babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Facebook-style "Like this" button on babble comments
July 7, 2011 - 7:10pm
IMO Rabble could wipe out a lot of the distracting meta discussion by adding a Like button to posts and comments on Babble. This would not be very hard to do, and Facebook has demonstrated that people would use such a function. All that would be required is for Rabble to prioritize it. I know that Rabble's tech people have a lot in their queue already. Likely there are babble tasks in the queue as well.
I think such a feature would go a long way towards improving the level of discussion here. It would give the lurkers a way to participate that doesn't require the investment of making a post. And there would be less general disagreement about "the will of babblers". Support, or lack of support, for meta propositions would be easy to demonstrate.
Often more features will be requested that are not palatable for various reasons. For example, I think allowing babblers to create site-wide posts would be a pandora's box that "the suits" would smartly want to avoid. As another example, having "user karma" where users could vote to elevate others' posts could alienate some who feel more stongly about flat (ie. non-hierarchical) networks. While both of these features could offer babble some advantges, their disavantages are deal breakers.
Yet a "Like This" button is innocuous. It is simple a way to register support for an idea. I can't really think of potential objections although there could be some.
I'm not talking about anything extensive. No way of seeing "most liked" content or anything like that. Just a little widget on every comment that a) allows a user to click to like b) displays how many people have "liked this" and c) on mouseover or click, shows a popup list of the people that "liked this". Additionally, we would want to offer users the ability to "unlike" any posts they have liked.
I know Rabble/Babble already uses the Flag module, for "flag as offensive". Another flag type can be created for "Like this". There really is not much of a technical gap here.
I would be willing to build/donate a drupal module that defines a "Like This" flag, if it's a feature that's friendly to both Rabble and Babblers. It would be a very straightforward module that the Rabble techs could quickly look at, understand what it does, and enable easily.
What do you think?
I wish I had a "Like This" button now to respond to your idea!
But would adding a new feature add to the download time? Some of us are on slow dialup connections.
I would expect any increase in download time would be negligible. It is just an extra link on each post and a few lines of javascript.
On the one hand, having seen a goodly number of one or two entry threads that (when you check the number of reads on the forum main page where they are housed) have had a significant number of reads it would be nice to have some indication of whether the readers have a positive or negative take on what has been posted. On the other hand, there are already enough people running around here with big league persecution complexes, having like/not like buttons could increase the level of whinging.
I could see this becoming a problem. If someone rips someone to shreds, and it generates a few dozen anonymous "likes", it could come across as piling on. At least now if that happens, people have to make a comment under their username.
The other thing I would say is that it's not exactly clear what someone "likes" if a post contains mulitiple points. Is it the entire post? The first point? The main point? Unlike here, I find FB posts are usually (although not always) fairly concise and limited in their scope, which makes it somewhat clearer what one is agreeing with.
I think Freedom 55 has a valid point about the brevity of Crackbook posts.
My "gut" reaction is that I'm not for it, but in trying to put forward arguments against, I having difficulty determining exactly why and explaining it. I think I'll give this some further thought.
Beyond Facebook being more susinct, it's also a very different medium than a message board.
Naw, I like how effort is required here to agree or dissagree with someone.
Part of our charm-- such as it is. :)
LIKE
Aren't we already polled enough? Don't we have enough shortcuts to opinion?
Yes/No, Like/Don't like is just too superficial and numerical a way to communicate.
Further thought. I think a "Like" button would reduce the amount of posts here, which may be an advantage in some regards.
But on the other hand, I think when we agree with something, and want to say so by posting, if forces us further explore the issue, and come up with an additional angle or fact so we don't sound like a parrot. That way issues get more fully explored here.
A like button would lead to even fewer postings.
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting we have a "Dislike This" button. I think that would be divisive and counterproductive. The button itself would only convey a positive endorsement. I don't deny that there will probably be situations where people somehow take this as a slight. But, I think overall this would not lead to more people feeling slighted than we're currently seeing.
I'd like to clarify--as well as showing "20 Likes", there would be a listing of WHO did the liking. So there would be an explicit connection to the username.
I think this has the potential to create LESS piling on--because a strong statement with 50 Likes could be a lot more disarming, while at the same time less confrontational, than these kinds of things are currently going down.
If someone rips someone to shreds, and is nasty about it, then the onus would be on us to not Like that behaviour. If people here will explicitly like snideness, well, that's a shame. If someone rips someone's argument to shreds, cleanly, well I see nothing wrong with people endorsing that.
It will be what we the people explicitly choose to endorse. And I think if given the chance, people will be smart about it.
Yes, there will be people feeling left out because they're not getting comparatively much positive feedback. This would be an unfortunate effect. But on the other hand, if somebody's posts just don't resonate much, well, maybe they should think about upping their game a bit.
I think we're smart enough to manage this. If there is a controversial, ambiguous, or bizarre post that gets a lot of Likes, curious babblers will be all over sorting it out.
I don't think this will provide lazy babblers much in terms of shortcuts. Ridiculous arguments will still be regarded as such.
Frankly I think trying to protect that necessary level of effort is wrong headed. There are piles of people reading babble who rarely post. I think we need to LOWER the amount of effort required for engagement. Many of the lurkers still reading here, or there, are long time babblers who just can't find the time to keep their participation at a posting level. Babble is very engaging--if I get invested in a thread it occupies a lot of my attention. I can do that at most on a semi regular basis. This would allow more people to engage more with babble.
This strikes me as the odd response. Stephen Harper on the long form census much?
We absolutely are not polled enough. As Canadians craving more direct democracy as well as babblers who collectively have a high level of political consciousness. We are a fairly disparate bunch who share many common values--and we are not so well organized. I see making knowledge of babble values more accessible as a good thing for a numbers of reasons...easier for new people to find their groove, easier for people unfamiliar with a specific issue to get a better understanding, easier for us to see which ideas and positions most strongly resonate, easier for us to not spend our time on first principles.
Just as I see lowering the level of effort required as a good thing from many angles, I think more polling is a good value.
Right. That's why we'll still need to write detailed or elegant or disagreeing posts to get the satisfaction that we're looking for. I don't think statements like "Like this comment if you want to take my side against so-and-so" will ever fly.
Without great posts there will be nothing to like. Great posters will always be more highly valued than great likers. But if someone can't ge a great poster than they could at least be a great liker.
Yeah, I'm thinking it would reduce the amount of meta discussion. Additionally, I think it could reduce some of the cycling through the same discussions over and over.
That's true. I think our exploration of issues here is not lacking--I think we are pretty thorough. Sometimes I think issues get explored excessively even, which at times lowers "the vibe" or babbler's engagement levels.
I appreciate people taking the time to comment on this thread. I feel like the general flavour of the objections that people have voiced is that this is change, and it's change that could potentially lower the bar for quality.
I wouldn't suggest this if I felt that it would lower the bar for quality--but it absolutely would be a change. I'm suggesting this step because I think it could move babble past the "groundhog day" effect.
Why do you think that?
Less effort to voice agrement.
Delurking to say: I like the idea of a "like" button, and suggested it myself to the mods a while back.
I would also suggest that if one is implemented, that it records the username of the person who "liked" the comment. It would be interesting to see how many lurkers might engage in this way. I've always thought there were a lot more people reading babble than contributing.
People "pile on" anyhow in babble threads when there's an argument. It's quite possible that a "like" button might cut down on that to a degree. For instance, there have often been times when an argument has happened near the beginning of a thread, and then the thread moves on, back on topic again. Then the next day, someone comes along who didn't see the argument before, and then feels like they need to add their two cents to it, which drags the thread back into the argument again even though everyone else has moved on.
If they had an outlet for expressing their approval of one side or the other of the argument by "liking" the post of the person they agreed with, then they might be less likely to go on about it by posting later in the thread.
I could also see it being useful in threads that involve issues of anti-oppression, when they are dominated by dominant voices and marginalized voices are squeezed out. So often we see this happen, and people just don't have the energy to challenge it yet again. And then there's usually at least one person who will go in and say what needs to be said, but they get drowned out by the dominant voices. With a "like" button, those lurkers and other babblers who appreciate those one or two people sticking their necks out, but who don't have the energy to jump into the fray, can at least support them by "liking" their posts. It would bolster the bravery of the person posting, and it would also be instructive to see whose posts were being "liked" by whom. I could see that being useful, for instance, in the recent shitshows over DSK.
BTW, I wouldn't call it "like". I'd call it something else, like "great post". Because often the subject of a post isn't what you "like", but the post itself, especially if the post is describing something that is bad. If someone, for instance, is talking about something terrible that is happening, it would feel weird to have to hit "like" for that. Or heck, have more than one button. Have an "I agree", "Great Post" and "like".
The other thing I would ensure, if you're going to attach usernames to the "like" post, is that people can reverse their "like" or "great post" if they want to, even after the thread is closed. Because on further thought, it might be possible that people change their minds about how they feel about the post, especially if they misunderstood or misread the post. Or, if the person who wrote the post edits it, the "likers" might also want to decide whether or not they still "like" the new post or want to be on record as having "liked" it.
Anyhow, just my 3 cents, as a mostly-lurker. I'd use a "great post" or "like" button if there was one. :)
I'd like to see a feature called "quote / like", where you can simply excerpt a selection from someone else's post and then "like" it (or "great post" it, as per Michelle above). This isn't Facebook, and there will inevitably be posts where you want to highlight a great part, without necessarily agreeing or choosing to comment on the rest. I think that could be useful, because it would reduce the need to say more than "great post" when you really have little more to say than that.
I guess I'm on the fence on this matter. Generally, I'd like to see the forum kept simple, because there are days when either the internet is busy or my dialup ISP is slow, when babble downloads more slowly than usual.
In my estimation, fewer than 1 percent of posts on babble are simply expressions of agreement with all or part of a previous post. Having a "Like" button will not cut down significantly on the number of "me too" posts.
If the object is to cut down post counts, it would be far more effective to have a "Don't Like" or "Disagree" button, the way the MSM comment sections have. But I thought the whole point of babble was to be a place where people can post their opinions. Why try to curb that?
I also hate anything that promotes Facebook, or links to Facebook, which is becoming an all-too intrusive force on the web. It is a great black hole that sucks data from the internet about people's activities, browsing habits, opinions, etc., and nothing good can come from that.
Personally, I love, if not like, this idea, for the reasons wage zombie and Michelle have already said. Maysie also suggested this at a previous staff meeting back before the glory days of moderation (i.e. now). I have been told that this feature will be included in the upgrade which should be tested by staff within a week. If it's not, I might take you up on your offer, wz.
Rather that simply "like" why not a left wing version of it?
"Click here if this posting is a great expression of solidarity." (wording here could be improved)
"Click here if this post violates babble policy on solidarity."
Oh wait. We've got the 2nd one already. Carry on.
Many, if not most, of the sites I prefer to use have a "reply" function attached to each post so that one can respond directly to ideas one approves or disapproves of. This is especially useful for kicking the crap out of annoying trolls. Never underestimate the power of an immediate blast of cruel wit for damping their taste for insult and annoyance.
The "like" feature on some sites also has a running tally of the "likes" one receives compared to the number of posts one has submitted.
Are any of these things necessary? Of course not. It's at least possible that the current babble method forces one to think more carefully about one's response before making it and certainly forces one to read the thread before responding to a particular post in the queue.
I do not "LIKE" this but I mostly agree with this. There must be some other way to get lurkers to post, preferably in non-serif.
Why do we want lurkers to post? Let lurkers lurk and posters post.
Why should I care what a bunch of anonymous lurkers whose politics are completely unknown to me think about what I or anyone else posts here?
Think about it a bit more and see if you come up with anything.ETA: Sorry for the unnecessary snark. I found your opinion a bit bizarre. I would take it as a given that we want to engage more people through babble, provided of course that those new members follow babble posting policy.
I tend to like this idea however, I do wonder about the way human beings are said to be affected by feedback based on whether or not it's positive or negative.
Here's my train of thought: I wonder if adding a "like" button or something similar would lead to people clicking it rather than write a positive comment (which it may not since perhaps lurkers might click "like" who aren't posting anything now). If so, that could result in a disproportionate amount of negative content on the threads. Further, If there is anything to the idea that the negative is felt at 10 times the intensity of positive feedback, then it would seem to me that the discussions could be skewed toward the negative or argumentative.
I agree, although for slightly different reasons, i think. I think part of the reason why these threads get derailed so often is because people just want to acknowledge that they've read something which they found interesting, provactive, relatable. But as it stands now, there's no way to acknowledge that without making a post. There's nothing inherently wrong with adding a comment to a thread, but things often deteriorate when someone from a position of relative privilege clumsily tries to relate it to their own life. So, instead of a simple 'like', we often get; 'Thanks for posting that article on sexism in the workplace. As a straight white man, It brought to mind a number of my own job-related experiences, which I shall now share with you...'
I think a like/dislike system with lead to less acrimony.
I'm going to speak against the idea of a 'like' button. Babble isn't a popularity contest. Progressive discussions ought to be about more than that, and I worry that a 'like' button would cause the level of conversation to get 'dumbed down'.
Thanks for making my point, Unionist.