Poll: A more varied likes system

[Meadow]

About the Likes thing, I joined SufficientVelocity recently to vote on things and/or contrarianism-polarise myself right enough to get a job, and I quite enjoy their five-react system:

• Like--"I enjoyed this post about the Uruguayan electoral system", "I'm not sure what react to use", "I'm new to this forum".
• Funny--"That was a good pun about the Uruguayan electoral system", "That was a funny tweet by someone else that you shared", "You sure said the in-joke words in the right order."
• Insightful--"I now know a lot more about the Uruguayan electoral system", "That was an interesting op-ed or at least I imagine it was if I could get past this paywall", "That doesn't sound right but I don't know enough about Romania/Birmingham/why you buy tanks to dispute it."
• Informative--"Finally some fresh news about the Uruguayan electoral system", "That was an interesting article or at least I imagine it was if Reach didn't fuck up all their websites with banner ads", "Gosh that's a lot of tweets about random university students."
• Hugs--"Sorry/glad to hear that bad/good news about your family/partner/job/pets/Uruguayan electoral system".

There's obviously weaknesses here, with the infrastructure as well as with the design, and there's the danger of going too far the other way and ending up like one of those Discord servers with 10000 unique emotes no-one ever uses, but I think the main problem with Likes is still that they all go into the same pot.

This post made me remember that I am able to put something like this onto the site. I'm up for doing it as an experiment if people want.

The reason we launched with just likes is that it looks cleaner and less cluttered, but it's fair to say that some problems do exist with it.

Vote and/or say your piece here - the vote is non-binding, as it may turn out that the decent variable-likes-plugins cost money SLP can't spend on a feature like this.

 

[David Flin]

Me, I would go the other way and get rid of likes entirely.

But that's just me.

 

[Talwar]

I only ever use likes even where I have other options, but it doesn't bother me at all if other folks have those additional choices.

 

[Makemakean]

Me, I would go the other way and get rid of likes entirely.

But that's just me.

Likes do serve a purpose in the creative parts of the forum. Sure, it would be nice if every last reader of a work made a comment on every last installment, and expressed themselves as such. But most people are not going to do that. A like-function thus serves a very useful function in that it allows a creator to get some level of appreciation that otherwise would be invisible to them.

Sure, you can argue that they tend to be more toxic than helpful in the off-topic section of the forum, that is true. But fundamentally, isn't the intended purpose of the forum primarily to serve as a place where creative folks can try out new ideas and hone their crafts, as opposed to being a club for political discussion?

The like function should remain.

That said, I would oppose introducing a more varied like system. I certainly don't think that it'll be good at all if we introduced a dislike-function, and I don't think that there really is any need for more variations when it comes to expressing that you like something.

And fundamentally... I find a varied likes system aesthetically ugly. I think the forum has a very nice, crisp aesthetic, that would be diminished if every post was followed with something akin to x7 x4 x2 x1

 

[ShortsBelfast]

I would like to see something slightly more measured. There's posts that I feel that I can't "like" because of their content (such as reports of atrocities in the Israel/Palestine or Ukraine War threads) where I feel it both trivialises what has been said and could be misunderstood as having an unhealthy admiration for unsavoury actions but I would like to be able to respectfully indicate appreciation of this being brought to our notice because they do definitely add something to the discussion.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

I'm torn- on the one hand, I don't want to have too many options because I think that will quickly become its own sort of toxic social signalling. On the other hand, as @ShortsBelfast says it does feel odd to 'like' a post because it's got an informative position on an atrocity.

My preferred option would be to keep the status quo- if that wasn't an option (for a thought experiment) I'd rather scrap the system entirely than expand it.

 

[Ncw8]

Me, I would go the other way and get rid of likes entirely.

But that's just me.

Now should I like a post when the writer says they don’t like Likes?

 

[Jared]

Now should I like a post when the writer says they don’t like Likes?

Should I like a post when someone says they will like someone who doesn't like likes?
Or like a post when I said I should like a post when someone...

[Jared is escorted from the keyboard between two large shadowy figures with the words Unfunny and Uninformative flashing above their heads.]

 

[AndyC]

To be honest, I've long felt the likes system contributes to pile-ons and social signalling in Chat. I've felt the draw of it myself, pretty strongly. I'm not convinced it's of much use in Chat (it often just indicates people lining up behind someone in an argument, which is a bit wince-inducing). A like for being informative is good - but those are swamped by the other ones.

In the On-Topic section, it's very useful, because it gives at least some feedback to writers and can encourage explanations and discussions on a piece of work.

My ideal - which very likely wouldn't be the preferred outcome for many - would be to terminate likes in Chat and retain them in the On-Topic area.

 

[Makemakean]

To be honest, I've long felt the likes system contributes to pile-ons and social signalling in Chat. I've felt the draw of it myself, pretty strongly. I'm not convinced it's of much use in Chat (it often just indicates people lining up behind someone in an argument, which is a bit wince-inducing). A like for being informative is good - but those are swamped by the other ones.

In the On-Topic section, it's very useful, because it gives at least some feedback to writers and can encourage explanations and discussions on a piece of work.

My ideal - which very likely wouldn't be the preferred outcome for many - would be to terminate likes in Chat and retain them in the On-Topic area.

Oh, I agree with you entirely. And I think you'll find a great many people do too.

This sentiment has been voiced in the past, and if memory serves right, @Meadow back then informed us that the Forum simply isn't designed so that you can disable the like functions in certain parts of the Forum but not others: it's either everywhere, or it's nowhere.

Under those circumstances, I prefer to see it remain in its present state (as disagreeable as some aspects of it is) than to see it removed entirely.

 

[Pete U]

The only ones I think would have use are the 'hugs' (because people often share news that can be acknowledged but not liked) and Insightful/Imformative (because sometimes the content is not something we would like).

Having been on forums with 'negative' reactions, they just cause problems, and as much as the 'likes' systems can have them, I think it has benefits (not least you don't end up with a load of posts saying "Agree")

 

[frustrated progressive]

To be honest, I've long felt the likes system contributes to pile-ons and social signalling in Chat. I've felt the draw of it myself, pretty strongly. I'm not convinced it's of much use in Chat (it often just indicates people lining up behind someone in an argument, which is a bit wince-inducing). A like for being informative is good - but those are swamped by the other ones.

This is a good point, but I think the benefits of removing likes in Chat would be outweighed by the distortions such a move would introduce. Even laying aside the fact that such a move would either require getting rid of likes for the whole Pub (which would be really sad for all the fun and social threads) or separating out the political ones, I believe that likes in political threads serve their own useful purposes.

Frankly, the "social signaling" of likes seems to have some positive effects as well as the negative ones-given that we're in a close-knit community where the "member on the Clapham omnibus" liking stuff in the Pub, is likely to be someone you respect. Likes serve to show participants in a discussion whether other people think they have a point or not, whether people are just getting disengaged with the argument, and (thorough seeing who's liking what), help show how heated a debate is getting and whether people need to back off.

If a post you initially didn't agree with or just didn't see gets a ton of likes, that's a pretty good sign that what's been said is worth paying attention to.
If you're in an exchange where people aren't liking your posts but are liking what your interlocutor says, that's a good signal to stop arguing before you paint yourself into a rhetorical corner, say something mean, or both. And if you're in a discussion with someone where you disagree with some of what they said, liking their posts is a sign that you value what they're saying, and the dispute isn't total.

The possible effects of removing likes from Chat might be shown by what happened on (that other site people come up with increasingly bizarre circumlocutions for) when likes in Chat were abolished there. The absence of likes definitely seemed to contribute to a fall in friendly banter-type posting (though of course there are other reasons), replaced by screeds that just bounced off each other because, without likes, no one could tell when people were moving on or when people thought an argument had been lost. So everyone either just keeps escalating or just increasingly talks past one another.

So as much as likes can be rather toxic, I think that even in political threads they do more good than harm.

 

[LSCatilina]

I don't spend a lot of time in Chat, so apologies if it's a naive question, but giving the fairly village-like size of the Sealion Press Forum, is social signalling or any perverse consequence of the like system really this much of a problem there comparatively to what they can be on much bigger boards?

 

[AndyC]

Well, having lived in both villages and larger towns (and for a while in London), I'd say that generally village-sized communities are more prone to concerns over social signalling and consequences than larger communities

 

[shearsforest]

This is a good point, but I think the benefits of removing likes in Chat would be outweighed by the distortions such a move would introduce. Even laying aside the fact that such a move would either require getting rid of likes for the whole Pub (which would be really sad for all the fun and social threads) or separating out the political ones, I believe that likes in political threads serve their own useful purposes.

Frankly, the "social signaling" of likes seems to have some positive effects as well as the negative ones-given that we're in a close-knit community where the "member on the Clapham omnibus" liking stuff in the Pub, is likely to be someone you respect. Likes serve to show participants in a discussion whether other people think they have a point or not, whether people are just getting disengaged with the argument, and (thorough seeing who's liking what), help show how heated a debate is getting and whether people need to back off.

If a post you initially didn't agree with or just didn't see gets a ton of likes, that's a pretty good sign that what's been said is worth paying attention to.
If you're in an exchange where people aren't liking your posts but are liking what your interlocutor says, that's a good signal to stop arguing before you paint yourself into a rhetorical corner, say something mean, or both. And if you're in a discussion with someone where you disagree with some of what they said, liking their posts is a sign that you value what they're saying, and the dispute isn't total.

The possible effects of removing likes from Chat might be shown by what happened on (that other site people come up with increasingly bizarre circumlocutions for) when likes in Chat were abolished there. The absence of likes definitely seemed to contribute to a fall in friendly banter-type posting (though of course there are other reasons), replaced by screeds that just bounced off each other because, without likes, no one could tell when people were moving on or when people thought an argument had been lost. So everyone either just keeps escalating or just increasingly talks past one another.

So as much as likes can be rather toxic, I think that even in political threads they do more good than harm.

Your thoughts on there being no Like system on AH.com's Political Chat section?

 

[frustrated progressive]

The possible effects of removing likes from Chat might be shown by what happened on (that other site people come up with increasingly bizarre circumlocutions for) when likes in Chat were abolished there. The absence of likes definitely seemed to contribute to a fall in friendly banter-type posting (though of course there are other reasons), replaced by screeds that just bounced off each other because, without likes, no one could tell when people were moving on or when people thought an argument had been lost. So everyone either just keeps escalating or just increasingly talks past one another.

Your thoughts on there being no Like system on AH.com's Political Chat section?

Perhaps this was too subtle.

 

[shearsforest]

Perhaps this was too subtle.

Yeah, I guess that earlier comment is an accurate observation of the more bellicose sections of Pol Chat in AH.com nowadays; I luckily haven't had much contact with them, so I can't say for certain.

 

[Makemakean]

Well, having lived in both villages and larger towns (and for a while in London), I'd say that generally village-sized communities are more prone to concerns over social signalling and consequences than larger communities

I agree.

The smaller the community, the less likely those who voice a contrary opinion to the majority view are to get anyone to socially signal that they agree with said person, leading said individuals to be less likely to comment in the first place, because it takes a certain kind of bloodymindedness to persistently be the odd one out, leading to the discussion becoming increasingly more and more homogeneous in what opinions are being voiced and what is being said.

15 out of 100 is a smaller relative minority than 3 out of 10, but I get the impression that those three feel more lonely in their minority than the former fifteen, and so will be more susceptible to social pressures.

 

[David Flin]

I agree.

The smaller the community, the less likely those who voice a contrary opinion to the majority view are to get anyone to socially signal that they agree with said person, leading said individuals to be less likely to comment in the first place, because it takes a certain kind of bloodymindedness to persistently be the odd one out, leading to the discussion becoming increasingly more and more homogeneous in what opinions are being voiced and what is being said.

15 out of 100 is a smaller relative minority than 3 out of 10, but I get the impression that those three feel more lonely in their minority than the former fifteen, and so will be more susceptible to social pressures.

That has certainly been my experience.

It also works the other way. 15 out of 100 represents 15 individuals, and ignoring (or even disparaging) 15 individuals is a lot harder than dismissing 3 out of 10.

It has been my experience that minority opinions are more tolerated in larger communities than smaller ones.

It's also self-reinforcing, as those that voice a contrary opinion in a smaller community seem more likely to get tired of being a lonely voice and go elsewhere.