Despite the fact I have zero likes so a weak reputation, I think it is a good system because it shows the quality of a user. I remember when under the username appeared the total amount of posts and I guess this system just puts out how active you are but not the worth.

I think it's worth letting the experiment run its course, but I don't imagine it will improve anything. I'm guessing the thinking is that it will act as a psychological nudge, to influence posters to write better quality posts by making them a little more self-conscious? Which makes some sense. However the same mechanism will make posters less apt to post well-written but unpopular content, which would be a net loss imo. Or to make them seem unpopular, less respected, therefore giving their posts less weight. It also favours longevity and frequency over quality. And... It's a philosophy forum. We're predisposed to look down on social media antics :) But still worth testing it out I reckon.

Like in the last forum, it will be used as an 'I agree with that' button. Or a 'yeah you show that dickhead' button. It won't indicate quality particularly. Just how popular the things you say are.

I don't know if we've given the functionality enough of a chance--ideally it should begin to indicate those members who make good contributions and who have been around for a while--but I'm interested to know what you think about it. — jamalrob

Like in the last forum, it will be used as an 'I agree with that' button. Or a 'yeah you show that dickhead' button. It won't indicate quality particularly. Just how popular the tings you say are. — bert1

Yes I agree, it doesn't necessarily indicate quality, but popularity one would think.

I could do without the function, but don't mind it that much either.

I'm guessing the thinking is that it will act as a psychological nudge, to influence posters to write better quality posts by making them a little more self-conscious? — Kenosha Kid

Yes, I was thinking along those lines. It could stand in for the social pressure that in real life motivates you to behave well and present your best.

However the same mechanism will make posters less apt to post well-written but unpopular content, which would be a net loss imo. Or to make them seem unpopular, less respected, therefore giving their posts less weight. It also favours longevity and frequency over quality. — Kenosha Kid

Good points.

It could stand in for the social pressure that in real life motivates you to behave well and present your best. — jamalrob

*tsk tsk*
That would work in a fair, democratic system where all the members would clearly, openly agree to jointly work toward a common goal (and one that would be for the greater good, at that).

A discussion forum like this isn't like that.

For one, there is no clear goal to work toward. There's just stuff going on all over the place, quite a bit doesn't even have anything to do with philosophy, but more with looking cool and being admired for it.

For two, a discussion forum like this is more like a country club, run by a bunch of old boys who exert their pressure mostly indirectly. This pressure inspires posters to behave themselves only inasmuch as they fear when the other shoe will drop, and not out of concern for quality. IOW, here, the pressure to "behave well and present one's best" is too dispersed, too random, too intangible to be conducive to behaving well and presenting one's best.

I like that there isn't a downvote option. If there was I would definitely say get rid of it. I've felt slightly displeased by its existence, but decided that honestly it doesn't really matter. If I had a bigger number my opinion would probably be different. If nobody but oneself could see one's score, I'd definitely say keep it.

Anonymity makes it cliquish rather than remotely indicative of quality. I also think the lack of down-vote makes the feature worthless. Ideally I'd prefer a grading feature whereby member could grade each other's posts 1 to 5 with the grader's handle next to it and, up near the member's handle, an average grade next to the current number of posts graded (and not just the total number of posts made). Maybe also, the average grade is also equal to the number times (no rounding 1-5x) in 1 hour period a member can grade other members' posts.

e.g.

180 Proof
837 (3.7)

[ this post ]

2 - Wayfarer
3 - Banno
4 - Maw
1 - Noble Dust

:nerd: Only the most recent grade shows, but hold cursor over it and maybe the last ten are unveiled. Something like that is what I'd prefer to see. I've no idea whether or not this site can manifest these features or if it's even worth it to do so.

Assuming it's not, I vote to do away with this clique click.

I think that grading people's posts as @180 Proof suggests would be far worse than the likes system because it would be time consuming and complicated. It really would be like being back at school too. I like @Pfhorrests idea of the likes being seen by us as individuals personally rather than everyone, like 'followers' is. While I see problems with the likes system, I have in the last few days been trying to click on posts which I think are good to try to acknowledge them.

While people are talking about the likes, no one has mentioned the other new feature, 'trending', which I think is extremely useful. That is because when I log on I feel able to catch some fairly good posts without having to read many threads.

Generally, I think that all the different ways of evaluating from likes, trending and most viewed are all different ways of evaluating on the site. Of course, people are able to give feedback in replies, although it may be that posts which are more disagreeable will get more responses. As far as the distinction between popularity and quality, it is a bit tricky because they are separate but overlap, as a problem which arises in all measures, such as bestseller charts.

What should we do with the reputation system? — jamalrob

I think that you'd first need to decide what you want this forum to be like, what direction it should develop in.
For some purposes, the reputation system is good, for others it's not, as already mentioned in the above posts. It all depends on what you want with the forum, what purpose it should serve, what goal it should ty to attain.

I don't know what the stakeholders' vision for this forum is, so I can't vote.

Either way seems fine to me. It's just one of those things where you get positives and negatives regardless of your decision, and I don't see them as really outweighing each other.

In favor: It's nice that there's a way to express how you feel about a particular post without having to post a "me too!" if you feel you really have nothing to add.

But I wouldn't treat it much more beyond that. It's more akin to a social media style expression -- which forums are basically the long form, anonymous version of anyways -- than a sign of quality, I think. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Philosophers need to be social after all :D

So, imo, it's more important to just bare in mind what a like really means and what it entails than anything.

Tell me how giving a post a single whole number 1-5 is any more "time consuming and complicated" than clicking an up-vote. I'm must be missing something because I don't see it.

I'm not sure I want people to like my posts.

I'm not sure I want people to like my posts. — bert1

Then I promise to never like your posts.

I quite like it, it adds another element to the people-watching.

Not sure how it will achieve anything desirable though. Presuming there'd be a motivation to get high scores (not a given, but let's assume it for now), a poster would have to align their posts with one or more of the popular factions, yes? But since you clearly have more than one popular faction, all this could lead to is an increase in polemic arguments, I don't know, but I'm not sure that's what you want is it?

Yes. The forum's stakeholders need to decide on the direction in which they want the forum to go.

Meh. I try to focus on what was said and not who said it. That said, I will develop a sense, over time, of who is a waste of time. But I rarely care if others think others are a waste of time or not; unless, the aforementioned sense tells me that X's opinion of Y might be worth paying attention to. But I'll not get that from a rating system. I'll get it from what was said.

Always when reading your posts, I try to figure out why you have a Taxi Driver reference in your avatar. I just don't get it.

It's a good thing I don't live in a city. :grin:

Then I promise to never like your posts. — Michael

Oh, dear. I've changed my mind. I want you to like them!

I think three options might be good, and not anonymous. 'Agree', 'disagree', and 'I don't understand this post'.

Oh, dear. I've changed my mind. I want you to like them! — bert1

I'm sorry, but I made a promise not to like them and I never break my promises. Kant demands it!

I personally think the feature is worthless. It had no noticeable positive effect in the past and it doesn't now. Twitter and Facebook have like options too and we can all see how much that has done for quality.

I could go either way. I'm not sure if the member that gets an upvote is told which post and who marked it up. Maybe someone knows?

I used it in the former forum mostly because I could miss one day of reading the daily Philosophy words and the thread would have such an onslaught of posts before I could respond that it was easier to upvote the member that posted my thoughts already.
Satire, comedy and absurdity work that way the world over which is why @Banno sounds so witty. Of course he does because he gets a 16 hour jump on the day. :eyes:

I am not ruling out your idea of giving a post a figure from 1 to 5, but I just think that often, people skim through threads and would probably not bother with marking systems.

But, I keep an open mind really because I wish the site to be the best possible discussion site. I often feel that the best way is to write only a certain number of posts in oneday, to avoid writing gobbledegook. But, of course, it is not that straightforward because, sometimes, we may have a queue of comments awaiting replies and, on some days, we may have more time and more creative inspiration.

The current implementation makes it relatively useless and somewhat confusing in my view. I vote to turn it off.

I think that it may make life a lot simpler for us all rather than discussion about how we rate or grade people's comments.

At worst it's harmless, so I would say let it run long enough to be used. I didn't notice how to actually implement it prior to looking for it. Then, maybe compare the likes to say the ratio of comments and replies to see if it tracks well. A "good" poster is one that inspires discussion and I suppose a poor one just litters all over the place, so the ratio should be relevant. I imagine there's other metrics as well.

Can I "like" my own posts? If so, how many times can I do so? Just wondering.

Can I "like" my own posts? — Ciceronianus the White

Yes you can.