Do "active members" need to be active?

[Asforme&myhouse]

Amen!
So unfair to non contributors.

We must unite and cancel this culture imposed upon us by the great Sam in the sky!

The great Sam truly does represent the patriarchy that has been keeping us from realizing our true potential! We must unite and rebel!

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

With an extra 30 for each month that they log in. Call them participation likes.

Obviously, it needs to be equitable, none of that 77 likes for women/ 100 likes for men nonsense

 

[steve]

Obviously, it needs to be equitable, none of that 77 likes for women/ 100 likes for men nonsense

OH, SNAP!

However shall I maintain my lead over @MeganC then?????

 

[rockfox]

I’m thinking 30 automatic likes per month

That would socially disadvantage and discriminate against new members. New members might be genius contributors and should automatically be awarded how ever many points steve has.

Obviously, it needs to be equitable, none of that 77 likes for women/ 100 likes for men nonsense

Exactly, commentors identifying as women should receive 125% the number of likes commentors identifying as men do in order to compensate for structural discrimination.

 

[FollowingHim]

You're all hilarious! But on a serious note.

We must unite and cancel this culture imposed upon us by the great Sam in the sky!

Before anyone seriously thinks any of this was imposed on you all by me...

Once upon a time we had a simple forum where you just talked about stuff, no fancy distractions. But everybody kept saying:

we need a "like" button here!

This board so badly needs a like button.

keep searching for the "Like" button

I am with Cecil...we need a like button

Where IS that "like"-button when you need it?!

Where's the "like" button on this thing?

*like button*

Where is the like button when I need it?!

I wish there was a like button for posts.

BFneeds a like button.

So @nathan obligingly upgraded the forum and gave you all a like button. It came with all sorts of other cool stuff like labels and trophies and other childish nonsense. Hurrah, we now had what everybody was asking for, and everybody could be happy!

But then:

Activate multi-like button....

Where is the uber like button?

I need a 'double like' button.

Where’s the dis like button?

I wish there was a love button

Where's the double or triple 'like' button?

Where is the "Triple Like" button when you need it?

many of us would love to have a double- or triple-like button!

We need a heart button

And also kept asking for changes to trophies and labels and new smilies all sorts of things. Ever wondered why I'm bald? It's from tearing out my hair and banging my head on the wall.

You're all insufferable! (Ok, I must confess Steve's above quote is taken out of context, he was being sarcastic, he's actually the only person I think has consistently stood by the idea that all this stuff is foolish. But everyone else was actually asking for this.)

I've already said what I actually think about all this:

We've got one. It's called a "like" button. Problem is, people click on it too often so it becomes meaningless to them, and then ask for a new one.
Which they'd do the same with, and then ask for a "really I actually do love it, serious this time" button.

And:

All these likes and trophies and what not are kinda Facebooky if you ask me.

I actually agree, and both like and dislike them as a result.

The good: On the old website, without the "like" button, threads would often be interrupted by many posts saying "well said" and "I wish I could click a 'like' button on that" etc. This was distracting in my opinion. Having a 'like' button means people can express agreement without diluting the content of the discussion through a proliferation of short posts.

The bad: But having a "like" button, in practice, means that many people just click it so often it becomes near meaningless, so that when someone really did "like" something they post such an additional message anyway...

I have set it up to be a useful tool for moderators. I have set certain restrictions for new signups, that are lifted once you are obviously a "real" person. One of the basket of measures I have used is whether a person has received a certain (small) number of "likes". As bots and obvious spammers / scammers won't receive "likes", they are therefore weeded out with these rules. This is helpful as it means there are some very basic levels of protection for real members that are completely automated and will function even if mods are unavailable.

A "like" button does help to increase engagement with the forum. That's why Facebook is successful - people get more engaged partly because they got a notification that someone liked what they said, so they feel more socially included and spend more time on the site. It's subconscious. But I don't like that also, because we should not be looking for social approval, but rather the approval of God. There is a risk that people will become too attached to the "likes" feature, watch who has liked their posts, and get upset when they say something that they felt was important to them and it did not receive any social approval. This has the potential to be harmful psychologically, and Facebook is a prime example of that. Because we need to be willing to say what we believe even when everyone disagrees, and this has the potential to subtly push against people's willingness to do that.

So I hear you Cap, I really do. I don't know what the solution is. An argument can be made either way. So long as we all take it as a bit of fun it should be harmless, and can be useful - but we must be careful that people don't become too focussed on social recognition.

It is possible to add an add-on to Xenforo that would allow us to restrict the number of "likes" a person can give out each day. That could potentially allow the feature to remain more sincere and therefore useful, and minimise the proliferation of "likes" and resultant psychological engineering that is the problem with Facebook.

So I made my above suggestion of improvements to the title ladder not because I actually want any of this, but because other people seem to want it and have kept asking for it for years, and if you all want it I can try and do some damage control to set it up in a way that is less harmful than it has the potential to be.

But I can also simply remove it all. Which is a serious option.

The serious question for me is how far do I trim this back. Obviously at a minimum the title ladder needs to be slightly tweaked to remove the words "active" and "ascended", which are misleading and inappropriate. Or simply removed entirely, which might be simpler. And I'd appreciate serious suggestions on what I should do about that.

But really the entire system of likes, trophies and other rubbish is childish nonsense that we might be better off without.

 

[rockfox]

IMO update the titles and add a few more, the rest is fine.

 

[rockfox]

Think of likes as the virtual equivalent of someone nodding their head in agreement while you're talking to them. Body language matters.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

That would socially disadvantage and discriminate against new members. New members might be genius contributors and should automatically be awarded how ever many points steve has.



Exactly, commentors identifying as women should receive 125% the number of likes commentors identifying as men do in order to compensate for structural discrimination.

ugh, I wish I was as woke as you. Mind blown. Someday

 

[steve]

Think of likes as the virtual equivalent of someone nodding their head in agreement while you're talking to them. Body language matters.

Exactly where I was headed, likes are a form of communication without having to make a post affirming your support of a statement.
The titles don’t mean anything, I have a high point total in part because I crack a lot of smart-aleck comments. Not because everything that I say adds depth to the conversation.

My recommendation is to just eliminate the titles. They may actually communicate to new people that this or that group are more representative of the “thinking” of the site than people not in that group.
You can leave point totals in each person’s information section, but we don’t need a badge to pin to our pajamas......er..... it doesn’t need to be publicly displayed.

 

[steve]

Of course, keep the administration titles that define some level of actual authority.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Exactly where I was headed, likes are a form of communication without having to make a post affirming your support of a statement.
The titles don’t mean anything, I have a high point total in part because I crack a lot of smart-aleck comments. Not because everything that I say adds depth to the conversation.

My recommendation is to just eliminate the titles. They may actually communicate to new people that this or that group are more representative of the “thinking” of the site than people not in that group.
You can leave point totals in each person’s information section, but we don’t need a badge to pin to our pajamas......er..... it doesn’t need to be publicly displayed.

But, but.... how will everyone know how cool we are without our cool titles?! I cannot believe that you want to take away my “Steve award”!

 

[steve]

But, but.... how will everyone know how cool we are without our cool titles?! I cannot believe that you want to take away my “Steve award”!

I feel like such a traitor

 

[Keith Martin]

So @nathan obligingly upgraded the forum and gave you all a like button. It came with all sorts of other cool stuff like labels and trophies and other childish nonsense. Hurrah, we now had what everybody was asking for, and everybody could be happy!

But then:









And also kept asking for changes to trophies and labels and new smilies all sorts of things. Ever wondered why I'm bald? It's from tearing out my hair and banging my head on the wall.

You're all insufferable! (Ok, I must confess Steve's above quote is taken out of context, he was being sarcastic, he's actually the only person I think has consistently stood by the idea that all this stuff is foolish. But everyone else was actually asking for this.)

I've already said what I actually think about all this:

And:

So I made my above suggestion of improvements to the title ladder not because I actually want any of this, but because other people seem to want it and have kept asking for it for years, and if you all want it I can try and do some damage control to set it up in a way that is less harmful than it has the potential to be.

But I can also simply remove it all. Which is a serious option.

The serious question for me is how far do I trim this back. Obviously at a minimum the title ladder needs to be slightly tweaked to remove the words "active" and "ascended", which are misleading and inappropriate. Or simply removed entirely, which might be simpler. And I'd appreciate serious suggestions on what I should do about that.

But really the entire system of likes, trophies and other rubbish is childish nonsense that we might be better off without.

I noticed that, with the exception of julieb, all the original requesters of judges, oops, I mean, likes, have now disappeared from any kind of active participation.

I also suggest, Mr. Sam, that you refrain from banging your head against the wall just because one or more of us says we want something. I would say you can just usually ignore such statements as the one you quoted me making about double or triple likes. The statement was intended to be hyperbole to draw attention to how much I applauded whatever it was I was responding to -- not at all meant to be a request for an uber like button, and I suspect that almost everyone else you quoted could say the same.

 

[FollowingHim]

My recommendation is to just eliminate the titles.

Of course, keep the administration titles that define some level of actual authority.

I've done this, for feedback purposes. Let me know how it looks. I'm quite happy to change this, I just thought this was the simplest and most logical suggestion so worth seeing how it looks.

New members are still labelled "New Member" up to 10 trophy points (which in practice means until they've made 30 posts or received 25 likes). After this the label disappears. This may have some value in seeing who's new as a reminder to be welcoming and not so overwhelming we scare them away.

 

[julieb]

@FollowingHim , I think you made the right choice. Looks good. I personally appreciate the new person label being kept for a short time. Thank you for your time and wisdom (and humor) regarding all this!

 

[Pacman]

I miss the labels. It made it easier imo

 

[FollowingHim]

It made it easier imo

What did it make easier? Could you elaborate please?

 

[Pacman]

Easier to recognize who was new or possibly someone who simply hadn't been on for a long time. I know the "new" label is there for a bit in the beginning but after that drops off there isn't an easy way to tell how long someone has been here. It affects the way I interact with people. For example if I see @Edward say something I disagree with I might be sort of blunt with him because he's been here long enough to expect to get called out. And I know he isn't going to be crying about a direct disagreement. But with people who are fairly new I would disagree with in a "gentler" manner so as not to scare them away. Before if I wasn't familiar with someone that label gave me a fair estimate of how far along the scale a person was. Now I have to do research to figure that out...

 

[Keith Martin]

Easier to recognize who was new or possibly someone who simply hadn't been on for a long time. I know the "new" label is there for a bit in the beginning but after that drops off there isn't an easy way to tell how long someone has been here. It affects the way I interact with people. For example if I see @Edward say something I disagree with I might be sort of blunt with him because he's been here long enough to expect to get called out. And I know he isn't going to be crying about a direct disagreement. But with people who are fairly new I would disagree with in a "gentler" manner so as not to scare them away. Before if I wasn't familiar with someone that label gave me a fair estimate of how far along the scale a person was. Now I have to do research to figure that out...

Excellent thoughts. @FollowingHim, is there some way to add years of online memberships to one's avatar column?

 

[julieb]

@Pacman, you could click on the member name and see when they joined. It would also tell you how much they have posted since joining if that is helpful to you. I understand it is not a real quick reference but it is something.