Like vs Favorite vs Cookies (or Reaction?)


(Caue Rego) #1

So, Favorite already went down. Not only here, but also on Twitter. Because of word definitions. And maybe a bit of this:

The only problem with that, in discourse, is that people tend to like (and thus incentivize) good answers. Not so much good questions or good topics. Conversation movers. The ladder, in cinema language, gets “smashed” down, in a way.

One “simple” technical way to resolve this would be when someone press like on a reply, it would also give cookies to the whole chain of posts it was replied to. This could help giving context to the summary view as well.

Another way is changing the mindset of people. Maybe by switching the :heart: to a :cookie: , :+1:, :100: or some kind of positive sign :heavy_plus_sign: could work. Probably not. Point is, as someone who’s often being the ladder, I’d like to improve that system.

Now…

I do realize this is just a small gamification (plus to make a good summarize function) and that it was thought through a lot, many times. You’re probably aware of this issue, somehow.

I guess I just wanted to see this conversation being had here and maybe make an effort to collaborate! :wink:

Oh, oh I know! How about a “add reaction” button? A bit like in slack, but it could present less options for simpler usage. I’d love to see how that would pinout! :smiley:


(cpradio) #2

One thing that would be of interest is if you had any stats of how your users are using :heart:, then next month, switch it to :cookie: and see if the usage goes up or down or remains constant.

Okay, it seems changing it to :cookie: is a bit more difficult, but changing it to :thumbsup: is doable with

.fa.fa-heart:before {
  content: "\f087";
} 

(Caue Rego) #3

I’d love to do that, but I have just 1 active user. :’(


(cpradio) #4

D’oh. Well, here is to hoping another active instance is interested in doing such a change! :smile: At least it is a fairly straight-forward test.


(Caue Rego) #5

Lololololol:

That’s facebook. “Hover over like button”. Just found out about it, got a notification about it while liking something. Saved me all the work to make a mockup! :slight_smile:


(Sam Saffron) #6

I always wanted to write a reaction plugin that allows you to buy emoji reactions with likes you received. It’s the future of community!


(Jeff Atwood) #7

I think I’ve said this before, but I am rather opposed to such a feature. It has all the problems of this:

Voting choices (among others) are:

  • cosign (up chevron)
  • ether (flame)
  • LOL (smiling face)
  • GOAT (number one finger)
  • nosign (down chevron)
  • troll (black face with wide eyes)
  • feelings (face with O mouth)

What does it mean? How do I vote? Am I voting, or doing something else? What do all these symbols mean? And they are on each user profile, too:

You have so many voting choices now that there is a massive “Don’t Make Me Think” problem. Since every emoji is eligible for reaction, it could be anything, including poop.

It might be OK as a plugin but I would be very opposed to anything like this in core. It is kind of an anti-feature for a discussion system IMO.


(Sam Saffron) #8

I strongly agree this does not belong in core, it’s way too edge casey and honestly I doubt if it help any in improving discussion.

As a plugin though it would be quite fun, especially if there is an economy around it … so you have to spend 50 likes to get a :100: emoji you can then give once to one user for a post you super loved.


(Caue Rego) #9

Nice!

I really liked how that evolved and quickly devolved, or morphed into a plugin. :slight_smile:

Now…

How about going back to the other point of the question, though?

The gamification already works wonders to improve answer quality, I think. What’s being done to improve the questions “post kind”, in the conversation flow?


#10

I really like this idea. A one above simple :heart:ing. And the votes of these :100:s may vary in their weight depending on the voter’s trust level. Only downside to that would be to either record and keep the trust level of the user at the time-of-vote, or have the total score in a constant state of flux when users’ trust levels shift over time.

The only social problem I can foresee involves subterfuge and general laundering behind-the-scenes between users. ie, “Hey, if you put your next two accumulated 50-like :100:s on my recent post [here][http-a link] I paypal you tree fiddy.”

That would be difficult to do with “regular” :hearts:s as the system is now. The proposed (via plugin) system here brings more “worth” thus more dishonest push to acquire them onto ones’ own posts.

Of course, nothing beats good ol’ fashioned moderating and suspension/banning where needed. It is finding the bottlenecks who may be distorting the system to do the aforementioned.

And, it may be too rare to even consider, and only an extreme edge case. I would rather that be the outcome and only a product of my natural paranoid need to discover all “possible murphy’s law scenario #” for the inevitable when the Human variable gets mixed into this kind of system. (And aye, a plugin too, not that this is planned core material; understood.)