New Feature -- Gratitude

[Monadology]

Many users will see the numbers and, since they are stated below every user name at every message, naively believe in a great importance of values shown with such omnipresence and believe in linear comparison meaning of every two numbers: They assume that 10 Was Liked is as bad as one tenth of 100 Was Liked.

People are going to be performing such evaluations on some basis or another. You're objecting to the basic human instinct to socially order communities. If Likes are hidden, it will be by post count or whoever posts with the biggest, longest posts with biggest longest words, or whoever says the nicest things, or whoever gets away with the most bullying.

You will never get people to align their social order precisely with the objective value of contributions provided. As inaccurate as the gratitude system is, at least it represents a conglomerate opinion of what the community tends to like in its posts. I think that is more likely to align with actual value, especially in a forum with a userbase like ours (read: generally rationalist in bias, generally intelligent) than the other criteria that would inevitably take its place.

And hey, if it doesn't align broadly with posts that are actually valuable contributions then there is little hope the community is going to actually appreciate or respond to real value, right? Getting rid of the Gratitude system won't change that.

[RobertJasiek]

if you take the feature far more seriously than it was ever intended to be taken

It is hard to ignore a feature that is present all the time everywhere!

[RobertJasiek]

Monadology, the real social value possibly seen as needed in the gratitude system lies in the notes below the thanked messages - not in the per user or global statistics.

[Monadology]

Monadology, the real social value possibly seen as needed in the gratitude system lies in the notes below the thanked messages - not in the per user or global statistics.

I agree, I don't think the gratitude system makes much of a real difference. It's largely superficial. My point was mostly that it's probably not that bad a criteria for those who are going base their value judgments on something superficial rather than directly on posts in the first place, because those people aren't going to start judging objectively if the gratitude system is gone. They're just going to find a new superficial criteria.

EDIT: To generalize the point, they may well judge the value of posts by the number of responses the post gets. This is also not really an accurate basis for judgment, because many a fluff thread has lots of silly and not particularly valuable responses and many large, informative posts get few (especially if there is little to be said in response, which is sometimes the case with a large post). It's really not a problem you're going to avoid.

[TMark]

I can see a problem that is occurring with the views that Robert is expressing. From what I have read, Robert believes that the effort and composition of posts and replies should receive some acknowledgement from the readers. Unfortunately, the fact that I have considered this post all day and drafted it several times does not instantly spring out to the reader. I could have, if fact, just spent two minutes thinking it up as I went along. The fact that someone out there likes or does not like, or is even apathetic about, my views and method of expression can never reflect the time I put into it. We all like having our work praised by our peers; I want it every day and I deserve more than you! Just doesn't happen, get used to it.

Best wishes.

[topazg]

It is hurting to write factually best answers in some threads or to work very long for writing messages without getting a seemingly reasonable and fair relative amount of gratitudes. In contrast, it is easy to bear no thanks at all in No Thanks Environments, as is the default in newsgroups where that default is declared in some basic FAQs.

Gratitude statistics might be ok if gratitudes were distributed fairly - since they are not, the statistics hurt as much as they rely on unfair distribution.

To paraphrase, you put in a lot of work into some of your posts and were sad that you received less gratitude than other, seemingly frivolous posts?

Firstly, I agree with Robinz that you are taking it a bit too seriously, no-one is going out of their way to pick up "likes" that I am aware of. Also, perhaps you are unaware what people necessarily feel grateful for.

The one you linked to, for example, I didn't read. I still haven't read, I simply saw how long it was, read the subject, decided I didn't have the time and would get limited value from it, and moved on. I mean this constructively, it looks at first glance like the product of a lot of hard work, and there will be many directly affected by the decision and all that work who will be very genuinely grateful to you, I am sure of that.

However, to me it was not relevant enough to spent the time reading. If I see something that makes me actually laugh, I will like it. If I get an answer to a question I asked that answers it for me, I will like it. If someone posts a short story that I enjoy, I will like it. If someone posts a 20 page novel that is genuinely brilliant, I will most likely not read it, and therefore will not like it. That's not the same as dislike it, I just won't have read it to form an opinion.

Perhaps if gratitude is what you are after, soundbites summarising what you've done with the final outcome may get more of them? If you are after well researched, well formulated, detailed documents, then you will have to be aware that most people probably won't read them, and you may receive less gratitude. This isn't about "distributed fairly", it's about providing content that is appreciated by its audience, and the audience here is active L19 people that click the "like" button a lot - no more, no less.

You also shouldn't undermine the value of short, funny, insightful or frivolous posts. Many a witty comment has made my day even if it was off the top of that person's head and 10 words long, I am entitled to tell that person I like what they said, and they are entitled to have my gratitude displayed.

[RobertJasiek]

Robert believes that the effort and composition of posts and replies should receive some acknowledgement from the readers.

No.

As I have said, systems with a No Thanks Approach (example: Usenet) are perfectly ok (and my 35000 +- 7000 messages there prove that I believe in that). However, if the system does have an acknowledgement tool, then that tool should first of all reflect quality and effort. If it does not, then the tool is bad and should be abandoned.

[RobertJasiek]

I didn't read.

I am well aware that not everybody reads everything and that some things are not as frequently read as other things.

Perhaps if gratitude is what you are after,

...then I would "spam" seeking gratitudes while constantly evaluating what is liked how much, LOL...

What I am after is a forum environment that reflects sense instead of useless numbers.

You also shouldn't undermine the value of short, funny, insightful or frivolous posts. Many a witty comment has made my day even if it was off the top of that person's head and 10 words long, I am entitled to tell that person I like what they said, and they are entitled to have my gratitude displayed.

So far so fine - what is not fine is the equal count effect in the statistics.

[TMark]

Robert believes that the effort and composition of posts and replies should receive some acknowledgement from the readers.

No.

As I have said, systems with a No Thanks Approach (example: Usenet) are perfectly ok (and my 35000 +- 7000 messages there prove that I believe in that). However, if the system does have an acknowledgement tool, then that tool should first of all reflect quality and effort. If it does not, then the tool is bad and should be abandoned.

Who defines the quality? How can the reader know what effort has been expended?

Best wishes.

[RobertJasiek]

1) Since it would be difficult, no usage of statistics numbers would be better.

2) A rough fairness would be (barely) acceptable. Currently I sense unfairness clearly - without any need for definition. Definition would be needed only for exact measurements.

[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.