Option two would be my second choice because it seems to me that the reputation system is unproductive enough to undercut the value of likes. I've seen sites that run largely on reputation, and it affects the behavior of everyone on them—including, and sometimes especially, those who claim most that they couldn't care less. It can also be discouraging to those who are newer in a way that a simple system of likes typically is not. Anyone can get a few likes with a strong post, after all. But a reputation system tracks seniority as much as—and often more than—ability. — Postmodern Beatnik
I heard a story recently. Foucault was in an interview and made the suggestion that for one year the books in France should be published without authors, that people should read the books before being influenced by things outside the text. The point being there are always going to be elements which affect how a post is taken, outside of the post itself. We have the names on the post, we get to see how other people react to the post in their comments, we see how people react to other contributors in general. I don't think I've ever read a post before checking who wrote it, reputation always precedes content. I'm don't actually think anything you said was wrong, just thought that was an interesting aside, how can we speak about this topic and not argue about the role of an author? :)There should be no overt signs that could be interpreted as hierarchical or of denoting seniority visible next to members' icons as it may bear the false suggestion that a particular post is more valuable than another for reasons above and beyond its content. — Baden
I had this idea a while ago that if you took a normal poster and started 'rewarding' them when they were a bit short with others, sprinkling in some dislikes when they were helpful, you could eventually turn them into an arsehole. — shmik
Sure, but I take it that the issue here is about undue influences, which context (the general category into which each of your examples falls) does not seem to be. With all due respect to Foucault, knowing who one is conversing with can be helpful when it provides information about background assumptions (I don't have to ask why Sally assumes x when I have previously read her argument for it). This isn't to say that his idea doesn't have merit—a bit of context-free reading can be an excellent exercise. But the shortcuts allowed by names aren't always bad, and are often helpful.The point being there are always going to be elements which affect how a post is taken, outside of the post itself. We have the names on the post, we get to see how other people react to the post in their comments, we see how people react to other contributors in general. — shmik
But how would one control for the natural tendency of the internet to do precisely the same thing without provocation? ;)I had this idea a while ago that if you took a normal poster and started 'rewarding' them when they were a bit short with others, sprinkling in some dislikes when they were helpful, you could eventually turn them into an arsehole. — shmik
I have no idea if that is possible, but I agree with @Baden that it's not nearly as big an issue on a forum like this where you have to go to someone's profile to see their post count....is there any way that perhaps we could make post counts invisible? — Pneumenon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.