Suggestion: "I second this" option for posts

[Thorns]

What are you, god?

I don't need to hear your crap.

I expressed my opinion and all you can do is read my future.

Wel lyour cards read wrong, idiot.

I have been here MORE than a year and I don't do trading/wifi crap.

Judging by you, you're some little girl obsessed with Pachirisu's.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

This sounds like a good idea, Don't make it linked to a person's profile and only all an agree (not a negative) that way it isn't abused. If a person broke the rules in the post, that's what the report button is for. If a member disgarees with an opinion expressed in a thread, the should state why they disagree in a manner that attacks the argument and not the person. I've seen lots of "debate" threads turn into a flamewar when it's not called for.

 

[Yuoaman]

What are you, god?

I don't need to hear your crap.

I expressed my opinion and all you can do is read my future.

Wel lyour cards read wrong, idiot.

I have been here MORE than a year and I don't do trading/wifi crap.

Judging by you, you're some little girl obsessed with Pachirisu's.

Why are you trying to turn everything into a personal attack? You're attacking a member who's been here for a far longer time than you claim to have been here, who definitely has a better sense of this community's relative maturity than you do. Just because they disagree with your opinion and point out certain facts is no reason to insult them.

 

[Morkula]

Okay, Pachy and Thorns, cool it. I'm handing out infractions in this thread right now, so keep it civil. No flamebaiting, and no responding to flamebait.

 

[Tyrantrum]

This sounds like a good idea, Don't make it linked to a person's profile and only all an agree (not a negative) that way it isn't abused. If a person broke the rules in the post, that's what the report button is for. If a member disgarees with an opinion expressed in a thread, the should state why they disagree in a manner that attacks the argument and not the person. I've seen lots of "debate" threads turn into a flamewar when it's not called for.

No offense, but I can't really understand what you're trying to say. I can only understand your first sentence.

Unfortunately, though, having on a "thumbs up/I Agree" feature would still pretty much be abused. Basically what Twilight Sky has said, but they'd still just get all pissed off and PM the staff nonstop because their so-called "amazing, super-fantastic, awesomecake post" wasn't agreed with and complain and whine and moan about how god their idea was and that they should have been thumbed up or something. Not to mention that, also what Twilight Sky has, that they'd just be abusing it by "Agreeing with" their friends only just so their posts could get "Agreed with."

I don't really know if anyone really understands what I mean, now, but if you think about it, it's possibly that something like this could happen.

 

[loliwin]

kinda like facebook ya think?
A thumbs up is still a pretty good feature, but sometimes its nice to read agreeing posts. :O

 

[twocows]

I guess I don't understand how an "agree" option tied only to a specific post could be abused (provided there is no disagree option). If it was tied to a person's account, then we get into the whole ego issue, but for a single post, I don't see how it could possibly be abused. It would also probably alleviate some load, since it would get rid of the problem of people just inserting filler until their post is long enough.

I suppose it could be limited to one "agree"ment per thread, I can kind of see people "agree"ing with everything except a single post.

What if I disagree with the point of a post? There'd be absolutely no point in adding pluses if you can't have negatives.

This is also going back to reputation. Some people would just + rep their friends so they can watch their pretty bars grow. What if the same thing happened here? What if you thumbs up a person over and over(if possible) and get friends to do it?

The point is that there's no REAL(if rarely) honest criticism coming from the person rating the post. It's mostly just favoritism or something along those lines.

Any disagreement can be sorted out within a thread; there's no lack of people willing to explain why they'll disagree with someone. On the other hand, sometimes someone has already said exactly what you are thinking, and it's nice to be able to point that out without having to create an entire post about it.

 

[Cherrim]

Honestly, I don't mind the idea that much. :( I sometimes think about having it on PC because it's nice to just scroll through a page of comments on a news site and just agree or disagree with the comments. I'm far too lazy to make an account on those sites (especially news sites) so agreeing with the good comments and disagreeing with the awful ones is a good way to make myself heard.

Buuut PC is a forum, so there's less of an issue with registering because anyone using the feature would already have registered. And it really doesn't take too long to type up a post saying "I agree with this". If OP really cares about the answer to his/her question, they'd read the whole thread anyway.

So really, I guess I wouldn't care either way but since most of the rest of the staff (from what I know) is against it... it probably won't happen. :/

 

[mr. ck]

It doesn't seem like this is likely to happen... But, my 2 cents.
I like the idea a lot. It saves you from the trouble.
Apart from a few comments to many thread, most are useless, such a feature should help in such a case.

I've been frequenting other forums and I liked this feature in the Ubuntu forums where you could Thank somebody if they help you. The "Thankers" are listed with the post and not in the profile itself. This saves you from a lot of trouble when you look for solutions to problems. (especially if the question is already been asked)

Another forum is GDnet. Their Rep system allows somebody who has a better rep to influence your rep more. Making two people with the same rep not effect each other's rep does a lot to prevent abuse.
GDnet is the leading community for what it does :)

EDIT: Just think of it this way:
Somebody asks a question. Another guy replies with a solution. If you feel that what the other guy said is wrong, you would quote him and explain WHY it is wrong? If the guy is right, there's no point in 100 people just quoting him and saying "Yes do this" That's not contributing much. Now if there weren't 100 people with their replies, only a number next to the post... It would be much better :)
I only quoted those forums because they are popular and have rarely ever had problems with their systems :P

 

[Yamikarasu]

I think PC has tried rep enough times in the past (I've only been once when we had it, but I get the impression it's been implemented more than once) to know that it just doesn't work if the overall goal of this website is to seem open and nonthreatening. At least for me, that's why I go to PC and not SPPf or some other site (Not that SPPf is threatening, but you know how it can seem :P).

Rep systems change this dynamic. Even just having an "agree" option would make posts that were left unagreed to seem like people disagreed with them. It's still a rep system, even if it's just for that thread and not PC-wide. Rep systems just don't work from what I've seen.

 

[Percy Thrillington]

I find that a lot of times I agree with what someone else has posted and don't really need to respond myself. However, I'd like people to know that I supported that answer. This happens a lot in C&T when somebody asks a question and there are different answers. A lot of times the best answer is hidden amongst a number of other comments that either aren't answers or aren't very good answers.

EDIT: Since some people are misunderstanding, I am suggesting an "agree" option only, not a disagree. Please read my further comments below for more information.

If implemented, this could be the holy grail for cq + f (ie it could stop the constant reiteration that goes on).

 

[mikey]

I also disagree with this idea. I know some have said this already, but we don't want to turn PC into like Facebook. PC is fine the way it is. People will probably mis-use this system if implanted anyway.

 

[Dawn]

I think PC has tried rep enough times in the past (I've only been once when we had it, but I get the impression it's been implemented more than once) to know that it just doesn't work if the overall goal of this website is to seem open and nonthreatening. At least for me, that's why I go to PC and not SPPf or some other site (Not that SPPf is threatening, but you know how it can seem :P).

Rep systems change this dynamic. Even just having an "agree" option would make posts that were left unagreed to seem like people disagreed with them. It's still a rep system, even if it's just for that thread and not PC-wide. Rep systems just don't work from what I've seen.

I second this.

...*Yellow is shot*

I don't like rep systems of any kind. Stupid ego/popularity contest. If- ... Nevermind. I'll save the rant for some other time.

 

[Melody]

A quick word to all you naysayers here.

This is not a reputation system! This is a system to measure post quality, that is NOT linked back to the user by any magic statistic. We could easily make it so that only you and staff can see that total number, if such a stat is supported at all.

That being said, if Audy won't code it, it's pretty much dead anyways ;o;

 

[Thorns]

And I'll put in my final word. best for last.

THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS PRETTY MUCH POINTLESS WHEN LOOKING AT THE QUOTES FEATURE.T

THIS FEATURE THAT WAS SUGGESTED IN MY OPINION IS PLAIN STUPID, AND WOULD NOT ONLY MAKE POKEOCMMUNITY SLOWER THAN IT ALREADY IS, BUT START WARS OVER HOW MANY THUMBS UP EACH POST HAS.

ITS STUPID AND THANK GOD IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.

:)

 

[twocows]

Lack of people? No. Lack of maturity? Yes.

The important part here is not the quantity of people, but the "quality" as you can say. What I'm saying is that, as far as I know, PC has never been able to hold any disagreement in a civil manner(especially things pertaining to criticism)because there will always be that person that won't take your opinion with a grain of salt and then everything would fall apart from there.

That may be, but this shouldn't affect the disagreement issue. It doesn't change anything there as far as I know, it only adds an agree option.

 

[Dawn]

This is a system to measure post quality, that is NOT linked back to the user by any magic statistic. We could easily make it so that only you and staff can see that total number, if such a stat is supported at all.

That's pretty much what a reputation system has always been about, with the exception that sometimes it's a meter for the quality of the user themselves, sorry. Oh, and anonymously being able to do this sort of thing is exploitable. I've seen people harassed using "features" like this. Quite frankly, this would be abused. Even if there wasn't a disagree, people would find ways to bash people based on the assumed lack of agree'rs. Yes, even if they couldn't see how many, people who didn't like someone's post would be likely to just assume there were none.

On this forum On the internet in general, I don't want an anonymous person's opinion on me, ever.

 

[Superjub]

And I'll put in my final word. best for last.

THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS PRETTY MUCH POINTLESS WHEN LOOKING AT THE QUOTES FEATURE.T

THIS FEATURE THAT WAS SUGGESTED IN MY OPINION IS PLAIN STUPID, AND WOULD NOT ONLY MAKE POKEOCMMUNITY SLOWER THAN IT ALREADY IS, BUT START WARS OVER HOW MANY THUMBS UP EACH POST HAS.

ITS STUPID AND THANK GOD IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.

:)

Yes we get it, you don't like it. T_T

I, personally, think it's quite cool. :) It wouldn't have a "I disagree feature", so no one would be whining. When we did have the rep system, people weren't whining that people were more popular/had more rep, but because they got bad rep. xD So, I don't think this would be like the rep system. And I doubt it will make PC run slower. We had the rep system before, and even that didn't make PC run slower (well, not that I noticed. XD)

 

[Thorns]

Excuse Me?

I never said a thing to you Retribution, so keep your comments to yourself.

T_T

 

[Nick]

My opinion on implementing this is the same as Pachy's. If it is implemented, the only thing I think that would be needed is a thumbs up system. The post with the highest amount of thumbs up would probably be given more attention, since it would be ruled the most helpful. Kind of like critiques at DA play out, they're above the comments and how the most comments with thumbs up on YouTube are shown at the top of the comments.

Does facepunch have many immature little kids?

Didn't think so.

But there's immature little kids all over the internet. Just because there's a system like this being suggested and the community is a community based on children doesn't mean that a helpful system like this should be ruled out, imo.

But, while I don't support the whole Let's not turn PC into Facebook approach to this and while I like the suggestion, I do think that PC is a forum, and forums are kind of built on posts like that. I really don't see anything wrong with someone replying with an agreement to a previous comment, personally. :/ So, I guess I really don't mind either way for this one.

Excuse Me?

I never said a thing to you Retribution, so keep your comments to yourself.

T_T

Hey, give the kid a break. :/

You're posting your opinions publicly without any quotations, so anything you say is going to be taken into consideration by everyone. He's only trying to defend a suggestion, which you called stupid.