New Feature -- Gratitude

[kirkmc]

Robert,

Are you just pissed off because people don't give you enough gratitudes? With all due respect, if you weren't such a blowhard, maybe people would appreciate what you say a bit more. But you're approach seems to be "why say ten words when 100 will do." And whenever anyone disagrees, you dissect their posts, responding in great detail to each point they make, turning some threads into huge Robertiades. I can understand why a lot of people ignore your posts.

Nothing personal... But 35,000 posts on Usenet? Get a life, and find some real problems to worry about.

[oren]

Congratulations, Robert, on your most successful trolling to date.

How can you really care about a meaningless system on a forum that is there simply for fun. Rather than blaming everyone for not appreciating your posts, you should pay more attention to the comments about why people are ignoring your posts. It's not difficult to figure out.

The gratitude system is fun, and I say keep it. If it's easy to let people like Robert hide it, go for it. It seems easy enough to just not read the numbers on the side.

[deja]

Honestly, Robert, you need to cut your losses here. This is reflecting badly on you... again. The only redeeming value in any of this is your suggestion that displaying the gratitude system should optional for users. Jordus, however, informs us that making it optional is impossible at the moment.

This post took approximately 1 minute to write. I did not, however, calculate the thinking effort involved. My apologies for the inconvenience - like or dislike accordingly.

[Jordus]

I received a response from the programmer. He informed me that making it user optional is not/will not be available in any current or future release of this mod.

[Bartleby]

Perhaps Robert's suggestion of eliminating "likes" entirely goes too far, but there does seem to be far too much liking and gratitude going on around here, and it needs to be stopped.

I suggest rationing liking and gratitude. Only in this way can we fight against the excesses of the past. This approach would have the additional benefit of fighting global warming and helping to establish L19x19 as a green site.

Perhaps there is an economist among us who can do a utility analysis and determine the optimal number of likes per user per unit time. This might go far in fighting the twin evils of "gratitude inflation" and "like proliferation" which appear to be threatening the very heart of the "like" system.

[kirkmc]

Perhaps Robert's suggestion of eliminating "likes" entirely goes too far, but there does seem to be far too much liking and gratitude going on around here, and it needs to be stopped.

I suggest rationing liking and gratitude. Only in this way can we fight against the excesses of the past. This approach would have the additional benefit of fighting global warming and helping to establish L19x19 as a green site.

What does it matter? If you don't like it, just ignore it.

[robinz]

kirk - I think Bartleby was being tongue-in-cheek (or at least, I hope so)

[daal]

Likes are a social component of the forum, and may or may not have to to with go-related value. Perhaps a function to star particularly valuable factual content would be something Robert (and others) might like.

[deja]

Perhaps Robert's suggestion of eliminating "likes" entirely goes too far, but there does seem to be far too much liking and gratitude going on around here, and it needs to be stopped.

I suggest rationing liking and gratitude. Only in this way can we fight against the excesses of the past. This approach would have the additional benefit of fighting global warming and helping to establish L19x19 as a green site.

What does it matter? If you don't like it, just ignore it.

Yes, but what about the puppies? Won't somebody please think of the puppies!

[RobertJasiek]

kirkmc, oren, 1) I make a suggestion, 2) some ask for evidence, 3) the best evidence I have is based on my own experience so I state that, 4) you try to turn discussion into a slang and troll-topic meta-discussion about my person.

The pattern "use personal attack when not having further arguments" is too familiar to fall into the trap.

[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.