that it is fun, useful, or in some other way beneficial to the community), and that flogging a dead horse doesn't make it deader.

[RobertJasiek]

3) Most other active people do like it, or are ambivalent to it
[...] As you seem to be entirely on your own

From what I have understood, some like the current system, some want users to allow to hide Likes/WasLiked. Apart from me preferring more, your assessment does not fit.

[deja]

3) Most other active people do like it, or are ambivalent to it
[...] As you seem to be entirely on your own

From what I have understood, some like the current system, some want users to allow to hide Likes/WasLiked. Apart from me preferring more, your assessment does not fit.

Robert, here are the facts as they currently stand:

1) By all accounts thus far, the majority of L19 members like the gratitude system and wish it to remain in place (we can use this thread as a sample). If you have data to suggest otherwise please present it.

2) By all accounts thus far, there is no way (now or in the foreseeable future) to make the display of the gratitude system optional. I find that unfortunate but that's life.

Is there any resolution, given the above facts, that you believe would satisfy everyone involved and not simply your preferences?

Edit: since you are making a claim against this system, the burden of proof is on your shoulders not ours. So far, you have not made your case either factually or argumentatively. Being the last man standing after several hundred posts does not constitute a sound and convincing argument.

[RobertJasiek]

Starting from message #57 of this thread, people have expressed these views on gratitudes:

RobertJasiek:
- Drop the system.
else
- Allow a user to hide numbers.

Li Kao:
Harleqin:
- Numbers are relatively meaningless.
- Keep the list below the liked post.

deja:
- Allow a user to hide numbers.
- Keep the list below the liked post.

Chew Terr:
- Allow a viewer to hide numbers.
- Keep the list below the liked post.

SpongeBob:
- Keep the list below the liked post.

oren:
Magicwand: [If I interpret him correctly.]
- Keep the list below the liked post.
- Keep numbers.

topazg:
Dusk Eagle:
robinz:
hyperpape: [If I interpret him correctly.]
Monadology: [If I interpret him correctly.]
- Keep the list below the liked post.
- Keep numbers.
- Numbers are not a competition / not comparable.

TMark: [If I interpret him correctly.]
- Keep the list below the liked post.
- [Still unclear opinion on numbers.]

Bartleby:
illluck:
quantumf:
Dusk Eagle: [his second opinion]
topazg: [his second opinion]
- Keep the list below the liked post.
- Restrict frequency of issuing Likes.

Jordus:
- [Informs us about technical programming side.]

kirkmc:
- The thread is too long.

daal:
- [no definite opinion yet, if I interpret him correctly.]

***

Apart from those without having stated a clear factual opinion yet and not counting second opinions, opinions other than their possible Keep Numbers aspect can be summarized as follows:

16/17 - Keep the list below the liked post.
5/17 - Numbers are meaningless / Allow hiding them.
3/17 - Restrict frequency of issuing Likes.

Summary:

- The list below the liked post is useful.
- Almost 50% consider improvements useful.

***

Yet another solution that IS technically possible would be: Drop all Likes/WasLiked numbers below the user names. This solution does not appear to have a majority though.

[quantumf]

Robert, I have not expressed a direct opinion. I "liked" one of the posts, but that was because I found the sarcasm entertaining. It was not an endorsement of the opinion. The only (indirect) conclusion that can be drawn from this is that I like the like feature.

[RobertJasiek]

I see. If there is more need for correcting the summarizing statistics, please tell me!

[topazg]

I see. If there is more need for correcting the summarizing statistics, please tell me!

Nope, there is no need for the statistics at all. The opinions raised have been virtually unanimous, and relatively clear.

There is a case for making them invisible, but that doesn't appear to be an option, and of the options remaining (keep it as it is or remove the feature), it is quite clear the majority of vocal responders are happy with things as they are.

[Dusk Eagle]

Dusk Eagle (his second opinion): Restrict frequency of issuing Likes.

I don't know where you got that idea; you must have misunderstood what I said somewhere. I do not support any of the proposed changes in this debate, even if they were possible. However, I think this issue has been settled. You raised your idea, which is fine. But few people support it, so let's move on.

Edit: Posted this before I saw the thread in Off Topic.

[jts]

I think the like system is wonderful and, indeed, would like to take an extremist pro-liking position, although I can't think what that would involve right now. (Maybe on future MLK Jr. Days we can have impromptu celebrations of the most-liked members of the forum?)