Topic: Can we &quot;Like&quot; a post? - page 9. (Read 23462 times)

Quote from: dserrano5 on May 27, 2014, 04:52:40 AM

Hmm... Maybe it could have NO effect at all, but have, say under a post, "xx, xx, xx liked this!" The first thing that comes to mind here is the official Rift forums (check out this post). It shows who likes the posts, but past that has no functionality. Those who want to ignore it can, and those who want to see who agrees can.

FWIW I don't want my (dis)likes to be public.

Yeah, I'm still not convinced with this idea. Getting posts disliked would be pretty disheartening for some. It could work for serial trolls or fud-spreaders, but when people just down vote your posts because they don't like you or just don't agree with your views it'll be pretty annoying. Just having likes be public may be better but it depends on how the final system works, but it also might just turn the forums into a popularity contest.

Allow people to choose whether they want to view the # of likes in the settings. This would help get rid of the popularity contest. It could even default to off, and allow those who want to use the feature to do so.

hilariousandco

global moderator

Activity: 4018

Merit: 2728

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: dserrano5 on May 27, 2014, 04:52:40 AM

Hmm... Maybe it could have NO effect at all, but have, say under a post, "xx, xx, xx liked this!" The first thing that comes to mind here is the official Rift forums (check out this post). It shows who likes the posts, but past that has no functionality. Those who want to ignore it can, and those who want to see who agrees can.

FWIW I don't want my (dis)likes to be public.

Yeah, I'm still not convinced with this idea. Getting posts disliked would be pretty disheartening for some. It could work for serial trolls or fud-spreaders, but when people just down vote your posts because they don't like you or just don't agree with your views it'll be pretty annoying. Just having likes be public may be better but it depends on how the final system works, but it also might just turn the forums into a popularity contest.

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1007

Hmm... Maybe it could have NO effect at all, but have, say under a post, "xx, xx, xx liked this!" The first thing that comes to mind here is the official Rift forums (check out this post). It shows who likes the posts, but past that has no functionality. Those who want to ignore it can, and those who want to see who agrees can.

FWIW I don't want my (dis)likes to be public.

Then to fix that, just have "x likes" where the x represents the number of them. I don't think dislikes should even be an option.

dserrano5

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1029

Quote from: taesup on May 27, 2014, 12:21:20 AM

Hmm... Maybe it could have NO effect at all, but have, say under a post, "xx, xx, xx liked this!" The first thing that comes to mind here is the official Rift forums (check out this post). It shows who likes the posts, but past that has no functionality. Those who want to ignore it can, and those who want to see who agrees can.

FWIW I don't want my (dis)likes to be public.

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1007

ranlo

So if activity were to be removed from the equation all together so that the only way a user can improved their ranking (aside from buying an account) is to generate content that others would like/upvote. Would that alleviate some of your concerns?

I think that would help some. Things that put everyone on an equal level (all things considered) are good. When people can sell accounts all they want, basing things on activity is meaningless; it just caters to those with the most money to spend.

The system would definitely need to be fleshed out more, though, in order to give a better evaluation.

taesup

member

Activity: 99

Merit: 10

ranlo

So if activity were to be removed from the equation all together so that the only way a user can improved their ranking (aside from buying an account) is to generate content that others would like/upvote. Would that alleviate some of your concerns?

jbrnt

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

Quote from: ranlo on May 26, 2014, 05:43:38 PM

We don't feel that same "need" to voice our opinions when we're happy. This is going to make its move into the system, such that if 10 are unhappy and 90 are happy, the 10 unhappy can still take the majority vote, despite being in the minority.

There is no voting involved. The system is not there to ban members or analyse spam. It is there to tag quality posts. If a post is good but controversial, there is going to be less QM tagging it. That doesn't mean it is a bad quality post. The member who wrote it still gets QP which brings him closer to a QM if he is not already a QM.

jbrnt

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

Quote from: Cryptopher on May 26, 2014, 04:37:34 PM

I think that Vod's suggestion needs no elaboration, it is what it is.

Vod's suggestion was simple and clear, a thumbsup button like we have on facebook.

I was reponding to taesup's call for suggestions on the new forum software. I was throwing out ideas on the reputation translation/implementation which includes but not restricted to the "like" system.

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1007

Quote from: jbrnt on May 26, 2014, 05:34:23 PM

Quote from: ranlo on May 26, 2014, 04:31:09 PM

Having set people to determine what is "quality" (which is subjective by nature) leads to its own problems. People will accept payments in return for boosting the quality of people. "0.001 BTC per vote!" Not to mention this creates a centralized system for determining quality, which further creates its own set of problems.

I think it is impossible to measure usefulness or quality of posts without humans. Stats of a member or parameters of a post tell us nothing about the quality and relevance. There is no better way to capture this aspect without involving other members. When humans are involved, these bribes will happen.

Actually, it is not so centralised when the system matures. I think we can have more than a hundred of these QM in less than a year (depends on how high the bars are set). These QMs are allowed to be subjective. We need different voices in the community.

You also have to take in to consideration selective responses. Generally speaking, people are more open to voicing their opinions when they disagree with something or are upset. This is why a lot of reviews for companies and products are negative, rather than positive. We don't feel that same "need" to voice our opinions when we're happy. This is going to make its move into the system, such that if 10 are unhappy and 90 are happy, the 10 unhappy can still take the majority vote, despite being in the minority.

jbrnt

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

Quote from: ranlo on May 26, 2014, 04:31:09 PM

Having set people to determine what is "quality" (which is subjective by nature) leads to its own problems. People will accept payments in return for boosting the quality of people. "0.001 BTC per vote!" Not to mention this creates a centralized system for determining quality, which further creates its own set of problems.

I think it is impossible to measure usefulness or quality of posts without humans. Stats of a member or parameters of a post tell us nothing about the quality and relevance. There is no better way to capture this aspect without involving other members. When humans are involved, these bribes will happen.

Actually, it is not so centralised when the system matures. I think we can have more than a hundred of these QM in less than a year (depends on how high the bars are set). These QMs are allowed to be subjective. We need different voices in the community.

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Cryptopher on May 26, 2014, 04:48:16 PM

Quote from: ranlo on May 26, 2014, 04:42:56 PM

Quote from: Cryptopher on May 26, 2014, 04:37:34 PM

Quote from: ranlo on May 26, 2014, 04:42:56 PM

Qualified Members (QM) can be nominated, elected, or auto-qualify by fulfilling a set of conditions. I am in favour of mods nominating seed QMs, about 20 in beginning and slowly working up to 50 or 100 later. These QMs will have a replenishable fixed number of Quality Points (QP) within a period to tag quality posts. When normal members have enough QPs and satisfies other conditions like post count or days registered, they can be QMs themselves and start to give QPs. You can have this system in reverse with Spam Points if you like.

This seems like a lot of effort, and this Qualified Member role you propose sounds like such a responsibility. It is far too specialised for what the original proposal was.

The whole idea of this is to get some collaborative feedback, and by limiting it to a set of users makes it nothing more than a seal of approval from one of those users. It's too sparse.

By making use of a simple like system, one that gives no advantage to the topic/post other than a visual indicator to readers means that shilling attacks are virtually useless.

I think that Vod's suggestion needs no elaboration, it is what it is.

If there's no benefit other than basically highlighting posts by reputable people, why not just base it solely on the reputation system? Would that not accomplish the same thing? I disagree with that system as well, but I figure there's no reason for voting when reputation can handle it already.

Vod's suggestion only mentions seniority to prevent Brand New, Newbie, and Junior Members (for example) from skewing the like feedback, as they could be created as shill accounts. But the point of doing so would be very little.

If there is only the ability to like then you can't tarnish the quality of a topic or reply, only agree with it if that's what you want.

Implementing such a change in its simplest form is wise, plus restricting it to more senior members to trial it is useful. Wouldn't bother wasting time on making some complex system that has the potential for abuse.

Hmm... Maybe it could have NO effect at all, but have, say under a post, "xx, xx, xx liked this!" The first thing that comes to mind here is the official Rift forums (check out this post). It shows who likes the posts, but past that has no functionality. Those who want to ignore it can, and those who want to see who agrees can.

onemorebtc

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

maybe this can be solved by using like and dislike buttons?
quality could be measured by how many clicked one of them. if a post get my attention and got me thinking if i am the same opinion or not i'd consider it a good post

Cryptopher

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 1008

Keep it dense, yeah?

Quote from: Cryptopher on May 26, 2014, 04:37:34 PM

Quote from: Cryptopher on May 26, 2014, 04:37:34 PM

Qualified Members (QM) can be nominated, elected, or auto-qualify by fulfilling a set of conditions. I am in favour of mods nominating seed QMs, about 20 in beginning and slowly working up to 50 or 100 later. These QMs will have a replenishable fixed number of Quality Points (QP) within a period to tag quality posts. When normal members have enough QPs and satisfies other conditions like post count or days registered, they can be QMs themselves and start to give QPs. You can have this system in reverse with Spam Points if you like.

This seems like a lot of effort, and this Qualified Member role you propose sounds like such a responsibility. It is far too specialised for what the original proposal was.

The whole idea of this is to get some collaborative feedback, and by limiting it to a set of users makes it nothing more than a seal of approval from one of those users. It's too sparse.

By making use of a simple like system, one that gives no advantage to the topic/post other than a visual indicator to readers means that shilling attacks are virtually useless.

I think that Vod's suggestion needs no elaboration, it is what it is.

If there's no benefit other than basically highlighting posts by reputable people, why not just base it solely on the reputation system? Would that not accomplish the same thing? I disagree with that system as well, but I figure there's no reason for voting when reputation can handle it already.

Vod's suggestion only mentions seniority to prevent Brand New, Newbie, and Junior Members (for example) from skewing the like feedback, as they could be created as shill accounts. But the point of doing so would be very little.

If there is only the ability to like then you can't tarnish the quality of a topic or reply, only agree with it if that's what you want.

Implementing such a change in its simplest form is wise, plus restricting it to more senior members to trial it is useful. Wouldn't bother wasting time on making some complex system that has the potential for abuse.

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1007

Qualified Members (QM) can be nominated, elected, or auto-qualify by fulfilling a set of conditions. I am in favour of mods nominating seed QMs, about 20 in beginning and slowly working up to 50 or 100 later. These QMs will have a replenishable fixed number of Quality Points (QP) within a period to tag quality posts. When normal members have enough QPs and satisfies other conditions like post count or days registered, they can be QMs themselves and start to give QPs. You can have this system in reverse with Spam Points if you like.

This seems like a lot of effort, and this Qualified Member role you propose sounds like such a responsibility. It is far too specialised for what the original proposal was.

The whole idea of this is to get some collaborative feedback, and by limiting it to a set of users makes it nothing more than a seal of approval from one of those users. It's too sparse.

By making use of a simple like system, one that gives no advantage to the topic/post other than a visual indicator to readers means that shilling attacks are virtually useless.

I think that Vod's suggestion needs no elaboration, it is what it is.

If there's no benefit other than basically highlighting posts by reputable people, why not just base it solely on the reputation system? Would that not accomplish the same thing? I disagree with that system as well, but I figure there's no reason for voting when reputation can handle it already.

Cryptopher

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 1008

Keep it dense, yeah?

Qualified Members (QM) can be nominated, elected, or auto-qualify by fulfilling a set of conditions. I am in favour of mods nominating seed QMs, about 20 in beginning and slowly working up to 50 or 100 later. These QMs will have a replenishable fixed number of Quality Points (QP) within a period to tag quality posts. When normal members have enough QPs and satisfies other conditions like post count or days registered, they can be QMs themselves and start to give QPs. You can have this system in reverse with Spam Points if you like.

This seems like a lot of effort, and this Qualified Member role you propose sounds like such a responsibility. It is far too specialised for what the original proposal was.

The whole idea of this is to get some collaborative feedback, and by limiting it to a set of users makes it nothing more than a seal of approval from one of those users. It's too sparse.

By making use of a simple like system, one that gives no advantage to the topic/post other than a visual indicator to readers means that shilling attacks are virtually useless.

I think that Vod's suggestion needs no elaboration, it is what it is.

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1007

That's another aspect I'm trying to tackle right now, transferring over the status of the old forum to the new one. There obviously needs to be some kind of a reputation translation.

Let's start by listing what parameters we have on a member. We have posts, registered days, logged in time, but have nothing on quality. We also have the reported accuracy and trust, but they don't quite work. The proposed "like" system will give us a "popularity" rating but may not be a "quality" rating.

We do have to start from scratch Grin

Rating quality cannot be performed by every registered member, because it will be exploited. How about current senior member or hero members? The current member system is based on activity which is simply built upon days and posts, not reliable. So, giving a "quality" tag to a post should be done by qualified members in a controlled manner, otherwise rating will have no meaning or value.

Qualified Members (QM) can be nominated, elected, or auto-qualify by fulfilling a set of conditions. I am in favour of mods nominating seed QMs, about 20 in beginning and slowly working up to 50 or 100 later. These QMs will have a fixed number of Quality Points (QP) in a fixed period, to tag quality posts. When normal members have enough QPs and satisfies other conditions like post count or days registered, they can be QMs themselves and start to give QPs. You can have this system in reverse with Spam Points if you like.

Having set people to determine what is "quality" (which is subjective by nature) leads to its own problems. People will accept payments in return for boosting the quality of people. "0.001 BTC per vote!" Not to mention this creates a centralized system for determining quality, which further creates its own set of problems.

jbrnt

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

Quote from: Cryptopher on May 26, 2014, 04:22:42 PM

That's another aspect I'm trying to tackle right now, transferring over the status of the old forum to the new one. There obviously needs to be some kind of a reputation translation.

Let's start by listing what parameters we have on a member. We have posts, registered days, logged in time, but have nothing on quality. We also have the reported accuracy and trust, but they don't quite work. The proposed "like" system will give us a "popularity" rating but may not be a "quality" rating.

We do have to start from scratch Grin

Rating quality cannot be performed by every registered member, because it will be exploited. How about current senior member or hero members? The current member system is based on activity which is simply built upon days and posts, not reliable. So, giving a "quality" tag to a post should be done by qualified members in a controlled manner, otherwise rating will have no meaning or value.

Qualified Members (QM) can be nominated, elected, or auto-qualify by fulfilling a set of conditions. I am in favour of mods nominating seed QMs, about 20 in beginning and slowly working up to 50 or 100 later. These QMs will have a replenishable fixed number of Quality Points (QP) within a period to tag quality posts. When normal members have enough QPs and satisfies other conditions like post count or days registered, they can be QMs themselves and start to give QPs. You can have this system in reverse with Spam Points if you like.

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1007

Quote from: ranlo on May 26, 2014, 02:52:26 PM

Quote from: ranlo on May 26, 2014, 02:52:26 PM

Otsu
Care to elaborate?
If the shill accounts you mean newly generated accounts, those cannot vote by default. Another user would have to upvote enough of their content to the point where they can vote. And at only one vote per piece of content. That's a lot of surface area to cover without getting any downvotes to really pull it off. Again, the only real downside that someone else has mentioned is if someone were to buy already upvoted accounts. They would still need to generate more good content (thus increasing their surface area for downvotes) before those account can get more upvote and more "weight." I have not figured out the issue with bought account but unless they contribute content, they, at the very least, cannot raise the "weight" they carry without risking spam content and downvote momentum.

You can buy accounts. You can create 500 accounts right now and make a few posts a day and get them all to Hero Member status over time. On the road up, you're getting more and more powerful, to the point where you can dominate everyone else's posts simply by creating a bot that logs in to each account one by one and targets a specified post and/or thread. You can automate the entire process. You have an enemy? Enter the URL of that post/thread and set your bot army up to downvote them 500 times. Boom, now they are effectively neutralized.

Again, this is a horrible implementation and it is ridiculously EASY to exploit. It's not even something that requires a small amount of thought.

While your example is valid it isn't very feasible. The time that it would take to get even just 10 accounts to Hero status is ridiculous. It takes about 18 months to reach Hero Member status, then there's all the posting, and then comes the bot abuse that would certainly be traced and have those accounts nuked making it all a massive waste of time.

Going back to the original suggestion outlined within the OP, I think that having an +1/upvote/like option would be fine. There needn't be any requirement for a -1/downvote/dislike complement, and there needn't be a requirement to shift the topic/post either.

I seriously hope you're joking. There are already many bots on the forums that are Member and up rankings. The absurdity of thinking people wouldn't bot when they actually get a benefit from it is astounding. If people bot when they gain nothing, why would they NOT when they are rewarded?

On top of this, it's not just Hero you care about. Like I said, on the way up you become more powerful. The bots slowly gain in Activity and their weight keeps increasing.

Cryptopher

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 1008

Keep it dense, yeah?

Otsu
Care to elaborate?
If the shill accounts you mean newly generated accounts, those cannot vote by default. Another user would have to upvote enough of their content to the point where they can vote. And at only one vote per piece of content. That's a lot of surface area to cover without getting any downvotes to really pull it off. Again, the only real downside that someone else has mentioned is if someone were to buy already upvoted accounts. They would still need to generate more good content (thus increasing their surface area for downvotes) before those account can get more upvote and more "weight." I have not figured out the issue with bought account but unless they contribute content, they, at the very least, cannot raise the "weight" they carry without risking spam content and downvote momentum.

You can buy accounts. You can create 500 accounts right now and make a few posts a day and get them all to Hero Member status over time. On the road up, you're getting more and more powerful, to the point where you can dominate everyone else's posts simply by creating a bot that logs in to each account one by one and targets a specified post and/or thread. You can automate the entire process. You have an enemy? Enter the URL of that post/thread and set your bot army up to downvote them 500 times. Boom, now they are effectively neutralized.

Again, this is a horrible implementation and it is ridiculously EASY to exploit. It's not even something that requires a small amount of thought.

While your example is valid it isn't very feasible. The time that it would take to get even just 10 accounts to Hero status is ridiculous. It takes about 18 months to reach Hero Member status, then there's all the posting, and then comes the bot abuse that would certainly be traced and have those accounts nuked making it all a massive waste of time.

Going back to the original suggestion outlined within the OP, I think that having an +1/upvote/like option would be fine. There needn't be any requirement for a -1/downvote/dislike complement, and there needn't be a requirement to shift the topic/post either.

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1007