Time to revisit the "Like" button?

Offer your ideas on how to improve the site or report problems.
jbviau
Supporter ★

#1: Post by jbviau »

The original thread on this subject has expired. In it, there was discussion about "like" vs. "+1" or "favorite." I'm agnostic with respect to the exact wording used, but I'm still in favor of the general idea. Dan and mods, what do you think?

IMO a way to acknowledge or agree with someone's post without cluttering the thread with extraneous replies would be helpful. For example, I've become used to "liking" replies on Twitter in order to indicate I saw and read them. Here on HB, I would have done the same thing in a thread on Voga's Ground Control the other day when TomC answered a question I posed; instead, I did nothing since replying simply with "thanks" or whatever would have bumped the thread needlessly.
"It's not anecdotal evidence, it's artisanal data." -Matt Yglesias

wsfarrell

#2: Post by wsfarrell »

+1

heh heh heh

jbviau (original poster)
Supporter ★

#3: Post by jbviau (original poster) »

I would totally "like" that reply if I could, but instead I'm forced to post! 8)
"It's not anecdotal evidence, it's artisanal data." -Matt Yglesias

User avatar
[creative nickname]

#4: Post by [creative nickname] »

I think it would be a helpful feature, for all the reasons given by Joshua.
LMWDP #435

User avatar
HB
Admin

#5: Post by HB »

On Stack Overflow, they don't have likes, but they have a "votes" button. In my experience, a reply with a few dozen votes is trustworthy. If it has a few hundred votes, it's basically irrefutable. Likes, on the other hand, are really statements of sentiment. Of course, Stack Overflow is a Q&A board and this is a discussion board, so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

I'd personally find an up/down vote more useful, especially if it takes into consideration those with a site history. For example, a vote count would be shown, but it would be highlighted with a green background if it has "n" or more votes from members having a history with the site (similar to the buy/sell rules of 90 days + 15 or more posts).
Dan Kehn

CwD

#6: Post by CwD »

Not a fan of the idea at all. Look at Reddit, just ends up linking popularity with validity and creating an environment to encourage parroting the status quo opinions, and things people want to believe is true.

SJM

#7: Post by SJM replying to CwD »

+1

jbviau (original poster)
Supporter ★

#8: Post by jbviau (original poster) »

^^^ To be clear, CwD and SJM, you're not fans of Dan's "up/down-vote" modification? I wasn't proposing that originally. Of course, avoiding popularity contests would be important in either case.
"It's not anecdotal evidence, it's artisanal data." -Matt Yglesias

SJM

#9: Post by SJM »

I have no opinion on the vote idea.

User avatar
HB
Admin

#10: Post by HB »

I've seen variants of this idea on phpBB:
None of these match what I describe above. The main difference, from my point of view, is whether the purpose is to indicate reactions (Facebook) or whether you believe the answer is correct (Stack Overflow). Reddit, at least in my casual browsing, equates votes with popularity.
Dan Kehn