November is National Let's Try Obscuring Favorite Counts Month October 31, 2009 12:02 PM Subscribe
For the month of November, we're going to try an experiment with how favorites are displayed. [Note: if this whole experiment is driving you crazy, here's a note on reverting the changes.]
One of the recurring discussions about favorites is whether or not it's a good idea to display favorite counts on comments. There have been a few proposals over the years to modify how that works, and we're going to try putting some of those ideas into action for the month of November to see how things feel.
Here's what we're going to do:
1. We're removing the number-of-favorites indicator from comment bylines.
2. We're replacing the word "favorites" with "faved" for those comments that have one or more favorites attached to them. This will link to the list of favorites for a comment just as the traditional "x favorites" link always has. [After a bunch of feedback, we've changed "faved" to "has favorites". -c]
3. We're including the favorite count invisibly in the byline still, so that those who specifically want to use that information or to write/modify scripts affected by it can do so.
4. All other aspects of the system will remain as is, so various less-visible parts of the site that deal with favorites should be unaffected.
And that's the plan. Here's where we're coming from on this:
We've talked about how to do this for a while now behind the scenes (and in previous Metatalk threads), and the plan above feels like the best compromise we could think of to address some of the concerns folks have expressed over the years while retaining what we see as the considerable utility of the favorites system itself.
Removing the count is the key thing. It's an attempt to address the concern that visible favorite counts on comments may be interpreted as voting system, while still keeping the transparency-of-favoriting function of a visible marker and a favorites list link intact.
We're not removing the favorite counts from posts; the concerns about the effects of the favorites system have almost universally been regarding comments, and so we're just focusing on that for this experiment.
The change from "favorites" to "faved" is in part a change just to make it clearer that there is a change, for folks who may not be as attentive to Metatalk or site UI details. We've also tried to come up with something shorter than "favorites" just to reduce the byline length a little bit, while keeping it clearly readable and clickable. If folks have suggestions for alternative link text to "faved", we're happy to hear ideas.
This change will probably break various scripts that depend on specific formatting of the byline, which we're aware of but don't have any real help for. At the end of the day, we need to reserve the right to tweak the site's UI. However, by including the favorite count information in the source, any script that needs access to it can be modified to get at it, and any script that doesn't need access to that info can just be modified to work with the new layout. (And given that this is an experiment, any changes to scripts should probably be treated for now as just an experimental fork.)
We think a month is long enough for folks to get more or less used to the change and develop an opinion about whether its a net improvement or not and whether there are any serious unintended consequences, etc. We're going to go ahead and launch it in the next 24 hours, and we're happy to hear feedback and suggestions in this thread now and throughout November.
One of the recurring discussions about favorites is whether or not it's a good idea to display favorite counts on comments. There have been a few proposals over the years to modify how that works, and we're going to try putting some of those ideas into action for the month of November to see how things feel.
Here's what we're going to do:
1. We're removing the number-of-favorites indicator from comment bylines.
2. We're replacing the word "favorites" with "faved" for those comments that have one or more favorites attached to them. This will link to the list of favorites for a comment just as the traditional "x favorites" link always has. [After a bunch of feedback, we've changed "faved" to "has favorites". -c]
3. We're including the favorite count invisibly in the byline still, so that those who specifically want to use that information or to write/modify scripts affected by it can do so.
4. All other aspects of the system will remain as is, so various less-visible parts of the site that deal with favorites should be unaffected.
And that's the plan. Here's where we're coming from on this:
We've talked about how to do this for a while now behind the scenes (and in previous Metatalk threads), and the plan above feels like the best compromise we could think of to address some of the concerns folks have expressed over the years while retaining what we see as the considerable utility of the favorites system itself.
Removing the count is the key thing. It's an attempt to address the concern that visible favorite counts on comments may be interpreted as voting system, while still keeping the transparency-of-favoriting function of a visible marker and a favorites list link intact.
We're not removing the favorite counts from posts; the concerns about the effects of the favorites system have almost universally been regarding comments, and so we're just focusing on that for this experiment.
The change from "favorites" to "faved" is in part a change just to make it clearer that there is a change, for folks who may not be as attentive to Metatalk or site UI details. We've also tried to come up with something shorter than "favorites" just to reduce the byline length a little bit, while keeping it clearly readable and clickable. If folks have suggestions for alternative link text to "faved", we're happy to hear ideas.
This change will probably break various scripts that depend on specific formatting of the byline, which we're aware of but don't have any real help for. At the end of the day, we need to reserve the right to tweak the site's UI. However, by including the favorite count information in the source, any script that needs access to it can be modified to get at it, and any script that doesn't need access to that info can just be modified to work with the new layout. (And given that this is an experiment, any changes to scripts should probably be treated for now as just an experimental fork.)
We think a month is long enough for folks to get more or less used to the change and develop an opinion about whether its a net improvement or not and whether there are any serious unintended consequences, etc. We're going to go ahead and launch it in the next 24 hours, and we're happy to hear feedback and suggestions in this thread now and throughout November.
*faved*
posted by gingerbeer at 12:09 PM on October 31, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by gingerbeer at 12:09 PM on October 31, 2009 [5 favorites]
This will interesting to see how it plays out. Favorite counts appear to produce gameplay behavior in commenters, and those comments tend to be more "funny" or "snarky" than "interesting."
I don't think hiding the count will eliminate the "funny" or the "snarky," but it might suppress it somewhat. How will that affect comment threads? I guess we'll see what happens.
posted by dw at 12:18 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't think hiding the count will eliminate the "funny" or the "snarky," but it might suppress it somewhat. How will that affect comment threads? I guess we'll see what happens.
posted by dw at 12:18 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
How will we feed Astro Zombie now?
posted by cgomez at 12:20 PM on October 31, 2009 [32 favorites]
posted by cgomez at 12:20 PM on October 31, 2009 [32 favorites]
If you go for this in the long-term, I'd like to request an opt-out option.
posted by SebastianKnight at 12:23 PM on October 31, 2009 [30 favorites]
posted by SebastianKnight at 12:23 PM on October 31, 2009 [30 favorites]
If folks have suggestions for alternative link text to "faved", we're happy to hear ideas.
How about "saved"? It's more neutral and, I think, describes more accurately the actual function of the thingy.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:24 PM on October 31, 2009 [12 favorites]
How about "saved"? It's more neutral and, I think, describes more accurately the actual function of the thingy.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:24 PM on October 31, 2009 [12 favorites]
Wah. I hate change and want everything to stay just as it was for better or for worse. *Throws rotary phone.*
Ok with that out of the way, I think this is a good experiment to try, but I think the right fix here is social, not technological. Favorites are and always have been a way to say "this comment is one of my favorites." Nothing more. Not a Yahoo Answers (blech!) style voting system. I periodically favorite posts I vehemently disagree with when their position is well argued and helps me to see a situation in a new light. If people don't understand that, they ought to be educated on that point the same way users are educated about other aspects of the site and guidelines.
Maybe a middle ground would be to give a general indication of the number of favorites without posting the actual number. It seems a tad silly to me that a post with one favorite should display the same as one with 150. Faved, faved+, and faved++ perhaps? :-)
posted by zachlipton at 12:25 PM on October 31, 2009 [11 favorites]
Ok with that out of the way, I think this is a good experiment to try, but I think the right fix here is social, not technological. Favorites are and always have been a way to say "this comment is one of my favorites." Nothing more. Not a Yahoo Answers (blech!) style voting system. I periodically favorite posts I vehemently disagree with when their position is well argued and helps me to see a situation in a new light. If people don't understand that, they ought to be educated on that point the same way users are educated about other aspects of the site and guidelines.
Maybe a middle ground would be to give a general indication of the number of favorites without posting the actual number. It seems a tad silly to me that a post with one favorite should display the same as one with 150. Faved, faved+, and faved++ perhaps? :-)
posted by zachlipton at 12:25 PM on October 31, 2009 [11 favorites]
As lalex says, favorites on AskMe are a less noisy version of "me too", and if they remain invisible, it would be useful to have some other "me too" indicator. While favorite count visibility does encourage gaming for favorites, it also allows a shorthand that lets you know that a number of people agreed with a sentiment, or found it worthy of referring back to.
Countless times I have been skimming a mefi thread, and backed up and read a comment I had skipped or only skimmed (often a big tl;dr wall of text) because it had a buttload of favorites, and I am rarely disappointed by what I find.
posted by idiopath at 12:25 PM on October 31, 2009 [79 favorites]
Countless times I have been skimming a mefi thread, and backed up and read a comment I had skipped or only skimmed (often a big tl;dr wall of text) because it had a buttload of favorites, and I am rarely disappointed by what I find.
posted by idiopath at 12:25 PM on October 31, 2009 [79 favorites]
It's an attempt to address the concern that visible favorite counts on comments may be interpreted as voting system
I guess I missed the conversation where it was determined that this was a bad thing. Usually, comments with lots of favorites actually ARE worth reading, because they're funny, informative, or otherwise interesting. And sometimes in a long thread it's beneficial to be able to skim for highly favorited comments. I don't think this is advisable if you plan to actually participate in the thread; in that case you should have a good idea of what the entire conversation has entailed.
Anyway, I want to go on record as saying I don't like this change.
posted by desjardins at 12:27 PM on October 31, 2009 [130 favorites]
I guess I missed the conversation where it was determined that this was a bad thing. Usually, comments with lots of favorites actually ARE worth reading, because they're funny, informative, or otherwise interesting. And sometimes in a long thread it's beneficial to be able to skim for highly favorited comments. I don't think this is advisable if you plan to actually participate in the thread; in that case you should have a good idea of what the entire conversation has entailed.
Anyway, I want to go on record as saying I don't like this change.
posted by desjardins at 12:27 PM on October 31, 2009 [130 favorites]
Wow, as long as you're altering the terminology to shorten it, why not take the opportunity to remove the implications that come with using the word 'favorite'?
posted by carsonb at 12:28 PM on October 31, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by carsonb at 12:28 PM on October 31, 2009 [5 favorites]
Favorites are and always have been a way to say "this comment is one of my favorites."
FOR YOU. We've had this argument endless times; some use them as bookmarks, some use them as agreement, some use them as "this guy's an asshole and I want to remember what he said later to use it against him."
I feel like in AskMe the visible favorite count often functions as "I would like to agree with this answer"
Yep and I will stop favoriting comments in AskMe if it won't count as a "me too."
posted by desjardins at 12:30 PM on October 31, 2009 [6 favorites]
FOR YOU. We've had this argument endless times; some use them as bookmarks, some use them as agreement, some use them as "this guy's an asshole and I want to remember what he said later to use it against him."
I feel like in AskMe the visible favorite count often functions as "I would like to agree with this answer"
Yep and I will stop favoriting comments in AskMe if it won't count as a "me too."
posted by desjardins at 12:30 PM on October 31, 2009 [6 favorites]
lalex: "I feel like in AskMe the visible favorite count often functions as..."
I rarely use faves on AskMe the way you describe. The great thing about favorites is that I'll use them the way I want to use them and you use them the way you want to use them and the author interprets them the way she wants to interpret them and everyone ends up satisfied with the outcome. And we don't end up with a different mechanism for each use.
posted by Plutor at 12:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
I rarely use faves on AskMe the way you describe. The great thing about favorites is that I'll use them the way I want to use them and you use them the way you want to use them and the author interprets them the way she wants to interpret them and everyone ends up satisfied with the outcome. And we don't end up with a different mechanism for each use.
posted by Plutor at 12:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
I want people favoriting stuff because they like it, not because they think they should like it because others do.
That said, I've spent many favorites on awesome comments I'd found browsing the popular favorites page.
How will this affect the listings on the popular favorites?
posted by not_on_display at 12:35 PM on October 31, 2009
That said, I've spent many favorites on awesome comments I'd found browsing the popular favorites page.
How will this affect the listings on the popular favorites?
posted by not_on_display at 12:35 PM on October 31, 2009
Self-seconding "saved" ('cause I'm classy) with a postscript:
I don't see the problem with the numbers. If they encourage anything, it's—heaven forbid!—interesting commentary. If that's "gaming for favorites," consider me pro-gaming.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:35 PM on October 31, 2009 [11 favorites]
I don't see the problem with the numbers. If they encourage anything, it's—heaven forbid!—interesting commentary. If that's "gaming for favorites," consider me pro-gaming.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:35 PM on October 31, 2009 [11 favorites]
Anyway, I want to go on record as saying I don't like this change.
Same here.
posted by Durin's Bane at 12:35 PM on October 31, 2009 [20 favorites]
Same here.
posted by Durin's Bane at 12:35 PM on October 31, 2009 [20 favorites]
I like this. But I hate the word faved. It sounds like saturday morning kid's tv.
posted by Jofus at 12:39 PM on October 31, 2009 [14 favorites]
posted by Jofus at 12:39 PM on October 31, 2009 [14 favorites]
If you go for this in the long-term
Just to be clear, we're not trying this out as a "hey we're planning on implementing this" but that a lot of people have, for a long time, been saying they think the favorites system encourages crappy behavior. We've been saying "We don't think so" without any real way to test. So, we decided to try this. And it's about that complicated. We talked a lot about the word "faved" but this isn't some major thing, just a good time for some experimentation.
Greasemonkey workarounds will be available [though we're not providing them, but I assume people will write them]. I'm totally okay with more "me too" comments in AskMe as a side effect for a few weeks.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:39 PM on October 31, 2009
Just to be clear, we're not trying this out as a "hey we're planning on implementing this" but that a lot of people have, for a long time, been saying they think the favorites system encourages crappy behavior. We've been saying "We don't think so" without any real way to test. So, we decided to try this. And it's about that complicated. We talked a lot about the word "faved" but this isn't some major thing, just a good time for some experimentation.
Greasemonkey workarounds will be available [though we're not providing them, but I assume people will write them]. I'm totally okay with more "me too" comments in AskMe as a side effect for a few weeks.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:39 PM on October 31, 2009
How will this affect the listings on the popular favorites?
It won't. All other favorites displays and functions will be the same, just no number by the comment.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:41 PM on October 31, 2009
It won't. All other favorites displays and functions will be the same, just no number by the comment.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:41 PM on October 31, 2009
I'm just going to write in my own Slashdot style pluses and minuses for peoples comments.
-1 SPAMMY, +1 COUNTER-NERFING, -1 SNARK, +1 SNARK
posted by Artw at 12:42 PM on October 31, 2009 [9 favorites]
-1 SPAMMY, +1 COUNTER-NERFING, -1 SNARK, +1 SNARK
posted by Artw at 12:42 PM on October 31, 2009 [9 favorites]
If folks have suggestions for alternative link text to "faved", we're happy to hear ideas.
spoused.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:43 PM on October 31, 2009 [15 favorites]
spoused.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:43 PM on October 31, 2009 [15 favorites]
jessamyn: "We've been saying "We don't think so" without any real way to test. So, we decided to try this."
What are the measurable outcomes? Or is it simply qualitative? "We feel like things got better/worse/the same in November"?
(Note: I think this is a good idea and wouldn't mind it becoming permanent.)
posted by Plutor at 12:48 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
What are the measurable outcomes? Or is it simply qualitative? "We feel like things got better/worse/the same in November"?
(Note: I think this is a good idea and wouldn't mind it becoming permanent.)
posted by Plutor at 12:48 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
How about "saved"? It's more neutral and, I think, describes more accurately the actual function of the thingy.
"Saved" might offend religious folk and saying a user has 500 saves doesn't read right.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:49 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
"Saved" might offend religious folk and saying a user has 500 saves doesn't read right.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:49 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Also, while we're at it, can youse guys consolidate the place we go to look for "most faved" things?
For instance:
• The "Popular" button (only available on MeFi, or the Blue-colored pages) leads to a page with the most popular comments and posts from all sites over 7 days.
• Whereas I have NO idea how to get to these pages, except by a link on the FAQ; and this page is really useful in seeing what has been favorited on each individual site, and I like the ability to see what has been favorited more over longer terms. But you can't do this across all sites nor with comments.
I think if you're going to tweak the way we see favorites on the frontline, you should also make it easier for us to browse through favorites behind-the-scenes via the above examples.
posted by not_on_display at 12:50 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
For instance:
• The "Popular" button (only available on MeFi, or the Blue-colored pages) leads to a page with the most popular comments and posts from all sites over 7 days.
• Whereas I have NO idea how to get to these pages, except by a link on the FAQ; and this page is really useful in seeing what has been favorited on each individual site, and I like the ability to see what has been favorited more over longer terms. But you can't do this across all sites nor with comments.
I think if you're going to tweak the way we see favorites on the frontline, you should also make it easier for us to browse through favorites behind-the-scenes via the above examples.
posted by not_on_display at 12:50 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
I like things the way they are.
posted by mmmbacon at 12:53 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by mmmbacon at 12:53 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
I'm melting... meeeelllting... Oh, what a world...
posted by loquacious at 12:53 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by loquacious at 12:53 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Also, while we're at it, can youse guys consolidate the place we go to look for "most faved" things?
Previously.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:54 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Previously.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:54 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I guess I missed the conversation where it was determined that this was a bad thing.
I know you're not being snarky and I want to be clear that I'm not at all, but if you have missed the many conversations where folks have been vocal about their concerns about this, then you've missed a lot of conversations, yeah. It's been a recurring topic for pretty much as long as favorites have been around.
There's no unanimous position on it, it's always been a contentious issue and I'm personally pretty middling on the issue, but there's been a lot of criticism of that perceived-but-not-intended function of the system, and this is an experiment to see what it feels like when we address that issue.
Wow, as long as you're altering the terminology to shorten it, why not take the opportunity to remove the implications that come with using the word 'favorite'?
A site-wide change to the terminology is a comparitively huge undertaking—we're currently only touching one small portion of the feature and not trying to change the actual terminology itself in any fundamental way even at that level. Renaming favorites is a different, much bigger discussion and one we're not really wanting to get into right now and certainly not talking about pursuing at the moment.
How will this affect the listings on the popular favorites?
Like Jess said, it won't affect those pages in any direct sense. Only the thread view of comments is changing.
If you mean in the sense of "how will this change lead to systemic effects on favoriting behavior as displayed in Popular listings", though, I'm curious about that myself. A month should be enough to let us see at least broad changes in that kind of dynamic, which should be interesting. My gut feeling is that if there is a noticeable change, it'll be in the overall volume of the favorites on Popular pages but that the curve of favorites distribution will probably stay about the same, so in theory the utility of those pages would be unaffected.
What are the measurable outcomes? Or is it simply qualitative? "We feel like things got better/worse/the same in November"?
I think it's basically completely qualitative. We aren't in a place where we feel like there's Too Much Favoriting or Too Many Favorites or anything like that, and I can't think of any direct metric we'd be looking at as the month goes by. If there were something really directly measurable, I think we would have done this a long time ago just to take that measurement and have it done with.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:55 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
I know you're not being snarky and I want to be clear that I'm not at all, but if you have missed the many conversations where folks have been vocal about their concerns about this, then you've missed a lot of conversations, yeah. It's been a recurring topic for pretty much as long as favorites have been around.
There's no unanimous position on it, it's always been a contentious issue and I'm personally pretty middling on the issue, but there's been a lot of criticism of that perceived-but-not-intended function of the system, and this is an experiment to see what it feels like when we address that issue.
Wow, as long as you're altering the terminology to shorten it, why not take the opportunity to remove the implications that come with using the word 'favorite'?
A site-wide change to the terminology is a comparitively huge undertaking—we're currently only touching one small portion of the feature and not trying to change the actual terminology itself in any fundamental way even at that level. Renaming favorites is a different, much bigger discussion and one we're not really wanting to get into right now and certainly not talking about pursuing at the moment.
How will this affect the listings on the popular favorites?
Like Jess said, it won't affect those pages in any direct sense. Only the thread view of comments is changing.
If you mean in the sense of "how will this change lead to systemic effects on favoriting behavior as displayed in Popular listings", though, I'm curious about that myself. A month should be enough to let us see at least broad changes in that kind of dynamic, which should be interesting. My gut feeling is that if there is a noticeable change, it'll be in the overall volume of the favorites on Popular pages but that the curve of favorites distribution will probably stay about the same, so in theory the utility of those pages would be unaffected.
What are the measurable outcomes? Or is it simply qualitative? "We feel like things got better/worse/the same in November"?
I think it's basically completely qualitative. We aren't in a place where we feel like there's Too Much Favoriting or Too Many Favorites or anything like that, and I can't think of any direct metric we'd be looking at as the month goes by. If there were something really directly measurable, I think we would have done this a long time ago just to take that measurement and have it done with.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:55 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
It'll be interesting to see if this change results in any measurable effects on favoriting activity. I'll be surprised if it doesn't, actually, because it seems like a visible favorites count on a comment would encourage other people to favorite the same comment. So will hiding the favorites count directly alter favoriting behavior of users? Or will it result in a change in commenting style, that then indirectly changes the way favoriting statistics look?
I guess the latter point (change in commenting style) is really the point here in that some people feel the favoriting mechanism encourages the wrong sort of comments. But commenting style is awfully hard to measure statistically. So if there is an overall change in favoriting statistics, how will we know if there's been a change in commenting style behind it, or if it's just a side-effect of the count being hidden?
You'd almost have to make the favorites count visible to everyone except the comment's author to test if people are actually commenting differently, instead of just being less encouraged to favorite something because lots of other people already have.
Anyway, seems like some kind of post-experiment Infodump analysis would be in order.
posted by FishBike at 12:57 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
I guess the latter point (change in commenting style) is really the point here in that some people feel the favoriting mechanism encourages the wrong sort of comments. But commenting style is awfully hard to measure statistically. So if there is an overall change in favoriting statistics, how will we know if there's been a change in commenting style behind it, or if it's just a side-effect of the count being hidden?
You'd almost have to make the favorites count visible to everyone except the comment's author to test if people are actually commenting differently, instead of just being less encouraged to favorite something because lots of other people already have.
Anyway, seems like some kind of post-experiment Infodump analysis would be in order.
posted by FishBike at 12:57 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
"How about "saved"? It's more neutral and, I think, describes more accurately the actual function of the thingy."
Plus, it's a word.
So wait, lemme see if I understand this right. If you favorite a comment, you will see "faved" the way we see "flagged" for comments we've flagged now? And no one will know if anyone else has favorited a comment, the same way you can't tell someone else has flagged something? Or will EVERYONE see "faved" if anyone has favorited a given comment? Because the latter makes no sense. If you're going to make favorites a private thing (which they should be, like flags), they should be fully private.
posted by Eideteker at 12:58 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Plus, it's a word.
So wait, lemme see if I understand this right. If you favorite a comment, you will see "faved" the way we see "flagged" for comments we've flagged now? And no one will know if anyone else has favorited a comment, the same way you can't tell someone else has flagged something? Or will EVERYONE see "faved" if anyone has favorited a given comment? Because the latter makes no sense. If you're going to make favorites a private thing (which they should be, like flags), they should be fully private.
posted by Eideteker at 12:58 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Nope, Eideteker, that's not how it works. How it works is:
If a comment has one or more favorites on it, under the new system it will have instead of "x favorites" instead just the word "faved" without a count.
If you have favorited a comment, it will have a "-" instead of a "+" so that you can unfavorite, just as before.
The only change is in the visibility-or-not, to everybody, of the fave count, and the change from the word "favorites" in "x favorites" to the slightly-less-screen-footprint-occupying "faved".
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:01 PM on October 31, 2009
If a comment has one or more favorites on it, under the new system it will have instead of "x favorites" instead just the word "faved" without a count.
If you have favorited a comment, it will have a "-" instead of a "+" so that you can unfavorite, just as before.
The only change is in the visibility-or-not, to everybody, of the fave count, and the change from the word "favorites" in "x favorites" to the slightly-less-screen-footprint-occupying "faved".
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:01 PM on October 31, 2009
I think this is a great idea. Taking a number out of the line that can very easily be put back in for those who want it (why? You won't favorite it unless it's popular enough? Feh.) by a Greasemonkey script that I'd bet my house will be out a matter of days after they go live with the change is a perfect compromise.
posted by middleclasstool at 1:05 PM on October 31, 2009
posted by middleclasstool at 1:05 PM on October 31, 2009
Wow, as long as you're altering the terminology to shorten it, why not take the opportunity to remove the implications that come with using the word 'favorite'?
I don't think changing the term will do much to impact any "gaming for favourites", if such a thing is actually a problem.
It could be changed to 'faved', 'saved', 'plussed', 'hippoed', or 'dildoed'; people are still going to like knowing that others have clicked their [+], and comment accordingly, if they're of a mind to like knowing that others have clicked their [+].
posted by CKmtl at 1:07 PM on October 31, 2009
I don't think changing the term will do much to impact any "gaming for favourites", if such a thing is actually a problem.
It could be changed to 'faved', 'saved', 'plussed', 'hippoed', or 'dildoed'; people are still going to like knowing that others have clicked their [+], and comment accordingly, if they're of a mind to like knowing that others have clicked their [+].
posted by CKmtl at 1:07 PM on October 31, 2009
I think this trial is a good idea.
Since some of the functionality people are talking about isn't implied by "faved," maybe it would be worth considering at some point trying out TWO clickers--on that would say "liked" and one that said "saved" or "noted." In askme, liked could be "seconded" or something.
(And pony requests could have little unicorns appear underneath...)
posted by Mngo at 1:07 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Since some of the functionality people are talking about isn't implied by "faved," maybe it would be worth considering at some point trying out TWO clickers--on that would say "liked" and one that said "saved" or "noted." In askme, liked could be "seconded" or something.
(And pony requests could have little unicorns appear underneath...)
posted by Mngo at 1:07 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
It could be changed to 'faved', 'saved', 'plussed', 'hippoed', or 'dildoed';
This site has enough dildos, thanks very much.
posted by middleclasstool at 1:10 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
This site has enough dildos, thanks very much.
posted by middleclasstool at 1:10 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't like the change.
posted by jayder at 1:11 PM on October 31, 2009 [9 favorites]
posted by jayder at 1:11 PM on October 31, 2009 [9 favorites]
Every favourited comment will be equal. 8 months of Obama and see what it gets us; socialism.
posted by jouke at 1:14 PM on October 31, 2009 [34 favorites]
posted by jouke at 1:14 PM on October 31, 2009 [34 favorites]
I'm glad this is just a trial balloon; I expect to dislike it, but I also expect the results to support the moderators' (and my) belief that favorites don't negatively affect the site, so I'm guessing after November it will go away and we can go back to complaining about memes and demanding ponies.
posted by languagehat at 1:14 PM on October 31, 2009 [25 favorites]
posted by languagehat at 1:14 PM on October 31, 2009 [25 favorites]
I'm looking forward to seeing how the experiment works out. And I also vote for "saved" rather than "faved".
Also, in the long term, a change to AskMe from "favorite" to something like "I agree" would be great. Or heck, just adding an "I agree" clicky thingie would be awesome.
posted by deborah at 1:15 PM on October 31, 2009 [7 favorites]
Also, in the long term, a change to AskMe from "favorite" to something like "I agree" would be great. Or heck, just adding an "I agree" clicky thingie would be awesome.
posted by deborah at 1:15 PM on October 31, 2009 [7 favorites]
Put me in the don't care about the change but think "faved" is awful group. Maybe something that's an actual word like "flagged".
I'm kidding obviously, but what about "noted", "marked" or just about anything else that doesn't make us all sound like we're fourteen.
posted by ecurtz at 1:19 PM on October 31, 2009 [7 favorites]
I'm kidding obviously, but what about "noted", "marked" or just about anything else that doesn't make us all sound like we're fourteen.
posted by ecurtz at 1:19 PM on October 31, 2009 [7 favorites]
How about "saved"? It's more neutral and, I think, describes more accurately the actual function of the thingy.
Again, like has been pointed out: The function as you see it. I seldom go back to my favorites. I'm not saving them. It's an easy way to give a quick nod to someone to say I appreciated what was written.
And I am going on the record as saying I am against anything that diminishes any external validation I receive. Ha! Just kidding. I don't really care either way.
I would like to be able to voice displeasure on a comment as well. Something other than flagging or memailing. A big thumbs down on the asshat comments. (And I'd get my fair share).
Letting people do this could go toward making a more civil site. When someone makes one of those idiotic Hitler jokes so many people hate, and they get the 15 lazy favorites, and 45 hateorites, maybe they'd realize it was time to retire that comment. I'm guess there would be a hell of a lot less rape jokes.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:22 PM on October 31, 2009 [8 favorites]
Again, like has been pointed out: The function as you see it. I seldom go back to my favorites. I'm not saving them. It's an easy way to give a quick nod to someone to say I appreciated what was written.
And I am going on the record as saying I am against anything that diminishes any external validation I receive. Ha! Just kidding. I don't really care either way.
I would like to be able to voice displeasure on a comment as well. Something other than flagging or memailing. A big thumbs down on the asshat comments. (And I'd get my fair share).
Letting people do this could go toward making a more civil site. When someone makes one of those idiotic Hitler jokes so many people hate, and they get the 15 lazy favorites, and 45 hateorites, maybe they'd realize it was time to retire that comment. I'm guess there would be a hell of a lot less rape jokes.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:22 PM on October 31, 2009 [8 favorites]
This is a great idea, especially for a month, as a trial. You cats are so freakin' awesome. I hug you all.
posted by From Bklyn at 1:23 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by From Bklyn at 1:23 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's Halloween, not April Fools Day.
It seems to me like the vast, vast majority of the users of the site are fine with how favorites currently work, and can handle the ambiguity, and understand that sometimes they or other people don't precisely mean, "THIS IS MY FAVORITE COMMENT" when they click the plus. The favorites system for better, and I guess for worse, is an additional vector of personal social interaction, and I find it useful and comforting. The threads where people have screamed and yelled about the favorites system have never made much sense to me.
But actually, as an experiment, I'm all for it, because hey, experiments are cool and we'll probably learn something. But I know that I will be weaseling my way around the invisibility to see who and how many favorites ('scuse me, FAVES) comments that I've made, faved, or profoundly disagreed with have garnered.
posted by dirtdirt at 1:24 PM on October 31, 2009 [17 favorites]
It seems to me like the vast, vast majority of the users of the site are fine with how favorites currently work, and can handle the ambiguity, and understand that sometimes they or other people don't precisely mean, "THIS IS MY FAVORITE COMMENT" when they click the plus. The favorites system for better, and I guess for worse, is an additional vector of personal social interaction, and I find it useful and comforting. The threads where people have screamed and yelled about the favorites system have never made much sense to me.
But actually, as an experiment, I'm all for it, because hey, experiments are cool and we'll probably learn something. But I know that I will be weaseling my way around the invisibility to see who and how many favorites ('scuse me, FAVES) comments that I've made, faved, or profoundly disagreed with have garnered.
posted by dirtdirt at 1:24 PM on October 31, 2009 [17 favorites]
but, but I need that number next to my Hitler joke. For my self esteem.
oh god I'm so lonely
posted by solipsophistocracy at 1:30 PM on October 31, 2009 [10 favorites]
oh god I'm so lonely
posted by solipsophistocracy at 1:30 PM on October 31, 2009 [10 favorites]
Dogeared. Marked. Reffed. Filed. FFU. (for future use). There can me a whole taxonomy for why people would wish to mark something for future reference. Stupid. Brilliant. Complaint. Bad. Good.
Faved (let no one accuse me of old-fogeyism) is just one way. Me, I hand copy with a quill and ink on vellum by natural or candle light when I want to preserve a post.
posted by pjern at 1:31 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Faved (let no one accuse me of old-fogeyism) is just one way. Me, I hand copy with a quill and ink on vellum by natural or candle light when I want to preserve a post.
posted by pjern at 1:31 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Ugh. I really, really don't like this. Hopefully somebody cooks up a Greasemonkey script for it soon, because it is going to seriously impair the way I read the site.
I keep up with the various Mefi subsites using RSS, but there's way too much content on the average day to be able to read it all. So most of the time I'll just skim the longer comment threads, and rely on high favorite counts to jump out at me while scrolling. Like idiopath said, I'm rarely disappointed by what I find.
I know people say that favorite counts don't matter because people use them in different ways. But in practice this isn't really true.
Consider two comments, one with 3 favorites, one with 65. Looking at the first one, the favorites don't tell you anything about the comment because those three people could have done so for myriad reasons. Maybe one of them is a friend of the poster. Maybe one is writing a paper on the poster's topic and wants to save it for later. Maybe one was going to say the same thing and the poster took the words right out of their mouth. Maybe one just favorites lots of stuff, willy-nilly. Whatever.
But the second one? Even without knowing what it says, you know it's going to be worth reading. Any comment that could get 65 different people to click that [+] is going to be notable in some way, regardless of the favoriters' individual reasons for doing so. Maybe it's a lengthy and well-researched essay. Maybe it's a tears-in-your-eyes-funny joke. Maybe it sums up the popular sentiment in a pithy way. Regardless, the high count tells you that it's probably worth paying attention to, for whatever reason. You know it will be compelling, because it compelled 65 people to bookmark it/publicly agree with it/give it kudos/whatever.
With the count gone, the highlighting power of favorites gets neutered. Instead of a varying landscape of favorited comments -- some with one or two, some with five or ten, some with a couple dozen, and you can decide what to stop and read based on your whims -- long threads will turn into a binary wall of text: favorites, or no favorites. If somebody writes a brilliantly pithy comment, it will be indistinguishable at a glance from some one-off joke that made one easily impressed person chuckle.
I can't stress how big of a pain this is for people like me, completionist-types who don't have time to read everything. Up till now I've been able to use favorites to quickly digest threads -- if I'm short on time, I'll only stop for the really popular stuff, if I'm more leisurely I'll lower my personal threshold and take in more. But I won't be able to do that anymore. This is pretty much akin to scrapping public favorites completely.
cortex: "if you have missed the many conversations where folks have been vocal about their concerns about this, then you've missed a lot of conversations, yeah."
Every time I've seen this discussed, there's been a sort of vague negativity from some people about favorites, but never anything substantive. I don't think I've *ever* seen a situation where somebody was bragging about their favorites or using them as a cudgel in a debate. On the other hand, there have been multiple occasions where I've seen someone dismiss a person because of their usernumber, but you don't see people clamoring to get rid of that feature.
Basically, I don't see the utility of this. Mefi has always had snark. Favorites might encourage it somewhat, but they also elicit creative and worthwhile comments, too. I know this from experience. And getting rid of or nerfing favorites will not eliminate snark, but will make said creative comments harder to find.
This feels like a technical solution to a social problem. A social problem that no one has been able to prove even exists, beyond handwaving. Have we had a rash of crappy, look-at-me comments lately? Has the quality of commentary fallen off a cliff? I don't see the motivation for this.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:32 PM on October 31, 2009 [234 favorites]
I keep up with the various Mefi subsites using RSS, but there's way too much content on the average day to be able to read it all. So most of the time I'll just skim the longer comment threads, and rely on high favorite counts to jump out at me while scrolling. Like idiopath said, I'm rarely disappointed by what I find.
I know people say that favorite counts don't matter because people use them in different ways. But in practice this isn't really true.
Consider two comments, one with 3 favorites, one with 65. Looking at the first one, the favorites don't tell you anything about the comment because those three people could have done so for myriad reasons. Maybe one of them is a friend of the poster. Maybe one is writing a paper on the poster's topic and wants to save it for later. Maybe one was going to say the same thing and the poster took the words right out of their mouth. Maybe one just favorites lots of stuff, willy-nilly. Whatever.
But the second one? Even without knowing what it says, you know it's going to be worth reading. Any comment that could get 65 different people to click that [+] is going to be notable in some way, regardless of the favoriters' individual reasons for doing so. Maybe it's a lengthy and well-researched essay. Maybe it's a tears-in-your-eyes-funny joke. Maybe it sums up the popular sentiment in a pithy way. Regardless, the high count tells you that it's probably worth paying attention to, for whatever reason. You know it will be compelling, because it compelled 65 people to bookmark it/publicly agree with it/give it kudos/whatever.
With the count gone, the highlighting power of favorites gets neutered. Instead of a varying landscape of favorited comments -- some with one or two, some with five or ten, some with a couple dozen, and you can decide what to stop and read based on your whims -- long threads will turn into a binary wall of text: favorites, or no favorites. If somebody writes a brilliantly pithy comment, it will be indistinguishable at a glance from some one-off joke that made one easily impressed person chuckle.
I can't stress how big of a pain this is for people like me, completionist-types who don't have time to read everything. Up till now I've been able to use favorites to quickly digest threads -- if I'm short on time, I'll only stop for the really popular stuff, if I'm more leisurely I'll lower my personal threshold and take in more. But I won't be able to do that anymore. This is pretty much akin to scrapping public favorites completely.
cortex: "if you have missed the many conversations where folks have been vocal about their concerns about this, then you've missed a lot of conversations, yeah."
Every time I've seen this discussed, there's been a sort of vague negativity from some people about favorites, but never anything substantive. I don't think I've *ever* seen a situation where somebody was bragging about their favorites or using them as a cudgel in a debate. On the other hand, there have been multiple occasions where I've seen someone dismiss a person because of their usernumber, but you don't see people clamoring to get rid of that feature.
Basically, I don't see the utility of this. Mefi has always had snark. Favorites might encourage it somewhat, but they also elicit creative and worthwhile comments, too. I know this from experience. And getting rid of or nerfing favorites will not eliminate snark, but will make said creative comments harder to find.
This feels like a technical solution to a social problem. A social problem that no one has been able to prove even exists, beyond handwaving. Have we had a rash of crappy, look-at-me comments lately? Has the quality of commentary fallen off a cliff? I don't see the motivation for this.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:32 PM on October 31, 2009 [234 favorites]
Have we had a rash of crappy, look-at-me comments lately?
Yeah, actually. It's hard to tell if this is because of newer users or favorites culture or what, but we delete a LOT of initial snarky throwaway comments lately it seems like. So, not certain but yeah we've seen it and it's one of the things we're looking at, whether it changes.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:39 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, actually. It's hard to tell if this is because of newer users or favorites culture or what, but we delete a LOT of initial snarky throwaway comments lately it seems like. So, not certain but yeah we've seen it and it's one of the things we're looking at, whether it changes.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:39 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Seconding what Rhaomi says... when you're in a rush and are scanning a long thread, if you see a comment with 30+ favourites, you know that it's going to be worth a read, no matter what. I'll be sad to see that go... or hidden, I suppose.
posted by modernnomad at 1:40 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by modernnomad at 1:40 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'd rather see a "hide this user from me" function.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:44 PM on October 31, 2009 [16 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 1:44 PM on October 31, 2009 [16 favorites]
Can we have poll functionality, so we can voted on whether people who whine about favourites are jerkwad losers?
posted by Artw at 1:44 PM on October 31, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by Artw at 1:44 PM on October 31, 2009 [5 favorites]
I don't see the point of moving from [# favorite(s) +] to [faved]. If there should be any change at all, and I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this matter, it should be the removal from public display of any level of favouriting.
posted by knapah at 1:48 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by knapah at 1:48 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
How about "savored?"
3 users savored this comment. Mmm.
posted by ORthey at 1:48 PM on October 31, 2009 [31 favorites]
3 users savored this comment. Mmm.
posted by ORthey at 1:48 PM on October 31, 2009 [31 favorites]
I have never been one of those who sees favorites being problematic in the kind of behavior they promote, probably because I tend to enjoy the kind of comments deplored by those who think that they are a problem. I will also admit to getting an embarrassingly substantial amount of gratification out of being favorited (sorry if that's TMI). So, I hope this change doesn't become permanent. That said, I don't have any problem with experimentation, and I'll be interested to see if it does have a noticeable impact on the behavior of the community.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 1:50 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 1:50 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
jessamyn: "Yeah, actually. It's hard to tell if this is because of newer users or favorites culture or what, but we delete a LOT of initial snarky throwaway comments lately it seems like. So, not certain but yeah we've seen it and it's one of the things we're looking at, whether it changes."
Can you really blame that on favorites, though? It seems more like a variant of the FIRST! culture. Like, oh, there are no comments yet! Let me get in my clever snark as quickly as possible so everyone will see it, instead of having it get buried twenty or thirty comments down.
Favorites might be a bonus in that mindset, in that a one-liner is more likely to get a lot of them if it is early in the thread and therefore more visible. You can see this in action in the contentious political/newsfilter threads when they first start out. But I don't think hiding favorite counts will cut down on that "look at meee" behavior. I guess we'll see.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:52 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Can you really blame that on favorites, though? It seems more like a variant of the FIRST! culture. Like, oh, there are no comments yet! Let me get in my clever snark as quickly as possible so everyone will see it, instead of having it get buried twenty or thirty comments down.
Favorites might be a bonus in that mindset, in that a one-liner is more likely to get a lot of them if it is early in the thread and therefore more visible. You can see this in action in the contentious political/newsfilter threads when they first start out. But I don't think hiding favorite counts will cut down on that "look at meee" behavior. I guess we'll see.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:52 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Rhaomi: "Can you really blame that on favorites, though?"
Good question. If only there was some sort of month-long experiment they could perform to try to figure out the answer.
posted by Plutor at 1:57 PM on October 31, 2009 [14 favorites]
Good question. If only there was some sort of month-long experiment they could perform to try to figure out the answer.
posted by Plutor at 1:57 PM on October 31, 2009 [14 favorites]
Don't like it one bit. makes AskMe harder.
posted by The Whelk at 1:57 PM on October 31, 2009 [10 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 1:57 PM on October 31, 2009 [10 favorites]
jessamyn: We've been saying "We don't think so" without any real way to test. So, we decided to try this.
I'm pro-experimentation so I like this. My initial expectations is that the new system won't be in any way better and will reduce the functionality for the kind of user who uses favorite counts to skim threads (personally it's something that I don't do).
My main question is how will the results be judged? How will success be measured? If there's little or no change will things go back to the old system?
posted by Kattullus at 1:58 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
I'm pro-experimentation so I like this. My initial expectations is that the new system won't be in any way better and will reduce the functionality for the kind of user who uses favorite counts to skim threads (personally it's something that I don't do).
My main question is how will the results be judged? How will success be measured? If there's little or no change will things go back to the old system?
posted by Kattullus at 1:58 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
*raises hand* So, if it is a test, exactly what are your plans for measuring outcomes?
While I'm not chucking my pocket protector at anyone and demanding a null hypothesis or a control group, it sounds like there's going to be a decision to keep the change or leave the change, one way or another, after November, and I am wondering on the basis of what measurements that decision will be made.
posted by adipocere at 1:59 PM on October 31, 2009 [12 favorites]
While I'm not chucking my pocket protector at anyone and demanding a null hypothesis or a control group, it sounds like there's going to be a decision to keep the change or leave the change, one way or another, after November, and I am wondering on the basis of what measurements that decision will be made.
posted by adipocere at 1:59 PM on October 31, 2009 [12 favorites]
I'm one of the people who has argued in the past that favorites changed site behavior. It's really cool that you guys are running this experiment. I'm not sure we'll see much of a difference: commenting style is pretty well-established and has a lot of inertia at this point -- everyone knows that in Decemeber their favorite totals will be back up for all to see -- a few pro-status-quo jerks might be especially jerky in threads just to prove that the new system isn't any better -- but this really is an interesting idea.
posted by painquale at 1:59 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by painquale at 1:59 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I agree with Rhaomi. Since the favorites system hasn't changed recently, I don't see how a lot of shitty recent comments can be attributed to it. Hopefully this is only a month-long thing, because I too like to scan really long threads for highly favorited comments. We'll see I guess...
posted by meta87 at 1:59 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by meta87 at 1:59 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
And again, even if invisible favorites do reduce the number of crappy comments that crop up early in threads, it doesn't seem like it's worth it if doing so also makes it harder to find the worthwhile comments later on. Favorites-based attention whoring is a sporadic, predictable, relatively easy-to-deal with bug, but favorites-based highlighting of great content is a much more consistent and worthwhile feature that is difficult to replicate.
posted by Rhaomi at 2:00 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Rhaomi at 2:00 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
Someone on one of my recent threads suggested a 10 minute post posting period before comments would even be allowed. This would kill the "First" style comments. It would also stop some threadshitting. I don't see people sticking around to make sure they get in their one line snark zinger, but they will stick around to discuss the topic. And you know, maybe even read a link before spouting off.
posted by cjorgensen at 2:00 PM on October 31, 2009 [12 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 2:00 PM on October 31, 2009 [12 favorites]
Favorites also add information to a running disagreement.
It is one thing to see
a) foo is a bunch of bunk.
b) a: you are wrong
c) a: you are wrong and smell bad
d) a: not only are you wrong, but I hate you
a) let me try to make my case a bit more clearly blah blah blah ...
b) a: you are still wrong, and stupid
and another thing entirely to see
a) foo is a bunch of bunk. [33 favorites]
b) a: you are wrong [2 favorites] (favorited by users c and d)
c) a: you are wrong and smell bad
d) a: not only are you wrong, but I hate you
a) let me try to make my case a bit more clearly blah blah blah ... [85 favorites]
b) a: you are still wrong, and stupid
Favorites can give an idea of how other people are reading a disagreement, for better or worse. The whole voting on comments thing does have its problems, I agree, but the extra information that the voting phenomenon adds help give a better idea of the opinions of a larger number of users, with less "me too" "ditto" etc. noise.
posted by idiopath at 2:01 PM on October 31, 2009 [33 favorites]
It is one thing to see
a) foo is a bunch of bunk.
b) a: you are wrong
c) a: you are wrong and smell bad
d) a: not only are you wrong, but I hate you
a) let me try to make my case a bit more clearly blah blah blah ...
b) a: you are still wrong, and stupid
and another thing entirely to see
a) foo is a bunch of bunk. [33 favorites]
b) a: you are wrong [2 favorites] (favorited by users c and d)
c) a: you are wrong and smell bad
d) a: not only are you wrong, but I hate you
a) let me try to make my case a bit more clearly blah blah blah ... [85 favorites]
b) a: you are still wrong, and stupid
Favorites can give an idea of how other people are reading a disagreement, for better or worse. The whole voting on comments thing does have its problems, I agree, but the extra information that the voting phenomenon adds help give a better idea of the opinions of a larger number of users, with less "me too" "ditto" etc. noise.
posted by idiopath at 2:01 PM on October 31, 2009 [33 favorites]
Can you really blame that on favorites, though? It seems more like a variant of the FIRST! culture. Like, oh, there are no comments yet! Let me get in my clever snark as quickly as possible so everyone will see it, instead of having it get buried twenty or thirty comments down.
We're not in a place where we're trying to confidently blame it on favorites. Whether or not a system that can reward early acting-out behavior with a disproportionate amount of apparent praise does in fact systemically encourage unwanted behavior of that sort is something worth chewing on, and in fact we've chewed on it a lot in abstract for years now. It's one thing we can look at during this experiment. We may or may not see anything significant on that front; I'm not banking on us seeing anything, and measurability in any case will be fuzzy at best, but it'll be interesting to check it out.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:06 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
We're not in a place where we're trying to confidently blame it on favorites. Whether or not a system that can reward early acting-out behavior with a disproportionate amount of apparent praise does in fact systemically encourage unwanted behavior of that sort is something worth chewing on, and in fact we've chewed on it a lot in abstract for years now. It's one thing we can look at during this experiment. We may or may not see anything significant on that front; I'm not banking on us seeing anything, and measurability in any case will be fuzzy at best, but it'll be interesting to check it out.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:06 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Even though it's not on the table for this month's experimentation, I'm going to throw out my support for bookmarks/marked. I generally prefer 'bookmarks' to 'favorites' (why yes, I was rooting for Netscape in the Browser Wars, however did you guess?), and I also think that 'marked' would suitably convey the slightly ambiguous nature of today's favorite.
posted by mayhap at 2:09 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by mayhap at 2:09 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I agree with Rhaomi. Since the favorites system hasn't changed recently, I don't see how a lot of shitty recent comments can be attributed to it.
Again, it's not something we're attributing directly to favorites, and it's not the primary motivating reason for this experiment. Whether or not visible favorite counts act in some way as an amplifying or contributing factor to independently extant behavior stuff that may come and go on its own cycles for whatever reasons is a more interesting question, and one we'll be trying to get a feel for a bit during all this. But, again: it's one little piece of the whole situation, not the reason for the experiment's existence.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:10 PM on October 31, 2009
Again, it's not something we're attributing directly to favorites, and it's not the primary motivating reason for this experiment. Whether or not visible favorite counts act in some way as an amplifying or contributing factor to independently extant behavior stuff that may come and go on its own cycles for whatever reasons is a more interesting question, and one we'll be trying to get a feel for a bit during all this. But, again: it's one little piece of the whole situation, not the reason for the experiment's existence.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:10 PM on October 31, 2009
Did the IRB have any feedback when you ran this experiment past them? Surely there's some kind of informed consent document we have to sign.
posted by subbes at 2:13 PM on October 31, 2009 [11 favorites]
posted by subbes at 2:13 PM on October 31, 2009 [11 favorites]
December is threading month.
posted by Artw at 2:19 PM on October 31, 2009 [13 favorites]
posted by Artw at 2:19 PM on October 31, 2009 [13 favorites]
With this system in place, i'm pretty likely to just stop using favorites entirely, because I never use them to save posts I want to find later (that's what Google is for).
posted by empath at 2:23 PM on October 31, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by empath at 2:23 PM on October 31, 2009 [6 favorites]
This is a great idea. The less like Digg/Reddit/Slashdot Mefi is the better, IMO
In fact, why even have the "saved" text displayed at all for anyone other than the person who saved it? What's the point?
posted by popechunk at 2:24 PM on October 31, 2009
In fact, why even have the "saved" text displayed at all for anyone other than the person who saved it? What's the point?
posted by popechunk at 2:24 PM on October 31, 2009
I've never liked the term "favorite" in this context -- "marked," "noted," or even "dildoed" seem much more flexible to me. And I'd disagree that the term itself is a totally different discussion that can't happen at the same time as considering the question of how (or whether) to display running totals -- calling it a "favorite" is different than calling it a "note," and will, I suspect, produce different patterns of use.
But terminology aside, I really don't like this. I'm someone who, many days, doesn't have the time to read all (or even most) of many threads. Seeing what comments -- or what kind of comments -- are eliciting varying numbers of favorites tells me a lot about what is going on in a thread.
Simply telling me that a comment has been "faved" (gag -- couldn't you pick a better term? please?) doesn't tell me whether one person has used a favorite to mark their place or whether 60 people think it's the best thing they've read this week.
So I see this as removing information and transparency that I enjoy having access to, while simultaneously poking a finger in the eye of the English language with that cutesy term. The suggestion above rings true to me that this is a fairly crude technological "fix" for a social problem -- and one that isn't even unanimously agreed to exist.
posted by Forktine at 2:24 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
But terminology aside, I really don't like this. I'm someone who, many days, doesn't have the time to read all (or even most) of many threads. Seeing what comments -- or what kind of comments -- are eliciting varying numbers of favorites tells me a lot about what is going on in a thread.
Simply telling me that a comment has been "faved" (gag -- couldn't you pick a better term? please?) doesn't tell me whether one person has used a favorite to mark their place or whether 60 people think it's the best thing they've read this week.
So I see this as removing information and transparency that I enjoy having access to, while simultaneously poking a finger in the eye of the English language with that cutesy term. The suggestion above rings true to me that this is a fairly crude technological "fix" for a social problem -- and one that isn't even unanimously agreed to exist.
posted by Forktine at 2:24 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
I would like to see an average favorites count on those who've complained about favorites. My own is quite high, thank you very much. I guess you get your way THIS time, ugly stepsisters!! /preens
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:26 PM on October 31, 2009
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:26 PM on October 31, 2009
Can you really blame that on favorites, though?
Nope, and we pretty much don't. But, other people have suggested, strongly and often, that this is what is happening.
A solid month of seeing if this actually does seem to occur in the absence of favorites would be good data to have. Basically there's a lot of "well I think favorites do this to the community" and "well I think they do this to the community" crosstalk with no reliable way other than saying "well it feels this way to me" to judge. So we figured we'd try tweaking something, see if people feel differently or act differently [in general hand-wavey ways, I doubt we'll do a lot of number crunching but it would be neat to see if the some of the stupid add-nothing snark goes away maybe a little].
And, nothing personal, but I'm surprised that for some people the favorites aspect of the site is indispensible or that this would make a huge difference in how the site works for them. Not like upset-surprised, just that it would have never occurred to me, so that's useful to know too.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:27 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
Nope, and we pretty much don't. But, other people have suggested, strongly and often, that this is what is happening.
A solid month of seeing if this actually does seem to occur in the absence of favorites would be good data to have. Basically there's a lot of "well I think favorites do this to the community" and "well I think they do this to the community" crosstalk with no reliable way other than saying "well it feels this way to me" to judge. So we figured we'd try tweaking something, see if people feel differently or act differently [in general hand-wavey ways, I doubt we'll do a lot of number crunching but it would be neat to see if the some of the stupid add-nothing snark goes away maybe a little].
And, nothing personal, but I'm surprised that for some people the favorites aspect of the site is indispensible or that this would make a huge difference in how the site works for them. Not like upset-surprised, just that it would have never occurred to me, so that's useful to know too.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:27 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
So who's going to step up and alter this greasemonkey script for November?
posted by flatluigi at 2:28 PM on October 31, 2009
posted by flatluigi at 2:28 PM on October 31, 2009
And I'd disagree that the term itself is a totally different discussion that can't happen at the same time as considering the question of how (or whether) to display running totals -- calling it a "favorite" is different than calling it a "note," and will, I suspect, produce different patterns of use.
I'm not saying the discussion can't happen, fwiw, I'm just saying that it may be a distracting sideline in that it's a big discussion of something we're not currently going to be doing that's at a totally different (i.e. much larger) scope from what we are doing. I'm down with the conversation in general, just maybe check for whether introducing it in earnest right now is going to be a great idea with folks ostensibly discussing in here what's actually going on.
Simply telling me that a comment has been "faved" (gag -- couldn't you pick a better term? please?)
None of us are really in love with it either, but lacking something we think is a big improvement (and we are all ears on that front) we're running with it for now.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:36 PM on October 31, 2009
I'm not saying the discussion can't happen, fwiw, I'm just saying that it may be a distracting sideline in that it's a big discussion of something we're not currently going to be doing that's at a totally different (i.e. much larger) scope from what we are doing. I'm down with the conversation in general, just maybe check for whether introducing it in earnest right now is going to be a great idea with folks ostensibly discussing in here what's actually going on.
Simply telling me that a comment has been "faved" (gag -- couldn't you pick a better term? please?)
None of us are really in love with it either, but lacking something we think is a big improvement (and we are all ears on that front) we're running with it for now.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:36 PM on October 31, 2009
And, nothing personal, but I'm surprised that for some people the favorites aspect of the site is indispensible or that this would make a huge difference in how the site works for them.
I don't think this change would make a huge difference in how I'd use the site, but if favorites went away entirely, for example, there are particular kinds of FPP that i'd be much less interested spending the time to make -- the kinds that don't tend to engender a lot of discussion, but do tend to quietly gather favorites. Which are the kinds of posts that a lot of people like the best.
posted by empath at 2:36 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don't think this change would make a huge difference in how I'd use the site, but if favorites went away entirely, for example, there are particular kinds of FPP that i'd be much less interested spending the time to make -- the kinds that don't tend to engender a lot of discussion, but do tend to quietly gather favorites. Which are the kinds of posts that a lot of people like the best.
posted by empath at 2:36 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'll be writing GM script to get around this for my own use, but kinda wary about sharing it.. would that be seen as trying to subvert the experiment/not in the spirit of moderator intent? I understand you left the data there specifically for this, but I figure mostly to pre-empt the whining so much as wanting to encourage people to not participate. It wasn't lost on me the guy who wrote a filter-by-favorite-count script got scolded by the community for it and I hate being That Guy.
On that note, if you decide that comment quality improves and decide to make it permanent, do you plan to rip out the hidden data?
posted by cj_ at 2:38 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
On that note, if you decide that comment quality improves and decide to make it permanent, do you plan to rip out the hidden data?
posted by cj_ at 2:38 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
1. Experiments can be interesting. This is an experiment; the results might be interesting.
2. It's been suggested that the current system encourages gaming behavior, the Easy Snark over the Hard Disquisition, etc. Thing is, a high ratio of quips to axioms seems to me not a bad trade-off; I suspect it encourages speed of response, which encourages quantity of response... and raises the chances that somewhere, someone on MeFi will be inspired to toss in something thoughtful.
While there is almost certainly some bandwagon behavior when it comes to Favoriting, well, that's how people get engaged. My guess is that without indicators as to which posts are generating strong responses ("favorites")-- without an obvious feedback and, bluntly, reward system-- there'll be rather fewer responses.
A lot of noise may be scraped out, but so, I suspect, will be a fair amount of signal.
posted by darth_tedious at 2:38 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
2. It's been suggested that the current system encourages gaming behavior, the Easy Snark over the Hard Disquisition, etc. Thing is, a high ratio of quips to axioms seems to me not a bad trade-off; I suspect it encourages speed of response, which encourages quantity of response... and raises the chances that somewhere, someone on MeFi will be inspired to toss in something thoughtful.
While there is almost certainly some bandwagon behavior when it comes to Favoriting, well, that's how people get engaged. My guess is that without indicators as to which posts are generating strong responses ("favorites")-- without an obvious feedback and, bluntly, reward system-- there'll be rather fewer responses.
A lot of noise may be scraped out, but so, I suspect, will be a fair amount of signal.
posted by darth_tedious at 2:38 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don't think this change would make a huge difference in how I'd use the site, but if favorites went away entirely, for example, there are particular kinds of FPP that i'd be much less interested spending the time to make
I'm not going to dig in either way on the pros/cons of making posts specifically for favorites, but to be clear we aren't altering post favorites for this experiment, don't really see that as being something we'd do in the future, and certainly aren't considering removing favorites entirely in any case.
I'll be writing GM script to get around this for my own use, but kinda wary about sharing it.. would that be seen as trying to subvert the experiment/not in the spirit of moderator intent?
No, we expect some folks will prefer to manually work around it (and are including the fave counts in part to make that doable). It's fine if you really can't live without the feature and want to use a script to restore it.
On that note, if you decide that comment quality improves and decide to make it permanent, do you plan to rip out the hidden data?
I doubt we would remove it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:41 PM on October 31, 2009
I'm not going to dig in either way on the pros/cons of making posts specifically for favorites, but to be clear we aren't altering post favorites for this experiment, don't really see that as being something we'd do in the future, and certainly aren't considering removing favorites entirely in any case.
I'll be writing GM script to get around this for my own use, but kinda wary about sharing it.. would that be seen as trying to subvert the experiment/not in the spirit of moderator intent?
No, we expect some folks will prefer to manually work around it (and are including the fave counts in part to make that doable). It's fine if you really can't live without the feature and want to use a script to restore it.
On that note, if you decide that comment quality improves and decide to make it permanent, do you plan to rip out the hidden data?
I doubt we would remove it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:41 PM on October 31, 2009
we are all ears on that front
You should go with something proprietary like 'digg'
filtered
meta'd
mefi'd
mf'd
or just
f'd
posted by empath at 2:41 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
You should go with something proprietary like 'digg'
filtered
meta'd
mefi'd
mf'd
or just
f'd
posted by empath at 2:41 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
And, nothing personal, but I'm surprised that for some people the favorites aspect of the site is indispensible or that this would make a huge difference in how the site works for them. Not like upset-surprised, just that it would have never occurred to me, so that's useful to know too.
Here's two examples, chosen randomly from recent FPPs. Skimming the Halloween costume FPP, it's clear that the posts getting favorited are jokey ones (in keeping with the tone of the FPP link). In contrast, many of the most-favorited comments in the FPP about searches are serious and interesting comments on the issue. In both cases, the most-favorited are not interchangeable with the large number of comments that received one or two favorites. Skimming either thread by most-favorited will give one a pretty decent sense of the tone and flavor of each, much more so than an un-ranked list of "faved" will.
So what you are doing, with this (proposed? announced?) change is to flatten the information available. The (somewhat silly) library equivalent might be to limit access to the NYTimes best seller lists and the list of nominees for major prizes, on the grounds that knowing what other readers and critics are saying is unfairly biasing the library patrons' book selection choices. And that's no doubt true -- force people to select books on their own merits only, and there'll be less Dan Brown, certainly. I don't want to belabor such a silly analogy, but I think that there is a cost to forcing behavioral change by limiting information, and I wish we weren't going down that path here.
posted by Forktine at 2:44 PM on October 31, 2009 [21 favorites]
Here's two examples, chosen randomly from recent FPPs. Skimming the Halloween costume FPP, it's clear that the posts getting favorited are jokey ones (in keeping with the tone of the FPP link). In contrast, many of the most-favorited comments in the FPP about searches are serious and interesting comments on the issue. In both cases, the most-favorited are not interchangeable with the large number of comments that received one or two favorites. Skimming either thread by most-favorited will give one a pretty decent sense of the tone and flavor of each, much more so than an un-ranked list of "faved" will.
So what you are doing, with this (proposed? announced?) change is to flatten the information available. The (somewhat silly) library equivalent might be to limit access to the NYTimes best seller lists and the list of nominees for major prizes, on the grounds that knowing what other readers and critics are saying is unfairly biasing the library patrons' book selection choices. And that's no doubt true -- force people to select books on their own merits only, and there'll be less Dan Brown, certainly. I don't want to belabor such a silly analogy, but I think that there is a cost to forcing behavioral change by limiting information, and I wish we weren't going down that path here.
posted by Forktine at 2:44 PM on October 31, 2009 [21 favorites]
*despondently sits in one corner of the labyrinth, compulsively cleaning his whiskers and waiting for the cheese that will never come*
posted by adipocere at 2:46 PM on October 31, 2009 [9 favorites]
posted by adipocere at 2:46 PM on October 31, 2009 [9 favorites]
We've also tried to come up with something shorter than "favorites" just to reduce the byline length a little bit, while keeping it clearly readable and clickable"
Do I understand it correctly that it will still be possible to click the "faved" and see who favorited the comment? Because that does make it easier to keep my list of whose ass will be up against the wall when the revolution comes.
posted by Kattullus at 2:51 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Do I understand it correctly that it will still be possible to click the "faved" and see who favorited the comment? Because that does make it easier to keep my list of whose ass will be up against the wall when the revolution comes.
posted by Kattullus at 2:51 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
not_on_display: I want people favoriting stuff because they like it, not because they think they should like it because others do.
I just can't fathom why you would care why someone favorites something or doesn't. What do you think that "jumping on the bandwagon" gains anyone?
(P.S. really not trying to be snarky today; for some reason I feel strongly about this issue, but it's not a personal thing with any user)
posted by desjardins at 2:52 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I just can't fathom why you would care why someone favorites something or doesn't. What do you think that "jumping on the bandwagon" gains anyone?
(P.S. really not trying to be snarky today; for some reason I feel strongly about this issue, but it's not a personal thing with any user)
posted by desjardins at 2:52 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
This feels like a technical solution to a social problem. A social problem that no one has been able to prove even exists, beyond handwaving.
I have yet to see the whole social solution thing be proved to be more than handwaving at an argument, so I don't agree with the technical/social sentiment in the first place.
Do favorites affect behavior? You sure could debate this one way or the other, but my interpretation would fall on the yes side of the fence. I couldn't say by how much or in what way, but if me and you took a stroll through Vegas I could point out the small subtle things that are meant to influence others behavior (and do affect them). We could do simple things to control large groups of people if we wanted. So I think there is a willful ignorance when people say that it doesn't affect behavior, when it simply affects your behavior by the mere use of it.
Favorites can give an idea of how other people are reading a disagreement, for better or worse. The whole voting on comments thing does have its problems, I agree, but the extra information that the voting phenomenon adds help give a better idea of the opinions of a larger number of users, with less "me too" "ditto" etc. noise.
Aside from AskMe, I believe this would have a positive effect. Without the use of threaded comments, the site is set up as an ongoing conversation, and scanning for only favorited comments inherently "breaks" that aspect.
It would also seem that if you needed a count next to something to decide if it was good or not, then you really aren't trying.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:02 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I have yet to see the whole social solution thing be proved to be more than handwaving at an argument, so I don't agree with the technical/social sentiment in the first place.
Do favorites affect behavior? You sure could debate this one way or the other, but my interpretation would fall on the yes side of the fence. I couldn't say by how much or in what way, but if me and you took a stroll through Vegas I could point out the small subtle things that are meant to influence others behavior (and do affect them). We could do simple things to control large groups of people if we wanted. So I think there is a willful ignorance when people say that it doesn't affect behavior, when it simply affects your behavior by the mere use of it.
Favorites can give an idea of how other people are reading a disagreement, for better or worse. The whole voting on comments thing does have its problems, I agree, but the extra information that the voting phenomenon adds help give a better idea of the opinions of a larger number of users, with less "me too" "ditto" etc. noise.
Aside from AskMe, I believe this would have a positive effect. Without the use of threaded comments, the site is set up as an ongoing conversation, and scanning for only favorited comments inherently "breaks" that aspect.
It would also seem that if you needed a count next to something to decide if it was good or not, then you really aren't trying.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:02 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Damnit I love the favorites system and I think it works very well.
posted by pwally at 3:04 PM on October 31, 2009 [7 favorites]
posted by pwally at 3:04 PM on October 31, 2009 [7 favorites]
I really like the favorites used as a popularity indicator feature. So I'm sad to hear this.
posted by phrontist at 3:10 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by phrontist at 3:10 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
What about the sidebar? Will comments that get more than 12 favorites show up there in this format: "user foo had a comment with X favorites in MetaFilter."
posted by Kattullus at 3:11 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 3:11 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Also, I'm sorry to hear this because I was going to run a little experiment where I had a bot randomly favorite a few dozen comments throughout the day, and then choose another dozen as controls, and see if the "favorite seeded" group got "bandwagon favorites".
posted by phrontist at 3:12 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by phrontist at 3:12 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
> It would also seem that if you needed a count next to something to decide if it was good or not, then you really aren't trying.
I really hate this bad faith argument made whenever this topic comes up. People aren't using favorites as a determination of what's good or not, but to find interesting comments in a pile of less interesting stuff when there's some reason reading the whole thread is a chore. I read every comment on very interesting threads, or ones I intend to comment on. I'm not going to read 500 comments of people bickering about Sarah Palin or Balloon Boy, or some fighty derail, or a bunch of snark. I'm just not. I don't have the time or inclination. Favorites let me at least see some of the best-of, whereas I would normally give the whole thing a miss. This isn't a value judgment on the less-favorited stuff. It is just taking advantage of some made available by people with more interest in the topic (or time on their hands).
I do not understand why this kind of usage bothers people so much, honestly.
posted by cj_ at 3:15 PM on October 31, 2009 [21 favorites]
I really hate this bad faith argument made whenever this topic comes up. People aren't using favorites as a determination of what's good or not, but to find interesting comments in a pile of less interesting stuff when there's some reason reading the whole thread is a chore. I read every comment on very interesting threads, or ones I intend to comment on. I'm not going to read 500 comments of people bickering about Sarah Palin or Balloon Boy, or some fighty derail, or a bunch of snark. I'm just not. I don't have the time or inclination. Favorites let me at least see some of the best-of, whereas I would normally give the whole thing a miss. This isn't a value judgment on the less-favorited stuff. It is just taking advantage of some made available by people with more interest in the topic (or time on their hands).
I do not understand why this kind of usage bothers people so much, honestly.
posted by cj_ at 3:15 PM on October 31, 2009 [21 favorites]
Well, if there are people who only read favorited comments, isn't that a bandwagon effect?
posted by P.o.B. at 3:17 PM on October 31, 2009
posted by P.o.B. at 3:17 PM on October 31, 2009
Bandwagons are good!
posted by phrontist at 3:19 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by phrontist at 3:19 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
So will AskMe threads just be filled with hundreds of people wasting page space posting, "Nthing foo" now? I can't see how that will help. Showing favorites counts seems like a more compact, efficient way to do that. Not that I'll tell anyone how to use their favorites (because look at the favorites in this thread, that's clearly unpopular.)
Also, 'faves'? Ugh, I know language evolves and all, but I unfriend people IRL for getting their coffee from 'Starbys', and I'm not above defriending websites for the same atrociousness.
So go ahead, do your little experiment, but don't expect me to like it.
posted by baserunner73 at 3:19 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
Also, 'faves'? Ugh, I know language evolves and all, but I unfriend people IRL for getting their coffee from 'Starbys', and I'm not above defriending websites for the same atrociousness.
So go ahead, do your little experiment, but don't expect me to like it.
posted by baserunner73 at 3:19 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
"If a comment has one or more favorites on it, under the new system it will have instead of "x favorites" instead just the word "faved" without a count."
Why? Why not just make it fully private? I don't understand the point of doing things by half measures.
posted by Eideteker at 3:22 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Why? Why not just make it fully private? I don't understand the point of doing things by half measures.
posted by Eideteker at 3:22 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I really hate this bad faith argument made whenever this topic comes up. People aren't using favorites as a determination of what's good or not, but to find interesting comments in a pile of less interesting stuff when there's some reason reading the whole thread is a chore.
People openly admit to using scripts to limit comments to favorites, and only want to read "interesting" comments. This is cutting out work on your part, yes? That is not a bad faith argument.
I do not understand why this kind of usage bothers people so much, honestly.
You don't understand why it bothers other people, but are bothered by the aforementioned bothered?
posted by P.o.B. at 3:22 PM on October 31, 2009
People openly admit to using scripts to limit comments to favorites, and only want to read "interesting" comments. This is cutting out work on your part, yes? That is not a bad faith argument.
I do not understand why this kind of usage bothers people so much, honestly.
You don't understand why it bothers other people, but are bothered by the aforementioned bothered?
posted by P.o.B. at 3:22 PM on October 31, 2009
I also think that 'marked' would suitably convey the slightly ambiguous nature of today's favorite
I'm down with this over 'faved'. I feel like I just lost part of my IQ writing that stupid non-word.
posted by mannequito at 3:24 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm down with this over 'faved'. I feel like I just lost part of my IQ writing that stupid non-word.
posted by mannequito at 3:24 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
You don't understand why it bothers other people, but are bothered by the aforementioned bothered?
Well, no; as long as they stand idly by and whine in their abject powerlessness, they're fine! But now they're actually affecting things. And negatively! I too am bothered!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:24 PM on October 31, 2009
Well, no; as long as they stand idly by and whine in their abject powerlessness, they're fine! But now they're actually affecting things. And negatively! I too am bothered!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:24 PM on October 31, 2009
Sure, bandwagons look cool but I can't imagine that they're very comfortable methods of conveyance.
posted by Kattullus at 3:26 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 3:26 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
So will AskMe threads just be filled with hundreds of people wasting page space posting, "Nthing foo" now? I can't see how that will help
THAT'S a bad faith argument.
By this logic nothing should ever be sidebarred or highlighted in MetaTalk, because if you didn't come across a fantastic/interesting/useful contribution all on your own then you just aren't trying hard enough to read every single post and comment thread.
No. I'm not saying that at all. It's the limiting nature other people put on the conversation due to favorites. The logic would dictate that favorites only lead to sidebarred worthy comments existing.
I too am bothered!
We're all bothered!
posted by P.o.B. at 3:29 PM on October 31, 2009
THAT'S a bad faith argument.
By this logic nothing should ever be sidebarred or highlighted in MetaTalk, because if you didn't come across a fantastic/interesting/useful contribution all on your own then you just aren't trying hard enough to read every single post and comment thread.
No. I'm not saying that at all. It's the limiting nature other people put on the conversation due to favorites. The logic would dictate that favorites only lead to sidebarred worthy comments existing.
I too am bothered!
We're all bothered!
posted by P.o.B. at 3:29 PM on October 31, 2009
We're all bothe
I'm sorry, I keep glossing over comments without favorites...were you saying something a minute ago?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:31 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm sorry, I keep glossing over comments without favorites...were you saying something a minute ago?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:31 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I just can't fathom why you would care why someone favorites something or doesn't.
Yeah, ditto. I use favorites as a way to agree, and as a way to say "right on!" and as a way to bookmark something. Which makes searching my favorites a total nightmare, but that's a different discussion.
One way I don't use them: to find interesting comments in long threads. I read/skim long threads if I'm interested in the topic, or I read the sidebar, or popular favorites, or I miss them entirely. The world carries on.
On a slight tangent - someone upthread mentioned threading and I'd like to say NOOOOOOOO!
posted by rtha at 3:31 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
Yeah, ditto. I use favorites as a way to agree, and as a way to say "right on!" and as a way to bookmark something. Which makes searching my favorites a total nightmare, but that's a different discussion.
One way I don't use them: to find interesting comments in long threads. I read/skim long threads if I'm interested in the topic, or I read the sidebar, or popular favorites, or I miss them entirely. The world carries on.
On a slight tangent - someone upthread mentioned threading and I'd like to say NOOOOOOOO!
posted by rtha at 3:31 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
Anyway, this is a pretty terrible idea, and the "faves" thing has me thinking it's a prank. I mean, come on! Faves. You guys are so gullible, I swear.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:33 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:33 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
I like "NOTED".
I like "SECONDED" for askMEs.
I misread .2 above on first reading to say ...
"We're replacing the word "favorites" with "faved" for those comments that have FIVE or more favorites attached to them."
... and I thought this was a cool idea. Disappear the low "fave" tallies completely so, upon coming in late to a long post, I could get a good summary by narrowing in on those comments which had proven genuinely popular (or unpopular).
This is a version of what I generally do anyway: scan for anything with say, 3,4,5 or more comments ... which, of course, I will no longer be able to do during this trial.
So, by one factor at least, my perception is that this CHANGE will NOT improve my enjoyment of the site.
posted by philip-random at 3:38 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I like "SECONDED" for askMEs.
I misread .2 above on first reading to say ...
"We're replacing the word "favorites" with "faved" for those comments that have FIVE or more favorites attached to them."
... and I thought this was a cool idea. Disappear the low "fave" tallies completely so, upon coming in late to a long post, I could get a good summary by narrowing in on those comments which had proven genuinely popular (or unpopular).
This is a version of what I generally do anyway: scan for anything with say, 3,4,5 or more comments ... which, of course, I will no longer be able to do during this trial.
So, by one factor at least, my perception is that this CHANGE will NOT improve my enjoyment of the site.
posted by philip-random at 3:38 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I vote "meefed."
I wouldn't personally choose to make this change, but I don't understand why everyone's getting all bent out of shape about trying something different. Nothing permanent has been decreed, and it seems to me like it's really going to involve minimal effort to write (or find someone who has written) a script to keep the counts if you really want them.
I'm really interested as to how ya'll plan to measure the difference between the impact the two systems have on throwaway snark (or comment trends in general). Is it gonna be a purely qualitative kind of assessment?
posted by solipsophistocracy at 3:43 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I wouldn't personally choose to make this change, but I don't understand why everyone's getting all bent out of shape about trying something different. Nothing permanent has been decreed, and it seems to me like it's really going to involve minimal effort to write (or find someone who has written) a script to keep the counts if you really want them.
I'm really interested as to how ya'll plan to measure the difference between the impact the two systems have on throwaway snark (or comment trends in general). Is it gonna be a purely qualitative kind of assessment?
posted by solipsophistocracy at 3:43 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Anyway, this is a pretty terrible idea, and the "faves" thing has me thinking it's a prank. I mean, come on! Faves. You guys are so gullible, I swear.
Man, they get me every fucking time.
posted by solipsophistocracy at 3:45 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Man, they get me every fucking time.
posted by solipsophistocracy at 3:45 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
As long as we're talking about favorites an' stuff, something I asked Cortex about a while ago was the ability to get RSS feeds of favorites (mostly so I could go through, fave a bunch of stuff and have it end up in my combined inbox, streamlining my procrastination). He said that he'd be wary of opening it up so that everyone could follow everyone else's stuff, you know, because of the cyberstalking the kids are into these days, and as for just having it for your own stuff, he was like, well, that's an idea, but it's low, low, low on the list of things to fiddle with.
I just thought I'd mention it.
Regarding the overall question of favorite counts, I'd like to point out that there's a bit of the appeal to popularity fallacy being tossed around. Despite claims to the contrary, there are plenty of heavily-faved comments that are dumb or trite or whatever, and there are many, many more comments that are great stuff that don't get any faves at all. It's a bit like saying that because the Eagles sold a lot of albums, man, there must be something to them worth paying attention to, when, no, really, their album sales just represent a confluence of mediocre taste spread widely.
posted by klangklangston at 3:48 PM on October 31, 2009 [5 favorites]
I just thought I'd mention it.
Regarding the overall question of favorite counts, I'd like to point out that there's a bit of the appeal to popularity fallacy being tossed around. Despite claims to the contrary, there are plenty of heavily-faved comments that are dumb or trite or whatever, and there are many, many more comments that are great stuff that don't get any faves at all. It's a bit like saying that because the Eagles sold a lot of albums, man, there must be something to them worth paying attention to, when, no, really, their album sales just represent a confluence of mediocre taste spread widely.
posted by klangklangston at 3:48 PM on October 31, 2009 [5 favorites]
Get the fuck out of my cab, man.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:51 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:51 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I like "Noted" over "Faved". It's more accurate and MeFi-sounding. And changes the implication from "I like this" to "this is worthwhile."
It seems like there could be a threshold for a comment to become "noted", as the default threshold of "one lousy +" seems strange. But that just leads back to where we started, as surely it would be best to show the raw number of noteds and let the users make up their own minds.
For example I know that something with 10-30 favorites is probably worth reading, while something with 100 is probably going to be very well-written but probably not actually as good when you think about it—mainly worth reading because I know people will be referring to it later.
I guess I come down on not liking this change because it hides something from us that helps us read and evaluate things on MetaFilter, and also makes it harder to feel where the community is.
But maybe that's all unnecessary. Maybe I'm missing the point, like the addict who has his drugs taken away and then indignantly proves that now there's nothing suitable to shoot in his arm.
posted by fleacircus at 3:56 PM on October 31, 2009
It seems like there could be a threshold for a comment to become "noted", as the default threshold of "one lousy +" seems strange. But that just leads back to where we started, as surely it would be best to show the raw number of noteds and let the users make up their own minds.
For example I know that something with 10-30 favorites is probably worth reading, while something with 100 is probably going to be very well-written but probably not actually as good when you think about it—mainly worth reading because I know people will be referring to it later.
I guess I come down on not liking this change because it hides something from us that helps us read and evaluate things on MetaFilter, and also makes it harder to feel where the community is.
But maybe that's all unnecessary. Maybe I'm missing the point, like the addict who has his drugs taken away and then indignantly proves that now there's nothing suitable to shoot in his arm.
posted by fleacircus at 3:56 PM on October 31, 2009
Anyway what I'd rather have is a goddamn fixed <blockquote> or some other tag that nicely formats a quoted comment. </ponybandwagon>
posted by fleacircus at 4:01 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by fleacircus at 4:01 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
> People openly admit to using scripts to limit comments to favorites, and only want to read "interesting" comments.
These scripts are filters that you engage on demand, such as a 500 comment thread full of mostly noise. I seriously doubt anyone uses a filtered view exclusively. Maybe there's someone, somewhere, who does that, but it's not clear to me how they are damaging the site by doing so.
In any case, the group of people augmenting their browsers with GreaseMonkey plugins is vanishingly small, and hang-wringing over it is asinine.
> You don't understand why it bothers other people, but are bothered by the aforementioned bothered?
No, I am bothered about having my own point of view misrepresented.
posted by cj_ at 4:04 PM on October 31, 2009
These scripts are filters that you engage on demand, such as a 500 comment thread full of mostly noise. I seriously doubt anyone uses a filtered view exclusively. Maybe there's someone, somewhere, who does that, but it's not clear to me how they are damaging the site by doing so.
In any case, the group of people augmenting their browsers with GreaseMonkey plugins is vanishingly small, and hang-wringing over it is asinine.
> You don't understand why it bothers other people, but are bothered by the aforementioned bothered?
No, I am bothered about having my own point of view misrepresented.
posted by cj_ at 4:04 PM on October 31, 2009
Suggestion: Partway through the month, give us users a way to disable this experiment. Count how many of us do so. That should provide some evidence as to how many active users care about favorite counts.
Personally, I tend to look for heavily favorited comments in long threads, because I don't typically have enough time to read everything. I find I get a good general summary of the different viewpoints this way. So I'm against this change.
posted by A dead Quaker at 4:05 PM on October 31, 2009 [12 favorites]
Personally, I tend to look for heavily favorited comments in long threads, because I don't typically have enough time to read everything. I find I get a good general summary of the different viewpoints this way. So I'm against this change.
posted by A dead Quaker at 4:05 PM on October 31, 2009 [12 favorites]
Metafilter comments are like Eagles songs.
So I propose a very fine-grained evaluative scale, from worst to best:
1. AlreadyGone
2. Lyin'Eyes
3. GetOverIt
4. TakeItEasy
5. OutofControl
6. PeacefulEasyFeeling
7. TheBestofMyFilter
That will keep us busy for years on MeTa.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:07 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
So I propose a very fine-grained evaluative scale, from worst to best:
1. AlreadyGone
2. Lyin'Eyes
3. GetOverIt
4. TakeItEasy
5. OutofControl
6. PeacefulEasyFeeling
7. TheBestofMyFilter
That will keep us busy for years on MeTa.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:07 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
I doubt your doubts and am bothered by your bothered.
I do my hang-wringing for 5 sets of 5 reps. It's good for hitting the type IIb fibers.
posted by P.o.B. at 4:09 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I do my hang-wringing for 5 sets of 5 reps. It's good for hitting the type IIb fibers.
posted by P.o.B. at 4:09 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
There is a simple solution to get some data on how favorites are used - maybe something like this.
posted by bigmusic at 4:15 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by bigmusic at 4:15 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
> It would also seem that if you needed a count next to something to decide if it was good or not, then you really aren't trying.
I really hate this bad faith argument made whenever this topic comes up. People aren't using favorites as a determination of what's good or not, but to find interesting comments in a pile of less interesting stuff when there's some reason reading the whole thread is a chore.
I think that by looking at the favorite count first before reading the comment you risk predetermining your attitude to the comment. Humans are social animals and it means a lot to us what other people think about a given thing. If you see that a lot of people are positively inclined to a comment you may automatically adopt a positive attitude yourself without necessarily reflecting very deeply on the content.
posted by Catfry at 4:17 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I really hate this bad faith argument made whenever this topic comes up. People aren't using favorites as a determination of what's good or not, but to find interesting comments in a pile of less interesting stuff when there's some reason reading the whole thread is a chore.
I think that by looking at the favorite count first before reading the comment you risk predetermining your attitude to the comment. Humans are social animals and it means a lot to us what other people think about a given thing. If you see that a lot of people are positively inclined to a comment you may automatically adopt a positive attitude yourself without necessarily reflecting very deeply on the content.
posted by Catfry at 4:17 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
> It's a bit like saying that because the Eagles sold a lot of albums
> something with 100 is probably going to be very well-written but probably not actually as good when you think about it
The more emotional the topic, the likelier it is that there'll be a big, expansive, iconic, catch-all "Hotel California"... surrounded by lots of unmemorable stuff. But that's okay. There's nothing wrong with a Hotel Metafilter effect.
posted by darth_tedious at 4:20 PM on October 31, 2009
> something with 100 is probably going to be very well-written but probably not actually as good when you think about it
The more emotional the topic, the likelier it is that there'll be a big, expansive, iconic, catch-all "Hotel California"... surrounded by lots of unmemorable stuff. But that's okay. There's nothing wrong with a Hotel Metafilter effect.
posted by darth_tedious at 4:20 PM on October 31, 2009
Starred. Noted.
On threads about topics I don't know very much about, favourites are definitely one metric I use to zero in on the good stuff. I'd be sad to lose the ability to see that.
posted by heatherann at 4:21 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
On threads about topics I don't know very much about, favourites are definitely one metric I use to zero in on the good stuff. I'd be sad to lose the ability to see that.
posted by heatherann at 4:21 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
My husband just will. not. sign. up. But it doesn't stop him from voicing his opinion on a website that he barely has any idea about, aside from attending two meetups and listening to my jabbering. HOWEVER: he actually had a good idea about this whole kerfluffle. Why not have "agree" instead of "favorite" in AskMe? That would discourage nthing due to favorite counts not showing. It would provide a single point of clarity as opposed to the many reasons people favorite comments. And it would provide the asker with a consensus.
posted by desjardins at 4:22 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 4:22 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
There's a Greasemonkey script to change the name of favorites. It should be easily modifiable if "faved" makes you twitch.
posted by Pronoiac at 4:24 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Pronoiac at 4:24 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think it's basically completely qualitative.
On the other hand, it would be really easy (and kind of interesting) to do all sorts of statistical analysis post-november via the infodump. For instance some kind of measure of the amount/distribution of modes for the month (vs., say, previous novembers) would give an indication of how much of favoriting happens as a herd effect.
posted by advil at 4:27 PM on October 31, 2009
On the other hand, it would be really easy (and kind of interesting) to do all sorts of statistical analysis post-november via the infodump. For instance some kind of measure of the amount/distribution of modes for the month (vs., say, previous novembers) would give an indication of how much of favoriting happens as a herd effect.
posted by advil at 4:27 PM on October 31, 2009
fleacircus: "Anyway what I'd rather have is a goddamn fixed <blockquote> or some other tag that nicely formats a quoted comment. </ponybandwagon>"
1. Have you tried blockquote recently? I know it's gotten a couple of major improvements in the past year or two, about removing extra blank lines.
2. Mefiquote.
posted by Pronoiac at 4:33 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
1. Have you tried blockquote recently? I know it's gotten a couple of major improvements in the past year or two, about removing extra blank lines.
2. Mefiquote.
posted by Pronoiac at 4:33 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm all for experiments, in general, This one, especially, if it quells some of the "favorites are ruining everything!!!" discussions.
I do hope, though, that if some benefit is realized, that we could discuss implementing no counts on MeFi proper exclusively. Snark isn't allowed on AskMe anyway, so favorite counts should be less of a concern there, and favorites have the possibility to function as a "me too" or affirmation for the asker. I imagine something similar could be the case on Music. MeTa, I guess I don't care either way, although it certainly seems that favoriting might be the least of your worries if you're hoping to curtail snark.
posted by donnagirl at 4:37 PM on October 31, 2009
I do hope, though, that if some benefit is realized, that we could discuss implementing no counts on MeFi proper exclusively. Snark isn't allowed on AskMe anyway, so favorite counts should be less of a concern there, and favorites have the possibility to function as a "me too" or affirmation for the asker. I imagine something similar could be the case on Music. MeTa, I guess I don't care either way, although it certainly seems that favoriting might be the least of your worries if you're hoping to curtail snark.
posted by donnagirl at 4:37 PM on October 31, 2009
Anyway, I want to go on record as saying I don't like this change.
I'll go on record as raising you to, "It sucks balls."
Everytime I see "It's not a popularity contest!!!" whenever someone brings up qty of favorites my eyes roll back in my head and I think of idiotic republicans who repeated "Why play the blame game?" whenever Bushy got caught fucking a toddler. Why play the blame game? Because people need to take responsibility for their actions. Why do some comments become more popular/well liked than others? Because lots of people like them. That's the definition of favorites.
This is a "solution" to something that's not problem.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 4:44 PM on October 31, 2009 [12 favorites]
I'll go on record as raising you to, "It sucks balls."
Everytime I see "It's not a popularity contest!!!" whenever someone brings up qty of favorites my eyes roll back in my head and I think of idiotic republicans who repeated "Why play the blame game?" whenever Bushy got caught fucking a toddler. Why play the blame game? Because people need to take responsibility for their actions. Why do some comments become more popular/well liked than others? Because lots of people like them. That's the definition of favorites.
This is a "solution" to something that's not problem.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 4:44 PM on October 31, 2009 [12 favorites]
You know those threads about feminism and women being hit on and 'watcha reading' and all that? Those huge, 1000+ monsters? I came to them late. I couldn't watch them develop.
With favourites, it was pretty easy to find the five or six comments out of the thousands of others that really made people sit up and pay attention. The comments that summarised concisely and eloquently what everyone else was trying to say, and the comments that offered heartfelt personal stories. Without favourites, I wouldn't have read those threads. Waaaaay too long to meander through hoping to find a gem or two.
I'm a better person because of those threads. I think I'm a better guy for it. They've changed how I think about women's experiences in the world, and opened my eyes to things I never would have considered otherwise. This was possible because the best comments were easy to find.
How about a 'show favourites' button at the top of the screen? If people don't want to see them, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. At the end of the month, you could see how many people chose to have favourites visible, which will give you a much more substantial answer than the handwaving in the few old metatalk threads.
posted by twirlypen at 4:46 PM on October 31, 2009 [48 favorites]
With favourites, it was pretty easy to find the five or six comments out of the thousands of others that really made people sit up and pay attention. The comments that summarised concisely and eloquently what everyone else was trying to say, and the comments that offered heartfelt personal stories. Without favourites, I wouldn't have read those threads. Waaaaay too long to meander through hoping to find a gem or two.
I'm a better person because of those threads. I think I'm a better guy for it. They've changed how I think about women's experiences in the world, and opened my eyes to things I never would have considered otherwise. This was possible because the best comments were easy to find.
How about a 'show favourites' button at the top of the screen? If people don't want to see them, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. At the end of the month, you could see how many people chose to have favourites visible, which will give you a much more substantial answer than the handwaving in the few old metatalk threads.
posted by twirlypen at 4:46 PM on October 31, 2009 [48 favorites]
I am very surprised to find that I have no strong feelings about this one way or the other. Except the word "faved." Please god no. It's an irritating non-word abbreviation of something that was an irritating non-word to begin with. When users mark something as a favorite, they "mark" it, they don't "favorite" it.
Of course, maybe I'm just cranky because it's National "Not Only Are These Goddamn Kids All Over My Goddam Lawn But They Expect Me To Give Them Candy, Too. Can You Believe the Goddam Nerve?" Day
posted by dersins at 4:48 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Of course, maybe I'm just cranky because it's National "Not Only Are These Goddamn Kids All Over My Goddam Lawn But They Expect Me To Give Them Candy, Too. Can You Believe the Goddam Nerve?" Day
posted by dersins at 4:48 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
The question everyone is ignoring is: Who is going to explain this to It's Raining Florence Henderson and tehloki?
Not it!
posted by cjorgensen at 4:50 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Not it!
posted by cjorgensen at 4:50 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
nobody really cares what I think.
posted by Edward L at 4:54 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by Edward L at 4:54 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
Also, 'faves'? Ugh, I know language evolves and all, but
The OED has citations for fave-as-shortened-favorite dating back to 1938, for what it's worth. Language was evolving in this case before most of us were born and before a lot of our parents were.
Which is really just tug-of-war on the peeve front, because I'm not in love with "faved" or "faves" or even the general choice of "favorites" lo back when, but, eh. I'm enjoying hearing the other suggestions folks have brought out so far and would love to hear more, but for the moment the choice of "faved" works pretty well in that it's (yes, really) a real word, one directly related to the previous word we've been using, and one that actually works semantically as a natural inflection of the already-familiar vocabulary of the site, which adds up to it being good enough for the experiment unless and until we find something we think works better. I'm sorry if it makes anybody puke, but I promise we won't change it to "totes faved" or anything.
And whether or not the foreshortening turns out to be worth much, I dunno, but this is a chance to try it out. A shorter byline may be meaningfully friendlier to the growing ubiquity of lower-resolution devices (netbooks, iPhones, etc) or it may not be that useful after all and we might just change it to "favorited" or something to let go of the space-saving and prevent quite so much vocabulary-induced upchuckery, but for the moment we're experiment with a slangy shortened version.
I'm really interested as to how ya'll plan to measure the difference between the impact the two systems have on throwaway snark (or comment trends in general). Is it gonna be a purely qualitative kind of assessment?
Yeah, I think we're pretty much looking at it qualitatively. Not that I'm not interested in potential quantitative lenses on the whole thing, and if folks have specific ideas about measurability I'm all ears (and the Infodump is available in for the self-starters among us).
One thing I may look at personally is if there's any net change in flagging behavior over time—do we see less or more "noise" flags on comments, say, by the time November is coming to a close—to see if there's any significant indication there of a change in folks' perceptions of the content going up.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:56 PM on October 31, 2009
The OED has citations for fave-as-shortened-favorite dating back to 1938, for what it's worth. Language was evolving in this case before most of us were born and before a lot of our parents were.
Which is really just tug-of-war on the peeve front, because I'm not in love with "faved" or "faves" or even the general choice of "favorites" lo back when, but, eh. I'm enjoying hearing the other suggestions folks have brought out so far and would love to hear more, but for the moment the choice of "faved" works pretty well in that it's (yes, really) a real word, one directly related to the previous word we've been using, and one that actually works semantically as a natural inflection of the already-familiar vocabulary of the site, which adds up to it being good enough for the experiment unless and until we find something we think works better. I'm sorry if it makes anybody puke, but I promise we won't change it to "totes faved" or anything.
And whether or not the foreshortening turns out to be worth much, I dunno, but this is a chance to try it out. A shorter byline may be meaningfully friendlier to the growing ubiquity of lower-resolution devices (netbooks, iPhones, etc) or it may not be that useful after all and we might just change it to "favorited" or something to let go of the space-saving and prevent quite so much vocabulary-induced upchuckery, but for the moment we're experiment with a slangy shortened version.
I'm really interested as to how ya'll plan to measure the difference between the impact the two systems have on throwaway snark (or comment trends in general). Is it gonna be a purely qualitative kind of assessment?
Yeah, I think we're pretty much looking at it qualitatively. Not that I'm not interested in potential quantitative lenses on the whole thing, and if folks have specific ideas about measurability I'm all ears (and the Infodump is available in for the self-starters among us).
One thing I may look at personally is if there's any net change in flagging behavior over time—do we see less or more "noise" flags on comments, say, by the time November is coming to a close—to see if there's any significant indication there of a change in folks' perceptions of the content going up.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:56 PM on October 31, 2009
The problem with Favorites?
It's a one-size-fits-all designation that covers several different things.
"Noted or Bookmarked" for future reference, no opinion, positive or negative, should be assumed.
"I like this" for comments (or posts) that earn a smile or head-nod of acknowledgment.
"I agree with this" with the frequently unstated "you said it better than I could (I'm gonna use it the next time the subject comes up)".
"I LOLed" for funny comments that succeed in being funny.
"I LOVE this" for absolute awesome breathtakingly high quality content.
"My Favorite" meaning the singular best thing I've seen on MeFi today/this week/ever/as far back as I can remember (may be <>
I wouldn't mind having a split between the Good (first 4 categories) and GREAT (the last 2). Maybe add an All Time Favorite designation with a limitation of the number of times you can use it (once a week/10 times a year/100 times lifetime/whatever) requiring the un-favoriting of something if you attempt to exceed the limit. Now THAT would be an experiment.
posted by wendell at 5:01 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
It's a one-size-fits-all designation that covers several different things.
"Noted or Bookmarked" for future reference, no opinion, positive or negative, should be assumed.
"I like this" for comments (or posts) that earn a smile or head-nod of acknowledgment.
"I agree with this" with the frequently unstated "you said it better than I could (I'm gonna use it the next time the subject comes up)".
"I LOLed" for funny comments that succeed in being funny.
"I LOVE this" for absolute awesome breathtakingly high quality content.
"My Favorite" meaning the singular best thing I've seen on MeFi today/this week/ever/as far back as I can remember (may be <>
I wouldn't mind having a split between the Good (first 4 categories) and GREAT (the last 2). Maybe add an All Time Favorite designation with a limitation of the number of times you can use it (once a week/10 times a year/100 times lifetime/whatever) requiring the un-favoriting of something if you attempt to exceed the limit. Now THAT would be an experiment.
posted by wendell at 5:01 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
Without my public display of favorites, I'm just another asshole on the Internet.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:05 PM on October 31, 2009 [9 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:05 PM on October 31, 2009 [9 favorites]
...but you're one of MY favorite assholes on the Internet, Flo.
And that part of my previous comment that got munged because I improperly used a 'less-than' sign should read: "today/this week/ever/as far back as I can remember (may be less than 1 week)/since the Big Bang (or the last episode of Big Bang Theory, bringing us back to 'this week')"
posted by wendell at 5:13 PM on October 31, 2009
And that part of my previous comment that got munged because I improperly used a 'less-than' sign should read: "today/this week/ever/as far back as I can remember (may be less than 1 week)/since the Big Bang (or the last episode of Big Bang Theory, bringing us back to 'this week')"
posted by wendell at 5:13 PM on October 31, 2009
I love this experiment. Excellent!
To all of you that have said that without favorites the site would be hellish to use, where the heck were you before May 10 2006? There were no favorites for those first seven years of the site's life and it seemed to work out pretty well.
posted by Rhomboid at 5:15 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
To all of you that have said that without favorites the site would be hellish to use, where the heck were you before May 10 2006? There were no favorites for those first seven years of the site's life and it seemed to work out pretty well.
posted by Rhomboid at 5:15 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don't have a problem with either faved or favorited. It retains the ambiguous quality of the myriad reasons people use favorites, even in AskMe.
In AskMe, when I favorite a comment, it usually does mean, "Yes, I agree and second this suggestion".
But I know a lot of times in book threads or cooking threads, I'll favorite comments, thinking, "Oh that sounds cool, I'll have to try that". It it not an endorsement, because I haven't yet cooked or read whatever the writer was suggesting. In those instances, it is really more of a bookmark. Of course, it's rare that I remember to go back and act on those favorites, but, that's life.
And as far as not showing number of favorites, I'm just barely willing to go along with this for one month, but I agree with the majority of posters that I'm not exactly embracing this with enthusiasm, and am already eagerly waiting to get my good old MeFi back in December, and very much hoping that we WILL revert back to the old favoriting system in 30 days.
posted by marsha56 at 5:17 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
In AskMe, when I favorite a comment, it usually does mean, "Yes, I agree and second this suggestion".
But I know a lot of times in book threads or cooking threads, I'll favorite comments, thinking, "Oh that sounds cool, I'll have to try that". It it not an endorsement, because I haven't yet cooked or read whatever the writer was suggesting. In those instances, it is really more of a bookmark. Of course, it's rare that I remember to go back and act on those favorites, but, that's life.
And as far as not showing number of favorites, I'm just barely willing to go along with this for one month, but I agree with the majority of posters that I'm not exactly embracing this with enthusiasm, and am already eagerly waiting to get my good old MeFi back in December, and very much hoping that we WILL revert back to the old favoriting system in 30 days.
posted by marsha56 at 5:17 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Can we have an opt-out checkbox in our personal options?
I personally would definitely opt out, because -- as others have said -- this will negatively impact how I read the site.
posted by Simon Barclay at 5:32 PM on October 31, 2009 [6 favorites]
I personally would definitely opt out, because -- as others have said -- this will negatively impact how I read the site.
posted by Simon Barclay at 5:32 PM on October 31, 2009 [6 favorites]
'Noted' or 'marked' rather than 'faved', please. I also think 'peed on' would be great, but I acknowledge my minority position.
posted by Wolfdog at 5:35 PM on October 31, 2009
posted by Wolfdog at 5:35 PM on October 31, 2009
I think public sharing of favorites in-thread (but not favorites themselves) should go away in general. If you agree with something in AskMefi, just say so. If I bookmark something for later perusal, why should random internet strangers have access to that fact? I do like the functionality as a bookmarking tool and definitely would not want to lose that. But I don't understand why other members of the community have access to a list of what I've marked.
Also, I hate, hate, hate the meta conversations about number of favorites and the games that people play with them. I'm a curmudgeon, what can I say?
posted by Roger Dodger at 5:35 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
Also, I hate, hate, hate the meta conversations about number of favorites and the games that people play with them. I'm a curmudgeon, what can I say?
posted by Roger Dodger at 5:35 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
Oh, and I'm very much in favor of suppressing the favorites count, so I'm glad you're giving it a try.
posted by Wolfdog at 5:37 PM on October 31, 2009
posted by Wolfdog at 5:37 PM on October 31, 2009
think this is a good change for metafilter -
I'm in the camp that the numerical score below each comment was a distraction more than some open market model for encouraging great comments
(although I'm not a fan of the shortening to the unnecessarily juvenile sounding "faved" - is favourites really that long?)
But I'm not sure about other parts of the site...
Should AskMe get it's own system -
where people can more or less agree/disagree with other people's comments?
As the moderating is so close there, favourites are pretty much used that way there already - and I think it's pretty useful.
posted by sloe at 5:37 PM on October 31, 2009
I'm in the camp that the numerical score below each comment was a distraction more than some open market model for encouraging great comments
(although I'm not a fan of the shortening to the unnecessarily juvenile sounding "faved" - is favourites really that long?)
But I'm not sure about other parts of the site...
Should AskMe get it's own system -
where people can more or less agree/disagree with other people's comments?
As the moderating is so close there, favourites are pretty much used that way there already - and I think it's pretty useful.
posted by sloe at 5:37 PM on October 31, 2009
But then I wouldn't get to see that phrontist marked his own answers as favorites!
posted by P.o.B. at 5:44 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by P.o.B. at 5:44 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
"But I don't understand why other members of the community have access to a list of what I've marked."
Because the flavorites are del.icio.us.
posted by klangklangston at 5:46 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
Because the flavorites are del.icio.us.
posted by klangklangston at 5:46 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
And as far as not showing number of favorites, I'm just barely willing to go along with this for one month, but I agree with the majority of posters that I'm not exactly embracing this with enthusiasm, and am already eagerly waiting to get my good old MeFi back in December, and very much hoping that we WILL revert back to the old favoriting system in 30 days.
I predict most of my time here for the next month will be spent reading this thread. I mean, it's Saturday night, and Halloween, and it's already got over 100 comments. Most people don't even look at MetaTalk; when they wonder what the hell happened tomorrow and come here looking to find out, this is gonna turn into one very long longboat.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:05 PM on October 31, 2009
I predict most of my time here for the next month will be spent reading this thread. I mean, it's Saturday night, and Halloween, and it's already got over 100 comments. Most people don't even look at MetaTalk; when they wonder what the hell happened tomorrow and come here looking to find out, this is gonna turn into one very long longboat.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:05 PM on October 31, 2009
Why not have "agree" instead of "favorite" in AskMe? That would discourage nthing due to favorite counts not showing.
Not so great if you ever use favorites in Ask to mean something other than "I agree". There are people that say smart or interesting things that don't necessarily represent my point of view, but I'm pleased or grateful that they've been said.
posted by oneirodynia at 6:20 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Not so great if you ever use favorites in Ask to mean something other than "I agree". There are people that say smart or interesting things that don't necessarily represent my point of view, but I'm pleased or grateful that they've been said.
posted by oneirodynia at 6:20 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Regarding wanting unshared bookmarks: right-click the time stamp on the comment, and select "bookmark this link", and for extra fanciness make a "metafilter" folder in your bookmarks menu. It is pretty easy.
posted by idiopath at 6:25 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by idiopath at 6:25 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've updated my "The Meef" UserStyle to replace "n favorites" with "meefed". Note: this will obscure the count forever, whether or not this experiment is active. If tomorrow's change breaks the style, I'll update it again ASAP.
posted by potch at 6:30 PM on October 31, 2009
posted by potch at 6:30 PM on October 31, 2009
This change also removes a considerable amount of the social networking that goes on to the site. A comment interacts with you, you click on favourites, and you see other users. You might interact with them by email, web or memail, and form lasting associations. This adds value to the site. That impacts my community, and I have significant concerns about that. How do you address the community implications?
posted by By The Grace of God at 6:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by By The Grace of God at 6:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
Well, I can try anything for a month. Let's just see what happens. Thank you for deciding to float it like a tester balloon, rather than flat out making it permanent. I appreciate it.
posted by anitanita at 6:38 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by anitanita at 6:38 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
"This change also removes a considerable amount of the social networking that goes on to the site."
I'm pretty sure that user list link isn't going away, it looks like this is primarily just removing the count from the byline.
posted by potch at 6:40 PM on October 31, 2009
I'm pretty sure that user list link isn't going away, it looks like this is primarily just removing the count from the byline.
posted by potch at 6:40 PM on October 31, 2009
OMG I turn my back and there is a MAJOR change and we are already 160+ comments in.
OK. If you had brought this up three years ago, then yeah, that is right. However, what happened is that you left opened the favorites to be not markers to what we want to find later but indicators of support, at least as it pertained to comments. I, and very many other members, used favorites on posts mostly to essentially bookmark interesting posts for future use, with plenty of favs for great posts per se as well. On comments, who really needs to go back to them, unless perhaps you want to remember how to dispose of the body? Those favorites were almost all about support. If you didn't want this, and I didn't want it when the favorites were instituted, then you should not have allowed favorites for comments as it was clear within months that this was the game. Now years later you want to change the game? I don't want my fucking cheese moved, sorry, even if my heart is with your motive.
posted by caddis at 6:52 PM on October 31, 2009 [9 favorites]
OK. If you had brought this up three years ago, then yeah, that is right. However, what happened is that you left opened the favorites to be not markers to what we want to find later but indicators of support, at least as it pertained to comments. I, and very many other members, used favorites on posts mostly to essentially bookmark interesting posts for future use, with plenty of favs for great posts per se as well. On comments, who really needs to go back to them, unless perhaps you want to remember how to dispose of the body? Those favorites were almost all about support. If you didn't want this, and I didn't want it when the favorites were instituted, then you should not have allowed favorites for comments as it was clear within months that this was the game. Now years later you want to change the game? I don't want my fucking cheese moved, sorry, even if my heart is with your motive.
posted by caddis at 6:52 PM on October 31, 2009 [9 favorites]
you wouldn't be able to peruse his favorites unless you were a mutual contact.
Ah, I see. I think I agree with you on the personal profile stuff. To be honest, I rarely ever check to see who favorites something (mine included) as that's they're personal preference, but sometimes my curiosity get's the better of me and I wonder "who favorited that?"
Really I probably shouldn't have called him on that but I just thought it was odd, and I'm not sure if he enacted the random bandwagon favoriting experiment or if it was some kind of sarcastic qoutation marks. Maybe we do need a *hamburger mark.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:57 PM on October 31, 2009
Ah, I see. I think I agree with you on the personal profile stuff. To be honest, I rarely ever check to see who favorites something (mine included) as that's they're personal preference, but sometimes my curiosity get's the better of me and I wonder "who favorited that?"
Really I probably shouldn't have called him on that but I just thought it was odd, and I'm not sure if he enacted the random bandwagon favoriting experiment or if it was some kind of sarcastic qoutation marks. Maybe we do need a *hamburger mark.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:57 PM on October 31, 2009
x users made note of this comment for whatever reason it is that they make note of comments.
posted by turgid dahlia at 7:00 PM on October 31, 2009 [8 favorites]
posted by turgid dahlia at 7:00 PM on October 31, 2009 [8 favorites]
It's November and I still see numbers. So I assume you mean your November? (not that I care, I'm just impatient)
posted by shelleycat at 7:08 PM on October 31, 2009
posted by shelleycat at 7:08 PM on October 31, 2009
I want to throw myself onto the bandwagon against this. Sure, it's going to happen, but I don't like that it will. It seems like a small, but vocal minority (and yes, I have read a lot of the threads arguing about it, and they are pretty tedious) has gotten their way around a problem only they seem to notice. The majority of the community didn't think or feel there was a problem, and as mentioned above, MeTa isn't as heavily visited.
People with an axe to grind have, by being vocal, gotten a change that I believe most members won't like, or, depeding on how often they visit MeTa, even understand.
It feels like a PTA moment where a couple of angry parents have managed to ban books because they don't like the message they send. The other parents didn't know about the meeting, or didn't see a problem.
posted by Ghidorah at 7:22 PM on October 31, 2009 [21 favorites]
People with an axe to grind have, by being vocal, gotten a change that I believe most members won't like, or, depeding on how often they visit MeTa, even understand.
It feels like a PTA moment where a couple of angry parents have managed to ban books because they don't like the message they send. The other parents didn't know about the meeting, or didn't see a problem.
posted by Ghidorah at 7:22 PM on October 31, 2009 [21 favorites]
What I hate about the internet in general is this compulsion to fix things that are not broken. Facebook does it all the time, and now YOU GUYS.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:22 PM on October 31, 2009 [12 favorites]
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:22 PM on October 31, 2009 [12 favorites]
The alternative term that I think fits very well is STARRED (with a star?), like gmail. It's safely ambiguous, and no baggage of the favourites.
posted by dhruva at 7:32 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by dhruva at 7:32 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
That gives me an idea. We need facebook-style poking.
posted by cj_ at 7:33 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by cj_ at 7:33 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
Just to be clear, we're not trying this out as a "hey we're planning on implementing this" but that a lot of people have, for a long time, been saying they think the favorites system encourages crappy behavior. We've been saying "We don't think so" without any real way to test. So, we decided to try this. And it's about that complicated. We talked a lot about the word "faved" but this isn't some major thing, just a good time for some experimentation. (Jessamyn)
I don't think this two-month experiment will tell you much about how favoriting has impacted the site. People's behavior is pretty ingrained at this point, and the experimental solution isn't really much of a difference (readers still see what's been favorited, just a click away from seeing how many people did so).
Still, nice of the mods to give something like this a try, given that the anti-favorites folks are a small (if vocal) minority around here.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:35 PM on October 31, 2009
I don't think this two-month experiment will tell you much about how favoriting has impacted the site. People's behavior is pretty ingrained at this point, and the experimental solution isn't really much of a difference (readers still see what's been favorited, just a click away from seeing how many people did so).
Still, nice of the mods to give something like this a try, given that the anti-favorites folks are a small (if vocal) minority around here.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:35 PM on October 31, 2009
You could just as easily argue that "fixing things that aren't broken" should have applied when favorites were first implemented three years ago. Everybody has a different idea of what "aren't broken" means.
posted by Rhomboid at 7:45 PM on October 31, 2009
posted by Rhomboid at 7:45 PM on October 31, 2009
I want to throw myself onto the bandwagon against this. Sure, it's going to happen, but I don't like that it will. It seems like a small, but vocal minority (and yes, I have read a lot of the threads arguing about it, and they are pretty tedious) has gotten their way around a problem only they seem to notice.
This is an experiment. It says so in the very first line of the post, actually. It's temporary. It's to see if anything changes when the system changes. If nothing is different, the small but vocal minority you refer to (and anyone who posts on MeTa is in a small but vocal minority no matter what they believe, seeing as how the large majority of users don't post any opinion here at all) will have less of an argument. Honestly, this is the best way to show the people who think that a visible favorite count detracts from the site that they might be wrong, if that's what you believe.
I suppose it might prove that they have a point, too, but even then there's no guarantee that the change will continue after a month.
posted by oneirodynia at 7:49 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
This is an experiment. It says so in the very first line of the post, actually. It's temporary. It's to see if anything changes when the system changes. If nothing is different, the small but vocal minority you refer to (and anyone who posts on MeTa is in a small but vocal minority no matter what they believe, seeing as how the large majority of users don't post any opinion here at all) will have less of an argument. Honestly, this is the best way to show the people who think that a visible favorite count detracts from the site that they might be wrong, if that's what you believe.
I suppose it might prove that they have a point, too, but even then there's no guarantee that the change will continue after a month.
posted by oneirodynia at 7:49 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think the suggestions for multiple kinds of favorite are begging for unnecessary complexity.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:00 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:00 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
That's it. I'm out of here.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:00 PM on October 31, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:00 PM on October 31, 2009 [6 favorites]
I'm back.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:00 PM on October 31, 2009 [17 favorites]
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:00 PM on October 31, 2009 [17 favorites]
I like the ambiguity of "saving" a comment as opposed to marking it a "favorite". I know that it's just semantics, but "favorites" sounds, well, favorable wheras "saving" just says "I may want to re-read this at a later date".
Otherwise, I have no opinion of the experiment.
I may have one tomorrow, though.
posted by dogmom at 8:01 PM on October 31, 2009
Otherwise, I have no opinion of the experiment.
I may have one tomorrow, though.
posted by dogmom at 8:01 PM on October 31, 2009
so, dumb question, but if you favorite yourself, it looks identical to someone else getting 100 favorites in a thread, unless someone goes through and checks every single comment to see who favorited what.
posted by empath at 8:11 PM on October 31, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by empath at 8:11 PM on October 31, 2009 [6 favorites]
11/1 NEVAR FORGET!!!!!
posted by pyramid termite at 8:13 PM on October 31, 2009 [10 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 8:13 PM on October 31, 2009 [10 favorites]
How about "plussed" instead? It's already the symbol we click on and, besides, we could say that comments and posts that hadn't gotten any are "nonplussed."
posted by Kattullus at 8:14 PM on October 31, 2009 [7 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 8:14 PM on October 31, 2009 [7 favorites]
My problem with this is that a lot of the time when I don't have the time to read an entire thread (like this very moment, so someone has probably raised this exact objection already), I'll scan a thread I'm interested in for any comments with more than a certain number of favorites to get a jist of what's going on with the discussion (and also get the really good bits of snark). This change takes that ability away from me, and a month is unlikely to change my dislike for that.
posted by Caduceus at 8:25 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Caduceus at 8:25 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I like "saved." It's neutral.
On comments, who really needs to go back to them
I search comments I've favorited all the time. In IRL conversations I'll often say, "Hey, there's this online board I hang out at where someone analyzed exactly this point. The way they unpacked it was damned interesting. I can't remember the details now, but I'll go look it up later and send it to you."
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 8:26 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
On comments, who really needs to go back to them
I search comments I've favorited all the time. In IRL conversations I'll often say, "Hey, there's this online board I hang out at where someone analyzed exactly this point. The way they unpacked it was damned interesting. I can't remember the details now, but I'll go look it up later and send it to you."
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 8:26 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
All in all, I'd rather have candy corn.
posted by heyho at 8:31 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by heyho at 8:31 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think this is a good idea. However, one note:
a lot of people have, for a long time, been saying they think the favorites system encourages crappy behavior.
That's part of it, yes—that favorites indirectly hurt the site by 'encouraging' crappy behavior. But the other part of the complaint is that favorites directly hurt the site by 'endorsing' crappy behavior.
It sucks that JohnDoe might poison a thread because he's hoping to boost his count. But it also sucks (worse?) that when readers encounter his rant, it's been 'endorsed' by a dozen MeFites—many of whom probably wouldn't go to the effort of posting their own flame/rant into the thread, but are happy to click a button and add-on to JohnDoe's. In which case, it's not that favoriting is 'encouraging' bad behavior; rather, favoriting is the bad behavior.
That part, this experiment solves. Regardless whether, in a month, you're still deleting tons of throwaway snark.
posted by cribcage at 8:32 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
a lot of people have, for a long time, been saying they think the favorites system encourages crappy behavior.
That's part of it, yes—that favorites indirectly hurt the site by 'encouraging' crappy behavior. But the other part of the complaint is that favorites directly hurt the site by 'endorsing' crappy behavior.
It sucks that JohnDoe might poison a thread because he's hoping to boost his count. But it also sucks (worse?) that when readers encounter his rant, it's been 'endorsed' by a dozen MeFites—many of whom probably wouldn't go to the effort of posting their own flame/rant into the thread, but are happy to click a button and add-on to JohnDoe's. In which case, it's not that favoriting is 'encouraging' bad behavior; rather, favoriting is the bad behavior.
That part, this experiment solves. Regardless whether, in a month, you're still deleting tons of throwaway snark.
posted by cribcage at 8:32 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
lalex: I feel like in AskMe the visible favorite count often functions as "I would like to agree with this answer" as opposed to "I would like to reward this snark".
Frankly, that's the one use of favorites that's most destructive, and a good reason (I think) to at least contemplate completely removing favorites from the ask subsite. Most people are usually wrong; especially people that either don't have time or don't have enough information to actually put a comment in the thread, but choose instead to skim and click the plusses.
There is no democracy of truth. Just because 500 people thought an answer was worth favoriting doesn't mean it's actually a good answer or will help the poster. In short, I strongly encourage people not to view favorites in ask as having any weight beyond "lots of people liked it." It's hard to keep this in mind sometimes, but the majority makes massive mistakes constantly, and extremely popular answers are often wrong.
posted by koeselitz at 8:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Frankly, that's the one use of favorites that's most destructive, and a good reason (I think) to at least contemplate completely removing favorites from the ask subsite. Most people are usually wrong; especially people that either don't have time or don't have enough information to actually put a comment in the thread, but choose instead to skim and click the plusses.
There is no democracy of truth. Just because 500 people thought an answer was worth favoriting doesn't mean it's actually a good answer or will help the poster. In short, I strongly encourage people not to view favorites in ask as having any weight beyond "lots of people liked it." It's hard to keep this in mind sometimes, but the majority makes massive mistakes constantly, and extremely popular answers are often wrong.
posted by koeselitz at 8:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Also, I like this. We're clearly a fickle bunch – last few times this has come up, I remember a bit chunk of us have been adamantly against favorites, but now it seems like nobody likes this effort to figure out if they're actually a problem. I'm looking forward to seeing how this works out.
posted by koeselitz at 8:36 PM on October 31, 2009
posted by koeselitz at 8:36 PM on October 31, 2009
That gives me an idea. We need facebook-style poking.
oh my god. no.
posted by beandip at 8:40 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
oh my god. no.
posted by beandip at 8:40 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
... and by the way, to those who think this will negatively affect their browsing experience because it'll remove a vital filter they have: is that really true? My experience is that not that many comments get favorited except in a few 'epic' threads where everybody's sharing stuff. For me at least, knowing that one or more people marked something as a favorite is enough for me to filter through. That's what I like about this system: it preserves the marker that says that a comment has been favorited at least once while obscuring "massively famous" comments. Sort of a leveling thing, I think, that will probably help a bit. And if you only read favorited comments in a thread, you still only have to read about a quarter of them, so how bad can it be?
posted by koeselitz at 8:42 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by koeselitz at 8:42 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Sys Rq: How about "saved"? It's more neutral and, I think, describes more accurately the actual function of the thingy.
"Ooh, look – that comment is marked 'saved.' I'd better read it; I guess it was by somebody who's Born Again just like I am. Praise Jesus!"
posted by koeselitz at 8:44 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
"Ooh, look – that comment is marked 'saved.' I'd better read it; I guess it was by somebody who's Born Again just like I am. Praise Jesus!"
posted by koeselitz at 8:44 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
How about 'loved'. Which could be further refined through various levels of irony. -5 irony for, say Pixar stories, all the way through to +5 for abortion screeds. That could be modified by 'I'm Serious' ratings, which could be subtly defined by a 'But, No' scale, followed by some smilies to take the edge off.
posted by stavrogin at 8:57 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by stavrogin at 8:57 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
[THIS COMMENT WAS INSPECTED BY USER #19935]
posted by koeselitz at 9:09 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by koeselitz at 9:09 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
People with an axe to grind have, by being vocal, gotten a change that I believe most members won't like, or, depeding on how often they visit MeTa, even understand.
Yeah, I'm honestly less annoyed by this because of the loss of a feature (although, generally speaking, removing features from anything? not just this site, but any site? especially when it's something that users use all the time? it tends to go over pretty badly, and I'm a little surprised to see a site as typically sensitive to such things as this one suddenly start 'spergin' in such a fashion) than I am because (a) this is something that apparently almost no one actually wants except some people who bitch about it all the time, and (b) no one actually asked the community at large in any meaningful way whether they thought removing the feature was really this awesome idea but instead just kinda did it. I'm kind of surprised by just how seriously this is all rubbing me the wrong way, but it's rubbing me the wrong way. I just don't like the rationale or the implementation. It's just, guhhh.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:18 PM on October 31, 2009 [17 favorites]
Yeah, I'm honestly less annoyed by this because of the loss of a feature (although, generally speaking, removing features from anything? not just this site, but any site? especially when it's something that users use all the time? it tends to go over pretty badly, and I'm a little surprised to see a site as typically sensitive to such things as this one suddenly start 'spergin' in such a fashion) than I am because (a) this is something that apparently almost no one actually wants except some people who bitch about it all the time, and (b) no one actually asked the community at large in any meaningful way whether they thought removing the feature was really this awesome idea but instead just kinda did it. I'm kind of surprised by just how seriously this is all rubbing me the wrong way, but it's rubbing me the wrong way. I just don't like the rationale or the implementation. It's just, guhhh.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:18 PM on October 31, 2009 [17 favorites]
I love that you are trying something. I think Eideteker is right though, might as well treat it like flagging--invisible entirely, not just invisible count--it is a far more pure experiment that way.
Overall, I can see benefit in treating AskMe differently from other sub-sites. Also, I think the worse problem (or at least equally bad) is having a favorite count visible in user profiles. Popularity contests are lame.
I keep up with the various Mefi subsites using RSS, but there's way too much content on the average day to be able to read it all. So most of the time I'll just skim the longer comment threads, and rely on high favorite counts to jump out at me while scrolling. Like idiopath said, I'm rarely disappointed by what I find.
Yes, and this is a huge part of what's wrong with favorites. And for the record, I just skimmed your comment for a pull quote, sorry if I missed anything of value you might have said.
See what I did there? No, obviously not, because I won't get enough favorites. Alas...
posted by Chuckles at 9:28 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Overall, I can see benefit in treating AskMe differently from other sub-sites. Also, I think the worse problem (or at least equally bad) is having a favorite count visible in user profiles. Popularity contests are lame.
I keep up with the various Mefi subsites using RSS, but there's way too much content on the average day to be able to read it all. So most of the time I'll just skim the longer comment threads, and rely on high favorite counts to jump out at me while scrolling. Like idiopath said, I'm rarely disappointed by what I find.
Yes, and this is a huge part of what's wrong with favorites. And for the record, I just skimmed your comment for a pull quote, sorry if I missed anything of value you might have said.
See what I did there? No, obviously not, because I won't get enough favorites. Alas...
posted by Chuckles at 9:28 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
as typically sensitive to such things as this one suddenly start 'spergin' in such a fashion
Our basic feeling is that we have no idea whether the people who complain about this often represent a lot of people or just themselves. This month all we're doing is removing public favorite counts. Your favorites still show up on your page, you can still see who favorited you, popular favorites are the same and accessible, greasemonkey scripts will be available to make the site look like it did before.
It's a month and we figure this way we don't have to have the same back and forth argument every few months. We have a way to show the site with this same user population and without the little numbers next to comments. It seemed like a good compromise to try out. We're really seriously not removing favorites or planning to.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:28 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Our basic feeling is that we have no idea whether the people who complain about this often represent a lot of people or just themselves. This month all we're doing is removing public favorite counts. Your favorites still show up on your page, you can still see who favorited you, popular favorites are the same and accessible, greasemonkey scripts will be available to make the site look like it did before.
It's a month and we figure this way we don't have to have the same back and forth argument every few months. We have a way to show the site with this same user population and without the little numbers next to comments. It seemed like a good compromise to try out. We're really seriously not removing favorites or planning to.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:28 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
> and by the way, to those who think this will negatively affect their browsing experience because it'll remove a vital filter they have: is that really true?
This breaks down on threads where two people going back and forth on some stupid thing (the stuff I usually like to skip) get 1 favorite every time they restate their point. Just putting "faved" instead of showing the count might actually give stuff like that more weight than it normally would.
posted by cj_ at 9:32 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
This breaks down on threads where two people going back and forth on some stupid thing (the stuff I usually like to skip) get 1 favorite every time they restate their point. Just putting "faved" instead of showing the count might actually give stuff like that more weight than it normally would.
posted by cj_ at 9:32 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
jessamyn: It's a month and we figure this way we don't have to have the same back and forth argument every few months.
My feeling is that the end result will be that those who are against favorites will see the experiment as proof that they're right and that those who like favorites will see the experiment as either inconclusive or proof that they're right. I have a hard time seeing what this experiment will demonstrate.
posted by Kattullus at 9:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [23 favorites]
My feeling is that the end result will be that those who are against favorites will see the experiment as proof that they're right and that those who like favorites will see the experiment as either inconclusive or proof that they're right. I have a hard time seeing what this experiment will demonstrate.
posted by Kattullus at 9:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [23 favorites]
Frankly, that's the one use of favorites that's most destructive, and a good reason (I think) to at least contemplate completely removing favorites from the ask subsite. Most people are usually wrong; especially people that either don't have time or don't have enough information to actually put a comment in the thread, but choose instead to skim and click the plusses.
Good point. Adding favorites takes away a lot inane me-tooing, but it also takes away from intellectual rigor..
posted by Chuckles at 9:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Good point. Adding favorites takes away a lot inane me-tooing, but it also takes away from intellectual rigor..
posted by Chuckles at 9:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
kittens for breakfast: Yeah, I'm honestly less annoyed by this because of the loss of a feature... than I am because (a) this is something that apparently almost no one actually wants except some people who bitch about it all the time, and (b) no one actually asked the community at large in any meaningful way whether they thought removing the feature was really this awesome idea but instead just kinda did it. I'm kind of surprised by just how seriously this is all rubbing me the wrong way, but it's rubbing me the wrong way. I just don't like the rationale or the implementation. It's just, guhhh.
I think that there's a very significant number of us who are concerned about the problems favorites might be creating. That significant number of us hasn't necessarily just 'bitched a lot' and gotten our way.
I know you're not really saying that – it sounds like you just don't really like the idea – but actually I think it's sort of typical of Metafilter that we're like this. A bunch of us have been agitating for this for years, and you're right, some of us have been whiny bastards about it, and what do we all do when this finally gets changed? Nobody likes it, and everybody hates it. I think it's a sign of how careful the mods are that they didn't just bow to pressure. They would've been bowing to pressure if they'd rushed to remove favorites right away after one of our big complain-fests; instead, they held back, considered it, and decided to do this test. All in all, that's the best way.
Look at it this way, and it'll make more sense: this isn't an outright change, it's a scientific test. The question is whether favorites encourage crappy commenting. Even if you redefine "crappy commenting" as "comments that end up needing to be deleted," there's virtually no way to test this; it was so long ago that favorites were implemented that you can't use that time period as a control. This is the least obtrusive way, I think, of trying to discover what the answer to the question is.
And on the plus side? The next time somebody complains that favorites are ruining the site, you can say "actually, no they're not. Remember? We tested it."
posted by koeselitz at 9:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
I think that there's a very significant number of us who are concerned about the problems favorites might be creating. That significant number of us hasn't necessarily just 'bitched a lot' and gotten our way.
I know you're not really saying that – it sounds like you just don't really like the idea – but actually I think it's sort of typical of Metafilter that we're like this. A bunch of us have been agitating for this for years, and you're right, some of us have been whiny bastards about it, and what do we all do when this finally gets changed? Nobody likes it, and everybody hates it. I think it's a sign of how careful the mods are that they didn't just bow to pressure. They would've been bowing to pressure if they'd rushed to remove favorites right away after one of our big complain-fests; instead, they held back, considered it, and decided to do this test. All in all, that's the best way.
Look at it this way, and it'll make more sense: this isn't an outright change, it's a scientific test. The question is whether favorites encourage crappy commenting. Even if you redefine "crappy commenting" as "comments that end up needing to be deleted," there's virtually no way to test this; it was so long ago that favorites were implemented that you can't use that time period as a control. This is the least obtrusive way, I think, of trying to discover what the answer to the question is.
And on the plus side? The next time somebody complains that favorites are ruining the site, you can say "actually, no they're not. Remember? We tested it."
posted by koeselitz at 9:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
Put me in the "this will seriously impact the way I read the site" camp. The concept mentioned above that "the highlighting power of favorites gets neutered really bothers me.
What about making it a scale? Like "faved" for less than 10 favorites, "many faves" for less than 25, "tons of faves" for less than 50 etc. Just a thought.
posted by Big_B at 9:35 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
What about making it a scale? Like "faved" for less than 10 favorites, "many faves" for less than 25, "tons of faves" for less than 50 etc. Just a thought.
posted by Big_B at 9:35 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
For the record, Rhaomi's awesome comment had 41 favourites before favourites disappeared. Which probably indicates that 41 people agreed, which is actually useful to know in the context of this conversation.
As long as we're experimenting with "small but vocal" minority ponies, could you please show me how many Best Answers I've had on my own Profile page? You can display my total number only to me, and that's fine - this is not a request for public Best Answer tallies. Thanks!
posted by DarlingBri at 9:36 PM on October 31, 2009 [6 favorites]
As long as we're experimenting with "small but vocal" minority ponies, could you please show me how many Best Answers I've had on my own Profile page? You can display my total number only to me, and that's fine - this is not a request for public Best Answer tallies. Thanks!
posted by DarlingBri at 9:36 PM on October 31, 2009 [6 favorites]
Kattullus: My feeling is that the end result will be that those who are against favorites will see the experiment as proof that they're right and that those who like favorites will see the experiment as either inconclusive or proof that they're right. I have a hard time seeing what this experiment will demonstrate.
That brings up a good point. Mods: what data are you collecting, and what kind of parameters are you going to focus on? I assume that the number of comments that have to be deleted is going to play a big role, right?
posted by koeselitz at 9:37 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
That brings up a good point. Mods: what data are you collecting, and what kind of parameters are you going to focus on? I assume that the number of comments that have to be deleted is going to play a big role, right?
posted by koeselitz at 9:37 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
DarlingBri: For the record, Rhaomi's awesome comment had 41 favourites before favourites disappeared. Which probably indicates that 41 people agreed, which is actually useful to know in the context of this conversation.
Interesting: so this is rolling out in a time-zone-specific way? Because I'm still seeing favorites right now. Of course, I still have almost an hour and a half before November 1 where I am.
posted by koeselitz at 9:38 PM on October 31, 2009
Interesting: so this is rolling out in a time-zone-specific way? Because I'm still seeing favorites right now. Of course, I still have almost an hour and a half before November 1 where I am.
posted by koeselitz at 9:38 PM on October 31, 2009
By the way, you know what would work a lot better than the word 'faved?' A symbol of some kind. It sort of works better orthographically, I think, with the [+] [!] already there.
How about a gold star? Seems positive, but still somewhat neutral.
posted by koeselitz at 9:42 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
How about a gold star? Seems positive, but still somewhat neutral.
posted by koeselitz at 9:42 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
koeselitz: That brings up a good point. Mods: what data are you collecting, and what kind of parameters are you going to focus on? I assume that the number of comments that have to be deleted is going to play a big role, right?
Well, cortex said above: "One thing I may look at personally is if there's any net change in flagging behavior over time—do we see less or more "noise" flags on comments, say, by the time November is coming to a close—to see if there's any significant indication there of a change in folks' perceptions of the content going up."
posted by Kattullus at 9:46 PM on October 31, 2009
Well, cortex said above: "One thing I may look at personally is if there's any net change in flagging behavior over time—do we see less or more "noise" flags on comments, say, by the time November is coming to a close—to see if there's any significant indication there of a change in folks' perceptions of the content going up."
posted by Kattullus at 9:46 PM on October 31, 2009
How about a gold star? Seems positive, but still somewhat neutral.
You mean Stan Chin can get his gold star back?
posted by Chuckles at 9:46 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
You mean Stan Chin can get his gold star back?
posted by Chuckles at 9:46 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Ah, I hadn't seen that, Kattullus. Thanks.
That seems like a pretty reasonable way to measure public perception of quality. Though you're right; people will always draw their own conclusions first and try to annex the evidence to their side somehow.
posted by koeselitz at 9:48 PM on October 31, 2009
That seems like a pretty reasonable way to measure public perception of quality. Though you're right; people will always draw their own conclusions first and try to annex the evidence to their side somehow.
posted by koeselitz at 9:48 PM on October 31, 2009
I finally get it. MetaFilter is my generation's comics page. God help you if you change a thing. You take out a single number of limited usefulness for reading the site -- no, you don't take it out, you just obscure it a teeny bit, in a manner that a single mouse click or, worst case scenario, a Greasemonkey script will de-obscure -- you announce that you'll do this for a single freaking month, and people go out of their way to tell you what a horrible thing it is before you've even tried it out.
No wonder the site redesign contest led to absolutely nothing. I both do and do not envy you your jobs, mods.
posted by middleclasstool at 9:49 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
No wonder the site redesign contest led to absolutely nothing. I both do and do not envy you your jobs, mods.
posted by middleclasstool at 9:49 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
I've never liked favorites much anyway, and hardly ever use them. That said:
I think noted, saved, or marked are all perfectly good options. Faved, on the other hand, is horrible.
Also, I'd hate to see AskMe get special treatment; there too people use favorites for all kinds of reasons.
Mostly I'm just curious to see how this all works out.
posted by tangerine at 9:51 PM on October 31, 2009
I think noted, saved, or marked are all perfectly good options. Faved, on the other hand, is horrible.
Also, I'd hate to see AskMe get special treatment; there too people use favorites for all kinds of reasons.
Mostly I'm just curious to see how this all works out.
posted by tangerine at 9:51 PM on October 31, 2009
It's already started and i don't like it, NOT ONE BIT!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:51 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:51 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
Does somebody have some hard numbers on who resides in the minority or majority...any numbers?
oneirodynia: If nothing is different, the small but vocal minority you refer to (and anyone who posts on MeTa is in a small but vocal minority no matter what they believe, seeing as how the large majority of users don't post any opinion here at all) will have less of an argument
I suspect this is right about on the money.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:53 PM on October 31, 2009
oneirodynia: If nothing is different, the small but vocal minority you refer to (and anyone who posts on MeTa is in a small but vocal minority no matter what they believe, seeing as how the large majority of users don't post any opinion here at all) will have less of an argument
I suspect this is right about on the money.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:53 PM on October 31, 2009
Oh sorry, that was the candy talking.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:55 PM on October 31, 2009
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:55 PM on October 31, 2009
I like the idea of displaying + for 1 to 5 favorites, ++ for 6 to 12 favorites, +++ for 13 to 29 favorites, ++++ for 30 or more favorites. That gets rid of the word favorite altogether and it is useful for people who skim threads for highly favorited comments.
posted by water bear at 10:01 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by water bear at 10:01 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think that there's a very significant number of us who are concerned about the problems favorites might be creating. That significant number of us hasn't necessarily just 'bitched a lot' and gotten our way.
I know you're not really saying that – it sounds like you just don't really like the idea
Can't it be both? Because I'm really pretty sure it's both. I don't think much of the scientific test aspect of it, because there are a million and one factors that could affect the number of flags in a given month (a good Palin thread that dovetails into members giving vent to their more unlovely, usually well-buried misogynistic tendencies could produce many flags; a month of slow news and generally genial FPPs could produce an unusually small amount of flags), and I don't see anything else that could be used as much of a metric, really. I don't see the state of site discourse as being especially poor right now -- quite frankly, there were some real shitbags who used to haunt this site who seem to have largely vanished in the last year, and I'd have to say that if anything, site discourse has improved in the absence of their frequently-shown, bafflingly-unbanned asses -- so I don't see the need for any measures to be taken at all; and I also see uses for the favorites feature; and again, not really any for the no favorites non-feature. And the word "faves" just makes me feel like I'm suddenly in some awful Diablo Cody movie, but that's neither here nor there, I suppose. Most of all, though, like I said, I feel like the implementation of this was a big fumble, and a weird fumble, since it's just not how the site normally rolls.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:02 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
I know you're not really saying that – it sounds like you just don't really like the idea
Can't it be both? Because I'm really pretty sure it's both. I don't think much of the scientific test aspect of it, because there are a million and one factors that could affect the number of flags in a given month (a good Palin thread that dovetails into members giving vent to their more unlovely, usually well-buried misogynistic tendencies could produce many flags; a month of slow news and generally genial FPPs could produce an unusually small amount of flags), and I don't see anything else that could be used as much of a metric, really. I don't see the state of site discourse as being especially poor right now -- quite frankly, there were some real shitbags who used to haunt this site who seem to have largely vanished in the last year, and I'd have to say that if anything, site discourse has improved in the absence of their frequently-shown, bafflingly-unbanned asses -- so I don't see the need for any measures to be taken at all; and I also see uses for the favorites feature; and again, not really any for the no favorites non-feature. And the word "faves" just makes me feel like I'm suddenly in some awful Diablo Cody movie, but that's neither here nor there, I suppose. Most of all, though, like I said, I feel like the implementation of this was a big fumble, and a weird fumble, since it's just not how the site normally rolls.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:02 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
The glyph used by The Artist Formerly Known as Prince would work.
posted by lukemeister at 10:08 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by lukemeister at 10:08 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
You really think this was a big fumble? Hmm. I guess I just didn't see that.
Then again, it hasn't happened for me yet (won't apparently for another hour) so I guess maybe MeFi will become much less usable for me, too.
As far as the discourse being pretty good lately, I don't know how much I agree. You're right, there seem to be fewer stand-out jerks; but there do seem (to me, anyway) to be more pile-ons than ever before, more situations where three dozen people feel the need to make that obvious joke or call out the clearly out-of-line whiny asker. I know that's anecdotal, and the mods probably have a much better sense of it because they see the figures day to day of how many comments they end up having to delete. But I think that that observation is at least supported by the evidence: there are more users every day, many more users every day; Alexa has us still has us adding about 20% more unique hits every three months. That's likely to keep causing scalability problems.
I know that's something that seems to be on the minds of the mods. I know they're probably at least still seeing a steady rise in how many long threads they have to slog through and delete pointless or offensive comments. Anything that helps them do that seems like a good idea to me.
However, again, clearly I didn't appreciate how much this really makes browsing MeFi less functional for a lot of people.
posted by koeselitz at 10:13 PM on October 31, 2009
Then again, it hasn't happened for me yet (won't apparently for another hour) so I guess maybe MeFi will become much less usable for me, too.
As far as the discourse being pretty good lately, I don't know how much I agree. You're right, there seem to be fewer stand-out jerks; but there do seem (to me, anyway) to be more pile-ons than ever before, more situations where three dozen people feel the need to make that obvious joke or call out the clearly out-of-line whiny asker. I know that's anecdotal, and the mods probably have a much better sense of it because they see the figures day to day of how many comments they end up having to delete. But I think that that observation is at least supported by the evidence: there are more users every day, many more users every day; Alexa has us still has us adding about 20% more unique hits every three months. That's likely to keep causing scalability problems.
I know that's something that seems to be on the minds of the mods. I know they're probably at least still seeing a steady rise in how many long threads they have to slog through and delete pointless or offensive comments. Anything that helps them do that seems like a good idea to me.
However, again, clearly I didn't appreciate how much this really makes browsing MeFi less functional for a lot of people.
posted by koeselitz at 10:13 PM on October 31, 2009
Brandon Blatcher,
I favorited your comment
invisible favorite count
posted by lukemeister at 10:13 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I favorited your comment
invisible favorite count
posted by lukemeister at 10:13 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Wait that should be:
NOT SMALL but vocal and handsome minority(?)
posted by P.o.B. at 10:18 PM on October 31, 2009
NOT SMALL but vocal and handsome minority(?)
posted by P.o.B. at 10:18 PM on October 31, 2009
You really think this was a big fumble? Hmm. I guess I just didn't see that.
I think the "oh hi, we're doing this" approach was the fumble. The actual act I don't think is a good idea, but considering it's a major change to the site, and it's a reduction rather than an addition...well, anyhow, I'm just repeating myself now. I'm just surprised by how it was handled.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:22 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think the "oh hi, we're doing this" approach was the fumble. The actual act I don't think is a good idea, but considering it's a major change to the site, and it's a reduction rather than an addition...well, anyhow, I'm just repeating myself now. I'm just surprised by how it was handled.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:22 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Woah. This is interesting. Bit of a different dynamic.
posted by P.o.B. at 10:32 PM on October 31, 2009
posted by P.o.B. at 10:32 PM on October 31, 2009
This is live now. If you want the old counts back, you can use a custom user stylesheet (or Stylish to make it easy) and add the following styles:
Please post here if you spot any problems.
posted by pb (staff) at 10:33 PM on October 31, 2009 [14 favorites]
.faved{display:none;}
.oldFav{display:inline !important;}
Please post here if you spot any problems.
posted by pb (staff) at 10:33 PM on October 31, 2009 [14 favorites]
Cue the 'WTF how can this be "faved" when I haven't even favorited it?' MeTa post.
I don't mean to sound like such a downer about this whole affair, but that was my first reaction when I saw it implemented just now: "faved? I didn't do that!" Maybe I'll get used to it.
posted by carsonb at 10:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't mean to sound like such a downer about this whole affair, but that was my first reaction when I saw it implemented just now: "faved? I didn't do that!" Maybe I'll get used to it.
posted by carsonb at 10:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Oh shit, I was going to work on this tomorrow. Why you gotta break all my scripts when I'm drunk?
posted by ryanrs at 10:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by ryanrs at 10:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
it's like we all have to pretend we don't know how to right click ...
posted by pyramid termite at 10:36 PM on October 31, 2009
posted by pyramid termite at 10:36 PM on October 31, 2009
Ok, fixed. Back to drinking.
posted by ryanrs at 10:40 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 10:40 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
I like the idea of displaying + for 1 to 5 favorites, ++ for 6 to 12 favorites, +++ for 13 to 29 favorites, ++++ for 30 or more favorites. That gets rid of the word favorite altogether and it is useful for people who skim threads for highly favorited comments.
Then there would be no link to see who marked it as a favorite. The word is kind of necessary for that, with the symbol being an action.
I'm just surprised by how it was handled.
How could it have been handled better (no snark, seriously wondering what went wrong in your mind)? Not enough lead time?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:41 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Then there would be no link to see who marked it as a favorite. The word is kind of necessary for that, with the symbol being an action.
I'm just surprised by how it was handled.
How could it have been handled better (no snark, seriously wondering what went wrong in your mind)? Not enough lead time?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:41 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I regularly use the number of favorites on a post or comment to determine which ones are more likely to deserve my attention when I have limited time to browse.
Having "faved" for 1+ votes is fine and dandy, 100%, except that we can favorite our own posts and comments. So now I don't know if "faved" represents at least one other mefite judging it worth attention, or the person favoriting their own stuff. Prior to this change, I set my personal bar at 2 favorites to address this.
So please remove our ability to favorite our own stuff, then you can keep this new system forever if you like as far as I'm concerned.
posted by davejay at 10:47 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Having "faved" for 1+ votes is fine and dandy, 100%, except that we can favorite our own posts and comments. So now I don't know if "faved" represents at least one other mefite judging it worth attention, or the person favoriting their own stuff. Prior to this change, I set my personal bar at 2 favorites to address this.
So please remove our ability to favorite our own stuff, then you can keep this new system forever if you like as far as I'm concerned.
posted by davejay at 10:47 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
To answer my own question... yes, you can click "faved" to see how many people've faved the comment and who they are.
my list will remain updated
posted by Kattullus at 10:51 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
my list will remain updated
posted by Kattullus at 10:51 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
How could it have been handled better (no snark, seriously wondering what went wrong in your mind)? Not enough lead time?
Maybe a proposal rather than an announcement?
I'm totally unclear as to who is in the majority/minority/whatever on this issue, but I'm less than thrilled at having the change announced on about 12 hours notice, all TAH-DAH!!! here's the way it is! And as a sorta "experiment" except one that isn't going to be measured in any clear way -- so at the end everyone can still feel that they are "right", and even more so in that there are, I guess, already work-arounds, so how the hell can anyone tell if the outcomes are different or not because you can't actually control what people are actually seeing?
It's like, the intentions are clearly good, but the implementation was pretty turdly, and all this drama for something that probably isn't even going to provide any clearly useful information.
posted by Forktine at 10:52 PM on October 31, 2009 [8 favorites]
Maybe a proposal rather than an announcement?
I'm totally unclear as to who is in the majority/minority/whatever on this issue, but I'm less than thrilled at having the change announced on about 12 hours notice, all TAH-DAH!!! here's the way it is! And as a sorta "experiment" except one that isn't going to be measured in any clear way -- so at the end everyone can still feel that they are "right", and even more so in that there are, I guess, already work-arounds, so how the hell can anyone tell if the outcomes are different or not because you can't actually control what people are actually seeing?
It's like, the intentions are clearly good, but the implementation was pretty turdly, and all this drama for something that probably isn't even going to provide any clearly useful information.
posted by Forktine at 10:52 PM on October 31, 2009 [8 favorites]
Legacy Favorites GreaseMonkey script. Bookmarklet for it here.
posted by cj_ at 10:53 PM on October 31, 2009 [25 favorites]
posted by cj_ at 10:53 PM on October 31, 2009 [25 favorites]
How could it have been handled better (no snark, seriously wondering what went wrong in your mind)? Not enough lead time?
Well, I think it could have been posed as a question: Hi, this will change the functionality of the site for you...is this something with which you feel you would be down? Y/N With all the things that are endlessly beanplated on the site, I'm a little taken aback to see something that's actually meaningful just...instituted. Or, I guess, uninstituted, to be exact. I wasn't really crazy about the similar institution of that, um, interests feature a while ago, either, but at least that went away...but it's kind of the same thing, where you just get stuff sprung on you that (a) isn't really anything you asked for and (b) isn't really anything you want and (c) totally affects you as a user, and not positively. I guess that last is a subjective call, of course.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:54 PM on October 31, 2009 [7 favorites]
Well, I think it could have been posed as a question: Hi, this will change the functionality of the site for you...is this something with which you feel you would be down? Y/N With all the things that are endlessly beanplated on the site, I'm a little taken aback to see something that's actually meaningful just...instituted. Or, I guess, uninstituted, to be exact. I wasn't really crazy about the similar institution of that, um, interests feature a while ago, either, but at least that went away...but it's kind of the same thing, where you just get stuff sprung on you that (a) isn't really anything you asked for and (b) isn't really anything you want and (c) totally affects you as a user, and not positively. I guess that last is a subjective call, of course.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:54 PM on October 31, 2009 [7 favorites]
[one favorite +]
[some favorites +]
[many favorites +]
The last two put a single and double line border around the comment, respectively. Great for skimming long threads.
posted by ryanrs at 10:54 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
[some favorites +]
[many favorites +]
The last two put a single and double line border around the comment, respectively. Great for skimming long threads.
posted by ryanrs at 10:54 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm also saddened that a small and vocal minority has gotten its way here. The way favorites work now is a big part of my enjoyment of the site and I don't like it changing. Seriously.
Look at it this way, and it'll make more sense: this isn't an outright change, it's a scientific test.
I am a scientist. There is nothing scientific about this test. That is, in fact, what I object to the most. It will settle nothing—few people will change their minds as a result of this test. But no matter what is decided, it will be used as a rhetorical bludgeon against those on the wrong side of the decision. It seems like people are really looking forward to use this to shut them up.
posted by grouse at 10:55 PM on October 31, 2009 [33 favorites]
Look at it this way, and it'll make more sense: this isn't an outright change, it's a scientific test.
I am a scientist. There is nothing scientific about this test. That is, in fact, what I object to the most. It will settle nothing—few people will change their minds as a result of this test. But no matter what is decided, it will be used as a rhetorical bludgeon against those on the wrong side of the decision. It seems like people are really looking forward to use this to shut them up.
posted by grouse at 10:55 PM on October 31, 2009 [33 favorites]
I'm an anti-favoriter. I know, though, that the vast majority of MeFites like favorites. This month won't change that, imo, and favorites will return as usual (I'm 100% certain of this). In the end, this will just be a way to "end" the conversation: People will be able to point to this month and say "look, hiding favorites didn't change anything" and the proof will be that the mods decided not to change anything. It's a foregone conclusion that favorites are here to stay, more or less as they've always been.
But I still don't like them and I still think they've had a negative impact on the community and how people use and view it--especially outsiders. Favorites are too much like voting systems. I've said my piece, though, and am by no means of the opinion that a site with nearly 100,000 registered users should give a shit about what one schmuck in Seoul thinks.
Again, nice of the mods to give this a shot, but nothing will come of it. No way, no how.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 10:55 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
But I still don't like them and I still think they've had a negative impact on the community and how people use and view it--especially outsiders. Favorites are too much like voting systems. I've said my piece, though, and am by no means of the opinion that a site with nearly 100,000 registered users should give a shit about what one schmuck in Seoul thinks.
Again, nice of the mods to give this a shot, but nothing will come of it. No way, no how.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 10:55 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
I think it was handled just fine. Jesus, people. It's just a minor tweak that may end up being tweaked back in 30 freakin days. It's not like they took anything away from you (yet).
Honestly, this is a bright bunch of people; you really can't just hold off the "I hate it!" for like... 48 hours of actually seeing it in action? No wonder they didn't make an early announcement -- it would have been a massive headache to have this conversation for an extra week. Yikes.
It's not like they switched the language of the site to Ket. Seriously, have some candy and sit back like me and just wait for all the immediately-stricken MetaTalk threads to start stacking up. Fun times! MmmmmmmCANDYCORN!!!
posted by heyho at 10:55 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
Honestly, this is a bright bunch of people; you really can't just hold off the "I hate it!" for like... 48 hours of actually seeing it in action? No wonder they didn't make an early announcement -- it would have been a massive headache to have this conversation for an extra week. Yikes.
It's not like they switched the language of the site to Ket. Seriously, have some candy and sit back like me and just wait for all the immediately-stricken MetaTalk threads to start stacking up. Fun times! MmmmmmmCANDYCORN!!!
posted by heyho at 10:55 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
Well, I think it could have been posed as a question: Hi, this will change the functionality of the site for you...is this something with which you feel you would be down? Y/N With all the things that are endlessly beanplated on the site, I'm a little taken aback to see something that's actually meaningful just...instituted. Or, I guess, uninstituted, to be exact.
Exactly what kittens for breakfast said.
posted by grouse at 10:57 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Exactly what kittens for breakfast said.
posted by grouse at 10:57 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Honestly, this is a bright bunch of people; you really can't just hold off the "I hate it!" for like... 48 hours of actually seeing it in action?
Uh, it's the removal of a feature. There's nothing to see in action, because there is no feature now.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:59 PM on October 31, 2009 [5 favorites]
Uh, it's the removal of a feature. There's nothing to see in action, because there is no feature now.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:59 PM on October 31, 2009 [5 favorites]
But I still don't like them and I still think they've had a negative impact on the community and how people use and view it--especially outsiders. Favorites are too much like voting systems
I'd be ok with reverting to the old days of no favorites (which might predate my joining MeFi? I honestly can't remember). But if we are going to have them, I object to hiding the information about them. Have them or don't have them (and for goodness sake please stop calling them "faves" -- there have been plenty of good suggestions here, like "marked" or "noted" or "mefied"), but don't be coy about it.
posted by Forktine at 11:00 PM on October 31, 2009
I'd be ok with reverting to the old days of no favorites (which might predate my joining MeFi? I honestly can't remember). But if we are going to have them, I object to hiding the information about them. Have them or don't have them (and for goodness sake please stop calling them "faves" -- there have been plenty of good suggestions here, like "marked" or "noted" or "mefied"), but don't be coy about it.
posted by Forktine at 11:00 PM on October 31, 2009
There is a feature. It's just different.
posted by heyho at 11:00 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by heyho at 11:00 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Mathowie, when I first read about the change I did feel, "Well, 12ish hours is kind of short notice for such as drastic change", but now that I think about it and see the comments on this thread, it seems like 36 or 168 hours would have been 36 or 168 hours for us to imagine and grouse about how bad we think it would be, rather than just jumping into it and seeing how it actually unfolds (poorly or well).
Sometimes you just gotta jump into the breach.
*but right now, I really, really wish I'd bothered to pay more attention to learning whatever the hell 'greasemonkey workarounds' are, because it's been 6 minutes and I'm beginning to miss favorites already. Courage.....courage......*
posted by anitanita at 11:01 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Sometimes you just gotta jump into the breach.
*but right now, I really, really wish I'd bothered to pay more attention to learning whatever the hell 'greasemonkey workarounds' are, because it's been 6 minutes and I'm beginning to miss favorites already. Courage.....courage......*
posted by anitanita at 11:01 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
To answer another of my questions, comments with 12+ favorites still show up in the contact activity sidebar with the number of favorites listed.
grouse: It will settle nothing—few people will change their minds as a result of this test.
My feeling is also that this experiment won't settle anything but I'm glad that at least they're attempting to fiddle around with it. Giving it a month to work might possibly throw some light on what has been a rather tiresome debate through the years. Even if nothing is gained I have a hard time seeing what will actively be lost by this experiment.
posted by Kattullus at 11:01 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
grouse: It will settle nothing—few people will change their minds as a result of this test.
My feeling is also that this experiment won't settle anything but I'm glad that at least they're attempting to fiddle around with it. Giving it a month to work might possibly throw some light on what has been a rather tiresome debate through the years. Even if nothing is gained I have a hard time seeing what will actively be lost by this experiment.
posted by Kattullus at 11:01 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Maybe a proposal rather than an announcement?
I can't speak for everyone but I think our feeling was that every time a "FAVORITES SUCK" thread comes up in metatalk, someone mentions doing something like this. I feel like I've read a proposal similar to what we're trying here several times in just the last year.
It's also important to mention that overall, we haven't changed much on MeFi or tinkered with anything in quite a while, and that's part of the problem -- that nothing can change because all change is bad. We've been adding new stuff to the site in every spot imaginable and we keep piling on the features. This is one instance were we've had the same arguments over a feature that though overall is a good thing, has some serious unintended side effects.
As much as it might pain people to see subtle UI changes, I feel like we've rested on our laurels with regards to the UI. We have too much going on in many places. The Favorites listing pages are kind of crazy and in several places and linked in different ways. One example is the page somewhere on this server that lists all the things my mutual contacts marked as a favorite. It's actually a great filter for finding interesting things from people I trust and most often know in real life and I can't for the life of me remember how you get to it from whatever crazy three-deep user page link offers it.
So yeah, I hope we can improve the site through subtle changes (some could argue this isn't subtle, but it is only for a month and you can turn it off easily) going forward in the future.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:03 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
I can't speak for everyone but I think our feeling was that every time a "FAVORITES SUCK" thread comes up in metatalk, someone mentions doing something like this. I feel like I've read a proposal similar to what we're trying here several times in just the last year.
It's also important to mention that overall, we haven't changed much on MeFi or tinkered with anything in quite a while, and that's part of the problem -- that nothing can change because all change is bad. We've been adding new stuff to the site in every spot imaginable and we keep piling on the features. This is one instance were we've had the same arguments over a feature that though overall is a good thing, has some serious unintended side effects.
As much as it might pain people to see subtle UI changes, I feel like we've rested on our laurels with regards to the UI. We have too much going on in many places. The Favorites listing pages are kind of crazy and in several places and linked in different ways. One example is the page somewhere on this server that lists all the things my mutual contacts marked as a favorite. It's actually a great filter for finding interesting things from people I trust and most often know in real life and I can't for the life of me remember how you get to it from whatever crazy three-deep user page link offers it.
So yeah, I hope we can improve the site through subtle changes (some could argue this isn't subtle, but it is only for a month and you can turn it off easily) going forward in the future.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:03 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
I really, really do not like this change. When I don't have a whole lot of time and am trying to get the lowdown on where people stand on controversial or complex posts that I'm not well-versed in (such as ask.mefi and the blue), scanning for high favorite totals gives me a great starting point. Yeah, it's probably used inappropriately for favoriting snark, but that's not what I get out of it.
If this is how it will go then we might as well just delete "faved" altogether since "1 favorite" is essentially no different from a non-favorited post, but those are worlds apart from a "32 favorites" post.
Rollback please!
posted by crapmatic at 11:03 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
If this is how it will go then we might as well just delete "faved" altogether since "1 favorite" is essentially no different from a non-favorited post, but those are worlds apart from a "32 favorites" post.
Rollback please!
posted by crapmatic at 11:03 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
There is a feature. It's just different.
Yes. OMG, I have been faved. *hroom*
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:04 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yes. OMG, I have been faved. *hroom*
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:04 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Nthing hatred of change.
Why not eliminate the ability to look at your own "popularity" on your profile? Maybe once a month send out a popularity statement instead. That softens the desire to check how your "performance" is progressing on the site.
posted by jefficator at 11:06 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Why not eliminate the ability to look at your own "popularity" on your profile? Maybe once a month send out a popularity statement instead. That softens the desire to check how your "performance" is progressing on the site.
posted by jefficator at 11:06 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
The Legacy Favorites bookmarklet is cool. It's like it's 31 October all over again! (Oh, and don't forget to set yer clock back an hour.)
posted by heyho at 11:06 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by heyho at 11:06 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Legacy Favorites GreaseMonkey script. Bookmarklet for it here.
any "scientific" data that could have been gotten from this are now totally invalidated and it only took an hour into the month
posted by pyramid termite at 11:06 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
any "scientific" data that could have been gotten from this are now totally invalidated and it only took an hour into the month
posted by pyramid termite at 11:06 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
So, my thoughts on it:
Not a big fan of the test but understand the motivations.
Less of a fan of the implementation notice, but understand that proposing it would have just spawned the debate we're going to have anyway, so we might as well get on with it.
I fucking hate the word "faved". Really. Makes me cringe. Old favorites greasemonkey script is being installed just to get rid of that word.
Happy Halloween!
posted by iamabot at 11:07 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Not a big fan of the test but understand the motivations.
Less of a fan of the implementation notice, but understand that proposing it would have just spawned the debate we're going to have anyway, so we might as well get on with it.
I fucking hate the word "faved". Really. Makes me cringe. Old favorites greasemonkey script is being installed just to get rid of that word.
Happy Halloween!
posted by iamabot at 11:07 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Rollback please!
Workarounds have been posted in thread in two places so far:
1) using Stylish for Firefox
2) using Greasemonkey for Firefox or using a bookmarklet
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:07 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
Workarounds have been posted in thread in two places so far:
1) using Stylish for Firefox
2) using Greasemonkey for Firefox or using a bookmarklet
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:07 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
I hope someone writes a greasemonkey script to restore visible favorite counts. If it takes down the servers then all the better as this is an incredibly shitty change and the mods should be punished.
posted by bunnytricks at 11:08 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by bunnytricks at 11:08 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
and there we go!
posted by bunnytricks at 11:09 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by bunnytricks at 11:09 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
any "scientific" data that could have been gotten from this are now totally invalidated and it only took an hour into the month
We deliberately kept the old information in the HTML to make this easy and the lead programmer on this site explained how to restore it. There's no gotcha, we wanted people to have the option to turn off the change if they really wanted to.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:10 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
We deliberately kept the old information in the HTML to make this easy and the lead programmer on this site explained how to restore it. There's no gotcha, we wanted people to have the option to turn off the change if they really wanted to.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:10 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I can't speak for everyone but I think our feeling was that every time a "FAVORITES SUCK" thread comes up in metatalk, someone mentions doing something like this.
Yes, and almost every time someone does, someone else points out the pointlessness of doing something like this.
posted by grouse at 11:12 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yes, and almost every time someone does, someone else points out the pointlessness of doing something like this.
posted by grouse at 11:12 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]
Hiding this information is done to protect me from myself?
posted by StickyCarpet at 11:13 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by StickyCarpet at 11:13 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
If it's any consolation, I dig it!
Less QQ people.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:14 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Less QQ people.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:14 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
There's no gotcha, we wanted people to have the option to turn off the change if they really wanted to.
Then I'm genuinely confused -- what is this supposed to tell you? What information are you going to look at that will tell you if this is working? Why not just build it in as an opt-in/out button on the user profile page?
And please please please find a better word than "faved". Please?
posted by Forktine at 11:14 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
Then I'm genuinely confused -- what is this supposed to tell you? What information are you going to look at that will tell you if this is working? Why not just build it in as an opt-in/out button on the user profile page?
And please please please find a better word than "faved". Please?
posted by Forktine at 11:14 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
"Faved"? Really?
What are we, twelve year-olds?
posted by bardic at 11:16 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
What are we, twelve year-olds?
posted by bardic at 11:16 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Forktine, our hope is that only a small number of people turn it back so we can still see if there is a change.
And as we mentioned in the original post, we're not 100% wed to the word "faved" but it was the best candidate from worse options. Keep in mind it should be shorter than the word "favorite" and you can't use an obscure symbol, nor can you use a graphic. fav'd is worse. noted or saved aren't too descriptive. We're open to other ideas.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:17 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
And as we mentioned in the original post, we're not 100% wed to the word "faved" but it was the best candidate from worse options. Keep in mind it should be shorter than the word "favorite" and you can't use an obscure symbol, nor can you use a graphic. fav'd is worse. noted or saved aren't too descriptive. We're open to other ideas.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:17 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
There's no gotcha, we wanted people to have the option to turn off the change if they really wanted to.
and by doing so, the data you're going to get is contaminated because people have the ability to override what you wanted them to see
you want a real test of how favorites affect the community? shut them down for a month, period
the test you're making is half-assed and won't prove a thing
posted by pyramid termite at 11:17 PM on October 31, 2009 [6 favorites]
and by doing so, the data you're going to get is contaminated because people have the ability to override what you wanted them to see
you want a real test of how favorites affect the community? shut them down for a month, period
the test you're making is half-assed and won't prove a thing
posted by pyramid termite at 11:17 PM on October 31, 2009 [6 favorites]
Then I'm genuinely confused -- what is this supposed to tell you?
I think it's a plot to make you figure out how to use...whatever the hell this thing is that seems to keep timing out whenever I try to register for it.
Why not just build it in as an opt-in/out button on the user profile page?
Well, sure, but the PLOT.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:18 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think it's a plot to make you figure out how to use...whatever the hell this thing is that seems to keep timing out whenever I try to register for it.
Why not just build it in as an opt-in/out button on the user profile page?
Well, sure, but the PLOT.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:18 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
the test you're making is half-assed and won't prove a thing
Imperfect as it is, it is better than no test at all. We've had arguments about the feature monthly since it launched several years ago. This was a quick qualitative test to see if the more annoying aspects of it might go by the wayside since some users focus on the number so much. It's just a quick and dirty test.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:20 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Imperfect as it is, it is better than no test at all. We've had arguments about the feature monthly since it launched several years ago. This was a quick qualitative test to see if the more annoying aspects of it might go by the wayside since some users focus on the number so much. It's just a quick and dirty test.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:20 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
(Additionally, even people who don't have the same, er, technical issues that I do will likely not be able to install whatever this stuff is on their browsers at work. I of course do not use worktime to look at this or any other site, but my friend does sometimes.)
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:21 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:21 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
fav'd is worse. noted or saved aren't too descriptive. We're open to other ideas.
Well, personally I like "noted," I'm not sure why that's any less descriptive than "favorite" which gets used in all kinds of ways.
And I think "marked" is equally apt, and avoids some of the tone of "favorite" that has set people's teeth on edge since its introduction.
posted by Forktine at 11:23 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Well, personally I like "noted," I'm not sure why that's any less descriptive than "favorite" which gets used in all kinds of ways.
And I think "marked" is equally apt, and avoids some of the tone of "favorite" that has set people's teeth on edge since its introduction.
posted by Forktine at 11:23 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
. [faved]
posted by crysflame at 11:23 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by crysflame at 11:23 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
My friend does too, kittens for breakfast, my friend does too.
posted by anitanita at 11:25 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by anitanita at 11:25 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
I think this is a good experiment to try.
I also think it wasn't that great an idea to make it relatively easy to turn off the change for the duration of the experiment, no matter now much people wailed and pooped their pants.
I think a month is too short a time to see any real change in the way the beast waddles.
I think that it might have been better to rethink the whole 'favorites' word along with its nexus of meaning than to just chop it down to an abbreviated form that still points at the same compass point of implied approbation. Not doing so waters down the experiment a little too much -- see also thought #3.
We shall see. I hope that if you guys have devised ways of accumulating hard data in the course of the experiment, you share it afterwards. I'm curious to see what metrics you chose to look at and what happens to them.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:27 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
I also think it wasn't that great an idea to make it relatively easy to turn off the change for the duration of the experiment, no matter now much people wailed and pooped their pants.
I think a month is too short a time to see any real change in the way the beast waddles.
I think that it might have been better to rethink the whole 'favorites' word along with its nexus of meaning than to just chop it down to an abbreviated form that still points at the same compass point of implied approbation. Not doing so waters down the experiment a little too much -- see also thought #3.
We shall see. I hope that if you guys have devised ways of accumulating hard data in the course of the experiment, you share it afterwards. I'm curious to see what metrics you chose to look at and what happens to them.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:27 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
crapmatic: I really, really do not like this change. When I don't have a whole lot of time and am trying to get the lowdown on where people stand on controversial or complex posts that I'm not well-versed in (such as ask.mefi and the blue), scanning for high favorite totals gives me a great starting point. Yeah, it's probably used inappropriately for favoriting snark, but that's not what I get out of it.
Then fix it back for yourself.
If you are using Internet Explorer:
(1) Download this tiny stylesheet file.
(2) Click on Tools -> Internet Options.
(3) Under "Appearance," click the "Accessibility" button.
(4) Check the box that says "Format documents using my style sheet," and then click "Browse" to navigate to that stylesheet file you just downloaded (restore_mefi_fave_count.css).
(5) Click "OK" twice, reload the page, and you will see favorite counts again.
If you are using Mozilla Firefox:
(1) Install the Stylish add-on that pb mentioned above.
(2) Once Firefox has restarted, click on the tiny "S" icon on the right side of the status bar, which is the bar at the very bottom of your browser, and choose "Manage Styles." Alternately, go to Tools -> Add-ons and go to the User Styles tab. Click the "Write a New Style" button.
(3) In the "New style" box, just give the style a name (any name will do) and type or paste the following into the big white text box:
.faved{display:none;}
.oldFav{display:inline !important;
Click "save" and close the "Add-ons" menu.
(4) Reload the page, and favorite counts will have returned.
"CSS Styles" might sound kind of scary, I know, but neither of these things should take you more than five minutes.
posted by koeselitz at 11:30 PM on October 31, 2009 [31 favorites]
Then fix it back for yourself.
If you are using Internet Explorer:
(1) Download this tiny stylesheet file.
(2) Click on Tools -> Internet Options.
(3) Under "Appearance," click the "Accessibility" button.
(4) Check the box that says "Format documents using my style sheet," and then click "Browse" to navigate to that stylesheet file you just downloaded (restore_mefi_fave_count.css).
(5) Click "OK" twice, reload the page, and you will see favorite counts again.
If you are using Mozilla Firefox:
(1) Install the Stylish add-on that pb mentioned above.
(2) Once Firefox has restarted, click on the tiny "S" icon on the right side of the status bar, which is the bar at the very bottom of your browser, and choose "Manage Styles." Alternately, go to Tools -> Add-ons and go to the User Styles tab. Click the "Write a New Style" button.
(3) In the "New style" box, just give the style a name (any name will do) and type or paste the following into the big white text box:
.faved{display:none;}
.oldFav{display:inline !important;
Click "save" and close the "Add-ons" menu.
(4) Reload the page, and favorite counts will have returned.
"CSS Styles" might sound kind of scary, I know, but neither of these things should take you more than five minutes.
posted by koeselitz at 11:30 PM on October 31, 2009 [31 favorites]
I have to agree that "fave" is a stupid word. It's very Tiger Beat, which might not be a good direction to go in.
posted by heyho at 11:31 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by heyho at 11:31 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Stylish will Now Install.
O.K. Found out what the problem is and everybody take notice.
This is Not a Firefox error!
The reason why some Add-Ons, including Stylish will not install as in my case, is because my KIS Firewall was blocking the installation.
Disable your AV, including the Firewall and everything will go as it should.
Darn, so simple!!
Rated 5 out of 5 stars by Midnight1 on October 29, 2009
I...I don't think I'll be doing that at all, actually! Guess I'll come back to this later.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
O.K. Found out what the problem is and everybody take notice.
This is Not a Firefox error!
The reason why some Add-Ons, including Stylish will not install as in my case, is because my KIS Firewall was blocking the installation.
Disable your AV, including the Firewall and everything will go as it should.
Darn, so simple!!
Rated 5 out of 5 stars by Midnight1 on October 29, 2009
I...I don't think I'll be doing that at all, actually! Guess I'll come back to this later.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:34 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
pyramid termite: you want a real test of how favorites affect the community? shut them down for a month, period
Can we quit arguing about favorites for a second and observe this momentous event?
I'm pretty sure this is the first time pyramid termite has ended a sentence with a period in seven years.
posted by koeselitz at 11:36 PM on October 31, 2009 [8 favorites]
Can we quit arguing about favorites for a second and observe this momentous event?
I'm pretty sure this is the first time pyramid termite has ended a sentence with a period in seven years.
posted by koeselitz at 11:36 PM on October 31, 2009 [8 favorites]
I have to agree that "fave" is a stupid word. It's very Tiger Beat, which might not be a good direction to go in.
If it switched to "rave," we could have a little green glowstick for every five favorites, and when you get to ten it could play The Orb! And serve you smart drinks! And...yeah, I think I'm starting to fade out a little here.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:37 PM on October 31, 2009 [5 favorites]
If it switched to "rave," we could have a little green glowstick for every five favorites, and when you get to ten it could play The Orb! And serve you smart drinks! And...yeah, I think I'm starting to fade out a little here.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:37 PM on October 31, 2009 [5 favorites]
I had to laugh when my younger sister tried to use the word fave during scrabble tonight. Swear to god.
The laugh turned to a scowl when she found it in the scrabble dictionary. WTF COME ON!
posted by meta87 at 11:45 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
The laugh turned to a scowl when she found it in the scrabble dictionary. WTF COME ON!
posted by meta87 at 11:45 PM on October 31, 2009 [4 favorites]
kittens for breakfast: I...I don't think I'll be doing that at all, actually! Guess I'll come back to this later.
Seriously, have you even tried it? Have you ever installed an add-on without having to take down your firewall? A firewall generally isn't supposed to block that kind of thing, and if a lot of them do I'll be massively surprised.
Geez, man. You are seriously dead set on having your cornflakes pissed in.
posted by koeselitz at 11:46 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Seriously, have you even tried it? Have you ever installed an add-on without having to take down your firewall? A firewall generally isn't supposed to block that kind of thing, and if a lot of them do I'll be massively surprised.
Geez, man. You are seriously dead set on having your cornflakes pissed in.
posted by koeselitz at 11:46 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
...anyhow, kittens for breakfast, if you really want to do this without installing an add-on, and if you're on Windows, I can help you.
(1) Again, download that little stylesheet. (Right-click on that last link and select "Save link as.")
(2) Rename it userContent.css and move or copy it to C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\defaults\profile\chrome.
(3) Restart your browser. Favorite counts should be visible.
posted by koeselitz at 11:55 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
(1) Again, download that little stylesheet. (Right-click on that last link and select "Save link as.")
(2) Rename it userContent.css and move or copy it to C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\defaults\profile\chrome.
(3) Restart your browser. Favorite counts should be visible.
posted by koeselitz at 11:55 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
Actually, I really haven't tried it (apparently), and it never occurred to me that taking down my firewall was a necessary step in the process. Apparently it also didn't occur to the person who posted that message. This is going to blow your mind, but there are probably many more people who don't know these things than do, because, well, most people just aren't that interested in them. Sorry!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:56 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:56 PM on October 31, 2009 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I know; and I should have known that right away, but it took me a second of squinting at it. Sorry if I was harsh; and I hope I was of at least a little help.
posted by koeselitz at 11:58 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by koeselitz at 11:58 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't know how the mods are going to decide if it's a success or not, but I dislike it. I didn't have any problem with the way it was. As others have mentioned, the new "Faved" removed one of the visual cues that I used to skim the page. Also, "Faved" is sort of a silly word. However, other than lolcats, I have a fairly low tolerance for made-for-interwebs words.
That said, good for you that you're willing to try something new to improve the site.
posted by 26.2 at 11:58 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
That said, good for you that you're willing to try something new to improve the site.
posted by 26.2 at 11:58 PM on October 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
bunnytricks: I hope someone writes a greasemonkey script to restore visible favorite counts. If it takes down the servers then all the better as this is an incredibly shitty change and the mods should be punished.
No matter how you feel about the experiment, what a crappy thing to say.
posted by koeselitz at 12:00 AM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
No matter how you feel about the experiment, what a crappy thing to say.
posted by koeselitz at 12:00 AM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
I guess some people do skim more than they should. It's a real word.
posted by P.o.B. at 12:02 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by P.o.B. at 12:02 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
kittens for breakfast: Actually, I really haven't tried it (apparently), and it never occurred to me that taking down my firewall was a necessary step in the process. Apparently it also didn't occur to the person who posted that message. This is going to blow your mind, but there are probably many more people who don't know these things than do, because, well, most people just aren't that interested in them. Sorry!
Not trying to be snarky or anything, but I think I (along with that commenter) might have been totally unclear: you should not need to disable your firewall to install an add-on. If you do, it's because your firewall is being particularly picky; but I'm almost certain that you won't have any trouble like that. It should just install like any other add-on. I was tripping over myself to be snotty, but that's what I was trying to say: you shouldn't have any trouble.
posted by koeselitz at 12:03 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Not trying to be snarky or anything, but I think I (along with that commenter) might have been totally unclear: you should not need to disable your firewall to install an add-on. If you do, it's because your firewall is being particularly picky; but I'm almost certain that you won't have any trouble like that. It should just install like any other add-on. I was tripping over myself to be snotty, but that's what I was trying to say: you shouldn't have any trouble.
posted by koeselitz at 12:03 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Dislike.
posted by oinopaponton at 12:04 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by oinopaponton at 12:04 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Koeselitz, either be snotty or not. You gotta stand your fucking ground, man. Thanks for the help, though, and don't worry about it; I've been having issues with Firefox for like a week, and this is just the latest expression of them, I'm pretty sure. It's really not a big deal.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:11 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:11 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
looks like somebody other than me has bombed at midnight...
posted by evilmidnightbomberwhatbombsatmidnight at 12:13 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by evilmidnightbomberwhatbombsatmidnight at 12:13 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Heh. You're welcome.
posted by koeselitz at 12:13 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by koeselitz at 12:13 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
meta87: The laugh turned to a scowl when she found it in the scrabble dictionary. WTF COME ON!
Which just goes to show: 'official' Scrabble dictionaries are the devil.
Merriam-Webster or nothin', mofos!
posted by koeselitz at 12:16 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Which just goes to show: 'official' Scrabble dictionaries are the devil.
Merriam-Webster or nothin', mofos!
posted by koeselitz at 12:16 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Still against this, and aware how silly the faved hatred is (I don't like the word either, but it's not like it killed my dog or anything). But, anyway, here's a suggestion: kept. As in, 27 people kept this comment. It could go along the lines of what matthowie said about trying to improve functionality on the site. Perhaps a beefing up of our listing of favorited/kept comments to be a bit more user friendly/notebook like. That way, we're keeping comments, for whatever reason we have, and we might (at some point) have an easier/cleaner way to reference them.
posted by Ghidorah at 12:20 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Ghidorah at 12:20 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I totally agree. I can't believe some of the bullshit words I've seen people pull out of the scrabble dictionary.
I'd have to go back and look, but although fave is in there, I don't think faved was an accepted past tense. Faves is probably fine, but if this was a scrabble game, I'd have challenge faved.
posted by meta87 at 12:21 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'd have to go back and look, but although fave is in there, I don't think faved was an accepted past tense. Faves is probably fine, but if this was a scrabble game, I'd have challenge faved.
posted by meta87 at 12:21 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Experimentation is one thing, but breaking a feature for the benefit of a handful people who whine about favorites seems like a bad idea, especially given the heavy-handed site-wide approach being taken that ignores the utility of favorites for AskMe.
Even that aside, the testing scheme is not going to end up proving much either way, for the reasons grouse outlined above. At the risk of voicing an opinion that pushes the mods to do the exact opposite, the sooner this gets reverted or the experiment redesigned, the better for Metafilter.
Finally, proposing a Firefox-proprietary solution also is kind of not really much of a solution at all for people who use platforms on which Firefox either does not work or does not work well.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:26 AM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
Even that aside, the testing scheme is not going to end up proving much either way, for the reasons grouse outlined above. At the risk of voicing an opinion that pushes the mods to do the exact opposite, the sooner this gets reverted or the experiment redesigned, the better for Metafilter.
Finally, proposing a Firefox-proprietary solution also is kind of not really much of a solution at all for people who use platforms on which Firefox either does not work or does not work well.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:26 AM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
You're all missing the real point, that Scrabble is a terrible, badly designed game that's left behind it an endless expanse of scarred souls and horrendous arguments. As far as I'm concerned Scrabble is convincing proof that there is a God who hates us and wants us to suffer forever.
posted by Kattullus at 12:26 AM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 12:26 AM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
> any "scientific" data that could have been gotten from this are now totally invalidated and it only took an hour into the month
Oh, whatever. If they don't want people doing this, they wouldn't have left the data in, granted explicit permission to post the workaround, and write a primer on how to subvert it using a stylesheet plugin. The idea there's anything scientific about comment quality is laughable anyway. Even if there's some measurable change in commenting style, no one will be able to agree if it's for the better or worse.
I'm not even sure what the contention is: That it encourages one-liner/snarky comments? But clearly people like those kinds of comments, or they wouldn't favorite them, no? I don't see why some humor/snark/sarcasm can't co-exist with the 3-page-long touching personal stories, or whatever it is you guys feel makes a worthwhile comment. I mean, if the consensus is snarky one-liners degrade the quality of discussion, why not just delete them?
posted by cj_ at 12:30 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Oh, whatever. If they don't want people doing this, they wouldn't have left the data in, granted explicit permission to post the workaround, and write a primer on how to subvert it using a stylesheet plugin. The idea there's anything scientific about comment quality is laughable anyway. Even if there's some measurable change in commenting style, no one will be able to agree if it's for the better or worse.
I'm not even sure what the contention is: That it encourages one-liner/snarky comments? But clearly people like those kinds of comments, or they wouldn't favorite them, no? I don't see why some humor/snark/sarcasm can't co-exist with the 3-page-long touching personal stories, or whatever it is you guys feel makes a worthwhile comment. I mean, if the consensus is snarky one-liners degrade the quality of discussion, why not just delete them?
posted by cj_ at 12:30 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Now that it's been rolled out, I want to ask again if anyone can tweak this greasemonkey script for November.
posted by flatluigi at 12:32 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by flatluigi at 12:32 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Letting people do this could go toward making a more civil site. When someone makes one of those idiotic Hitler jokes so many people hate, and they get the 15 lazy favorites, and 45 hateorites, maybe they'd realize it was time to retire that comment. I'm guess there would be a hell of a lot less rape jokes.
The obvious flaw in this is that people who make rape jokes do so to get attention, no matter what kind. Making them click on a link to see how much attention they've received is too minor a barrier to matter.
It would be interesting to see how many people railing against this change are users who joined after favourites were implemented. My biased, lazy and unscientific method tells me that this may be the case, in general.
With regard to the implementation, the way this was done was spot-on. Any more notice would have led to an extended period of hand-wringing, any less would have had people bitching about unannounced changes. The idea of proposing the idea to the great unwashed and seeing what comes out is clearly the idea of a madman or someone who never reads MeTa. I don;t see any real problem with letting people turn it off - I'm guessing that the number who will do so is so small it won't matter too much in data terms. In the post-mortem, though, be wary of people who claim that the change made no difference to them and was therefore a failure and who neglect to mention that they undid the change via a script or style sheet.
posted by dg at 12:33 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
The obvious flaw in this is that people who make rape jokes do so to get attention, no matter what kind. Making them click on a link to see how much attention they've received is too minor a barrier to matter.
It would be interesting to see how many people railing against this change are users who joined after favourites were implemented. My biased, lazy and unscientific method tells me that this may be the case, in general.
With regard to the implementation, the way this was done was spot-on. Any more notice would have led to an extended period of hand-wringing, any less would have had people bitching about unannounced changes. The idea of proposing the idea to the great unwashed and seeing what comes out is clearly the idea of a madman or someone who never reads MeTa. I don;t see any real problem with letting people turn it off - I'm guessing that the number who will do so is so small it won't matter too much in data terms. In the post-mortem, though, be wary of people who claim that the change made no difference to them and was therefore a failure and who neglect to mention that they undid the change via a script or style sheet.
posted by dg at 12:33 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Blazecock Pileon: Finally, proposing a Firefox-proprietary solution also is kind of not really much of a solution at all for people who use platforms on which Firefox either does not work or does not work well.
Just so you know [and I mentioned this above, but this is already a huge thread] it's actually easier to fix this for Internet Explorer than it is for Firefox. What's more, the IE solution is one that anybody can use, even if their computer is severely locked-down, so long as they can download a single file to the desktop and change IE options. And even if they can't download but can save a file, all they need to do is save a file with nothing but
.faved{display:none;}
.oldFav{display:inline !important;}
as a .css file and then follow the rest of the instructions above (click Tools -> Internet Options -> Appearance -> Accessibility -> Format documents using my style sheet, then select that .css file).
That's not to say anything about the rightness or wrongness of this change; I just want to be clear for those who'd like to do this at work.
posted by koeselitz at 12:39 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Just so you know [and I mentioned this above, but this is already a huge thread] it's actually easier to fix this for Internet Explorer than it is for Firefox. What's more, the IE solution is one that anybody can use, even if their computer is severely locked-down, so long as they can download a single file to the desktop and change IE options. And even if they can't download but can save a file, all they need to do is save a file with nothing but
.faved{display:none;}
.oldFav{display:inline !important;}
as a .css file and then follow the rest of the instructions above (click Tools -> Internet Options -> Appearance -> Accessibility -> Format documents using my style sheet, then select that .css file).
That's not to say anything about the rightness or wrongness of this change; I just want to be clear for those who'd like to do this at work.
posted by koeselitz at 12:39 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Hurray!
As jessamyn noted upthread, "a lot of people have, for a long time, been saying they think the favorites system encourages crappy behavior." I heartily agree with that POV, and will be watching the site over the next month with great interest.
posted by stinkycheese at 12:41 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
As jessamyn noted upthread, "a lot of people have, for a long time, been saying they think the favorites system encourages crappy behavior." I heartily agree with that POV, and will be watching the site over the next month with great interest.
posted by stinkycheese at 12:41 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Can someone please please please PLEASE PLEASE provide a work-around for Chrome users? I prefer to use favorites when skimming long threads and would really not like to switch to a different browser on all eight computers I use on a regular basis just for the sake of this "experiment".
And if you're just going to tell people to use a script to enable the behavior they wanted anyway, why not do it right and make it a user setting? This way you can see how many people switch back, and I don't have to futz with Chrome on every single goddamn computer I want to browse the site on.
posted by 0xFCAF at 12:42 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
And if you're just going to tell people to use a script to enable the behavior they wanted anyway, why not do it right and make it a user setting? This way you can see how many people switch back, and I don't have to futz with Chrome on every single goddamn computer I want to browse the site on.
posted by 0xFCAF at 12:42 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
Personally, I like the approval-vote part of favorites. I do, on occasion, use them to mark a recipe or a neat link or something. But, in general, they're a way of lending my (rather ambiguous) support to a commenter without polluting the thread with, "Yo man, you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you made really cogent or witty points since I last posted a list of the people who made really cogent points in this thread."
Personally, I really appreciate the favorites I receive. I'm not in a race with anybody. However, they let me know that somebody actually read the carefully-considered wall of text or the spirited argument I wrote. It makes me feel appreciated and part of this community. If I take the time to write about being bisexual or type a whole fucking recipe, it makes me feel like my time was well-spent if a few people vote for it, or save it for later, or add it to their bookmarks, or add it to their shitlists. At least I know somebody read it and that it had some value to them.
If favorites encourage funny comments, that's perfect in my opinion. One of my favorite parts of this site is how humorous it frequently is. And, astoundingly, it manages to be consistently humorous without devolving into reddit or fark. The jokes are at a level I appreciate, and often contribute to the discussion more than they detract from it.
If favorites encourage bitchy comments, I've never noticed it. I don't see a correlation between bitchy comments and favorites... if anything, a particularly nasty or cutting comment tends to have very few favorites.
And for the people opining that a favorites-as-popularity system makes metafilter more like digg or slashdot: there is a huge difference. The site UI does not modify the presentation of a thread's conversation based on favorites. The conversation is presented as it organically occurred. Favorites merely serve the same purpose as a head-nod or a "right on" do in a face-to-face meeting.
For the purposes of my discussion above, please note that it doesn't really matter why you use favorites. Even if you use them to mark posts you really hate, marking a favorite at least shows that you cared about that comment to some degree. And if you're marking a favorite just to refer back to it later, well... then it must have some value for you, right? Is there any difference between marking a recipe for later use, or marking a recipe because it sounds tasty? The only way your favorites use does not count as a mark of value is if you favorite every comment you read. But, there's a limit on favorites... so, that's a little difficult.
posted by Netzapper at 12:45 AM on November 1, 2009 [42 favorites]
Personally, I really appreciate the favorites I receive. I'm not in a race with anybody. However, they let me know that somebody actually read the carefully-considered wall of text or the spirited argument I wrote. It makes me feel appreciated and part of this community. If I take the time to write about being bisexual or type a whole fucking recipe, it makes me feel like my time was well-spent if a few people vote for it, or save it for later, or add it to their bookmarks, or add it to their shitlists. At least I know somebody read it and that it had some value to them.
If favorites encourage funny comments, that's perfect in my opinion. One of my favorite parts of this site is how humorous it frequently is. And, astoundingly, it manages to be consistently humorous without devolving into reddit or fark. The jokes are at a level I appreciate, and often contribute to the discussion more than they detract from it.
If favorites encourage bitchy comments, I've never noticed it. I don't see a correlation between bitchy comments and favorites... if anything, a particularly nasty or cutting comment tends to have very few favorites.
And for the people opining that a favorites-as-popularity system makes metafilter more like digg or slashdot: there is a huge difference. The site UI does not modify the presentation of a thread's conversation based on favorites. The conversation is presented as it organically occurred. Favorites merely serve the same purpose as a head-nod or a "right on" do in a face-to-face meeting.
For the purposes of my discussion above, please note that it doesn't really matter why you use favorites. Even if you use them to mark posts you really hate, marking a favorite at least shows that you cared about that comment to some degree. And if you're marking a favorite just to refer back to it later, well... then it must have some value for you, right? Is there any difference between marking a recipe for later use, or marking a recipe because it sounds tasty? The only way your favorites use does not count as a mark of value is if you favorite every comment you read. But, there's a limit on favorites... so, that's a little difficult.
posted by Netzapper at 12:45 AM on November 1, 2009 [42 favorites]
a handful people who whine about favorites faves
posted by P.o.B. at 12:58 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by P.o.B. at 12:58 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
"Faved"? Really?
You prefer "Favoriteded?" I know I do.
Just so you know [and I mentioned this above, but this is already a huge thread] it's actually easier to fix this for Internet Explorer than it is for Firefox.
No favorites count, and easier in IE than in FF? Truly this is bizzarro MetaFilter.
posted by davejay at 12:58 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
You prefer "Favoriteded?" I know I do.
Just so you know [and I mentioned this above, but this is already a huge thread] it's actually easier to fix this for Internet Explorer than it is for Firefox.
No favorites count, and easier in IE than in FF? Truly this is bizzarro MetaFilter.
posted by davejay at 12:58 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
That user style sheet thing should work for all browsers, shouldn't it? I seem to recall one of the HTML standards required user agents to give the user the ability to override author styles. In Safari, for example, you can set a user style sheet in Preferences > Advanced > Style sheet.
posted by ryanrs at 1:03 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 1:03 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Ugh, I really hate this.
3. We're including the favorite count invisibly in the byline still, so that those who specifically want to use that information or to write/modify scripts affected by it can do so.
Can you guys at least make it an option we can turn on or off in preferences? I did the stylish thing but I don't like installing extra crap on my machine for something so minor. And there are a lot of different browsers out there. What about people using opera? Or the iPhone? Or whatever. And a lot of people are just not going to figure it out. Seems like a toggle in the user prefs would make things easier for people.
I think the favorites system probably did change user behavior, but it's too late now, we're hooked. Not having the favorite count was just seriously aggravating.
Also, I do really like "savored" as label. That would be awesome. "Favorites" sounds a lot like "flavored". Makes me think fruit loops or candy or something. Savored sounds like a nice juicy steak.
And isn't that what' metafilter's all about. A nice, juicy, tender mind-steak, seasoned to perfection and savored. Not a bunch of brain candy flavored, favorited and forgotten?
posted by delmoi at 1:22 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
3. We're including the favorite count invisibly in the byline still, so that those who specifically want to use that information or to write/modify scripts affected by it can do so.
Can you guys at least make it an option we can turn on or off in preferences? I did the stylish thing but I don't like installing extra crap on my machine for something so minor. And there are a lot of different browsers out there. What about people using opera? Or the iPhone? Or whatever. And a lot of people are just not going to figure it out. Seems like a toggle in the user prefs would make things easier for people.
I think the favorites system probably did change user behavior, but it's too late now, we're hooked. Not having the favorite count was just seriously aggravating.
Also, I do really like "savored" as label. That would be awesome. "Favorites" sounds a lot like "flavored". Makes me think fruit loops or candy or something. Savored sounds like a nice juicy steak.
And isn't that what' metafilter's all about. A nice, juicy, tender mind-steak, seasoned to perfection and savored. Not a bunch of brain candy flavored, favorited and forgotten?
posted by delmoi at 1:22 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
delmoi: "And isn't that what' metafilter's all about. A nice, juicy, tender mind-steak, seasoned to perfection and savored."
Plutor's got you covered.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:26 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Plutor's got you covered.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:26 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Not broken, do not fix.
It's also important to mention that overall, we haven't changed much on MeFi or tinkered with anything in quite a while, and that's part of the problem
Changing next to nothing UI-wise has actually turned out to be a pretty effective approach, to judge by the ongoing high quality of discussion to be found here. Favorites are useful; I'd hate to see them hidden.
posted by killdevil at 1:33 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
It's also important to mention that overall, we haven't changed much on MeFi or tinkered with anything in quite a while, and that's part of the problem
Changing next to nothing UI-wise has actually turned out to be a pretty effective approach, to judge by the ongoing high quality of discussion to be found here. Favorites are useful; I'd hate to see them hidden.
posted by killdevil at 1:33 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Forgive me for only reading about half the thread, but while I know time heals all wounds and I'd get over it if this were permanent, I don't like it. And I especially don't like the favorites count has been replaced by "faved;" I'd rather delete the line entirely.
However, I'm always in favor of experiments, so carry on.
posted by Bookhouse at 1:42 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
However, I'm always in favor of experiments, so carry on.
posted by Bookhouse at 1:42 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Wow, an awful lot of nasty conjecture from the pro-favourites people about the anti-favourites people: how few of them there are; how they bitch and moan to get their way; how they're newer users, and so on. This thread has been rather gross to read over.
Can the mud-slinging maybe be taken down a notch? Even the people who don't like favouriting are doubtful it'll disappear. Heck, in this thread, jessamyn has said, "We're really seriously not removing favorites or planning to."
So chill out, please.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:45 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Can the mud-slinging maybe be taken down a notch? Even the people who don't like favouriting are doubtful it'll disappear. Heck, in this thread, jessamyn has said, "We're really seriously not removing favorites or planning to."
So chill out, please.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:45 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
With the Favorites count I could enjoy browsing threads for as little as 30 seconds, even threads on subjects I'm not normally interested in.
Without the Favorites count, I have no choice but to ignore threads that I'm unwilling to spend 5 minutes on.
I view this as a loss and I am sad.
posted by hAndrew at 1:48 AM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
Without the Favorites count, I have no choice but to ignore threads that I'm unwilling to spend 5 minutes on.
I view this as a loss and I am sad.
posted by hAndrew at 1:48 AM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
Alright, I have one more update to my UserStyle: If you've favortited a comment, a star (9733;) appears before the minus sign. I find it quite easy to spot.
posted by potch at 1:51 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by potch at 1:51 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
> That user style sheet thing should work for all browsers, shouldn't it? I seem to recall one of the HTML standards required user agents to give the user the ability to override author styles. In Safari, for example, you can set a user style sheet in Preferences > Advanced > Style sheet.
You'd think, but I couldn't get it to work in Safari. It seems to apply the original stylesheets first, so if you refresh the page you can see them briefly appear and then disappear again. At least that's how it was for me.
posted by cj_ at 1:51 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
You'd think, but I couldn't get it to work in Safari. It seems to apply the original stylesheets first, so if you refresh the page you can see them briefly appear and then disappear again. At least that's how it was for me.
posted by cj_ at 1:51 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Also note, the bookmarklet will work in any modern browser (as far as I know) and doesn't require any plugins. The only drawback is you gotta click the button to make the favorites show up, whereas a stylesheet or GM script will do this transparently. This might be a good solution for people who want to give the experiment a shot but still want the option for long threads. I'll be going that way myself to see how I feel about it.
posted by cj_ at 1:56 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by cj_ at 1:56 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Hey, so you you know (much) earlier in this thread when I said that I had no opinion about this either way? Yeah, well, I changed my mind. After opening this thread and scanning through it in the post-favorites-count world, I fucking HATE it. I am finding that it completely (and, frankly, surprisingly) changes the way I read threads, and not in a good way. I realize that I'm just a single data point, and that the single data point that is me should not have a significant impact on site policy, but I want to register that data point in the strongest way I can:
DERSINS HATES.
(n.b. I am still not interested in arguing about this. Just wanted to register my opinion, such as it is)
P.S. I hope you moderator-y types are prepared for the inevitable tsunami of "FAVED? WTF? WHERE ARE FAVORITE COUNTS?" metatalk posts, 'cause they're coming. Mark my words.
posted by dersins at 1:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [19 favorites]
DERSINS HATES.
(n.b. I am still not interested in arguing about this. Just wanted to register my opinion, such as it is)
P.S. I hope you moderator-y types are prepared for the inevitable tsunami of "FAVED? WTF? WHERE ARE FAVORITE COUNTS?" metatalk posts, 'cause they're coming. Mark my words.
posted by dersins at 1:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [19 favorites]
P.P.S. Not from me, though. I swear. Really. Promise.
posted by dersins at 1:59 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by dersins at 1:59 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
This thread is so interesting. You guys should try out one massive site-wide change per month. Threading! In-line images! Ability to edit! Anonymous commenting! etc. I'm really happy with this experiment. Like others, I doubt that anything will come of it, but it's nice to see.
I don't really see the need to publicly mark a comment as faved if you can't (easily) see how many favorites it's got. There's not very much information in that.
posted by painquale at 1:06 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I don't really see the need to publicly mark a comment as faved if you can't (easily) see how many favorites it's got. There's not very much information in that.
posted by painquale at 1:06 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I like this feature, here's why.
Often times I'll see someone make a really articulate and evocative comment and get like 50 favorites. But the thing is, I'll actually disagree with that comment. So now, thanks to the Fave, I'll be able to post my own "rebuttal" to the multi-faved comment, and then simply SELF-FAVE. At that moment, my retort will instantly be--from the standpoint of the casual Mefite--just as "favoritey" as the popular one I'm disagreeing with! Score!
Here's to Faves -- The Great Equalizer!!
posted by jeremy b at 1:11 AM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
Often times I'll see someone make a really articulate and evocative comment and get like 50 favorites. But the thing is, I'll actually disagree with that comment. So now, thanks to the Fave, I'll be able to post my own "rebuttal" to the multi-faved comment, and then simply SELF-FAVE. At that moment, my retort will instantly be--from the standpoint of the casual Mefite--just as "favoritey" as the popular one I'm disagreeing with! Score!
Here's to Faves -- The Great Equalizer!!
posted by jeremy b at 1:11 AM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
That's disappointing cj_. But it does seem like the kind of thing Apple wouldn't even bother testing. I forked my version of WebKit long ago, so I have other ways of making Safari do what I want.
posted by ryanrs at 1:22 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by ryanrs at 1:22 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Put me down for disliking this as well. (Although it does help to hide how damn often I favorite things....)
I notice the Hide Favorite Count script has been downloaded 20 times on userscripts.org, while the slightly-newer Mefiquote script has been downloaded 1,730 times. While not a scientific measurement perhaps, could that not be seen as an indication as to the demand for this change?
posted by JHarris at 1:26 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
I notice the Hide Favorite Count script has been downloaded 20 times on userscripts.org, while the slightly-newer Mefiquote script has been downloaded 1,730 times. While not a scientific measurement perhaps, could that not be seen as an indication as to the demand for this change?
posted by JHarris at 1:26 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Wish I could have been here earlier for the free faveds. Drat.
posted by maxwelton at 1:40 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by maxwelton at 1:40 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Odd - comments since maxwelton's are showing up in Recent Activity & on preview, but not on the page. Disabling Greasemonkey doesn't help.
I've updated the script I mentioned earlier, & added a prompt for what you'd like to see in place of "faved," but it currently requires a page reload to see the change. Is that ok?
posted by Pronoiac at 1:59 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've updated the script I mentioned earlier, & added a prompt for what you'd like to see in place of "faved," but it currently requires a page reload to see the change. Is that ok?
posted by Pronoiac at 1:59 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
How am I supposed to evaluate my worth as a person?
posted by A Terrible Llama at 2:16 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by A Terrible Llama at 2:16 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
In a thread with over 300 comments in it, I only by luck found Rhaomi's comment, favorited it, and discovered that it already had 65 favorites.
Rhaomi said it better than I can -- my time is limited and while I like to read every thread I can completely from start to finish, I simply cannot devote that much of my free hours on a regular basis.
Displaying favorited volume does, in fact, serve as a defacto Meta-metafilter for comments -- certainly as Rhaomi said, the difference between 3 and 60 favorites is nearly always the difference between a couple people liking a comment and a large number finding it notable for one reason or another.
Please bring them back. Removing them makes reading metafilter harder on a busy day, when I need a crowdsourced means of upping my signal-to-noise ratio.
posted by chimaera at 2:18 AM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
Rhaomi said it better than I can -- my time is limited and while I like to read every thread I can completely from start to finish, I simply cannot devote that much of my free hours on a regular basis.
Displaying favorited volume does, in fact, serve as a defacto Meta-metafilter for comments -- certainly as Rhaomi said, the difference between 3 and 60 favorites is nearly always the difference between a couple people liking a comment and a large number finding it notable for one reason or another.
Please bring them back. Removing them makes reading metafilter harder on a busy day, when I need a crowdsourced means of upping my signal-to-noise ratio.
posted by chimaera at 2:18 AM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
Yeah.
To some degree, I use the indication that N other people have favorited a comment to indicate that I should read it; in oldfer threads with many comments, I tend to scan, and sometimes I'll give a comment a cursory glane unless and until I see that it's > ~5 favorite, in which case I'll gice it more attention.
Conversely, in newer threads with fewer comments, I see my role as that of an editor/filter, and favorite comments I think should be given greater attention.
This is part of the whole "community" thing: I value the judgment of my fellow users, and often but not always give more attention to what they've identified as useful/relevant/persuasive. This change takes that away, and for no good reason: bad comments and good comments will still be bad or good, even without the advantage of community recommendation.
posted by orthogonality at 2:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
To some degree, I use the indication that N other people have favorited a comment to indicate that I should read it; in oldfer threads with many comments, I tend to scan, and sometimes I'll give a comment a cursory glane unless and until I see that it's > ~5 favorite, in which case I'll gice it more attention.
Conversely, in newer threads with fewer comments, I see my role as that of an editor/filter, and favorite comments I think should be given greater attention.
This is part of the whole "community" thing: I value the judgment of my fellow users, and often but not always give more attention to what they've identified as useful/relevant/persuasive. This change takes that away, and for no good reason: bad comments and good comments will still be bad or good, even without the advantage of community recommendation.
posted by orthogonality at 2:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
It seems to me that Metafilter has grown too big for unthreaded, undifferentiated comments. There are just too many comments to read on most threads.
While this may solve one genuine problem, favourite-chasing, I suspect it may introduce other genuine problems. First, readers will not be able to get as much value from the comments. Second, it will be harder to see when a bad post has been debunked, as you won't be able to see a highly-favourited rebuttal. Third, it will increase hasty commenting as you will need to get in early and high on the page to get attention.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:28 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
While this may solve one genuine problem, favourite-chasing, I suspect it may introduce other genuine problems. First, readers will not be able to get as much value from the comments. Second, it will be harder to see when a bad post has been debunked, as you won't be able to see a highly-favourited rebuttal. Third, it will increase hasty commenting as you will need to get in early and high on the page to get attention.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:28 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
tl;dr
Hate it, and "faved" is absolutely awful. OED schmOED. It's stupid.
posted by kmennie at 2:38 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Hate it, and "faved" is absolutely awful. OED schmOED. It's stupid.
posted by kmennie at 2:38 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
After going back and reading the thread more thoroughly I can see that there are people who have posted workarounds for this.
I wish there were some means by which people could see particularly useful and insightful comments in threads, because somewhere in those comments (waves up above toward the several hundred comments above), you'd find the answer you're looking for, favorited by dozens of people.
Seriously -- the workarounds for undoing this change are lost in the thread. Is that not, itself, an indicator that visible favorite totals are a useful feature?
posted by chimaera at 2:39 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
I wish there were some means by which people could see particularly useful and insightful comments in threads, because somewhere in those comments (waves up above toward the several hundred comments above), you'd find the answer you're looking for, favorited by dozens of people.
Seriously -- the workarounds for undoing this change are lost in the thread. Is that not, itself, an indicator that visible favorite totals are a useful feature?
posted by chimaera at 2:39 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
I don't know if this is a good permanent change, but I absolutely love this as an experiment. Though I've long been guilty of both favorite chasing snark and favorites as upvotes, those behaviors aren't my shining moments; I'm interested in figuring out if my own behavior will change. I think, however, that if the goal is to reduce the amount of FIRST!!-style threadshitting, this change would have to go hand-in-hand with slightly more draconian moderation of offending comments.
As an addendum, I nth the idea that favorites in AskMe seem to serve as a form of agreement, and in that environment it's a good thing.
posted by potch at 2:42 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
As an addendum, I nth the idea that favorites in AskMe seem to serve as a form of agreement, and in that environment it's a good thing.
posted by potch at 2:42 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's hard to tell if this is because of newer users or favorites culture or what, but we delete a LOT of initial snarky throwaway comments lately it seems like.
I was on Slashdot before they assigned user numbers, so I'm one of the original 2500 or so slashdotters. (My /. number has gotten me a job before, no lie.)
One of the reasons the vote-moderation system was put into place was a lot of initial snarky throwaway comments when the userbase started to expand. "First Post!" stupidity started on /., IIRC.
"First is worst.
Second is best.
Third is the nerd
With the hariest chest!
Hot grits!"
A system to reward good posts actually weeded out a tremendous amount of trolling and pointless snark.
I think the favorites numbers do a better job of rewarding insight and humor than they do stifling conversation. It's a nice "attaboy!" and an aspirational goal for other contributors.
posted by Slap*Happy at 2:42 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I was on Slashdot before they assigned user numbers, so I'm one of the original 2500 or so slashdotters. (My /. number has gotten me a job before, no lie.)
One of the reasons the vote-moderation system was put into place was a lot of initial snarky throwaway comments when the userbase started to expand. "First Post!" stupidity started on /., IIRC.
"First is worst.
Second is best.
Third is the nerd
With the hariest chest!
Hot grits!"
A system to reward good posts actually weeded out a tremendous amount of trolling and pointless snark.
I think the favorites numbers do a better job of rewarding insight and humor than they do stifling conversation. It's a nice "attaboy!" and an aspirational goal for other contributors.
posted by Slap*Happy at 2:42 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Just registering my dislike as well, now using Greasemonkey for sanity.
More importantly though, if favourite chasing etc is the problem, the solution is simple - get rid of the "Favourited by others" number on user pages.
Surely even the most desperate favourite chaser will be hard pressed to care when there's not a regularly-updated counter on their page? In my opinion, this drives favourite seeking far more than anything that happens in any individual thread, and I honestly don't think most people would miss it.
posted by smoke at 2:56 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
More importantly though, if favourite chasing etc is the problem, the solution is simple - get rid of the "Favourited by others" number on user pages.
Surely even the most desperate favourite chaser will be hard pressed to care when there's not a regularly-updated counter on their page? In my opinion, this drives favourite seeking far more than anything that happens in any individual thread, and I honestly don't think most people would miss it.
posted by smoke at 2:56 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I think this thread should be side-barred. It might help the users who don't normally read MeTa figure out what's going on. 'Cause I'm predicting a LOT of WTF for at least the first few days if not the whole 30.
posted by marsha56 at 3:01 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by marsha56 at 3:01 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
There are a lot, lot, lot, lot, lot of words on this page. I read about 1/5th of them and my eyes glazed over, so I scrolled to the bottom to write my comment.
If we could still see the number of favorites, I might have read a few more on the way down.
Cast me as a vote for still wanting to see the number.
posted by srrh at 3:11 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
If we could still see the number of favorites, I might have read a few more on the way down.
Cast me as a vote for still wanting to see the number.
posted by srrh at 3:11 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I hate it. I *liked* that it functioned as a "voting" system. I usually don't have enough time to read an entire thread so I just read the favorites and got a lot of value out of that. I'm not technically savvy enough to figure out how to write special scripts or whatever. So the usefulness and appeal of this site just went way down for me.
posted by Jacqueline at 3:21 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 3:21 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I started reading this thread when I noticed the change in AskMe. When I came in here, the first ~200 comments were all "faved"*.
Where is the point of having favorites if they all have the same weight?
I really dislike it when "upgrades" remove or hide information that was available before; we've gone from a graduated scale to a binary, on-off-type system, and I strongly disagree that that is an improvement.
I really like seeing the number of favorites because it serves as an indicator of the perceived importance of the information contained in that post, and I would be very sorry to see it go permanently.
I think an important point that hasn't been touched upon is that the favorites lower the threshold of participation in social sites like this; I might not be inclined to write a whole written reply on a certain topic, but I could add my voice to the chorus by favoriting a post that was close to my own opinion and thus add to its weight. With the system we have now there would be no point in doing so**, so it would reduce my options to participate.
* Ugly, ugly word! Do not like!
** "But you could always click on it to see how many favorites there are!" Yeah, who is going to do that for 200+ posts?
posted by PontifexPrimus at 3:34 AM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
Where is the point of having favorites if they all have the same weight?
I really dislike it when "upgrades" remove or hide information that was available before; we've gone from a graduated scale to a binary, on-off-type system, and I strongly disagree that that is an improvement.
I really like seeing the number of favorites because it serves as an indicator of the perceived importance of the information contained in that post, and I would be very sorry to see it go permanently.
I think an important point that hasn't been touched upon is that the favorites lower the threshold of participation in social sites like this; I might not be inclined to write a whole written reply on a certain topic, but I could add my voice to the chorus by favoriting a post that was close to my own opinion and thus add to its weight. With the system we have now there would be no point in doing so**, so it would reduce my options to participate.
* Ugly, ugly word! Do not like!
** "But you could always click on it to see how many favorites there are!" Yeah, who is going to do that for 200+ posts?
posted by PontifexPrimus at 3:34 AM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
I really dislike this change. I don't know if people have written good arguments for it, because I'm not going to bother to read this entire thread, and now I have no way of finding the best arguments.
posted by martinrebas at 3:40 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by martinrebas at 3:40 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
I rarely venture off the green side, but I sought out this thread to express my dislike of the change. I don't have time to read threads as long as this one has gotten. With the old system, I could've simply scanned it for comments that had been favorited a lot, read those, and thrown my support behind a well-written comment that expressed my feelings. Now I can't do that, which means I'm simply going to ignore most of the thread. I'm also going to make the problem worse by posting my own comment which is doubtlessly redundant.
Having written that, I look up and see that the previous comment expressed the exact same sentiment. But I'm going to click Post Comment anyhow, out of spite.
I think that the availability of favorite counts as a sort of defacto voting system is a good thing. Could it be that favorites are used differently in AskMe than they are in the Blue, and my perspective is skewed by my particular Metafilter usage habits?
posted by jon1270 at 3:49 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Having written that, I look up and see that the previous comment expressed the exact same sentiment. But I'm going to click Post Comment anyhow, out of spite.
I think that the availability of favorite counts as a sort of defacto voting system is a good thing. Could it be that favorites are used differently in AskMe than they are in the Blue, and my perspective is skewed by my particular Metafilter usage habits?
posted by jon1270 at 3:49 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I really, really like this change, although it clearly won't last more than two days here considering the massive disapproval. So far, I've seen almost no actual arguments against the whole reason why a lot of us wanted this change in the first place. All of you coming in to 'register your dislike?' Try giving a rational justification that amounts to something more than "I can't stand change!" – because I've hardly seen any yet.
Most people are usually wrong. A comment is not more or less worthy of reading because it gets a hundred comments. There are thousands upon thousands of people on this web site who, through no fault of their own, will be wrong about a given thing. I'm often one of those people. And we shouldn't be weighting conversations based on the clicks of approval of thousands upon thousands of people who are essentially lurking; we should be weighting conversation on their own merit.
People complain constantly that others aren't reading through a given thread. That's a valid complaint; there's a lot of skimming that happens, and a lot gets lost. Do you know why people skim? Because they seem to think that you can jump from 10-favorite comment to 10-favorite comment, like you're skipping across stones in a stream, and get the gist of a conversation. You can't. The worst feature of the fabled-for-its-wrongness Youtube comment system, the very reason (I believe) that those comments are usually so bad, is the fact that users can click a button immediately to disappear a comment if they don't like it; and if enough people disappear it it disappears for good and nobody sees it. This is a more intellectual version of the same thing: I believe that, for the vast majority of people reading and commenting in threads, most of those comments that never get favorited don't even exist.
People are complaining that being able to see the favorite-counts on comments immediately is essential to their being able to read through threads, given their busy schedule. 'We have lives!' they say. 'We can't spend all day reading every comment – we need to be able to skim!'
This is not a valid complaint. If you don't have time to read every comment in every thread, read fewer threads. In times when I don't have the time to read all of a dozen threads, do you know what you should do? I can tell you what you shouldn't do – you shouldn't skim through all dozen threads by looking at the number of favorites. Why? Because you're not really reading; you're just getting a gauge of the popular opinion of a conversation, not the conversation itself. If you don't have time to read a dozen threads, just read one thread. It's not that difficult.
And, as I said, I think this favorite-skimming method that seems to be so very popular (more than I ever imagined, frankly) is really damaging the site by ramping up exponentially the amount of noise that happens all over the site. When everybody just skims a dozen threads by skipping through and reading 10- or 5-favorite comments, they're almost always tempted to comment in those threads. And then they're commenting without knowing the whole story. I know we're not a conversation-driven site – and that is as it should be – but it wouldn't hurt to make conversation more bearable, would it?
Finally, the site that is most damaged, I think, by the favorite-count-skimming method is ask.metafilter. Favorite-skimming just amounts to noise elsewhere, and elsewhere noise is pretty much tolerated – it doesn't matter as much if a dozen people repeat the same thing or make the same mistake in a thread on the main site or in metatalk, although those things are bad. But in ask, when there's noise like that increasing exponentially because of the people following just this technique of reading, jessamyn & co end up wasting more time deleting noise or at least having to watch those threads to keep an eye on them. Overall, questions don't get answered as well. And since ask is the most popular and fastest-growing part of the site, many people there are people who don't go elsewhere on the site at all; those people end up with the impression that this is how it's done here, that the skimming thing works and that the high noise level is just a necessary evil. No.
Please, please, please people. Give this thing a chance. Set aside the fact that you're having to pick up a somewhat different method of browsing threads; and open your minds to the idea that you might be learning a better way.
posted by koeselitz at 3:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [18 favorites]
Most people are usually wrong. A comment is not more or less worthy of reading because it gets a hundred comments. There are thousands upon thousands of people on this web site who, through no fault of their own, will be wrong about a given thing. I'm often one of those people. And we shouldn't be weighting conversations based on the clicks of approval of thousands upon thousands of people who are essentially lurking; we should be weighting conversation on their own merit.
People complain constantly that others aren't reading through a given thread. That's a valid complaint; there's a lot of skimming that happens, and a lot gets lost. Do you know why people skim? Because they seem to think that you can jump from 10-favorite comment to 10-favorite comment, like you're skipping across stones in a stream, and get the gist of a conversation. You can't. The worst feature of the fabled-for-its-wrongness Youtube comment system, the very reason (I believe) that those comments are usually so bad, is the fact that users can click a button immediately to disappear a comment if they don't like it; and if enough people disappear it it disappears for good and nobody sees it. This is a more intellectual version of the same thing: I believe that, for the vast majority of people reading and commenting in threads, most of those comments that never get favorited don't even exist.
People are complaining that being able to see the favorite-counts on comments immediately is essential to their being able to read through threads, given their busy schedule. 'We have lives!' they say. 'We can't spend all day reading every comment – we need to be able to skim!'
This is not a valid complaint. If you don't have time to read every comment in every thread, read fewer threads. In times when I don't have the time to read all of a dozen threads, do you know what you should do? I can tell you what you shouldn't do – you shouldn't skim through all dozen threads by looking at the number of favorites. Why? Because you're not really reading; you're just getting a gauge of the popular opinion of a conversation, not the conversation itself. If you don't have time to read a dozen threads, just read one thread. It's not that difficult.
And, as I said, I think this favorite-skimming method that seems to be so very popular (more than I ever imagined, frankly) is really damaging the site by ramping up exponentially the amount of noise that happens all over the site. When everybody just skims a dozen threads by skipping through and reading 10- or 5-favorite comments, they're almost always tempted to comment in those threads. And then they're commenting without knowing the whole story. I know we're not a conversation-driven site – and that is as it should be – but it wouldn't hurt to make conversation more bearable, would it?
Finally, the site that is most damaged, I think, by the favorite-count-skimming method is ask.metafilter. Favorite-skimming just amounts to noise elsewhere, and elsewhere noise is pretty much tolerated – it doesn't matter as much if a dozen people repeat the same thing or make the same mistake in a thread on the main site or in metatalk, although those things are bad. But in ask, when there's noise like that increasing exponentially because of the people following just this technique of reading, jessamyn & co end up wasting more time deleting noise or at least having to watch those threads to keep an eye on them. Overall, questions don't get answered as well. And since ask is the most popular and fastest-growing part of the site, many people there are people who don't go elsewhere on the site at all; those people end up with the impression that this is how it's done here, that the skimming thing works and that the high noise level is just a necessary evil. No.
Please, please, please people. Give this thing a chance. Set aside the fact that you're having to pick up a somewhat different method of browsing threads; and open your minds to the idea that you might be learning a better way.
posted by koeselitz at 3:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [18 favorites]
I like it, and I also like the break with the consensus-building process on how to present the favorites feature. Bottom line is that for site behavior that members have the strongest emotional response to in one direction or the other, you're never going to see consensus, so if you're curious about the impact, the only way you'll ever find out is to try changing it and hearing the unhappiness from people who liked it better before. IIRC, adding the inline favorite counts in the first place was a similar process.
People convinced that this is definitely feature removal, you're not hearing that some members see the way that favorites are presented as a bug. There's no objective truth on it - if the idea is that any function, good or bad, for which code has been written and made live on the site has to stay there until the end of time, the site will cruft up/stagnate (given that everyone involved in the site is a human being it's unlikely that all decisions have been perfect). A lot of Metafilter UI has been the result of an accretion process and I think it's good for them to critically evaluate things from time to time in a planned way without too much cloth-rending. I think a planned UX review of Metafilter would be a great thing, just a review of the informational graph of the site that fixes redundant or hidden connections, and the way that typography is used to present the functions of the site.
One criticism: I think that if the inline favorite counts affected behavior on the site, the change probably crept in slowly but accelerated over time because the role of favorites in a conversation creates a feedback loop the more that people use them, so I don't think you'll see it reverse in a month, and from the mod explanations so far it doesn't really sound like you're collecting data either, so unless I'm mistaken, you're relying on your perception which you've all already said is biased. I think this will result in the return of inline favorite counts in a month, which doesn't bother me, but I think it will leave the interesting question still in the vague place in which it started which seems wasteful given that you have to absorb the negative reactions to it and site members have to adjust to the change either way.
Hiding this information is done to protect me from myself?
I am not saying this with snarky intentions at all, but this is an unavoidable aspect of the functional design of things that people interact with. Ideally, it's invisible.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 3:59 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
People convinced that this is definitely feature removal, you're not hearing that some members see the way that favorites are presented as a bug. There's no objective truth on it - if the idea is that any function, good or bad, for which code has been written and made live on the site has to stay there until the end of time, the site will cruft up/stagnate (given that everyone involved in the site is a human being it's unlikely that all decisions have been perfect). A lot of Metafilter UI has been the result of an accretion process and I think it's good for them to critically evaluate things from time to time in a planned way without too much cloth-rending. I think a planned UX review of Metafilter would be a great thing, just a review of the informational graph of the site that fixes redundant or hidden connections, and the way that typography is used to present the functions of the site.
One criticism: I think that if the inline favorite counts affected behavior on the site, the change probably crept in slowly but accelerated over time because the role of favorites in a conversation creates a feedback loop the more that people use them, so I don't think you'll see it reverse in a month, and from the mod explanations so far it doesn't really sound like you're collecting data either, so unless I'm mistaken, you're relying on your perception which you've all already said is biased. I think this will result in the return of inline favorite counts in a month, which doesn't bother me, but I think it will leave the interesting question still in the vague place in which it started which seems wasteful given that you have to absorb the negative reactions to it and site members have to adjust to the change either way.
Hiding this information is done to protect me from myself?
I am not saying this with snarky intentions at all, but this is an unavoidable aspect of the functional design of things that people interact with. Ideally, it's invisible.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 3:59 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
jon1270: I rarely venture off the green side, but I sought out this thread to express my dislike of the change. I don't have time to read threads as long as this one has gotten. With the old system, I could've simply scanned it for comments that had been favorited a lot, read those, and thrown my support behind a well-written comment that expressed my feelings. Now I can't do that, which means I'm simply going to ignore most of the thread. I'm also going to make the problem worse by posting my own comment which is doubtlessly redundant... Having written that, I look up and see that the previous comment expressed the exact same sentiment. But I'm going to click Post Comment anyhow, out of spite.
Wow – dropping favorite-counts actually already forced you to notice a comment you wouldn't have already. How interesting.
Every time somebody else comes in to register their dislike of this, it's just another proof of my point. I don't have reading habits that are better than anybody else's, but you know what, jon1270? If you don't have time to read the whole thread, just skip the thread and move on to one that's shorter. Trust me, this works just fine.
posted by koeselitz at 4:01 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Wow – dropping favorite-counts actually already forced you to notice a comment you wouldn't have already. How interesting.
Every time somebody else comes in to register their dislike of this, it's just another proof of my point. I don't have reading habits that are better than anybody else's, but you know what, jon1270? If you don't have time to read the whole thread, just skip the thread and move on to one that's shorter. Trust me, this works just fine.
posted by koeselitz at 4:01 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I do not like this.
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:03 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:03 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I hate favourite-whoring as much as anyone but I've found in using this for the past hour or so that it really degrades my enjoyment of the site.
For me, this is a pre-requisite until the site gets back to as it was.
It will be interesting to see what happens as people wake up from their post-Halloween hangovers.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 4:04 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
For me, this is a pre-requisite until the site gets back to as it was.
It will be interesting to see what happens as people wake up from their post-Halloween hangovers.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 4:04 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
PontifexPrimus: "I started reading this thread when I noticed the change in AskMe. When I came in here, the first ~200 comments were all "faved"*."
Looks like lalex went on a spree, favoriting everything that had no favorites -- I'm assuming she did it to illustrate how empty the "faves" are now. When every single comment is so marked, they might as well not be there at all.
In fact, this arguably emphasizes the non-favorited comments in a negative way. Instead of a visible range of favorites, you simply have the faved and the non-faved, which clearly delineates comments with zero favorites while lumping everything else into a separate group. It sort of forces one to wonder "Why isn't this comment faved when so many others are?" The difference wouldn't be as noticeable if you could see that most of the faved items only have a handful of favorites.
Also, for anybody using multiple computers or having trouble with the workarounds, I've discovered that the new favorites system is only shown to logged-in users. If you *gasp* sign out, the favorite counts will display as normal, making it relatively easy to scan longer threads in a pinch.
posted by Rhaomi at 4:09 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Looks like lalex went on a spree, favoriting everything that had no favorites -- I'm assuming she did it to illustrate how empty the "faves" are now. When every single comment is so marked, they might as well not be there at all.
In fact, this arguably emphasizes the non-favorited comments in a negative way. Instead of a visible range of favorites, you simply have the faved and the non-faved, which clearly delineates comments with zero favorites while lumping everything else into a separate group. It sort of forces one to wonder "Why isn't this comment faved when so many others are?" The difference wouldn't be as noticeable if you could see that most of the faved items only have a handful of favorites.
Also, for anybody using multiple computers or having trouble with the workarounds, I've discovered that the new favorites system is only shown to logged-in users. If you *gasp* sign out, the favorite counts will display as normal, making it relatively easy to scan longer threads in a pinch.
posted by Rhaomi at 4:09 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
How could it have been handled better (no snark, seriously wondering what went wrong in your mind)?
Do something positive, such as move the "manage recently removed posts" to the top of the Recent Activity page, as previously suggested, but nixed because Matt didn't like it.
There's a bit too control of the UI going on from this user's perspective and it's being done over silly things. You can't move a a single link to help people manage their experience better, but it's ok to fuck with a major feature like favorites and then put it out with the lamed "faved" which makes it appear as the user has done something when they haven't? I did not fave those comments so there's no reason why it should be reading "faved".
And yet posts still have "favorites", but comments are faved. WTF? and you've stripped comment count from the front page, so now the community site looks empty?!
Seriously, if you can't be bothered to add a simple fix, then don't fuck around with anything else.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:11 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Do something positive, such as move the "manage recently removed posts" to the top of the Recent Activity page, as previously suggested, but nixed because Matt didn't like it.
There's a bit too control of the UI going on from this user's perspective and it's being done over silly things. You can't move a a single link to help people manage their experience better, but it's ok to fuck with a major feature like favorites and then put it out with the lamed "faved" which makes it appear as the user has done something when they haven't? I did not fave those comments so there's no reason why it should be reading "faved".
And yet posts still have "favorites", but comments are faved. WTF? and you've stripped comment count from the front page, so now the community site looks empty?!
Seriously, if you can't be bothered to add a simple fix, then don't fuck around with anything else.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:11 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Also, providing mockups of what the change would like BEFORE you did would have been nice.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:15 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:15 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Rhaomi: In fact, this arguably emphasizes the non-favorited comments in a negative way. Instead of a visible range of favorites, you simply have the faved and the non-faved, which clearly delineates comments with zero favorites while lumping everything else into a separate group. It sort of forces one to wonder "Why isn't this comment faved when so many others are?" The difference wouldn't be as noticeable if you could see that most of the faved items only have a handful of favorites.
Whereas before you wouldn't have noticed the non-favorited comments at all. Noticing them now is a good thing.
If you *gasp* sign out, the favorite counts will display as normal, making it relatively easy to scan longer threads in a pinch.
... in a pinch in which you can't stand to read carefully. Reading badly leads to commenting badly. This hurts Metafilter.
How could this be any more simple? I know I do it just as much as anybody, people, but I know that when I do it it's bad. Isn't that obvious?
posted by koeselitz at 4:16 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Whereas before you wouldn't have noticed the non-favorited comments at all. Noticing them now is a good thing.
If you *gasp* sign out, the favorite counts will display as normal, making it relatively easy to scan longer threads in a pinch.
... in a pinch in which you can't stand to read carefully. Reading badly leads to commenting badly. This hurts Metafilter.
How could this be any more simple? I know I do it just as much as anybody, people, but I know that when I do it it's bad. Isn't that obvious?
posted by koeselitz at 4:16 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Koeselitz:
Wow – dropping favorite-counts actually already forced you to notice a comment you wouldn't have already. How interesting.
To what benefit? Is the goal here to make threads as long as possible?
Every time somebody else comes in to register their dislike of this, it's just another proof of my point. I don't have reading habits that are better than anybody else's, but you know what, jon1270? If you don't have time to read the whole thread, just skip the thread and move on to one that's shorter. Trust me, this works just fine.
Unless I ask, please refrain from telling me how to use Metafilter. I can figure it out quite well on my own.
posted by jon1270 at 4:26 AM on November 1, 2009 [27 favorites]
Wow – dropping favorite-counts actually already forced you to notice a comment you wouldn't have already. How interesting.
To what benefit? Is the goal here to make threads as long as possible?
Every time somebody else comes in to register their dislike of this, it's just another proof of my point. I don't have reading habits that are better than anybody else's, but you know what, jon1270? If you don't have time to read the whole thread, just skip the thread and move on to one that's shorter. Trust me, this works just fine.
Unless I ask, please refrain from telling me how to use Metafilter. I can figure it out quite well on my own.
posted by jon1270 at 4:26 AM on November 1, 2009 [27 favorites]
Readers of posts and comments can no longer add value for other users. That's a pretty big thing to forego. If commenters are responding problematically, attack their ability to do so.
That said, I liked the discipline of not knowing whether I was the second or seventieth person to fave a comment.
posted by hawthorne at 4:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
That said, I liked the discipline of not knowing whether I was the second or seventieth person to fave a comment.
posted by hawthorne at 4:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
And, as I said, I think this favorite-skimming method that seems to be so very popular (more than I ever imagined, frankly) is really damaging the site by ramping up exponentially the amount of noise that happens all over the site.
Indeed. The evidence for this is in this very thread. The following pieces of data have been submitted multiple times in this thread by the mods:
posted by Ritchie at 4:35 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Indeed. The evidence for this is in this very thread. The following pieces of data have been submitted multiple times in this thread by the mods:
- Favorites are here to stay
- This change will last for a month at most
- 'Fave' is indeed a word, no matter how much you dislike it.
- There is a workaround if you don't wish to participate.
- One of the metrics they will be monitoring is the rate of comment deletions
posted by Ritchie at 4:35 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
So far, I've seen almost no actual arguments against the whole reason why a lot of us wanted this change in the first place.
They probably got lost in the noise. It's a long thread, with lots of repetition and lots of uninteresting babble. This thread could be full of good arguments, and it would still be next-to impossible to find them. Even if you try to read it all, after a while, your eyes start to glaze over.
Seriously, all threads aren't discussions where it's important to read all of it. Lots of threads are full of general, mediocre comments and then a brilliant anecdote, a really funny joke, or an insightful allegory in the middle. Without a favorites system, there's no good way to find them. Only reading short threads is not an answer in any way -- I'll miss all the interesting comments in long threads and what I read in the short threads will largely be noise.
posted by martinrebas at 4:37 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
They probably got lost in the noise. It's a long thread, with lots of repetition and lots of uninteresting babble. This thread could be full of good arguments, and it would still be next-to impossible to find them. Even if you try to read it all, after a while, your eyes start to glaze over.
Seriously, all threads aren't discussions where it's important to read all of it. Lots of threads are full of general, mediocre comments and then a brilliant anecdote, a really funny joke, or an insightful allegory in the middle. Without a favorites system, there's no good way to find them. Only reading short threads is not an answer in any way -- I'll miss all the interesting comments in long threads and what I read in the short threads will largely be noise.
posted by martinrebas at 4:37 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
jon1270: Unless I ask, please refrain from telling me how to use Metafilter. I can figure it out quite well on my own.
I'm sorry if I sounded controlling or gave you a vibe of telling you what to do. That's the last thing I want to do. I only want to highlight that – well, that first Christmas you come home and Mom skipped the awesome turkey she usually cooks and instead cooks a fish she raised in the bathtub, I know that seemed totally out of line and not really acceptable. I know that giving that neat thing that seemed like a real luxury was painful. But I'm just saying that if you try the fish you might find out it's actually awesome; you just have to give it a real go.
This is exactly the same. I was a little to zealous in saying it above, but really my message is: it seems scary, it seems completely counter to everything you've ever done on this site, but try it. I'll try it too. I'll work on learning to check that little comment-count underneath the post and say "screw it" when there are two hundred comments and I only have ten minutes. I think we might find it's a really nice change in its way; sort of like saying "no cell phones in class," even though that's a 'limitation' and a 'removal of a feature.'
Maybe we'll discover we still can't stand it after a month. But I'm more interested in seeing what new habits we all pick up. This turned out to be a big enough change that I think it will be intriguing. If you're forced to read metafilter this way for a whole month, what will happen to the way you read metafilter? None of us knows yet whether this will turn out to be positive or negative.
posted by koeselitz at 4:40 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm sorry if I sounded controlling or gave you a vibe of telling you what to do. That's the last thing I want to do. I only want to highlight that – well, that first Christmas you come home and Mom skipped the awesome turkey she usually cooks and instead cooks a fish she raised in the bathtub, I know that seemed totally out of line and not really acceptable. I know that giving that neat thing that seemed like a real luxury was painful. But I'm just saying that if you try the fish you might find out it's actually awesome; you just have to give it a real go.
This is exactly the same. I was a little to zealous in saying it above, but really my message is: it seems scary, it seems completely counter to everything you've ever done on this site, but try it. I'll try it too. I'll work on learning to check that little comment-count underneath the post and say "screw it" when there are two hundred comments and I only have ten minutes. I think we might find it's a really nice change in its way; sort of like saying "no cell phones in class," even though that's a 'limitation' and a 'removal of a feature.'
Maybe we'll discover we still can't stand it after a month. But I'm more interested in seeing what new habits we all pick up. This turned out to be a big enough change that I think it will be intriguing. If you're forced to read metafilter this way for a whole month, what will happen to the way you read metafilter? None of us knows yet whether this will turn out to be positive or negative.
posted by koeselitz at 4:40 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I like the fact that you guys (mods) are experimenting with the site, but I don't like this. Seeing the numbered favorites, at the very least, often separates the wheat from the chaff...now it will take a longer time for me to get through a long thread.
Thumbs down. I can live with it for a month, but please please change it back.
posted by zardoz at 4:40 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Thumbs down. I can live with it for a month, but please please change it back.
posted by zardoz at 4:40 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
martinrebas: Seriously, all threads aren't discussions where it's important to read all of it. Lots of threads are full of general, mediocre comments and then a brilliant anecdote, a really funny joke, or an insightful allegory in the middle. Without a favorites system, there's no good way to find them. Only reading short threads is not an answer in any way -- I'll miss all the interesting comments in long threads and what I read in the short threads will largely be noise.
The point that I'm arguing, the theory that I have, is that this and other threads are fully of general, mediocre comments largely because of the favoriting system. When you skim via favorites, you tend merely to get a general gist of the conversation; and when everybody does that, then all of the comments turn out to be general and sort of distant and never build off of what other people have said.
It's pretty clear that the number of huge threads has risen greatly since we instituted favorites. Yes, I know that's because the user-base has grown; but I also think that, in an atmosphere without favorites, huge threads tend to kill themselves. That's a good thing. Since nobody wants to read four hundred comments, the four-hundred-comment threads just die a natural death. I think that's a far better thing for our conversations.
I know you don't want to read all those comments. Nobody does, And the net effect is that people will comment less in ridiculously long threads they can't possibly have read (a good thing, I think) and will move on to threads where there's still something to say.
posted by koeselitz at 4:47 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
The point that I'm arguing, the theory that I have, is that this and other threads are fully of general, mediocre comments largely because of the favoriting system. When you skim via favorites, you tend merely to get a general gist of the conversation; and when everybody does that, then all of the comments turn out to be general and sort of distant and never build off of what other people have said.
It's pretty clear that the number of huge threads has risen greatly since we instituted favorites. Yes, I know that's because the user-base has grown; but I also think that, in an atmosphere without favorites, huge threads tend to kill themselves. That's a good thing. Since nobody wants to read four hundred comments, the four-hundred-comment threads just die a natural death. I think that's a far better thing for our conversations.
I know you don't want to read all those comments. Nobody does, And the net effect is that people will comment less in ridiculously long threads they can't possibly have read (a good thing, I think) and will move on to threads where there's still something to say.
posted by koeselitz at 4:47 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I fucking hate this. "Faved"? Really? That's not even a fucking word.
posted by Liver at 4:49 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by Liver at 4:49 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
zardoz: Seeing the numbered favorites, at the very least, often separates the wheat from the chaff...
I don't mean to pick on you, zardoz, but lots of people seem to be saying that favorites help them pick out the comments worth reading. Can anybody actually offer evidence that favorited comments are intrinsically more worth reading than unfavorited comments?
posted by koeselitz at 4:49 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't mean to pick on you, zardoz, but lots of people seem to be saying that favorites help them pick out the comments worth reading. Can anybody actually offer evidence that favorited comments are intrinsically more worth reading than unfavorited comments?
posted by koeselitz at 4:49 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I just came in here to comment that at the moment I am not a fan of this new system. In a 300+ comment thread I find favorites a good way to catch up, even if there is a lot of snark getting favorited, oftentimes it's really well written comments that also get favorited.
So now I've skipped reading after about 50 comments and came down here to comment. I don't know if that's the desired behavior but there you go.
posted by like_neon at 4:52 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
So now I've skipped reading after about 50 comments and came down here to comment. I don't know if that's the desired behavior but there you go.
posted by like_neon at 4:52 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Also, if you're going to do this it would be nice if self-favourites don't register, otherwise any unscrupulous, mediocre poster can make his pathetic comment look like a fave.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 4:56 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by TheophileEscargot at 4:56 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
What is "Internet Explorer" of which you speak?
Just kidding. I'm sure we'd all be happy to go back to Netscape too.
I don't really care about this change one way or the other, just to weigh in. If it improves the lives of the mods, it's fine with me. We'll get used to it just like we got used to favorites in the first place. I sometimes use my favorites total (approaching 6300) to remind myself I've made some kind of contribution here when I get slammed or feel like a jerk for a thoughtless comment. And I favorite others for the same reason -- hoping they will make their new owners feel appreciated by me.
I wrote a long comment on the favoriting system back in February (in one of the many "Favorites Suck" threads) that came at the end of a long thread and as a result had few readers (and no favorites, sigh). It was something of an essay on the social dynamics of the favoriting economy here, and I was somewhat proud of it. I submit it again for your approval or disagreement herewith.
The bottom line was that we had adjusted as a community to the vagaries of the favoriting system, and that our use of it had become naturalized for many readers. It's always upsetting to have something one takes for granted suddenly changed. So I think giving the experiment at least a month is necessary before we pronounce judgment on the change.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Just kidding. I'm sure we'd all be happy to go back to Netscape too.
I don't really care about this change one way or the other, just to weigh in. If it improves the lives of the mods, it's fine with me. We'll get used to it just like we got used to favorites in the first place. I sometimes use my favorites total (approaching 6300) to remind myself I've made some kind of contribution here when I get slammed or feel like a jerk for a thoughtless comment. And I favorite others for the same reason -- hoping they will make their new owners feel appreciated by me.
I wrote a long comment on the favoriting system back in February (in one of the many "Favorites Suck" threads) that came at the end of a long thread and as a result had few readers (and no favorites, sigh). It was something of an essay on the social dynamics of the favoriting economy here, and I was somewhat proud of it. I submit it again for your approval or disagreement herewith.
The bottom line was that we had adjusted as a community to the vagaries of the favoriting system, and that our use of it had become naturalized for many readers. It's always upsetting to have something one takes for granted suddenly changed. So I think giving the experiment at least a month is necessary before we pronounce judgment on the change.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Also, I think self-favorites should never register. That's ridiculous. It's a big part of the confusion between "favorites" and "placeholders."
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:59 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:59 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
jessamyn: And, nothing personal, but I'm surprised that for some people the favorites aspect of the site is indispensible or that this would make a huge difference in how the site works for them.
We don't need favorites in the sense that the site wouldn't be worth using without them. But the fact is that there are favorites, so they've shaped the way we use the site. Website users tend to organize their activity around a site's most prominent features. So it's a little weird to be told that we weren't expected to actually use favorites in any significant way.
For that matter, I do think introducing favorites in the first place was a big improvement. Before favorites, there was no indiscreet, standardized way to keep track of amazing comments or express any kind of interest in them. Presumably someone thought there was a real need for them; otherwise, why were they even introduced?
As noted above, there's a good reason why one comment in this thread has at least 75 favorites. Don't you want to know which one it is? Yes, in fact you might be even more curious about it than if the number of favorites on all comments were visible.
And that's why the November experiment is counterproductive. You're not deemphasizing the numbers of favorites. You're giving them a new lure. There's now an added game-like element to the site: see if you can guess which faved comments are the most popular! Then click on "faved" to reveal the answer!
It's also hard to believe that no one will "cheat" by calling attention to the fact that a comment that has 40 favorites supports their point of view. Surely there will be more explicit praise of certain comments. For instance, I'll tell you directly that I like like_neon's comment, whereas in the past I would have just favorited it and moved on.
I'd prefer being transparent and not requiring the extra click. I agree that this is somewhat problematic: the snarky one-liner or the book-length comment will sometimes get more favorites than are really merited. But I just don't see a better alternative.
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:02 AM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
We don't need favorites in the sense that the site wouldn't be worth using without them. But the fact is that there are favorites, so they've shaped the way we use the site. Website users tend to organize their activity around a site's most prominent features. So it's a little weird to be told that we weren't expected to actually use favorites in any significant way.
For that matter, I do think introducing favorites in the first place was a big improvement. Before favorites, there was no indiscreet, standardized way to keep track of amazing comments or express any kind of interest in them. Presumably someone thought there was a real need for them; otherwise, why were they even introduced?
As noted above, there's a good reason why one comment in this thread has at least 75 favorites. Don't you want to know which one it is? Yes, in fact you might be even more curious about it than if the number of favorites on all comments were visible.
And that's why the November experiment is counterproductive. You're not deemphasizing the numbers of favorites. You're giving them a new lure. There's now an added game-like element to the site: see if you can guess which faved comments are the most popular! Then click on "faved" to reveal the answer!
It's also hard to believe that no one will "cheat" by calling attention to the fact that a comment that has 40 favorites supports their point of view. Surely there will be more explicit praise of certain comments. For instance, I'll tell you directly that I like like_neon's comment, whereas in the past I would have just favorited it and moved on.
I'd prefer being transparent and not requiring the extra click. I agree that this is somewhat problematic: the snarky one-liner or the book-length comment will sometimes get more favorites than are really merited. But I just don't see a better alternative.
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:02 AM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
The rancor that was being directed at the "small vocal minority" is because, through complaining, this experiment is happening, and as has already been mentioned is interefering with many members enjoyment of the site. I like Metafilter. It's a nice place to come and hang out. One of the things I like has been taken away (for a month), and it hampers my enjoyment of the site.
And as the comments saying that, now that the favorites are gone, and snarkily pointing out that people actually have to read threads? Just stop. Some people read Metafilter in different ways than you do. Your way fits you. It's not necessarily the best fit for me, or for many other people. Telling people to read less, if their too busy to read in your preferred no-favorites way, is basically telling people to be less active in the site. Read fewer threads = take less of an active role in the community that you love enough to read as much as you can.
As for evidence, koeselitz, the sidebar. Favorites tend to get noticed, and it's a useful way of finding out what people have said. It also lets you know about what your contacts have written recently, and it's quite helpful. Yes, I could directly mail a mod, which would take more time, and make it much less likely that I'd try to get in on the groundswell of saying "This comment is fantastic."
posted by Ghidorah at 5:09 AM on November 1, 2009 [15 favorites]
And as the comments saying that, now that the favorites are gone, and snarkily pointing out that people actually have to read threads? Just stop. Some people read Metafilter in different ways than you do. Your way fits you. It's not necessarily the best fit for me, or for many other people. Telling people to read less, if their too busy to read in your preferred no-favorites way, is basically telling people to be less active in the site. Read fewer threads = take less of an active role in the community that you love enough to read as much as you can.
As for evidence, koeselitz, the sidebar. Favorites tend to get noticed, and it's a useful way of finding out what people have said. It also lets you know about what your contacts have written recently, and it's quite helpful. Yes, I could directly mail a mod, which would take more time, and make it much less likely that I'd try to get in on the groundswell of saying "This comment is fantastic."
posted by Ghidorah at 5:09 AM on November 1, 2009 [15 favorites]
" Because regardless of whether the count of favorites appears or not, the same people are not going to read the damn thread."
You know what? That's exactly what should happen here. At this point it's a 350 comment thread, most of which consists of:
Anyway, I think the potential exists for the site to be improved with the feature functioning this way, but goddamn "faved?" What the fuck? Does it turn to "wevs" when you want to un-favorite your accidental click, too? *shudder*
posted by majick at 5:10 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
You know what? That's exactly what should happen here. At this point it's a 350 comment thread, most of which consists of:
I dislike this because as aAnd you know what? I just ran into this post this morning, and there is literally no way I'm going to wade through a bunch of pointless "me too" trash from random people just to try to determine that our esteemed administrators seriously think "faved" being used with such enormous repetition isn't grating. If you hadn't happened to mention this somewhere near the current end of the thread, I'd have no clue that 40 horizontal pixels per comment were somehow worth sacrificing my very sanity as a reader.Digg voterSlashdot commenterMetafilter popularity contester I feel disenfranchised!
posted by Dude With Long Phrase For A Name Because I Guess That's Popular With The Kids These Days at 8:19PM
Anyway, I think the potential exists for the site to be improved with the feature functioning this way, but goddamn "faved?" What the fuck? Does it turn to "wevs" when you want to un-favorite your accidental click, too? *shudder*
posted by majick at 5:10 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Koeslitz, I really appreciate your clearly written, step-by-step how-to guide for fixing this. I flagged it as fantastic, and wish it would get sidebarred for the people who aren't going to read every post of this long MeTa.
That said, could you maybe tone down the "you are doing it wrong, dummy" patronization that your last few comments have drifted into? I'm not sure that that is the tone you intend to be setting, but it's coming through loud and clear.
posted by Forktine at 5:11 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
That said, could you maybe tone down the "you are doing it wrong, dummy" patronization that your last few comments have drifted into? I'm not sure that that is the tone you intend to be setting, but it's coming through loud and clear.
posted by Forktine at 5:11 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Of course, there's the "This comment is fantastic flag." Aside from that, I stand by my other points.
posted by Ghidorah at 5:14 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Ghidorah at 5:14 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Dear mods;
I have opted out of this experiment by installing the custom CSS snippet. Therefore, when tabulating the results, please throw out any data relating to me that has been tainted by this choice.
Wevs,
- subbes
posted by subbes at 5:18 AM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
I have opted out of this experiment by installing the custom CSS snippet. Therefore, when tabulating the results, please throw out any data relating to me that has been tainted by this choice.
Wevs,
- subbes
posted by subbes at 5:18 AM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
Not everybody uses Firefox (my husband's job requires we run Windows.) :-(
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:19 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:19 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I installed a CSS script that substitutes "faved" for "Flaved", and switches the post time for a giant clock showing the time.
posted by qvantamon at 5:21 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by qvantamon at 5:21 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
Not everybody uses Firefox (my husband's job requires we run Windows.) :-(
The how-to guide I linked a few comments above explains how to do it both on Explorer and Firefox -- assuming you can make those kind of (minor) changes on a computer used for work.
posted by Forktine at 5:23 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
The how-to guide I linked a few comments above explains how to do it both on Explorer and Firefox -- assuming you can make those kind of (minor) changes on a computer used for work.
posted by Forktine at 5:23 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I saw that...still trying to figure out how to download the little script. The rest would be doable!
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:24 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:24 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Now that this is live, I'm confident in saying I hate it even more than I expected to (which was a lot). It makes me much less willing to try to read comment threads at all. Wake me in December.
posted by shammack at 5:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by shammack at 5:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Okay, done, and done!!!!! Thanks koeselitz and forktine!!!!
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
(Guys, if I can fix this, piece of cake for the rest of you!!!)
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Forktine: That said, could you maybe tone down the "you are doing it wrong, dummy" patronization that your last few comments have drifted into? I'm not sure that that is the tone you intend to be setting, but it's coming through loud and clear.
You know, there was a time when I wasn't sure enough of myself to say this, but:
I wasn't patronizing anybody. I was arguing my side in a debate. If you can't see that – if "I disagree with you" and "I think this encourages us to read badly" can mean nothing but "I reject you" and "I think you're a bad reader," then we can't really have a debate at all; you've effectively made it impossible for me to disagree with you.
Seeing your comment, I just reread this whole thread, and you know what? People are being ridiculously rude. The number of people who have flatly referred to the mods and their work as "shit" is insane, and the number of people above and beyond that who (as they themselves admit) merely came here to complain and not to add anything substantial to the discussion is off the charts for us here. This is really the most extreme Meta thread I've ever seen in this regard; yeah, we have our disagreements here, but this is the first thread I've seen where literally dozens of people have come in here solely to say "this is shit."
So, yes, I was firm in saying that there hasn't been any real debate whatsoever in this thread, and I was trying very hard to respectfully call people into the discussion and ask them to give their reasons. And I'm trying to engage them. What's more, I'll continue to try to make sure this doesn't become personal whilst trying to get people to explain their positions.
I agree that it's unfair to be patronizing or rude. I take your point, and I mean it when I say that respect for others is a real goal for me; but my comments don't exist in a vacuum. I'm trying to react to what people are saying here.
posted by koeselitz at 5:29 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
You know, there was a time when I wasn't sure enough of myself to say this, but:
I wasn't patronizing anybody. I was arguing my side in a debate. If you can't see that – if "I disagree with you" and "I think this encourages us to read badly" can mean nothing but "I reject you" and "I think you're a bad reader," then we can't really have a debate at all; you've effectively made it impossible for me to disagree with you.
Seeing your comment, I just reread this whole thread, and you know what? People are being ridiculously rude. The number of people who have flatly referred to the mods and their work as "shit" is insane, and the number of people above and beyond that who (as they themselves admit) merely came here to complain and not to add anything substantial to the discussion is off the charts for us here. This is really the most extreme Meta thread I've ever seen in this regard; yeah, we have our disagreements here, but this is the first thread I've seen where literally dozens of people have come in here solely to say "this is shit."
So, yes, I was firm in saying that there hasn't been any real debate whatsoever in this thread, and I was trying very hard to respectfully call people into the discussion and ask them to give their reasons. And I'm trying to engage them. What's more, I'll continue to try to make sure this doesn't become personal whilst trying to get people to explain their positions.
I agree that it's unfair to be patronizing or rude. I take your point, and I mean it when I say that respect for others is a real goal for me; but my comments don't exist in a vacuum. I'm trying to react to what people are saying here.
posted by koeselitz at 5:29 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
I guess I'd like to hear some of the mods elucidate on what it is, exactly, that makes "favourites as a popularity contest" so very taxing on their time and resources? I'm not being snarky but what does it matter, exactly? It feels very jobsworthy.
posted by turgid dahlia at 5:30 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by turgid dahlia at 5:30 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
1. I don't like this change. For the record, I read metatalk fairly frequently and this is the first I have heard of the supposed issue, so I don't know the ins and outs, but it strikes me as more of a vocal minority complaint, to be honest. So I am sharing my feelings as, theoretically, part of the vocal majority here.
2. I agree with Koeselitz that the word 'faved' should be replaced by a symbol. For me, it's just a damn unpleasant word.
posted by miss tea at 5:35 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
2. I agree with Koeselitz that the word 'faved' should be replaced by a symbol. For me, it's just a damn unpleasant word.
posted by miss tea at 5:35 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
koeselitz : "the number of people above and beyond that who (as they themselves admit) merely came here to complain and not to add anything substantial to the discussion is off the charts for us here."
Perhaps this is because they'd normally just favorite the comments they agree with, but that's no longer a useful way of registering support. This thread is for feedback; even if the feedback is just someone saying they don't like it, that's still a datum the mods should have.
posted by shammack at 5:43 AM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
Perhaps this is because they'd normally just favorite the comments they agree with, but that's no longer a useful way of registering support. This thread is for feedback; even if the feedback is just someone saying they don't like it, that's still a datum the mods should have.
posted by shammack at 5:43 AM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
Ghidorah: And as the comments saying that, now that the favorites are gone, and snarkily pointing out that people actually have to read threads? Just stop. Some people read Metafilter in different ways than you do. Your way fits you. It's not necessarily the best fit for me, or for many other people. Telling people to read less, if their too busy to read in your preferred no-favorites way, is basically telling people to be less active in the site. Read fewer threads = take less of an active role in the community that you love enough to read as much as you can.
One last comment, and then I'll go. I want to focus on this issue briefly, because it seems to be rankling a lot of people:
I know that in our day and age there's a lot of cruelty and hatred in the world. Those of us in the developed world have managed to insulate ourselves from that cruelty and hatred to a large degree, and that's helped; but people still feel the hurt that other people do to them. I don't think that will ever go away.
But sometimes I think we insulate ourselves too much; sometimes we reject anyone and everyone who thinks differently from us simply because we don't want to experience the discomfort of accepting that we might be wrong. This is especially easy when we tell ourselves that the highest value is tolerance; accepting that we might be wrong, letting go of our personal stake in discussions, is tough. Hell, just look at my comments here and you'll see plenty of examples of a guy personalizing an argument.
The key is that we don't have to do that. We can walk that fine line between intolerance and incoherence by depersonalizing discussions, by not making them about us. And, yes, it seems like I'm singling you out, Ghirador, but really I don't mean to, please understand: I only want to say that I don't think you read threads any worse than I do. You probably read them better. In any case, this is not about you – that should be out of the question – and it would be right out for me to go nuclear by saying you don't read threads correctly. This should not be a debate about who reads right and who reads wrong.
It is possible to discuss whether or not favorites lead to bad reading habits without making it a personal referendum on who's a good reader and who's a bad reader. It's not always simple to do that, but we can do it. It takes both sides working together: you agree not to read my statements that "favorites encourage bad reading habits" as saying "you have bad reading habits," then I agree not to be an insulting boor and tell you you're doing it wrong.
posted by koeselitz at 5:43 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
One last comment, and then I'll go. I want to focus on this issue briefly, because it seems to be rankling a lot of people:
I know that in our day and age there's a lot of cruelty and hatred in the world. Those of us in the developed world have managed to insulate ourselves from that cruelty and hatred to a large degree, and that's helped; but people still feel the hurt that other people do to them. I don't think that will ever go away.
But sometimes I think we insulate ourselves too much; sometimes we reject anyone and everyone who thinks differently from us simply because we don't want to experience the discomfort of accepting that we might be wrong. This is especially easy when we tell ourselves that the highest value is tolerance; accepting that we might be wrong, letting go of our personal stake in discussions, is tough. Hell, just look at my comments here and you'll see plenty of examples of a guy personalizing an argument.
The key is that we don't have to do that. We can walk that fine line between intolerance and incoherence by depersonalizing discussions, by not making them about us. And, yes, it seems like I'm singling you out, Ghirador, but really I don't mean to, please understand: I only want to say that I don't think you read threads any worse than I do. You probably read them better. In any case, this is not about you – that should be out of the question – and it would be right out for me to go nuclear by saying you don't read threads correctly. This should not be a debate about who reads right and who reads wrong.
It is possible to discuss whether or not favorites lead to bad reading habits without making it a personal referendum on who's a good reader and who's a bad reader. It's not always simple to do that, but we can do it. It takes both sides working together: you agree not to read my statements that "favorites encourage bad reading habits" as saying "you have bad reading habits," then I agree not to be an insulting boor and tell you you're doing it wrong.
posted by koeselitz at 5:43 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
How could it have been handled better (no snark, seriously wondering what went wrong in your mind)?
The 12-hour window was a mistake. Plenty of site usability issues have been fixed or implemented without any notice whatsoever, only problem seeming to be you get 2 or 3 MeTa posts on it all at once as soon as people notice. Implementing this with no notification would have prompted a coupla threads at first, but the one chosen thread probably would have gone.... Actually, it probably would have gone about as badly as this one has, only you wouldn't have had as much wave-making about your delivery system. One less thing. Though it could be that because of the contentious nature of the change no path of action was acceptable/preferable.
If you're gonna see how making 'favorites' not a popularity contest works, all aspects of the system that point towards 'popularity contest' should be removed. The numerical counts were a huge part of that, but arguably the biggest part was simply calling them 'favorites.' I think that part of why you're getting such big blowback (another vocal minority?) is because faved still reads popularity contest but removing the count sort of neuters the experience. Calling it something else, in my opinion, something more neutral, would go much further towards affecting usage/participation patterns than simply removing the count. I like 'marked' because it's just as open to interpretation, but the bar is a little higher. High marks. Marked as in marred. Mark-based sockpuppets. Markers. Apostles. Who's Mark? Etc.
posted by carsonb at 5:43 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
The 12-hour window was a mistake. Plenty of site usability issues have been fixed or implemented without any notice whatsoever, only problem seeming to be you get 2 or 3 MeTa posts on it all at once as soon as people notice. Implementing this with no notification would have prompted a coupla threads at first, but the one chosen thread probably would have gone.... Actually, it probably would have gone about as badly as this one has, only you wouldn't have had as much wave-making about your delivery system. One less thing. Though it could be that because of the contentious nature of the change no path of action was acceptable/preferable.
If you're gonna see how making 'favorites' not a popularity contest works, all aspects of the system that point towards 'popularity contest' should be removed. The numerical counts were a huge part of that, but arguably the biggest part was simply calling them 'favorites.' I think that part of why you're getting such big blowback (another vocal minority?) is because faved still reads popularity contest but removing the count sort of neuters the experience. Calling it something else, in my opinion, something more neutral, would go much further towards affecting usage/participation patterns than simply removing the count. I like 'marked' because it's just as open to interpretation, but the bar is a little higher. High marks. Marked as in marred. Mark-based sockpuppets. Markers. Apostles. Who's Mark? Etc.
posted by carsonb at 5:43 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
koeselitz: "So far, I've seen almost no actual arguments against the whole reason why a lot of us wanted this change in the first place.
what
All of you coming in to 'register your dislike?' Try giving a rational justification that amounts to something more than "I can't stand change!" – because I've hardly seen any yet.
If anyone has insufficiently justified their opinions, it's the folks that have long agitated for this change. The rationale is always this free-floating angst about the general state of commentary instead of something concrete.
I, on the other hand, know for a fact that this is a bad move, because it is actively breaking my preferred reading style right friggin' now. Or would be, if it weren't for the Greasemonkey fix, but I'm pretty sure what you guys want is to get rid of visible favorites entirely. I don't have to hem and haw about atmosphere to justify my dislike. I just have to switch to Chrome and bam, the community filter I rely on is flattened to nothing.
Most people are usually wrong. A comment is not more or less worthy of reading because it gets a hundred comments.
I submit that you are so wrong, and respectfully request that you open a window to let some of the wrong out.
Crowdsourcing works. It's not perfect, but it's usually a good guide. That's the idea behind Metafilter, after all -- let anyone post an entry, and you'll get more and better content than you would from a staff of writers. Favoriting works the same way, in practice. Put a lot of content in front of a large audience and let them mark whatever they want for whatever reason. It's almost self-evident that the handful of items that pull in the lion's share of favorites are going to be interesting, because they motivated so many people to mark it above and beyond the others. Why they reacted that way is unknowable and irrelevant -- only the fact that it elicited such a strong reaction from so many people matters.
There are thousands upon thousands of people on this web site who, through no fault of their own, will be wrong about a given thing. I'm often one of those people. And we shouldn't be weighting conversations based on the clicks of approval of thousands upon thousands of people who are essentially lurking; we should be weighting conversation on their own merit.
Individually, no. Collectively, yes. The wisdom of crowds and all that. A small handful might favorite the "wrong" things, but as the number of people favoriting goes up, the odds of it being a fluke that doesn't "deserve" attention goes down.
People complain constantly that others aren't reading through a given thread. That's a valid complaint; there's a lot of skimming that happens, and a lot gets lost. Do you know why people skim? Because they seem to think that you can jump from 10-favorite comment to 10-favorite comment, like you're skipping across stones in a stream, and get the gist of a conversation. You can't.
Which is why I read more closely if I plan to contribute, and text-search the page to make sure I'm not being redundant.
The worst feature of the fabled-for-its-wrongness Youtube comment system, the very reason (I believe) that those comments are usually so bad, is the fact that users can click a button immediately to disappear a comment if they don't like it; and if enough people disappear it it disappears for good and nobody sees it. This is a more intellectual version of the same thing: I believe that, for the vast majority of people reading and commenting in threads, most of those comments that never get favorited don't even exist.
It's not like I'm filtering out everything that isn't double digits. I scan the text while scrolling, and tend to read the shorter comments and skim the longer ones, and stop and read if a keyword grabs my attention. It's a freeform reading style that I can adjust based on how much time I want to spend, and granular favorite counts are like handrails that help me limit or expand my attention as needed.
People are complaining that being able to see the favorite-counts on comments immediately is essential to their being able to read through threads, given their busy schedule. 'We have lives!' they say. 'We can't spend all day reading every comment – we need to be able to skim!'
This is not a valid complaint.
Lordy God, is that obnoxious.
If you don't have time to read every comment in every thread, read fewer threads. In times when I don't have the time to read all of a dozen threads, do you know what you should do? I can tell you what you shouldn't do – you shouldn't skim through all dozen threads by looking at the number of favorites. Why? Because you're not really reading; you're just getting a gauge of the popular opinion of a conversation, not the conversation itself. If you don't have time to read a dozen threads, just read one thread. It's not that difficult.
And what's wrong with getting a broad overview? I don't know about you, but I'm a little OCD about Mefi and hate thinking that I might have missed something interesting. So for me it's infinitely preferable to get the best content from every thread than to drill down into a few threads while ignoring others. It gives me a wider variety of material, and usually higher-quality material, too.
Don't tell me how to read the site.
And, as I said, I think this favorite-skimming method that seems to be so very popular (more than I ever imagined, frankly) is really damaging the site by ramping up exponentially the amount of noise that happens all over the site. When everybody just skims a dozen threads by skipping through and reading 10- or 5-favorite comments, they're almost always tempted to comment in those threads. And then they're commenting without knowing the whole story. I know we're not a conversation-driven site – and that is as it should be – but it wouldn't hurt to make conversation more bearable, would it?
These are two different issues. If people want to comment blithely without making sure they're not being redundant, that's a posting problem only tenuously related to their reading habits. They're not willing to ensure they're contributing well, and forcing them to read either everything or nothing isn't going to tamp down on that. But it will ruin the way other people read the site for reading's sake.
Finally, the site that is most damaged, I think, by the favorite-count-skimming method is ask.metafilter. Favorite-skimming just amounts to noise elsewhere, and elsewhere noise is pretty much tolerated – it doesn't matter as much if a dozen people repeat the same thing or make the same mistake in a thread on the main site or in metatalk, although those things are bad. But in ask, when there's noise like that increasing exponentially because of the people following just this technique of reading, jessamyn & co end up wasting more time deleting noise or at least having to watch those threads to keep an eye on them. Overall, questions don't get answered as well. And since ask is the most popular and fastest-growing part of the site, many people there are people who don't go elsewhere on the site at all; those people end up with the impression that this is how it's done here, that the skimming thing works and that the high noise level is just a necessary evil. No.
How are repetitive answers noise? If I have a question and get twenty variations on the same answer, that only underscores the probable accuracy of that answer. It's basically a more visible and elaborate form of favoriting-as-agreement. It can seem like a pile-on, but if the answers are cogent then they can only be helpful.
Also, there have been numerous times where a user asks a factual question and gets four or five identical answers in a row -- the echoes are never deleted. So I don't think that particular aspect is a moderating problem.
Please, please, please people. Give this thing a chance. Set aside the fact that you're having to pick up a somewhat different method of browsing threads; and open your minds to the idea that you might be learning a better way."
I'm sorry, but I just can't. It simply goes against my nature. I would never be able to tolerate having to choose between reading more than I should (i.e., almost everything) and skipping some threads altogether, knowing that I'm missing some great content. In other words, I'd be stuck between reading more than I want and less than I want, and I'd be stuck because a measure of control and guidance over how I read the site had been taken away. Favorites permeate the site and act as a sixth sense for quality if you rely on them -- taking them away would leave me feeling blind (and appropriately anxious).
posted by Rhaomi at 5:46 AM on November 1, 2009 [79 favorites]
what
All of you coming in to 'register your dislike?' Try giving a rational justification that amounts to something more than "I can't stand change!" – because I've hardly seen any yet.
If anyone has insufficiently justified their opinions, it's the folks that have long agitated for this change. The rationale is always this free-floating angst about the general state of commentary instead of something concrete.
I, on the other hand, know for a fact that this is a bad move, because it is actively breaking my preferred reading style right friggin' now. Or would be, if it weren't for the Greasemonkey fix, but I'm pretty sure what you guys want is to get rid of visible favorites entirely. I don't have to hem and haw about atmosphere to justify my dislike. I just have to switch to Chrome and bam, the community filter I rely on is flattened to nothing.
Most people are usually wrong. A comment is not more or less worthy of reading because it gets a hundred comments.
I submit that you are so wrong, and respectfully request that you open a window to let some of the wrong out.
Crowdsourcing works. It's not perfect, but it's usually a good guide. That's the idea behind Metafilter, after all -- let anyone post an entry, and you'll get more and better content than you would from a staff of writers. Favoriting works the same way, in practice. Put a lot of content in front of a large audience and let them mark whatever they want for whatever reason. It's almost self-evident that the handful of items that pull in the lion's share of favorites are going to be interesting, because they motivated so many people to mark it above and beyond the others. Why they reacted that way is unknowable and irrelevant -- only the fact that it elicited such a strong reaction from so many people matters.
There are thousands upon thousands of people on this web site who, through no fault of their own, will be wrong about a given thing. I'm often one of those people. And we shouldn't be weighting conversations based on the clicks of approval of thousands upon thousands of people who are essentially lurking; we should be weighting conversation on their own merit.
Individually, no. Collectively, yes. The wisdom of crowds and all that. A small handful might favorite the "wrong" things, but as the number of people favoriting goes up, the odds of it being a fluke that doesn't "deserve" attention goes down.
People complain constantly that others aren't reading through a given thread. That's a valid complaint; there's a lot of skimming that happens, and a lot gets lost. Do you know why people skim? Because they seem to think that you can jump from 10-favorite comment to 10-favorite comment, like you're skipping across stones in a stream, and get the gist of a conversation. You can't.
Which is why I read more closely if I plan to contribute, and text-search the page to make sure I'm not being redundant.
The worst feature of the fabled-for-its-wrongness Youtube comment system, the very reason (I believe) that those comments are usually so bad, is the fact that users can click a button immediately to disappear a comment if they don't like it; and if enough people disappear it it disappears for good and nobody sees it. This is a more intellectual version of the same thing: I believe that, for the vast majority of people reading and commenting in threads, most of those comments that never get favorited don't even exist.
It's not like I'm filtering out everything that isn't double digits. I scan the text while scrolling, and tend to read the shorter comments and skim the longer ones, and stop and read if a keyword grabs my attention. It's a freeform reading style that I can adjust based on how much time I want to spend, and granular favorite counts are like handrails that help me limit or expand my attention as needed.
People are complaining that being able to see the favorite-counts on comments immediately is essential to their being able to read through threads, given their busy schedule. 'We have lives!' they say. 'We can't spend all day reading every comment – we need to be able to skim!'
This is not a valid complaint.
Lordy God, is that obnoxious.
If you don't have time to read every comment in every thread, read fewer threads. In times when I don't have the time to read all of a dozen threads, do you know what you should do? I can tell you what you shouldn't do – you shouldn't skim through all dozen threads by looking at the number of favorites. Why? Because you're not really reading; you're just getting a gauge of the popular opinion of a conversation, not the conversation itself. If you don't have time to read a dozen threads, just read one thread. It's not that difficult.
And what's wrong with getting a broad overview? I don't know about you, but I'm a little OCD about Mefi and hate thinking that I might have missed something interesting. So for me it's infinitely preferable to get the best content from every thread than to drill down into a few threads while ignoring others. It gives me a wider variety of material, and usually higher-quality material, too.
Don't tell me how to read the site.
And, as I said, I think this favorite-skimming method that seems to be so very popular (more than I ever imagined, frankly) is really damaging the site by ramping up exponentially the amount of noise that happens all over the site. When everybody just skims a dozen threads by skipping through and reading 10- or 5-favorite comments, they're almost always tempted to comment in those threads. And then they're commenting without knowing the whole story. I know we're not a conversation-driven site – and that is as it should be – but it wouldn't hurt to make conversation more bearable, would it?
These are two different issues. If people want to comment blithely without making sure they're not being redundant, that's a posting problem only tenuously related to their reading habits. They're not willing to ensure they're contributing well, and forcing them to read either everything or nothing isn't going to tamp down on that. But it will ruin the way other people read the site for reading's sake.
Finally, the site that is most damaged, I think, by the favorite-count-skimming method is ask.metafilter. Favorite-skimming just amounts to noise elsewhere, and elsewhere noise is pretty much tolerated – it doesn't matter as much if a dozen people repeat the same thing or make the same mistake in a thread on the main site or in metatalk, although those things are bad. But in ask, when there's noise like that increasing exponentially because of the people following just this technique of reading, jessamyn & co end up wasting more time deleting noise or at least having to watch those threads to keep an eye on them. Overall, questions don't get answered as well. And since ask is the most popular and fastest-growing part of the site, many people there are people who don't go elsewhere on the site at all; those people end up with the impression that this is how it's done here, that the skimming thing works and that the high noise level is just a necessary evil. No.
How are repetitive answers noise? If I have a question and get twenty variations on the same answer, that only underscores the probable accuracy of that answer. It's basically a more visible and elaborate form of favoriting-as-agreement. It can seem like a pile-on, but if the answers are cogent then they can only be helpful.
Also, there have been numerous times where a user asks a factual question and gets four or five identical answers in a row -- the echoes are never deleted. So I don't think that particular aspect is a moderating problem.
Please, please, please people. Give this thing a chance. Set aside the fact that you're having to pick up a somewhat different method of browsing threads; and open your minds to the idea that you might be learning a better way."
I'm sorry, but I just can't. It simply goes against my nature. I would never be able to tolerate having to choose between reading more than I should (i.e., almost everything) and skipping some threads altogether, knowing that I'm missing some great content. In other words, I'd be stuck between reading more than I want and less than I want, and I'd be stuck because a measure of control and guidance over how I read the site had been taken away. Favorites permeate the site and act as a sixth sense for quality if you rely on them -- taking them away would leave me feeling blind (and appropriately anxious).
posted by Rhaomi at 5:46 AM on November 1, 2009 [79 favorites]
turgid dahlia: I guess I'd like to hear some of the mods elucidate on what it is, exactly, that makes "favourites as a popularity contest" so very taxing on their time and resources? I'm not being snarky but what does it matter, exactly? It feels very jobsworthy.
Briefly, the mods have said that "favorites as a popularity contest" is more of a problem because lots of people seem to complain about it. They have said here that they don't think they'll see any substantial change, although they're open to it, and they seem to see this mostly as (a) an interesting experiment and (b) a way to put to rest a very old argument. Quoth jessamyn earlier in this thread:
jessamyn: ... a lot of people have, for a long time, been saying they think the favorites system encourages crappy behavior. We've been saying "We don't think so" without any real way to test. So, we decided to try this.
posted by koeselitz at 5:47 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Briefly, the mods have said that "favorites as a popularity contest" is more of a problem because lots of people seem to complain about it. They have said here that they don't think they'll see any substantial change, although they're open to it, and they seem to see this mostly as (a) an interesting experiment and (b) a way to put to rest a very old argument. Quoth jessamyn earlier in this thread:
jessamyn: ... a lot of people have, for a long time, been saying they think the favorites system encourages crappy behavior. We've been saying "We don't think so" without any real way to test. So, we decided to try this.
posted by koeselitz at 5:47 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
but my comments don't exist in a vacuum
This is exactly it. Yes, fully 100% of my comments are favourite-whoring ejaculations but so what? Not everybody else's are, and I sure as shit am going to pay more attention to a multi-paragraph comment with 20 favourites than I am to a multi-paragrah comment with no favourites. I come here for interesting stuff and fun insights, and yes for some snark, but for the most part Metafilter users are pretty clever and if you see a comment that has multiple faves then you can be pretty sure it's got something going for it, whether for good or for bad.
If people are so pissed off by favourites, get a fucking Greasemonkey script to get rid of them. Don't omit a feature that, I am confident in saying, fully the majority of us enjoy and find extremely useful and, dare I say it, fun.
Is this a movement to get rid of fun on Metafilter?
I really don't see what the problem is here and on top of that, from a lot of the whaah-whaah-whaah I've had before from people in Metatalk, apparently I comment in here way too much, but frankly I've not seen a great deal of "omg favourites r bad!" threads. This feels like a handful of people taking the site way too seriously.
I don't remember if favourites could be seen before I had an account and frankly I don't care enough to log out and check, but when I coughed up my very reasonable entry fee, and I saw the favouriting facility, I thought "neat!". I trawled through the most favourited comments and post and I found a lot of awesome shit.
Metafilter isn't going to change the world. It's a bunch of people hanging out, shooting shit, and showing one another interesting things. Regardless of what anybody thinks, that's what it is. For the most part, I think a great many of us have a lot of fun here. This feels like fun-downgrading.
posted by turgid dahlia at 5:52 AM on November 1, 2009 [19 favorites]
This is exactly it. Yes, fully 100% of my comments are favourite-whoring ejaculations but so what? Not everybody else's are, and I sure as shit am going to pay more attention to a multi-paragraph comment with 20 favourites than I am to a multi-paragrah comment with no favourites. I come here for interesting stuff and fun insights, and yes for some snark, but for the most part Metafilter users are pretty clever and if you see a comment that has multiple faves then you can be pretty sure it's got something going for it, whether for good or for bad.
If people are so pissed off by favourites, get a fucking Greasemonkey script to get rid of them. Don't omit a feature that, I am confident in saying, fully the majority of us enjoy and find extremely useful and, dare I say it, fun.
Is this a movement to get rid of fun on Metafilter?
I really don't see what the problem is here and on top of that, from a lot of the whaah-whaah-whaah I've had before from people in Metatalk, apparently I comment in here way too much, but frankly I've not seen a great deal of "omg favourites r bad!" threads. This feels like a handful of people taking the site way too seriously.
I don't remember if favourites could be seen before I had an account and frankly I don't care enough to log out and check, but when I coughed up my very reasonable entry fee, and I saw the favouriting facility, I thought "neat!". I trawled through the most favourited comments and post and I found a lot of awesome shit.
Metafilter isn't going to change the world. It's a bunch of people hanging out, shooting shit, and showing one another interesting things. Regardless of what anybody thinks, that's what it is. For the most part, I think a great many of us have a lot of fun here. This feels like fun-downgrading.
posted by turgid dahlia at 5:52 AM on November 1, 2009 [19 favorites]
(a) an interesting experiment and (b) a way to put to rest a very old argument
Hmm, fair play. If only comments of that nature had been favourited more, I might have read them a little closer ;-)
posted by turgid dahlia at 5:55 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Hmm, fair play. If only comments of that nature had been favourited more, I might have read them a little closer ;-)
posted by turgid dahlia at 5:55 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
My vote is "Hate this. A lot."
My immediate reaction upon seeing a bunch of "faved" links was "When the hell did I go and favorite a bunch of stuff?"
You've made the UI inconsistent in its verbiage: if I flag something, I get a nice little "flagged" note. Seeing "faved/saved/dildoed/whatever" when I haven't actually favorite anything is confusing at first and just plain irritating after.
Independent of whether the number ends up displayed or not, I would suggest changing "favorites" to "bookmarks" as others have suggested over the years. You could have a little book icon, reducing the byline real estate as wished fo. It fits in with the [+][!] look better, and, if you really want to get fancy, if I bookmark a comment you can show me a nice little "saved" message.
But please ditch the [action verb] crap when I haven't actually [action verbed] anything.
posted by romakimmy at 5:55 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
My immediate reaction upon seeing a bunch of "faved" links was "When the hell did I go and favorite a bunch of stuff?"
You've made the UI inconsistent in its verbiage: if I flag something, I get a nice little "flagged" note. Seeing "faved/saved/dildoed/whatever" when I haven't actually favorite anything is confusing at first and just plain irritating after.
Independent of whether the number ends up displayed or not, I would suggest changing "favorites" to "bookmarks" as others have suggested over the years. You could have a little book icon, reducing the byline real estate as wished fo. It fits in with the [+][!] look better, and, if you really want to get fancy, if I bookmark a comment you can show me a nice little "saved" message.
But please ditch the [action verb] crap when I haven't actually [action verbed] anything.
posted by romakimmy at 5:55 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
But please ditch the [action verb] crap when I haven't actually [action verbed] anything.
I'll defer to the grammar authorities, but isn't "faved" in this context actually a past participle? (As in, "this comment was faved".) It's still awful to look at, and as you note inconsistent with the UI, just not an action verb.
posted by Forktine at 5:59 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'll defer to the grammar authorities, but isn't "faved" in this context actually a past participle? (As in, "this comment was faved".) It's still awful to look at, and as you note inconsistent with the UI, just not an action verb.
posted by Forktine at 5:59 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
"The rationale is always this free-floating angst about the general state of commentary instead of something concrete."
Respectfully I submit my comment: Fucking bullshit.
The rationale for not having an upvote system is thus: Digg, Slashdot, And Kuro5hin all suck donkey ass. This is fact. This is concrete. One of the reasons they do is the voting system which acts as a force multiplier for echo chambering, groupthink, grandstanding, and pandering. Imitating them means making what has for a great many years been a good site more similar to shitty sites.
posted by majick at 6:03 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Respectfully I submit my comment: Fucking bullshit.
The rationale for not having an upvote system is thus: Digg, Slashdot, And Kuro5hin all suck donkey ass. This is fact. This is concrete. One of the reasons they do is the voting system which acts as a force multiplier for echo chambering, groupthink, grandstanding, and pandering. Imitating them means making what has for a great many years been a good site more similar to shitty sites.
posted by majick at 6:03 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
koes... I don't, in any way, feel singled out. I do read threads. I've read every freaking comment in this thread. What I was reacting to was you, in your post, telling people that if they rely on favorites, that they're essentially doing it wrong. Of course, Rhaomi had a much more cogent take on that, but it's kind of hard to find, since there aren't the ridiculous number of favorites it deserves leading us to it, like a beacon in the night.
More than anything, telling people to read less, to alter their preferred method of enjoying this community, that's the problem. You seem to think that, since you like it this way, we should all come around to your point of view. I read this site differently than you do. Many people rely on favorites to get their maximum enjoyment out of this site. Now, because of a vocal, repetitive minority, a very large number of people get less enjoyment from Metafilter. They're coming here to say that this change sucks. The vehemence of their comments is, I think, reflective of just how much they love this website, which shouldn't be simply dismissed.
posted by Ghidorah at 6:05 AM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
More than anything, telling people to read less, to alter their preferred method of enjoying this community, that's the problem. You seem to think that, since you like it this way, we should all come around to your point of view. I read this site differently than you do. Many people rely on favorites to get their maximum enjoyment out of this site. Now, because of a vocal, repetitive minority, a very large number of people get less enjoyment from Metafilter. They're coming here to say that this change sucks. The vehemence of their comments is, I think, reflective of just how much they love this website, which shouldn't be simply dismissed.
posted by Ghidorah at 6:05 AM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
I'm in support of the test because whatever is decided, there will be something concrete to point to when the issue comes up in the future.
That being said, not having the favorite counts is already driving me crazy and leading me to read much less of the site than I would have previously. Like Rhaomi said above, there's way too much to read otherwise, and if a lot of people favorite something it does give you useful information. The way I read the site is to look at a handful of the first comments in a thread, then if nothing comes up to interest me I go skipping along to see what has a lot of favorites, or else what is lengthy (which is an imperfect but mostly helpful way of finding comments that either go into more detail, or make a more nuanced point). If there is a post that raises something interesting, then I will read the posts after it more closely for a stretch to see if the conversation goes anywhere.
I only make an effort to read much more closely if I'm going to contribute to the thread, because then I want to be respectful of others' time and make sure I'm not saying something that others have already addressed. I don't contribute to most threads, so the favorites function makes a big difference in what I get from the site. In a perfect world everyone would have infinite time to read every thread, but I think it's a lot better to have a mechanism that helps us get a great deal out of the site with a reasonable investment of time. Favorites let me skim a thread in about five to ten minutes and learn a lot, and while I miss a bit that way, I don't think spending half an hour to an hour reading a single thread is worth that much of anyone's time. There's a pretty sharp decline in what you get out of it; the ratio of worthwhile comments to mundane ones is much higher than other sites, but they're still the minority in most threads. Even on a site as good as MeFi people make comments that don't really say much of anything, or repeat the same points over and over, or make terrible arguments, or go off on tangents that don't have a lot to do with the tread. Favorites don't make those posts happen because those posts rarely get favorites. It's just now more people actually have to read those posts.
And then it's even more important in AskMeFi, for reasons people have already covered.
I've already noticed that this has lead to my reading much less on the site. It appears what I do now is skim the first handful of comments like always, then I'll skip down the page once or twice, then give up because I don't have much to look for except for long comments, and those are hit or miss. If anything, I would rather MeFi just have an "up-vote" system that's separate from favorites -- at the very least on AskMeFi, since we get people complaining about everyone giving the same advice -- which I know will never happen because of all the boogeymen associated with it.
I'm not a fan of snarky comments. I don't think snarky comments even get that many favorites unless they're seriously funny. I see people make snarky comments all the time even though no one ever favorites them in particular. I see snarky comments on every site out there even when there isn't an up-vote system -- check the comments on any popular blog. People make snarky comments because that's how they, in particular, interface with the world around them. If they were sucked into space, they would yell snarky comments into the vacuum in hopes that somebody might hear them. Getting favorites for it just makes them feel a little more special about doing what they'd do anyway.
The way I see it so far is this: in the past, I might have had the misfortune of reading one kind of unhelpful comment, which is a snarky comment that, for whatever reason, netted a lot of favorites. Usually those are quite short, and sometimes genuinely funny, so at the very worst I'll have wasted three seconds and come away mildly annoyed, though usually I don't feel much of anything about it. Whether or not favorites are responsible for that kind of comment is dubious, as well. Without the favorites function, though, I'm consigned to reading every possible type of unhelpful comment, ranging from lame jokes to not topical to repetitive to nonsensical to insane and combative. AND after wading through that "thread fatigue" kicks in, so I miss out on whatever good stuff people might say later because I just can't invest that kind of time; I already spend an hour or two a day on MeFi and it's just unreasonable to expect anyone to spend even more than that.
posted by Nattie at 6:16 AM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
That being said, not having the favorite counts is already driving me crazy and leading me to read much less of the site than I would have previously. Like Rhaomi said above, there's way too much to read otherwise, and if a lot of people favorite something it does give you useful information. The way I read the site is to look at a handful of the first comments in a thread, then if nothing comes up to interest me I go skipping along to see what has a lot of favorites, or else what is lengthy (which is an imperfect but mostly helpful way of finding comments that either go into more detail, or make a more nuanced point). If there is a post that raises something interesting, then I will read the posts after it more closely for a stretch to see if the conversation goes anywhere.
I only make an effort to read much more closely if I'm going to contribute to the thread, because then I want to be respectful of others' time and make sure I'm not saying something that others have already addressed. I don't contribute to most threads, so the favorites function makes a big difference in what I get from the site. In a perfect world everyone would have infinite time to read every thread, but I think it's a lot better to have a mechanism that helps us get a great deal out of the site with a reasonable investment of time. Favorites let me skim a thread in about five to ten minutes and learn a lot, and while I miss a bit that way, I don't think spending half an hour to an hour reading a single thread is worth that much of anyone's time. There's a pretty sharp decline in what you get out of it; the ratio of worthwhile comments to mundane ones is much higher than other sites, but they're still the minority in most threads. Even on a site as good as MeFi people make comments that don't really say much of anything, or repeat the same points over and over, or make terrible arguments, or go off on tangents that don't have a lot to do with the tread. Favorites don't make those posts happen because those posts rarely get favorites. It's just now more people actually have to read those posts.
And then it's even more important in AskMeFi, for reasons people have already covered.
I've already noticed that this has lead to my reading much less on the site. It appears what I do now is skim the first handful of comments like always, then I'll skip down the page once or twice, then give up because I don't have much to look for except for long comments, and those are hit or miss. If anything, I would rather MeFi just have an "up-vote" system that's separate from favorites -- at the very least on AskMeFi, since we get people complaining about everyone giving the same advice -- which I know will never happen because of all the boogeymen associated with it.
I'm not a fan of snarky comments. I don't think snarky comments even get that many favorites unless they're seriously funny. I see people make snarky comments all the time even though no one ever favorites them in particular. I see snarky comments on every site out there even when there isn't an up-vote system -- check the comments on any popular blog. People make snarky comments because that's how they, in particular, interface with the world around them. If they were sucked into space, they would yell snarky comments into the vacuum in hopes that somebody might hear them. Getting favorites for it just makes them feel a little more special about doing what they'd do anyway.
The way I see it so far is this: in the past, I might have had the misfortune of reading one kind of unhelpful comment, which is a snarky comment that, for whatever reason, netted a lot of favorites. Usually those are quite short, and sometimes genuinely funny, so at the very worst I'll have wasted three seconds and come away mildly annoyed, though usually I don't feel much of anything about it. Whether or not favorites are responsible for that kind of comment is dubious, as well. Without the favorites function, though, I'm consigned to reading every possible type of unhelpful comment, ranging from lame jokes to not topical to repetitive to nonsensical to insane and combative. AND after wading through that "thread fatigue" kicks in, so I miss out on whatever good stuff people might say later because I just can't invest that kind of time; I already spend an hour or two a day on MeFi and it's just unreasonable to expect anyone to spend even more than that.
posted by Nattie at 6:16 AM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
I'd like to add: MetaFilter isn't awesome because it lacks an up-vote system, it's awesome because it has good moderation. People have already been using favorites as an unofficial upvote system anyway. I'm confident MeFi would be just as good even if it had an official upvote system, though I realize this will never happen because everyone wails at the mention of it.
posted by Nattie at 6:19 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Nattie at 6:19 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
DO NOT FAVED.
posted by milarepa at 6:20 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by milarepa at 6:20 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Argh, I really need to go, but one more general observation I want to make:
Entirely apart from the argument about which side is better, I think it's interesting to notice that this was probably precisely the moment when people would be least likely to appreciate this feature/bug. I have a feeling our meshing with the favorites model has really only finally solidified in the last six months to a year.
I say that because, as someone else noted above, there are fewer loud-mouthed jerks around than there used to be. I started thinking about this, and it occurred to me: I think there's been a big change in general in the way the site works as a result of favorites on that count, a change that has some bad things and some good things about it.
I may believe that favorites are a drawback overall, but it would be silly to claim that before the favoriting system everybody read every word in every thread they participated in. Before we had favorites, I have a feeling that the common system most of us Mefi-heads used was a sort of personality-based system: we'd scan threads looking for usernames we knew, and we'd take their comments as guideposts to the conversation.
I think that lead to one thing in particular: strong personalities, and a lot of people who tried hard to stand out. In fact, I think it might be rational to say that the notion that favorites have encouraged loudmouths is backwards, and that it was the favorite-free system and holdovers from those times that did this more predominantly. I know that we're dealing with a lot more users now, so there may be more loudmouths than there were before; but now those loudmouths don't have the pride of place they used to have as 'users people listened to.' It's probably a little cruel for me to call these people 'loudmouths,' and anyone who was around here before the sea-change I'm talking about will have some affection for those people. Dios; Ethereal Bligh; amberglow; hell, I probably only need to mention fish in pants for some of us to get a little weepy and start singing Mathowie's Community Blog.
Now, when I think about it, that Metafilter was a lot different from this one. Those people were all people I knew; they were my friends. If there was a post about gay rights, I knew amberglow would be there, and that he'd have interesting takes on it. EB could be counted on to make a long (and usually very intriguing) comment in any philosophy thread. I could count on their comments as guideposts, so going into a thread I knew what to look for: my friends, who already might have already noted an interesting thing about the post or otherwise established the direction it would take.
This system had obvious drawbacks. I say "my friends" and it sounds very warm and fuzzy; but the point is that it all was a bit clubbish and sometimes a bit too insider-oriented. I think we handled it pretty well on that front, but as I said about the system did encourage people to 'flame out' (anybody notice that flaming out doesn't really happen any more?) or to be otherwise very loud and often cruel. To be blunt, I think there was a lot more drama and a lot more personal bullshit and 'you are my enemy' and actual infighting in the old Metafilter.
So far as I can tell a rather larger migration started about a year ago. Most of the really strong personalities left the site through the "close your account" rabbit-hole. Before that time, of course there was still a strong resistance to favorites; when your method of 'filtering' threads is based on knowing personalities in it, of course you'll object to a more randomly democratic system. Suddenly, with favorites, a guy who's never posted a thing here can make the most important comment in a thread, and everybody will know it. The personalities don't have pride of place. And of course to people who are loudmouths (I am staring at my shoes here, believe me) a system where there's any metric beyond flashy personality will seem like it has flaws; to us, of course, it seems like what people really liked and recognized about us was our awesome commenting, and we didn't like a system where anybody could just walk in without having put in the time and get popular right away.
Of course, it's possible that this will be a good change – the pendulum swinging in the other direction, the parties switching back and forth every election, et cetera. And anyway this community is big enough already that I don't really think it could support the personality-based system anymore. But of course it's just as likely that by instituting favorites we've finally shrugged off something that was holding us back, and that we really should stick to the favorites system as it was twelve hours ago; I don't know.
posted by koeselitz at 6:21 AM on November 1, 2009 [13 favorites]
Entirely apart from the argument about which side is better, I think it's interesting to notice that this was probably precisely the moment when people would be least likely to appreciate this feature/bug. I have a feeling our meshing with the favorites model has really only finally solidified in the last six months to a year.
I say that because, as someone else noted above, there are fewer loud-mouthed jerks around than there used to be. I started thinking about this, and it occurred to me: I think there's been a big change in general in the way the site works as a result of favorites on that count, a change that has some bad things and some good things about it.
I may believe that favorites are a drawback overall, but it would be silly to claim that before the favoriting system everybody read every word in every thread they participated in. Before we had favorites, I have a feeling that the common system most of us Mefi-heads used was a sort of personality-based system: we'd scan threads looking for usernames we knew, and we'd take their comments as guideposts to the conversation.
I think that lead to one thing in particular: strong personalities, and a lot of people who tried hard to stand out. In fact, I think it might be rational to say that the notion that favorites have encouraged loudmouths is backwards, and that it was the favorite-free system and holdovers from those times that did this more predominantly. I know that we're dealing with a lot more users now, so there may be more loudmouths than there were before; but now those loudmouths don't have the pride of place they used to have as 'users people listened to.' It's probably a little cruel for me to call these people 'loudmouths,' and anyone who was around here before the sea-change I'm talking about will have some affection for those people. Dios; Ethereal Bligh; amberglow; hell, I probably only need to mention fish in pants for some of us to get a little weepy and start singing Mathowie's Community Blog.
Now, when I think about it, that Metafilter was a lot different from this one. Those people were all people I knew; they were my friends. If there was a post about gay rights, I knew amberglow would be there, and that he'd have interesting takes on it. EB could be counted on to make a long (and usually very intriguing) comment in any philosophy thread. I could count on their comments as guideposts, so going into a thread I knew what to look for: my friends, who already might have already noted an interesting thing about the post or otherwise established the direction it would take.
This system had obvious drawbacks. I say "my friends" and it sounds very warm and fuzzy; but the point is that it all was a bit clubbish and sometimes a bit too insider-oriented. I think we handled it pretty well on that front, but as I said about the system did encourage people to 'flame out' (anybody notice that flaming out doesn't really happen any more?) or to be otherwise very loud and often cruel. To be blunt, I think there was a lot more drama and a lot more personal bullshit and 'you are my enemy' and actual infighting in the old Metafilter.
So far as I can tell a rather larger migration started about a year ago. Most of the really strong personalities left the site through the "close your account" rabbit-hole. Before that time, of course there was still a strong resistance to favorites; when your method of 'filtering' threads is based on knowing personalities in it, of course you'll object to a more randomly democratic system. Suddenly, with favorites, a guy who's never posted a thing here can make the most important comment in a thread, and everybody will know it. The personalities don't have pride of place. And of course to people who are loudmouths (I am staring at my shoes here, believe me) a system where there's any metric beyond flashy personality will seem like it has flaws; to us, of course, it seems like what people really liked and recognized about us was our awesome commenting, and we didn't like a system where anybody could just walk in without having put in the time and get popular right away.
Of course, it's possible that this will be a good change – the pendulum swinging in the other direction, the parties switching back and forth every election, et cetera. And anyway this community is big enough already that I don't really think it could support the personality-based system anymore. But of course it's just as likely that by instituting favorites we've finally shrugged off something that was holding us back, and that we really should stick to the favorites system as it was twelve hours ago; I don't know.
posted by koeselitz at 6:21 AM on November 1, 2009 [13 favorites]
There are just too many comments to read on most threads.
It's a feature, not a bug. I'm totally with koeselitz in feeling that you should actually read the whole thread before commenting. If you want to skim and favorites help you do that, that's totally awesome, but if you're skimming... and then you add a comment... if it's a 100+ comment thread, there's a real significant chance that someone's already said that, which you won't see because you're skimming. I have no objection to skimming, but favorites really do encourage the "TL;DR - here's my 2c!" comments which add a lot of noise to lengthy threads.
You are not required to comment if you read a thread! You can read it without commenting! And you will be fine!
Anyhow. For me, this doesn't impact the way I read the site, though it does kind of look odd that there are just blocks of comments noted as "faved" without any kind of differentiation. By Tuesday, I'll be used to that.
I will say though that the "faved" notation was totally confusing to me at first. The first thing I check on the site is my own Recent Activity page, and the first thing I noticed was a comment marked "faved" which to me implied that I personally had favorited it, which was impossible because I was asleep when it was posted. I was totally, totally confused by what the shit had happened there. And now it's been explained. But yeah, really confusing for a few minutes.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:21 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
It's a feature, not a bug. I'm totally with koeselitz in feeling that you should actually read the whole thread before commenting. If you want to skim and favorites help you do that, that's totally awesome, but if you're skimming... and then you add a comment... if it's a 100+ comment thread, there's a real significant chance that someone's already said that, which you won't see because you're skimming. I have no objection to skimming, but favorites really do encourage the "TL;DR - here's my 2c!" comments which add a lot of noise to lengthy threads.
You are not required to comment if you read a thread! You can read it without commenting! And you will be fine!
Anyhow. For me, this doesn't impact the way I read the site, though it does kind of look odd that there are just blocks of comments noted as "faved" without any kind of differentiation. By Tuesday, I'll be used to that.
I will say though that the "faved" notation was totally confusing to me at first. The first thing I check on the site is my own Recent Activity page, and the first thing I noticed was a comment marked "faved" which to me implied that I personally had favorited it, which was impossible because I was asleep when it was posted. I was totally, totally confused by what the shit had happened there. And now it's been explained. But yeah, really confusing for a few minutes.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:21 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
this is an incredibly shitty change and the mods should be punished.
Trust me, we have been.
I'm sorry so many people think this is going to make the site over-the-top irritable to them for the entire month of November. We've really felt for a long time that we'd been getting many suggestions to "do something about favorites" and we'd said "yeah yeah" and sort of not been able to think of what. Now we're in the awkward position like mathowie says above, of feeling slightly trapped in the UI that we have because any change makes people wish punishment on us [and yes I'm aware the exception is far from the rule].
I'm okay if people are saying they don't like this, and saying why, and offering suggestions. I'm totally fine with the workarounds people have created. What I'm not okay with is the idea that somehow this becomes less of a community because people are so irritable over a word [sorry about faved, we literally could not think of something better in the week that we were having this discussion] or a test of something that they're drawing lines in the sand and being pretty GRAR about this. I'm aware that this is somewhat easy for me to say, knowing this was coming and having a bit of a say in how it went. I know for everyone there are relationship dealbreakers and I'm hoping for people here this isn't one of them.
I don't know if it helps at all to realize that if this is something you feel this strongly about, there are probably other people on the site who feel equally strongly in exactly the opposite direction. This is their site too and we'd really like to find a way to have features that don't make anyone feel the site is being destroyed.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:22 AM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
Trust me, we have been.
I'm sorry so many people think this is going to make the site over-the-top irritable to them for the entire month of November. We've really felt for a long time that we'd been getting many suggestions to "do something about favorites" and we'd said "yeah yeah" and sort of not been able to think of what. Now we're in the awkward position like mathowie says above, of feeling slightly trapped in the UI that we have because any change makes people wish punishment on us [and yes I'm aware the exception is far from the rule].
I'm okay if people are saying they don't like this, and saying why, and offering suggestions. I'm totally fine with the workarounds people have created. What I'm not okay with is the idea that somehow this becomes less of a community because people are so irritable over a word [sorry about faved, we literally could not think of something better in the week that we were having this discussion] or a test of something that they're drawing lines in the sand and being pretty GRAR about this. I'm aware that this is somewhat easy for me to say, knowing this was coming and having a bit of a say in how it went. I know for everyone there are relationship dealbreakers and I'm hoping for people here this isn't one of them.
I don't know if it helps at all to realize that if this is something you feel this strongly about, there are probably other people on the site who feel equally strongly in exactly the opposite direction. This is their site too and we'd really like to find a way to have features that don't make anyone feel the site is being destroyed.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:22 AM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
Phew. You know that weird feeling when you finally uncover the hidden motivations and subconscious undercurrents that were leading you to argue something that you thought was obvious? Yeah, I'm having that feeling right now.
posted by koeselitz at 6:23 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by koeselitz at 6:23 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
koeselitz: Try giving a rational justification that amounts to something more than "I can't stand change!" – because I've hardly seen any yet.
koeselitz:The point that I'm arguing, the theory that I have, is that this and other threads are fully of general, mediocre comments largely because of the favoriting system. When you skim via favorites, you tend merely to get a general gist of the conversation; and when everybody does that, then all of the comments turn out to be general and sort of distant and never build off of what other people have said.
Ok, I'll give it shot. I've used the new favoriting system all of 1 day and do not like it. I believe the traditional numbering system does have a greater value. The reason I like the original system is a combination of usability and efficiency. For me I use the numbered favoriting system in different ways depending on what time it is, what mood I'm in, how much time I have to devote to Mefi, etc.
I take issue with your contention that threads are full of mediocre comments *because* of the favoriting system. It seems to me you're making a huge assumption about the way people use the forum. No doubt some people skip from favorite to favorite and post based on this. However, my personal model is different. Some threads I simply want to skim the favorites. Why? Because I don't have a lot of time and my goal is to read something that is interesting. It's almost like there's oh I don't know . . .a filter for popular favorites.
Sometimes, I see these popular favorites as a jumping off point. If a "popular" comment makes me want to respond, I will often go back and read the whole thread and give myself a broader context. Sometimes I ignore the popular comment thing altogether.
So, coming back to the new experimental model, seeing that a comment is faved requires me to click on it to see how many people tagged it. What a pain. Might as well abolish favorites altogether in this case. I *like* the context, usability and efficiency of the numbered favorites and I take the "popularity" of these with a grain of salt. I think your assumption that people use numbered favorites to bypass "regular" comments is overly simplistic.
posted by jeremias at 6:25 AM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
koeselitz:The point that I'm arguing, the theory that I have, is that this and other threads are fully of general, mediocre comments largely because of the favoriting system. When you skim via favorites, you tend merely to get a general gist of the conversation; and when everybody does that, then all of the comments turn out to be general and sort of distant and never build off of what other people have said.
Ok, I'll give it shot. I've used the new favoriting system all of 1 day and do not like it. I believe the traditional numbering system does have a greater value. The reason I like the original system is a combination of usability and efficiency. For me I use the numbered favoriting system in different ways depending on what time it is, what mood I'm in, how much time I have to devote to Mefi, etc.
I take issue with your contention that threads are full of mediocre comments *because* of the favoriting system. It seems to me you're making a huge assumption about the way people use the forum. No doubt some people skip from favorite to favorite and post based on this. However, my personal model is different. Some threads I simply want to skim the favorites. Why? Because I don't have a lot of time and my goal is to read something that is interesting. It's almost like there's oh I don't know . . .a filter for popular favorites.
Sometimes, I see these popular favorites as a jumping off point. If a "popular" comment makes me want to respond, I will often go back and read the whole thread and give myself a broader context. Sometimes I ignore the popular comment thing altogether.
So, coming back to the new experimental model, seeing that a comment is faved requires me to click on it to see how many people tagged it. What a pain. Might as well abolish favorites altogether in this case. I *like* the context, usability and efficiency of the numbered favorites and I take the "popularity" of these with a grain of salt. I think your assumption that people use numbered favorites to bypass "regular" comments is overly simplistic.
posted by jeremias at 6:25 AM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
So here I am toodling along reading responses (with my trusty Greasemonkey script in tow) when I see a comment I like. I click the plus sign and SUDDENLY:
majick: "The rationale for not having an upvote system is thus: Digg, Slashdot, And Kuro5hin all suck donkey ass. This is fact. This is concrete. One of the reasons they do is the voting system which acts as a force multiplier for echo chambering, groupthink, grandstanding, and pandering. Imitating them means making what has for a great many years been a good site more similar to shitty sites."
I'm not familiar with Kuro5hin, but it's my understanding that Digg and Slashdot have an upvote/downvote system that actively hides content the community dislikes. Metafilter's favorites are nothing like that -- they're a simple overlay on top of the existing commentary. It's similar in a way to the Google Earth Community layer in Google Earth, which lets users leave descriptive placemarks identifying points of interest. Any one placemark may highlight something silly or non-notable, but places where hundreds cluster in a small area are guaranteed to be interesting. And, like favorites, the placemarks don't negate or alter any of the map's content, they merely supplement it and aid in its navigation. And if you find them distracting you can always turn the layer off.
(And at risk of belaboring the metaphor, this experiment is akin to hiding the placemarks and instead highlighting every city-block-sized space that contains them, regardless of density. The result would be an undifferentiated yellow coating across half the world, and my old kindergarten which I marked would be just as emphasized as Times Square or the Colosseum.)
Anyway, if the system allowed you to filter out unfavorited stuff automatically, that would be crappy and would detract from the site. But that's not what's going on.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:25 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
... [faved -] Favorite added! [!]MY EYES
majick: "The rationale for not having an upvote system is thus: Digg, Slashdot, And Kuro5hin all suck donkey ass. This is fact. This is concrete. One of the reasons they do is the voting system which acts as a force multiplier for echo chambering, groupthink, grandstanding, and pandering. Imitating them means making what has for a great many years been a good site more similar to shitty sites."
I'm not familiar with Kuro5hin, but it's my understanding that Digg and Slashdot have an upvote/downvote system that actively hides content the community dislikes. Metafilter's favorites are nothing like that -- they're a simple overlay on top of the existing commentary. It's similar in a way to the Google Earth Community layer in Google Earth, which lets users leave descriptive placemarks identifying points of interest. Any one placemark may highlight something silly or non-notable, but places where hundreds cluster in a small area are guaranteed to be interesting. And, like favorites, the placemarks don't negate or alter any of the map's content, they merely supplement it and aid in its navigation. And if you find them distracting you can always turn the layer off.
(And at risk of belaboring the metaphor, this experiment is akin to hiding the placemarks and instead highlighting every city-block-sized space that contains them, regardless of density. The result would be an undifferentiated yellow coating across half the world, and my old kindergarten which I marked would be just as emphasized as Times Square or the Colosseum.)
Anyway, if the system allowed you to filter out unfavorited stuff automatically, that would be crappy and would detract from the site. But that's not what's going on.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:25 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
they're drawing lines in the sand and being pretty GRAR about this
I think that you are hearing such intense GRAR and push-back on this because (to your surprise, as you said last night) it turns out that a lot of people use the old-style favorites counts as a fairly significant part of their reading experience.
That wasn't a big part of previous discussions about favorites, because they focused on different aspects of the issue. However, by taking away the favorite counts, it became immediately apparent how useful (to some people) those counts were.
So yeah, count me in on, if not GRAR exactly, some strong criticism of "this was neither thought through very well or presented very well, and I don't like the flattening of information."
posted by Forktine at 6:29 AM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
I think that you are hearing such intense GRAR and push-back on this because (to your surprise, as you said last night) it turns out that a lot of people use the old-style favorites counts as a fairly significant part of their reading experience.
That wasn't a big part of previous discussions about favorites, because they focused on different aspects of the issue. However, by taking away the favorite counts, it became immediately apparent how useful (to some people) those counts were.
So yeah, count me in on, if not GRAR exactly, some strong criticism of "this was neither thought through very well or presented very well, and I don't like the flattening of information."
posted by Forktine at 6:29 AM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
me: To be blunt, I think there was a lot more drama and a lot more personal bullshit and 'you are my enemy' and actual infighting in the old Metafilter.
jessamyn: I'm okay if people are saying they don't like this, and saying why, and offering suggestions. I'm totally fine with the workarounds people have created. What I'm not okay with is the idea that somehow this becomes less of a community because people are so irritable over a word or a test of something that they're drawing lines in the sand and being pretty GRAR about this.
And lest I forget, the new Metafilter has its drawbacks, too. The old Metafilter could get personal, cliquish, and loud; the new Metafilter is more characterized by huge pile-ons and casual, impersonal insults.
posted by koeselitz at 6:29 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
jessamyn: I'm okay if people are saying they don't like this, and saying why, and offering suggestions. I'm totally fine with the workarounds people have created. What I'm not okay with is the idea that somehow this becomes less of a community because people are so irritable over a word or a test of something that they're drawing lines in the sand and being pretty GRAR about this.
And lest I forget, the new Metafilter has its drawbacks, too. The old Metafilter could get personal, cliquish, and loud; the new Metafilter is more characterized by huge pile-ons and casual, impersonal insults.
posted by koeselitz at 6:29 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Hmm, having experienced [faved +] for the first time, it has had one noticeable change on my behaviour. I'm aware this is early days in the experiment, but I suspect this is going to make me click onto the "x users marked this as a favorite" page a hell of a lot more often.
"Oh look, it's been 'faved', I wonder who 'faved' it."
*click*
posted by knapah at 6:31 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
"Oh look, it's been 'faved', I wonder who 'faved' it."
*click*
posted by knapah at 6:31 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
majick: "The rationale for not having an upvote system is thus: Digg, Slashdot, And Kuro5hin all suck donkey ass. This is fact. This is concrete. One of the reasons they do is the voting system which acts as a force multiplier for echo chambering, groupthink, grandstanding, and pandering. Imitating them means making what has for a great many years been a good site more similar to shitty sites."
I would like to disagree. The moderation system (on Slashdot at least, I'm not familiar enough with the other sites) serves the purpose of filtering out noise / unhelpful comments and making useful comments more visible - at least, if it's used correctly. This is an important feature on sites where the number of commenters is too large to keep track of, so you can't judge their knowledge on a certain topic for yourself; in the case of Slashdot you will often find an "invisible" post followed by several highly visible ones pointing out errors using cites and links supporting their position.
Another thing you dislike is the "groupthink", something which is often used to ascribe a certain bias to a website; I would argue that making this bias visible through supporting a comment with favorites / upvotes is a Good Thing™. Why? Because, to be honest, the old adage about Arguing on the Internet being like Winning the Special Olympics is true. I don't want to go to a site that is clearly hostile to my opinions and argue my position in front of an audience that is clearly not interested.
Favorites are a good way of seeing how popular an opinion is, and seeing controversial opinions similarly favorited means a website allows for discussion and a certain amount of diversity.
posted by PontifexPrimus at 6:33 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I would like to disagree. The moderation system (on Slashdot at least, I'm not familiar enough with the other sites) serves the purpose of filtering out noise / unhelpful comments and making useful comments more visible - at least, if it's used correctly. This is an important feature on sites where the number of commenters is too large to keep track of, so you can't judge their knowledge on a certain topic for yourself; in the case of Slashdot you will often find an "invisible" post followed by several highly visible ones pointing out errors using cites and links supporting their position.
Another thing you dislike is the "groupthink", something which is often used to ascribe a certain bias to a website; I would argue that making this bias visible through supporting a comment with favorites / upvotes is a Good Thing™. Why? Because, to be honest, the old adage about Arguing on the Internet being like Winning the Special Olympics is true. I don't want to go to a site that is clearly hostile to my opinions and argue my position in front of an audience that is clearly not interested.
Favorites are a good way of seeing how popular an opinion is, and seeing controversial opinions similarly favorited means a website allows for discussion and a certain amount of diversity.
posted by PontifexPrimus at 6:33 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm not familiar with Kuro5hin, but it's my understanding that Digg and Slashdot have an upvote/downvote system that actively hides content the community dislikes. Metafilter's favorites are nothing like that -- they're a simple overlay on top of the existing commentary.
This, exactly! Whenever I've wished for MeFi to have an up-vote system, it would be pretty much how favorites are used by a lot of people right now: you can vote something up, so to speak, but not down. I've never liked the idea of "burying" any comment like some of the voting systems do.
posted by Nattie at 6:34 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
This, exactly! Whenever I've wished for MeFi to have an up-vote system, it would be pretty much how favorites are used by a lot of people right now: you can vote something up, so to speak, but not down. I've never liked the idea of "burying" any comment like some of the voting systems do.
posted by Nattie at 6:34 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Rhaomi: And at risk of belaboring the metaphor, this experiment is akin to hiding the placemarks and instead highlighting every city-block-sized space that contains them...
Yeah. I think what's interesting about it, and about the direction Metafilter's going in in general, is the fact that over the last year or so favorites have become the most important placemark to the most vocal segment of Mefites. There used to be other systems of placemarks. Regardless of the relative worth of those placemarks, there were a lot of people who lobbied hard to keep them and to resist favorites as a filtering mechanism. Most of those people are either gone or have gotten used to the new system.
That's interesting, is all.
posted by koeselitz at 6:34 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah. I think what's interesting about it, and about the direction Metafilter's going in in general, is the fact that over the last year or so favorites have become the most important placemark to the most vocal segment of Mefites. There used to be other systems of placemarks. Regardless of the relative worth of those placemarks, there were a lot of people who lobbied hard to keep them and to resist favorites as a filtering mechanism. Most of those people are either gone or have gotten used to the new system.
That's interesting, is all.
posted by koeselitz at 6:34 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Heh, 5 seconds after I hit Post, it hit me that I was gonna get spanked about [action verb].
I think of the current "flagged" message as "you have flagged this comment" since it's a message only available to me while logged in, if I have actually flagged a comment.
The only indicator that I've saved/not saved a comment is the +/- sign. That didn't bother me when is was next to "32 favorites". But seeing it next to "faved" is just counter-intuitive and ambiguous: I haven't "faved" anything and sans number it's not immediately clear that 32 of y'all have.
And I'll note also that the old "32 favorites" byline still appears on user's activity pages, which also seems a bit inconsistent.
posted by romakimmy at 6:34 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think of the current "flagged" message as "you have flagged this comment" since it's a message only available to me while logged in, if I have actually flagged a comment.
The only indicator that I've saved/not saved a comment is the +/- sign. That didn't bother me when is was next to "32 favorites". But seeing it next to "faved" is just counter-intuitive and ambiguous: I haven't "faved" anything and sans number it's not immediately clear that 32 of y'all have.
And I'll note also that the old "32 favorites" byline still appears on user's activity pages, which also seems a bit inconsistent.
posted by romakimmy at 6:34 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
As another perspective, I usually read everything in an interesting thread, top to bottom. I use the favorites count to get a gauge of how other people think or feel about a given topic or idea, and more people are likely to hit the "+" than post their own reply. Most folks are lurkers, it's just the way it is, and favorites counts let me know how the someone who doesn't have the inclination to otherwise participate feels about something under discussion. This is a very useful and democratizing feature. I know a few people who don't post, because they feel they don't write well enough, or have ideas good enough to share... this usually isn't so, but it's how they feel.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:36 AM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:36 AM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
I'm a little surprised (but not hugely so; this is MeTa) by the vehemence in reaction to this short-term experiment. As someone who rarely posts (despite my recent upspate) and has never put as much emphasis on favorites as some of the busier members of the site, this really hasn't impacted me much in the short period of time it has been active. It's fascinating to me that there are so many skimmers - far more than I expected based on the "I haven't read this thread, but here are my two cents anyway" posts I've seen (not saying all skimmers do this!). Of course, I abandon a lot of threads half through due to boredom, dissolution into fighty strawmen, because there's a new wave of comments that have the same arguments held in the first 50 comments or because there's too much noise.
I guess that what I'm saying is that there are (some? a few? a boatload?) of us for whom favorites aren't as big a signifier on our radar, and the presence or absence of a number of favorites is less central to our use of the site. It's hard to identify the number of us because we aren't experiencing much pain over the experiment. I will be interested to see how this changes the discourse in ways that do affect me - will we see more "tl;dr; here's what the right answer/comment is anyway"? or more notations in the text that someone has favorited someone else's comment beyond "I wish I could favorite X's comment a thousand times, it is that good." ?
I would prefer noted or marked over faved because faved has a positive functionality that isn't always accurate and which is a more concentrated positive (it is lighter and breezier) than even favorite . I couldn't bring myself to 'favorite' recent stunning posts in the Whatcha Reading thread because I couldn't bring myself to add any approbation to rape and sexual assault, no matter the bravery and fabulosity of the people telling their stories and how glad I am they survived.
posted by julen at 6:39 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I guess that what I'm saying is that there are (some? a few? a boatload?) of us for whom favorites aren't as big a signifier on our radar, and the presence or absence of a number of favorites is less central to our use of the site. It's hard to identify the number of us because we aren't experiencing much pain over the experiment. I will be interested to see how this changes the discourse in ways that do affect me - will we see more "tl;dr; here's what the right answer/comment is anyway"? or more notations in the text that someone has favorited someone else's comment beyond "I wish I could favorite X's comment a thousand times, it is that good." ?
I would prefer noted or marked over faved because faved has a positive functionality that isn't always accurate and which is a more concentrated positive (it is lighter and breezier) than even favorite . I couldn't bring myself to 'favorite' recent stunning posts in the Whatcha Reading thread because I couldn't bring myself to add any approbation to rape and sexual assault, no matter the bravery and fabulosity of the people telling their stories and how glad I am they survived.
posted by julen at 6:39 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
One wonders how some of you people ever survived the horror of reading this site for the many years preceding the favorites system. Seriously, it's a month, during which you can alter the stylesheet as explained above, also during which I'm sure the mods will continue to get pounded to death, leading inevitably to things going back to the way it was.
posted by middleclasstool at 6:46 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by middleclasstool at 6:46 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
The rationale for not having an upvote system is thus: Digg, Slashdot, And Kuro5hin all suck donkey ass. This is fact.
I'm not sure that you're clear on the meaning of the word 'fact'.
posted by empath at 6:46 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
I'm not sure that you're clear on the meaning of the word 'fact'.
posted by empath at 6:46 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Forktine: I think that you are hearing such intense GRAR and push-back on this because (to your surprise, as you said last night) it turns out that a lot of people use the old-style favorites counts as a fairly significant part of their reading experience.
With respect, that's simply not true. To take only one dimension of this debate: search back through this thread and take a gander at what people have said about the word "faved." The mods have been told that they're twelve years old, that it's fucking stupid, that they sound like teenagers, the whole bit. And that's not to say that they can't take criticism; but none of that counted as very good criticism at all. "I think that's not a very elegant way to put it" would be criticism. "What are we - twelve years old?" That's an insult. I'm sorry. It's talking down to something.
And above and beyond the vast faves kerfuffle, in this thread the mods have been told that they should be punished, they they dropped the ball, that this was "badly implemented" and "fumbled," that their decisions are "shitty" and stupid and childish and more that I don't really want to peruse any more. Seriously, I'm surprised you don't see this, Forktine. Read back through from the perspective of the mods, who put a lot of their time into this site, and ask yourself it it's not out of line.
posted by koeselitz at 6:46 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
With respect, that's simply not true. To take only one dimension of this debate: search back through this thread and take a gander at what people have said about the word "faved." The mods have been told that they're twelve years old, that it's fucking stupid, that they sound like teenagers, the whole bit. And that's not to say that they can't take criticism; but none of that counted as very good criticism at all. "I think that's not a very elegant way to put it" would be criticism. "What are we - twelve years old?" That's an insult. I'm sorry. It's talking down to something.
And above and beyond the vast faves kerfuffle, in this thread the mods have been told that they should be punished, they they dropped the ball, that this was "badly implemented" and "fumbled," that their decisions are "shitty" and stupid and childish and more that I don't really want to peruse any more. Seriously, I'm surprised you don't see this, Forktine. Read back through from the perspective of the mods, who put a lot of their time into this site, and ask yourself it it's not out of line.
posted by koeselitz at 6:46 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yeah, so I came to MeTa to kindly ask WTF and request my favorites back, but I found this thread. I'm not a fan and am opting out with greasemonkey, but here's why:
A) I wasn't aware of the change, and on first view "faved" made me think I had favorited the comment. I agree with the 'this word sucks' people, but my problem is that it screws with the consistency of the UI. As mentioned above, if I flag something, the post says "flagged".
B) Also on the consistency point, I can still see how many favorites a post has. Why?
C) If favorites are so bad for metafilter, why not take the experiment all the way and remove any notification that comments have been faved by others? (Note: I strongly do not want this, but if you're running a favespiriment, why not go whole hog?)
D) That's right, favespiriment.
I know I'm a horrible person for not reading every comment, but there are 400 comments in this thread, and I don't have all damn day to sit reading. Ordinarily, I read highly favorited comments and skim through the rest. The change forces me to just skim the entire thread, which means I probably missed a few comments articulating my points in much finer language and with more panache.
posted by graventy at 6:48 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
A) I wasn't aware of the change, and on first view "faved" made me think I had favorited the comment. I agree with the 'this word sucks' people, but my problem is that it screws with the consistency of the UI. As mentioned above, if I flag something, the post says "flagged".
B) Also on the consistency point, I can still see how many favorites a post has. Why?
C) If favorites are so bad for metafilter, why not take the experiment all the way and remove any notification that comments have been faved by others? (Note: I strongly do not want this, but if you're running a favespiriment, why not go whole hog?)
D) That's right, favespiriment.
I know I'm a horrible person for not reading every comment, but there are 400 comments in this thread, and I don't have all damn day to sit reading. Ordinarily, I read highly favorited comments and skim through the rest. The change forces me to just skim the entire thread, which means I probably missed a few comments articulating my points in much finer language and with more panache.
posted by graventy at 6:48 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
t's fascinating to me that there are so many skimmers - far more than I expected based on the "I haven't read this thread, but here are my two cents anyway" posts I've seen (not saying all skimmers do this!).
Not everybody posts in every thread. There are lots of posts I'm mildly interested in, but have tons of comments, so I skim the comments thread to figure out why. That's when the favorite number becomes really useful.
Oh, and btw, just for kicks, I 'faved' every non-faved comment in this thread (until i ran out of favorites for today), just to see what impact that has on readability in a long thread like this... and it sucks, tbh.
posted by empath at 6:49 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Not everybody posts in every thread. There are lots of posts I'm mildly interested in, but have tons of comments, so I skim the comments thread to figure out why. That's when the favorite number becomes really useful.
Oh, and btw, just for kicks, I 'faved' every non-faved comment in this thread (until i ran out of favorites for today), just to see what impact that has on readability in a long thread like this... and it sucks, tbh.
posted by empath at 6:49 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
And frankly, Forktine, this is actually another very good example of what's changed at Metafilter. A year ago, if anyone had come in here and said anything even vaguely as extreme as bunnytricks' comment, they would have verbally gotten the shit beaten out of them regardless of whether they were actually right about their complaint. There was a posse of people ready to pour layers of hate on anybody who threatened one of their kind. This is the era of pile-ons.
posted by koeselitz at 6:50 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by koeselitz at 6:50 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I prefer not to complain about site changes (here or elsewhere) as such changes are generally for the overarching good of the site, and I try not to be resistant to change.
However, Favourites has just gone from a really useful feature (a way to skim overly long threads for noteworthy comments, and a way to signal agreement in AskMe without adding a redundant comment of my own) to a piece of junk on the page I now have to try to ignore.
posted by hot soup girl at 6:50 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
However, Favourites has just gone from a really useful feature (a way to skim overly long threads for noteworthy comments, and a way to signal agreement in AskMe without adding a redundant comment of my own) to a piece of junk on the page I now have to try to ignore.
posted by hot soup girl at 6:50 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
empath: Oh, and btw, just for kicks, I 'faved' every non-faved comment in this thread (until i ran out of favorites for today), just to see what impact that has on readability in a long thread like this... and it sucks, tbh.
Why do people think that's okay?
posted by koeselitz at 6:51 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Why do people think that's okay?
posted by koeselitz at 6:51 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Can we have another experiment in December? Retain the favouriting system, but keep it private. Is there any benefit at all in seeing 'faved' (or any other word) at the end of a comment if there is no number alongside it.
When there is a number, it tells me something. Of course some people will disagree about the usefulness or desiredness of what it tells me, but the fact is that I do get some information from it. Without a number it simply becomes meaningless. I don't see the point of publicly displaying it at all.
As Rhaomi pointed out, somewhere up there, lalex clicked many comments in a row presumably as a demonstration of what I am trying to say.
faved
faved
faved
faved
Why show it at all? It doesn't help.
Personally, I don't care if we have [x favorites] or nothing at all, but this limbo state of [faved] provides no useful information to anyone, as far as I can see anyway.
posted by knapah at 6:51 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
When there is a number, it tells me something. Of course some people will disagree about the usefulness or desiredness of what it tells me, but the fact is that I do get some information from it. Without a number it simply becomes meaningless. I don't see the point of publicly displaying it at all.
As Rhaomi pointed out, somewhere up there, lalex clicked many comments in a row presumably as a demonstration of what I am trying to say.
faved
faved
faved
faved
Why show it at all? It doesn't help.
Personally, I don't care if we have [x favorites] or nothing at all, but this limbo state of [faved] provides no useful information to anyone, as far as I can see anyway.
posted by knapah at 6:51 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Can we have an opt-out of this feature if it stays around? It completely changes how I now read and respond to AskMe. I will often not add an answer if I see one that I like - because I know that multiple favorites will get the point across to the poster.
Also - it's how I gauge the usefulness of the answers I get to questions I pose myself. Now I have no way to do that.
posted by meerkatty at 6:52 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Also - it's how I gauge the usefulness of the answers I get to questions I pose myself. Now I have no way to do that.
posted by meerkatty at 6:52 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'm sorry so many people think this is going to make the site over-the-top irritable to them for the entire month of November. We've really felt for a long time that we'd been getting many suggestions to "do something about favorites" and we'd said "yeah yeah" and sort of not been able to think of what.
Of course, for a long time, you've also been getting responses that the site is just fine as it is. I, myself, have posted many comments in support of the favorites system in the past. I haven't done it as much since I believe mathowie said he didn't foresee the system changing, and it was tedious having the same argument over and over again. But by ignoring these comments and focusing on the few that said we need to "do something" (and I think performing the action in question is an example of the Politician's syllogism) you have shown that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. So don't be surprised when lots of other wheels start squeaking in response.
The rationale for not having an upvote system is thus: Digg, Slashdot, And Kuro5hin all suck donkey ass.
Given that this site has had favorites for more than three years, and does not, in my opinion at least, suck donkey ass, that rationale is inapplicable here.
posted by grouse at 6:54 AM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
Of course, for a long time, you've also been getting responses that the site is just fine as it is. I, myself, have posted many comments in support of the favorites system in the past. I haven't done it as much since I believe mathowie said he didn't foresee the system changing, and it was tedious having the same argument over and over again. But by ignoring these comments and focusing on the few that said we need to "do something" (and I think performing the action in question is an example of the Politician's syllogism) you have shown that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. So don't be surprised when lots of other wheels start squeaking in response.
The rationale for not having an upvote system is thus: Digg, Slashdot, And Kuro5hin all suck donkey ass.
Given that this site has had favorites for more than three years, and does not, in my opinion at least, suck donkey ass, that rationale is inapplicable here.
posted by grouse at 6:54 AM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
Why do people think that's okay?
Why do I think that's okay? Because this is a metatalk thread about the new favoriting system, and it seems like a good place to test possible problems with the new favoriting system? Where else would you suggest that I do it?
Also, while that kind of behavior would be obvious and so easily ignored in the old system (oh, someone was favoriting every post in this thread, so I can ignore all the +1s), it wouldn't have been very problematic behavior, but doing it now probably is.
posted by empath at 6:54 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Why do I think that's okay? Because this is a metatalk thread about the new favoriting system, and it seems like a good place to test possible problems with the new favoriting system? Where else would you suggest that I do it?
Also, while that kind of behavior would be obvious and so easily ignored in the old system (oh, someone was favoriting every post in this thread, so I can ignore all the +1s), it wouldn't have been very problematic behavior, but doing it now probably is.
posted by empath at 6:54 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
We think a month is long enough for folks to get more or less used to the change and develop an opinion about whether its a net improvement or not and whether there are any serious unintended consequences, etc. We're going to go ahead and launch it in the next 24 hours, and we're happy to hear feedback and suggestions in this thread now and throughout November.
How exactly are you going to determine whether or no the experiment has "worked?" this is a serious question. Do you have some specific set of criteria that you will be looking at (number of first-comment snarks; number of flags; etc.), or are we just going to have another meg-meta thread in which people voice their opinions? I think it would be useful to identify some assessment criteria from the beginning.
posted by googly at 6:55 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
How exactly are you going to determine whether or no the experiment has "worked?" this is a serious question. Do you have some specific set of criteria that you will be looking at (number of first-comment snarks; number of flags; etc.), or are we just going to have another meg-meta thread in which people voice their opinions? I think it would be useful to identify some assessment criteria from the beginning.
posted by googly at 6:55 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I think shaking things up is a good thing every once in a while, so I'm not opposed to this at all even if it makes me a bit uncomfortable because it's different from what I'm used to.
HOWEVER.
I strongly agree with the people questioning the methodology of this experiment. What is the point of making a change when you haven't really defined what will be used to indicate what the outcome of the experiment is?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for qualitative studies, but qualitative studies are more than "we'll see how it feels/felt when we're done."
In any case, I do really respect you guys and will be interested to see how all of this will turn out.
posted by Kimberly at 6:55 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
HOWEVER.
I strongly agree with the people questioning the methodology of this experiment. What is the point of making a change when you haven't really defined what will be used to indicate what the outcome of the experiment is?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for qualitative studies, but qualitative studies are more than "we'll see how it feels/felt when we're done."
In any case, I do really respect you guys and will be interested to see how all of this will turn out.
posted by Kimberly at 6:55 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I think my initial experience is that this hurts me as a casual reader on the blue.
For me there are three types of posts, ones that are uninteresting, which I simply skip. Then there are the others: somewhat interesting and really up-my-street.
Losing the favourite count seems to hurt my personal experience with the 'somewhat interesting' posts. These are posts that I wouldn't comment upon, but would like to dip my eyes into, having the favourites in there lets me just quickly get a filtered view and feel of the post. Yes-- it might not be a complete and 'honest' view, but I'm not overly interested, I just want my taster-- my entertainment. On the up-my-street posts, I'm fine with it, I'd read it top to tail anyway.
I guess it depends on the goal of the blue, but it would be nice to find a way to address the casual experience, which must be how the majority of users use the blue. For the rest of the site I think it'll be a win though-- it'll be interesting to see how the little quips in metatalk vary.
On preview, empath-- what you (and another user earlier did) by favouriting all the comments, isn't a good example of how it'll work-- because most posts don't have a favourite on every post. You're just vandalizing for the sake of it, and I think that the admins could quite easily write a piece of code that wipes your graffiti away quite easily.
posted by Static Vagabond at 6:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
For me there are three types of posts, ones that are uninteresting, which I simply skip. Then there are the others: somewhat interesting and really up-my-street.
Losing the favourite count seems to hurt my personal experience with the 'somewhat interesting' posts. These are posts that I wouldn't comment upon, but would like to dip my eyes into, having the favourites in there lets me just quickly get a filtered view and feel of the post. Yes-- it might not be a complete and 'honest' view, but I'm not overly interested, I just want my taster-- my entertainment. On the up-my-street posts, I'm fine with it, I'd read it top to tail anyway.
I guess it depends on the goal of the blue, but it would be nice to find a way to address the casual experience, which must be how the majority of users use the blue. For the rest of the site I think it'll be a win though-- it'll be interesting to see how the little quips in metatalk vary.
On preview, empath-- what you (and another user earlier did) by favouriting all the comments, isn't a good example of how it'll work-- because most posts don't have a favourite on every post. You're just vandalizing for the sake of it, and I think that the admins could quite easily write a piece of code that wipes your graffiti away quite easily.
posted by Static Vagabond at 6:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
and empath did it too I see.
posted by knapah at 6:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by knapah at 6:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
grouse: "So don't be surprised when lots of other wheels start squeaking in response."
BRING BACK TRAVEL!
posted by graventy at 6:58 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
BRING BACK TRAVEL!
posted by graventy at 6:58 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
And above and beyond the vast faves kerfuffle, in this thread the mods have been told that they should be punished, they they dropped the ball, that this was "badly implemented" and "fumbled," that their decisions are "shitty" and stupid and childish and more that I don't really want to peruse any more. Seriously, I'm surprised you don't see this, Forktine. Read back through from the perspective of the mods, who put a lot of their time into this site, and ask yourself it it's not out of line.
I certainly draw the line at saying anyone should be "punished" -- when you think about the great joys that must be a part of moderating, say, this very thread, surely being a moderator is its own punishment; and ultimately, if you really think that messing with the functionality of a website warrants anything harsher than someone saying "this sucks," your priorities are a mess and you need to walk away from the computer, probably -- but saying that a thing was "badly implemented," "fumbled," and even "shitty" are all criticisms, albeit criticisms of varying nuance, and just because you don't agree with them doesn't somehow make said criticisms out of line. And anyway, did anybody really think this would go over well? Like I said before, that's the thing that most throws me about all of this: These are not really heavy-handed moderators AT ALL around here, and they're people who tend to know their community quite well. If I saw this reaction coming, they must have as well...I mean, seriously, how many people are really surprised now? That's why I'm surprised this happened, to say nothing of it happening this way: Because I'd have thought that the response to it would be pretty easy to guess.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:58 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I certainly draw the line at saying anyone should be "punished" -- when you think about the great joys that must be a part of moderating, say, this very thread, surely being a moderator is its own punishment; and ultimately, if you really think that messing with the functionality of a website warrants anything harsher than someone saying "this sucks," your priorities are a mess and you need to walk away from the computer, probably -- but saying that a thing was "badly implemented," "fumbled," and even "shitty" are all criticisms, albeit criticisms of varying nuance, and just because you don't agree with them doesn't somehow make said criticisms out of line. And anyway, did anybody really think this would go over well? Like I said before, that's the thing that most throws me about all of this: These are not really heavy-handed moderators AT ALL around here, and they're people who tend to know their community quite well. If I saw this reaction coming, they must have as well...I mean, seriously, how many people are really surprised now? That's why I'm surprised this happened, to say nothing of it happening this way: Because I'd have thought that the response to it would be pretty easy to guess.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:58 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Chiming in with one more vote that this change really sucks.
posted by Perplexity at 6:59 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by Perplexity at 6:59 AM on November 1, 2009
empath: Why do I think that's okay? Because this is a metatalk thread about the new favoriting system, and it seems like a good place to test possible problems with the new favoriting system? Where else would you suggest that I do it?
Sorry, empath, if you were trying to test in good faith - and I'm sure you were. At least one person so far has favorited everything in this thread as an apparent attempt to prove a point or to break the system. I just thought that was lame.
posted by koeselitz at 6:59 AM on November 1, 2009
Sorry, empath, if you were trying to test in good faith - and I'm sure you were. At least one person so far has favorited everything in this thread as an apparent attempt to prove a point or to break the system. I just thought that was lame.
posted by koeselitz at 6:59 AM on November 1, 2009
Static Vagabond: "
On preview, empath-- what you (and another user earlier did) by favouriting all the comments, isn't a good example of how it'll work-- because most posts don't have a favourite on every post. You're just vandalizing for the sake of it, and I think that the admins could quite easily write a piece of code that wipes your graffiti away quite easily."
Actually, it's a perfect example of how it'll work on MetaTalk, because in EVERY thread on favorites on MeTa one or two people go fave-crazy.
posted by graventy at 6:59 AM on November 1, 2009
On preview, empath-- what you (and another user earlier did) by favouriting all the comments, isn't a good example of how it'll work-- because most posts don't have a favourite on every post. You're just vandalizing for the sake of it, and I think that the admins could quite easily write a piece of code that wipes your graffiti away quite easily."
Actually, it's a perfect example of how it'll work on MetaTalk, because in EVERY thread on favorites on MeTa one or two people go fave-crazy.
posted by graventy at 6:59 AM on November 1, 2009
koeselitz, insofar as favorites lead indirectly to bad writing habits, I'm open to argument here. If it's about bad reading habits, I don't see why anyone should care - let alone prevail.
Also, you cannot step in the same river 2.0 (Heraclitus).
posted by hawthorne at 6:59 AM on November 1, 2009
Also, you cannot step in the same river 2.0 (Heraclitus).
posted by hawthorne at 6:59 AM on November 1, 2009
On preview, empath-- what you (and another user earlier did) by favouriting all the comments, isn't a good example of how it'll work-- because most posts don't have a favourite on every post. You're just vandalizing for the sake of it, and I think that the admins could quite easily write a piece of code that wipes your graffiti away quite easily.
Right, but now there are RULES to how we can use favorites? What if there was a thread where I felt like I wanted to favorite every comment in it? Before today, there was no reason I couldn't. It would take 5 seconds for a user to see what happened, and still they'd be able to see the 'real' favorite count in the thread by mentally subtracting one. Now it essentially destroys the remaining usability of favorites for every single person reading the thread.
So now favorites have 3 uses:
1) I agree with this person
2) I want to save this for later
3) I just feel like being a dick and screwing with the usability of the site.
Before, #3 wasn't even an option. Now it is.
posted by empath at 7:02 AM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
Right, but now there are RULES to how we can use favorites? What if there was a thread where I felt like I wanted to favorite every comment in it? Before today, there was no reason I couldn't. It would take 5 seconds for a user to see what happened, and still they'd be able to see the 'real' favorite count in the thread by mentally subtracting one. Now it essentially destroys the remaining usability of favorites for every single person reading the thread.
So now favorites have 3 uses:
1) I agree with this person
2) I want to save this for later
3) I just feel like being a dick and screwing with the usability of the site.
Before, #3 wasn't even an option. Now it is.
posted by empath at 7:02 AM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
saying a user has 500 saves doesn't read right.
Unless the user in question is Mariano Rivera.
posted by jonmc at 7:02 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
Unless the user in question is Mariano Rivera.
posted by jonmc at 7:02 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
"The moderation system (on Slashdot at least, I'm not familiar enough with the other sites) serves the purpose of filtering out noise / unhelpful comments and making useful comments more visible - at least, if it's used correctly."
Yes. It's a spam/GNAA/garbage filter that works by assuming every comment is garbage by default, then requiring upvoting to increase visibility. I think that's a poor approach, because the assumption may be valid on Slashdot -- that's one other reason that Slashdot sucks donkey ass -- it is invalid on MetaFilter. A vast majority of the comments here exceed the noise floor set by the voting type sites. This is surely in some part also due to the tireless and excellent moderation we enjoy.
"Metafilter's favorites are nothing like that -- they're a simple overlay on top of the existing commentary."
I don't need to know how long the page took to render, nor how much free memory was on the server, nor how many people are currently logged in and reading the comment. Do I need to know 202 people think Bush was a dick? Will my opinion of such a comment change when the 213th person "faves" it? What about the 225th?
Listen: Some non-trivial percentage of my comments seem to attract a favorite click from a handful of people. Rarely do I say something "worthy" of 20 or 30 or 180 such. I notice this because, hey, there's a scoreboard I can check. But ultimately the score is meaningless. I find out one guy took particular note of my description of the changes in Snow Leopard, and five people decided to "fave" my shouty rant about public and private health systems coexisting. My generic insight about low quality Ask MetaFilter questions didn't meet the criteria of any reader to click the little thingy. Neat from a stats-nerd standpoint, maybe, but still meaningless metadata that distracts from the actual discussion at hand.
"Another thing you dislike is the "groupthink", something which is often used to ascribe a certain bias to a website;"
No, I mean actual groupthink: a distorted shared perspective arrived at by social negotiation and conformist behavior rather than genuine personal opinions or discussion. How does knowing a comment garnered 135 points vs. perhaps 12 expose anything about how the thoughts behind it were reasoned?
posted by majick at 7:04 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Yes. It's a spam/GNAA/garbage filter that works by assuming every comment is garbage by default, then requiring upvoting to increase visibility. I think that's a poor approach, because the assumption may be valid on Slashdot -- that's one other reason that Slashdot sucks donkey ass -- it is invalid on MetaFilter. A vast majority of the comments here exceed the noise floor set by the voting type sites. This is surely in some part also due to the tireless and excellent moderation we enjoy.
"Metafilter's favorites are nothing like that -- they're a simple overlay on top of the existing commentary."
I don't need to know how long the page took to render, nor how much free memory was on the server, nor how many people are currently logged in and reading the comment. Do I need to know 202 people think Bush was a dick? Will my opinion of such a comment change when the 213th person "faves" it? What about the 225th?
Listen: Some non-trivial percentage of my comments seem to attract a favorite click from a handful of people. Rarely do I say something "worthy" of 20 or 30 or 180 such. I notice this because, hey, there's a scoreboard I can check. But ultimately the score is meaningless. I find out one guy took particular note of my description of the changes in Snow Leopard, and five people decided to "fave" my shouty rant about public and private health systems coexisting. My generic insight about low quality Ask MetaFilter questions didn't meet the criteria of any reader to click the little thingy. Neat from a stats-nerd standpoint, maybe, but still meaningless metadata that distracts from the actual discussion at hand.
"Another thing you dislike is the "groupthink", something which is often used to ascribe a certain bias to a website;"
No, I mean actual groupthink: a distorted shared perspective arrived at by social negotiation and conformist behavior rather than genuine personal opinions or discussion. How does knowing a comment garnered 135 points vs. perhaps 12 expose anything about how the thoughts behind it were reasoned?
posted by majick at 7:04 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
and ArtW is 'faving' everything too?
I thought about doing it as well, not as a way to be a prick, but to show what it might be like if every comment was favorited by different users. If every comment in a thread is favorited by one or more users (it could happen), then the utility of the system vanishes. It becomes completely redundant.
Again, I'm perfectly happy with experimentation, but I just want to highlight my problems with the system being floated.
And I would really like someone to point out why having 'faved' is useful to anyone. Not snarky, just curious. I can't understand the point.
posted by knapah at 7:04 AM on November 1, 2009
I thought about doing it as well, not as a way to be a prick, but to show what it might be like if every comment was favorited by different users. If every comment in a thread is favorited by one or more users (it could happen), then the utility of the system vanishes. It becomes completely redundant.
Again, I'm perfectly happy with experimentation, but I just want to highlight my problems with the system being floated.
And I would really like someone to point out why having 'faved' is useful to anyone. Not snarky, just curious. I can't understand the point.
posted by knapah at 7:04 AM on November 1, 2009
> Merriam-Webster or nothin', mofos!
"Fave" is in Merriam-Webster.
Also, I still don't like this new thing, but am reasonably confident that it will go away in a month, so I'll suck it up.
posted by languagehat at 7:05 AM on November 1, 2009
"Fave" is in Merriam-Webster.
Also, I still don't like this new thing, but am reasonably confident that it will go away in a month, so I'll suck it up.
posted by languagehat at 7:05 AM on November 1, 2009
So now favorites have 3 uses:
1) I agree with this person
2) I want to save this for later
3) I just feel like being a dick and screwing with the usability of the site.
Before, #3 wasn't even an option. Now it is.
EXACTLY. Now I'll favorite that comment, but what's the point? More emphasis to keep repeating other peoples' answers over and over again. This has got to mean a shitload of mess for the mods to clean up on so many threads.
posted by meerkatty at 7:06 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
1) I agree with this person
2) I want to save this for later
3) I just feel like being a dick and screwing with the usability of the site.
Before, #3 wasn't even an option. Now it is.
EXACTLY. Now I'll favorite that comment, but what's the point? More emphasis to keep repeating other peoples' answers over and over again. This has got to mean a shitload of mess for the mods to clean up on so many threads.
posted by meerkatty at 7:06 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
And above and beyond the vast faves kerfuffle, in this thread the mods have been told that they should be punished, they they dropped the ball, that this was "badly implemented" and "fumbled," that their decisions are "shitty" and stupid and childish and more that I don't really want to peruse any more.
Yeah, the name-calling and invective is not helpful and people shouldn't engage in it. But this was badly implemented, and I say that as someone who historically has agreed with almost all mod decisions, even when they are deleting my own comments.
posted by grouse at 7:08 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yeah, the name-calling and invective is not helpful and people shouldn't engage in it. But this was badly implemented, and I say that as someone who historically has agreed with almost all mod decisions, even when they are deleting my own comments.
posted by grouse at 7:08 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I know a few people who don't post, because they feel they don't write well enough, or have ideas good enough to share...
I definitely use favorites this way; I don't contribute unless I feel I can add something, so favoriting the comment that best articulates what I would have said is my way of keeping clutter down.
These two arguments are interesting to me:
Anti-favorites camp: favorites encourage people not to read the whole thread, so they don't know what's already been said when they post and the same things get said over and over.
Pro-favorites camp: favorites decrease the amount of people saying the same thing because they can just register their agreement, so to speak, with an existing comment.
I'm in the pro-favorites camp, personally. I would much rather see that 75 people have favorited something than read 75 comments that all say "I agree" without adding anything interesting. I would also like those people to click a button rather than not say anything at all.
I've seen a number of people, including myself, mention that they only read threads carefully if they're going to contribute. I think what it comes down to more than favorites is that some people take a moment to consider whether what they're saying will be unique and valuable, and others don't see it as a big deal. (To be clear, while I take the time myself, I don't think it's even unreasonable for other people to feel it's not a big deal; it strikes me as a little absurd when people freak out over this.) I would be surprised if the existence of favorites made much of a difference in this regard, except that people who are already disinclined to read a whole thread before responding probably read more of the thread than they would have otherwise because they can skip along the favorites.
And honestly, if it seems like the amount of people saying the same thing has increased over the years, I would offer the explanation that there are simply more users than before. The bigger the community gets, the more people you're going to get that don't read the threads before responding. And the idea that people post the same things because of favorites just doesn't make sense to me -- the easy test for this is to see if there's the same problem places where there is no voting system, and it's a problem everywhere on the internet. And not only that, from what I've seen it's far less of a problem places where there is a voting system because it results in fewer repetitive posts.
I feel like favorites are being scapegoated for something that is an issue for every online community, even ones that don't have voting systems, just because the timing of favorites being introduced corresponded with more people gradually joining the site. I think the "problem" is more that MeFi is getting larger, and favorites probably limit the amount of repetitive comments posted. If MeFi had gotten larger without favorites, I think the threads would be far more ungainly.
So I guess we'll see what the experiment shows. Although with so many people using work-arounds, and people like myself (since I dunno how to do the work-around in Chrome) who will just not read much more than the FPP links, I'm not really sure the experiment will prove anything one way or the other.
Which is pretty unfortunate, when you think about it. Earlier I was in support of the experiment overall because I thought it would at least demonstrate something one way or the other, but now I'm not sure it's that clearcut. I wouldn't go so far as to say it makes the experiment pointless, but I sure don't envy the mods' having to untangle the results.
posted by Nattie at 7:09 AM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
I definitely use favorites this way; I don't contribute unless I feel I can add something, so favoriting the comment that best articulates what I would have said is my way of keeping clutter down.
These two arguments are interesting to me:
Anti-favorites camp: favorites encourage people not to read the whole thread, so they don't know what's already been said when they post and the same things get said over and over.
Pro-favorites camp: favorites decrease the amount of people saying the same thing because they can just register their agreement, so to speak, with an existing comment.
I'm in the pro-favorites camp, personally. I would much rather see that 75 people have favorited something than read 75 comments that all say "I agree" without adding anything interesting. I would also like those people to click a button rather than not say anything at all.
I've seen a number of people, including myself, mention that they only read threads carefully if they're going to contribute. I think what it comes down to more than favorites is that some people take a moment to consider whether what they're saying will be unique and valuable, and others don't see it as a big deal. (To be clear, while I take the time myself, I don't think it's even unreasonable for other people to feel it's not a big deal; it strikes me as a little absurd when people freak out over this.) I would be surprised if the existence of favorites made much of a difference in this regard, except that people who are already disinclined to read a whole thread before responding probably read more of the thread than they would have otherwise because they can skip along the favorites.
And honestly, if it seems like the amount of people saying the same thing has increased over the years, I would offer the explanation that there are simply more users than before. The bigger the community gets, the more people you're going to get that don't read the threads before responding. And the idea that people post the same things because of favorites just doesn't make sense to me -- the easy test for this is to see if there's the same problem places where there is no voting system, and it's a problem everywhere on the internet. And not only that, from what I've seen it's far less of a problem places where there is a voting system because it results in fewer repetitive posts.
I feel like favorites are being scapegoated for something that is an issue for every online community, even ones that don't have voting systems, just because the timing of favorites being introduced corresponded with more people gradually joining the site. I think the "problem" is more that MeFi is getting larger, and favorites probably limit the amount of repetitive comments posted. If MeFi had gotten larger without favorites, I think the threads would be far more ungainly.
So I guess we'll see what the experiment shows. Although with so many people using work-arounds, and people like myself (since I dunno how to do the work-around in Chrome) who will just not read much more than the FPP links, I'm not really sure the experiment will prove anything one way or the other.
Which is pretty unfortunate, when you think about it. Earlier I was in support of the experiment overall because I thought it would at least demonstrate something one way or the other, but now I'm not sure it's that clearcut. I wouldn't go so far as to say it makes the experiment pointless, but I sure don't envy the mods' having to untangle the results.
posted by Nattie at 7:09 AM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
It's not an improvement.
posted by Wordwoman at 7:09 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Wordwoman at 7:09 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
But this was badly implemented,
I agree, and I think it's mostly that they announced on a holiday night when nobody was around:
"Hey guys, we're going to change a major usability feature on the site in about 6 hours, have fun!"
I think it might have been better to just change it in meta talk or something, and then roll it out side wide if there weren't major complaints about it.
posted by empath at 7:11 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I agree, and I think it's mostly that they announced on a holiday night when nobody was around:
"Hey guys, we're going to change a major usability feature on the site in about 6 hours, have fun!"
I think it might have been better to just change it in meta talk or something, and then roll it out side wide if there weren't major complaints about it.
posted by empath at 7:11 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I accidentally the whole fave
posted by subbes at 7:12 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by subbes at 7:12 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Now that I've seen this in the light of day (I went to bed last night before midnight), I think it's....fine. Worth trying out, anyway. It looks a little odd to me but I suspect that it won't take long for it to look unremarkable.
And just for kicks, and because so many people are so concerned about their ability to navigate long threads without the help of [number of favorites], there are about 15 threads on the front page right now that are longer than 50 comments. This hardly seems unmanageable.
3) I just feel like being a dick and screwing with the usability of the site.
See, and this kind of thing is just dumb, but honestly, it's not like nobody's ever done weird things with favorites before. Fucking around with the new system in the early days of an EXPERIMENT (so for the love of god keep your hair on, jesus, it's only for a month, and also, it would kill you to try it for a few days before deciding it's wrecked your life?) is not unexpected, and nothing's "broken," or if it is, it isn't any more "broken" than it was before the site used favorites at all.
So much whining. Christ on a chip.
posted by rtha at 7:12 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
And just for kicks, and because so many people are so concerned about their ability to navigate long threads without the help of [number of favorites], there are about 15 threads on the front page right now that are longer than 50 comments. This hardly seems unmanageable.
3) I just feel like being a dick and screwing with the usability of the site.
See, and this kind of thing is just dumb, but honestly, it's not like nobody's ever done weird things with favorites before. Fucking around with the new system in the early days of an EXPERIMENT (so for the love of god keep your hair on, jesus, it's only for a month, and also, it would kill you to try it for a few days before deciding it's wrecked your life?) is not unexpected, and nothing's "broken," or if it is, it isn't any more "broken" than it was before the site used favorites at all.
So much whining. Christ on a chip.
posted by rtha at 7:12 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
kittens for breakfast: I'd have thought that the response to it would be pretty easy to guess.
As I've said, a year ago this thread would never have happened. There are more pile-ons here than ever before now; I'd even go so far as to say that that's our biggest problem right now, or at least it's related to our biggest problem. You're right that most of those comments taken by themselves are relatively innocuous; but I don't think any of those people thought about how much over a hundred blunt, exasperated expressions of annoyance can feel to a few people who talked about this and thought about it for a while. I know most of those people feel like they can't be responsible for everybody else's comments, and since most of them taken by themselves aren't that bad the commenters feel as though the net effect of all those casual little barbs really isn't down to them.
A year or two ago, this thread would have ended with about ten of us saying SHUT THE FUCK UP AND READ THE THREAD, GUY and discussion would be over. The cabal would've quashed all the people who trembled in fear at the mighty gods of MeFi, and the pile-on complainers might never have commented again. A different system; probably worse than the one we have now, frankly.
But my point? Yes, I do think it's peoples' responsibility to read over the thread before commenting, at the very least if all they're going to do is register annoyance. I really feel like people need to notice that there's a net effect here, and while one person saying "well, I think this is a little fucked up" isn't so bad a dozen people saying it can get hurtful. And yes, if someone's already said something that forthright in the thread, I think we as commenters should notice that and should reframe our response to suit the atmosphere of respect we'd all like to cultivate. This is one situation, at least, in which "let's please read the thread more thoroughly" isn't just a personal thing or an intellectual exercise; if nothing else, reading through a little better prevents you from accidentally saying something hurtful.
And all that aside – you would've thought that this response would be easy to guess? So assuming the mods made a tremendous error you think they deserved being dragged through the mud? I don't think the predictability of the response figures into this at all.
posted by koeselitz at 7:12 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
As I've said, a year ago this thread would never have happened. There are more pile-ons here than ever before now; I'd even go so far as to say that that's our biggest problem right now, or at least it's related to our biggest problem. You're right that most of those comments taken by themselves are relatively innocuous; but I don't think any of those people thought about how much over a hundred blunt, exasperated expressions of annoyance can feel to a few people who talked about this and thought about it for a while. I know most of those people feel like they can't be responsible for everybody else's comments, and since most of them taken by themselves aren't that bad the commenters feel as though the net effect of all those casual little barbs really isn't down to them.
A year or two ago, this thread would have ended with about ten of us saying SHUT THE FUCK UP AND READ THE THREAD, GUY and discussion would be over. The cabal would've quashed all the people who trembled in fear at the mighty gods of MeFi, and the pile-on complainers might never have commented again. A different system; probably worse than the one we have now, frankly.
But my point? Yes, I do think it's peoples' responsibility to read over the thread before commenting, at the very least if all they're going to do is register annoyance. I really feel like people need to notice that there's a net effect here, and while one person saying "well, I think this is a little fucked up" isn't so bad a dozen people saying it can get hurtful. And yes, if someone's already said something that forthright in the thread, I think we as commenters should notice that and should reframe our response to suit the atmosphere of respect we'd all like to cultivate. This is one situation, at least, in which "let's please read the thread more thoroughly" isn't just a personal thing or an intellectual exercise; if nothing else, reading through a little better prevents you from accidentally saying something hurtful.
And all that aside – you would've thought that this response would be easy to guess? So assuming the mods made a tremendous error you think they deserved being dragged through the mud? I don't think the predictability of the response figures into this at all.
posted by koeselitz at 7:12 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Having said as much against the scoreboard system as I've already said (though I could easily continue to rant about it for the rest of the day): From a UI perspective the visible "faved" flag should probably not light up with the very first touch. It's too close to the noise floor and makes it even more pointless than it was to begin with.
posted by majick at 7:13 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by majick at 7:13 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I already hate it.
posted by DU at 7:15 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by DU at 7:15 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
And all that aside – you would've thought that this response would be easy to guess? So assuming the mods made a tremendous error you think they deserved being dragged through the mud? I don't think the predictability of the response figures into this at all.
I think that if you read as closely as you would like others to do, you would understand very easily that that isn't what I said at all; but I think you're just hearing whatever you'd like to hear vis a vis people who don't agree with you, and we all enjoy the site in our own ways, so carry on.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:16 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think that if you read as closely as you would like others to do, you would understand very easily that that isn't what I said at all; but I think you're just hearing whatever you'd like to hear vis a vis people who don't agree with you, and we all enjoy the site in our own ways, so carry on.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:16 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Having said as much against the scoreboard system as I've already said (though I could easily continue to rant about it for the rest of the day): From a UI perspective the visible "faved" flag should probably not light up with the very first touch. It's too close to the noise floor and makes it even more pointless than it was to begin with.
I'd favorite this, but I'm out. And also nobody would know if it were a real favorite or just playing around, so I'll just say 'ditto' instead.
posted by empath at 7:16 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'd favorite this, but I'm out. And also nobody would know if it were a real favorite or just playing around, so I'll just say 'ditto' instead.
posted by empath at 7:16 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
empath: 3) I just feel like being a dick and screwing with the usability of the site.
You lose, asshole.
Mods: please ban.
posted by koeselitz at 7:18 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
You lose, asshole.
Mods: please ban.
posted by koeselitz at 7:18 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or seriously contemplating the idea of having someone banned because you don't like the way they use favorites.
posted by empath at 7:19 AM on November 1, 2009 [30 favorites]
posted by empath at 7:19 AM on November 1, 2009 [30 favorites]
With respect, that's simply not true.
Yes it is. Jessamyn said here "I'm surprised that for some people the favorites aspect of the site is indispensible or that this would make a huge difference in how the site works for them. Not like upset-surprised, just that it would have never occurred to me, so that's useful to know too." The functionality of the favorites counts for some users was a surprise to the moderators because that was not part of the previous conversations about favorites.
And above and beyond the vast faves kerfuffle, in this thread the mods have been told that they should be punished, they they dropped the ball, that this was "badly implemented" and "fumbled," that their decisions are "shitty" and stupid and childish and more that I don't really want to peruse any more. Seriously, I'm surprised you don't see this, Forktine. Read back through from the perspective of the mods, who put a lot of their time into this site, and ask yourself it it's not out of line.
Why are you saying that I don't see this? Of course I do, it's there in plain text for anyone to read. Some of the criticisms are hyperbolic and overblown, but so are some of the criticisms (including some of yours) of the old way of doing things, too. That's pretty much par for the course here, not really something worth getting all heated up about.
I can disagree with some of the GRAR tones in some of the criticisms while also agreeing that this was a poorly planned and executed "experiment." There's no inconsistency there, and certainly no disrespect on my part, either in thought or in anything I've written, for the moderators. They are hardworking, probably underpaid, and most of the time the changes they make and the decisions they take improve the site. This case, in my opinion, is an exception to that, where a supposed fix does more damage than it does good.
posted by Forktine at 7:20 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yes it is. Jessamyn said here "I'm surprised that for some people the favorites aspect of the site is indispensible or that this would make a huge difference in how the site works for them. Not like upset-surprised, just that it would have never occurred to me, so that's useful to know too." The functionality of the favorites counts for some users was a surprise to the moderators because that was not part of the previous conversations about favorites.
And above and beyond the vast faves kerfuffle, in this thread the mods have been told that they should be punished, they they dropped the ball, that this was "badly implemented" and "fumbled," that their decisions are "shitty" and stupid and childish and more that I don't really want to peruse any more. Seriously, I'm surprised you don't see this, Forktine. Read back through from the perspective of the mods, who put a lot of their time into this site, and ask yourself it it's not out of line.
Why are you saying that I don't see this? Of course I do, it's there in plain text for anyone to read. Some of the criticisms are hyperbolic and overblown, but so are some of the criticisms (including some of yours) of the old way of doing things, too. That's pretty much par for the course here, not really something worth getting all heated up about.
I can disagree with some of the GRAR tones in some of the criticisms while also agreeing that this was a poorly planned and executed "experiment." There's no inconsistency there, and certainly no disrespect on my part, either in thought or in anything I've written, for the moderators. They are hardworking, probably underpaid, and most of the time the changes they make and the decisions they take improve the site. This case, in my opinion, is an exception to that, where a supposed fix does more damage than it does good.
posted by Forktine at 7:20 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
You lose, asshole.
Mods: please ban.
Dude, your boner is showing.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:22 AM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
Mods: please ban.
Dude, your boner is showing.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:22 AM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
koeselitz: "You're right that most of those comments taken by themselves are relatively innocuous; but I don't think any of those people thought about how much over a hundred blunt, exasperated expressions of annoyance can feel to a few people who talked about this and thought about it for a while."
Yeah, if only there was a way to voice your support of a post by, say, incrementing some kind of counter instead of having to post a ME TOO comment...
posted by PontifexPrimus at 7:22 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
Yeah, if only there was a way to voice your support of a post by, say, incrementing some kind of counter instead of having to post a ME TOO comment...
posted by PontifexPrimus at 7:22 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
I support the motion to switch to "bookmark" and "marked."
posted by prefpara at 7:24 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by prefpara at 7:24 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
kittens for breakfast: I think that if you read as closely as you would like others to do, you would understand very easily that that isn't what I said at all; but I think you're just hearing whatever you'd like to hear vis a vis people who don't agree with you, and we all enjoy the site in our own ways, so carry on.
Fair enough. You're right; looking back, I edited selectively. What you actually said was:
That's why I'm surprised this happened, to say nothing of it happening this way: Because I'd have thought that the response to it would be pretty easy to guess.
... you were really only explaining why people seemed so shocked: because you found this surprising.
Finally – though you didn't exactly say this, I want to make this clear – I never said that other people have to read as carefully as I do. If everybody read as badly as I clearly do, this site would suck. And even a hypocrite like me can be right sometimes.
posted by koeselitz at 7:25 AM on November 1, 2009
Fair enough. You're right; looking back, I edited selectively. What you actually said was:
That's why I'm surprised this happened, to say nothing of it happening this way: Because I'd have thought that the response to it would be pretty easy to guess.
... you were really only explaining why people seemed so shocked: because you found this surprising.
Finally – though you didn't exactly say this, I want to make this clear – I never said that other people have to read as carefully as I do. If everybody read as badly as I clearly do, this site would suck. And even a hypocrite like me can be right sometimes.
posted by koeselitz at 7:25 AM on November 1, 2009
As I've said, a year ago this thread would never have happened. There are more pile-ons here than ever before now... A year or two ago, this thread would have ended with about ten of us saying SHUT THE FUCK UP AND READ THE THREAD, GUY and discussion would be over.
I think this comment is totally wrong and frankly, bizarre. There have always been pile-ons in MeTa. I have seen no change in that regard, except that the mods have recently announced a priority of reducing that sort of thing, which has yet to be effective. The idea that in the good old days (apparently only one to two years ago!) koeselitz and nine other right-thinking people would have been able to end the discussion by fiat borders on megalomaniacal.
On preview, this:
You lose, asshole.
Mods: please ban.
posted by koeselitz
is a bit hypocritical coming from someone who says there is too much in the way of invective of insult in this particular thread. And doesn't really help on the megalomania front either.
posted by grouse at 7:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [19 favorites]
I think this comment is totally wrong and frankly, bizarre. There have always been pile-ons in MeTa. I have seen no change in that regard, except that the mods have recently announced a priority of reducing that sort of thing, which has yet to be effective. The idea that in the good old days (apparently only one to two years ago!) koeselitz and nine other right-thinking people would have been able to end the discussion by fiat borders on megalomaniacal.
On preview, this:
You lose, asshole.
Mods: please ban.
posted by koeselitz
is a bit hypocritical coming from someone who says there is too much in the way of invective of insult in this particular thread. And doesn't really help on the megalomania front either.
posted by grouse at 7:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [19 favorites]
empath: I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or seriously contemplating the idea of having someone banned because you don't like the way they use favorites.
You're consciously trying to dig up ways to fuck with the site and implementing them as you go. Is there something I'm missing here?
posted by koeselitz at 7:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
You're consciously trying to dig up ways to fuck with the site and implementing them as you go. Is there something I'm missing here?
posted by koeselitz at 7:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
"Given that this site has had favorites for more than three years, and does not, in my opinion at least, suck donkey ass, that rationale is inapplicable here."
Once again I submit a respectful response: Fucking bullshit. MetaFilter commenters are shittier today than they were before the feature was released. Most of the dire predictions about scoreboard-driven behavior came true, then we added in a royal shitload of new users who thought they should play the site against the scoreboard. Those new users are in the majority now, so I suppose there's some value in appeasing them, but three years of the "tyranny of the scoreboard" has certainly changed the quality and tone of discourse on the site for the worse.
posted by majick at 7:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Once again I submit a respectful response: Fucking bullshit. MetaFilter commenters are shittier today than they were before the feature was released. Most of the dire predictions about scoreboard-driven behavior came true, then we added in a royal shitload of new users who thought they should play the site against the scoreboard. Those new users are in the majority now, so I suppose there's some value in appeasing them, but three years of the "tyranny of the scoreboard" has certainly changed the quality and tone of discourse on the site for the worse.
posted by majick at 7:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
grouse: The idea that in the good old days...
Oh, hell no. I was very clear on that. It was different. It was not often better. It was usually worse. And my example was intended to highlight the ways that it was worse.
Also, I should be quit of this - I'm getting a little out of hand, I think. Sorry folks. I'm out.
posted by koeselitz at 7:29 AM on November 1, 2009
Oh, hell no. I was very clear on that. It was different. It was not often better. It was usually worse. And my example was intended to highlight the ways that it was worse.
Also, I should be quit of this - I'm getting a little out of hand, I think. Sorry folks. I'm out.
posted by koeselitz at 7:29 AM on November 1, 2009
So who's going to step up and alter this greasemonkey script for November?
That would be me.
This topic has come up again and again. Personally, and of course I am biased here, I think Greasemonkey really is the solution. The MultiFavorited MultiWidth script very clearly visualizes comment count along the side of the comment, so you can very easily see how many favorites a comment received. I like it so much, I'm not only the developer, I'm a user.
For people who miss the favorites during this month, I really suggest you try my script. The new "November Experiment" version addresses the changes made this month.
On the other hand, for those of you who find even the 'faved' annoying, please consider using my Destroy MetaFilter Favorites script, which removes all aspects of the favoriting system from the site (including the count, the "favorite" this comment/post link, the "Popular" links at the top of the page, everything. This is for people who really don't want to play the game).
posted by Deathalicious at 7:31 AM on November 1, 2009 [14 favorites]
That would be me.
This topic has come up again and again. Personally, and of course I am biased here, I think Greasemonkey really is the solution. The MultiFavorited MultiWidth script very clearly visualizes comment count along the side of the comment, so you can very easily see how many favorites a comment received. I like it so much, I'm not only the developer, I'm a user.
For people who miss the favorites during this month, I really suggest you try my script. The new "November Experiment" version addresses the changes made this month.
On the other hand, for those of you who find even the 'faved' annoying, please consider using my Destroy MetaFilter Favorites script, which removes all aspects of the favoriting system from the site (including the count, the "favorite" this comment/post link, the "Popular" links at the top of the page, everything. This is for people who really don't want to play the game).
posted by Deathalicious at 7:31 AM on November 1, 2009 [14 favorites]
OverThinkingAPlateOfBeansFilter.
Hate it.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:31 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Hate it.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:31 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
... you were really only explaining why people seemed so shocked: because you found this surprising.
What I mean is, I saw the idea planned out at the top of this thread and thought, "Well, obviously everyone's going to hate that." Not literally everyone, clearly, but enough of everyone that we would end up with a huge thread of complaints and CAPS LOCK. And since I'm much less close to the site than the moderators are, I couldn't -- and honestly can't -- see how if I could anticipate that, they could not. I kind of can't believe they didn't, but if they didn't, and jessamyn says they didn't, then that's a fumble, yes. Nothing in the word "fumble" implies malice.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:33 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
What I mean is, I saw the idea planned out at the top of this thread and thought, "Well, obviously everyone's going to hate that." Not literally everyone, clearly, but enough of everyone that we would end up with a huge thread of complaints and CAPS LOCK. And since I'm much less close to the site than the moderators are, I couldn't -- and honestly can't -- see how if I could anticipate that, they could not. I kind of can't believe they didn't, but if they didn't, and jessamyn says they didn't, then that's a fumble, yes. Nothing in the word "fumble" implies malice.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:33 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah – you weren't being insulting, kfb. And I'm sorry for lumping you into the accusation.
posted by koeselitz at 7:35 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by koeselitz at 7:35 AM on November 1, 2009
As one of the lesser, newer members, who've only ever known favorites, I deeply apologize for ruining this site.
On the other hand, I paid $5, I'm a member, and the site I joined had favorites, which made certain things about using the site easier and more enjoyable. I'm annoyed that the site has been suddenly altered from where it was when I joined, even if it was less than two years ago.
And empath clearly stated the faveing was being done to demonstrate that it could (and had been) and most likely will be done. Pointing out a possible bug isn't a ban-worthy offense. If, say, people were running all over the site, maybe, but in the thread about the change that lots of people don't like, I think it's perfectly valid.
posted by Ghidorah at 7:38 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
On the other hand, I paid $5, I'm a member, and the site I joined had favorites, which made certain things about using the site easier and more enjoyable. I'm annoyed that the site has been suddenly altered from where it was when I joined, even if it was less than two years ago.
And empath clearly stated the faveing was being done to demonstrate that it could (and had been) and most likely will be done. Pointing out a possible bug isn't a ban-worthy offense. If, say, people were running all over the site, maybe, but in the thread about the change that lots of people don't like, I think it's perfectly valid.
posted by Ghidorah at 7:38 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Stop reading my comments and start reading majick's.
posted by koeselitz at 7:39 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by koeselitz at 7:39 AM on November 1, 2009
"this was neither thought through very well or presented very well, and I don't like the flattening of information."
Folks may disagree with the conclusions but we really truly did think this through for quite a while and even chose the timing fairly on-purpose. I'm with you on seeing the "flattening of information" and again this is stuff that I think for many people is easier to see when someone is showing it to you then explaining how it might be in some possible future MetaFilter.
I'm trying to think about other features we sort of "floated" instead of implementing and then asking for feedback [and again this isn't a feature, this is something we wanted to experiment with and then talk about, not talk about it before we tried] and I think about comment editing. This is also something a lot of people wanted, we talked about it, people mentioned ways in which it made them uncomfortable and we thought about ways people might screw with it and we wound up doing nothing.
I think that was okay, but again as the site grows it's a lot harder to take the community's temperature" about anything because very vocal members make it seem like small problems are large problems and it's tough to gauge. I still feel that maybe comment editing should have been adopted but there were enough concerns when we floated it that it seemed like maybe not a good idea at the time.
I'm offline a lot of the rest of the day [driving home from someplace far away] but as part of a meta-conversation I'm really interested in what mathowie mentions way upthread, whether it's possible that we've reached a size where no change can happen because there's going to be enough people feeling strongly on both sides of any decision that if we take the position of "stay the course" every time, we'll go noplace. I don't know, I'm pretty happy with the site as-is, but have been feeling weird about what other people perceive as the pile-on mentality and we've been wondering what effect visible favorites numbers might have on that.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:39 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Folks may disagree with the conclusions but we really truly did think this through for quite a while and even chose the timing fairly on-purpose. I'm with you on seeing the "flattening of information" and again this is stuff that I think for many people is easier to see when someone is showing it to you then explaining how it might be in some possible future MetaFilter.
I'm trying to think about other features we sort of "floated" instead of implementing and then asking for feedback [and again this isn't a feature, this is something we wanted to experiment with and then talk about, not talk about it before we tried] and I think about comment editing. This is also something a lot of people wanted, we talked about it, people mentioned ways in which it made them uncomfortable and we thought about ways people might screw with it and we wound up doing nothing.
I think that was okay, but again as the site grows it's a lot harder to take the community's temperature" about anything because very vocal members make it seem like small problems are large problems and it's tough to gauge. I still feel that maybe comment editing should have been adopted but there were enough concerns when we floated it that it seemed like maybe not a good idea at the time.
I'm offline a lot of the rest of the day [driving home from someplace far away] but as part of a meta-conversation I'm really interested in what mathowie mentions way upthread, whether it's possible that we've reached a size where no change can happen because there's going to be enough people feeling strongly on both sides of any decision that if we take the position of "stay the course" every time, we'll go noplace. I don't know, I'm pretty happy with the site as-is, but have been feeling weird about what other people perceive as the pile-on mentality and we've been wondering what effect visible favorites numbers might have on that.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:39 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
" I'm annoyed that the site has been suddenly altered from where it was when I joined"
Please understand: This is how some number of us feel about the entire favorites feature.
posted by majick at 7:40 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
Please understand: This is how some number of us feel about the entire favorites feature.
posted by majick at 7:40 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
I hate this as a change, but I love this as a social experiment. CONUNDRUM!
posted by elizardbits at 7:42 AM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
posted by elizardbits at 7:42 AM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
Well, that's it: I'm going to spend the month at Slashdot.
If you're going to run this as an experiment, you need at very least some kind of survey pushed out at the end of the month to gauge user behaviour and reaction, to accompany whatever the server stats tell you.
posted by holgate at 7:43 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
If you're going to run this as an experiment, you need at very least some kind of survey pushed out at the end of the month to gauge user behaviour and reaction, to accompany whatever the server stats tell you.
posted by holgate at 7:43 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Majick, point taken.
posted by Ghidorah at 7:44 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Ghidorah at 7:44 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
But my point? Yes, I do think it's peoples' responsibility to read over the thread before commenting, at the very least if all they're going to do is register annoyance.
koeselitz I think this makes sense if, like you, a commenter thinks it's a good thing to read a book or two a year, but we're not all like this--multiple posters here have tried to communicate this to you already. People read in different ways; people use the site in different ways, and those ways are just as valid as yours. Maybe it's because I'm primarily an askMe user, but I've always seen favoriting as the equivalent of nodding your head. Metafilter is like a huge conversation between multiple people, and seeing how many people, and who, are nodding their head along with you can really help you to know if you're on the right track with your thoughts. If I disagree with a comment, and it has a ton of favorites, it might give me pause, help me to read that person's comments more carefully and reconsider. If I agree with a comment, and it has tons of favorites, it helps me to see that I'm not a total nutjob or something. Getting rid of this feature reduces the site's usefulness as a discussion board, and that's where, and how, it's really valuable to me--not in the links or the questions but in the ensuing conversation.
Anyway, I woke up this morning completely hung over and didn't even realize what had happened until I stumbled over to the gray. It's taken me over an hour to read this thread, and I probably clicked on a good fifty-or-so comments to see who had "faved" them. Generally, the whole thing felt completely disorienting, made it extremely difficult to follow the major thrusts of the different arguments here (as those would usually have more favorites), and I felt palpable relief when I implemented the user script to turn the new "feature" off. I really can't imagine going a whole month with the "faved" system. It would really drive me out of my mind! I agree with whoever said, upthread, though, that restoring the older functionality through a user-end script instead of offering it through the site pretty much completely invalidates this as an experiment. Those who install userscripts will continue to use the site as they've been doing, but you won't be able to see that they've done this, whereas you'd actually be able to turn that in to a useful datapoint for discussion if it was done through the site. That way, when people suggest turning favoriting off, you could say, we offered that as an option, but so few people chose to use it that it doesn't make sense as a site-wide change. Or something. The very fact that the mods seem to view this as just a concession they're making to stop the argument (because, as jessamyn says, they're not planning on implementing this permanently) strikes me as a bit disingenuous, and also as a huge inconvenience to levy on the community-at-large for the sake of squashing a few MeTa disagreements.
Also, even if there's precedence for the term "fave", it's really not normally used as a verb, and I think that's part of what's so rankling about it, on top of the fact that it seems very off-tone with the rest of the site. I think even a facebook-style "liked" would make more sense.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:45 AM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
koeselitz I think this makes sense if, like you, a commenter thinks it's a good thing to read a book or two a year, but we're not all like this--multiple posters here have tried to communicate this to you already. People read in different ways; people use the site in different ways, and those ways are just as valid as yours. Maybe it's because I'm primarily an askMe user, but I've always seen favoriting as the equivalent of nodding your head. Metafilter is like a huge conversation between multiple people, and seeing how many people, and who, are nodding their head along with you can really help you to know if you're on the right track with your thoughts. If I disagree with a comment, and it has a ton of favorites, it might give me pause, help me to read that person's comments more carefully and reconsider. If I agree with a comment, and it has tons of favorites, it helps me to see that I'm not a total nutjob or something. Getting rid of this feature reduces the site's usefulness as a discussion board, and that's where, and how, it's really valuable to me--not in the links or the questions but in the ensuing conversation.
Anyway, I woke up this morning completely hung over and didn't even realize what had happened until I stumbled over to the gray. It's taken me over an hour to read this thread, and I probably clicked on a good fifty-or-so comments to see who had "faved" them. Generally, the whole thing felt completely disorienting, made it extremely difficult to follow the major thrusts of the different arguments here (as those would usually have more favorites), and I felt palpable relief when I implemented the user script to turn the new "feature" off. I really can't imagine going a whole month with the "faved" system. It would really drive me out of my mind! I agree with whoever said, upthread, though, that restoring the older functionality through a user-end script instead of offering it through the site pretty much completely invalidates this as an experiment. Those who install userscripts will continue to use the site as they've been doing, but you won't be able to see that they've done this, whereas you'd actually be able to turn that in to a useful datapoint for discussion if it was done through the site. That way, when people suggest turning favoriting off, you could say, we offered that as an option, but so few people chose to use it that it doesn't make sense as a site-wide change. Or something. The very fact that the mods seem to view this as just a concession they're making to stop the argument (because, as jessamyn says, they're not planning on implementing this permanently) strikes me as a bit disingenuous, and also as a huge inconvenience to levy on the community-at-large for the sake of squashing a few MeTa disagreements.
Also, even if there's precedence for the term "fave", it's really not normally used as a verb, and I think that's part of what's so rankling about it, on top of the fact that it seems very off-tone with the rest of the site. I think even a facebook-style "liked" would make more sense.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:45 AM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
Also: yeah, I as well want the text changed to "flaved" and I want a big clock. That would, in all seriousness, lighten up a lot of attitudes -- mine included -- about this month's experiment. YEAH BOYEEEE
posted by majick at 7:47 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by majick at 7:47 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'm not really sure what the mods want as a response or if/when they want for people to weigh in with their opinions - should folks indicate their vote for/against somewhere, email them, start a petition? If Will there be a vote at the end of November, or will it be a mod decision?
I think the idea of an experiment is not a bad one - I wish there were a better defined sense of how we'll measure any increase/decrease in site/comment quality. Because, as someone said upthread, I think there will be a tendency for everyone to use the events of the month as proof for their own theory.
I have definitely noticed the difference already. I'm a compulsive reader, so I actually do tend to read pretty much every thread I open from top to bottom, but I do see and take note of the favorite counts. I have to say that I've never really felt that a lot of really bad comments (the kind that I'd delete if I had a magic wand) got too many favorites. Sometimes one-liners and quips will get lots of favorites and I guess you could say that that's not good for the conversation, as they might tend to derail, but conversations in real life have a lot of digressions and non sequiturs, too. Online discussions might get held to a higher standard in that sense.
I do tend to use favorite-skimming for threads I probably wouldn't have read anyway, like the massive politics ones. If I can go in and look for the notable comments, I do feel like I've gotten some value, and a often I get sucked into reading the entire thread anyway. Like most others, I'd obviously never comment without reading everything, but I don't comment a lot on the blue anyway, even in threads where I actively read every comment in the unfolding discussion.
I read (without being a member) before favorites were implemented, so I don't think it's impossible to have a great Metafilter without them, but I do think folks have gotten used to them and I personally wouldn't want to see them go.
also, I just donated to the site in recognition of all the extra hours this is going to suck up ... sorry guys!
posted by clerestory at 7:47 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think the idea of an experiment is not a bad one - I wish there were a better defined sense of how we'll measure any increase/decrease in site/comment quality. Because, as someone said upthread, I think there will be a tendency for everyone to use the events of the month as proof for their own theory.
I have definitely noticed the difference already. I'm a compulsive reader, so I actually do tend to read pretty much every thread I open from top to bottom, but I do see and take note of the favorite counts. I have to say that I've never really felt that a lot of really bad comments (the kind that I'd delete if I had a magic wand) got too many favorites. Sometimes one-liners and quips will get lots of favorites and I guess you could say that that's not good for the conversation, as they might tend to derail, but conversations in real life have a lot of digressions and non sequiturs, too. Online discussions might get held to a higher standard in that sense.
I do tend to use favorite-skimming for threads I probably wouldn't have read anyway, like the massive politics ones. If I can go in and look for the notable comments, I do feel like I've gotten some value, and a often I get sucked into reading the entire thread anyway. Like most others, I'd obviously never comment without reading everything, but I don't comment a lot on the blue anyway, even in threads where I actively read every comment in the unfolding discussion.
I read (without being a member) before favorites were implemented, so I don't think it's impossible to have a great Metafilter without them, but I do think folks have gotten used to them and I personally wouldn't want to see them go.
also, I just donated to the site in recognition of all the extra hours this is going to suck up ... sorry guys!
posted by clerestory at 7:47 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Once again I submit a respectful response: Fucking bullshit.
That's not a respectful response, by a long shot. It seems to be the kind of snarky comment that the small anti-favorites camp are claiming is destroying the site. I would suggest being the change you want to see in the world instead of blaming it on technical factors.
MetaFilter commenters are shittier today than they were before the feature was released.
First, I disagree. I have only noticed two changes in commenting from three years ago. First, there are almost no more comments along the lines of "X wins the thread," or "X FTW." Additionally, while there are still a lot of non-substantive "Nthing X" comments in AskMe, some of us don't post them anymore since we can favorite instead. Secondly, there are a lot more comments period. Just a lot more users. The other changes? Sorry, I just don't see them. Snark? Playing to the audience? It's always been there.
But if you think the site has changed for the worse since the introduction of favorites, you can simply say so and articulate why. Comparing to Kuro5hin isn't useful because MetaFilter isn't Kuro5hin. Maybe it would have been before favorites were introduced here, but we've now had three years to see how it works in this unique community without considering how substantially different systems work in other communities, with all of the confounding factors involved.
If you want to consider other web sites, it is important to remember this: MetaFilter comments are held up throughout the Internet as an example of how to do commenting right. The comments produced by the existing system, with favorites.
posted by grouse at 7:49 AM on November 1, 2009 [17 favorites]
That's not a respectful response, by a long shot. It seems to be the kind of snarky comment that the small anti-favorites camp are claiming is destroying the site. I would suggest being the change you want to see in the world instead of blaming it on technical factors.
MetaFilter commenters are shittier today than they were before the feature was released.
First, I disagree. I have only noticed two changes in commenting from three years ago. First, there are almost no more comments along the lines of "X wins the thread," or "X FTW." Additionally, while there are still a lot of non-substantive "Nthing X" comments in AskMe, some of us don't post them anymore since we can favorite instead. Secondly, there are a lot more comments period. Just a lot more users. The other changes? Sorry, I just don't see them. Snark? Playing to the audience? It's always been there.
But if you think the site has changed for the worse since the introduction of favorites, you can simply say so and articulate why. Comparing to Kuro5hin isn't useful because MetaFilter isn't Kuro5hin. Maybe it would have been before favorites were introduced here, but we've now had three years to see how it works in this unique community without considering how substantially different systems work in other communities, with all of the confounding factors involved.
If you want to consider other web sites, it is important to remember this: MetaFilter comments are held up throughout the Internet as an example of how to do commenting right. The comments produced by the existing system, with favorites.
posted by grouse at 7:49 AM on November 1, 2009 [17 favorites]
This is crazy, absolute chaos I say! Now there is no distinction between a snark faved and a really good comment faved. Perhaps I have been around too long, but the length of a comment plus being favorited was a good indication of whether or not I would stop and read it. Top of the thread, short and by a well known name that snarks? I'll skip it. Similarly, in large threads you'll see at least any thoughtful comment getting a favorite, where the really important ones will get up there in count.
There was a time of 10 comments to a thread and you could read them all. With 30+ and 50+ comment threads all too common, you're at best skimming the content and reading through it quickly. Favorites are kind of like voting and I have no doubt that users comment just to garner favorites. For regulars this is very apparent and I'm at least able to filter through such nonsense quickly. Granted there's no technology fix for this, it is just something you pick up.
I'm all for experimenting, but I have a feeling instead of reducing snark you're really reducing the prominence of good comments. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
posted by geoff. at 7:51 AM on November 1, 2009
There was a time of 10 comments to a thread and you could read them all. With 30+ and 50+ comment threads all too common, you're at best skimming the content and reading through it quickly. Favorites are kind of like voting and I have no doubt that users comment just to garner favorites. For regulars this is very apparent and I'm at least able to filter through such nonsense quickly. Granted there's no technology fix for this, it is just something you pick up.
I'm all for experimenting, but I have a feeling instead of reducing snark you're really reducing the prominence of good comments. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
posted by geoff. at 7:51 AM on November 1, 2009
PhoBWanKenobi: koeselitz I think this makes sense if, like you, a commenter thinks it's a good thing to read a book or two a year, but we're not all like this--multiple posters here have tried to communicate this to you already.
So to be clear on this:
I was saying that people were being hurtful because they didn't realize how much the mods had been pummeled by annoyance.
You refer to a thread that went (in my view) tremendously bad for me and led to me taking a week off from this site, and tell me that I really need to learn that people just have different reading styles.
Taking all of this in, you apparently mean to say that it's just fine and dandy for people to be as hurtful as they please to each other, because sometimes being hurtful is just their style.
Am I taking your point correctly?
posted by koeselitz at 7:51 AM on November 1, 2009
So to be clear on this:
I was saying that people were being hurtful because they didn't realize how much the mods had been pummeled by annoyance.
You refer to a thread that went (in my view) tremendously bad for me and led to me taking a week off from this site, and tell me that I really need to learn that people just have different reading styles.
Taking all of this in, you apparently mean to say that it's just fine and dandy for people to be as hurtful as they please to each other, because sometimes being hurtful is just their style.
Am I taking your point correctly?
posted by koeselitz at 7:51 AM on November 1, 2009
majick: "Please understand: This is how some number of us feel about the entire favorites feature."
Fair enough. But if you don't like favorites you can avoid them easily enough by either going out of your way to excise them with a Greasemonkey script or by simply not caring. If on the other hand you find favorites useful and they get taken away, you don't really have much recourse.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:52 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Fair enough. But if you don't like favorites you can avoid them easily enough by either going out of your way to excise them with a Greasemonkey script or by simply not caring. If on the other hand you find favorites useful and they get taken away, you don't really have much recourse.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:52 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Fair enough. But if you don't like favorites you can avoid them easily enough by either going out of your way to excise them with a Greasemonkey script or by simply not caring. If on the other hand you find favorites useful and they get taken away, you don't really have much recourse.
Again, ditto. (Or, FAVED.)
posted by meerkatty at 7:56 AM on November 1, 2009
Again, ditto. (Or, FAVED.)
posted by meerkatty at 7:56 AM on November 1, 2009
You refer to a thread that went (in my view) tremendously bad for me and led to me taking a week off from this site, and tell me that I really need to learn that people just have different reading styles.
Honestly, I had no idea of that.
I was being genuine, not snarky: for someone who reads slowly and carefully, generally, it makes sense to think that this is a way to approach all reading, or, perhaps, that it should be the way to approach all reading. But not everyone approaches books that way, much less internet discussion boards. You might think that devalues their participation: I think it's just a different style of consumption, so to speak.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:56 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Honestly, I had no idea of that.
I was being genuine, not snarky: for someone who reads slowly and carefully, generally, it makes sense to think that this is a way to approach all reading, or, perhaps, that it should be the way to approach all reading. But not everyone approaches books that way, much less internet discussion boards. You might think that devalues their participation: I think it's just a different style of consumption, so to speak.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:56 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Jessamyn: but again as the site grows it's a lot harder to take the community's temperature" about anything because very vocal members make it seem like small problems are large problems and it's tough to gauge.
Would this not be a decent reason to (very occasionally, in strictly defined circumstances, only available to mathowie et al) have some kind of poll on these issues. I'm not suggesting we give in to the tyranny of the majority, and have 50%+1 always ruling on the matter, but simply that it would allow us to gauge "the community's temperature" much more easily. One member, one vote (although perhaps restricted to members who have been active for more than x days/comments).
posted by knapah at 7:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Would this not be a decent reason to (very occasionally, in strictly defined circumstances, only available to mathowie et al) have some kind of poll on these issues. I'm not suggesting we give in to the tyranny of the majority, and have 50%+1 always ruling on the matter, but simply that it would allow us to gauge "the community's temperature" much more easily. One member, one vote (although perhaps restricted to members who have been active for more than x days/comments).
posted by knapah at 7:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don't know if you want us saying explicitly our first reactions here, and it's not like it'd necessarily be representative anyway, but what the hey: On initial impression, I hate this. And I hate the phrase "faved" too. But as LH says, maybe I'll get used to it. But right now, yuck.
posted by ifjuly at 7:57 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by ifjuly at 7:57 AM on November 1, 2009
Taking all of this in, you apparently mean to say that it's just fine and dandy for people to be as hurtful as they please to each other, because sometimes being hurtful is just their style.
Also, if you think I'm being hurtful, just tell me that you think I'm being hurtful. Sorry if my comment uncovered old wounds--I didn't mean it to. I just genuinely thought there might be a relationship between your wanting others to read both books and metafilter in such a careful and deliberate manner.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:59 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Also, if you think I'm being hurtful, just tell me that you think I'm being hurtful. Sorry if my comment uncovered old wounds--I didn't mean it to. I just genuinely thought there might be a relationship between your wanting others to read both books and metafilter in such a careful and deliberate manner.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:59 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
whether it's possible that we've reached a size where no change can happen because there's going to be enough people feeling strongly on both sides of any decision that if we take the position of "stay the course" every time, we'll go noplace.
Much bigger groups than ours have successfully implemented change. Perhaps what we needed was a full-blown change management plan, which is a little disappointingly corporate in feel, but that's my thought. It would include:
For me, I believe favorites bring out our worst as well as our best. It's a mixed bag. I don't know if this experiment will improve the site, but I see no harm in giving it a whirl for 30 days, and I'm kinda surprised how many people find such a short-term plan to be completely ruinous.
posted by Houstonian at 8:02 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Much bigger groups than ours have successfully implemented change. Perhaps what we needed was a full-blown change management plan, which is a little disappointingly corporate in feel, but that's my thought. It would include:
- Early and frequent communication
- Strong support by leaders (both official leaders -- the mods -- and unofficial leaders -- members with significant power)
- Strong management and enforcement of the change
- A plan for measuring adoption and success or failure of the change
- A reward system for those who adopt the change correctly
For me, I believe favorites bring out our worst as well as our best. It's a mixed bag. I don't know if this experiment will improve the site, but I see no harm in giving it a whirl for 30 days, and I'm kinda surprised how many people find such a short-term plan to be completely ruinous.
posted by Houstonian at 8:02 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
As I've said, a year ago this thread would never have happened. There are more pile-ons here than ever before now;
This pushed the button labeled "what" so of course I went poking around in my meTa history, and my god, but there was a lot of piling on. Maybe there are more pile-ons now than there were seven or eight years ago, but meTas from two-ish years ago are jammed with bile, mis-readings, and piling on. I don't know when this mystical "ten old-timers shame whiners into shutting the fuck up" time was, but it wasn't a year ago, or two years ago, or three years ago.
posted by rtha at 8:03 AM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
This pushed the button labeled "what" so of course I went poking around in my meTa history, and my god, but there was a lot of piling on. Maybe there are more pile-ons now than there were seven or eight years ago, but meTas from two-ish years ago are jammed with bile, mis-readings, and piling on. I don't know when this mystical "ten old-timers shame whiners into shutting the fuck up" time was, but it wasn't a year ago, or two years ago, or three years ago.
posted by rtha at 8:03 AM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
Wow the front pages of the various sites looks so dead and cold, like there's not community there at all. I never realized how much I liked seeing the favorites as general gauge of what posts are getting notice.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:05 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:05 AM on November 1, 2009
Wow the front pages of the various sites looks so dead and cold, like there's not community there at all. I never realized how much I liked seeing the favorites as general gauge of what posts are getting notice.
Just want to note that we've never had favorite counts on the front pages. This experiment only removes counts from comments in threads.
posted by pb (staff) at 8:08 AM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
Just want to note that we've never had favorite counts on the front pages. This experiment only removes counts from comments in threads.
posted by pb (staff) at 8:08 AM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
You're consciously trying to dig up ways to fuck with the site and implementing them as you go. Is there something I'm missing here?
You're missing a lot in this thread, obviously. Maybe you should read the whole fucking thing before commenting.
posted by empath at 8:10 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
You're missing a lot in this thread, obviously. Maybe you should read the whole fucking thing before commenting.
posted by empath at 8:10 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Really? Damn talk about tricks being played on your head (or the rapid detox from sugar)!
Is there something different about the front page with the change then? It seems different.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:11 AM on November 1, 2009
Is there something different about the front page with the change then? It seems different.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:11 AM on November 1, 2009
Also, after finally having read through this entire thread, it occurs to me that maybe no one else uses favourites* the way I do? OMG AM I A SPESHUL SNOWFLAKE?
When I see a comment that I want to fave**, I like to see who else has favourited it, because if I tend to see the same people again and again, it lets me know who to look for in large &/or contentious threads. I like seeing when someone has the same-ish opinions as me on one subject, but perhaps not on another. This is not, as one might suspect, to aid me in amassing an enormous hit/hug list, but rather to feed into my obsessive FOR SCIENCE! nature, in which all aspects of life are just one giant awesome social experiment.
Obvsly this faves change will not affect this aspect of my fave usage. I'm just throwing it out there, like a big dorky grenade of thinky thoughts.
Also, it would be totally rad if I could change the word "faves" to "c'est supercool!" I realize I am probably alone in this desire.
*I hate that firefox thinks "faves" is a correctly-spelled word, while redlining "favourites" in a cruel and oppressive north americanishly spelled fashion. I'M IN UR FIREFOX, MANIFESTIN' DESTINY.
**This word? Icky.
posted by elizardbits at 8:11 AM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
When I see a comment that I want to fave**, I like to see who else has favourited it, because if I tend to see the same people again and again, it lets me know who to look for in large &/or contentious threads. I like seeing when someone has the same-ish opinions as me on one subject, but perhaps not on another. This is not, as one might suspect, to aid me in amassing an enormous hit/hug list, but rather to feed into my obsessive FOR SCIENCE! nature, in which all aspects of life are just one giant awesome social experiment.
Obvsly this faves change will not affect this aspect of my fave usage. I'm just throwing it out there, like a big dorky grenade of thinky thoughts.
Also, it would be totally rad if I could change the word "faves" to "c'est supercool!" I realize I am probably alone in this desire.
*I hate that firefox thinks "faves" is a correctly-spelled word, while redlining "favourites" in a cruel and oppressive north americanishly spelled fashion. I'M IN UR FIREFOX, MANIFESTIN' DESTINY.
**This word? Icky.
posted by elizardbits at 8:11 AM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
koeselitz, I thought you were "quit of this" and "out." I'm pretty sure you've made every point you have to make at least a dozen times, and you're not coming off very well.
posted by languagehat at 8:11 AM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
posted by languagehat at 8:11 AM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
You know, I started to go through this thread, marking the comments I agree with as favorites, then realized that doing so was a mostly futile activity. "Me too" is mostly how I use favorites, and without it, I'm going to posting a lot more short "I agree with X" statements that add virtually nothing to the thread.
You've also removed my ability to skim long threads and just find the points that are the most interesting, which means on threads like this one, I just don't have time to read the whole thing.
So, with this change, you've simultaneously created a lot more noise on the site, and impaired our ability to find the signal in that noise. I can't see how this is a good thing.
For the sake of the experiment, I'm going to try a few days without installing the greasemonkey scripts, but I don't expect it'll last long. The benefits I see from favorites are too compelling for me to ignore them.
BTW - can somebody track the usage of those scripts? In general, when your users have to come up with their own solutions to circumvent your website's design, it's not a good sign. I have to imagine that the 'restore favorites' script will be vastly more popular than any old scripts that hid favorite counts.
posted by chrisamiller at 8:12 AM on November 1, 2009 [13 favorites]
You've also removed my ability to skim long threads and just find the points that are the most interesting, which means on threads like this one, I just don't have time to read the whole thing.
So, with this change, you've simultaneously created a lot more noise on the site, and impaired our ability to find the signal in that noise. I can't see how this is a good thing.
For the sake of the experiment, I'm going to try a few days without installing the greasemonkey scripts, but I don't expect it'll last long. The benefits I see from favorites are too compelling for me to ignore them.
BTW - can somebody track the usage of those scripts? In general, when your users have to come up with their own solutions to circumvent your website's design, it's not a good sign. I have to imagine that the 'restore favorites' script will be vastly more popular than any old scripts that hid favorite counts.
posted by chrisamiller at 8:12 AM on November 1, 2009 [13 favorites]
I wonder if which post in this thread will be faved the most.
posted by Balisong at 8:12 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Balisong at 8:12 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
One member, one vote (although perhaps restricted to members who have been active for more than x days/comments).
Lurkers are people too.
Not that I have ever, successfully, lurked.
posted by Deathalicious at 8:12 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Lurkers are people too.
Not that I have ever, successfully, lurked.
posted by Deathalicious at 8:12 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I will promise not to bitch any more about this, btw, if December is "Comment Editing Month"
posted by empath at 8:12 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by empath at 8:12 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
"I would suggest being the change you want to see in the world instead of blaming it on technical factors."
Noted. I strongly disagree with you, but will acknowledge your statement publicly nonetheless.
" First, there are almost no more comments along the lines of "X wins the thread," or "X FTW.""
If this is attributable to the favorites system rather than improved moderation, then that's a positive outcome. I'm prepared to admit that such a thing is possible, you know.
"Snark? Playing to the audience? It's always been there."
Yes. And I opposed giving snarkers, audience-players, and grandstanders positive feedback tools to improve their performances. For what benefit to me as the reader? To duplicate the bookmarking function of my browser? So I can see other people's scores?
"MetaFilter comments are held up throughout the Internet as an example of how to do commenting right. The comments produced by the existing system, with favorites."
You can't have it both ways: how can you take as given comment quality is undiminished from before the favorites feature, and yet imply the favorites system is responsible for MetaFilter's titanic reputation among discussion sites? Either it did or didn't contribute to why we are so well regarded.
Whatever your answer, this may simply be something we'll have to agree to disagree on. You want what's best for the site as much as I do, we simply don't have a consensus on what that is. Given that the favorites feature itself is not now nor will it ever be removed -- note it being stated as an attractive feature by new users already -- I don't even really have a dog in this fight. I can't make the scoreboards go away no matter how hard I rave or rant, and this month's experiment doesn't really change that in any fundamental way. The site will trundle along as best it can, under the stewardship of individuals who I largely trust even when I disagree with them. And of course it will do so with the "fave" feature left in.
posted by majick at 8:14 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Noted. I strongly disagree with you, but will acknowledge your statement publicly nonetheless.
" First, there are almost no more comments along the lines of "X wins the thread," or "X FTW.""
If this is attributable to the favorites system rather than improved moderation, then that's a positive outcome. I'm prepared to admit that such a thing is possible, you know.
"Snark? Playing to the audience? It's always been there."
Yes. And I opposed giving snarkers, audience-players, and grandstanders positive feedback tools to improve their performances. For what benefit to me as the reader? To duplicate the bookmarking function of my browser? So I can see other people's scores?
"MetaFilter comments are held up throughout the Internet as an example of how to do commenting right. The comments produced by the existing system, with favorites."
You can't have it both ways: how can you take as given comment quality is undiminished from before the favorites feature, and yet imply the favorites system is responsible for MetaFilter's titanic reputation among discussion sites? Either it did or didn't contribute to why we are so well regarded.
Whatever your answer, this may simply be something we'll have to agree to disagree on. You want what's best for the site as much as I do, we simply don't have a consensus on what that is. Given that the favorites feature itself is not now nor will it ever be removed -- note it being stated as an attractive feature by new users already -- I don't even really have a dog in this fight. I can't make the scoreboards go away no matter how hard I rave or rant, and this month's experiment doesn't really change that in any fundamental way. The site will trundle along as best it can, under the stewardship of individuals who I largely trust even when I disagree with them. And of course it will do so with the "fave" feature left in.
posted by majick at 8:14 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
When I see a comment that I want to fave**, I like to see who else has favourited it, because if I tend to see the same people again and again, it lets me know who to look for in large &/or contentious threads. I like seeing when someone has the same-ish opinions as me on one subject, but perhaps not on another. This is not, as one might suspect, to aid me in amassing an enormous hit/hug list, but rather to feed into my obsessive FOR SCIENCE! nature, in which all aspects of life are just one giant awesome social experiment.
Oh, I definitely use it them this way, too! I've always found it interesting on posts where there are clearly several "warring factions", so to speak, when people (myself included) favorite all of the posts that agree with them.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:14 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Oh, I definitely use it them this way, too! I've always found it interesting on posts where there are clearly several "warring factions", so to speak, when people (myself included) favorite all of the posts that agree with them.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:14 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Is there something different about the front page with the change then?
No, we haven't changed the front pages at all as part of this experiment. And we haven't changed anything on front pages for some time.
posted by pb (staff) at 8:15 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
No, we haven't changed the front pages at all as part of this experiment. And we haven't changed anything on front pages for some time.
posted by pb (staff) at 8:15 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
"meTas from two-ish years ago are jammed with bile... I don't know when this mystical "ten old-timers shame whiners into shutting the fuck up" time was, but it wasn't a year ago, or two years ago, or three years ago."
Lest anyone mistake me for perpetuating this, since I'm making my stand vaguely over near those guys: I couldn't give two shits about MetaTalk comment quality. It's a cesspool now, it was a cesspool back in the day, and will remain so until the Reign of the Schmoopy comes.
posted by majick at 8:18 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Lest anyone mistake me for perpetuating this, since I'm making my stand vaguely over near those guys: I couldn't give two shits about MetaTalk comment quality. It's a cesspool now, it was a cesspool back in the day, and will remain so until the Reign of the Schmoopy comes.
posted by majick at 8:18 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
No, we haven't changed the front pages at all as part of this experiment. And we haven't changed anything on front pages for some time.
That's a pretty good idea Brandon had, though. Let's try favorite counts on the front page, next.
*ducks, runs*
posted by empath at 8:18 AM on November 1, 2009
That's a pretty good idea Brandon had, though. Let's try favorite counts on the front page, next.
*ducks, runs*
posted by empath at 8:18 AM on November 1, 2009
Anyway, I want to go on record as saying I don't like this change.
This.
... I hate the word faved. It sounds like saturday morning kid's tv.
This!!! Please ...
posted by jgirl at 8:19 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
This.
... I hate the word faved. It sounds like saturday morning kid's tv.
This!!! Please ...
posted by jgirl at 8:19 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
You know, I could even be persuaded to be okay with hiding exact favorite counts if there were some kind of scale associated with it, implemented behind the scenes. After, say 5 favorites, the post gets a +, after 20, it gets ++, and after 50, it gets +++. Then there's still some incentive for me to use favorites as an "I agree", and there would still be some way to filter good stuff from the chaff.
I suspect it would still annoy the small-but-vocal anti-favorites group, though.
posted by chrisamiller at 8:20 AM on November 1, 2009
I suspect it would still annoy the small-but-vocal anti-favorites group, though.
posted by chrisamiller at 8:20 AM on November 1, 2009
If anything good comes of this it will be changing favorites to 'duly noted' ... oh please.
posted by geoff. at 8:20 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by geoff. at 8:20 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
You know, I could even be persuaded to be okay with hiding exact favorite counts if there were some kind of scale associated with it, implemented behind the scenes. After, say 5 favorites, the post gets a +, after 20, it gets ++, and after 50, it gets +++. Then there's still some incentive for me to use favorites as an "I agree", and there would still be some way to filter good stuff from the chaff.
How would that be any different from showing the favorite count?
posted by empath at 8:23 AM on November 1, 2009
How would that be any different from showing the favorite count?
posted by empath at 8:23 AM on November 1, 2009
I strongly disagree with you, but will acknowledge your statement publicly nonetheless.
Much appreciated, majick.
You can't have it both ways: how can you take as given comment quality is undiminished from before the favorites feature, and yet imply the favorites system is responsible for MetaFilter's titanic reputation among discussion sites? Either it did or didn't contribute to why we are so well regarded.
I think it is slightly more nuanced then that—I don't think that the favorites system has harmed things, at a relative level, when compared to pre-favorite comments. And I think, at an absolute level, MeFi comments are considered to be good in general, therefore the system ain't broke.
posted by grouse at 8:23 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Much appreciated, majick.
You can't have it both ways: how can you take as given comment quality is undiminished from before the favorites feature, and yet imply the favorites system is responsible for MetaFilter's titanic reputation among discussion sites? Either it did or didn't contribute to why we are so well regarded.
I think it is slightly more nuanced then that—I don't think that the favorites system has harmed things, at a relative level, when compared to pre-favorite comments. And I think, at an absolute level, MeFi comments are considered to be good in general, therefore the system ain't broke.
posted by grouse at 8:23 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Another thought: If the argument is, "Favorites contribute to snark, which is undesirable in our community," then a possible solution that does not change the favorites scheme is, "Snark is undesirable; moderators delete all snark."
posted by Houstonian at 8:25 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Houstonian at 8:25 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Can we update the byline for the recent favourites page on ask.mefi? Instead of
[18 favorites (14 in the last 24 hours)]
How about
[18 liked (+14)]
posted by tksh at 8:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
[18 favorites (14 in the last 24 hours)]
How about
[18 liked (+14)]
posted by tksh at 8:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think I prefer November as NaNoWriMo. The new favorites style obscures information and can be too much of a visual burden in threads when many comments have been favorited. In older threads where there was jokey favoriting, at least you could tell the comments that were favorited for the sake of the joke once or twice from a comment that'd get favorited for other reasons.
So far I prefer both the previous style and the older style without favorites at all. Now the functionality still exists (so let's write a snarky comment first thing in a thread!) but is not accessible at a first glance.
posted by ersatz at 8:28 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
So far I prefer both the previous style and the older style without favorites at all. Now the functionality still exists (so let's write a snarky comment first thing in a thread!) but is not accessible at a first glance.
posted by ersatz at 8:28 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I am not a fan of this change.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 8:28 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 8:28 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
That's all real nice.
Wassup with GigFilter?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:29 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Wassup with GigFilter?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:29 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Okay, this is the end of it for me, because I'm starting to feel a little like that magnet they feed cows. I hope I've encouraged at least a few people to think more clearly on where they stand.
"But if you don't like favorites you can avoid them easily enough by either going out of your way to excise them with a Greasemonkey script or by simply not caring."
Neither of those things fix the actual problem that favorites introduced, which was giving favorite-whores, injokers, and chucklehead snarkers a positive feedback loop. Sure, I can chop the feature out of my UI, but that doesn't actually fix the damage. I could slap a Dora the Explorer bandaid over my carcinoma so I don't have to look at it, but that won't cure it.
Also, while I'm a massive fan of the end user having control over the user agent to the point that I'm prepared to start another rant about its importance, "user scripts" don't work very well in Safari. CreamMonkey or GreaseKit or whatever they're calling it these days barely works at all -- most of the time it doesn't do anything, and it requires horrible hacks to load the thing to begin with. I acknowledge that's a flaw in my UA and not your problem, but millions of people use my UA. Saying "use this feature of software you don't run" helps no one.
posted by majick at 8:30 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
"But if you don't like favorites you can avoid them easily enough by either going out of your way to excise them with a Greasemonkey script or by simply not caring."
Neither of those things fix the actual problem that favorites introduced, which was giving favorite-whores, injokers, and chucklehead snarkers a positive feedback loop. Sure, I can chop the feature out of my UI, but that doesn't actually fix the damage. I could slap a Dora the Explorer bandaid over my carcinoma so I don't have to look at it, but that won't cure it.
Also, while I'm a massive fan of the end user having control over the user agent to the point that I'm prepared to start another rant about its importance, "user scripts" don't work very well in Safari. CreamMonkey or GreaseKit or whatever they're calling it these days barely works at all -- most of the time it doesn't do anything, and it requires horrible hacks to load the thing to begin with. I acknowledge that's a flaw in my UA and not your problem, but millions of people use my UA. Saying "use this feature of software you don't run" helps no one.
posted by majick at 8:30 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Well, this would probably be a lot of work, but...
You know how we get a little drop-down when we flag a comment where we can choose why we're flagging? Is that something that can be done with favorites? Just for data-gathering purposes.
The list could include stuff like
Agree (for when someone makes your point much better than you did)
Bookmarked (for when you want to save for future reference)
Funny (for the snark)
Other (for everything else)
The reasons don't have to be visible to anyone but the mods, but it seems like it would give a clearer picture of how people use favorites, and you could move forward from there.
posted by dogmom at 8:32 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
You know how we get a little drop-down when we flag a comment where we can choose why we're flagging? Is that something that can be done with favorites? Just for data-gathering purposes.
The list could include stuff like
Agree (for when someone makes your point much better than you did)
Bookmarked (for when you want to save for future reference)
Funny (for the snark)
Other (for everything else)
The reasons don't have to be visible to anyone but the mods, but it seems like it would give a clearer picture of how people use favorites, and you could move forward from there.
posted by dogmom at 8:32 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
How would that be any different from showing the favorite count?
A less explicit form of favorite numbers might reduce the competition for favorites that the anti-favorites crowd seems to obsess over. (I'm not convinced that the problem exists, though). You could couple it with showing no information about favorites on a user's profile page, and also blunt some of the criticism there.
Just brainstorming for ways to get more filter back in the metafilter.
posted by chrisamiller at 8:34 AM on November 1, 2009
A less explicit form of favorite numbers might reduce the competition for favorites that the anti-favorites crowd seems to obsess over. (I'm not convinced that the problem exists, though). You could couple it with showing no information about favorites on a user's profile page, and also blunt some of the criticism there.
Just brainstorming for ways to get more filter back in the metafilter.
posted by chrisamiller at 8:34 AM on November 1, 2009
I'll be back in a month
posted by The Whelk at 8:36 AM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 8:36 AM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
I just noticed that favorites were acting strangely, ran a search of MetaTalk, and found this thread.
This is a bug, not a feature.
posted by oaf at 8:36 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
This is a bug, not a feature.
posted by oaf at 8:36 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
Another thought: If the argument is, "Favorites contribute to snark, which is undesirable in our community," then a possible solution that does not change the favorites scheme is, "Snark is undesirable; moderators delete all snark."
What makes Metafilter great is its sublime balance of snark and smarts. Remove the snark from the recipe and Metafilter is just a low rent version of the WELL. Take away the erudite comments and it's just an upscale clone of Fark.
posted by bunnytricks at 8:42 AM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
What makes Metafilter great is its sublime balance of snark and smarts. Remove the snark from the recipe and Metafilter is just a low rent version of the WELL. Take away the erudite comments and it's just an upscale clone of Fark.
posted by bunnytricks at 8:42 AM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
Another thought: If the argument is, "Favorites contribute to snark, which is undesirable in our community,"
When did we decide that snark was bad and that favorites contribute to them? Maybe I'm not sure what counts as snark.
Are we talking about personal attacks? Those do get a lot of favorites sometimes, but you're talking about a small number of people who generally have animosity towards each other, for one reason or another, and I rarely get the sense that they're doing it for the favorites.
Threadshitting is obnoxious, but it's rarely gotten a ton of favorites, that I'm aware of.
If you're talking about the pile-on that happens when conservatives post, I can almost assure you that the problem will only get worse if people can't meaningfully favorite comments they agree with.
posted by empath at 8:43 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
When did we decide that snark was bad and that favorites contribute to them? Maybe I'm not sure what counts as snark.
Are we talking about personal attacks? Those do get a lot of favorites sometimes, but you're talking about a small number of people who generally have animosity towards each other, for one reason or another, and I rarely get the sense that they're doing it for the favorites.
Threadshitting is obnoxious, but it's rarely gotten a ton of favorites, that I'm aware of.
If you're talking about the pile-on that happens when conservatives post, I can almost assure you that the problem will only get worse if people can't meaningfully favorite comments they agree with.
posted by empath at 8:43 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I noted this on the other pages, and immediately came here to see what was up and, I confess, if there were some way to turn the numbers back on.
FIRST: I highly laud the moderators for undertaking this experiment.
SECOND: If you waited until you had a good metric to try every experiment, you might end up spending all your time debating.
THIRD: I am against this change for all the reasons expressed above.
FOUR: I do not think that this means all change is now impossible.
FIVE: Instead of "Fave/Faved" what about "Like/Liked"?
COMMENT:
Metafilter's problem is managing scale - like with most community sites. You want to hit the sweet spot with "enough information" but not "a firehose". The reason people liked favorites is that it's a tool to manage scale. You simply can't read every post of every Metafilter article you're interested in.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:43 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
FIRST: I highly laud the moderators for undertaking this experiment.
SECOND: If you waited until you had a good metric to try every experiment, you might end up spending all your time debating.
THIRD: I am against this change for all the reasons expressed above.
FOUR: I do not think that this means all change is now impossible.
FIVE: Instead of "Fave/Faved" what about "Like/Liked"?
COMMENT:
Metafilter's problem is managing scale - like with most community sites. You want to hit the sweet spot with "enough information" but not "a firehose". The reason people liked favorites is that it's a tool to manage scale. You simply can't read every post of every Metafilter article you're interested in.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:43 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
I'll add to the 'this is fucking rubbish' shout outs... it totally ruins the way I read the site* (Read some posts in there entirety, read the high-lights/skim of others by faves to get the gist and see if I want to read more, use faves to mark an answer in askme that I'd have also said etc etc)
I can see November being a productive month for me now as I'll be spending much less time here... is this all conspiracy to get us to do NaNoWriMo or something?
*Christ it's totally ruined reading this thread!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 8:45 AM on November 1, 2009
I can see November being a productive month for me now as I'll be spending much less time here... is this all conspiracy to get us to do NaNoWriMo or something?
*Christ it's totally ruined reading this thread!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 8:45 AM on November 1, 2009
Here's my personal datapoint on The Great Faved Experiment, Day 1: I find that I'm not clicking the plus sign on anything that already has a plus sign on it, because it seems like it's already been spotlighted. And I think that's going to have an impact on the "Popular Favorites" thingy, which may or may not be an issue for the people who look at the "Popular Favorites" thingy (a group which does not include me).
As usual, my overarching philosophy is that you guys need to do what works best for keeping the site up and running, and the rest of us can offer our opinions as part of that mix.
But if you were having a vote, I'd vote for either going back to the old "Favorites" format or taking the whole thing away and going back to the original favorites-free format --I think this approach captures the worst of both.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:50 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
As usual, my overarching philosophy is that you guys need to do what works best for keeping the site up and running, and the rest of us can offer our opinions as part of that mix.
But if you were having a vote, I'd vote for either going back to the old "Favorites" format or taking the whole thing away and going back to the original favorites-free format --I think this approach captures the worst of both.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:50 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
This thread is large enough to destroy Tokyo Godzilla-style, so maybe someone's already suggested this, but what about putting the number of favorites in the rollover text of "faved?" It sounds like the number of favorites a given comment has is going to remain accessible information, and I support (at least in theory, let's see how it plays out) removing the favorites count from the byline, but if the count was in the rollover text... you wouldn't to have to load a new page to see it. Just a thought.
posted by Rinku at 8:50 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Rinku at 8:50 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Quoth Houstonian: If the argument is, "Favorites contribute to snark, which is undesirable in our community"
If that's actually the argument, I think I've been reading a different site than this one for the past 8 years.
My understanding was that pointless snark was undesirable, just as pointless pedantry, pointless information, and pointless links are undesirable, and that the mods just deleted that stuff.
Like bunnyfilter and empath, I think that intelligent snark is a feature, not a bug. Jerky personal attacks are jerky, and lazy contrarianism is lazy, but sharp, satirical balloon-puncturing is one of the things that distinguishes us from the primordial soup from which we arose.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:54 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
If that's actually the argument, I think I've been reading a different site than this one for the past 8 years.
My understanding was that pointless snark was undesirable, just as pointless pedantry, pointless information, and pointless links are undesirable, and that the mods just deleted that stuff.
Like bunnyfilter and empath, I think that intelligent snark is a feature, not a bug. Jerky personal attacks are jerky, and lazy contrarianism is lazy, but sharp, satirical balloon-puncturing is one of the things that distinguishes us from the primordial soup from which we arose.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:54 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Howard Zinn once wrote that "Talent and hard work are qualitative factors which cannot be measured quantitatively." This is true in many aspects of evaluation, but there are times when the quantitative is needed to differentiate and provide more data from the insubstantial, qualitative demarcation of something as "faved." This is one of those times.
posted by raztaj at 8:55 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by raztaj at 8:55 AM on November 1, 2009
Houstonian: I'm kinda surprised how many people find such a short-term plan to be completely ruinous.
I think the angst may be coming from people feeling blindsided by a month-long removal of a feature that many users believe is essential to their experience. I'm not the most active member on the site, but I've been reading since long before favorites arrived and I've seen MeTa discussions on this topic. I sometimes feel that my low post count makes my opinion easy to dismiss, so I've never chimed in on those threads (though, heh, may have favorited someone else's comment). People may be speaking up now because they didn't do so before, and they'd like to at least voice their own opinions before any permanent decision is made.
For the record, I don't like having favorite numbers obscured for many of the reasons mentioned above and will be using a greasemonkey script to keep things as they were. My own preference would be to make favorite counts an opt-in feature and to change the word "faves" to "marked."
posted by contrariwise at 8:56 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think the angst may be coming from people feeling blindsided by a month-long removal of a feature that many users believe is essential to their experience. I'm not the most active member on the site, but I've been reading since long before favorites arrived and I've seen MeTa discussions on this topic. I sometimes feel that my low post count makes my opinion easy to dismiss, so I've never chimed in on those threads (though, heh, may have favorited someone else's comment). People may be speaking up now because they didn't do so before, and they'd like to at least voice their own opinions before any permanent decision is made.
For the record, I don't like having favorite numbers obscured for many of the reasons mentioned above and will be using a greasemonkey script to keep things as they were. My own preference would be to make favorite counts an opt-in feature and to change the word "faves" to "marked."
posted by contrariwise at 8:56 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I guess I should modify my original statement to the following:
If the argument is, "Favorites are contributing to X, which is undesirable in our community, then a possible solution that does not change the favorites scheme is, "X is undesirable; moderators delete all X," with X equaling the problem.
posted by Houstonian at 8:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
If the argument is, "Favorites are contributing to X, which is undesirable in our community, then a possible solution that does not change the favorites scheme is, "X is undesirable; moderators delete all X," with X equaling the problem.
posted by Houstonian at 8:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
The misapprehension by several people that favourites were displayed with posts on the front page when they never were is quite telling about the gap between the practical and theoretical use of the site. It strongly suggests to me that people won't actually know what they think about this change until they actually use it for a while.
I was thinking like grouse above, I should have been speaking up when complaints about favourites were aired. That is, I don't really think favourites are hurting the site and I don't think the site is broken in that way. Nonetheless I support this experiment and hope that regular users who seem to have their knickers twisted over this will give it a chance and we can all talk about it on November 30th some more. Like I say, in a month you will know what you actually think and not just what you think you think about this change.
posted by Rumple at 8:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I was thinking like grouse above, I should have been speaking up when complaints about favourites were aired. That is, I don't really think favourites are hurting the site and I don't think the site is broken in that way. Nonetheless I support this experiment and hope that regular users who seem to have their knickers twisted over this will give it a chance and we can all talk about it on November 30th some more. Like I say, in a month you will know what you actually think and not just what you think you think about this change.
posted by Rumple at 8:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
FIVE: Instead of "Fave/Faved" what about "Like/Liked"?
That's the term Facebook uses, and it's worse. It causes you to hold back from clicking "like" unless you definitely want people to think you "like" everything about the comment -- i.e. agree with it. The word "favorite" doesn't carry that implication. My "favorite" comments on Metafilter aren't necessarily the ones I agree with -- they're just the ones that are especially worth reading. Also, the word "like" is too awkward and jovial when applied to anything about an ultra-depressing topic -- say, racism, genocide, nuclear weapons, rape, cancer, etc.
posted by Jaltcoh at 8:58 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
That's the term Facebook uses, and it's worse. It causes you to hold back from clicking "like" unless you definitely want people to think you "like" everything about the comment -- i.e. agree with it. The word "favorite" doesn't carry that implication. My "favorite" comments on Metafilter aren't necessarily the ones I agree with -- they're just the ones that are especially worth reading. Also, the word "like" is too awkward and jovial when applied to anything about an ultra-depressing topic -- say, racism, genocide, nuclear weapons, rape, cancer, etc.
posted by Jaltcoh at 8:58 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
having said that, I am pretty sure this change is part of lewistate's PhD methodology
posted by Rumple at 8:58 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by Rumple at 8:58 AM on November 1, 2009
Can this "faved experiment" be rolled back sooner in consideration of the largely negative response?
posted by 26.2 at 9:00 AM on November 1, 2009 [25 favorites]
posted by 26.2 at 9:00 AM on November 1, 2009 [25 favorites]
I have favorited every comment I came across in this thread that didn't already have a favorite.
The Glorious Commentunist Revolution has begun.
posted by oaf at 9:03 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
The Glorious Commentunist Revolution has begun.
posted by oaf at 9:03 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I will probably become bored of this in a couple of hours.
posted by oaf at 9:04 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by oaf at 9:04 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Wow. Busy day and night in the knee-jerk ZOMG CHANGE IS BAD department.
I'd prefer just making the tagline say "favorited." (It is only four more characters.) It keeps "our" terminology intact -- whether you loved it in the first place or not, at least we're accustomed to it and have already done our own personal rationalizations of what it means.
posted by desuetude at 9:06 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'd prefer just making the tagline say "favorited." (It is only four more characters.) It keeps "our" terminology intact -- whether you loved it in the first place or not, at least we're accustomed to it and have already done our own personal rationalizations of what it means.
posted by desuetude at 9:06 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
The misapprehension by several people that favourites were displayed with posts on the front page when they never were is quite telling about the gap between the practical and theoretical use of the site.
Were people referring to actual FPPs, though? I assumed people were talking about possible changes to the behaviour in the "Contact Activity" collapsible/expandable part of the sidebar, where one can see "$CONTACT had a comment/post with #favourites in MeFI/AskMe/&c." Since I have no idea how often that's updated, I can't tell if there's been any change.
posted by elizardbits at 9:13 AM on November 1, 2009
Were people referring to actual FPPs, though? I assumed people were talking about possible changes to the behaviour in the "Contact Activity" collapsible/expandable part of the sidebar, where one can see "$CONTACT had a comment/post with #favourites in MeFI/AskMe/&c." Since I have no idea how often that's updated, I can't tell if there's been any change.
posted by elizardbits at 9:13 AM on November 1, 2009
I am pretty flexible about change management but initally I didn't like the idea and on reading the site this morning it HAS negatively affected how I read it. Having every comment "faved" on this thread illustrates how useless a technological solution to a social problem is to me. Perhaps it is because I am more on Askme with the "I agree" connotations and I stay away from snark-inspiring threads on mefi anyway. I remember in one of the feminism thread that someone noted that there were few women making argumentative comments but the few that did were inspiring a lot of favourites from lurkers or other commentators that didn't want to get personally dragged into the arguments. Which means a lot of the lurkers that used favourites as their way of participating in the community probably won't actually post a comment about favourites, which is sad. I always read an entire thread before commenting but the "every comment gets faved" meme really put me off reading the whole thing. Sorry if I am repeating someone else's earlier comment.
posted by saucysault at 9:22 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by saucysault at 9:22 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Mods: please ban.
Oh get the fuck over yourself. If the mod team couldn't be bothered to conceive of ways people would fuck up the system, it's a good thing it's happening during this trial period, in the thread about the trial period, so it can be addressed.
posted by iamabot at 9:23 AM on November 1, 2009
Oh get the fuck over yourself. If the mod team couldn't be bothered to conceive of ways people would fuck up the system, it's a good thing it's happening during this trial period, in the thread about the trial period, so it can be addressed.
posted by iamabot at 9:23 AM on November 1, 2009
Oh, wow, I didn't realize that empath had me beaten by a few hours. But more than 90% of the thread's comments, as of my second comment, had already been favorited.
posted by oaf at 9:27 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by oaf at 9:27 AM on November 1, 2009
I keep up with Metafilter via RSS through "popular comments" and "popular posts" across MeFi (spanning all sites). I use this because I actually have work to do day to day and can't keep up with all of MeFi. The treshold for "popular" had been increasing as of late, often needing 60 or more favorites to show on my RSS reader (Google Reader fwiw), BUT I usually like to read comments and posts that have more than 12 or 20 favorites, when and if I have the time to do so. The fastest way to do so? Through favorited times numbers. So:
This is just to say
You have just cut
my enjoyment
of MeFI,
and of the internet
as a whole,
in half. Here's hoping
you
reconsider soon.
Forgive me.
I think
what you did
was stupid.
posted by omegar at 9:28 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
This is just to say
You have just cut
my enjoyment
of MeFI,
and of the internet
as a whole,
in half. Here's hoping
you
reconsider soon.
Forgive me.
I think
what you did
was stupid.
posted by omegar at 9:28 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I prefer the old system so strongly, that I may stop visiting Metafilter entirely until this change is reverted or improved. The way I like to "consume" Metafilter is to view a thread on an interesting topic, and use my browser's 'find' functionality to search for the word "favorites", and read only the top rated comments in a thread, and I don't usually participate in discussions.
Now, I'm not here to say that this is a bad decision, because it may be a good change, depending on your goals. But I just wanted to throw in my two cents, so it is at least on the record that this breaks the site for some users.
With this new system, I can't even tell from this thread (I sure as shit ain't reading it all) what the popular opinion is on the matter, and if my comment here is entirely superfluous.
posted by where u at dawg at 9:31 AM on November 1, 2009
Now, I'm not here to say that this is a bad decision, because it may be a good change, depending on your goals. But I just wanted to throw in my two cents, so it is at least on the record that this breaks the site for some users.
With this new system, I can't even tell from this thread (I sure as shit ain't reading it all) what the popular opinion is on the matter, and if my comment here is entirely superfluous.
posted by where u at dawg at 9:31 AM on November 1, 2009
Deathalicious: "So who's going to step up and alter this greasemonkey script for November?
That would be me.
This topic has come up again and again. Personally, and of course I am biased here, I think Greasemonkey really is the solution. The MultiFavorited MultiWidth script very clearly visualizes comment count along the side of the comment, so you can very easily see how many favorites a comment received. I like it so much, I'm not only the developer, I'm a user.
For people who miss the favorites during this month, I really suggest you try my script. The new "November Experiment" version addresses the changes made this month.
On the other hand, for those of you who find even the 'faved' annoying, please consider using my Destroy MetaFilter Favorites script, which removes all aspects of the favoriting system from the site (including the count, the "favorite" this comment/post link, the "Popular" links at the top of the page, everything. This is for people who really don't want to play the game)."
Thank you, Dethalicious! I'm just going to quote this to point it out to anyone who missed it, it's perfect.
posted by flatluigi at 9:33 AM on November 1, 2009
That would be me.
This topic has come up again and again. Personally, and of course I am biased here, I think Greasemonkey really is the solution. The MultiFavorited MultiWidth script very clearly visualizes comment count along the side of the comment, so you can very easily see how many favorites a comment received. I like it so much, I'm not only the developer, I'm a user.
For people who miss the favorites during this month, I really suggest you try my script. The new "November Experiment" version addresses the changes made this month.
On the other hand, for those of you who find even the 'faved' annoying, please consider using my Destroy MetaFilter Favorites script, which removes all aspects of the favoriting system from the site (including the count, the "favorite" this comment/post link, the "Popular" links at the top of the page, everything. This is for people who really don't want to play the game)."
Thank you, Dethalicious! I'm just going to quote this to point it out to anyone who missed it, it's perfect.
posted by flatluigi at 9:33 AM on November 1, 2009
I'm all for the spirit of experimentation, but I'm doubtful about this. I think few attempts at change are successful that begin with the premise of hiding information from the user on the fear that he or she might somehow misuse that information.
posted by Chanther at 9:33 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by Chanther at 9:33 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I think that this experiment is great. I also believe that eliminating visible favourite counts on a permanent basis would be a win as well. However I feel some sympathy for people you skim so I propose a per thread opt out of favourite count obfuscation with one caveat: You opt out and you lose the ability to comment on that thread. That would help enforce one of the key strengths of metafilter's comment system (it's non threadedness and lack of kill files) and allow TL;DR types to continue to TL;DR without subjecting the rest of us actually having a conversation to comments that are obviously commenting on incorrect information (like that recent TSA-Baby thread).
I'd didn't realize so many people were skimming but boy howdy it sure explains a lot of the already debunked or countered noise any popular thread gets.
Ghidorah writes "On the other hand, I paid $5, I'm a member, and the site I joined had favorites, which made certain things about using the site easier and more enjoyable. I'm annoyed that the site has been suddenly altered from where it was when I joined, even if it was less than two years ago. "
majick writes "Please understand: This is how some number of us feel about the entire favorites feature."
Or even say $5 users.
posted by Mitheral at 9:42 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I'd didn't realize so many people were skimming but boy howdy it sure explains a lot of the already debunked or countered noise any popular thread gets.
Ghidorah writes "On the other hand, I paid $5, I'm a member, and the site I joined had favorites, which made certain things about using the site easier and more enjoyable. I'm annoyed that the site has been suddenly altered from where it was when I joined, even if it was less than two years ago. "
majick writes "Please understand: This is how some number of us feel about the entire favorites feature."
Or even say $5 users.
posted by Mitheral at 9:42 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
If the mod team couldn't be bothered to conceive of ways people would fuck up the system, it's a good thing it's happening during this trial period, in the thread about the trial period, so it can be addressed.
We thought a lot about this. Among the things that we talked about was, indeed, how people might fuck with the system. That folks have gone on favoriting sprees in this thread specifically to fuck with the system isn't really a surprise. It's kind of disappointing, though—the notion that because it's possible to grief folks therefore ought to is a really crappy line of thinking. Broaching the subject would have sufficed.
This is a big noisy thread on the threshold of an eye-catching change, and I can understand people being reactive to it and so, no, it'd never occur to us to ban someone over willfully being a dick about it. But it is kind of a dick move, for all that, and the several people who have pointedly gone about doing it are a little bit up my shirt and I sure hope they will refrain from similarly shitting on threads elsewhere on the site.
In general, we expected this thread to be pretty bumpy and to contain a lot of dissenting reactions. There have been a couple things in here that I have found genuinely surprisingly vituperative, for all that, but those are little outlier flashes in what has otherwise been a pretty reasonable set of responses. We really do appreciate the vast majority of the feedback that's shown up in here.
We're still committed to running this experiment, and we're chewing on a couple of possible tweaks based on the feedback so far. Just getting caught up on this thread has taken a couple hours and it keeps growing, so ironically our responsiveness is going to be a little laggier than it might be if there weren't a great big thing going on, but in any case we're watching this attentively.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:43 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
We thought a lot about this. Among the things that we talked about was, indeed, how people might fuck with the system. That folks have gone on favoriting sprees in this thread specifically to fuck with the system isn't really a surprise. It's kind of disappointing, though—the notion that because it's possible to grief folks therefore ought to is a really crappy line of thinking. Broaching the subject would have sufficed.
This is a big noisy thread on the threshold of an eye-catching change, and I can understand people being reactive to it and so, no, it'd never occur to us to ban someone over willfully being a dick about it. But it is kind of a dick move, for all that, and the several people who have pointedly gone about doing it are a little bit up my shirt and I sure hope they will refrain from similarly shitting on threads elsewhere on the site.
In general, we expected this thread to be pretty bumpy and to contain a lot of dissenting reactions. There have been a couple things in here that I have found genuinely surprisingly vituperative, for all that, but those are little outlier flashes in what has otherwise been a pretty reasonable set of responses. We really do appreciate the vast majority of the feedback that's shown up in here.
We're still committed to running this experiment, and we're chewing on a couple of possible tweaks based on the feedback so far. Just getting caught up on this thread has taken a couple hours and it keeps growing, so ironically our responsiveness is going to be a little laggier than it might be if there weren't a great big thing going on, but in any case we're watching this attentively.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:43 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
The favorite count conveys social information about both the conversation and the community. How are people orienting to the discussion? Where are the trends? What type of behavior is acceptable and encouraged? What role are we playing in these subtle negotiations? With this no longer being publicly indexed, the dynamic of the site fundamentally changes. Other than clicking through and counting (who would do that?), you've essentially moved the pragmatic-, or meta- if you will, information off-record. This would be like changing a face-to-face group conversation into one with blinders and telephones. Something valuable gets lost.
Also, why a past tense verb for something that I haven't done yet? It's unnatural to interpret "faved" as "This has been faved already!" Also, why do I care? All that 'faved' tells me is that it's above threshold, with that threshold being one. Whoop-dee-doo.
I think it's safe to say I vehemently do not like this. And when I un-hangover myself, I may return with a more coherent argument as to why.
posted by iamkimiam at 9:46 AM on November 1, 2009 [28 favorites]
Also, why a past tense verb for something that I haven't done yet? It's unnatural to interpret "faved" as "This has been faved already!" Also, why do I care? All that 'faved' tells me is that it's above threshold, with that threshold being one. Whoop-dee-doo.
I think it's safe to say I vehemently do not like this. And when I un-hangover myself, I may return with a more coherent argument as to why.
posted by iamkimiam at 9:46 AM on November 1, 2009 [28 favorites]
I wonder if this is a clique vs. general users thing.
If you spend a lot of time on Metafilter, you're perhaps more likely to think "I read every single comment and judge each one individually and everyone else should too".
If you're an occasional user, you more likely to just skim the threads looking for the best comments, so favorites are a big help.
Metatalk is usually dominated by people who spend a lot of time on the site, so I wonder if the mods might have got a misleading impression of the popularity of the favorites feature amongst the users as a whole.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:48 AM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
If you spend a lot of time on Metafilter, you're perhaps more likely to think "I read every single comment and judge each one individually and everyone else should too".
If you're an occasional user, you more likely to just skim the threads looking for the best comments, so favorites are a big help.
Metatalk is usually dominated by people who spend a lot of time on the site, so I wonder if the mods might have got a misleading impression of the popularity of the favorites feature amongst the users as a whole.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:48 AM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
Yeah, I'm really hating this.
I'm surprised how strong my reaction is, actually, but the 'faved' system is meh to the point of sucking my enjoyment out of the site.
posted by misha at 9:53 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
I'm surprised how strong my reaction is, actually, but the 'faved' system is meh to the point of sucking my enjoyment out of the site.
posted by misha at 9:53 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Not prepared yet to comment on the bigger issues (short answer: I don't hate this), but on the "faved" thing specifically, I'd advocate for making the link text more subtle, for a few reasons:
1) "Faved" vs "not faved" does not really give you much information, and arguably gives unnecessary weight to posts favorited by just one person, which I don't think anyone thinks is a particularly good idea-- if we're hiding favorite counts, let's go all the way and hide "favorited vs not-favorited" too.
2) Yeah, I know it's a real word, but ugh. Sounds and feels wrong to me and to a lot of others, it seems.
3) "Faved" is just plain confusing and non-intuitive as a word (especially, but not only, because of the way it falsely parallels "flagged")
4) In my mind, if we're going for experimentation here, I think it'd be more useful to push the "who favorited what?" question even further into the background-- the big obvious "faved" text reminds people repeatedly "yeah, we used to have visible favorite counts" and stirs up people's emotions/curiosity and just makes you think more about who favorited what-- something more subtle and hidden (with mouseover text explaining it, of course) would do a better job of de-emphasizing favorite counts, which is the idea here, right?
Not sure exactly the best way-- I think a symbol or punctuation that parallels the [+] [!] would be ideal, like maybe [*] or [&], but if that needs to be reserved for "actions" and not "links," maybe use a single letter like (F)?
Or-- and this would only solve some of the above problems-- you could have [+ view] with the + to favorite and "view" (or "list") as the link text to the list of favoriters.
posted by EmilyClimbs at 9:53 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
1) "Faved" vs "not faved" does not really give you much information, and arguably gives unnecessary weight to posts favorited by just one person, which I don't think anyone thinks is a particularly good idea-- if we're hiding favorite counts, let's go all the way and hide "favorited vs not-favorited" too.
2) Yeah, I know it's a real word, but ugh. Sounds and feels wrong to me and to a lot of others, it seems.
3) "Faved" is just plain confusing and non-intuitive as a word (especially, but not only, because of the way it falsely parallels "flagged")
4) In my mind, if we're going for experimentation here, I think it'd be more useful to push the "who favorited what?" question even further into the background-- the big obvious "faved" text reminds people repeatedly "yeah, we used to have visible favorite counts" and stirs up people's emotions/curiosity and just makes you think more about who favorited what-- something more subtle and hidden (with mouseover text explaining it, of course) would do a better job of de-emphasizing favorite counts, which is the idea here, right?
Not sure exactly the best way-- I think a symbol or punctuation that parallels the [+] [!] would be ideal, like maybe [*] or [&], but if that needs to be reserved for "actions" and not "links," maybe use a single letter like (F)?
Or-- and this would only solve some of the above problems-- you could have [+ view] with the + to favorite and "view" (or "list") as the link text to the list of favoriters.
posted by EmilyClimbs at 9:53 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Maybe it's just because I'm hungover and therefore grumpy, but man do I hate this. Some people have mentioned the fact that the site functioned fine without favorites prior to 96, but it's kind of like an iPhone- I didn't need one till I got one but now that I have one I can't live without it. Favoriting has fundamentally changed the way people experience the place (for me, and seemingly for many others) it's a change for the better. For some- and honestly it really does seem like a small minority- it was a change for the worse. But it's so entrenched now that I just don't see going back. I'm finding it insanely frustrating to navigate long threads and I've started just skimming them and not getting nearly as much out of them as I did before.
One thing I'm really curious about- almost everyone seemed to agree that a major problem was just the use of the term "favorite"- how come that was the one thing that didn't change in this experiment? Calling it "bookmarked" or, as someone upthread suggested, using a little book icon, would make it a neutral term and allow for the different ways in which people use the function, while helping to mitigate the popularity contest aspect. It seems like such a self-evident, easy to implement, and widely asked-for fix- could one of the mods explain why that wasn't part of this?
I appreciate that this is an experiment, and you guys are trying to find a solution for an issue that seems to be bothering some users, but continuing to refer to them as favorites, showing that a comment has been favorited, and removing the amount seems kind of like the worst of all possible worlds. It just adds noise and signifies nothing.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 9:53 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
One thing I'm really curious about- almost everyone seemed to agree that a major problem was just the use of the term "favorite"- how come that was the one thing that didn't change in this experiment? Calling it "bookmarked" or, as someone upthread suggested, using a little book icon, would make it a neutral term and allow for the different ways in which people use the function, while helping to mitigate the popularity contest aspect. It seems like such a self-evident, easy to implement, and widely asked-for fix- could one of the mods explain why that wasn't part of this?
I appreciate that this is an experiment, and you guys are trying to find a solution for an issue that seems to be bothering some users, but continuing to refer to them as favorites, showing that a comment has been favorited, and removing the amount seems kind of like the worst of all possible worlds. It just adds noise and signifies nothing.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 9:53 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Also, why a past tense verb for something that I haven't done yet? It's unnatural to interpret "faved" as "This has been faved already!"
Vocab choice on this front has been a deceptively complicated matter. We went back and forth on a lot of different angles of what word to use and why, and landed on faved as a compromise for a number of reasons (including avoiding some other choices for different semantic/functional-ambiguity reasons) but, yeah, the effect a past participle has in this context of suggesting an accomplished state-change ala "flagged" got by us. Whoops!
There's a big meaty lexical discussion to be had about the complex role the various inflections of "favorite" have in how they are used on the site, and the difficulty (all other questions of word choice aside) of finding a different word that would even have all those some inflections function in a naturally analogous way. But that's wordnerdery that's not really on topic right now so I'll save it for another day. The extremely short version is that I think "favorite" has become a very useful term, any faults aside, because it has been hammered by use into the service of vague applicability and had much of its perceived explicitly-positive charge drained over time, and introducing a new word that worked the same way syntactically in all the needed inflections and which also worked semantically on as many fronts as the mefi-specific "favorite" does could be very, very hard to manage.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:54 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Vocab choice on this front has been a deceptively complicated matter. We went back and forth on a lot of different angles of what word to use and why, and landed on faved as a compromise for a number of reasons (including avoiding some other choices for different semantic/functional-ambiguity reasons) but, yeah, the effect a past participle has in this context of suggesting an accomplished state-change ala "flagged" got by us. Whoops!
There's a big meaty lexical discussion to be had about the complex role the various inflections of "favorite" have in how they are used on the site, and the difficulty (all other questions of word choice aside) of finding a different word that would even have all those some inflections function in a naturally analogous way. But that's wordnerdery that's not really on topic right now so I'll save it for another day. The extremely short version is that I think "favorite" has become a very useful term, any faults aside, because it has been hammered by use into the service of vague applicability and had much of its perceived explicitly-positive charge drained over time, and introducing a new word that worked the same way syntactically in all the needed inflections and which also worked semantically on as many fronts as the mefi-specific "favorite" does could be very, very hard to manage.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:54 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Sort of homogenized the favorites so now it really is just a utility for personal bookmarking. Looking through this thread, every comment just has faved next to it. There's no differentiation.
posted by lazaruslong at 9:54 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by lazaruslong at 9:54 AM on November 1, 2009
Uh. Prior to 06, that is. Not 96. Unless you guys know something I don't know.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 9:54 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 9:54 AM on November 1, 2009
The favorite count conveys social information about both the conversation and the community. How are people orienting to the discussion? Where are the trends? What type of behavior is acceptable and encouraged? What role are we playing in these subtle negotiations? With this no longer being publicly indexed, the dynamic of the site fundamentally changes.
This is the most cogent and persuasive argument that this change is bad I've read so far. If this is you hung over, kim, well, damn. This will really make think about how visible favorites en- or discourages my participation in a thread.
Favorited really a lot!
posted by rtha at 9:54 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
This is the most cogent and persuasive argument that this change is bad I've read so far. If this is you hung over, kim, well, damn. This will really make think about how visible favorites en- or discourages my participation in a thread.
Favorited really a lot!
posted by rtha at 9:54 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Also I had a problem there with some parentheses that went nowhere. Hey, whatever happened to that edit window? I like implementing new sitewide features! God I am hungover.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 9:56 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 9:56 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I really really dislike this idea. I can do anything for a single month, so experiment all you want. I hope this reverts as quickly as possible back to what it was. It's not that I hate change, but this will definitely impact how I digest the site - for comments with and without faves. When such a large percentage of the comments are "faved" why even bother telling us it's been faved at all? I might miss an 80+ faved really great comment because it doesn't stand out next to a 1-2 faved mediocre snark. Some comments really are better than others and it renders the site too flat.
posted by yeti at 9:58 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by yeti at 9:58 AM on November 1, 2009
One thing I'm really curious about- almost everyone seemed to agree that a major problem was just the use of the term "favorite"- how come that was the one thing that didn't change in this experiment?
A full-on, sitewide change to the vocabulary is a much broader scope of project than what we're doing here. It's not really "the one thing we didn't change" so much as a completely different question in terms of what the undertaking would require.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:59 AM on November 1, 2009
A full-on, sitewide change to the vocabulary is a much broader scope of project than what we're doing here. It's not really "the one thing we didn't change" so much as a completely different question in terms of what the undertaking would require.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:59 AM on November 1, 2009
majick: "Neither of those things fix the actual problem that favorites introduced, which was giving favorite-whores, injokers, and chucklehead snarkers a positive feedback loop."
As someone who values each and every favorite they're received*, and frequently checks with hopeful anticipation for new arrivals, I'm far from unbiased here. But it seems to me that if a majority of the community likes in-jokes and snark - as they appear to - they will not only find a way to express that like with or without favorites, they also have a fundamental right to do so within the limits placed by the mods.
If this favesperiment** is the mods' way of tinkering with the limit-setting process, I feel that we owe them respect for their good intentions - even if we vehemently disagree with their methodology. I installed koeselitz's Stylish script*** the second I found it, so perhaps we'll never be certain if the change would have impacted my "favorite-whoring" behavior - if that's how you define it. But I strongly suspect not.
* At least until this rash of spite favoriting broke out. Yeesh.
** I like this word. I'm going with it.
*** For which I create and award them the Distinguished Hero of the Blue medal, with oak leaf clusters.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:59 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
As someone who values each and every favorite they're received*, and frequently checks with hopeful anticipation for new arrivals, I'm far from unbiased here. But it seems to me that if a majority of the community likes in-jokes and snark - as they appear to - they will not only find a way to express that like with or without favorites, they also have a fundamental right to do so within the limits placed by the mods.
If this favesperiment** is the mods' way of tinkering with the limit-setting process, I feel that we owe them respect for their good intentions - even if we vehemently disagree with their methodology. I installed koeselitz's Stylish script*** the second I found it, so perhaps we'll never be certain if the change would have impacted my "favorite-whoring" behavior - if that's how you define it. But I strongly suspect not.
* At least until this rash of spite favoriting broke out. Yeesh.
** I like this word. I'm going with it.
*** For which I create and award them the Distinguished Hero of the Blue medal, with oak leaf clusters.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:59 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
This breaks how I read the site, and cuts off valuable (to me) sources of information.
posted by everichon at 9:59 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by everichon at 9:59 AM on November 1, 2009
Just in case individual opinions being presented will be considered, here're mine:
1) I don't like this change, and I like favorites in general.
2) Now when I read a post which is "faved," the date at the "faved" run together, for me. So, today, as I read, it looks at first like each faved thread has been faved once. And tomorrow, each one will look like it's been faved twice.
3) The mods really have handled all this incredibly well.
posted by Ms. Saint at 10:00 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
1) I don't like this change, and I like favorites in general.
2) Now when I read a post which is "faved," the date at the "faved" run together, for me. So, today, as I read, it looks at first like each faved thread has been faved once. And tomorrow, each one will look like it's been faved twice.
3) The mods really have handled all this incredibly well.
posted by Ms. Saint at 10:00 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
We thought a lot about this. Among the things that we talked about was, indeed, how people might fuck with the system. That folks have gone on favoriting sprees in this thread specifically to fuck with the system isn't really a surprise. It's kind of disappointing, though—the notion that because it's possible to grief folks therefore ought to is a really crappy line of thinking. Broaching the subject would have sufficed.
Sorry, that sounded harsher than I intended it to, but with the short notice and the cheese "fave" name it feels like some half cocked idea by marketing, and I see those all day long. I guess I don't understand why it was implemented in this specific way given the forethought you're expressing. What empath and others have done is such an obvious way to threadshit that one of the stand out ways to handle it is to ban them (from the site or a thread, and I think banning is rather ridiculous) or limit favorite usage or numbers...which gets you back to the circular discussion of how people use them.
I need to go re-read the whole thread again, but the more I think about it, the more this feels like an odd way of trying to limit the focus on favorites as they have the potential to color the discussion a bit more than they originally were intended to...for example: people going for the jokey comment, etc.
You guys are basically screwed here, there's no right answer for this and now you're sort of caught trying to displease as few people as possible. I think the answer is likely switch favorites back to the way they were and implement a parallel system for tracking and then make one or both of them a toggle within profiles and eventually roll one of them to the default. As it's been noted up thread a feature is no longer there, the site feels less functional now and when I use it without the greasemonkey scripts I feel hampered in my interaction with it.
I'm going to leave the scripts off for a week or two to see if I get used to it, I figure it deserves a fair shake, but I will be grinding my teeth to dust at the word faved the whole time.
posted by iamabot at 10:00 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Sorry, that sounded harsher than I intended it to, but with the short notice and the cheese "fave" name it feels like some half cocked idea by marketing, and I see those all day long. I guess I don't understand why it was implemented in this specific way given the forethought you're expressing. What empath and others have done is such an obvious way to threadshit that one of the stand out ways to handle it is to ban them (from the site or a thread, and I think banning is rather ridiculous) or limit favorite usage or numbers...which gets you back to the circular discussion of how people use them.
I need to go re-read the whole thread again, but the more I think about it, the more this feels like an odd way of trying to limit the focus on favorites as they have the potential to color the discussion a bit more than they originally were intended to...for example: people going for the jokey comment, etc.
You guys are basically screwed here, there's no right answer for this and now you're sort of caught trying to displease as few people as possible. I think the answer is likely switch favorites back to the way they were and implement a parallel system for tracking and then make one or both of them a toggle within profiles and eventually roll one of them to the default. As it's been noted up thread a feature is no longer there, the site feels less functional now and when I use it without the greasemonkey scripts I feel hampered in my interaction with it.
I'm going to leave the scripts off for a week or two to see if I get used to it, I figure it deserves a fair shake, but I will be grinding my teeth to dust at the word faved the whole time.
posted by iamabot at 10:00 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
elizardbits writes "*I hate that firefox thinks 'faves' is a correctly-spelled word, while redlining 'favourites' in a cruel and oppressive north americanishly spelled fashion. I'M IN UR FIREFOX, MANIFESTIN" DESTINY."
This isn't North American. Choose or add in the Canadian dictionary, it'll stop redlining it for you.
And to all those people leaving Metafilter for the month, though if you were being honest you won't see this, Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out.
Also I'm having a hard time not making spreading this comment over dozens of comments to deplete the faved griefers so please stop tempting me.
posted by Mitheral at 10:00 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
This isn't North American. Choose or add in the Canadian dictionary, it'll stop redlining it for you.
And to all those people leaving Metafilter for the month, though if you were being honest you won't see this, Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out.
Also I'm having a hard time not making spreading this comment over dozens of comments to deplete the faved griefers so please stop tempting me.
posted by Mitheral at 10:00 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
This change really doesn't affect the way I read metafilter- I mostly use favorites as bookmarks. I never thought about skimming based on favorites. I always wondered how people at meetups would seem so much more knowledgeable than me about all the recent posts.
Also interesting is the way people use favorites in Askme- maybe it would be good to have an additional type of favorites just for the green? I like the "I agree" usage.
I second geoff.'s suggestion for "duly noted" rather than faved. That would be the best.
posted by Secretariat at 10:01 AM on November 1, 2009
Also interesting is the way people use favorites in Askme- maybe it would be good to have an additional type of favorites just for the green? I like the "I agree" usage.
I second geoff.'s suggestion for "duly noted" rather than faved. That would be the best.
posted by Secretariat at 10:01 AM on November 1, 2009
Sort of homogenized the favorites so now it really is just a utility for personal bookmarking. Looking through this thread, every comment just has faved next to it. There's no differentiation.
To be clear, several people have gone through the thread in turn to insure that that is how it looks through stunt favoriting.
The more valid question of how homogeneous a thread looks when it's not being fucked with intentionally could be answered by checking out fave distribution via the Infodump—just partitioning comments into faved-at-all vs. not buckets for any given thread would give a good picture of the natural state of things, and might be worth doing if anyone is interested in doing a little bit of quantitative work.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:02 AM on November 1, 2009
To be clear, several people have gone through the thread in turn to insure that that is how it looks through stunt favoriting.
The more valid question of how homogeneous a thread looks when it's not being fucked with intentionally could be answered by checking out fave distribution via the Infodump—just partitioning comments into faved-at-all vs. not buckets for any given thread would give a good picture of the natural state of things, and might be worth doing if anyone is interested in doing a little bit of quantitative work.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:02 AM on November 1, 2009
Cortex- nah, I understand that. I guess to me it just seems like it's the naming convention and not the display of the count that's the problem to begin with so I wondered why that was the part you tinkered with-but that's because my own prejudice is to not see the fave count as a problem in the first place. And in previous discussions it was the "favorites vs bookmarks" thing that most people seemed to agree with, so it just seemed like a bit of a surprise. I wonder if it would almost seem less drastic to people to keep the way they're displayed the same and change what they're called, as opposed to keeping the name the same but drastically changing the functionality.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 10:05 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 10:05 AM on November 1, 2009
I've read this whole thread, and what really struck me most were two key points:
1) The title of the thread is "November is national let's try obscuring favorite counts month." I think that the use of the word "obscure" is interesting -- "not readily understood or clearly expressed" and "shrouded in or hidden by darkness" are the two top definitions of this word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. This segues into my second point, which is that
2) The "flattening of information" is what bothers me most about this project, as expressed by Forktine. Users are going to employ favorites in different ways -- as part of a popularity contest, as a method to re-find the information in a comment at a later date, as a way to express support for what is said in the comment. I don't necessarily stop to think about why someone else may have favorited a particular comment on a day-to-day basis. If other people do that (and judging from the responses in this thread it appears that people do) that is all well and good but it doesn't change the way that I personally use favorites, as it shouldn't.
I'm not happy with the way that this test system operates, and it will probably radically change my behavior on the site in ways that can't really be measured by the mods. Sure, I might be favoriting less, but is that a good or a bad thing? I am still unclear about what the goals of this experiment are, and how the qualitative data is going to be measured. Just because there isn't number-crunching doesn't mean that a clear methodology is not required, and I'm a little confused about exactly what the mods are going to be looking at or for when they assess the data at the end of November. Perhaps that's the point -- they're not going to make their methods publicly available because that could invalidate the study -- but I'm a little hesitant and wary about the way that the methods have been expressed in this thread by the moderators. I'm just not comfortable with the information they've given so far about what they will be looking at and how it will affect Metafilter in the future.
posted by k8lin at 10:06 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
1) The title of the thread is "November is national let's try obscuring favorite counts month." I think that the use of the word "obscure" is interesting -- "not readily understood or clearly expressed" and "shrouded in or hidden by darkness" are the two top definitions of this word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. This segues into my second point, which is that
2) The "flattening of information" is what bothers me most about this project, as expressed by Forktine. Users are going to employ favorites in different ways -- as part of a popularity contest, as a method to re-find the information in a comment at a later date, as a way to express support for what is said in the comment. I don't necessarily stop to think about why someone else may have favorited a particular comment on a day-to-day basis. If other people do that (and judging from the responses in this thread it appears that people do) that is all well and good but it doesn't change the way that I personally use favorites, as it shouldn't.
I'm not happy with the way that this test system operates, and it will probably radically change my behavior on the site in ways that can't really be measured by the mods. Sure, I might be favoriting less, but is that a good or a bad thing? I am still unclear about what the goals of this experiment are, and how the qualitative data is going to be measured. Just because there isn't number-crunching doesn't mean that a clear methodology is not required, and I'm a little confused about exactly what the mods are going to be looking at or for when they assess the data at the end of November. Perhaps that's the point -- they're not going to make their methods publicly available because that could invalidate the study -- but I'm a little hesitant and wary about the way that the methods have been expressed in this thread by the moderators. I'm just not comfortable with the information they've given so far about what they will be looking at and how it will affect Metafilter in the future.
posted by k8lin at 10:06 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
On the whole: I don't like the idea. I thought the old system was fine. From my perspective, we're losing valuable information for no real benefit. But let's see how it plays out.... that's what experiments are for.
Oh, and as to the various hypotheses about the non-core users' opinions... if there's one thing I've learned about online argumentation, it's that whenever anyone assigns motives to the 'silent majority', mysteriously, that motive always agrees with the person making the argument.
All you can really presume from silence is, well, silence. You can't impute motives to people who aren't registering opinions, because there's no way to be certain why they aren't talking. They could be pissed, apathetic, ignorant, indifferent, amused, or unable to write coherently in English. Claims that, "they're silent because they agree with my position" simply don't work.
If this doesn't already have an official name as one of the argumentative fallacies, it should.
Also, as an aside: I favorited a few comments in this thread, but they weren't 'stunts', they were real.
posted by Malor at 10:09 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Oh, and as to the various hypotheses about the non-core users' opinions... if there's one thing I've learned about online argumentation, it's that whenever anyone assigns motives to the 'silent majority', mysteriously, that motive always agrees with the person making the argument.
All you can really presume from silence is, well, silence. You can't impute motives to people who aren't registering opinions, because there's no way to be certain why they aren't talking. They could be pissed, apathetic, ignorant, indifferent, amused, or unable to write coherently in English. Claims that, "they're silent because they agree with my position" simply don't work.
If this doesn't already have an official name as one of the argumentative fallacies, it should.
Also, as an aside: I favorited a few comments in this thread, but they weren't 'stunts', they were real.
posted by Malor at 10:09 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Cortex- nah, I understand that. I guess to me it just seems like it's the naming convention and not the display of the count that's the problem to begin with so I wondered why that was the part you tinkered with
I can dig that. From my side of the fence it's a lot like looking at a canal project and saying "really? Why didn't you just move the ocean?" in terms of just what would be involved in trying to accomplish one vs. the other, is all.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:09 AM on November 1, 2009
I can dig that. From my side of the fence it's a lot like looking at a canal project and saying "really? Why didn't you just move the ocean?" in terms of just what would be involved in trying to accomplish one vs. the other, is all.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:09 AM on November 1, 2009
I would like to be clear upfront that I do not "wish punishment" upon anybody.
With that said, my vote is "don't like it". I personally like seeing favorite counts, and will soon be installing the latest Greasemonkey script so that I will be able to again, but I think I would prefer not seeing any indication of anyone else's favorites at all to seeing this.
Many threads are now just constant streams of "faved". In this thread of hundreds and hundreds of posts, for example, literally every single comment except for five of the most recent seven has been "faved" -- and those five have probably been "faved" by the time I'm typing this sentence.
I bet that degree of completeness is an anomoly based on the nature of this particular thread, but I've noticed more or less the same thing in other threads. It's useless and mildly grating, and frankly I think it might have the opposite effect of what is intended:
Presumably, part of the imagined problem -- and I say "imagined" because while it's at least somewhat plausible, I don't think there's any real evidence for it -- was that people would try to tailor their comments to garner absurd numbers of favorites. I imagine that this change was intended, in part, to prevent that.
But instead, I now picture more people, not less, being drawn into this behavior. How many people seriously sit there thinking "I've got to make this post so it will get fifty favorites"? But a lot of people will probably see (every so often) that virtually every post on the thread has been "faved" except theirs. What's that going to cause?
I think it will at least conceivably cause the same imagined problem, only on a larger scale.
Also, the "Digg and Slashdot have favorites, and Digg and Slashdot suck" argument strikes me as fundamentally unsound. Even assuming that most Mefites think they suck as much as you think they suck, Metafilter has favorites, and presumably most Mefites don't think Metafilter sucks. It's a specious argument.
To sum up, (1) I vote "please change it back"; (2) I'll be working around it via Greasemonkey in any case; (3) I don't "wish punishment".
posted by Flunkie at 10:11 AM on November 1, 2009
With that said, my vote is "don't like it". I personally like seeing favorite counts, and will soon be installing the latest Greasemonkey script so that I will be able to again, but I think I would prefer not seeing any indication of anyone else's favorites at all to seeing this.
Many threads are now just constant streams of "faved". In this thread of hundreds and hundreds of posts, for example, literally every single comment except for five of the most recent seven has been "faved" -- and those five have probably been "faved" by the time I'm typing this sentence.
I bet that degree of completeness is an anomoly based on the nature of this particular thread, but I've noticed more or less the same thing in other threads. It's useless and mildly grating, and frankly I think it might have the opposite effect of what is intended:
Presumably, part of the imagined problem -- and I say "imagined" because while it's at least somewhat plausible, I don't think there's any real evidence for it -- was that people would try to tailor their comments to garner absurd numbers of favorites. I imagine that this change was intended, in part, to prevent that.
But instead, I now picture more people, not less, being drawn into this behavior. How many people seriously sit there thinking "I've got to make this post so it will get fifty favorites"? But a lot of people will probably see (every so often) that virtually every post on the thread has been "faved" except theirs. What's that going to cause?
I think it will at least conceivably cause the same imagined problem, only on a larger scale.
Also, the "Digg and Slashdot have favorites, and Digg and Slashdot suck" argument strikes me as fundamentally unsound. Even assuming that most Mefites think they suck as much as you think they suck, Metafilter has favorites, and presumably most Mefites don't think Metafilter sucks. It's a specious argument.
To sum up, (1) I vote "please change it back"; (2) I'll be working around it via Greasemonkey in any case; (3) I don't "wish punishment".
posted by Flunkie at 10:11 AM on November 1, 2009
I have been reading this site since before favorites, and I think favorites have changed it for the better. Granted, I have not contributed much in the last few years, but I have been lurking and reading quite frequently (and even favoriting occasionally). This morning I instantly noticed the faved - and missed the # favorites. Until they were gone, I did not know how much I used them to navigate the big threads.
So I installed the Stylish add-on to my SeaMonkey browser and I feel more at home again.
All in all I would call this experiment a success in that it has proven to me that I use the '# favorites' function in the way I would expect a function displayed as '# favorites' to function. And so long as the mods are working to keep this site as usable as they have through all these years, I am sure that my ability to see # favorites will be only an add-on or a script away.
Honestly though, there should be some melding together of the Flagging (with its various options) and Favoriting with its only-positive connotations.
posted by iurodivii at 10:12 AM on November 1, 2009
So I installed the Stylish add-on to my SeaMonkey browser and I feel more at home again.
All in all I would call this experiment a success in that it has proven to me that I use the '# favorites' function in the way I would expect a function displayed as '# favorites' to function. And so long as the mods are working to keep this site as usable as they have through all these years, I am sure that my ability to see # favorites will be only an add-on or a script away.
Honestly though, there should be some melding together of the Flagging (with its various options) and Favoriting with its only-positive connotations.
posted by iurodivii at 10:12 AM on November 1, 2009
I feel this was done to the best of the admins ability, but I hate the change. Immideately searched for "script" (and before, I could just find the comment with most favourites!) and am now using Stylish. FWIW
posted by olya at 10:13 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by olya at 10:13 AM on November 1, 2009
MetaFilter: It's a lot like looking at a canal project and saying "really? Why didn't you just move the ocean?"
posted by dw at 10:13 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by dw at 10:13 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
And I want to throw in a note that we're using the word experiment in this context in a casual way, not in an attempt to suggest scientific rigor. I feel like the notion that we're presenting this or intending it as SCIENCE! rather than as an explicitly qualitative "we're curious what happens" thing has crept in over night in the absence of any expression of that kind of intent by any of us on the mod staff.
So to be clear: we're interested in quantitative possibilities but that's not a primary goal; we're mostly interested in a general qualitative-in-the-lay-sense look at what if anything comes of this over the stretch of the month. It's not intended to be rigorous, and while I can understand if that fundamentally bothers anyone who feels that by rights this sort of thing should be done with a proper methodology and what have you, I want to emphasize that we're not scientists, we're not attempting to do a robust scientific or sociological study, and arguments about how we're failing on that front are therefore kind of moot.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:14 AM on November 1, 2009
So to be clear: we're interested in quantitative possibilities but that's not a primary goal; we're mostly interested in a general qualitative-in-the-lay-sense look at what if anything comes of this over the stretch of the month. It's not intended to be rigorous, and while I can understand if that fundamentally bothers anyone who feels that by rights this sort of thing should be done with a proper methodology and what have you, I want to emphasize that we're not scientists, we're not attempting to do a robust scientific or sociological study, and arguments about how we're failing on that front are therefore kind of moot.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:14 AM on November 1, 2009
It seems to me, some people are inherently lazy thinkers, and are willing to give the MeFi favoriting brigade the benefit of the doubt when selecting the items in a thread that are worth their time reading.
That said, there are now upwards of 80,000 users on MeFi. It's not like in the old days. Popular threads can quickly topple 200 comments within the first hour of hitting the front page. That's a shitload of chaff to sort through. In lieu of any overt rating system (which Matt has always been against), we have favorites. Which operate in precisely the same manner.
So either give them the breads and circuses that you know they want but refuse to accept (ratings… er… numbers of faves—making them actually useful again), or remove the visual indicator. Because otherwise there's simply no reason whatsoever to have any outward indication on a post.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:15 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
That said, there are now upwards of 80,000 users on MeFi. It's not like in the old days. Popular threads can quickly topple 200 comments within the first hour of hitting the front page. That's a shitload of chaff to sort through. In lieu of any overt rating system (which Matt has always been against), we have favorites. Which operate in precisely the same manner.
So either give them the breads and circuses that you know they want but refuse to accept (ratings… er… numbers of faves—making them actually useful again), or remove the visual indicator. Because otherwise there's simply no reason whatsoever to have any outward indication on a post.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:15 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Why didn't you just move the ocean?"
You guys, uh. You can't move the ocean? I am so disillusioned right now.
I don't want to start a tangent here but I do think it's relevant- would the the barrier to changing the naming be a programming thing or an "explaining the whole thing to the userbase and seeing if they lose their shit over it" issue? Just wondering if that aspect of things falls into the Never Going To Happen camp, that we shouldn't bother pursuing, or the Massive Pain in the Ass but Possibly Useful camp, that might benefit from further discussion.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 10:16 AM on November 1, 2009
You guys, uh. You can't move the ocean? I am so disillusioned right now.
I don't want to start a tangent here but I do think it's relevant- would the the barrier to changing the naming be a programming thing or an "explaining the whole thing to the userbase and seeing if they lose their shit over it" issue? Just wondering if that aspect of things falls into the Never Going To Happen camp, that we shouldn't bother pursuing, or the Massive Pain in the Ass but Possibly Useful camp, that might benefit from further discussion.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 10:16 AM on November 1, 2009
Part of the reason this came off as half-baked idea was it seems like very few people were involved it the decision. It would have been fairly easy to identify the main objection to the change if you'd have asked a relatively small subset of users. An email focus group of 20 or so trusted users of the site would have uncovered the problem that many people find the favorites useful for various reasons. Also, you would have gotten the feedback that people want to know how you'll make the evaluation as to whether the faved experiment is a success.
BTW, looking at other threads, I find the "faved" option to be as useless as it is in this one.
I've never seen anyone complain about the favorites; therefore, it feels as though you've taken away something useful to solve an imaginary problem. However, meta is your toy box and you can do what you like. I'll check back in mid-month and see where we are with this experiment.
posted by 26.2 at 10:16 AM on November 1, 2009
BTW, looking at other threads, I find the "faved" option to be as useless as it is in this one.
I've never seen anyone complain about the favorites; therefore, it feels as though you've taken away something useful to solve an imaginary problem. However, meta is your toy box and you can do what you like. I'll check back in mid-month and see where we are with this experiment.
posted by 26.2 at 10:16 AM on November 1, 2009
I should also point out that in very long threads where I arrive late (which happens more and more as MeFi gets busier and busier), I regularly search for the word 'favorites', just to pick out comments with more than one. Typically, if a comment has at least two favorites, it's worth picking out of the Wall of Text. And if those comments are fairly interesting, I may go ahead and read the whole thread.
So I'm definitely losing some real functionality here, and I'm still not sure exactly what the purported benefit is.
posted by Malor at 10:17 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
So I'm definitely losing some real functionality here, and I'm still not sure exactly what the purported benefit is.
posted by Malor at 10:17 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
"Fave" is in Merriam-Webster.
Not as a fucking verb though. Ugh.
posted by dersins at 10:19 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Not as a fucking verb though. Ugh.
posted by dersins at 10:19 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'd also like to add, I can't believe you can't filter AskMe topics by subject. It's been years now. A little checkbox, an insignificant bit of javascript, a cookie, and you're done.
sigh.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:19 AM on November 1, 2009
sigh.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:19 AM on November 1, 2009
I don't want to start a tangent here but I do think it's relevant- would the the barrier to changing the naming be a programming thing or an "explaining the whole thing to the userbase and seeing if they lose their shit over it" issue?
Both, really.
- Instead of changing one spot on the site (the word in comment bylines), we'd need to change every single reference to "favorites" on the site, which is a great big editing task.
- We'd have to have a plan for user education to address the fact that a three-years-in piece of vocabulary on the site has suddenly disappeared entirely to be replaced by a new term.
Both of those are far larger in scope than what this requires. And that's aside entirely from the problem of figuring out what the new bit of vocabulary would be. That's where my sense of it being a comparitively huge project comes from.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:21 AM on November 1, 2009
Both, really.
- Instead of changing one spot on the site (the word in comment bylines), we'd need to change every single reference to "favorites" on the site, which is a great big editing task.
- We'd have to have a plan for user education to address the fact that a three-years-in piece of vocabulary on the site has suddenly disappeared entirely to be replaced by a new term.
Both of those are far larger in scope than what this requires. And that's aside entirely from the problem of figuring out what the new bit of vocabulary would be. That's where my sense of it being a comparitively huge project comes from.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:21 AM on November 1, 2009
No, sir. I don't like it.
I don't normally follow MeTalk, but I had to come find this thread to see what the deal is. I don't like it because it feels like an arbitrary enforcement of the "way favorites should work." It hadn't occurred to me that there was something wrong with the system, so what are we fixing?
posted by cmoj at 10:21 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't normally follow MeTalk, but I had to come find this thread to see what the deal is. I don't like it because it feels like an arbitrary enforcement of the "way favorites should work." It hadn't occurred to me that there was something wrong with the system, so what are we fixing?
posted by cmoj at 10:21 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
...Yeah ok, those are very good points that never even occurred to me. Damn.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 10:24 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 10:24 AM on November 1, 2009
I'd also like to add, I can't believe you can't filter AskMe topics by subject.
Ok, I am intrigued. How would this be different than the current filterish behaviour of clicking on the tags or categories? I feel like this has the potential for greatness but I can't see exactly how.
posted by elizardbits at 10:29 AM on November 1, 2009
Ok, I am intrigued. How would this be different than the current filterish behaviour of clicking on the tags or categories? I feel like this has the potential for greatness but I can't see exactly how.
posted by elizardbits at 10:29 AM on November 1, 2009
The thing that resonates with me in this entire discussion is majick's remark that comment voting systems assume the value of all comments starts at worthless, or zero, and people have to vote things up to be seen.
If we roll back the clocks a few years to MetaFilter before favorites were added, every comment was considered worthwhile and we would occasionally highlight the best on the sidebar or in metatalk. Favorites were added to both help people track things they enjoyed and wanted to come back to as well as highlight the best comments and in aggregate we could see what the most liked things across the entire server were, making the highlighting of the best of the best much easier. Flexibility was also purposely built into it so that people could do anything they wanted with the feature.
If you fast forward back to the present, or better yet, some time last month, you see things like the average contentious political thread and from a quick visual glance easily half of all comments have a favorite and you can see how it became more of a voting system that reinforces the feeling all comments are noise except for the voted up ones, or alternatively here are the political viewpoints everyone agrees with and you have to wonder what it is we're doing with this whole favorites thing.
I skim threads when I don't have time but I don't regularly look for just the highest favorited comments in threads, and you have to admit that kind of activity devalues everything else and creates an environment where comments are seen as useless noise with the votes pushing up the signal.
I like the change in the 12hrs we've had it. I think it has the power to change behavior and reduce comments overall as people reduce skimming the high points and adding comments afterwards. It's causing me to read threads from start to finish and reference the popular page. I'm curious how the month will play out, whether others will come away from it feeling the way I do or start using greasemonkey instead.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:30 AM on November 1, 2009 [26 favorites]
If we roll back the clocks a few years to MetaFilter before favorites were added, every comment was considered worthwhile and we would occasionally highlight the best on the sidebar or in metatalk. Favorites were added to both help people track things they enjoyed and wanted to come back to as well as highlight the best comments and in aggregate we could see what the most liked things across the entire server were, making the highlighting of the best of the best much easier. Flexibility was also purposely built into it so that people could do anything they wanted with the feature.
If you fast forward back to the present, or better yet, some time last month, you see things like the average contentious political thread and from a quick visual glance easily half of all comments have a favorite and you can see how it became more of a voting system that reinforces the feeling all comments are noise except for the voted up ones, or alternatively here are the political viewpoints everyone agrees with and you have to wonder what it is we're doing with this whole favorites thing.
I skim threads when I don't have time but I don't regularly look for just the highest favorited comments in threads, and you have to admit that kind of activity devalues everything else and creates an environment where comments are seen as useless noise with the votes pushing up the signal.
I like the change in the 12hrs we've had it. I think it has the power to change behavior and reduce comments overall as people reduce skimming the high points and adding comments afterwards. It's causing me to read threads from start to finish and reference the popular page. I'm curious how the month will play out, whether others will come away from it feeling the way I do or start using greasemonkey instead.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:30 AM on November 1, 2009 [26 favorites]
This is how some number of us feel about the entire favorites feature.
Or even say $5 users.
I wish we wouldn't do that. Going by user numbers only (which isn't correct, as it counts abandoned sign-ups, but it's close enough), that encompasses over 78,000 users -- some who are even your contacts. Surely you have found that you have gotten something from the participation of at least one of those people? Or are we really all not welcome, and should just close our accounts?
posted by Houstonian at 10:31 AM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
Or even say $5 users.
I wish we wouldn't do that. Going by user numbers only (which isn't correct, as it counts abandoned sign-ups, but it's close enough), that encompasses over 78,000 users -- some who are even your contacts. Surely you have found that you have gotten something from the participation of at least one of those people? Or are we really all not welcome, and should just close our accounts?
posted by Houstonian at 10:31 AM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the adolescent behavior of some people griefing the system. And I guess I hoped that unlike other sites that change functionality people wouldn't run to rend their garments. But, well, this is the Internet.
And I'm not saying there aren't legitimate arguments that have been posed here against the experiment, but there are some real whiners in here.
I mean, it's just 30 days. And if it is the colossal failure some of you think it will be, things will return to normal on December 1 -- if not sooner.
I don't like "faved," even though is in the OED and I favor descriptivism. I'd rather we use ★ instead. But in general, I think this is a good experiment to have. I think we're all still trying to figure out this Internet thing and how people behave on it. Any data, even qualitative data, should show whether gameplay really is a problem and how we might better control it.
But I find some of the lines of argument spurious. I mean, much of what draws favorites is snark, and if you're just reading favorited comments, you're pretty much reading two good comments, five snarky ones, a couple of flames, and three slightly humorous ones. If you really want a system like that, then the system needs to function that way -- similar to Slashdot, probably, with the ability to give qualitative input as well. But that would require some serious modifications to not only the code but the social functionality of the site. There are many people who only read 5-rated comments on Slashdot, but that community has figured out how to work with those rules (and game them at times).
Calm down, step away from the Halloween candy, and let's let the experiment work. If it's not working, we'll know in a hurry.
And griefing the system is only going to lead us towards having a limit on the number of favorites you can hand out in a day, you know.
posted by dw at 10:33 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
And I'm not saying there aren't legitimate arguments that have been posed here against the experiment, but there are some real whiners in here.
I mean, it's just 30 days. And if it is the colossal failure some of you think it will be, things will return to normal on December 1 -- if not sooner.
I don't like "faved," even though is in the OED and I favor descriptivism. I'd rather we use ★ instead. But in general, I think this is a good experiment to have. I think we're all still trying to figure out this Internet thing and how people behave on it. Any data, even qualitative data, should show whether gameplay really is a problem and how we might better control it.
But I find some of the lines of argument spurious. I mean, much of what draws favorites is snark, and if you're just reading favorited comments, you're pretty much reading two good comments, five snarky ones, a couple of flames, and three slightly humorous ones. If you really want a system like that, then the system needs to function that way -- similar to Slashdot, probably, with the ability to give qualitative input as well. But that would require some serious modifications to not only the code but the social functionality of the site. There are many people who only read 5-rated comments on Slashdot, but that community has figured out how to work with those rules (and game them at times).
Calm down, step away from the Halloween candy, and let's let the experiment work. If it's not working, we'll know in a hurry.
And griefing the system is only going to lead us towards having a limit on the number of favorites you can hand out in a day, you know.
posted by dw at 10:33 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
If you fast forward back to the present, or better yet, some time last month, you see things like the average contentious political thread and from a quick visual glance easily half of all comments have a favorite and you can see how it became more of a voting system that reinforces the feeling all comments are noise except for the voted up ones, or alternatively here are the political viewpoints everyone agrees with and you have to wonder what it is we're doing with this whole favorites thing.
I believe it's called creating a sense of community.
posted by bunnytricks at 10:35 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I believe it's called creating a sense of community.
posted by bunnytricks at 10:35 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I had my first moment of angst over the "faved and faved not" system a moment ago. The post about the best Halloween costume ever comic linked to the original comment that inspired it, a comment that was favorited by 751 people, and it just says, "faved". Like the throwaway comments above and below it. Surely there is something to be said for positive reenforcement?
Then, I went to comment in the new thread about that moment of dissonance, saw that Dersins had mentioned it, so I went to add my, well, vote to his pile but, WHOOPS. Still just says 'faved'. Two different ways of using favorites, now useless or obfuscated. For what benefit?
Maybe it'll grow on me, but right now I'm not crazy about it.
Busy day and night in the knee-jerk ZOMG CHANGE IS BAD department.
Yes, because the ONLY reason someone might not like this is because it is a change. Yes. Yes.
posted by dirtdirt at 10:36 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Then, I went to comment in the new thread about that moment of dissonance, saw that Dersins had mentioned it, so I went to add my, well, vote to his pile but, WHOOPS. Still just says 'faved'. Two different ways of using favorites, now useless or obfuscated. For what benefit?
Maybe it'll grow on me, but right now I'm not crazy about it.
Busy day and night in the knee-jerk ZOMG CHANGE IS BAD department.
Yes, because the ONLY reason someone might not like this is because it is a change. Yes. Yes.
posted by dirtdirt at 10:36 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think that this experiment is great. I also believe that eliminating visible favourite counts on a permanent basis would be a win as well. However I feel some sympathy for people you skim so I propose a per thread opt out of favourite count obfuscation with one caveat: You opt out and you lose the ability to comment on that thread. That would help enforce one of the key strengths of metafilter's comment system (it's non threadedness and lack of kill files) and allow TL;DR types to continue to TL;DR without subjecting the rest of us actually having a conversation to comments that are obviously commenting on incorrect information (like that recent TSA-Baby thread).
Oh god, please don't do this. Just because people use favorites doesn't mean they don't have anything valuable to say.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:36 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
Oh god, please don't do this. Just because people use favorites doesn't mean they don't have anything valuable to say.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:36 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
I am opposed to the new favoriting policy.
posted by 517 at 10:37 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by 517 at 10:37 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
The problem with changing the favorites system is found in it's vagaries. Everyone uses favorites in different ways.
Generally, I use favorites as a "me too"; a "that was hilarious or well-written". Sometimes even "I can't believe ___ said that". I use them to scan through threads I'm not particularly interested in, for a general overview of what's what on the topic. Some people use them as bookmarks, which is nuts to me, but hey, whatever. Some people use them to play around in MeTa, or fake-stalk people (I think fake, anyway).
Making this change has crippled about half of what I use favorites for. I'm sure there are people it hasn't affected at all.
I don't understand what people think this will fix, exactly. Astro Zombie will still make clever quips in threads, whether or not he can see totals -- which he still can. People will still snark the starboard bow of new threads, those SELDOM get huge favorite counts anyway.
posted by graventy at 10:38 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Generally, I use favorites as a "me too"; a "that was hilarious or well-written". Sometimes even "I can't believe ___ said that". I use them to scan through threads I'm not particularly interested in, for a general overview of what's what on the topic. Some people use them as bookmarks, which is nuts to me, but hey, whatever. Some people use them to play around in MeTa, or fake-stalk people (I think fake, anyway).
Making this change has crippled about half of what I use favorites for. I'm sure there are people it hasn't affected at all.
I don't understand what people think this will fix, exactly. Astro Zombie will still make clever quips in threads, whether or not he can see totals -- which he still can. People will still snark the starboard bow of new threads, those SELDOM get huge favorite counts anyway.
posted by graventy at 10:38 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I can't really stand seeing the non-word "faved" and it will be interesting to find out whether I'll get used to it after seeing it for a month or if I'll still have an actual physical twitch from reading it. Mr. Padraigin thought I was having a seizure this morning.
posted by padraigin at 10:39 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by padraigin at 10:39 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
dw: "I mean, it's just 30 days."
Yeah, thank god they didn't try this in a 31-day month.
posted by graventy at 10:39 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, thank god they didn't try this in a 31-day month.
posted by graventy at 10:39 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Sort of related, I really didn't like the blue border on kottke.org initially but A. it's not my website and B. it's something that actually grew on me. It's important to tinker with the user interface to make sure everything is working as well as it was designed, so I fave that we take a deep breath and watch what unfolds.
posted by pwally at 10:39 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by pwally at 10:39 AM on November 1, 2009
I sure hope they will refrain from similarly shitting on threads elsewhere on the site.
Fine. You win. I've removed them all, even the ones that I added for the normal reasons.
November is now National No Humor Month. LEST WE FAVORITE.
posted by oaf at 10:40 AM on November 1, 2009
Fine. You win. I've removed them all, even the ones that I added for the normal reasons.
November is now National No Humor Month. LEST WE FAVORITE.
posted by oaf at 10:40 AM on November 1, 2009
I like favorites, but I'm totally fascinated to see what you guys learn both qualitatively and quantitatively.
Don't back out just because everybody hates it! I hate it too, but I'm too interested in the results to want you to not do it.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 10:40 AM on November 1, 2009
Don't back out just because everybody hates it! I hate it too, but I'm too interested in the results to want you to not do it.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 10:40 AM on November 1, 2009
Calling it "bookmarked" or, as someone upthread suggested, using a little book icon, would make it a neutral term and allow for the different ways in which people use the function, while helping to mitigate the popularity contest aspect.
I agree with DormantGorilla on this. If the concern is favorite-whoring, I'd consider changing the terminology from something that implies approval to something neutral like "noted". I know cortex has expressed that terminology discussion in this thread is off topic, but as long as we have had favorites people have brought up the whole what does it mean/what is it used for issue. I think it's hard for anyone to make the argument that a "favorite" does not seem like a vote for the sentiment expressed, especially if you weren't here or paying attention back in the day when they were implemented. The whole "favorites are really bookmarks" doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you weren't here for that discussion.
I don't like the flattening of data particularly- I'd rather have nothing show at all than the sort of neither-fish-nor-fowl "faved". I think functionality has been lost for a lot of people, though the fact that so many people skim long threads and then pop in to say something long discredited was painfully problematic in the TSA thread. However, I'm not sure this change will impact the problem, and the fact that people can script their way to the old functionality kind of renders the experiment moot.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:41 AM on November 1, 2009
I agree with DormantGorilla on this. If the concern is favorite-whoring, I'd consider changing the terminology from something that implies approval to something neutral like "noted". I know cortex has expressed that terminology discussion in this thread is off topic, but as long as we have had favorites people have brought up the whole what does it mean/what is it used for issue. I think it's hard for anyone to make the argument that a "favorite" does not seem like a vote for the sentiment expressed, especially if you weren't here or paying attention back in the day when they were implemented. The whole "favorites are really bookmarks" doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you weren't here for that discussion.
I don't like the flattening of data particularly- I'd rather have nothing show at all than the sort of neither-fish-nor-fowl "faved". I think functionality has been lost for a lot of people, though the fact that so many people skim long threads and then pop in to say something long discredited was painfully problematic in the TSA thread. However, I'm not sure this change will impact the problem, and the fact that people can script their way to the old functionality kind of renders the experiment moot.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:41 AM on November 1, 2009
much of what draws favorites is snarkI'm not entirely sure that that's true, at least not within the context of this discussion.
Snark draws some favorites, sure. But I think that most large-number-of-favorite posts are not merely snark.
The old system allowed for a distinction. This experiment does not. If anything, it's less "much of what draws favorites is snark", and more "much of what draws 'faved' is snark".
posted by Flunkie at 10:42 AM on November 1, 2009
dw: "If it's not working, we'll know in a hurry."
Judging by the amount of "HATE HATE HATE THIS" on display here, perhaps we already do.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:42 AM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
Judging by the amount of "HATE HATE HATE THIS" on display here, perhaps we already do.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:42 AM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
It's not intended to be rigorous, and while I can understand if that fundamentally bothers anyone who feels that by rights this sort of thing should be done with a proper methodology and what have you, I want to emphasize that we're not scientists, we're not attempting to do a robust scientific or sociological study, and arguments about how we're failing on that front are therefore kind of moot.
I didn't mean to imply I was expecting any kind of scientific rigor (because boy I'm sure not), but even casually it's important to figure out at least what kinds of things you'll be looking for or decide what kind of impact you can realistically attribute to this change. I mean, maybe there will be less favoriting or snark or [whatever], but those things could be attributed to other factors as well.
The way it's set up now, you implement a change, you "see" what happens, stuff "happens", but it doesn't sound like there's any way to decide if what happened was because of the change you made or even if it did what the outcome of what happened should be. I just don't know what you guys are expecting to come out of this (sounds like you're not expecting anything but dealing with a bunch of irate users).
In any case, even though I think the process for this is somewhat questionable I'm not upset about any of this (Whew! right?) given that there are work arounds if I really end up hating it (thanks for that!) and honestly I'm probably only following up because I should be writing for NaNoWriMo* which I'm going to go do ... now.
*Dammit! That was over 200 words!
posted by Kimberly at 10:44 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I didn't mean to imply I was expecting any kind of scientific rigor (because boy I'm sure not), but even casually it's important to figure out at least what kinds of things you'll be looking for or decide what kind of impact you can realistically attribute to this change. I mean, maybe there will be less favoriting or snark or [whatever], but those things could be attributed to other factors as well.
The way it's set up now, you implement a change, you "see" what happens, stuff "happens", but it doesn't sound like there's any way to decide if what happened was because of the change you made or even if it did what the outcome of what happened should be. I just don't know what you guys are expecting to come out of this (sounds like you're not expecting anything but dealing with a bunch of irate users).
In any case, even though I think the process for this is somewhat questionable I'm not upset about any of this (Whew! right?) given that there are work arounds if I really end up hating it (thanks for that!) and honestly I'm probably only following up because I should be writing for NaNoWriMo* which I'm going to go do ... now.
*Dammit! That was over 200 words!
posted by Kimberly at 10:44 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
oneirodynia: "If the concern is favorite-whoring"
Can anyone provide evidence of actual favorite-whoring?
posted by graventy at 10:45 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Can anyone provide evidence of actual favorite-whoring?
posted by graventy at 10:45 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I wish we wouldn't do that. Going by user numbers only (which isn't correct, as it counts abandoned sign-ups, but it's close enough), that encompasses over 78,000 users -- some who are even your contacts. Surely you have found that you have gotten something from the participation of at least one of those people? Or are we really all not welcome, and should just close our accounts?
I am a pre-$5 user and I approve this message.
I wouldn't have posted this, but now I can't clearly add my approval to that comment based on an incremental favourite counter.
I still don't understand the purpose of having [faved] over having nothing at all.
posted by knapah at 10:46 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I am a pre-$5 user and I approve this message.
I wouldn't have posted this, but now I can't clearly add my approval to that comment based on an incremental favourite counter.
I still don't understand the purpose of having [faved] over having nothing at all.
posted by knapah at 10:46 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I like the change in the 12hrs we've had it. I think it has the power to change behavior and reduce comments overall as people reduce skimming the high points and adding comments afterwards.
Matt, an unintentional side effect of not seeing how many people have favorited a particular comment is that it does take some voice away from community members.
I know that in the past I've favorited things that I agreed with as a way to communicate my belief/opinion without opening myself up in particularly contentious threads to be directly attacked/confronted/criticized for that belief. Knowing (transparently) how many other people agreed with me helped make the community feel more safe.
So there's that.
posted by Stewriffic at 10:46 AM on November 1, 2009 [24 favorites]
Matt, an unintentional side effect of not seeing how many people have favorited a particular comment is that it does take some voice away from community members.
I know that in the past I've favorited things that I agreed with as a way to communicate my belief/opinion without opening myself up in particularly contentious threads to be directly attacked/confronted/criticized for that belief. Knowing (transparently) how many other people agreed with me helped make the community feel more safe.
So there's that.
posted by Stewriffic at 10:46 AM on November 1, 2009 [24 favorites]
Now, I may just be cranky from a too brief and interrupted Sunday nap, but I just happened upon this new feature just now and ran straight to Meta.
Early review: Horseshit.
Have favorites or pluses or karma or whatever, or don't. This is horseshit. Plus it reads funny. "faved". Like we're a new wave band.
posted by cavalier at 10:46 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Early review: Horseshit.
Have favorites or pluses or karma or whatever, or don't. This is horseshit. Plus it reads funny. "faved". Like we're a new wave band.
posted by cavalier at 10:46 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
It's been mentioned by pb above but I'll give a little more explicit detail on how to revert this change with a user stylesheet.
In Firefox, find the "chrome" directory in your profile dir (on a Mac, ~/Library/Application Support/Firefox/Profiles/[profile ID]/chrome) and there should be a file in there called "userContent-example.css" (which has examples of things you can do with user stylesheets). Create a text file called "userContent.css" in this directory and add this content to it:
To set up a user stylesheet in another browser, you can create the .css file anywhere you want with any name you want; then you'll just need to tell your browser that you want to use this .css file as your user stylesheet. In Safari, it's in Preferences > Advanced > Style sheet. I'm not sure where to find it in IE; here at home I'm on a Mac so I can't check.
posted by letourneau at 10:47 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
In Firefox, find the "chrome" directory in your profile dir (on a Mac, ~/Library/Application Support/Firefox/Profiles/[profile ID]/chrome) and there should be a file in there called "userContent-example.css" (which has examples of things you can do with user stylesheets). Create a text file called "userContent.css" in this directory and add this content to it:
span.smallcopy span.oldFav {
display: inline !important;
}
span.smallcopy span.faved {
display: none !important;
}(I added the additional "span.smallcopy" parent selector that pb left out to reduce the risk of false matches on non-MeFi sites.) In Firefox, you should now be good to go. I think you'll need to restart the browser.To set up a user stylesheet in another browser, you can create the .css file anywhere you want with any name you want; then you'll just need to tell your browser that you want to use this .css file as your user stylesheet. In Safari, it's in Preferences > Advanced > Style sheet. I'm not sure where to find it in IE; here at home I'm on a Mac so I can't check.
posted by letourneau at 10:47 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
After a morning:
Nope, don't like it.
Now ask me aout it after I finish cooking this duck.
posted by The Whelk at 10:49 AM on November 1, 2009
Nope, don't like it.
Now ask me aout it after I finish cooking this duck.
posted by The Whelk at 10:49 AM on November 1, 2009
It's not intended to be rigorous, and while I can understand if that fundamentally bothers anyone who feels that by rights this sort of thing should be done with a proper methodology and what have you, I want to emphasize that we're not scientists, we're not attempting to do a robust scientific or sociological study, and arguments about how we're failing on that front are therefore kind of moot.
Moot or whatever, it's easy to get a qualitative feel by blindly throwing a wrench into the moving parts of a working engine, just to see what happens "in a general sense". But if the goal is to tune the engine, even a touch of rigor would probably help.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:54 AM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
Moot or whatever, it's easy to get a qualitative feel by blindly throwing a wrench into the moving parts of a working engine, just to see what happens "in a general sense". But if the goal is to tune the engine, even a touch of rigor would probably help.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:54 AM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
cortex: "Just getting caught up on this thread has taken a couple hours and it keeps growing, so ironically our responsiveness is going to be a little laggier than it might be if there weren't a great big thing going on, but in any case we're watching this attentively."
Yeah, if only there was a way to find out the support for a comment by, say, incrementing some kind of counter, then it would be much easier to pick out the comments that were perceived as important....
posted by PontifexPrimus at 10:55 AM on November 1, 2009 [34 favorites]
Yeah, if only there was a way to find out the support for a comment by, say, incrementing some kind of counter, then it would be much easier to pick out the comments that were perceived as important....
posted by PontifexPrimus at 10:55 AM on November 1, 2009 [34 favorites]
I believe it's called creating a sense of community.
I hope this is snark, because as much as I think the favorite system has become an integral part of the site, community is not built on a voting or bookmarking system. We interact with everyone here regardless of favoriting them or being favorited by them (and those two words are even less real than faved); the system can be a tool for communication, but let's not pretend that we wouldn't talk to each other if it didn't exist.
The old system allowed for a distinction. This experiment does not. If anything, it's less "much of what draws favorites is snark", and more "much of what draws 'faved' is snark".
I think this is true. I'm still OK with the experiment, and appreciate that the mods are always thinking of ways to improve the site.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:55 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I hope this is snark, because as much as I think the favorite system has become an integral part of the site, community is not built on a voting or bookmarking system. We interact with everyone here regardless of favoriting them or being favorited by them (and those two words are even less real than faved); the system can be a tool for communication, but let's not pretend that we wouldn't talk to each other if it didn't exist.
The old system allowed for a distinction. This experiment does not. If anything, it's less "much of what draws favorites is snark", and more "much of what draws 'faved' is snark".
I think this is true. I'm still OK with the experiment, and appreciate that the mods are always thinking of ways to improve the site.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:55 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Just leave it the way it is and create an option to turn favorites off and on.
posted by Zambrano at 10:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Zambrano at 10:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I'm still on the fence about the change one way or the other, and won't be installing scripts until I'm sure I can't use the site this way. Somehow, I suspect it will go from mildly annoying to something I don't even think about pretty quickly.
Just as a data point, though, it's really problematic from a UI standpoint. There's the aforementioned Faved/Flagged dichotomy, but even more annoying is this: When I "fave" something, it now says "faved -" and other nearby, unfavorited-by-me comments say "faved +". While I can learn what it means, I find it really confusing even as a long time member, and I think it would be completely baffling to anyone new. It's like the "faved" has suddenly gained a qualitative descriptor. "faved -" says "not faved enough" or "the opposite of faved" when there is a "faved +" right next to it. I know "flagged" does the same thing, but the difference is you don't see other people's flags.
If we keep it, I won't die, but I would strongly prefer to have it behave like flags. Invisible unless you did it, which would fix both UI issues simultaneously.
posted by donnagirl at 10:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Just as a data point, though, it's really problematic from a UI standpoint. There's the aforementioned Faved/Flagged dichotomy, but even more annoying is this: When I "fave" something, it now says "faved -" and other nearby, unfavorited-by-me comments say "faved +". While I can learn what it means, I find it really confusing even as a long time member, and I think it would be completely baffling to anyone new. It's like the "faved" has suddenly gained a qualitative descriptor. "faved -" says "not faved enough" or "the opposite of faved" when there is a "faved +" right next to it. I know "flagged" does the same thing, but the difference is you don't see other people's flags.
If we keep it, I won't die, but I would strongly prefer to have it behave like flags. Invisible unless you did it, which would fix both UI issues simultaneously.
posted by donnagirl at 10:57 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm holding out judgement until this thread 1000 comments. But, for now I don't care for it.
posted by josher71 at 11:02 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by josher71 at 11:02 AM on November 1, 2009
> I like the change in the 12hrs we've had it.
I sure hope you're paying attention to the fact that the vast majority of users in this thread really, really don't.
posted by languagehat at 11:02 AM on November 1, 2009 [45 favorites]
I sure hope you're paying attention to the fact that the vast majority of users in this thread really, really don't.
posted by languagehat at 11:02 AM on November 1, 2009 [45 favorites]
First Paula Abdul, and now this.
posted by found missing at 11:03 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by found missing at 11:03 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
the data you're going to get is contaminated because people have the ability to override what you wanted them to see
That idea is based on a serious overestimation of how many people override anything around here. Plus, there's a good chance people will give it a try even if the do know there's an override possibility.
I'm not terribly fond of the word 'faved,' but I'm kind of liking this test otherwise.
posted by zennie at 11:04 AM on November 1, 2009
That idea is based on a serious overestimation of how many people override anything around here. Plus, there's a good chance people will give it a try even if the do know there's an override possibility.
I'm not terribly fond of the word 'faved,' but I'm kind of liking this test otherwise.
posted by zennie at 11:04 AM on November 1, 2009
Put me in the "this is great" camp. I've always thought the obsession with favorites - getting them, giving them, even forpetesakes counting them - had an unpleasantly high school tinge.
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:05 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:05 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I would like to highlight the fact that PontifexPrimus's recent comment is a devastating irony catch. In case you don't have the time to read all 600 comments in this thread and would like to be quickly pointed to some of the more noteworthy comments, that's one of them. By the way, it'd be nice if the site had a feature that would standardize that process instead of prompting users to write out whole meta-comments like this.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:08 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:08 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
graventy: "Can anyone provide evidence of actual favorite-whoring?"
I've never understood what "favorite-whoring" could mean except "people annoyingly liking stuff I don't like".
Most of my more recent "MetaFilter: _____ " comments have been made more from the hope that other people would be amused by them than because I found them particularly funny myself. If those comments stopped getting favorites, I would conclude that no amusement was being given and I'd stop making them. But it is the amusement, of which the favorites are an index, that is the goal - not the favorites themselves.
I have yet to be persuaded that more evil than good is brought to the site thereby.
posted by Joe Beese at 11:09 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
I've never understood what "favorite-whoring" could mean except "people annoyingly liking stuff I don't like".
Most of my more recent "MetaFilter: _____ " comments have been made more from the hope that other people would be amused by them than because I found them particularly funny myself. If those comments stopped getting favorites, I would conclude that no amusement was being given and I'd stop making them. But it is the amusement, of which the favorites are an index, that is the goal - not the favorites themselves.
I have yet to be persuaded that more evil than good is brought to the site thereby.
posted by Joe Beese at 11:09 AM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
while one person saying "well, I think this is a little fucked up" isn't so bad a dozen people saying it can get hurtful. And yes, if someone's already said something that forthright in the thread, I think we as commenters should notice that and should reframe our response to suit the atmosphere of respect we'd all like to cultivate.
I would agree with this. In general, it seems like our own outrage needs to be expressed personally, but if someone else has already expressed your outrage - maybe unless yours has a new and different perspective, you can let it go or just say "Yeah! This sucks!" rather than adding more of the same flavor of outrage to an already GRAR discussion.
You lose, asshole.
Mods: please ban.
posted by koeselitz
is a bit hypocritical coming from someone who says there is too much in the way of invective of insult in this particular thread. And doesn't really help on the megalomania front either.
Yeah, I'm also with grouse on this. So, I guess I'm with and against koeselitz all at the same time. It's matter and anti-matter! I am become the Higgs Boson! *asplodes*
posted by grapefruitmoon at 11:09 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I would agree with this. In general, it seems like our own outrage needs to be expressed personally, but if someone else has already expressed your outrage - maybe unless yours has a new and different perspective, you can let it go or just say "Yeah! This sucks!" rather than adding more of the same flavor of outrage to an already GRAR discussion.
You lose, asshole.
Mods: please ban.
posted by koeselitz
is a bit hypocritical coming from someone who says there is too much in the way of invective of insult in this particular thread. And doesn't really help on the megalomania front either.
Yeah, I'm also with grouse on this. So, I guess I'm with and against koeselitz all at the same time. It's matter and anti-matter! I am become the Higgs Boson! *asplodes*
posted by grapefruitmoon at 11:09 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think displaying the favorites count is a net benefit for Metafilter. Here are a few of my thoughts on why:
(1) I believe that the use of favorites simply to mark a comment for future reference is fairly limited. I think the vast majority of favorites on comments reflect approval of the comment, something along the lines of "Very well written," "very insightful," or "hell yeah!"
(2) I believe favoriting posts themselves is more commonly a "marking for future reference." If I favorite a post, it's almost always so I can remember and find it.
(3) I believe showing the favorites count is a really nice way to show where the weight of community opinion falls, and it is an excellent way to mark not only those comments that reflect community opinion, but to single out those comments that say it best. Merely showing "faved" without a count, gives us no way to distinguish those comments that resonated with somebody, from those that resonated with LOTS of people. And I think being able to see the comments that resonated with LOTS of people makes the Metafilter experience better.
(4) I do not buy the idea that somehow displaying the favorites count encouraged bad behavior. What bad behavior? Fave-whoring? Even the comments that are arguably fave-whoring are usually funny and insightful in some way.
(5) Even if displaying the favorites count does encourage bad behavior, I believe any such effect is hugely outweighed by the positive incentive to spend some time crafting your answer so that it addresses the topic thoughtfully and with eloquence. Maybe it's kind of silly, but I appreciate seeing an answer of mine marked with fifteen or twenty favorites.
(6) Displaying the favorites count has helped me identify certain members whose comments are routinely very insightful and routinely rewarded with large favorites counts. Fourcheesemac is one. I'm a fan of fourcheesemac. Paulsc is another. I've never been a fan of Paulsc, but the fact that his comments are routinely big fave-garnerers has led me to pay more attention to him than I probably would.
posted by jayder at 11:09 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
(1) I believe that the use of favorites simply to mark a comment for future reference is fairly limited. I think the vast majority of favorites on comments reflect approval of the comment, something along the lines of "Very well written," "very insightful," or "hell yeah!"
(2) I believe favoriting posts themselves is more commonly a "marking for future reference." If I favorite a post, it's almost always so I can remember and find it.
(3) I believe showing the favorites count is a really nice way to show where the weight of community opinion falls, and it is an excellent way to mark not only those comments that reflect community opinion, but to single out those comments that say it best. Merely showing "faved" without a count, gives us no way to distinguish those comments that resonated with somebody, from those that resonated with LOTS of people. And I think being able to see the comments that resonated with LOTS of people makes the Metafilter experience better.
(4) I do not buy the idea that somehow displaying the favorites count encouraged bad behavior. What bad behavior? Fave-whoring? Even the comments that are arguably fave-whoring are usually funny and insightful in some way.
(5) Even if displaying the favorites count does encourage bad behavior, I believe any such effect is hugely outweighed by the positive incentive to spend some time crafting your answer so that it addresses the topic thoughtfully and with eloquence. Maybe it's kind of silly, but I appreciate seeing an answer of mine marked with fifteen or twenty favorites.
(6) Displaying the favorites count has helped me identify certain members whose comments are routinely very insightful and routinely rewarded with large favorites counts. Fourcheesemac is one. I'm a fan of fourcheesemac. Paulsc is another. I've never been a fan of Paulsc, but the fact that his comments are routinely big fave-garnerers has led me to pay more attention to him than I probably would.
posted by jayder at 11:09 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
Fine. You win. I've removed them all, even the ones that I added for the normal reasons
I think it should be pretty clear that we didn't have a problem with you or empath or lalex or Liver or whoever else using favorites for normal reasons. You can kill those ones too out of protest if you need to be but it doesn't really tell me anything other than you're looking for some way to react to this by intentionally acting out about how you use favorites. I'm sorry this has been a source of distress for folks, but we're not actually trying to antagonize you here.
Yeah, if only there was a way to find out the support for a comment by, say, incrementing some kind of counter, then it would be much easier to pick out the comments that were perceived as important....
As mods, we generally read every single comment in a metatalk thread, period. The "if only" doesn't apply here, because we don't skim by favorites, we read all of the feedback.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:13 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think it should be pretty clear that we didn't have a problem with you or empath or lalex or Liver or whoever else using favorites for normal reasons. You can kill those ones too out of protest if you need to be but it doesn't really tell me anything other than you're looking for some way to react to this by intentionally acting out about how you use favorites. I'm sorry this has been a source of distress for folks, but we're not actually trying to antagonize you here.
Yeah, if only there was a way to find out the support for a comment by, say, incrementing some kind of counter, then it would be much easier to pick out the comments that were perceived as important....
As mods, we generally read every single comment in a metatalk thread, period. The "if only" doesn't apply here, because we don't skim by favorites, we read all of the feedback.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:13 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
So after my embarrassing extra post about this (see, I *do* come late to the party), I've come down here to give my two cents. First, I agree with all of the "HATE HATE HATE THIS" comments made above. Second, the first thing I did on this page was search for greasemonkey on this page, and thankfully someone has already posted a workaround.
So, most of my functionality is now returned, but that just raises the question: What's the point? If I can so easily circumvent this feature/bug, what benefit does it serve to hide the info in the first place? People tech-savvy enough to mess with style-sheets and greasemonkey scripts get to have a secret easter-egg feature that is denied to those who can't deal?
posted by kingjoeshmoe at 11:15 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
So, most of my functionality is now returned, but that just raises the question: What's the point? If I can so easily circumvent this feature/bug, what benefit does it serve to hide the info in the first place? People tech-savvy enough to mess with style-sheets and greasemonkey scripts get to have a secret easter-egg feature that is denied to those who can't deal?
posted by kingjoeshmoe at 11:15 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
As mods, we generally read every single comment in a metatalk thread, period
The 'faved' experiment is being applied site-wide.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:16 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
The 'faved' experiment is being applied site-wide.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:16 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
What's the point? If I can so easily circumvent this feature/bug, what benefit does it serve to hide the info in the first place?
I kinda suspect that one of the points of this experiment is to shut the complainers up. "See, we tried that and the majority of people HATED IT," the administration will be able to say next time the topic comes up.
posted by dersins at 11:19 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I kinda suspect that one of the points of this experiment is to shut the complainers up. "See, we tried that and the majority of people HATED IT," the administration will be able to say next time the topic comes up.
posted by dersins at 11:19 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
cortex: As mods, we generally read every single comment in a metatalk thread, period. The "if only" doesn't apply here, because we don't skim by favorites, we read all of the feedback.
By the same token, would you say that a book without any paragraph breaks is no more difficult or time-consuming to read than a book with paragraph breaks as long as you're determined to read every word? I don't think so. Even if you're determined to read every comment, that process can be easier if you have some kind of guidance as to which comments have been considered particularly noteworthy.
And, of course, not everyone reads every single comment of a thread. Very few people read every single comment of a thread with hundreds of comments. I realize that this isn't the exact point you were responding to above, but the arguments about how the new system will discourage people from selectively reading threads seems unrealistic. People will always cherry-pick which comments to read; favorites just make the process a little more manageable.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:20 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
By the same token, would you say that a book without any paragraph breaks is no more difficult or time-consuming to read than a book with paragraph breaks as long as you're determined to read every word? I don't think so. Even if you're determined to read every comment, that process can be easier if you have some kind of guidance as to which comments have been considered particularly noteworthy.
And, of course, not everyone reads every single comment of a thread. Very few people read every single comment of a thread with hundreds of comments. I realize that this isn't the exact point you were responding to above, but the arguments about how the new system will discourage people from selectively reading threads seems unrealistic. People will always cherry-pick which comments to read; favorites just make the process a little more manageable.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:20 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
mathowie: I like the change in the 12hrs we've had it.
Under what circumstances would the experiment be deemed to have failed?
If there are no such circumstances, is it really an "experiment"?
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:21 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Under what circumstances would the experiment be deemed to have failed?
If there are no such circumstances, is it really an "experiment"?
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:21 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Hey, so you you know (much) earlier in this thread when I said that I had no opinion about this either way? Yeah, well, I changed my mind. After opening this thread and scanning through it in the post-favorites-count world, I fucking HATE it. I am finding that it completely (and, frankly, surprisingly) changes the way I read threads, and not in a good way. I realize that I'm just a single data point, and that the single data point that is me should not have a significant impact on site policy, but I want to register that data point in the strongest way I can.
Yeah, I didn't enter into the discussion initially because I didn't want to presume I had an opinion about this one way or the other, but having spent a day with it, this is my exact response as well. HATE IT. Sorry.
posted by scody at 11:21 AM on November 1, 2009
Yeah, I didn't enter into the discussion initially because I didn't want to presume I had an opinion about this one way or the other, but having spent a day with it, this is my exact response as well. HATE IT. Sorry.
posted by scody at 11:21 AM on November 1, 2009
The 'faved' experiment is being applied site-wide.
I was responding specifically to a snarky comeback to my own disclosure that we mods might be slow in responding to things in this thread today. Pontifex's snark itself made little sense in that context, and this clarification makes even less. Fruit of the non-sequitur tree: telling us things about how the favoriting system works for everybody in other threads in response to my comment specifically about mod response time to this one thread isn't useful.
What's the point? If I can so easily circumvent this feature/bug, what benefit does it serve to hide the info in the first place? People tech-savvy enough to mess with style-sheets and greasemonkey scripts get to have a secret easter-egg feature that is denied to those who can't deal?
The point is that circumvention is possible for those who can't live without it but that's an opt-out choice, which means the default state for anyone who doesn't specifically act to nullify the experiment is that the experiment is in play. Yes, we don't got pristine nobody-has-a-choice input, but we're okay with that and we're still exposing presumably the large majority of members to the experiment.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:21 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I was responding specifically to a snarky comeback to my own disclosure that we mods might be slow in responding to things in this thread today. Pontifex's snark itself made little sense in that context, and this clarification makes even less. Fruit of the non-sequitur tree: telling us things about how the favoriting system works for everybody in other threads in response to my comment specifically about mod response time to this one thread isn't useful.
What's the point? If I can so easily circumvent this feature/bug, what benefit does it serve to hide the info in the first place? People tech-savvy enough to mess with style-sheets and greasemonkey scripts get to have a secret easter-egg feature that is denied to those who can't deal?
The point is that circumvention is possible for those who can't live without it but that's an opt-out choice, which means the default state for anyone who doesn't specifically act to nullify the experiment is that the experiment is in play. Yes, we don't got pristine nobody-has-a-choice input, but we're okay with that and we're still exposing presumably the large majority of members to the experiment.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:21 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I reserve my favorites for comments that seem to be sucked right out of my brain, so we could go with *sucked*. No? Ok , how about *binked*? That at least is fun to say and you could have fun binking others and being binked.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:22 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:22 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Don't like it, for many reasons already stated above, with the most grating being the word "faved". Yeesh.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 11:24 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 11:24 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don't like the change.
posted by I love You at 11:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by I love You at 11:27 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Fair enough. But if you don't like favorites you can avoid them easily enough by either going out of your way to excise them with a Greasemonkey script or by simply not caring. If on the other hand you find favorites useful and they get taken away, you don't really have much recourse.
Now I know you've been reading this thread closely enough to know that favorites have emphatically not been taken away, they've only been modified, and that this is fixable with a GM script. That's your recourse.
posted by middleclasstool at 11:28 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Now I know you've been reading this thread closely enough to know that favorites have emphatically not been taken away, they've only been modified, and that this is fixable with a GM script. That's your recourse.
posted by middleclasstool at 11:28 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I love to read metafilter, though I don't contribute much. This pretty much breaks the functionality for me. I don't want to read every post - I want to read the good posts. Now I can't find them. I guess I'll sit out until Dec 1 (or forever).
The good thing is that maybe I'll get more actual work done now.
posted by everythings_interrelated at 11:28 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
The good thing is that maybe I'll get more actual work done now.
posted by everythings_interrelated at 11:28 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I just realized you were answering the call to remove favorites entirely. Sorry, nothing to see here.
posted by middleclasstool at 11:29 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by middleclasstool at 11:29 AM on November 1, 2009
I love this change! Well, apart from the Word that Shall Not be Spoken. Can I suggest [+] turning into [*] ?
I tend to read threads top to bottom, which makes the scanning side not affect me. Also, I tend to treat favourites as a communication between me and the commenter: "thanks for posting that, rather than not posting". Not affected.
But anyhow, it sounds like it's not to be, as plenty of the more vocal members are opposed enough to avoid even trying it. The expression "Toys out of the pram" comes to mind. Still, would have been interesting to have an experiment.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 11:29 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I tend to read threads top to bottom, which makes the scanning side not affect me. Also, I tend to treat favourites as a communication between me and the commenter: "thanks for posting that, rather than not posting". Not affected.
But anyhow, it sounds like it's not to be, as plenty of the more vocal members are opposed enough to avoid even trying it. The expression "Toys out of the pram" comes to mind. Still, would have been interesting to have an experiment.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 11:29 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Most of my more recent "MetaFilter: _____ " comments have been made more from the hope that other people would be amused by them than because I found them particularly funny myself.Is it too late for me to change my vote to "please get rid of favorites entirely"?
posted by Flunkie at 11:30 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Well, now I've learned that mathowie likes it, I... no, sorry, I'm keeping Stylish enabled.
I dislike this new behavior, even though I'm not someone who "skims" threads or uses favorites as a marker for what to read or pay attention to (one example use I've seen floated above). I like knowing that other people are reading, I like knowing other people have opinions on comments, and I like numbers and plurals and all the extra information that those numbers and plurals give.
Sorry mods.
But this change did make me create an account for the wiki so I could put it on the timeline, so there's that.
posted by subbes at 11:30 AM on November 1, 2009
I dislike this new behavior, even though I'm not someone who "skims" threads or uses favorites as a marker for what to read or pay attention to (one example use I've seen floated above). I like knowing that other people are reading, I like knowing other people have opinions on comments, and I like numbers and plurals and all the extra information that those numbers and plurals give.
Sorry mods.
But this change did make me create an account for the wiki so I could put it on the timeline, so there's that.
posted by subbes at 11:30 AM on November 1, 2009
I just want to remind everyone that the largest through on the site is a thread on Sarah Palin's announcement as VP, at 5,555 comments.
We can do better than, I'm sure of it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:31 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
We can do better than, I'm sure of it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:31 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I was responding specifically to a snarky comeback to my own disclosure that we mods might be slow in responding to things in this thread today.
Sorry, I guess I didn't read the comment from that perspective. It just seemed (to my eyes, granted) that a point, however snarkily it was written, was also being made about the irony of a useful effect of favorites being disabled by the experiment.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:32 AM on November 1, 2009
Sorry, I guess I didn't read the comment from that perspective. It just seemed (to my eyes, granted) that a point, however snarkily it was written, was also being made about the irony of a useful effect of favorites being disabled by the experiment.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:32 AM on November 1, 2009
Oh, here's an example I think of where visible favorites have been a benefit for the site: the early days of the sexism kerfuffle. Before the whole topic exploded in MeTa I remember a few threads in the Blue where there was some fairly disturbing behavior. It was something I wanted to call out (and later evidence shows that a fair number of others did, too), but it can be uncomfortable about scary to speak out about that sort of thing. One or two brave folk chose to say something, and they were then getting attacked every which way from the previous posters whose behavior was being called-out. But favorites were used to show support for the call-out, and that in turn made a fair number of us more lurk-minded people feel comfortable enough to speak up. Of course, I'm way too lazy to dig up any links, so this is just my memory I'm going off of here.
I have to say, there is a fair amount of behavior on the Blue lately that I've found just soul-crushing, and I think this is the same behavior many anti-favorite folks are blaming on favorites. I mostly only lurk on the Blue, but there are still a lot of threads I enjoy reading.. Lately, though, it seems like way too large a percentage of the threads I look at just devolve into snarky, uninteresting, and pointless "this is a bad post and you're a bad person for posting it" conversations.. And I hate it. I really, really do. I'm starting to avoid the Blue more just because I find that kind of thread-death so very frustrating. So, if there is a correlation between favorite-culture and that kind of behavior, I totally approve of removing favorites. But I just don't think that correlation exists, and I think we might need to seek out alternative methods of changing the undesirable trends in Mefi culture.
I'm really curious to see what the site will be like on November 30th.
posted by Ms. Saint at 11:32 AM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
I have to say, there is a fair amount of behavior on the Blue lately that I've found just soul-crushing, and I think this is the same behavior many anti-favorite folks are blaming on favorites. I mostly only lurk on the Blue, but there are still a lot of threads I enjoy reading.. Lately, though, it seems like way too large a percentage of the threads I look at just devolve into snarky, uninteresting, and pointless "this is a bad post and you're a bad person for posting it" conversations.. And I hate it. I really, really do. I'm starting to avoid the Blue more just because I find that kind of thread-death so very frustrating. So, if there is a correlation between favorite-culture and that kind of behavior, I totally approve of removing favorites. But I just don't think that correlation exists, and I think we might need to seek out alternative methods of changing the undesirable trends in Mefi culture.
I'm really curious to see what the site will be like on November 30th.
posted by Ms. Saint at 11:32 AM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
Flunkie: "Is it too late for me to change my vote to "please get rid of favorites entirely"?"
Not at all.
For the record: The minority wishing to enforce its views on the majority is now a slightly larger minority.
posted by Joe Beese at 11:34 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Not at all.
For the record: The minority wishing to enforce its views on the majority is now a slightly larger minority.
posted by Joe Beese at 11:34 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm really late to the game, but this fucking sucks. It makes Ask Metafilter really unusable for me now.
posted by metalheart at 11:35 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by metalheart at 11:35 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I don't want to read every post
For many years, Metafilter had no favoriting system and everyone pretty much had to read the threads before commenting. I consider that a feature, not a bug.
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:36 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
For many years, Metafilter had no favoriting system and everyone pretty much had to read the threads before commenting. I consider that a feature, not a bug.
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:36 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Just here to say that it's a fine idea to test it out, but I liked it the old way better, personally.
posted by ishotjr at 11:36 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by ishotjr at 11:36 AM on November 1, 2009
For many years, Metafilter had no favoriting system and everyone pretty much had to read the threads before commenting.
For many years — in fact, for all years prior — Metafilter and subsites have had many fewer users participating in threads and comments. It is a different (and better) site than it once was.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:38 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
For many years — in fact, for all years prior — Metafilter and subsites have had many fewer users participating in threads and comments. It is a different (and better) site than it once was.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:38 AM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
Phew. We're at over 600 comments in this thread.
Wish I could have sped-read through it by just looking for comments with high favorite counts.
Now I'm tired and cranky.
posted by Ookseer at 11:38 AM on November 1, 2009
Wish I could have sped-read through it by just looking for comments with high favorite counts.
Now I'm tired and cranky.
posted by Ookseer at 11:38 AM on November 1, 2009
I haven't been to Mefi for awhile and came on to this new favorite policy. I'm not a frequenter of MeTa but I came over here just to see what the hell had happened.
I, personally, don't like it. I always used favorites to pick out the "highlight" comments when I happened upon a thread that already had a thousand responses.
Just my two cents.
posted by Defenestrator at 11:41 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I, personally, don't like it. I always used favorites to pick out the "highlight" comments when I happened upon a thread that already had a thousand responses.
Just my two cents.
posted by Defenestrator at 11:41 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I didn't even notice the switch over for the most part. I recall when some fellow posted a grease monkey script that showed only those comments with five or more favorites, he was pretty much lambasted by a fair percentage of the community. Now it seems that a lot of folks process the information the same way, just visually checking the favorite counts manually.
Anyhoots...It works for me. I don't miss the favorite counts.
Though, if we want to install some sort of pictorial favorite system, where x number of favorites are represented by pictures of lions, unicorns, and kittens, etc, I'm all for that.
posted by Atreides at 11:41 AM on November 1, 2009
Anyhoots...It works for me. I don't miss the favorite counts.
Though, if we want to install some sort of pictorial favorite system, where x number of favorites are represented by pictures of lions, unicorns, and kittens, etc, I'm all for that.
posted by Atreides at 11:41 AM on November 1, 2009
For many years, Metafilter had no favoriting system and everyone pretty much had to read the threads before commenting.No, people didn't have to read the thread before commenting. That's a totally false claim, and it can't validly be used to back the opinion that there shouldn't be favorites.
posted by Flunkie at 11:41 AM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
You can kill those ones too out of protest if you need to be but it doesn't really tell me anything other than you're looking for some way to react to this by intentionally acting out about how you use favorites.
It's partly out of protest and partly because the favoriting system provides far less information than it used to—and intentionally so—unless I muck about with various files on my computer or install GreaseMonkey scripts just to get things to work the way they did 15 hours ago.
posted by oaf at 11:43 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
It's partly out of protest and partly because the favoriting system provides far less information than it used to—and intentionally so—unless I muck about with various files on my computer or install GreaseMonkey scripts just to get things to work the way they did 15 hours ago.
posted by oaf at 11:43 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Oh, and just because I apparently want to contribute as much as possible to the comment count on this post, here's perhaps another point to consider:
A lot of the comparisons being made are between Metafilter and Reddit or Digg -- people are saying that skimming by favorites is like upvoting comments or whatever, something we all seem to agree sucks. But maybe that's not the correct way to conceptualize how some members use favorites to skim threads. It may be more useful to compare Metafilter to Wikipedia, on that front.
Wikipedia just doesn't work if there isn't a large number of users dedicated to producing top-quality content for the site. But that doesn't mean everyone who reads Wikipedia does so -- I look at Wikipedia entries all the time, but I have never posted or edited an entry there. This doesn't mean I'm breaking the system or ruining Wikipedia... It just means I'm using the site in a different way from the more dedicated members.
In the same way, Metafilter depends on dedicated members to produce commentary and a sense of community on the site... But that doesn't mean that everyone who reads Mefi threads has to. Those who skim-by-favorites are just like those who only read Wikipedia entries.
I say this as someone who very carefully reads each and every comment in a thread that interests me. I just feel that the more casual Mefi members are getting a bad wrap. If we're concerned about half-assed and repetitive commenting in threads, I'm not sure picking on skimming-by-favorites is the way to go.
posted by Ms. Saint at 11:44 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
A lot of the comparisons being made are between Metafilter and Reddit or Digg -- people are saying that skimming by favorites is like upvoting comments or whatever, something we all seem to agree sucks. But maybe that's not the correct way to conceptualize how some members use favorites to skim threads. It may be more useful to compare Metafilter to Wikipedia, on that front.
Wikipedia just doesn't work if there isn't a large number of users dedicated to producing top-quality content for the site. But that doesn't mean everyone who reads Wikipedia does so -- I look at Wikipedia entries all the time, but I have never posted or edited an entry there. This doesn't mean I'm breaking the system or ruining Wikipedia... It just means I'm using the site in a different way from the more dedicated members.
In the same way, Metafilter depends on dedicated members to produce commentary and a sense of community on the site... But that doesn't mean that everyone who reads Mefi threads has to. Those who skim-by-favorites are just like those who only read Wikipedia entries.
I say this as someone who very carefully reads each and every comment in a thread that interests me. I just feel that the more casual Mefi members are getting a bad wrap. If we're concerned about half-assed and repetitive commenting in threads, I'm not sure picking on skimming-by-favorites is the way to go.
posted by Ms. Saint at 11:44 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I've been reading MetaFilter for a while now, although I'm not exactly a high contributing member (I read far, far, FAR more than I post). I remember the days when it was easily possible to read through every single post of the day. Nowadays, not so much. I admit I use favourite counts to filter through highly-commented posts, because the activity level is just so much higher now.
However,
I skim threads when I don't have time but I don't regularly look for just the highest favorited comments in threads, and you have to admit that kind of activity devalues everything else and creates an environment where comments are seen as useless noise with the votes pushing up the signal.
posted by mathowie
is something I have to agree with. I installed the workaround as a knee-jerk reaction, but I think I'm going to remove it now. This is an interesting experiment, and personally, I'm curious to see how it affects my reading habits.
posted by threetoed at 11:44 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
However,
I skim threads when I don't have time but I don't regularly look for just the highest favorited comments in threads, and you have to admit that kind of activity devalues everything else and creates an environment where comments are seen as useless noise with the votes pushing up the signal.
posted by mathowie
is something I have to agree with. I installed the workaround as a knee-jerk reaction, but I think I'm going to remove it now. This is an interesting experiment, and personally, I'm curious to see how it affects my reading habits.
posted by threetoed at 11:44 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
If you hate "faved," there's now my Greasemonkey script to replace it with a star or whatever you like - I think an image is doable.
I'm writing a wiki page to list the various tools.
posted by Pronoiac at 11:46 AM on November 1, 2009
I'm writing a wiki page to list the various tools.
posted by Pronoiac at 11:46 AM on November 1, 2009
kingjoeshmoe: "What's the point? If I can so easily circumvent this feature/bug, what benefit does it serve to hide the info in the first place? People tech-savvy enough to mess with style-sheets and greasemonkey scripts get to have a secret easter-egg feature that is denied to those who can't deal?"
People who care enough to work around it will do so, and everyone else will just be inconvenienced. It's the DRM of Metafilter.
posted by shammack at 11:47 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
People who care enough to work around it will do so, and everyone else will just be inconvenienced. It's the DRM of Metafilter.
posted by shammack at 11:47 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I tried reading the whole thread but bailed about a quarter way in; so just to say I'm not that bothered either way, but then I'm not a heavy AskMe user so can't speak to any loss of functionality there.
In the kind of current affairs, theory and similar threads I enjoy most for actual discussion, I often find a high favourite count just goes - unsurprisingly - with a well-stated version of the the sort of opinion that you might expect from the demographic that uses the site, so I don't miss it so much there, especially knowing that any user you 'reward' for a good argument or funny joke still gets to see their personal count go up.
posted by Abiezer at 11:47 AM on November 1, 2009
In the kind of current affairs, theory and similar threads I enjoy most for actual discussion, I often find a high favourite count just goes - unsurprisingly - with a well-stated version of the the sort of opinion that you might expect from the demographic that uses the site, so I don't miss it so much there, especially knowing that any user you 'reward' for a good argument or funny joke still gets to see their personal count go up.
posted by Abiezer at 11:47 AM on November 1, 2009
Here is a work-around for Chrome users. It's a few lines of Javascript, it removes the hidden property from the byline.
posted by mellifluous at 11:48 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by mellifluous at 11:48 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yeah, this is a pain. I'll keep reading Ask but I will probably stop reading comments on Metafilter altogether, until someone comes up with a script that gets around this change--I like the chance to read the neatest comments but I don't have time to figure out which ones they are myself.
posted by phoenixy at 11:49 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by phoenixy at 11:49 AM on November 1, 2009
I know that in the past I've favorited things that I agreed with as a way to communicate my belief/opinion without opening myself up in particularly contentious threads to be directly attacked/confronted/criticized for that belief. Knowing (transparently) how many other people agreed with me helped make the community feel more safe.
This is a description of an echo chamber, not what we want MetaFilter to be, right?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:50 AM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
This is a description of an echo chamber, not what we want MetaFilter to be, right?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:50 AM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
I have lost my marker of which posts are everyone's favorites. I can NO LONGER READ MEFI THREADS. Arrrrgghhh
posted by shii at 11:50 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by shii at 11:50 AM on November 1, 2009
I will probably stop reading comments on Metafilter altogether, until someone comes up with a script that gets around this changeIf favorites were still visible, you probably would have already seen such a workaround.
posted by Flunkie at 11:52 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I like this change. The anger against is as good a proof as any that the favorites system has become an overly-dominant influence on how people read and comment on the site. I'd also be happy for the faved/not faved distinction to also go.
posted by cillit bang at 11:53 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by cillit bang at 11:53 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
This is a description of an echo chamberPeople having the ability to express agreement does not constitute an "echo chamber".
posted by Flunkie at 11:54 AM on November 1, 2009 [20 favorites]
Simply: Excellent experiemnt and probably going to be a great improvement. I agree strongly with the concerns about piling on and showboating.
posted by msalt at 11:54 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by msalt at 11:54 AM on November 1, 2009
Okay, now that I've had a sandwich and a cup of tea I can drop a few less cranky comments.
1) I think running an experiment is good. I like that you're running an experiment.
2) I do not like the change.
3) The fact that some people subverted the favorite system into a voting system means that there is a non-insignificant population that wants it. If they want to use it that way, why take it away from them? It seems like punishing someone for breaking a rule which doesn't exist.
4) If you do keep the change (ugh) please do not use 'faved'. It simply sounds juvenile. (Best suggestion so far: "Noted") Better suggestion: If you take away the favorite counts you might as well remove the "faved" altogether. If the [+] is just for my private bookmarking then commit to that.
5) Really? I have five points to make on this? Wow, never would have guessed. Anyway...
Why should the people who want to see favorite counts have to resort to greasemonkey? Why can't people who want them hidden go the greasemonkey route? (and why haven't they just done this before now?) Given my limited understanding, isn't it easier to subtract existing information from a page than add in new?
posted by Ookseer at 11:54 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
1) I think running an experiment is good. I like that you're running an experiment.
2) I do not like the change.
3) The fact that some people subverted the favorite system into a voting system means that there is a non-insignificant population that wants it. If they want to use it that way, why take it away from them? It seems like punishing someone for breaking a rule which doesn't exist.
4) If you do keep the change (ugh) please do not use 'faved'. It simply sounds juvenile. (Best suggestion so far: "Noted") Better suggestion: If you take away the favorite counts you might as well remove the "faved" altogether. If the [+] is just for my private bookmarking then commit to that.
5) Really? I have five points to make on this? Wow, never would have guessed. Anyway...
Why should the people who want to see favorite counts have to resort to greasemonkey? Why can't people who want them hidden go the greasemonkey route? (and why haven't they just done this before now?) Given my limited understanding, isn't it easier to subtract existing information from a page than add in new?
posted by Ookseer at 11:54 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I installed the Stylish script. Let a thousand favorites bloom.
posted by gerryblog at 11:55 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by gerryblog at 11:55 AM on November 1, 2009
> This is a description of an echo chamber, not what we want MetaFilter to be, right?
It's going to be an echo chamber either way because the vast majority of people here have a similar world view. I don't see how favorites effect that one way or another. It's not like Reddit/Digg/et al where the comments are ordered by popularity and low-threshold ones are collapsed.
posted by cj_ at 11:55 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
It's going to be an echo chamber either way because the vast majority of people here have a similar world view. I don't see how favorites effect that one way or another. It's not like Reddit/Digg/et al where the comments are ordered by popularity and low-threshold ones are collapsed.
posted by cj_ at 11:55 AM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Not in favor. But I can abide for a month.
I'm in the "all for experimenting but not at all impressed by the method and the results will be just as contestable as the study" camp. There will be no answers from this.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 11:56 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'm in the "all for experimenting but not at all impressed by the method and the results will be just as contestable as the study" camp. There will be no answers from this.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 11:56 AM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I hate this.
posted by spaltavian at 11:56 AM on November 1, 2009
posted by spaltavian at 11:56 AM on November 1, 2009
HELP! the thread was too long to read because there were no favorites I could look at to gauge the community's reaction to this. I have some questions
1) Can some make a greasemonkey script or anything? THX
2) Can the mods tell me what the reasoning behind this was?
3) Let me be the first person to say that I don't like the word 'faved'.
4) Let me also be the first person to say that I don't like this.
thx and if u know the answers plz email me at metatalkyesthiswassarcasmandIdidreadthewholethreadandwhatdoesenduphappeningisthatpeoplerepeatthemselves@aol.com
posted by suedehead at 11:56 AM on November 1, 2009
1) Can some make a greasemonkey script or anything? THX
2) Can the mods tell me what the reasoning behind this was?
3) Let me be the first person to say that I don't like the word 'faved'.
4) Let me also be the first person to say that I don't like this.
thx and if u know the answers plz email me at metatalkyesthiswassarcasmandIdidreadthewholethreadandwhatdoesenduphappeningisthatpeoplerepeatthemselves@aol.com
posted by suedehead at 11:56 AM on November 1, 2009
I'm curious how the month will play out, whether others will come away from it feeling the way I do or start using greasemonkey instead
Okay, I'm using the workaround for IE. Who else has already put the workaround in? Because the rest of us would like to know.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 11:57 AM on November 1, 2009
Okay, I'm using the workaround for IE. Who else has already put the workaround in? Because the rest of us would like to know.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 11:57 AM on November 1, 2009
For me, the favorite counts make the forum more of a three dimensional social experience--vaguely analogous to watching faces in a real life discussion. Dichotomizing this information flattens the social nature of the whole thing.
posted by found missing at 11:58 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by found missing at 11:58 AM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
People having the ability to express agreement does not constitute an "echo chamber".
Did you stop reading the quote halfway through? The comment stressed how they felt safe knowing x many other people agree with them before hitting the favorite button. That's an echo chamber. That's sub-optimal.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:59 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Did you stop reading the quote halfway through? The comment stressed how they felt safe knowing x many other people agree with them before hitting the favorite button. That's an echo chamber. That's sub-optimal.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:59 AM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
oaf: "It's partly out of protest and partly because the favoriting system provides far less information than it used to—and intentionally so—unless I muck about with various files on my computer or install GreaseMonkey scripts just to get things to work the way they did 15 hours ago."
I am sympathetic to your degree of anger but not to your direction of it.
I tell you sincerely that, despite the fact that I completely agree with you, I would rather the mods continue with a counterproductive but well-meant experiment than reverse course after being beaten down by site vandals*.
* Sorry, but that's what you're doing. You'd make our side look better if you stop that.
posted by Joe Beese at 12:00 PM on November 1, 2009
I am sympathetic to your degree of anger but not to your direction of it.
I tell you sincerely that, despite the fact that I completely agree with you, I would rather the mods continue with a counterproductive but well-meant experiment than reverse course after being beaten down by site vandals*.
* Sorry, but that's what you're doing. You'd make our side look better if you stop that.
posted by Joe Beese at 12:00 PM on November 1, 2009
Why do we even need a word for it? How about we just have a number? Or a bar that has a max threshold of, let's say 25 comments to 'fullness'? That way you avoid the labeling problem, the mathematical quantification, yet still get a general idea of the amount of response. You preserve the social indexing function without imposing a categorical label or competition in numbers.
It's basically a bucket metaphor. People conceptually get to decide what to call that bucket for themselves.
posted by iamkimiam at 12:01 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
It's basically a bucket metaphor. People conceptually get to decide what to call that bucket for themselves.
posted by iamkimiam at 12:01 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Also, this is one of the better comments in this half of the thread:
If favorites were still visible, you probably would have already seen such a workaround.
posted by Flunkie at 2:52 PM on November 1 [1 favorite faved -] Favorite added! [!]
This is why I installed the Stylish script and why I was, as you can see, the first faver to fave Flunkie's comment about why faving posts was such a fave feature for some of us, outside faving's undeniable contribution to THE DEATH OF DISCOURSE.
posted by gerryblog at 12:02 PM on November 1, 2009
If favorites were still visible, you probably would have already seen such a workaround.
posted by Flunkie at 2:52 PM on November 1 [1 favorite faved -] Favorite added! [!]
This is why I installed the Stylish script and why I was, as you can see, the first faver to fave Flunkie's comment about why faving posts was such a fave feature for some of us, outside faving's undeniable contribution to THE DEATH OF DISCOURSE.
posted by gerryblog at 12:02 PM on November 1, 2009
Fuck, it's not a bucket. It's a fucking filter.
posted by iamkimiam at 12:02 PM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by iamkimiam at 12:02 PM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
I think the value of visible favorites is made really, really clear in the Schrödinger's Rapist thread. A lot of women were brave enough to share some really personal stuff, and the number of favorites these stories got wasn't any sort of popularity contest, it was instead largely a way for the less-brave of us to say "I know how you feel because I have been made to feel the same way."
I think those favorites served as a way to successfully counterbalance the various ignorant dudes who would pop up to say things like "You're all paranoid, catcalling is just a compliment," or "The author of the article must be ugly, because only ugly chicks are afraid of rape."
If the really great comments in the thread only had a "Faved" under them, I think we would have missed out on a truly impressive showing of feminist solidarity on a forum that hasn't always been a safe space for women.
posted by oinopaponton at 12:03 PM on November 1, 2009 [35 favorites]
I think those favorites served as a way to successfully counterbalance the various ignorant dudes who would pop up to say things like "You're all paranoid, catcalling is just a compliment," or "The author of the article must be ugly, because only ugly chicks are afraid of rape."
If the really great comments in the thread only had a "Faved" under them, I think we would have missed out on a truly impressive showing of feminist solidarity on a forum that hasn't always been a safe space for women.
posted by oinopaponton at 12:03 PM on November 1, 2009 [35 favorites]
Why should the people who want to see favorite counts have to resort to greasemonkey? Why can't people who want them hidden go the greasemonkey route? (and why haven't they just done this before now?
That's the nature of the experiment we're running. The default experience is to have favorite counts visible with an opt-out route available for those who want it; we've inverted it that for a month, which changes the dynamic for folks running with the default, which in both cases is the larger group.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:03 PM on November 1, 2009
That's the nature of the experiment we're running. The default experience is to have favorite counts visible with an opt-out route available for those who want it; we've inverted it that for a month, which changes the dynamic for folks running with the default, which in both cases is the larger group.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:03 PM on November 1, 2009
I think Sidhedevil and iamkimiam made some excellent points about potential issues with obscured favorites. I'm keeping an open mind about how it will work, but I really, really dislike the term "faved," largely because of the false parallel with "flagged." I feel like even seeing just "favorite" under a comment would be less jarring than "faved."
posted by EvaDestruction at 12:04 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by EvaDestruction at 12:04 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Did you stop reading the quote halfway through? The comment stressed how they felt safe knowing x many other people agree with them before hitting the favorite button. That's an echo chamber. That's sub-optimal.No, I did not, and no, it does not constitute that.
Seriously? You think that people feeling safe to express themselves in the face of invective -- which is what the post that you imply I didn't read is talking about -- constitutes an "echo chamber"?
It doesn't.
posted by Flunkie at 12:04 PM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
oinopaponton, not to mention that now "You're all paranoid, catcalling is just a compliment," "The author of the article must be ugly, because only ugly chicks are afraid of rape," and the posts that call those sentiments out will now all share a single badge of honor: FAVED.
posted by gerryblog at 12:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
posted by gerryblog at 12:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
I've never understood what "favorite-whoring" could mean except "people annoyingly liking stuff I don't like".
I thought favourite-whoring meant posting the kind of opinion that you know will go down big among the leftists and atheists amongst us?
That's the shit that always gets the faves poked into my metaphorical g-string anyway.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I thought favourite-whoring meant posting the kind of opinion that you know will go down big among the leftists and atheists amongst us?
That's the shit that always gets the faves poked into my metaphorical g-string anyway.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
you have to admit that kind of activity devalues everything else and creates an environment where comments are seen as useless noise with the votes pushing up the signal.
Respectfully, I don't think this has to be admitted at all, because I think it's predicated on an oversimplifed assumption about what value all readers in all contexts and in all subsites ascribe to heavily favorited comments vs. not-heavily favorited comments. As others have pointed out, heavily favorited comments may function differently for casual users vs. frequent users, in the Blue vs. in the Green, in long threads vs. short threads, etc.
Or to look at it another way: in certain threads of certain topics, certain usernames are going to carry more weight than others. Is that a bad thing? Should we block usernames, so that people's reputations (for good or ill) won't carry any weight in terms of the content of their comments?
In a thread about the slow cooking movement, for example, I would absolutely skim the thread off the bat to see if Miko has weighed in, and I will pay close attention to what she says, regardless of whether her comment has 0 favorites or 25. This is because I know that Miko knows what she's talking about on this score; the fact that I'm valuing Miko's contribution doesn't mean I'm automatically devaluing anyone else's contribution to the thread.
But what about a new or casual user who comes to that thread and doesn't know that Miko is well-versed in this topic? The fact that she might have 25 favorites on her comment would be a meaningful and valuable way that a newcomer might be able to immediately register Miko's knowledge of the topic, and might be a way of helping them filter (as it were) knowledgeable answers from less knowledgeable answers.
Which strikes me as actually adding value to the site, not subtracting.
posted by scody at 12:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
Respectfully, I don't think this has to be admitted at all, because I think it's predicated on an oversimplifed assumption about what value all readers in all contexts and in all subsites ascribe to heavily favorited comments vs. not-heavily favorited comments. As others have pointed out, heavily favorited comments may function differently for casual users vs. frequent users, in the Blue vs. in the Green, in long threads vs. short threads, etc.
Or to look at it another way: in certain threads of certain topics, certain usernames are going to carry more weight than others. Is that a bad thing? Should we block usernames, so that people's reputations (for good or ill) won't carry any weight in terms of the content of their comments?
In a thread about the slow cooking movement, for example, I would absolutely skim the thread off the bat to see if Miko has weighed in, and I will pay close attention to what she says, regardless of whether her comment has 0 favorites or 25. This is because I know that Miko knows what she's talking about on this score; the fact that I'm valuing Miko's contribution doesn't mean I'm automatically devaluing anyone else's contribution to the thread.
But what about a new or casual user who comes to that thread and doesn't know that Miko is well-versed in this topic? The fact that she might have 25 favorites on her comment would be a meaningful and valuable way that a newcomer might be able to immediately register Miko's knowledge of the topic, and might be a way of helping them filter (as it were) knowledgeable answers from less knowledgeable answers.
Which strikes me as actually adding value to the site, not subtracting.
posted by scody at 12:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
Brandon Blatcher: "I just want to remind everyone that the largest through on the site is a thread on Sarah Palin's announcement as VP, at 5,555 comments.
We can do better than, I'm sure of it."
I'm sorry you feel that way. One thing I think Metafilter does really well is breaking news, and that thread was a fine example of it. Granted, there are lots of "WTF WHO" and snark, but there was constant links to new sources of information, and frequent debunking of false stories about Palin. It was a great thread. Surely not BEST OF THE WEB, but honestly, those threads don't attract huge amounts of comments. I'm pretty sure the largest thread before this was probably 9622 in-jokery of some sort. We're better than that too.
posted by graventy at 12:05 PM on November 1, 2009
We can do better than, I'm sure of it."
I'm sorry you feel that way. One thing I think Metafilter does really well is breaking news, and that thread was a fine example of it. Granted, there are lots of "WTF WHO" and snark, but there was constant links to new sources of information, and frequent debunking of false stories about Palin. It was a great thread. Surely not BEST OF THE WEB, but honestly, those threads don't attract huge amounts of comments. I'm pretty sure the largest thread before this was probably 9622 in-jokery of some sort. We're better than that too.
posted by graventy at 12:05 PM on November 1, 2009
Many of the complaints with the favorite counting seems to be that it make people behave differently than they would otherwise. That attention whoring becomes a goal, and that it gives preference to comments by people who are attention whores.
If this undesirable then we really need to remove "Best answer" tagging in AskMe as well. Sometimes people just scan an AskMefi question and only read the Best Answers, which is really unfair to everyone else who contributed to the post. And don't even get me started on people who go out of their way to try to get Best Answer. Attention whores.
posted by Ookseer at 12:06 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
If this undesirable then we really need to remove "Best answer" tagging in AskMe as well. Sometimes people just scan an AskMefi question and only read the Best Answers, which is really unfair to everyone else who contributed to the post. And don't even get me started on people who go out of their way to try to get Best Answer. Attention whores.
posted by Ookseer at 12:06 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Wow. I missed this thread: I saw the front page part of the post, mind you, "an experiment with how favorites are displayed", and thought "Sure, put up some pie charts, change the kerning, whatever. Fine. I won't miss anything if I don't read that thread."
I wasn't expecting this.
My thoughts: I was actually moderately opposed to the implementation of favorites, for the oft-mentioned argument of comment equality / pissing-contest-prevention. I actually liked having to read every comment in the thread (I think this was around the time when I was either lurking or had just signed up in the Flood of '04). I don't think it strays too far from seriousness to say that it's a socialist model: every comment really is created equal that way, and words are judged only by thought and other words. Simply put, you had to chew a bit longer on every contribution to a discussion.
So favorites, in my view, really did change something about both active discourse and the reading experience on Metafilter. We'll probably never agree completely about the extent and merit of this change, but anecdotally, I do find myself skimming longer threads for much-favorited comments or answers, especially if I don't care that much for the topic. If it's a subject I'm interested in, however, I'll usually read the whole thing.
Conversely, as a contributor I like receiving favorites, if "receiving" is the right way to put it: I don't obsessively monitor my favorites, and I try to steer well clear of "favorite-whoring", to use an unparliamentary term: posting something just to garner favorites.
But the "Popular" view that shows which of your contributions have been favorited most does tell me something about which of my posts apparently work well for Metafilter, what comments have been received well or at least struck a chord, and in general tell me something about my writing, I suppose: things I find useful.
This Metafilter is a different one from the Metafilter of five years ago: posts scroll past faster, threads get longer: it's hard to keep track of things, as I have illustrated with my initial failure to read this post. But for many of us this is a process that extends beyond this site only: I expect most will recognize the problem of channeling, bundling and filtering information from the endless, massive stream that passes through the intertubes. Favorites help with this, too.
All of the above serves to say that I have over time become convinced that the merits of favoriting have proven themselves. In fact, I was just about to inquire if there could be a way to sort tag pages by number of favorites: I was looking for a recipe and Google failed me, so if you could have askmefi/tags/gravy and see the most-favorited questions, I expect people will find it useful. The popularity contest argument applies here as well, of course, sure: but we already have favorites, and Popular pages, so I feel it would be a logical extension.
So now I find myself opposed to this. I've read the post and the moderators' comments multiple times, and I still don't understand the precise nature of the problem that this measure would be designed to solve, or how exactly this would help solve it. Having favorites but hiding them behind a click -- which is what this is, as I see it -- seems inconsistent to me, even, dare I say it, bureaucratic, as a watered-down compromise you'd see in a legislature, where a good idea goes in, and a faceless token gesture comes out that leaves you wondering what on earth the original idea could have been.
I don't mean to be harsh, but I am being honest. I do appreciate the willingness of Team Mod to actively float trial balloons to eventually make the site better. But for now I am strongly opposed to what to me seems little more than an annoying interface change that slows and limits the user experience, which is something that I thought sites we hate tend to do, not Metafilter.
I yield the remainder of my time to Favio, the favorites-puking gerbil.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:08 PM on November 1, 2009 [16 favorites]
I wasn't expecting this.
My thoughts: I was actually moderately opposed to the implementation of favorites, for the oft-mentioned argument of comment equality / pissing-contest-prevention. I actually liked having to read every comment in the thread (I think this was around the time when I was either lurking or had just signed up in the Flood of '04). I don't think it strays too far from seriousness to say that it's a socialist model: every comment really is created equal that way, and words are judged only by thought and other words. Simply put, you had to chew a bit longer on every contribution to a discussion.
So favorites, in my view, really did change something about both active discourse and the reading experience on Metafilter. We'll probably never agree completely about the extent and merit of this change, but anecdotally, I do find myself skimming longer threads for much-favorited comments or answers, especially if I don't care that much for the topic. If it's a subject I'm interested in, however, I'll usually read the whole thing.
Conversely, as a contributor I like receiving favorites, if "receiving" is the right way to put it: I don't obsessively monitor my favorites, and I try to steer well clear of "favorite-whoring", to use an unparliamentary term: posting something just to garner favorites.
But the "Popular" view that shows which of your contributions have been favorited most does tell me something about which of my posts apparently work well for Metafilter, what comments have been received well or at least struck a chord, and in general tell me something about my writing, I suppose: things I find useful.
This Metafilter is a different one from the Metafilter of five years ago: posts scroll past faster, threads get longer: it's hard to keep track of things, as I have illustrated with my initial failure to read this post. But for many of us this is a process that extends beyond this site only: I expect most will recognize the problem of channeling, bundling and filtering information from the endless, massive stream that passes through the intertubes. Favorites help with this, too.
All of the above serves to say that I have over time become convinced that the merits of favoriting have proven themselves. In fact, I was just about to inquire if there could be a way to sort tag pages by number of favorites: I was looking for a recipe and Google failed me, so if you could have askmefi/tags/gravy and see the most-favorited questions, I expect people will find it useful. The popularity contest argument applies here as well, of course, sure: but we already have favorites, and Popular pages, so I feel it would be a logical extension.
So now I find myself opposed to this. I've read the post and the moderators' comments multiple times, and I still don't understand the precise nature of the problem that this measure would be designed to solve, or how exactly this would help solve it. Having favorites but hiding them behind a click -- which is what this is, as I see it -- seems inconsistent to me, even, dare I say it, bureaucratic, as a watered-down compromise you'd see in a legislature, where a good idea goes in, and a faceless token gesture comes out that leaves you wondering what on earth the original idea could have been.
I don't mean to be harsh, but I am being honest. I do appreciate the willingness of Team Mod to actively float trial balloons to eventually make the site better. But for now I am strongly opposed to what to me seems little more than an annoying interface change that slows and limits the user experience, which is something that I thought sites we hate tend to do, not Metafilter.
I yield the remainder of my time to Favio, the favorites-puking gerbil.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:08 PM on November 1, 2009 [16 favorites]
few people will change their minds as a result of this test.
I've already changed mine. I'm one of the few! I was a favorites skeptic. I saw it as the equivalence of a laugh track on a sit-com. I noticed that a large proportion the high-favorited comments could be found in the more contentious discussions and this reminded me of what I always hated about sports fans. I believed that those using a favorites count as a mark to differentiate what to bother reading created a star system where those already favorited would be more likely to be favorited again since they would be all that some people would bother to read. I have wanted to mark responses to return to later and had no way to do so other than giving what would be interpreted as approval.
But, now, I find I miss those favorite counts. It just feels wrong not seeing them. It damps down a form of interaction that created community feel, which, even with all its faults, is superior to the more distant flattened affect resulting from the hidden counts.
I am pro-experiment and have already learned from this. Will I learn more if it goes on for 30 more days? Possibly, but I doubt it. And I hate the word "fave." My spell-checker hates it to. (It's better than the alternatives? How would a gold star be worse?)
So, I would like to see favorites return. And maybe a separate bookmark feature so I can return to comments which are certainly not my favorites.
posted by Obscure Reference at 12:08 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I've already changed mine. I'm one of the few! I was a favorites skeptic. I saw it as the equivalence of a laugh track on a sit-com. I noticed that a large proportion the high-favorited comments could be found in the more contentious discussions and this reminded me of what I always hated about sports fans. I believed that those using a favorites count as a mark to differentiate what to bother reading created a star system where those already favorited would be more likely to be favorited again since they would be all that some people would bother to read. I have wanted to mark responses to return to later and had no way to do so other than giving what would be interpreted as approval.
But, now, I find I miss those favorite counts. It just feels wrong not seeing them. It damps down a form of interaction that created community feel, which, even with all its faults, is superior to the more distant flattened affect resulting from the hidden counts.
I am pro-experiment and have already learned from this. Will I learn more if it goes on for 30 more days? Possibly, but I doubt it. And I hate the word "fave." My spell-checker hates it to. (It's better than the alternatives? How would a gold star be worse?)
So, I would like to see favorites return. And maybe a separate bookmark feature so I can return to comments which are certainly not my favorites.
posted by Obscure Reference at 12:08 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Did you stop reading the quote halfway through? The comment stressed how they felt safe knowing x many other people agree with them before hitting the favorite button. That's an echo chamber. That's sub-optimal.
No. That wasn't my intent in the least.
This more accurately reflects what I meant:
A lot of women were brave enough to share some really personal stuff, and the number of favorites these stories got wasn't any sort of popularity contest, it was instead largely a way for the less-brave of us to say "I know how you feel because I have been made to feel the same way."
Thanks, oinopaponton, for saying it better than I did.
posted by Stewriffic at 12:08 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
No. That wasn't my intent in the least.
This more accurately reflects what I meant:
A lot of women were brave enough to share some really personal stuff, and the number of favorites these stories got wasn't any sort of popularity contest, it was instead largely a way for the less-brave of us to say "I know how you feel because I have been made to feel the same way."
Thanks, oinopaponton, for saying it better than I did.
posted by Stewriffic at 12:08 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Yay, candy corn!
With candy corn as my nutritious energy supply, I have now come back and read the whole thread. What's curious about this flat-world is I pretty much ended up favoriting every comment in opposition to you, koeselitz, and I don't know whether I'm in the minority or majority. So that's kind of ... cute.
But in case I am in the minority, I'd like to remain the strongly vocal minority, and tell you to please take your megalomania elsewhere? You are not St. Koeselitz, defender of the MetaFilter, and I found mysself particularly at times annoyed and out right pissed off that you decided to tell everybody in tens of posts the thread over how much better you were then them, and oh you're not really but THEY'RE WRONG, and if they just learned to love metafilter the way you used to love metafilter, before all the love went away, why, they would enjoy it too.
Jesus, dude. Half of this thread's your comments. Get a grip, or three, or press a button, eh?
posted by cavalier at 12:08 PM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
With candy corn as my nutritious energy supply, I have now come back and read the whole thread. What's curious about this flat-world is I pretty much ended up favoriting every comment in opposition to you, koeselitz, and I don't know whether I'm in the minority or majority. So that's kind of ... cute.
But in case I am in the minority, I'd like to remain the strongly vocal minority, and tell you to please take your megalomania elsewhere? You are not St. Koeselitz, defender of the MetaFilter, and I found mysself particularly at times annoyed and out right pissed off that you decided to tell everybody in tens of posts the thread over how much better you were then them, and oh you're not really but THEY'RE WRONG, and if they just learned to love metafilter the way you used to love metafilter, before all the love went away, why, they would enjoy it too.
Jesus, dude. Half of this thread's your comments. Get a grip, or three, or press a button, eh?
posted by cavalier at 12:08 PM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
My favorite became a whore totally without my knowledge. Posted on craigslist and everything.
posted by found missing at 12:09 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by found missing at 12:09 PM on November 1, 2009
Just a note that the CSS hack seems to work for the desktop version of Safari (v4.0.3).
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:09 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:09 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I promise to come back and read every! single! comment today after I go get tacos from the delicious taco stand at the Sunday Market. But right now I'd like to log my displeasure at this change and suggest an alternative.
I remain a very nervous commenter on all areas of this site. I'm not sure what's socially acceptable where, what sort of attitude is called for, if people are being sarcastic or not (except of course when Hamburgers are involved and I wish that would die already,) or if my commentary would be welcome. I use Favorites as a way to gauge all of that. Knowing what gets the mid-range level of favorites in a given thread helps me choose what to say and how to say it so as to be most useful or entertaining or informative to the readers of the thread.
So I hereby suggest that you remove the value-laden word "Favorites" or "Faves" and replace it with the rather neutral word "Bean".
I can give a comment one bean, I can give many beans a day. Giving a bean can mean a nod of approval or a note to oneself for future reference, it can be sweet like a jellybean or utilitarian like a lima bean. It can still be seen as a voting system by people who like that sort of thing, but to new users it will take a certain level of site-wide understanding. And on our profile pages, we won't be seen to have a frajillion and one favorites, we can just be full of beans. Which, as I think the readers of this thread would agree (but I can't tell right now because I'm not sure what the general attitude is due to a lack of Favorite counts!) is both a good and a bad thing.
the Favorites system isn't broken, in my mind, it just uses a value-laden word where a neutral one belongs.
posted by Mizu at 12:10 PM on November 1, 2009 [13 favorites]
I remain a very nervous commenter on all areas of this site. I'm not sure what's socially acceptable where, what sort of attitude is called for, if people are being sarcastic or not (except of course when Hamburgers are involved and I wish that would die already,) or if my commentary would be welcome. I use Favorites as a way to gauge all of that. Knowing what gets the mid-range level of favorites in a given thread helps me choose what to say and how to say it so as to be most useful or entertaining or informative to the readers of the thread.
So I hereby suggest that you remove the value-laden word "Favorites" or "Faves" and replace it with the rather neutral word "Bean".
I can give a comment one bean, I can give many beans a day. Giving a bean can mean a nod of approval or a note to oneself for future reference, it can be sweet like a jellybean or utilitarian like a lima bean. It can still be seen as a voting system by people who like that sort of thing, but to new users it will take a certain level of site-wide understanding. And on our profile pages, we won't be seen to have a frajillion and one favorites, we can just be full of beans. Which, as I think the readers of this thread would agree (but I can't tell right now because I'm not sure what the general attitude is due to a lack of Favorite counts!) is both a good and a bad thing.
the Favorites system isn't broken, in my mind, it just uses a value-laden word where a neutral one belongs.
posted by Mizu at 12:10 PM on November 1, 2009 [13 favorites]
I haven't used up a Ren and Stimpy reference in a long time, so:
No sir, I don't like it.
I'll try to return with a different one-liner around Nov. 30 or so.
posted by gimonca at 12:12 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
No sir, I don't like it.
I'll try to return with a different one-liner around Nov. 30 or so.
posted by gimonca at 12:12 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
People having the ability to express agreement does not constitute an "echo chamber".
It does when at least 90% of the non-grief "faves" in this thread are in the HATE HATE HATE category, while some of the most reasoned "this could be good" things aren't even "faved."
It's turning into LOL... something. This isn't a conversation. This is more like a mob.
posted by dw at 12:13 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
It does when at least 90% of the non-grief "faves" in this thread are in the HATE HATE HATE category, while some of the most reasoned "this could be good" things aren't even "faved."
It's turning into LOL... something. This isn't a conversation. This is more like a mob.
posted by dw at 12:13 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
It does when at least 90% of the non-grief "faves" in this thread are in the HATE HATE HATE categoryHow do you know?
posted by Flunkie at 12:14 PM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
everyone pretty much had to read the threads before commenting. I consider that a feature, not a bug.
Except that I don't comment very often (I only commented above to "register my vote"). In most cases, anything I might say has already been said by someone else.
I usually just read the popular threads, finding the good bits by favorite counts. Based on the content above, I'm not the only one who does this.
If the favorites count is gone for good, then the site won't work for me. I'm not going to wade through 98 mediocre comments to find 2 gems.
I'm just one vote. I can find plenty of other things to read on the internet. You're "feature not a bug" snark makes me feel really unwelcome anyway.
posted by everythings_interrelated at 12:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
Except that I don't comment very often (I only commented above to "register my vote"). In most cases, anything I might say has already been said by someone else.
I usually just read the popular threads, finding the good bits by favorite counts. Based on the content above, I'm not the only one who does this.
If the favorites count is gone for good, then the site won't work for me. I'm not going to wade through 98 mediocre comments to find 2 gems.
I'm just one vote. I can find plenty of other things to read on the internet. You're "feature not a bug" snark makes me feel really unwelcome anyway.
posted by everythings_interrelated at 12:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
> Just a note that the CSS hack seems to work for the desktop version of Safari (v4.0.3)
Yeah, I got it to work as well. I think I was running both the GM script and this at the same time, or maybe just needed to restart the browser. Using a custom stylesheet is a much cleaner solution than tweaking the DOM style attributes using javascript, of course.
posted by cj_ at 12:20 PM on November 1, 2009
Yeah, I got it to work as well. I think I was running both the GM script and this at the same time, or maybe just needed to restart the browser. Using a custom stylesheet is a much cleaner solution than tweaking the DOM style attributes using javascript, of course.
posted by cj_ at 12:20 PM on November 1, 2009
No sir, I don't like it.
Ha, my thought exactly. I love that horse who doesn't like things.
I appreciate you guys are trying to improve the site, but this change doesn't work. The fact that the information is still there, one click away, is a dead giveaway that a lot of people want this info and some, like everythings_interrelated, don't even find the site useful without it.
So nothing is really gone or changed, it's just an extremely inconvenient process of extra clicks.
posted by drjimmy11 at 12:20 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Ha, my thought exactly. I love that horse who doesn't like things.
I appreciate you guys are trying to improve the site, but this change doesn't work. The fact that the information is still there, one click away, is a dead giveaway that a lot of people want this info and some, like everythings_interrelated, don't even find the site useful without it.
So nothing is really gone or changed, it's just an extremely inconvenient process of extra clicks.
posted by drjimmy11 at 12:20 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
mathowie: I think it may be an example where a little echo is not necessarily a bad thing. If you are expressing an opinion which people may disagree vehemently with, it can be nice to have favourites which you can interpret as "You are not alone, thanks for posting this". It can be nice to see that many people have agreed with that thing that you feel strongly about. It can be eye-opening to see a pile of favourites on something that YOU vehemently disagree with.
Still quite happy to do without favourite counts, but I think that is a good point in the "pro" column.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 12:21 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Still quite happy to do without favourite counts, but I think that is a good point in the "pro" column.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 12:21 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
In other words, because I'm still not sure I'm making myself clear, I'd count myself among the less-brave. I'm emphatically NOT waiting to see if people have favorited something before commenting to make sure I'll be accepted (which is what matt seems to have read me as saying). Rather, imagine someone here makes a comment that is, say, sexist (racist, homophobic, name your poison). Someone speaks up against it. If the comment challenging the sexism/racism/etc is favorited, I feel better here, knowing that the one hateful commenter is not representative of the entire community. If I then in turn want to stand with the others who agree, favoriting is a less risky way to participate than to comment.
The other reason I am as apt to favorite as to comment is that I'm not very good at explaining myself.
posted by Stewriffic at 12:23 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
The other reason I am as apt to favorite as to comment is that I'm not very good at explaining myself.
posted by Stewriffic at 12:23 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
I made it to the end! I read almost every comment on this thread and would like to add my thoughts, although I did make a point to add favorites to every comment I thought deserved one.
1.) I like experimentation and respect that the mods wanted to try to do something to better the site and appease a very unhappy portion of the community. That said, I do not feel that taking away a feature is an upgrade or a step in the right direction. This particular change seriously affects the way myself and many others read and enjoy the site, and not in a good way. It's going to create a lot more noise in AskMe with "me too"s and the colorful and varied landscape of comments/data that we had before is now flattened.
2.) I do not understand why users have to resort to a Greasemonkey script or the like, especially considering that there is no way to tell how many people are using a workaround. Could you not have taken a little more time and added an on/off feature? This would be much easier for the non power-user and would provide concrete data for the administrators? I also do not appreciate having a feature taken away and being told that I have to find a workaround if I want to read the site as it's normally portrayed. As someone who does a LOT of CSS coding, I don't really want to install stylesheets in my browser (or anything else that screws around with the way sites display) and the browser that I normally use for recreational browsing, Chrome, doesn't support extensions (yet). Also, what does this do for those of us who read in RSS readers or mobile browsers? You simply just can't dismiss those users by waving your hand and implying it's not your problem. A month is a long time for those of us who find the site nearly unreadable now.
3.) I think that the real issue surrounding favorites is how they are used. It is probably better to address this sooner than later as the site grows. If you really want to upgrade the site, add to it. Give us both a bookmarking option and some kind of favorite/like option. I will leave the wording to those who care much more than I do. I know that it is a lot of work, but if you truly believe that the current system is broken, then something must be done, right?
And for users who don't like those features, there should be an option to hide them. Maybe they are even off by default for new users, so that they can learn how to function in this (implied) perfect community, where everyone reads every single comment, before they discover that they can turn those features on and start skimming and snarking with the rest of us.
4.) If the favorites system is responsible for more shit comments and snark, then maybe rather than taking away a feature, the answer is hiring a few more mods. We have a lot more users than we did last time a mod was added to the team.
I just wanted to add one more comment - not all of us who employ the favorites system to help us read threads skim. I usually read every single comment. That was hard to do in this thread, but anyone who has gotten this far knows that. We all read the site in a different way and that should be considered, rather than arguing about skimming vs not skimming, etc.
posted by bristolcat at 12:23 PM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
1.) I like experimentation and respect that the mods wanted to try to do something to better the site and appease a very unhappy portion of the community. That said, I do not feel that taking away a feature is an upgrade or a step in the right direction. This particular change seriously affects the way myself and many others read and enjoy the site, and not in a good way. It's going to create a lot more noise in AskMe with "me too"s and the colorful and varied landscape of comments/data that we had before is now flattened.
2.) I do not understand why users have to resort to a Greasemonkey script or the like, especially considering that there is no way to tell how many people are using a workaround. Could you not have taken a little more time and added an on/off feature? This would be much easier for the non power-user and would provide concrete data for the administrators? I also do not appreciate having a feature taken away and being told that I have to find a workaround if I want to read the site as it's normally portrayed. As someone who does a LOT of CSS coding, I don't really want to install stylesheets in my browser (or anything else that screws around with the way sites display) and the browser that I normally use for recreational browsing, Chrome, doesn't support extensions (yet). Also, what does this do for those of us who read in RSS readers or mobile browsers? You simply just can't dismiss those users by waving your hand and implying it's not your problem. A month is a long time for those of us who find the site nearly unreadable now.
3.) I think that the real issue surrounding favorites is how they are used. It is probably better to address this sooner than later as the site grows. If you really want to upgrade the site, add to it. Give us both a bookmarking option and some kind of favorite/like option. I will leave the wording to those who care much more than I do. I know that it is a lot of work, but if you truly believe that the current system is broken, then something must be done, right?
And for users who don't like those features, there should be an option to hide them. Maybe they are even off by default for new users, so that they can learn how to function in this (implied) perfect community, where everyone reads every single comment, before they discover that they can turn those features on and start skimming and snarking with the rest of us.
4.) If the favorites system is responsible for more shit comments and snark, then maybe rather than taking away a feature, the answer is hiring a few more mods. We have a lot more users than we did last time a mod was added to the team.
I just wanted to add one more comment - not all of us who employ the favorites system to help us read threads skim. I usually read every single comment. That was hard to do in this thread, but anyone who has gotten this far knows that. We all read the site in a different way and that should be considered, rather than arguing about skimming vs not skimming, etc.
posted by bristolcat at 12:23 PM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
Oh fluffnutters!
I linked to the old script. I meant to link to the new November-only script.
Well, for this month at least, I'll put the November code into the other script, and then switch it back...
posted by Deathalicious at 12:23 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I linked to the old script. I meant to link to the new November-only script.
Well, for this month at least, I'll put the November code into the other script, and then switch it back...
posted by Deathalicious at 12:23 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
This isn't a conversation. This is more like a mob.
The other thing that makes it not a conversation is that it was implemented by fiat with a few weekend hours' notice. That's an an anti-transparency, anti-community move. I love this site and of course I'll keep reading, but this was handled badly, and in a way that seems calculated to frustrate people.
posted by gerryblog at 12:24 PM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
The other thing that makes it not a conversation is that it was implemented by fiat with a few weekend hours' notice. That's an an anti-transparency, anti-community move. I love this site and of course I'll keep reading, but this was handled badly, and in a way that seems calculated to frustrate people.
posted by gerryblog at 12:24 PM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
It does when at least 90% of the non-grief "faves" in this thread are in the HATE HATE HATE category, while some of the most reasoned "this could be good" things aren't even "faved."
Why favorite comments when the people commenting don't like favorites?
I actually love Mizu's suggestion for "beans" as a term to replace "favorites." I would love to see post favorites changed to something closer to "bookmarks" and the adorable, wonderful term "bean" to replace comment favorites. It would more accurately reflect the way it seems these terms are used, the separation between the utility of the two, and, unlike "faves", actually fits with the mythology/traditions/in-jokes of the site.
Mizu, I give you one hundred beans on a gold plate for coming up with that term.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Why favorite comments when the people commenting don't like favorites?
I actually love Mizu's suggestion for "beans" as a term to replace "favorites." I would love to see post favorites changed to something closer to "bookmarks" and the adorable, wonderful term "bean" to replace comment favorites. It would more accurately reflect the way it seems these terms are used, the separation between the utility of the two, and, unlike "faves", actually fits with the mythology/traditions/in-jokes of the site.
Mizu, I give you one hundred beans on a gold plate for coming up with that term.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
goodnewsfortheinsane: "\Having favorites but hiding them behind a click -- which is what this is, as I see it -- seems inconsistent to me, even, dare I say it, bureaucratic, as a watered-down compromise you'd see in a legislature, where a good idea goes in, and a faceless token gesture comes out that leaves you wondering what on earth the original idea could have been."
Favorites: Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
posted by Joe Beese at 12:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Favorites: Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
posted by Joe Beese at 12:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Could you not have taken a little more time and added an on/off feature? This would be much easier for the non power-user and would provide concrete data for the administrators?
I think this is a great point.
posted by scody at 12:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
I think this is a great point.
posted by scody at 12:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
This isn't a conversation. This is more like a mob.
That's one of my concerns, particularly concerning the echo-chambery aspects of keeping the number visible to all. Of course there's little sense in telling others how they should read the site, but consider this: Those who skim comments, reading only the most popular ones, usually do so for larger threads. There's no reason to do that for a shorter thread, obvs. Many of those long-comment threads (hey! Like this one!) are long because of contentious debate, often political in nature. And if you're only reading the most popular comments in such a thread, then you're taking part in the same kind of dynamic that calls itself "public discourse" in my country but is really just people talking and shouting past each other. You skip an unpopular opinion, you're skipping a chance to evaluate that opinion, maybe (audible gasp) an opportunity to re-evaluate your own beliefs. Not to mention I often get a sense of a kind of circle-jerky pileon vibe with the way favorites are used in such threads.
That's an an anti-transparency, anti-community move.
If they took a poll every time they wanted to try something new for the site, nothing would ever change here. I know that most of the oldest and most vocal members want exactly that, but that doesn't make it good.
posted by middleclasstool at 12:26 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
That's one of my concerns, particularly concerning the echo-chambery aspects of keeping the number visible to all. Of course there's little sense in telling others how they should read the site, but consider this: Those who skim comments, reading only the most popular ones, usually do so for larger threads. There's no reason to do that for a shorter thread, obvs. Many of those long-comment threads (hey! Like this one!) are long because of contentious debate, often political in nature. And if you're only reading the most popular comments in such a thread, then you're taking part in the same kind of dynamic that calls itself "public discourse" in my country but is really just people talking and shouting past each other. You skip an unpopular opinion, you're skipping a chance to evaluate that opinion, maybe (audible gasp) an opportunity to re-evaluate your own beliefs. Not to mention I often get a sense of a kind of circle-jerky pileon vibe with the way favorites are used in such threads.
That's an an anti-transparency, anti-community move.
If they took a poll every time they wanted to try something new for the site, nothing would ever change here. I know that most of the oldest and most vocal members want exactly that, but that doesn't make it good.
posted by middleclasstool at 12:26 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
This is a description of an echo chamber, not what we want MetaFilter to be, right?
who's we? the majority or the minority who want to make decisions for the rest of us?
posted by pyramid termite at 12:26 PM on November 1, 2009
who's we? the majority or the minority who want to make decisions for the rest of us?
posted by pyramid termite at 12:26 PM on November 1, 2009
If they took a poll every time they wanted to try something new for the site, nothing would ever change here. I know that most of the oldest and most vocal members want exactly that, but that doesn't make it good.
When was the last time a big site change was made in the way this one was? I can't remember the last time matthowie et all just DID SOMETHING without it having been discussed for weeks or even months in advance.
posted by gerryblog at 12:28 PM on November 1, 2009
When was the last time a big site change was made in the way this one was? I can't remember the last time matthowie et all just DID SOMETHING without it having been discussed for weeks or even months in advance.
posted by gerryblog at 12:28 PM on November 1, 2009
You'd make our side look better if you stop that.
I already cleared out all of my favorited comments from today, and not just the ones I favorited because they were lonely.
posted by oaf at 12:28 PM on November 1, 2009
I already cleared out all of my favorited comments from today, and not just the ones I favorited because they were lonely.
posted by oaf at 12:28 PM on November 1, 2009
I can't even begin to put in words how much I hate this change. Is there some data storage/caching issue you're planning to solve through this change? As it stands, this is removing a valuable feature with no end-user benefit.
Given that users can change the font size and other variables with the display, why not make this a display option at the very least? All it would take is the difference between display:none and display:inline in the user defined css. That's about as win-win it could get. I shouldn't have to resort to installing browser extensions.
posted by o0o0o at 12:29 PM on November 1, 2009
Given that users can change the font size and other variables with the display, why not make this a display option at the very least? All it would take is the difference between display:none and display:inline in the user defined css. That's about as win-win it could get. I shouldn't have to resort to installing browser extensions.
posted by o0o0o at 12:29 PM on November 1, 2009
I very much dislike the change.
posted by Lord Force Crater at 12:30 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Lord Force Crater at 12:30 PM on November 1, 2009
Haven't finished the thread but have to say that this:
After opening this thread and scanning through it in the post-favorites-count world, I fucking HATE it. I am finding that it completely (and, frankly, surprisingly) changes the way I read threads, and not in a good way.
is EXACTLY how I feel. I am shocked to discover how much I use(d) favorites, now that they are gone (or as good as, in this thread at least, since practically every comment is "faved"). It is like a really interesting (and useful) texture has been stripped away, or like something that used to be three-dimensional is now flattened to 2D.
I've never ever messed around with scripts or monkey-what-have-yous, but I'm definitely going to .oldFav{display-ify my view of Metafilter.
posted by torticat at 12:32 PM on November 1, 2009
After opening this thread and scanning through it in the post-favorites-count world, I fucking HATE it. I am finding that it completely (and, frankly, surprisingly) changes the way I read threads, and not in a good way.
is EXACTLY how I feel. I am shocked to discover how much I use(d) favorites, now that they are gone (or as good as, in this thread at least, since practically every comment is "faved"). It is like a really interesting (and useful) texture has been stripped away, or like something that used to be three-dimensional is now flattened to 2D.
I've never ever messed around with scripts or monkey-what-have-yous, but I'm definitely going to .oldFav{display-ify my view of Metafilter.
posted by torticat at 12:32 PM on November 1, 2009
gerryblog: "The other thing that makes it not a conversation is that it was implemented by fiat with a few weekend hours' notice. That's an an anti-transparency, anti-community move. I love this site and of course I'll keep reading, but this was handled badly, and in a way that seems calculated to frustrate people."
You appear to be assuming that the experiment was undertaken in bad faith.
Do you have any evidence to support such an assumption? Frankly, I doubt that you do.
Even when a mod has taken me to the woodshed, I have never had the slightest doubt they were doing so in good faith.
posted by Joe Beese at 12:32 PM on November 1, 2009
You appear to be assuming that the experiment was undertaken in bad faith.
Do you have any evidence to support such an assumption? Frankly, I doubt that you do.
Even when a mod has taken me to the woodshed, I have never had the slightest doubt they were doing so in good faith.
posted by Joe Beese at 12:32 PM on November 1, 2009
> You're "feature not a bug" snark makes me feel really unwelcome anyway.
Yeah, no doubt. The general thrust of anti-favoritists seems to be "this site was a lot better before you were here." Well, OK then? Hard to even muster an argument against that. I mean, if that's how you feel about it, just say so instead of implying it constantly with references to how great the site was 8 years ago or whatever.
posted by cj_ at 12:32 PM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
Yeah, no doubt. The general thrust of anti-favoritists seems to be "this site was a lot better before you were here." Well, OK then? Hard to even muster an argument against that. I mean, if that's how you feel about it, just say so instead of implying it constantly with references to how great the site was 8 years ago or whatever.
posted by cj_ at 12:32 PM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
To add another voice to the minority: I'm really glad this experiment is happening. I think thoughtful arguments for both sides have been made in this thread, but they are vastly outnumbered by the kneejerk aggressive responses. As someone who also skims threads via favourites and rarely has time to read entire threads, I understand and feel the loss; but as someone who also shares many of the concerns of the anti-favourites amongst us, I really like how it is making me re-evaluate my relationship with metafilter - for example by forcing me to read the more minority opinions that I might've just skipped over in the past.
For all the people saying IT'S BEEN 24 WHOLE HOURS AND I HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT - it is human to be resistant to change, and for something like this that we have so got used to, grown attached to and taken for granted (and even have associated with our worth in the community), 24 hours simply cannot be enough to evaluate its impact. I'm not saying people who don't like this are wrong - I share many of the concerns - and it's totally fine that people are sharing their initial impressions, but the aggression and anger is unwarranted. I'm really glad that Metafilter is a place that actually cares about these issues enough to try such experiments; and especially glad that while mathowie and the mods care about and value the opinions of the community, they are also courageous enough that they are willing to risk alienating a large number of people if they think something will be good for the community in the long run. So I want to say thanks. I look forward to seeing what we all think at the end of the month.
My small contribution to this thread would be to agree that 'faved' doesn't work. A good alternative I think might be for the favourites information, including who favourited the comment, to be displayed on mouseover of the current [+]. I think it's important, if we're going to experiment with this, to have all comments look the same, regardless of whether they've been favourited or not. If mouseover is possible and not too much hard work to code, that would also make it a little more convenient (or a little less inconvenient) for people who do want that information.
posted by catchingsignals at 12:32 PM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
For all the people saying IT'S BEEN 24 WHOLE HOURS AND I HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT - it is human to be resistant to change, and for something like this that we have so got used to, grown attached to and taken for granted (and even have associated with our worth in the community), 24 hours simply cannot be enough to evaluate its impact. I'm not saying people who don't like this are wrong - I share many of the concerns - and it's totally fine that people are sharing their initial impressions, but the aggression and anger is unwarranted. I'm really glad that Metafilter is a place that actually cares about these issues enough to try such experiments; and especially glad that while mathowie and the mods care about and value the opinions of the community, they are also courageous enough that they are willing to risk alienating a large number of people if they think something will be good for the community in the long run. So I want to say thanks. I look forward to seeing what we all think at the end of the month.
My small contribution to this thread would be to agree that 'faved' doesn't work. A good alternative I think might be for the favourites information, including who favourited the comment, to be displayed on mouseover of the current [+]. I think it's important, if we're going to experiment with this, to have all comments look the same, regardless of whether they've been favourited or not. If mouseover is possible and not too much hard work to code, that would also make it a little more convenient (or a little less inconvenient) for people who do want that information.
posted by catchingsignals at 12:32 PM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
This isn't a conversation. This is more like a mob.
I'd like us all to consider that this "experiment" may actually be an experiment, a secrit part of lewistate's dissertation research. Play nice--we are being watched.
posted by Mngo at 12:34 PM on November 1, 2009
I'd like us all to consider that this "experiment" may actually be an experiment, a secrit part of lewistate's dissertation research. Play nice--we are being watched.
posted by Mngo at 12:34 PM on November 1, 2009
I've been toying around the site and I have noticed a behavior change. I now favorite fave things like a mofo since they essentially have no value. Before, I was extremely stingy with favorites, because they provided valuable feedback. Now they are essentially worthless so I can plop a fave on anything that seems sort of on point.
I'm pretty sure the devaluing of the Favorite is going to slow the economy.
posted by 26.2 at 12:34 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm pretty sure the devaluing of the Favorite is going to slow the economy.
posted by 26.2 at 12:34 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Favorite is a problematic word when used as often as we do for preferred posts. I'm surprised that the werd police can accept it at all. Faved is actually better, because it rescues English from self-abuse. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if sockpuppets number in the hundreds, and favorite counts encourage them to exist (and therefore lead to every other problem).
Whatever the case may be, maybe we could do this scientifically and critically list what it is exactly that we like/want from feedback and address each benefit separately, and if one solution fits all, so be it, but it isn't favoriting. So count me as an anti-favoritist generally who only uses them for obscured posts who need it, and bookmarking, and for rewarding anyone who posts in one of my FPP's.
posted by Brian B. at 12:35 PM on November 1, 2009
Whatever the case may be, maybe we could do this scientifically and critically list what it is exactly that we like/want from feedback and address each benefit separately, and if one solution fits all, so be it, but it isn't favoriting. So count me as an anti-favoritist generally who only uses them for obscured posts who need it, and bookmarking, and for rewarding anyone who posts in one of my FPP's.
posted by Brian B. at 12:35 PM on November 1, 2009
Sometimes people just scan an AskMefi question and only read the Best Answers, which is really unfair to everyone else who contributed to the post.
It's especially problematic when the asker has marked an incorrect answer as the best one—if they're confused, or asked the question for the purpose of being told what they wanted to hear. I think it would be great to let people flag the incorrect marking of best answers, but that's a pony request for another thread.
posted by oaf at 12:37 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's especially problematic when the asker has marked an incorrect answer as the best one—if they're confused, or asked the question for the purpose of being told what they wanted to hear. I think it would be great to let people flag the incorrect marking of best answers, but that's a pony request for another thread.
posted by oaf at 12:37 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Could you not have taken a little more time and added an on/off feature? This would be much easier for the non power-user and would provide concrete data for the administrators?
Could we have is kind of moot at this point, but looking forward we are discussing implementation of that sort of thing, yeah. Aside from the savviness question, being able to look directly at how many and who are using an official site workaround could have some value, too.
That's an an anti-transparency
Anti-transparency would be doing it and refusing to discuss it. I hear the "this is pretty sudden" aspect (and it's a complicated sort of damned-if-we-do, damned-if-we-don't thing in a lot of respects on that front), but we're not trying to be coy or slippery about this in the least bit.
When was the last time a big site change was made in the way this one was? I can't remember the last time matthowie et all just DID SOMETHING without it having been discussed for weeks or even months in advance.
Honestly, that was pretty much the standard mode of site feature changes and rollouts since forever. We've moved away from it some with things in the last couple of years, which I think has generally been a good thing, but we're still stuck between the question of whether we want to have something talked to death ahead of time or have it talked to death in real time, and both options have their pros and cons.
The topic itself, the idea of these changes we're running, has come up a lot in the past. I hear you on the distinction between "has been talked about" and "has been specifically talked about in a pre-launch discussion", but this isn't a random out-of-the-blue thing with no precedent in metatalk discussion.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:37 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Could we have is kind of moot at this point, but looking forward we are discussing implementation of that sort of thing, yeah. Aside from the savviness question, being able to look directly at how many and who are using an official site workaround could have some value, too.
That's an an anti-transparency
Anti-transparency would be doing it and refusing to discuss it. I hear the "this is pretty sudden" aspect (and it's a complicated sort of damned-if-we-do, damned-if-we-don't thing in a lot of respects on that front), but we're not trying to be coy or slippery about this in the least bit.
When was the last time a big site change was made in the way this one was? I can't remember the last time matthowie et all just DID SOMETHING without it having been discussed for weeks or even months in advance.
Honestly, that was pretty much the standard mode of site feature changes and rollouts since forever. We've moved away from it some with things in the last couple of years, which I think has generally been a good thing, but we're still stuck between the question of whether we want to have something talked to death ahead of time or have it talked to death in real time, and both options have their pros and cons.
The topic itself, the idea of these changes we're running, has come up a lot in the past. I hear you on the distinction between "has been talked about" and "has been specifically talked about in a pre-launch discussion", but this isn't a random out-of-the-blue thing with no precedent in metatalk discussion.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:37 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Count me among those who dislike this change - and I'm someone who can't remember a time I didn't support the mods in their decisions.
It's true that some people make comments to "whore favorites." But I know we've all seen times when someone tried to make a snarky, insulting, or maybe morally outraged post and recieved no real positive favorite feedback. I think that's a great way for the community to enforce some norms. No one has to say, "Look, dude, that last comment of yours didn't go over so well. Might want to think about why," because hopefully the poster can figure it out for themselves.
So the system rewards the snark the community likes and discourages snark we don't like. That's only a problem if you disagree with what the community as a whole is enjoying, in which case we should deal with that directly (by deleting those comments?) rather than this round-about way that hurts the usability of the sites for many other members.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:37 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
It's true that some people make comments to "whore favorites." But I know we've all seen times when someone tried to make a snarky, insulting, or maybe morally outraged post and recieved no real positive favorite feedback. I think that's a great way for the community to enforce some norms. No one has to say, "Look, dude, that last comment of yours didn't go over so well. Might want to think about why," because hopefully the poster can figure it out for themselves.
So the system rewards the snark the community likes and discourages snark we don't like. That's only a problem if you disagree with what the community as a whole is enjoying, in which case we should deal with that directly (by deleting those comments?) rather than this round-about way that hurts the usability of the sites for many other members.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:37 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I am probably repeating a couple of comments upthread (qualification included) in saying that I haven't read the whole thread and I don't like the change.
On the other hand I'm willing to give the experiment a go because it seems like an interesting experiment in changing behaviour over favourite chasing.
On the other hand since we've come to rely on explicit favourite display one month doesn't seem long enough for such an experiment.
posted by doobiedoo at 12:37 PM on November 1, 2009
On the other hand I'm willing to give the experiment a go because it seems like an interesting experiment in changing behaviour over favourite chasing.
On the other hand since we've come to rely on explicit favourite display one month doesn't seem long enough for such an experiment.
posted by doobiedoo at 12:37 PM on November 1, 2009
Because I want to emphasize this, but can't with this new system, I'm repeating it.
Can this "faved experiment" be rolled back sooner in consideration of the largely negative response?
posted by meerkatty at 12:38 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Can this "faved experiment" be rolled back sooner in consideration of the largely negative response?
posted by meerkatty at 12:38 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
This is a description of an echo chamber, not what we want MetaFilter to be, right?
If I favorited five comments in this thread essentially calling out a user, as I wanted to do that too and now I don't have to as someone already did it, would you prefer I would have instead posted an additional five callouts to that user?
In both cases you have an echo chamber... the intent is noble, but I don't think the solution to gaming sociological groupthink is to turn a "I likey" button into "This is liked" button.
posted by cavalier at 12:39 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
If I favorited five comments in this thread essentially calling out a user, as I wanted to do that too and now I don't have to as someone already did it, would you prefer I would have instead posted an additional five callouts to that user?
In both cases you have an echo chamber... the intent is noble, but I don't think the solution to gaming sociological groupthink is to turn a "I likey" button into "This is liked" button.
posted by cavalier at 12:39 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
You appear to be assuming that the experiment was undertaken in bad faith.
Oh, absolutely not -- I meant "seems" much more loosely than that, and I don't doubt the mods' sincerity about this or anything else. All I mean to say is that the way this was implemented, and the mods' rather cavalier response to well-grounded complaints upthread, didn't properly regard the fact that different people read the site in different ways and that some people in the community might react negatively to this change. I suppose that's really the opposite of "seems calculated" -- it actually seems to me that they didn't think this experiment through very well before doing it, which is uncharacteristic for MetaFilter's mods.
posted by gerryblog at 12:40 PM on November 1, 2009
Oh, absolutely not -- I meant "seems" much more loosely than that, and I don't doubt the mods' sincerity about this or anything else. All I mean to say is that the way this was implemented, and the mods' rather cavalier response to well-grounded complaints upthread, didn't properly regard the fact that different people read the site in different ways and that some people in the community might react negatively to this change. I suppose that's really the opposite of "seems calculated" -- it actually seems to me that they didn't think this experiment through very well before doing it, which is uncharacteristic for MetaFilter's mods.
posted by gerryblog at 12:40 PM on November 1, 2009
I'm genuinely amazed at the vehemence and vituperation in this thread. I knew a few people could be relied on to foam at the mouth over the issue of favorites, but I would never have thought it was such a hot button.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:40 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:40 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I understand the idea of using favorites to skim threads (which hasn't been taken away, you can use scripts), the problem is that if lots of people are doing that, the comments you're reading aren't representing "community opinion," they're representing the comments that happened to get favorites first. And if those are the only comments you're reading, they're the only comments that you'll have the opportunity to favorite. The next person will come behind you and see the "x + 1 favorites" and presume that it represents what everyone else thinks, and might add another favorite.
Can you see how this kind of behavior might be bad for the site and make the comments less like a discussion, and more like a bunch of posters talking "at" each other?
The favorites system definitely has merit for certain kinds of threads (history/personal anecdotes, AskMe) but it is absolutely horrible for any Newsfilter or Politicsfilter thread. The last thing rational discourse needs is another way for people to find "zingers" to reinforce their own worldview, even if it's a worldview I agree with.
The great comment fables and anecdotes will still get the sidebar so a lot of those wonderful comment gems that make Metafilter amazing won't get forgotten, but the jokey zingers (really just better-written versions of "fuck you") in the contentious threads might go away when there's no longer a positive feedback loop in the form of favorites for the poster.
I'm ambivalent about showing "faved" at all, but I can see how it might be better just to hide it altogether.
posted by anifinder at 12:41 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Can you see how this kind of behavior might be bad for the site and make the comments less like a discussion, and more like a bunch of posters talking "at" each other?
The favorites system definitely has merit for certain kinds of threads (history/personal anecdotes, AskMe) but it is absolutely horrible for any Newsfilter or Politicsfilter thread. The last thing rational discourse needs is another way for people to find "zingers" to reinforce their own worldview, even if it's a worldview I agree with.
The great comment fables and anecdotes will still get the sidebar so a lot of those wonderful comment gems that make Metafilter amazing won't get forgotten, but the jokey zingers (really just better-written versions of "fuck you") in the contentious threads might go away when there's no longer a positive feedback loop in the form of favorites for the poster.
I'm ambivalent about showing "faved" at all, but I can see how it might be better just to hide it altogether.
posted by anifinder at 12:41 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I actually love Mizu's suggestion for "beans" as a term to replace "favorites."
If MetaFilter were to organize a sports team, they ought to be called the Beans. Team cheers are pretty easy to come up with, too:
If MetaFilter were to organize a sports team, they ought to be called the Beans. Team cheers are pretty easy to come up with, too:
Beans, beans—they're good for mostposted by oaf at 12:41 PM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
The less you think, the more you post
The more you post, the less you've read
So plate your beans for every thread.
When was the last time a big site change was made in the way this one was? I can't remember the last time matthowie et all just DID SOMETHING without it having been discussed for weeks or even months in advance.
I'm not sure, but I think this was done the same way (2006): Announcing: Favorites and flagging. It's a pretty interesting read...
MiguelCardoso: "And so a new level of lurking is born."
y6y6y6: "Any chance we could call this bookmarks rather than favorites?"
Jimbob: "How about just: [+fave]"
evariste: "+fave is much better. Maybe even ♥?"
bluebeetle: "Would it be possible for my favorites to make me breakfast every morning?"
posted by Houstonian at 12:41 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I'm not sure, but I think this was done the same way (2006): Announcing: Favorites and flagging. It's a pretty interesting read...
MiguelCardoso: "And so a new level of lurking is born."
y6y6y6: "Any chance we could call this bookmarks rather than favorites?"
Jimbob: "How about just: [+fave]"
evariste: "+fave is much better. Maybe even ♥?"
bluebeetle: "Would it be possible for my favorites to make me breakfast every morning?"
posted by Houstonian at 12:41 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
For all the people saying IT'S BEEN 24 WHOLE HOURS AND I HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT - it is human to be resistant to change, and for something like this that we have so got used to, grown attached to and taken for granted (and even have associated with our worth in the community), 24 hours simply cannot be enough to evaluate its impact
Well, okay, maybe -- but what if the mods decided to change the background to bright, neon green? You'd call bullshit when I said "Oh, your complaints about that harming the site's usability are just because you're resistant to change! Give it time!"
It's not that simple, right? I think it's fair to listen to what people are saying about the removal of a feature they frequently use, and not simply assume that their complaints are a result of inertia.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:41 PM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
Well, okay, maybe -- but what if the mods decided to change the background to bright, neon green? You'd call bullshit when I said "Oh, your complaints about that harming the site's usability are just because you're resistant to change! Give it time!"
It's not that simple, right? I think it's fair to listen to what people are saying about the removal of a feature they frequently use, and not simply assume that their complaints are a result of inertia.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:41 PM on November 1, 2009 [9 favorites]
Happy greasemonkey awareness month everyone!
posted by mullingitover at 12:43 PM on November 1, 2009 [22 favorites]
posted by mullingitover at 12:43 PM on November 1, 2009 [22 favorites]
I'm sorry you feel that way.
It was a joke to lighten the mood, so no need to take it too seriously.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:44 PM on November 1, 2009
It was a joke to lighten the mood, so no need to take it too seriously.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:44 PM on November 1, 2009
And I'm too lazy (insulin is arriving to take my beloved candy corn away) to look it up, but I effectively said this when we had Favorites XXVII: The Last Debate -- before we had favorites, we had a shit ton of "Yeah!" "Me too!". Go look. The encouragements were still there, they just took 5 or 6 words and "added nothing" more to the threads then people pledging their solidarity with other people.
posted by cavalier at 12:45 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by cavalier at 12:45 PM on November 1, 2009
Deathalicious: Thanks for the quick update!
Everyone else that likes the favorite feature should really try installing that script, it makes comments really easy to browse.
IMO, if this feature is removed, comment quality will go down and no one will use the favorite feature. So long as there is not some kind of "-1 Hate", leaving up the number for everyone would be nice. One of the key rules of UI design is that rewards for clicking must be clear, when someone clicks the "+", they should see a clear result, when something already has the +, it won't really do anything (other than change it to a minus). Because of this lack of interactivity and clear indication of the result, no one will use it. Removing the number is tantamount to removing the feature entirely. If this is a caching issue, I would have no problem with stale favorite data instead.
posted by amuseDetachment at 12:46 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Everyone else that likes the favorite feature should really try installing that script, it makes comments really easy to browse.
IMO, if this feature is removed, comment quality will go down and no one will use the favorite feature. So long as there is not some kind of "-1 Hate", leaving up the number for everyone would be nice. One of the key rules of UI design is that rewards for clicking must be clear, when someone clicks the "+", they should see a clear result, when something already has the +, it won't really do anything (other than change it to a minus). Because of this lack of interactivity and clear indication of the result, no one will use it. Removing the number is tantamount to removing the feature entirely. If this is a caching issue, I would have no problem with stale favorite data instead.
posted by amuseDetachment at 12:46 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
gerryblog: "... the way this was implemented, and the mods' rather cavalier response to well-grounded complaints upthread, didn't properly regard the fact that different people read the site in different ways and that some people in the community might react negatively to this change."
Boing Boing is going to be so mean on Monday.
posted by Joe Beese at 12:46 PM on November 1, 2009
Boing Boing is going to be so mean on Monday.
posted by Joe Beese at 12:46 PM on November 1, 2009
It does when at least 90% of the non-grief "faves" in this thread are in the HATE HATE HATE category, while some of the most reasoned "this could be good" things aren't even "faved."
Perhaps this is a sign of, y'know, the overwhelming weight of popular opinion-- which is actually useful in a conversation like this one, though admittedly less so in a political and / or religious thread.
That said, I feel like I need to better articulate exactly why and how I find this new treatment of favorites changing the way I read threads, and why I believe that change is for the worse.
I tend to be pretty much a completist when it comes to reading threads-- if a topic interests me enough to read about it, it usually interests me enough to read all about it, so I am not one of those who uses favorite counts to skim longer threads (although I have been known to "find" interesting conversations that I would have otherwise missed through the popular favorites page-- but that's neither here nor there, as that particular functionality hasn't-- thank god-- been crippled).
But when I read threads, I enjoy having multiple axes along which to evaluate, understand and appreciate people's comments-- not only my own judgment, but also the public and visible judgment of my peers.
Certainly I am generally capable of reading comprehension on my own, but there have been occasions when I have had to rethink my evaluation of a comment simply because it has a large number of favorites.
Often, I have re-evaluated and found that, no, my initial judgment was correct and the comment was crap. But there have been occasions on which a high favorite count has caused me to re-evaluate someone's comment, opinion, or argument, and I have subsequently discovered that there was in fact a nuance or subtlety that I missed the first time.
For me, this is a very valuable functionality of a publicly-visible system of favorites, and one which has become intrinsic to the way in which I process and participate in the ongoing conversation that makes Metafilter my favorite place on the internet.
I miss it already.
posted by dersins at 12:48 PM on November 1, 2009 [18 favorites]
Perhaps this is a sign of, y'know, the overwhelming weight of popular opinion-- which is actually useful in a conversation like this one, though admittedly less so in a political and / or religious thread.
That said, I feel like I need to better articulate exactly why and how I find this new treatment of favorites changing the way I read threads, and why I believe that change is for the worse.
I tend to be pretty much a completist when it comes to reading threads-- if a topic interests me enough to read about it, it usually interests me enough to read all about it, so I am not one of those who uses favorite counts to skim longer threads (although I have been known to "find" interesting conversations that I would have otherwise missed through the popular favorites page-- but that's neither here nor there, as that particular functionality hasn't-- thank god-- been crippled).
But when I read threads, I enjoy having multiple axes along which to evaluate, understand and appreciate people's comments-- not only my own judgment, but also the public and visible judgment of my peers.
Certainly I am generally capable of reading comprehension on my own, but there have been occasions when I have had to rethink my evaluation of a comment simply because it has a large number of favorites.
Often, I have re-evaluated and found that, no, my initial judgment was correct and the comment was crap. But there have been occasions on which a high favorite count has caused me to re-evaluate someone's comment, opinion, or argument, and I have subsequently discovered that there was in fact a nuance or subtlety that I missed the first time.
For me, this is a very valuable functionality of a publicly-visible system of favorites, and one which has become intrinsic to the way in which I process and participate in the ongoing conversation that makes Metafilter my favorite place on the internet.
I miss it already.
posted by dersins at 12:48 PM on November 1, 2009 [18 favorites]
middleclasstool: "And if you're only reading the most popular comments in such a thread, then you're taking part in the same kind of dynamic that calls itself "public discourse" in my country but is really just people talking and shouting past each other. You skip an unpopular opinion, you're skipping a chance to evaluate that opinion, maybe (audible gasp) an opportunity to re-evaluate your own beliefs."
My guess is that this type of behavior is not inspired, caused or dictated by how [+]'s are displayed on the website, but rather how people are pre-loaded as they saddle up to their MetaFilter. Those that seek to read a balanced discussion take note of counts and act accordingly. Those that seek to read a discussion based on other criteria take note of counts and act accordingly. We have a choice at every turn as to how to deal with the stimuli as it is presented to us. Homogenizing the stuff out there levels the playing field somewhat, forcing some to not continuing to filter their reading content based on 'popularity', and not allowing others to consider the dissenting or 'unremarked' opinion.
It's a shame, really. I feel like there's a big part of MetaFilter that is just not there any more. I can't even begin to understand how to orient to it socially at this point. I'm missing a huge paralinguistic channel of conversation. And I already find the site as a whole a bit less stimulating and challenging.
It's like my MetaFilter just started taking heavy antidepressants. Maybe it'll feel better in a month, maybe not. But it might have been a bit better to have started off with some talk therapy before swallowing the big pill.
posted by iamkimiam at 12:50 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
My guess is that this type of behavior is not inspired, caused or dictated by how [+]'s are displayed on the website, but rather how people are pre-loaded as they saddle up to their MetaFilter. Those that seek to read a balanced discussion take note of counts and act accordingly. Those that seek to read a discussion based on other criteria take note of counts and act accordingly. We have a choice at every turn as to how to deal with the stimuli as it is presented to us. Homogenizing the stuff out there levels the playing field somewhat, forcing some to not continuing to filter their reading content based on 'popularity', and not allowing others to consider the dissenting or 'unremarked' opinion.
It's a shame, really. I feel like there's a big part of MetaFilter that is just not there any more. I can't even begin to understand how to orient to it socially at this point. I'm missing a huge paralinguistic channel of conversation. And I already find the site as a whole a bit less stimulating and challenging.
It's like my MetaFilter just started taking heavy antidepressants. Maybe it'll feel better in a month, maybe not. But it might have been a bit better to have started off with some talk therapy before swallowing the big pill.
posted by iamkimiam at 12:50 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Question for the "this is a horrible mistake" people: are you upset about this because it interferes with how you view the site, because you think that by interfering with how others view the site it will make Metafilter worse, or both?
It sounds to me like what many/most people are saying "visible favorite counts are important to me and my experience, and so I'm upset/angry/frustrated that my experience is being impeded" and I just don't get it, considering it just takes a few easy steps to get your old view back (I'm sure that some people missed that info, and it probably should be made more obvious somewhere and maybe even implemented internally rather than relying on external scripts-- but anyone who's reading this thread reasonably closely should know they can change things back.) Is your concern that if fewer users are seeing visible favorite counts, they will be less likely to favorite things and so even though you personally can see favorites, there'll be fewer favorites providing less useful information to you (which to me is a totally intriguing part of the experiment-- how much does favoriting decrease when fewer users see the favorite counts? does it decrease proportionately or are certain types of comments affected more than others? might there actually be some helpful patterns, like substantive comments still being relatively highly favorited but snarky ones less so?) and that alone will make your experience so much worse that it's not worth even seeing how it goes for a few weeks?
I'm not sure how I ultimately feel about visible favorite counts-- there are good arguments on both sides and I'm still mulling them over-- but I think this is a fascinating experiment to help us figure it out. I'm just kind of shocked by the intensity going on in reaction to a single month of making "no visible favorite count" a default and allowing people to opt-in to "visible favorite counts" rather than vice versa.
posted by EmilyClimbs at 12:50 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
It sounds to me like what many/most people are saying "visible favorite counts are important to me and my experience, and so I'm upset/angry/frustrated that my experience is being impeded" and I just don't get it, considering it just takes a few easy steps to get your old view back (I'm sure that some people missed that info, and it probably should be made more obvious somewhere and maybe even implemented internally rather than relying on external scripts-- but anyone who's reading this thread reasonably closely should know they can change things back.) Is your concern that if fewer users are seeing visible favorite counts, they will be less likely to favorite things and so even though you personally can see favorites, there'll be fewer favorites providing less useful information to you (which to me is a totally intriguing part of the experiment-- how much does favoriting decrease when fewer users see the favorite counts? does it decrease proportionately or are certain types of comments affected more than others? might there actually be some helpful patterns, like substantive comments still being relatively highly favorited but snarky ones less so?) and that alone will make your experience so much worse that it's not worth even seeing how it goes for a few weeks?
I'm not sure how I ultimately feel about visible favorite counts-- there are good arguments on both sides and I'm still mulling them over-- but I think this is a fascinating experiment to help us figure it out. I'm just kind of shocked by the intensity going on in reaction to a single month of making "no visible favorite count" a default and allowing people to opt-in to "visible favorite counts" rather than vice versa.
posted by EmilyClimbs at 12:50 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm genuinely amazed at the vehemence and vituperation in this thread. I knew a few people could be relied on to foam at the mouth over the issue of favorites...
Please point out a single example of someone in this thread who is showing "vituperation" or "foaming at the mouth." I must have missed it.
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:50 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Please point out a single example of someone in this thread who is showing "vituperation" or "foaming at the mouth." I must have missed it.
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:50 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Question for the "this is a horrible mistake" people: are you upset about this because it interferes with how you view the site, because you think that by interfering with how others view the site it will make Metafilter worse, or both?
Both.
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:51 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Both.
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:51 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Everyone else that likes the favorite feature should really try installing that script, it makes comments really easy to browse.
Not everyone uses Firefox.
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:52 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Not everyone uses Firefox.
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:52 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
The only thing I'd change about this experiment is that I wish that the "faved" would only show up when I'd done it. If we're removing the social feature, remove it, as this halfway is less useful as a bookmarker, and if I'm gonna lose one function, I'd prefer the other works.
posted by klangklangston at 12:53 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 12:53 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
EmilyClimbs - as a few people noted above, it seems this change will lead to less favorites being given in general. I know I'm already less inclined to favorite things, because it seems pointless (even if there's an actual count going on somewhere, seeing no result of it isn't very motivating.)
So those of us who enjoy the way favorites work have something to lose, if this leads to other people favoriting things less. It is a group effort, after all.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:55 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
So those of us who enjoy the way favorites work have something to lose, if this leads to other people favoriting things less. It is a group effort, after all.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:55 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
So the site is back to being like it was when I first started readin Mefi. Seems like a good idea.
posted by nola at 12:55 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by nola at 12:55 PM on November 1, 2009
Brandon Blatcher: "It was a joke to lighten the mood, so no need to take it too seriously."
Yeah, I should've probably re-read that before replying, as you do run political filter... I BLAME FAVES SOMEHOW
posted by graventy at 12:58 PM on November 1, 2009
Yeah, I should've probably re-read that before replying, as you do run political filter... I BLAME FAVES SOMEHOW
posted by graventy at 12:58 PM on November 1, 2009
As a former software developer I think I have an idea of how this 'experiment' came to pass. I've done it with cilents many times in the past. Goes something like this:
posted by Ookseer at 12:58 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Client: "Can you guys change X to work like Y?"In other words this 'experiment' has all the hallmarks of trying to prove someone wrong rather than right, just to put an argument to rest. Which is okay, but it's not about the feature, it's about blowing a raspberry to whoever is playing the part of 'Client' in this play.
Developer: "Um, your change makes no sense."
Client: "No, really, can you do it?"
Developer: "You'll hate it if we do it that way."
Client: "No, we've all discussed this and we really want it that way."
Developer: Screw this, I'll make the change. It'll take 10 minutes and the client will see it and hate it and revert it.
...10 minutes...
Developer: There you go.
Client: Ew. Um. Can you change it back?
Developer: Not answering email because he's gone out for beers bought with the client's change order.
posted by Ookseer at 12:58 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'm genuinely amazed at the vehemence and vituperation in this thread.
This is pretty common, actually. It stems from the disconnects over what a site is and what it's supposed to do.
In 2008, Flickr added short video capabilities to their site. And some in the community went ballistic, because the change violated their definition of what the site (and its community) was. You had an entire protest movement rise up demanding video be eliminated or filtered.
Almost two years later, Flickr still has video, it's not turned into YouTube, and for the most part the users are happy with it.
This sort of thing has happened at many, many other sites. Eventually people cool down and assess the change, then vote with their feet if they don't like it. But before that happens, the spleens must be vented.
I think the one thing that's kept the protests relatively minor here is that the mods are actively engaging in the discussion. As long as people believe they're being heard, they're less willing to reach for the pitchfork and torch.
posted by dw at 12:59 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
This is pretty common, actually. It stems from the disconnects over what a site is and what it's supposed to do.
In 2008, Flickr added short video capabilities to their site. And some in the community went ballistic, because the change violated their definition of what the site (and its community) was. You had an entire protest movement rise up demanding video be eliminated or filtered.
Almost two years later, Flickr still has video, it's not turned into YouTube, and for the most part the users are happy with it.
This sort of thing has happened at many, many other sites. Eventually people cool down and assess the change, then vote with their feet if they don't like it. But before that happens, the spleens must be vented.
I think the one thing that's kept the protests relatively minor here is that the mods are actively engaging in the discussion. As long as people believe they're being heard, they're less willing to reach for the pitchfork and torch.
posted by dw at 12:59 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think this might be considered foaming at the mouth: "I hope someone writes a greasemonkey script to restore visible favorite counts. If it takes down the servers then all the better as this is an incredibly shitty change and the mods should be punished."
And to me at least, this counts: "Oh, and btw, just for kicks, I 'faved' every non-faved comment in this thread" as well as this similar move: "I have favorited every comment I came across in this thread that didn't already have a favorite."
posted by Houstonian at 1:00 PM on November 1, 2009
And to me at least, this counts: "Oh, and btw, just for kicks, I 'faved' every non-faved comment in this thread" as well as this similar move: "I have favorited every comment I came across in this thread that didn't already have a favorite."
posted by Houstonian at 1:00 PM on November 1, 2009
I agree that just giving people the option to view or hide favourite counts won't deal with what appears to be a tendency towards favourite-whoring, echo-chambering, and the like. I'm saying "appears" and "tendency" because we really don't have anything quantitative to go on. Are these problems big enough to outweigh the value visible favouriting brings to the site? Don't know.
But I'd like to make the case for the value of seeing what great comments get relatively small numbers of favourites in the same threads where other comments get heavily favourited.
1) While a great comment with no favourite indication at all, as some are asking for, would be apparent to me on the days when I can read a whole thread, that little marker denoting even a single favourite gives a great comment a better chance of being seen by me on more hectic days.
2) A great comment with few favourites may mean that I've run across an interesting outlier who thinks like me. I can now look around their commenting history and potentially find more gems. (A low favourite count on a great comment may also mean that we have an interesting person who is just now getting noticed by the community as a whole. I think posting more, perceived familiarity and the associated higher favourite counts are self-perpetuating, and as people become more recognizable to the community as whole, they get more favourites.)
3) The few people who favourite something I think is great are also worth checking out. Yay, outliers!
But coming to a thread and seeing an almost completely meaningless and context-free "faved" next to 50% or more of the comments doesn't point me towards popular favourites, when I'm looking for those, or unpopular favourites, when those are what I'm looking for, consciously or unconsciously.
I don't think "faved" does much to work against the drawbacks of visible favouriting, and it takes away much more than the ability to quickly see what is most popular.
posted by maudlin at 1:02 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
But I'd like to make the case for the value of seeing what great comments get relatively small numbers of favourites in the same threads where other comments get heavily favourited.
1) While a great comment with no favourite indication at all, as some are asking for, would be apparent to me on the days when I can read a whole thread, that little marker denoting even a single favourite gives a great comment a better chance of being seen by me on more hectic days.
2) A great comment with few favourites may mean that I've run across an interesting outlier who thinks like me. I can now look around their commenting history and potentially find more gems. (A low favourite count on a great comment may also mean that we have an interesting person who is just now getting noticed by the community as a whole. I think posting more, perceived familiarity and the associated higher favourite counts are self-perpetuating, and as people become more recognizable to the community as whole, they get more favourites.)
3) The few people who favourite something I think is great are also worth checking out. Yay, outliers!
But coming to a thread and seeing an almost completely meaningless and context-free "faved" next to 50% or more of the comments doesn't point me towards popular favourites, when I'm looking for those, or unpopular favourites, when those are what I'm looking for, consciously or unconsciously.
I don't think "faved" does much to work against the drawbacks of visible favouriting, and it takes away much more than the ability to quickly see what is most popular.
posted by maudlin at 1:02 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
This reminds me vaguely of the (rumored?) Bill Gates suggestion to solve the problem of spam in email accounts by making everyone pay per sent email. Baby, meet bathwater. Technology that gives you information should, in my (honestly, I promise) humble (n' meek!) opinion, never be circumvented as the default. If people individually want to make barriers optional for whatever psychological reasons they see fit, that's up to them...but if we have this capability to aggregate data quick-like and offer the useful information and well for consideration kim so articulately described, I don't know that we should be limiting it at the source with no other option, no possibility. Woo, I sound vaguely libertarian now, but all jokes aside, that's kind of how I see it right now. Why purposely force everyone into this artificially limited space, knowing there was more?
posted by ifjuly at 1:03 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by ifjuly at 1:03 PM on November 1, 2009
The comment stressed how they felt safe knowing x many other people agree with them before hitting the favorite button.
I read all the comments around this behavior as emphasizing that the favoriter was afraid to get involved in a contentious thread, and so used their favorite to show solidarity with those who were taking up positions which seemed to be unpopular or that were being dismissed. That doesn't seem like it encourages an echo chamber to form, though I can see where favorite counts can work that way in other contexts.
I've used favorites in a similar way on occasion, less because I was afraid to say something than because I didn't have the time or energy to get involved in a contentious discussion and didn't want to be a hit-and-run commenter, so I favorited a comment or two that I agreed with and were expressed well. Also, when I someone has made the point I was thinking about making, I generally prefer using favorites to writing a comment that mainly says, "I would just like to say that I agree with so-and-so and so-and-so, that is all" which doesn't really add to the discussion. Maybe actually making that statement would be more meaningful in demonstrating agreement to the group at large, since I use favorites in several different ways, but I personally feel that having the favoriting system in place reduces my inclination to make comments that I think would probably be little more than noise. It'll be interesting to see how I feel about my signal-to-noise ratio by the end of the month.
posted by EvaDestruction at 1:04 PM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
I read all the comments around this behavior as emphasizing that the favoriter was afraid to get involved in a contentious thread, and so used their favorite to show solidarity with those who were taking up positions which seemed to be unpopular or that were being dismissed. That doesn't seem like it encourages an echo chamber to form, though I can see where favorite counts can work that way in other contexts.
I've used favorites in a similar way on occasion, less because I was afraid to say something than because I didn't have the time or energy to get involved in a contentious discussion and didn't want to be a hit-and-run commenter, so I favorited a comment or two that I agreed with and were expressed well. Also, when I someone has made the point I was thinking about making, I generally prefer using favorites to writing a comment that mainly says, "I would just like to say that I agree with so-and-so and so-and-so, that is all" which doesn't really add to the discussion. Maybe actually making that statement would be more meaningful in demonstrating agreement to the group at large, since I use favorites in several different ways, but I personally feel that having the favoriting system in place reduces my inclination to make comments that I think would probably be little more than noise. It'll be interesting to see how I feel about my signal-to-noise ratio by the end of the month.
posted by EvaDestruction at 1:04 PM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
it just takes a few easy steps to get your old view backI'm running Opera 9.63 at home, IE6 at work, and the built-in Android browser version 4 on my phone. I suspect this is more than "a few easy steps".
The whole concept seems like a Mefi Burqa. According to our moral guardians, the insatiable lust for favorites cannot be controlled, and so the source of temptation must be concealed.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:04 PM on November 1, 2009 [26 favorites]
Aside from the savviness question, being able to look directly at how many and who are using an official site workaround could have some value, too.
I'd just like to go on record and say that while not as upset about it as some seem to be, I do dislike the change but am too lazy to install another greasemonkey script for something that will hopefully go away in a month (but would do if the change became permanent), so if you're tracking how many people are using a workaround, please count me in that category.
posted by juv3nal at 1:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'd just like to go on record and say that while not as upset about it as some seem to be, I do dislike the change but am too lazy to install another greasemonkey script for something that will hopefully go away in a month (but would do if the change became permanent), so if you're tracking how many people are using a workaround, please count me in that category.
posted by juv3nal at 1:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
CunningLinguist: I'm genuinely amazed at the vehemence and vituperation in this thread. I knew a few people could be relied on to foam at the mouth over the issue of favorites, but I would never have thought it was such a hot button.
I think this is pretty insulting and uncalled for. There are indeed a lot of folks wearing their crankypants here, but there are also quite a number of people who have responded quite clearly and thoughtfully as to why this is a change that legitimately affects their ability to use and enjoy the site.
I would also point out that a number of users who don't comment frequently have made a point of weighing in here, and have also noted that they have felt that some of the comments being made here -- including this one by you -- contribute to a pretty unwelcoming air for them. I would bet that being written off as vituperative mouth-foamers in response pretty much reinforces that feeling.
posted by scody at 1:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
I think this is pretty insulting and uncalled for. There are indeed a lot of folks wearing their crankypants here, but there are also quite a number of people who have responded quite clearly and thoughtfully as to why this is a change that legitimately affects their ability to use and enjoy the site.
I would also point out that a number of users who don't comment frequently have made a point of weighing in here, and have also noted that they have felt that some of the comments being made here -- including this one by you -- contribute to a pretty unwelcoming air for them. I would bet that being written off as vituperative mouth-foamers in response pretty much reinforces that feeling.
posted by scody at 1:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Judging from the number of people in this thread who have asked if the assessment is to be qualitative or quantitative (despite a mod's answer to that question the first time), I can't decide if it's worse to keep favorites (or favourites, if you please) to assist thread skimming as much as possible, or kill them completely so people will have to read the $%#@* thread.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 1:05 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 1:05 PM on November 1, 2009
In other words this 'experiment' has all the hallmarks of trying to prove someone wrong rather than right, just to put an argument to rest.Given the tenor of argument from the founder of the site in this thread, I doubt that your conclusion is correct, unless you're referring to him rather than Mefites in general as "Client". And if that is what you meant, than "Developer's" plan doesn't seem to be working.
posted by Flunkie at 1:05 PM on November 1, 2009
Houstonian, some of those comments might have been meant to be somewhat hyperbolic. Comical, even.
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:05 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:05 PM on November 1, 2009
If we're removing the social feature, remove it, as this halfway is less useful as a bookmarker
Thank you for being more eloquent about it -- exactly what I was saying in my first comment. The one with the horses.
Happy greasemonkey awareness month everyone!
Guilty! Finally pushed me over the edge into becoming one of those web fancy extension modifyin power tool users...
posted by cavalier at 1:06 PM on November 1, 2009
Thank you for being more eloquent about it -- exactly what I was saying in my first comment. The one with the horses.
Happy greasemonkey awareness month everyone!
Guilty! Finally pushed me over the edge into becoming one of those web fancy extension modifyin power tool users...
posted by cavalier at 1:06 PM on November 1, 2009
It stems from the disconnects over what a site is and what it's supposed to do.
I totally mangled that. It should say:
"It stems from the disconnect over what a site is and what a site's users think it's supposed to do, and as well from the disconnects the users have with each other over what the site is supposed to do."
posted by dw at 1:06 PM on November 1, 2009
I totally mangled that. It should say:
"It stems from the disconnect over what a site is and what a site's users think it's supposed to do, and as well from the disconnects the users have with each other over what the site is supposed to do."
posted by dw at 1:06 PM on November 1, 2009
And really now, is that all the anti favorite crowd has as a compelling argument? "Maybe you should READ the site!" ?
We ARE reading it. We LIKE having the extra utility/paralinguistic (ooh fancy! Thanks kim!) dialogue on top of the site.
To label a person who prefers favorites as someone who can't be bothered to participate in the site is a strawman at worst and disingenuous at best. OOOH! Straw man and disingenuous, I'm bringing out the internet fighting words...
posted by cavalier at 1:08 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
We ARE reading it. We LIKE having the extra utility/paralinguistic (ooh fancy! Thanks kim!) dialogue on top of the site.
To label a person who prefers favorites as someone who can't be bothered to participate in the site is a strawman at worst and disingenuous at best. OOOH! Straw man and disingenuous, I'm bringing out the internet fighting words...
posted by cavalier at 1:08 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I think this is pretty insulting and uncalled for.
scody, I didn't mean to insult anyone. I'm genuinely surprised at how strongly people feel.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:09 PM on November 1, 2009
scody, I didn't mean to insult anyone. I'm genuinely surprised at how strongly people feel.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:09 PM on November 1, 2009
Solon and Thanks: I hope you saw that I also said I share many of your concerns, and that there were thoughtful arguments on both sides; by no means did I assume all negative comments were a result of inertia, and I absolutely agree that it's fair to listen to what people are saying about the removal of a feature they frequently use - I hope I made that clear in my original comment. But if, to use your example, the mods changed the background to bright, neon green as an experiment for a month - and they say that many people have wanted it to be bright, neon green in the past, and they think it's worth experimenting with - I might say "Ugh", but be willing to give it some time and give it a chance, since I like this site and what they've done with it and trust their judgement, and so would want to give it a chance before I conclusively reject it. Rejecting something like not displaying favourites, which is a lot more complex and subtle than something like bright neon green background, completely after 24 hours to me seems a bit premature, yeah.
posted by catchingsignals at 1:09 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by catchingsignals at 1:09 PM on November 1, 2009
Happy greasemonkey awareness month everyone!
Happy non-Firefox-users awareness month!
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:09 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Happy non-Firefox-users awareness month!
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:09 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think what's making me dislike this change so much is that favorites has become one of the main ways that I interact with the site, for better or for worse, but not in the way that a lot of people have already mentioned. I don't use them as a way to figure out what comments to read. I read a lot of threads, and I try to read every comment, at least until I get bored with the conversation and go find something else to read, or skim down to see if anything else catches my eye. But I hardly ever comment myself. I really feel like other people say the things I want to say in better ways, and I would rather favorite their far more articulate comments than post my own. Of course, I'm one of those people that often writes out entire comments and then never posts them because I'm just not sure I'm adding anything valuable to the conversation. I will probably consider not posting this comment several times before hitting the 'post comment' button, if I do indeed hit it at all.
Because I use favorites in that particular way, though, even using the workaround won't do much good for me because I will still feel really... disconnected from the site. Like my voice doesn't count. That makes me sad. Also I can't figure out how to do it in Safari. Did I miss that comment? Please hope me.
That being said, I'm willing to live with it for a month because I trust that the mods are genuinely trying to improve the site. Who knows, maybe it'll encourage me to actually post more instead of hiding behind other people's comments. But I doubt that, somehow.
On preview, I see that this point has already been made. I don't see it as an echo chamber as much as it feels like a comfortable way for me to participate in the community when I don't always feel comfortable making posts. Maybe that isn't the way favorites should be used, but that's the way it's evolved for me.
posted by rosethorn at 1:10 PM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
Because I use favorites in that particular way, though, even using the workaround won't do much good for me because I will still feel really... disconnected from the site. Like my voice doesn't count. That makes me sad. Also I can't figure out how to do it in Safari. Did I miss that comment? Please hope me.
That being said, I'm willing to live with it for a month because I trust that the mods are genuinely trying to improve the site. Who knows, maybe it'll encourage me to actually post more instead of hiding behind other people's comments. But I doubt that, somehow.
On preview, I see that this point has already been made. I don't see it as an echo chamber as much as it feels like a comfortable way for me to participate in the community when I don't always feel comfortable making posts. Maybe that isn't the way favorites should be used, but that's the way it's evolved for me.
posted by rosethorn at 1:10 PM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
Also, since the mouth foaming is all on the side of keeping the favorites the way they are, I hardly see how my comment would make people feel wounded and unwelcome.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:10 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:10 PM on November 1, 2009
Seems like maybe it would've been better to have an opt-out account setting ready to go when this change was pushed out, which would've made the change a lot less significant for the people who don't like it. It would also give you better tracking of how popular/unpopular the change is.
posted by mullingitover at 1:10 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by mullingitover at 1:10 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
>In any case, the group of people augmenting their browsers with GreaseMonkey plugins is vanishingly small, and hang-wringing over it is asinine.
I just swallowed all my anti-user-CSS, anti-Greasemonkey, as-the-webmaster-intended rhetoric and installed Greasemonkey and the Metafilter MultiFavorited Multiwidth - November Experiment script because of this.
>Suggestion: Partway through the month, give us users a way to disable this experiment. Count how many of us do so. That should provide some evidence as to how many active users care about favorite counts.
+1. I say +1, because I can't use the favorites to vote for comments any more. I predict we'll see a lot more of these empty "verbal vote-up" comments this month.
posted by d. z. wang at 1:11 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I just swallowed all my anti-user-CSS, anti-Greasemonkey, as-the-webmaster-intended rhetoric and installed Greasemonkey and the Metafilter MultiFavorited Multiwidth - November Experiment script because of this.
>Suggestion: Partway through the month, give us users a way to disable this experiment. Count how many of us do so. That should provide some evidence as to how many active users care about favorite counts.
+1. I say +1, because I can't use the favorites to vote for comments any more. I predict we'll see a lot more of these empty "verbal vote-up" comments this month.
posted by d. z. wang at 1:11 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think this is pretty insulting and uncalled for.
scody, I didn't mean to insult anyone. I'm genuinely surprised at how strongly people feel.
It may have been the "foaming at the mouth" part of your comment rather than the "surprised" part that came across as insulting.
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:11 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
scody, I didn't mean to insult anyone. I'm genuinely surprised at how strongly people feel.
It may have been the "foaming at the mouth" part of your comment rather than the "surprised" part that came across as insulting.
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:11 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
EmilyClimbs: "It sounds to me like what many/most people are saying "visible favorite counts are important to me and my experience, and so I'm upset/angry/frustrated that my experience is being impeded" and I just don't get it, considering it just takes a few easy steps to get your old view back (I'm sure that some people missed that info, and it probably should be made more obvious somewhere and maybe even implemented internally rather than relying on external scripts-- but anyone who's reading this thread reasonably closely should know they can change things back.) "
In fairness, they're having their experience impeded in the service of addressing possibly-hypothetical concerns felt deeply by only a small minority of the community. The creationists trying to get evolution banned from textbooks are a far more legitimate movement, mathematically. So it's not reasonable to ask us to embrace this as a necessary sacrifice.
But yeah, it now occurs to me that perhaps the reason I'm not as het up as some other folk is that I found the Stylish script less than 10 minutes after discovering the "problem" and so for me this is a crisis that now exists only in the abstract.
Let's imagine that the mods now make this into a Preferences setting - but with "faved" the default. Are any of you still pissed off because of the "extra work" involved in changing the Preference?
If not, then you have to admit that even now it's only a question of how much and what kind of extra work is involved. I already had Stylish installed, so it was especially easy to implement the "fix". But even starting from scratch, it should take no one with the brain of a MeFi-er more than 5 minutes, tops.
If you're not willing to make that much of an effort, I question whether numbered favorites are as important to you as you claim.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:14 PM on November 1, 2009
In fairness, they're having their experience impeded in the service of addressing possibly-hypothetical concerns felt deeply by only a small minority of the community. The creationists trying to get evolution banned from textbooks are a far more legitimate movement, mathematically. So it's not reasonable to ask us to embrace this as a necessary sacrifice.
But yeah, it now occurs to me that perhaps the reason I'm not as het up as some other folk is that I found the Stylish script less than 10 minutes after discovering the "problem" and so for me this is a crisis that now exists only in the abstract.
Let's imagine that the mods now make this into a Preferences setting - but with "faved" the default. Are any of you still pissed off because of the "extra work" involved in changing the Preference?
If not, then you have to admit that even now it's only a question of how much and what kind of extra work is involved. I already had Stylish installed, so it was especially easy to implement the "fix". But even starting from scratch, it should take no one with the brain of a MeFi-er more than 5 minutes, tops.
If you're not willing to make that much of an effort, I question whether numbered favorites are as important to you as you claim.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:14 PM on November 1, 2009
since the mouth foaming is all on the side of keeping the favorites the way they are
I beg to differ. See, for example, the 47 comment-by-comment responses from koeselitz above, taking people to task for reading the site "wrong".
posted by donnagirl at 1:14 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I beg to differ. See, for example, the 47 comment-by-comment responses from koeselitz above, taking people to task for reading the site "wrong".
posted by donnagirl at 1:14 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Stewriffic said: I know that in the past I've favorited things that I agreed with as a way to communicate my belief/opinion without opening myself up in particularly contentious threads to be directly attacked/confronted/criticized for that belief. Knowing (transparently) how many other people agreed with me helped make the community feel more safe.
Mathowie said: This is a description of an echo chamber, not what we want MetaFilter to be, right?
No, that's misusing the term "echo chamber," which really does not apply here at all. An echo chamber is an walled-off environment in which ideas get communicated, and the effect of them being communicated in that walled-off environment is that they get taken as true by other participants in that walled-off environment, and the idea assumes an artificial authority because of the absence of sources of outside input to say, "that idea is bullshit."
The fact that comment favoriting might help some people feel "safe" knowing that others agree with them does not threaten to make Metafilter an echo chamber. It would only be an echo chamber if we were somehow walled off within Metafilter, and exposed only to ideas expressed in Metafilter, and this isolation prevented us from bringing outside perspectives into the discussion.
So, no, displaying favorites carries no risk of making Metafilter an echo chamber.
posted by jayder at 1:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [20 favorites]
Mathowie said: This is a description of an echo chamber, not what we want MetaFilter to be, right?
No, that's misusing the term "echo chamber," which really does not apply here at all. An echo chamber is an walled-off environment in which ideas get communicated, and the effect of them being communicated in that walled-off environment is that they get taken as true by other participants in that walled-off environment, and the idea assumes an artificial authority because of the absence of sources of outside input to say, "that idea is bullshit."
The fact that comment favoriting might help some people feel "safe" knowing that others agree with them does not threaten to make Metafilter an echo chamber. It would only be an echo chamber if we were somehow walled off within Metafilter, and exposed only to ideas expressed in Metafilter, and this isolation prevented us from bringing outside perspectives into the discussion.
So, no, displaying favorites carries no risk of making Metafilter an echo chamber.
posted by jayder at 1:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [20 favorites]
I don't like the change.
Thankfully, in Opera, a simple shift+g restores the numbers.
posted by kickingtheground at 1:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Thankfully, in Opera, a simple shift+g restores the numbers.
posted by kickingtheground at 1:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
(I'm going to be pissed if my echo chamber explanation doesn't get faved.)
posted by jayder at 1:17 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by jayder at 1:17 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Happy non-Firefox-users awareness month!
Alright, dude, ya got me. Just what the heck are you running? And if you're running Internet Explorer, do you really need me to get all neckbeard on ya and explain why there's just... better... out there?
(Also, there's a hack for IE posted above).
posted by cavalier at 1:19 PM on November 1, 2009
Alright, dude, ya got me. Just what the heck are you running? And if you're running Internet Explorer, do you really need me to get all neckbeard on ya and explain why there's just... better... out there?
(Also, there's a hack for IE posted above).
posted by cavalier at 1:19 PM on November 1, 2009
I found the Stylish script
It's so awesome that there's a doodad that I have to find and install to get back functionality that was already there.
And by awesome, I mean hate with a frightening intensity.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:20 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
It's so awesome that there's a doodad that I have to find and install to get back functionality that was already there.
And by awesome, I mean hate with a frightening intensity.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:20 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Here's hoping that The Great (Inter)National Favening of 2009 will end well and not be remembered unfondly as The International Month of GRAR.
Also, here's hoping that it will be followed up by The Great Donutting of 2009 because although I frequently think the mods have a supaircool job, not today, no sir.
In fact, everyone needs a candy-corn-coated-donut today, fo sho.
posted by heyho at 1:21 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Also, here's hoping that it will be followed up by The Great Donutting of 2009 because although I frequently think the mods have a supaircool job, not today, no sir.
In fact, everyone needs a candy-corn-coated-donut today, fo sho.
posted by heyho at 1:21 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Joe Beese: It's not that I'm unwilling to make the effort you describe. I'm unwilling to change browsers just to fix a problem with one website. It'll be easier to wait till this feature is removed or made optional.
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:21 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:21 PM on November 1, 2009
I am neutral on the change, but don't like the 'faved' display. If you're going to hide favorites, then hide a mostly useless piece of data, or raise the number of favorites it takes to show the 'faved' display.
posted by Pants! at 1:21 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Pants! at 1:21 PM on November 1, 2009
Alright, dude, ya got me. Just what the heck are you running? And if you're running Internet Explorer...
I use Camino.
I'd even be willing to switch to Safari over this (though again, changing browsers over one feature on one website would be irritating).
But I'm not willing to switch to Firefox.
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:23 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I use Camino.
I'd even be willing to switch to Safari over this (though again, changing browsers over one feature on one website would be irritating).
But I'm not willing to switch to Firefox.
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:23 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
"It sounds to me like what many/most people are saying "visible favorite counts are important to me and my experience, and so I'm upset/angry/frustrated that my experience is being impeded" and I just don't get it, considering it just takes a few easy steps to get your old view back (I'm sure that some people missed that info, and it probably should be made more obvious somewhere and maybe even implemented internally rather than relying on external scripts-- but anyone who's reading this thread reasonably closely should know they can change things back.) "
At the heart of this debate is the question of how Metafilter should be used. Taking away visible favorites can be seen as saying, "those of you who depend on visible favorites to use this site are doing it wrong." Even if a work-around is still possible, it's still a matter of what is presented as the appropriate way to be a member of this community.
posted by Ms. Saint at 1:23 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
At the heart of this debate is the question of how Metafilter should be used. Taking away visible favorites can be seen as saying, "those of you who depend on visible favorites to use this site are doing it wrong." Even if a work-around is still possible, it's still a matter of what is presented as the appropriate way to be a member of this community.
posted by Ms. Saint at 1:23 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Given the tenor of argument from the founder of the site in this thread, I doubt that your conclusion is correct, unless you're referring to him rather than Mefites in general as "Client". And if that is what you meant, than "Developer's" plan doesn't seem to be working.
I mean that this 'experiment' is in no way an experiment. There is no metric for success or failure, and a pretty vague specification how the change is supposed to achieve it's claimed goals. On the other hand the change did have a lot of foreknowledge that it would tick off a lot of people.
Therefore I stand by my assumption that this was done not to improve the site but to shut someone (or somepeople) up about the frikkin Favorites numbers. Which it seems to be doing nicely.
Notice I said "assumption". Because hey, if contentious MeFi threads are good for anything they're good for hyperbole, taking things out of context and putting words in people's mouths.
posted by Ookseer at 1:25 PM on November 1, 2009
I mean that this 'experiment' is in no way an experiment. There is no metric for success or failure, and a pretty vague specification how the change is supposed to achieve it's claimed goals. On the other hand the change did have a lot of foreknowledge that it would tick off a lot of people.
Therefore I stand by my assumption that this was done not to improve the site but to shut someone (or somepeople) up about the frikkin Favorites numbers. Which it seems to be doing nicely.
Notice I said "assumption". Because hey, if contentious MeFi threads are good for anything they're good for hyperbole, taking things out of context and putting words in people's mouths.
posted by Ookseer at 1:25 PM on November 1, 2009
Here's hoping that The Great (Inter)National Favening of 2009 will end well and not be remembered unfondly as The International Month of GRAR.
It seems to be MetaTalk Awareness Month thus far.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:27 PM on November 1, 2009
It seems to be MetaTalk Awareness Month thus far.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:27 PM on November 1, 2009
anyone who's reading this thread reasonably closely should know they can change things back.
Really? How? I'd love to know.
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:28 PM on November 1, 2009
Really? How? I'd love to know.
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:28 PM on November 1, 2009
Whew. Since when I posted that last comment, there were, like, a hundred fewer comments, I'm going to assume that things have continued apace—remember when preview was mandatory? That had to have done something to the conversation on this site, right?
Anyway, since the professional favorite mourners have made their case clearly (cue 20 more drive-by "LEMME JUST SAY I HATE IT"), I figured I'd take a moment to think about the terms. I was thinking Beans as I was skimming back through, then I saw someone suggested it (I dunno who, control-f or some shit). I thought I might also mention that there's this word "favor" and "favored" is already a verb, and it doesn't look as glib as "fave"," though if it was just introduced, I'd be all like, "'Favors' Will m'lady favor me with her plus marks?" like it's a renaissance fair or some shit.
Anyway, off to the grocery for some Indonesian ramen (they make the best!).
posted by klangklangston at 1:29 PM on November 1, 2009
Anyway, since the professional favorite mourners have made their case clearly (cue 20 more drive-by "LEMME JUST SAY I HATE IT"), I figured I'd take a moment to think about the terms. I was thinking Beans as I was skimming back through, then I saw someone suggested it (I dunno who, control-f or some shit). I thought I might also mention that there's this word "favor" and "favored" is already a verb, and it doesn't look as glib as "fave"," though if it was just introduced, I'd be all like, "'Favors' Will m'lady favor me with her plus marks?" like it's a renaissance fair or some shit.
Anyway, off to the grocery for some Indonesian ramen (they make the best!).
posted by klangklangston at 1:29 PM on November 1, 2009
We ARE reading it.
Well, thank you for speaking for all MeFites, but given that many people have stated in this thread that they use favorites to skim, you may want to adjust your understanding of "strawman".
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 1:30 PM on November 1, 2009
Well, thank you for speaking for all MeFites, but given that many people have stated in this thread that they use favorites to skim, you may want to adjust your understanding of "strawman".
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 1:30 PM on November 1, 2009
Damn, this reminds me of a faculty meeting where people become enemies over nothing just for the sake of arguing. I hate those meetings.
Brother and Sisters of Mefi: We are Favorite-count-less for a month. Let us endeavor to persevere. The only thing we have to fear is absence of favorite counts without making an extra click or installing a greasemonkey script. Change is always hard. The mods do their best. There are a lot of good threads and comments today on the blue and the green. Go forth into the newly bright late afternoon and multiply them.
Jesus H Christ. Forget the plate of beans already. I mean, a month with no favorite counts is like a month with no sunshine, right?
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:33 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Brother and Sisters of Mefi: We are Favorite-count-less for a month. Let us endeavor to persevere. The only thing we have to fear is absence of favorite counts without making an extra click or installing a greasemonkey script. Change is always hard. The mods do their best. There are a lot of good threads and comments today on the blue and the green. Go forth into the newly bright late afternoon and multiply them.
Jesus H Christ. Forget the plate of beans already. I mean, a month with no favorite counts is like a month with no sunshine, right?
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:33 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Well, thank you for speaking for all MeFites, but given that many people have stated in this thread that they use favorites to skim, you may want to adjust your understanding of "strawman".
CAUGHT ME! Oh, and fuck you! Muah!
If you could be bothered to read more carefully, they stated they were doing this on larger threads, or when they did not have time, but that when they did in fact have time, they read fully. Go on, find one that says otherwise.
posted by cavalier at 1:34 PM on November 1, 2009
CAUGHT ME! Oh, and fuck you! Muah!
If you could be bothered to read more carefully, they stated they were doing this on larger threads, or when they did not have time, but that when they did in fact have time, they read fully. Go on, find one that says otherwise.
posted by cavalier at 1:34 PM on November 1, 2009
This conflicts with the way I read the site, it provides me with less information than before, and it's annoying. But so what? The benefits that the new system is supposed to bring will come far down line. Of course no one is going to play around an the site for a few hours and think, "this is wonderful and refreshing! I love faveds!" I still find myself moving to favorite a comment and then catch myself, realizing that there's no need to upvote. And I find myself grumbling over not being able to flit quickly through this long thread skimming for highlights. It's an annoying experience for me, and I was one of the favorite detractors. So I'm pretty sure that everyone's going to hate this right off the bat.
But I also think that it might be forcing me to engage with the site in a way that, although immediately detrimental to me, is beneficial for the site and so ultimately beneficial to me. I don't think we should place much weight on the huge upsurge of negativity here. Let's have another of these threads in a month.
Also, on a different note, it feels strange that a bunch of people are pushing the democracy line, saying that users should get to vote on this. Metafilter has never been remotely democratic: in the past, the reaction to complaints about the way the site is run has been, "This is Matt's sandbox and we are allowed to play in it, so what he says goes, and he is smarter than you anyway." But as the site has grown, I guess this has become less true; Matt complains above that the site has ossified and he no longer feels like he can make changes any more. I think this is a little sad. Metafilter has a strong community, but it's Matt who built the community and steered the site in all the right directions. The moderation here is the best of the web because Matt hand-picked the best moderators of the web. The correct political analog to this site is not a democracy: we have a divinely-inspired philosopher-king. If his gut tells him that some sweeping changes are in order (or not), I think we should trust him without demanding a vote.
posted by painquale at 1:34 PM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
But I also think that it might be forcing me to engage with the site in a way that, although immediately detrimental to me, is beneficial for the site and so ultimately beneficial to me. I don't think we should place much weight on the huge upsurge of negativity here. Let's have another of these threads in a month.
Also, on a different note, it feels strange that a bunch of people are pushing the democracy line, saying that users should get to vote on this. Metafilter has never been remotely democratic: in the past, the reaction to complaints about the way the site is run has been, "This is Matt's sandbox and we are allowed to play in it, so what he says goes, and he is smarter than you anyway." But as the site has grown, I guess this has become less true; Matt complains above that the site has ossified and he no longer feels like he can make changes any more. I think this is a little sad. Metafilter has a strong community, but it's Matt who built the community and steered the site in all the right directions. The moderation here is the best of the web because Matt hand-picked the best moderators of the web. The correct political analog to this site is not a democracy: we have a divinely-inspired philosopher-king. If his gut tells him that some sweeping changes are in order (or not), I think we should trust him without demanding a vote.
posted by painquale at 1:34 PM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
Talk to you dudes in December! Yowza!
posted by Damn That Television at 1:38 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Damn That Television at 1:38 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
is it too late to write something common-sensical that bunches of people agree with - and thereby score myself a fave?
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:39 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:39 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Anyway, since the professional favorite mourners have made their case clearly (cue 20 more drive-by "LEMME JUST SAY I HATE IT")If only there were some way for them to express their agreement in a less obtrusive manner.
posted by Flunkie at 1:39 PM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
A lot of folks note how they use the number of counts to judge the value of a comment, be it approval or support. Yet, isn't that whole scheme skewed by the folks who use the favorite system as a means to bookmark certain comments. I recall the brief firestorm that arose around the dozen or so people who favorited that Paulsc comment concerning gypsy ethics and it had to be pointed out by some who favorited that it was done not out of support but for other reasons.
I also recall that fellow who posted on the grey with a script that only showed comments with five or more, so folks could just go straight to the "good" comments. He got blasted. Now it seems that a fair number of people are advocating that such approach is not only fine, but essential to the enjoyment of the site.
It's just hard to accept the first argument, when it can be undermined due to other uses of the favorite system. A new expanded favorite system would be needed to differentiate the ways people used to favorite or otherwise, going back to the old way will lead to circumstances where false assumptions will be made based on why someone favorites. As for the second thing I brought up, it's somewhat interesting to see such an open attitude reversal of such an approach to mefi.
posted by Atreides at 1:40 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I also recall that fellow who posted on the grey with a script that only showed comments with five or more, so folks could just go straight to the "good" comments. He got blasted. Now it seems that a fair number of people are advocating that such approach is not only fine, but essential to the enjoyment of the site.
It's just hard to accept the first argument, when it can be undermined due to other uses of the favorite system. A new expanded favorite system would be needed to differentiate the ways people used to favorite or otherwise, going back to the old way will lead to circumstances where false assumptions will be made based on why someone favorites. As for the second thing I brought up, it's somewhat interesting to see such an open attitude reversal of such an approach to mefi.
posted by Atreides at 1:40 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I hate this, I hate this, I hate this.
I also do not have time to go through everyones comments and I TRUST THE SYSTEM DAMMIT! I generally only look at the comments with 3+ favorites (oops, "faved" *barf*) because I know those are the juicy ones, snark or not.
I did however read through almost all of these comments like 5 hours ago (and really did read them all because they are all "faved") and now I come back and there are like 300 more and I can't even tell which ones are good! I'm exhausted and it's only the first day!
I need a hug!
posted by janelikes at 1:40 PM on November 1, 2009
I also do not have time to go through everyones comments and I TRUST THE SYSTEM DAMMIT! I generally only look at the comments with 3+ favorites (oops, "faved" *barf*) because I know those are the juicy ones, snark or not.
I did however read through almost all of these comments like 5 hours ago (and really did read them all because they are all "faved") and now I come back and there are like 300 more and I can't even tell which ones are good! I'm exhausted and it's only the first day!
I need a hug!
posted by janelikes at 1:40 PM on November 1, 2009
This is stupid and I hate you and I'm running away forever and never coming back
posted by tehloki at 1:40 PM on November 1, 2009 [28 favorites]
posted by tehloki at 1:40 PM on November 1, 2009 [28 favorites]
If you could be bothered to read more carefully, they stated they were doing this on larger threads, or when they did not have time, but that when they did in fact have time, they read fully. Go on, find one that says otherwise.
So you can skim more threads than you have time for and catch the greatest hits, or hit fewer threads and, you know, read them. You know what's also a great time-saving device? Skipping the linked content. And that sure leads to great discussion.
It's a worthwhile argument that this is impeding one way of using the site. Facilitating all possible means does not however automatically = a better site resulting.
Or on preview, exactly what painquale just said.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 1:40 PM on November 1, 2009
So you can skim more threads than you have time for and catch the greatest hits, or hit fewer threads and, you know, read them. You know what's also a great time-saving device? Skipping the linked content. And that sure leads to great discussion.
It's a worthwhile argument that this is impeding one way of using the site. Facilitating all possible means does not however automatically = a better site resulting.
Or on preview, exactly what painquale just said.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 1:40 PM on November 1, 2009
scody, I didn't mean to insult anyone. I'm genuinely surprised at how strongly people feel.
Then why not just say you were genuinely surprised at how strongly people feel and leave it at that? Surely you don't think describing the people who disagree with you as vituperative and foaming at the mouth is a value-neutral statement? And why ignore the comments from casual users themselves who are stating directly that they are being made to feel unwelcome?
I'm not a casual or new user myself; I use the site about as much as you do, I think. But this is a big place, bigger than it was when favorites were first implemented several years ago, with thousands more members who are unfamiliar to me and who don't necessarily use Metafilter the same way you and I do. I think their comments regarding how welcome or unwelcome they're feeling are well worth considering.
posted by scody at 1:41 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Then why not just say you were genuinely surprised at how strongly people feel and leave it at that? Surely you don't think describing the people who disagree with you as vituperative and foaming at the mouth is a value-neutral statement? And why ignore the comments from casual users themselves who are stating directly that they are being made to feel unwelcome?
I'm not a casual or new user myself; I use the site about as much as you do, I think. But this is a big place, bigger than it was when favorites were first implemented several years ago, with thousands more members who are unfamiliar to me and who don't necessarily use Metafilter the same way you and I do. I think their comments regarding how welcome or unwelcome they're feeling are well worth considering.
posted by scody at 1:41 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Really? How? I'd love to know.
I had excellent luck with koeselitz's suggestion here. I'm reasonably happy now and MeFi looks like it used to.
posted by crapmatic at 1:42 PM on November 1, 2009
I had excellent luck with koeselitz's suggestion here. I'm reasonably happy now and MeFi looks like it used to.
posted by crapmatic at 1:42 PM on November 1, 2009
Durn Bronzefist: "So you can skim more threads than you have time for and catch the greatest hits, or hit fewer threads and, you know, read them. "
Great idea! Let me see, how will I decide which threads to read and which to skip? Hey, just let me look at a sample of comments that seem to be representative... the ones that are favorited the most, probably! Ooops...
posted by PontifexPrimus at 1:44 PM on November 1, 2009
Great idea! Let me see, how will I decide which threads to read and which to skip? Hey, just let me look at a sample of comments that seem to be representative... the ones that are favorited the most, probably! Ooops...
posted by PontifexPrimus at 1:44 PM on November 1, 2009
> Almost two years later, Flickr still has video, it's not turned into YouTube, and for the most part the users are happy with it.
Which is a good parallel for when favorites were added. Removing/crippling a feature the vast majority of people use is pretty much the complete opposite. I was initially comforted by the moderator's insistence that this is just an experiment, but mathowie's later comments make me think this has a better-than-good chance of becoming permanent. I really hope I'm reading too much into that because I think this change is ultimately pretty alienating.
The contention seems to be that the site was a lot better Back In The Day. I've been a reader since when signups were closed, and I don't feel it's declined in any way. The opposite, really. I look back at some of the older threads occasionally and the place actually feels a bit dumber back then.
If it has gotten worse, though, it certainly has no correlation with this feature. I find the idea frankly silly, and the arguments made in support of it entirely specious. Like, complaining about favorites is really a proxy to anxiety about all the new users on the lawn rather than an honest argument. I realize that's a particularly bad faith reading, but a lot of the rhetoric from the more vocal supporters -- like koelitz forty-seven fucking comments telling me how I'm ruining metafilter -- makes it seem like a more obvious explanation.
posted by cj_ at 1:44 PM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
Which is a good parallel for when favorites were added. Removing/crippling a feature the vast majority of people use is pretty much the complete opposite. I was initially comforted by the moderator's insistence that this is just an experiment, but mathowie's later comments make me think this has a better-than-good chance of becoming permanent. I really hope I'm reading too much into that because I think this change is ultimately pretty alienating.
The contention seems to be that the site was a lot better Back In The Day. I've been a reader since when signups were closed, and I don't feel it's declined in any way. The opposite, really. I look back at some of the older threads occasionally and the place actually feels a bit dumber back then.
If it has gotten worse, though, it certainly has no correlation with this feature. I find the idea frankly silly, and the arguments made in support of it entirely specious. Like, complaining about favorites is really a proxy to anxiety about all the new users on the lawn rather than an honest argument. I realize that's a particularly bad faith reading, but a lot of the rhetoric from the more vocal supporters -- like koelitz forty-seven fucking comments telling me how I'm ruining metafilter -- makes it seem like a more obvious explanation.
posted by cj_ at 1:44 PM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
What tehloki said.
posted by found missing at 1:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by found missing at 1:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Okay I finally found the legacy favorites greasemonkey script by searching the thread for "script". CORTEX, JESSAMYN, MATHOWIE, PUT IT IN THE GODDAMN SIDEBAR. Look at all the people who are pissed off and thinking of leaving. Give them the option to choose how they view metafilter without having to slog around in a massive thread to find it.
posted by tehloki at 1:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by tehloki at 1:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
That was weird.
posted by found missing at 1:48 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by found missing at 1:48 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I am very uncomfortable with oblique redirections of momentum in a community, regardless of the intentions involved. I get that all the mods are good folks, and their motivations are completely golden. But harmph.
I wish as a community member I could completely opt out of this foolish favorite silliness from my profile page. Without a weighted context "faved" just becomes noise to me. Accordingly, if I ever need to find something on metafilter, I use google. The results are faster and better organized than paging through my favorites.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 1:51 PM on November 1, 2009
I wish as a community member I could completely opt out of this foolish favorite silliness from my profile page. Without a weighted context "faved" just becomes noise to me. Accordingly, if I ever need to find something on metafilter, I use google. The results are faster and better organized than paging through my favorites.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 1:51 PM on November 1, 2009
LEAVE TEHLOKI ALONE!!!
posted by The Whelk at 1:52 PM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 1:52 PM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
Is this where I complain about the fucking awful "fade-in" thing Google has started doing? Because I would really like to complain about that.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 1:53 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 1:53 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Jesus, tehloki, you might back off a bit.
Though I strongly agree with tehloki that the links to the scripts should be in the sidebar. I have never figured out how to use greasemonkey, but I'm considering it now. (Plus I'll need the IE workaround for my office computer, since I can't use Firefox there.) I will have to ask one of the kids on my lawn to help me, no doubt, but perhaps if I ply them with cookies and old Clash records on vinyl, they'd be willing to assist an old lady.
posted by scody at 1:53 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Though I strongly agree with tehloki that the links to the scripts should be in the sidebar. I have never figured out how to use greasemonkey, but I'm considering it now. (Plus I'll need the IE workaround for my office computer, since I can't use Firefox there.) I will have to ask one of the kids on my lawn to help me, no doubt, but perhaps if I ply them with cookies and old Clash records on vinyl, they'd be willing to assist an old lady.
posted by scody at 1:53 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
> This is a description of an echo chamber, not what we want MetaFilter to be, right?
That's an uncharitable and, frankly, shitty reading of what Stewriffic said. This discussion is a minefield; you of all people might want to consider treading more carefully.
posted by languagehat at 1:54 PM on November 1, 2009 [13 favorites]
That's an uncharitable and, frankly, shitty reading of what Stewriffic said. This discussion is a minefield; you of all people might want to consider treading more carefully.
posted by languagehat at 1:54 PM on November 1, 2009 [13 favorites]
If not, then you have to admit that even now it's only a question of how much and what kind of extra work is involved. I already had Stylish installed, so it was especially easy to implement the "fix". But even starting from scratch, it should take no one with the brain of a MeFi-er more than 5 minutes, tops.
In the general case, this is true, but I've certainly had greasemonkey scripts conflict with one another before. Sometimes this is just down to load order, but in other cases, I've had to fiddle about with javascript to get the desired result.
posted by juv3nal at 1:54 PM on November 1, 2009
In the general case, this is true, but I've certainly had greasemonkey scripts conflict with one another before. Sometimes this is just down to load order, but in other cases, I've had to fiddle about with javascript to get the desired result.
posted by juv3nal at 1:54 PM on November 1, 2009
Just chiming in that I am not a fan of the change. Who gives a shit if someone out there favorited a comment? I don't want to miss the one that has 300 favorites. It's definitely a step backward from my perspective.
posted by letitrain at 1:55 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by letitrain at 1:55 PM on November 1, 2009
Really? How? I'd love to know.
I had excellent luck with koeselitz's suggestion here. I'm reasonably happy now and MeFi looks like it used to.
The comment I was responding to said: "anyone who's reading this thread reasonably closely should know they can change things back."
You linked to a comment that was split up into 2 sections: "If you are using Internet Explorer" and "If you are using Mozilla Firefox."
Not everyone uses IE or Firefox.
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:57 PM on November 1, 2009
I had excellent luck with koeselitz's suggestion here. I'm reasonably happy now and MeFi looks like it used to.
The comment I was responding to said: "anyone who's reading this thread reasonably closely should know they can change things back."
You linked to a comment that was split up into 2 sections: "If you are using Internet Explorer" and "If you are using Mozilla Firefox."
Not everyone uses IE or Firefox.
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:57 PM on November 1, 2009
Oh, uh, please don't sidebar the GreaseMonkey script I linked, it would take my host down. Also, that would just be retarded, might as well roll back the change at that point.
posted by cj_ at 2:00 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by cj_ at 2:00 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Also, many people use public/work/school computers where installing Greasemonkey scripts would be infeasible and/or frowned on.
posted by Jaltcoh at 2:00 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Jaltcoh at 2:00 PM on November 1, 2009
I think this is going well.
posted by found missing at 2:02 PM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
posted by found missing at 2:02 PM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
Ok, we've got a favorite counts on/off feature in the preferences working now and will show it off soon (possibly in a new metatalk thread). Please hold on and everyone will be welcome to use it shortly.
We've been talking about tweaks to favorites for several months and intensely for the last couple weeks (our main email thread discussing it has 95 posts from just four people talking) and we knew there would be some that didn't like the change and we felt an greasemonkey out and keeping the counts in the HTML source was adequate workaround, but we'll be adding it to the preferences soon so you won't need hacks, extensions, or scripts.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:02 PM on November 1, 2009 [33 favorites]
We've been talking about tweaks to favorites for several months and intensely for the last couple weeks (our main email thread discussing it has 95 posts from just four people talking) and we knew there would be some that didn't like the change and we felt an greasemonkey out and keeping the counts in the HTML source was adequate workaround, but we'll be adding it to the preferences soon so you won't need hacks, extensions, or scripts.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:02 PM on November 1, 2009 [33 favorites]
This thread would be shorter if we could register "hates" and watch the counter go up. Please can that be our next experiment? (Though of course, some people would aim to get the most "hates". But then we could make it a way to banninate people automatically. You got 47 hates on 3 separate posts this week. Bap-bow. You are the weakest link and have been voted off the island).
Also, could someone please tell me how to be a favourites whore? One of my best favourited posts was where I said I hated my husband sometimes and wrote anonymous AskMe posts to be told to DTMFA. What's so favourite-worthy about that?
Also, I'm using this month to not favourite any comment that's been pre-favourited even though I'm using the work around. This will save on my time and energy.
Also, is anyone else surprised how cranky people get over something like this? I mean, I don't like enough to install the workaround, but I also (apparently) have a life, and other things to get really angry about. On the gripping hand, I admit, I posted here, in this thread, but way down the bottom where no-one will notice.
posted by b33j at 2:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Also, could someone please tell me how to be a favourites whore? One of my best favourited posts was where I said I hated my husband sometimes and wrote anonymous AskMe posts to be told to DTMFA. What's so favourite-worthy about that?
Also, I'm using this month to not favourite any comment that's been pre-favourited even though I'm using the work around. This will save on my time and energy.
Also, is anyone else surprised how cranky people get over something like this? I mean, I don't like enough to install the workaround, but I also (apparently) have a life, and other things to get really angry about. On the gripping hand, I admit, I posted here, in this thread, but way down the bottom where no-one will notice.
posted by b33j at 2:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Shit, what am I supposed to do with this torch and effigy now?
posted by The Whelk at 2:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 2:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
thank you - that seems like a reasonable solution to this
posted by pyramid termite at 2:05 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by pyramid termite at 2:05 PM on November 1, 2009
Also, is anyone else surprised how cranky people get over something like this?
Post Halloween sugar crash.
posted by The Whelk at 2:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Post Halloween sugar crash.
posted by The Whelk at 2:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
"Let us endeavor to persevere."
I thought about that for a while, and now that I have thought about it, I am declaring war on the Union.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 2:06 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I thought about that for a while, and now that I have thought about it, I am declaring war on the Union.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 2:06 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Thank you, moderators. This is most welcome.
-----
Matt, an unintentional side effect of not seeing how many people have favorited a particular comment is that it does take some voice away from community members.
I know that in the past I've favorited things that I agreed with as a way to communicate my belief/opinion without opening myself up in particularly contentious threads to be directly attacked/confronted/criticized for that belief. Knowing (transparently) how many other people agreed with me helped make the community feel more safe.
And made it feel less 'safe' for others with views unpopular on this site. After all, now they have firm evidence that their opinion is widely rejected.
-----
People read in different ways; people use the site in different ways, and those ways are just as valid as yours.
This is bullshit. Different does not always mean equal. Some ways of using the site are actually less valid than others. Reading the entire thread before commenting should be encouraged.
-----
The rationale for not having an upvote system is thus: Digg, Slashdot, And Kuro5hin all suck donkey ass. This is fact. This is concrete. One of the reasons they do is the voting system which acts as a force multiplier for echo chambering, groupthink, grandstanding, and pandering. Imitating them means making what has for a great many years been a good site more similar to shitty sites.
Excellent summary of the issue. And to be clear, this doesn't mean that since Metafilter has an upvote system that it is proof to the contrary. The contention is that removing favorites will improve Metafilter.
koeselitz' s point about AskMe and truth not being subject to democracy deserves serious attention. While I dislike favorites on the entire site, they are most damaging on AskMe. If favorites are restored to Metafilter, please give restoring them to AskMe separate consideration.
I also have to say that I find the claim of popularity to equal quality laughable, but whatever.
And +1 on 'faved' to 'flaved'.
posted by BigSky at 2:06 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
-----
Matt, an unintentional side effect of not seeing how many people have favorited a particular comment is that it does take some voice away from community members.
I know that in the past I've favorited things that I agreed with as a way to communicate my belief/opinion without opening myself up in particularly contentious threads to be directly attacked/confronted/criticized for that belief. Knowing (transparently) how many other people agreed with me helped make the community feel more safe.
And made it feel less 'safe' for others with views unpopular on this site. After all, now they have firm evidence that their opinion is widely rejected.
-----
People read in different ways; people use the site in different ways, and those ways are just as valid as yours.
This is bullshit. Different does not always mean equal. Some ways of using the site are actually less valid than others. Reading the entire thread before commenting should be encouraged.
-----
The rationale for not having an upvote system is thus: Digg, Slashdot, And Kuro5hin all suck donkey ass. This is fact. This is concrete. One of the reasons they do is the voting system which acts as a force multiplier for echo chambering, groupthink, grandstanding, and pandering. Imitating them means making what has for a great many years been a good site more similar to shitty sites.
Excellent summary of the issue. And to be clear, this doesn't mean that since Metafilter has an upvote system that it is proof to the contrary. The contention is that removing favorites will improve Metafilter.
koeselitz' s point about AskMe and truth not being subject to democracy deserves serious attention. While I dislike favorites on the entire site, they are most damaging on AskMe. If favorites are restored to Metafilter, please give restoring them to AskMe separate consideration.
I also have to say that I find the claim of popularity to equal quality laughable, but whatever.
And +1 on 'faved' to 'flaved'.
posted by BigSky at 2:06 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
mathowie: I like the change in the 12hrs we've had it.
Jaltcoh: Under what circumstances would the experiment be deemed to have failed?
Presumably circumstances where a gigantic metatalk thread exploded with hundreds of people voicing their disapproval. If that didn't make it a failure, I don't know what could.
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:06 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Jaltcoh: Under what circumstances would the experiment be deemed to have failed?
Presumably circumstances where a gigantic metatalk thread exploded with hundreds of people voicing their disapproval. If that didn't make it a failure, I don't know what could.
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:06 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Shit, what am I supposed to do with this torch and effigy now?
Guy Fawkes Day is only a few days away. Sit on it and show off to the neighborhood.
posted by Atreides at 2:07 PM on November 1, 2009
Guy Fawkes Day is only a few days away. Sit on it and show off to the neighborhood.
posted by Atreides at 2:07 PM on November 1, 2009
I mean that this 'experiment' is in no way an experiment. There is no metric for success or failure, and a pretty vague specification how the change is supposed to achieve it's claimed goals.
I agree with this bit - overall, it's probably about as 'experimental' as experimental music.
On the other hand, I'd be very interested to see somebody do some analysis of the data after a month, to see how faveing practices have or have not changed.
My hypothesis is that there'd be a decrease in the snowballing effect, whereby comments with a number of faves are more likely to attract extra faves. Another way of putting this is that there'd be a slightly more even spread, with fewer spikes.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:07 PM on November 1, 2009
I agree with this bit - overall, it's probably about as 'experimental' as experimental music.
On the other hand, I'd be very interested to see somebody do some analysis of the data after a month, to see how faveing practices have or have not changed.
My hypothesis is that there'd be a decrease in the snowballing effect, whereby comments with a number of faves are more likely to attract extra faves. Another way of putting this is that there'd be a slightly more even spread, with fewer spikes.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:07 PM on November 1, 2009
PhoBWanKenobi: "I actually love Mizu's suggestion for "beans" as a term to replace "favorites." I would love to see post favorites changed to something closer to "bookmarks" and the adorable, wonderful term "bean" to replace comment favorites. It would more accurately reflect the way it seems these terms are used, the separation between the utility of the two, and, unlike "faves", actually fits with the mythology/traditions/in-jokes of the site."
I also legitimately love the beans suggestion. I'd like a flag-like drop-down menu that allows you to select the flavor of bean you want to give, representing the different ways that people currently use favorites.
posted by shammack at 2:08 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I also legitimately love the beans suggestion. I'd like a flag-like drop-down menu that allows you to select the flavor of bean you want to give, representing the different ways that people currently use favorites.
posted by shammack at 2:08 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Ok, we've got a favorite counts on/off feature in the preferences working now
This sounds great to me, thanks so much. I'm totally supportive of making the no-count "faved" the default setting, too, which I'm assuming is your plan, yes?
(And in terms of the grand experiment, having some idea of how many people are opting in each direction should be useful.)
posted by Forktine at 2:09 PM on November 1, 2009
This sounds great to me, thanks so much. I'm totally supportive of making the no-count "faved" the default setting, too, which I'm assuming is your plan, yes?
(And in terms of the grand experiment, having some idea of how many people are opting in each direction should be useful.)
posted by Forktine at 2:09 PM on November 1, 2009
It does strike me as a bit odd that this whole experiment is not in the sidebar on the front page, as the descriptor clearly reads that it's for site news and noteworthy stuff. I consider this noteworthy site news, no?
posted by heyho at 2:09 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by heyho at 2:09 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
No need to punish everyone, I know it's all my fault.
posted by hermitosis at 2:10 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by hermitosis at 2:10 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Well I've given the experiment a chance, and no, sir, I didn't like it.
posted by jedicus at 2:10 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by jedicus at 2:10 PM on November 1, 2009
EmilyClimbs - as a few people noted above, it seems this change will lead to less favorites being given in general. I know I'm already less inclined to favorite things, because it seems pointless (even if there's an actual count going on somewhere, seeing no result of it isn't very motivating.)
So those of us who enjoy the way favorites work have something to lose, if this leads to other people favoriting things less. It is a group effort, after all.
Yeah, sure, I get that-- but I guess to me that seems like a "Well, it will likely lead to less favoriting and I think that will probably make my experience worse, but let's see how it goes and then if I feel like it's going badly I'll make that clear" kind of objection, rather than a "No, we should not try this at all, I just know it's going to be awful so please change it back immediately" objection. Heck, for all we know, maybe the certain type of users who are most likely to set favorite counts as visible (and/or most likely to use favorites regardless of whether the counts are visible) will do a much better job of IDing great comments than users at large, and people who like to view favorite counts will actually benefit from switching the default to favorites being non-visible. I mean, it totally makes sense to me that a lot of people prefer favorites to be visible by default, but it just seems strange that so many people feel it so intensely that they're upset by a limited trial period of doing it differently.
In fairness, they're having their experience impeded in the service of addressing possibly-hypothetical concerns felt deeply by only a small minority of the community. The creationists trying to get evolution banned from textbooks are a far more legitimate movement, mathematically. So it's not reasonable to ask us to embrace this as a necessary sacrifice.
Just curious, what are you basing this conclusion on? This is actually one of the reasons why I think it would be good to have an official opt-out option built in (aside from it making it more convenient for people who want to use the option)-- so we can track how many people choose to switch the favorites count view back on. (And what kinds of people-- those who are most active? people who use certain subsites? new people vs old people? that all would be totally fascinating to know.) But without that, I don't think we really know one way or another how most people feel. At most, we know that the majority of people who chose to comment on this post don't like it but I'm not sure how much that really tells us.
At the heart of this debate is the question of how Metafilter should be used. Taking away visible favorites can be seen as saying, "those of you who depend on visible favorites to use this site are doing it wrong." Even if a work-around is still possible, it's still a matter of what is presented as the appropriate way to be a member of this community.
I could totally see interpreting it that way that if this was an official permanent change-- but you really feel like a one month "let's see how things would be different if we changed X" experiment sends that message too? Not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely trying to understand.
posted by EmilyClimbs at 2:10 PM on November 1, 2009
So those of us who enjoy the way favorites work have something to lose, if this leads to other people favoriting things less. It is a group effort, after all.
Yeah, sure, I get that-- but I guess to me that seems like a "Well, it will likely lead to less favoriting and I think that will probably make my experience worse, but let's see how it goes and then if I feel like it's going badly I'll make that clear" kind of objection, rather than a "No, we should not try this at all, I just know it's going to be awful so please change it back immediately" objection. Heck, for all we know, maybe the certain type of users who are most likely to set favorite counts as visible (and/or most likely to use favorites regardless of whether the counts are visible) will do a much better job of IDing great comments than users at large, and people who like to view favorite counts will actually benefit from switching the default to favorites being non-visible. I mean, it totally makes sense to me that a lot of people prefer favorites to be visible by default, but it just seems strange that so many people feel it so intensely that they're upset by a limited trial period of doing it differently.
In fairness, they're having their experience impeded in the service of addressing possibly-hypothetical concerns felt deeply by only a small minority of the community. The creationists trying to get evolution banned from textbooks are a far more legitimate movement, mathematically. So it's not reasonable to ask us to embrace this as a necessary sacrifice.
Just curious, what are you basing this conclusion on? This is actually one of the reasons why I think it would be good to have an official opt-out option built in (aside from it making it more convenient for people who want to use the option)-- so we can track how many people choose to switch the favorites count view back on. (And what kinds of people-- those who are most active? people who use certain subsites? new people vs old people? that all would be totally fascinating to know.) But without that, I don't think we really know one way or another how most people feel. At most, we know that the majority of people who chose to comment on this post don't like it but I'm not sure how much that really tells us.
At the heart of this debate is the question of how Metafilter should be used. Taking away visible favorites can be seen as saying, "those of you who depend on visible favorites to use this site are doing it wrong." Even if a work-around is still possible, it's still a matter of what is presented as the appropriate way to be a member of this community.
I could totally see interpreting it that way that if this was an official permanent change-- but you really feel like a one month "let's see how things would be different if we changed X" experiment sends that message too? Not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely trying to understand.
posted by EmilyClimbs at 2:10 PM on November 1, 2009
We just added a new profile preference to show favorite counts on comments. To turn favorite counts back on click "Preferences" at the top or bottom of the page, and then click the checkbox next to "Show comment favorite counts?" Then click "Save Your Preferences" and you should see favorite counts on comments.
posted by pb (staff) at 2:10 PM on November 1, 2009 [62 favorites]
posted by pb (staff) at 2:10 PM on November 1, 2009 [62 favorites]
You know the thing I think is the funniest about this? Many people have come in begging for ways to revert to the old view, even though there are now multiple repeat comments explaining exactly how to do that. Of course, if this change were never implemented, those posts would be among the easiest ones to find. You want to talk about how favorites increase noise? This right here is a prime example of exactly the opposite.
posted by kingjoeshmoe at 2:11 PM on November 1, 2009 [16 favorites]
posted by kingjoeshmoe at 2:11 PM on November 1, 2009 [16 favorites]
I totally respect the decision of the mods to run this experiment, and I can only imagine the amount of thought and debate that went into it. Kudos to you guys for trying something new - it's the only way to find out whether something works, and regardless of the decision made in the end, at least people will appreciate what they had before.
That said, dear lord - I hate it. Like many others in this thread, I read Mefi comments by scanning for the highly-favorited ones; this change prevents me from doing that. Of course, that's the point - we're now supposed to read through all the comments so as to prevent group-think and give lower-rated comments more of a chance. The problem is, I don't want to do that.
It's not that I don't have enough time - if I really wanted to, I'd make time. I just know that it'd be a waste of my time, because generally I'm not interested in most comments. When favorites were introduced, I actually spent more time on Metafilter reading comments because I could skip to the more interesting ones. Yes, I'm sure I missed some hidden gems that weren't favorited, but I would never have looked at those threads anyway. And while I will read every single comment in a thread I'm interested in and posting in, that's quite rare.
Incidentally, and as others have mentioned, the system here was nothing like Kuro5hin or Slashdot; comments couldn't be demoted, plus we don't have threading (thank god). The notion that we were on some kind of slippery slope to their communities does a great disservice to the mods.
I've already installed Deathalicious' 'comment-bar' script, which has solved the problem for me, but the people who don't read this thread and aren't comfortable with installing those kind of extensions have no option. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that if I wasn't able to see the favorite-count, my use of Metafilter would plummet.
posted by adrianhon at 2:11 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
That said, dear lord - I hate it. Like many others in this thread, I read Mefi comments by scanning for the highly-favorited ones; this change prevents me from doing that. Of course, that's the point - we're now supposed to read through all the comments so as to prevent group-think and give lower-rated comments more of a chance. The problem is, I don't want to do that.
It's not that I don't have enough time - if I really wanted to, I'd make time. I just know that it'd be a waste of my time, because generally I'm not interested in most comments. When favorites were introduced, I actually spent more time on Metafilter reading comments because I could skip to the more interesting ones. Yes, I'm sure I missed some hidden gems that weren't favorited, but I would never have looked at those threads anyway. And while I will read every single comment in a thread I'm interested in and posting in, that's quite rare.
Incidentally, and as others have mentioned, the system here was nothing like Kuro5hin or Slashdot; comments couldn't be demoted, plus we don't have threading (thank god). The notion that we were on some kind of slippery slope to their communities does a great disservice to the mods.
I've already installed Deathalicious' 'comment-bar' script, which has solved the problem for me, but the people who don't read this thread and aren't comfortable with installing those kind of extensions have no option. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that if I wasn't able to see the favorite-count, my use of Metafilter would plummet.
posted by adrianhon at 2:11 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Ok, we've got a favorite counts on/off feature in the preferences working now and will show it off soon (possibly in a new metatalk thread). Please hold on and everyone will be welcome to use it shortly.
Thank you, mathowie. And thanks to whoever is implementing this (pb?). Great responsiveness, especially for a Sunday.
posted by Jaltcoh at 2:13 PM on November 1, 2009
Thank you, mathowie. And thanks to whoever is implementing this (pb?). Great responsiveness, especially for a Sunday.
posted by Jaltcoh at 2:13 PM on November 1, 2009
No go, pb. I clicked "save your preferences" and got this:
Error: File not found
Looks like you've asked for a file that doesn't exist, try out the search below to find what you are looking for, which searches across all the MetaFilter sites.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 2:14 PM on November 1, 2009
Error: File not found
Looks like you've asked for a file that doesn't exist, try out the search below to find what you are looking for, which searches across all the MetaFilter sites.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 2:14 PM on November 1, 2009
And thanks to whoever is implementing this (pb?).
Woops, just saw pb's comment. Make that just: thanks, pb.
posted by Jaltcoh at 2:14 PM on November 1, 2009
Woops, just saw pb's comment. Make that just: thanks, pb.
posted by Jaltcoh at 2:14 PM on November 1, 2009
Also, is anyone else surprised how cranky people get over something like this?
I am also surprised, though I really should not be. People here have far too much of their self-worth invested in little numbers on a screen.
All that the mods did was obscure the number itself. They didn't do away with the system. You can even see if a comment's been favorited or not. And that was enough to produce several hundred comments' worth of outrage.
If Matt sent checks for $100,000 to everyone who posted in a particular month, MetaTalk would light up with angry complaints
"Couldn't you have waited until the exchange rate was better?"
"GODDAMNIT, YOU MISSPELLED MY NAME ON THE CHECK!"
"Why did I only get $100,000, the exact same sum as some loser who only posted two pieces of drive-by snark? By rights, I'm really entitled to a lot more, and he's entitled to a whole lot less."
posted by jason's_planet at 2:14 PM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
I am also surprised, though I really should not be. People here have far too much of their self-worth invested in little numbers on a screen.
All that the mods did was obscure the number itself. They didn't do away with the system. You can even see if a comment's been favorited or not. And that was enough to produce several hundred comments' worth of outrage.
If Matt sent checks for $100,000 to everyone who posted in a particular month, MetaTalk would light up with angry complaints
"Couldn't you have waited until the exchange rate was better?"
"GODDAMNIT, YOU MISSPELLED MY NAME ON THE CHECK!"
"Why did I only get $100,000, the exact same sum as some loser who only posted two pieces of drive-by snark? By rights, I'm really entitled to a lot more, and he's entitled to a whole lot less."
posted by jason's_planet at 2:14 PM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
People keep mentioning community in defense of favouriting, and I certainly understand what they mean by this, but please understand that community is very close to group. If one falls outside the community, it's not a nice place to be.
By being able to see how many users here favourited a comment, I get a sense even before I read that comment* of how it has been received by the group (or community). In this thread, lots of people are saying that's great, that's how they know what comments to read, etc.
For anyone who doesn't agree with that community view however, this plus is a negative. That number/community viewpoint doesn't just affect what comments we choose to read, but how we approach or feel about the comment in the first place. Again, before we even read it.
For most people in this thread, that may be great. For me, it's poisoning my favourite (heh) site on the Internet.
*and how bizarre is it that we check the favourites number here before we read a comment?
posted by stinkycheese at 2:14 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
By being able to see how many users here favourited a comment, I get a sense even before I read that comment* of how it has been received by the group (or community). In this thread, lots of people are saying that's great, that's how they know what comments to read, etc.
For anyone who doesn't agree with that community view however, this plus is a negative. That number/community viewpoint doesn't just affect what comments we choose to read, but how we approach or feel about the comment in the first place. Again, before we even read it.
For most people in this thread, that may be great. For me, it's poisoning my favourite (heh) site on the Internet.
*and how bizarre is it that we check the favourites number here before we read a comment?
posted by stinkycheese at 2:14 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm genuinely amazed at the vehemence and vituperation in this thread. I knew a few people could be relied on to foam at the mouth over the issue of favorites, but I would never have thought it was such a hot button.
Given the history of complaints from the aforementioned comment's writer and a select few others who shall remain nameless, this is fairly ironic, to say the least.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:16 PM on November 1, 2009
Given the history of complaints from the aforementioned comment's writer and a select few others who shall remain nameless, this is fairly ironic, to say the least.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:16 PM on November 1, 2009
I really dislike this change. I've added a user stylesheet for this computer, but I read MeFi on many different computers, and my phone, so I'm still unhappy about the experiment.
posted by miskatonic at 2:16 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by miskatonic at 2:16 PM on November 1, 2009
Ok, we've got a favorite counts on/off feature in the preferences working now and will show it off soon (possibly in a new metatalk thread). Please hold on and everyone will be welcome to use it shortly.
Is this going to be defaulted as "on" or "off"? I vote "on", please.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:17 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Is this going to be defaulted as "on" or "off"? I vote "on", please.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:17 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Oh, I missed pb's comment as well. Hurr durr.
posted by miskatonic at 2:18 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by miskatonic at 2:18 PM on November 1, 2009
I was writing a comment about hwo this should be a profile option just like changing the font or inline youtube, since I'm one of those people at work who can't change anything (I only just got upgraded to ie7 last week). Looking at my edit profile page I see it there as an option, great, that totally makes sense and is where it should be. But selecting it and saving my preferences gives me an error message ("Error: File not found"). Is this just a feature in the process of being implemented or an actual bug? (I'm probably just being impatient again, heh)
Looking at my profile also reminds me how the +21 hours server offset was never added and metafilter is an hour behind where I live. I always forget so it can't be a big deal.
posted by shelleycat at 2:18 PM on November 1, 2009
Looking at my profile also reminds me how the +21 hours server offset was never added and metafilter is an hour behind where I live. I always forget so it can't be a big deal.
posted by shelleycat at 2:18 PM on November 1, 2009
Sorry about the error on profile save folks, it should be working now.
posted by pb (staff) at 2:20 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by pb (staff) at 2:20 PM on November 1, 2009
I still don't understand the purpose of having [faved] over having nothing at all.
I totally agree with this.
I'd also like to supplement my previous comment (a zillion comments ago) to say that I actually don't use favorites to skim, but I find them quite useful in assessing the tenor of a discussion. In general, a stupid Metafilter: ______ (one of my personal least favorite MeFi things) will get a few favorites (faves?), but a really thoughtful comment will often get 10 or more (depending of course on how popular/contentious the discussion is).
Point being, this flattening of Faves is worse than no Faving at all, because on a surface level, each of those comments is equally Faved.
(I really, really hate that word.)
I also don't really want to install a GreaseMonkey script. I know it's not hard, but I just don't want to and sort of feel like the functionality of favorites should either be adjusted to be more internally consistent or abandoned.
Plus, it's important to remember that most of the users here will probably not visit this thread in order to learn about the option, but just say to themselves "hmm, what's up with this Fave thing? Weird" and adjust to the new, less informative regime.
Finally, I am disappointed that Matt sees the ability to favorite a comment as echo-chambery, especially in the context of supporting individuals who speak out and make sometimes-unpopular comments in contentious threads.
posted by miss tea at 2:20 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I totally agree with this.
I'd also like to supplement my previous comment (a zillion comments ago) to say that I actually don't use favorites to skim, but I find them quite useful in assessing the tenor of a discussion. In general, a stupid Metafilter: ______ (one of my personal least favorite MeFi things) will get a few favorites (faves?), but a really thoughtful comment will often get 10 or more (depending of course on how popular/contentious the discussion is).
Point being, this flattening of Faves is worse than no Faving at all, because on a surface level, each of those comments is equally Faved.
(I really, really hate that word.)
I also don't really want to install a GreaseMonkey script. I know it's not hard, but I just don't want to and sort of feel like the functionality of favorites should either be adjusted to be more internally consistent or abandoned.
Plus, it's important to remember that most of the users here will probably not visit this thread in order to learn about the option, but just say to themselves "hmm, what's up with this Fave thing? Weird" and adjust to the new, less informative regime.
Finally, I am disappointed that Matt sees the ability to favorite a comment as echo-chambery, especially in the context of supporting individuals who speak out and make sometimes-unpopular comments in contentious threads.
posted by miss tea at 2:20 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
So, I'm going to keep favorites on at my home computer, and off at my work computer this month. (I use them in basically equal amounts.)
Right now: I like favorites. I think they should stay. I'll see what I think at the end of the month.
posted by ocherdraco at 2:20 PM on November 1, 2009
Right now: I like favorites. I think they should stay. I'll see what I think at the end of the month.
posted by ocherdraco at 2:20 PM on November 1, 2009
that option box should really say "BANISH THE WORD 'FAVE' FROM YOUR COMPUTER?"
posted by The Whelk at 2:20 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by The Whelk at 2:20 PM on November 1, 2009
It'll be default to "off" for November, hence the experiment can continue AND we can measure how many members opt out.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:21 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:21 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Oh, while I was writing my comment then deleting and writing a new one this feature was announced. Is there something I need to do to make it show up?
posted by shelleycat at 2:21 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by shelleycat at 2:21 PM on November 1, 2009
I think now that it was off, then on, then off and then on again the word should be...
wait for it...
favred.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 2:22 PM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
wait for it...
favred.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 2:22 PM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
Cool, can't wait to see how the experiment turns out.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:22 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:22 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Thank you for the option. I am about to opt out. However, I will also be keeping the CSS workaround in place, because I often browse the site without being logged in.
I'm mostly just opting out to register the fact that I have opted out, for purposes of the experiment.
posted by Flunkie at 2:22 PM on November 1, 2009
I'm mostly just opting out to register the fact that I have opted out, for purposes of the experiment.
posted by Flunkie at 2:22 PM on November 1, 2009
Ok, I was getting the same error crash davis reported but just now it went through and I can see the numerals again here. Yay! Thanks for the fix guys. Thanks for everything, matt, jess, cortex, pb, & vacapinta! HUGS ALL AROUND!
posted by Liver at 2:22 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Liver at 2:22 PM on November 1, 2009
By being able to see how many users here favourited a comment, I get a sense even before I read that comment* of how it has been received by the group (or community).
And sometimes the comments that aren't going to be well-received by the community are the ones that the community most needs to hear.
posted by jason's_planet at 2:23 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
And sometimes the comments that aren't going to be well-received by the community are the ones that the community most needs to hear.
posted by jason's_planet at 2:23 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
favred.
What does Brett Favre have to do with MeFi?
posted by Forktine at 2:23 PM on November 1, 2009
What does Brett Favre have to do with MeFi?
posted by Forktine at 2:23 PM on November 1, 2009
If new users' preferences default to hiding favorite counts, will they also default to a professional white background?
posted by oaf at 2:24 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by oaf at 2:24 PM on November 1, 2009
I am strongly in favor of both the new preference option for favorite count display and the default setting being "off." Power users get to keep their skimming, but we get the benefits of not having discourse affected (by default) by favorite-seeking behavior.
posted by anifinder at 2:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by anifinder at 2:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
And sometimes the comments that aren't going to be well-received by the community are the ones that the community most needs to hear.
Like what?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Like what?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
/celebrating Thank You For Always Trying To Improve The Community Week.
/but is still tired from Anxiety With Change Day.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 2:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
/but is still tired from Anxiety With Change Day.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 2:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
(And in terms of the grand experiment, having some idea of how many people are opting in each direction should be useful.)
I actually think it might ruin the experiment (the greasemonkey script too). If half of the prolific users are using the site exactly as it was before, we'll probably see no change to the sorts of discussions being had. The hypothesis isn't that obscuring favorites leads to a better user experience if others have access to favorites; it's that if we abolish favorites entirely, discussion will improve. This is why in threads on the subject in the past, all the greasemonkey suggestions (such as the one that lets individual users hide their favorite counts) miss the point entirely.
posted by painquale at 2:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I actually think it might ruin the experiment (the greasemonkey script too). If half of the prolific users are using the site exactly as it was before, we'll probably see no change to the sorts of discussions being had. The hypothesis isn't that obscuring favorites leads to a better user experience if others have access to favorites; it's that if we abolish favorites entirely, discussion will improve. This is why in threads on the subject in the past, all the greasemonkey suggestions (such as the one that lets individual users hide their favorite counts) miss the point entirely.
posted by painquale at 2:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I would hope there could be a link on the main page to this train wreckthread where folks could find out about the preference option? You still get the experiment, surely, but I'd have to imagine you'd get "What? Fave? Where's my pony?" posts every few minutes/hours/days..
posted by cavalier at 2:25 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by cavalier at 2:25 PM on November 1, 2009
like bristolcat, I think it's lame to make users figure out greasemonkey to get the old behavior. I think all this talk by the mods about options and default experience is bogus. These are euphemisms and more honest language would be "We changed the way the site looks. If you want it some other way, all you have to do is modify your web browser [assuming you use one that supports that feature.]" I read metafilter on about six computers including my smart phone using firefox 1 through firefox 3 and elinks [which certainly doesn't support this kind of page modification]. I am loathe to figure out and install greasemonkey on all those versions of firefox. I wouldn't mind setting a preference on my account, but that would mean I would always need to log in, which I typically don't bother to do unless I want to post.
So I guess like so many others I'd rather not have the change be the default. If it must be the default I'd like an option in preferences to revert it.
(Also, it is a very minor thing, but I agree that "faved" is not a word.)
posted by fritley at 2:26 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
So I guess like so many others I'd rather not have the change be the default. If it must be the default I'd like an option in preferences to revert it.
(Also, it is a very minor thing, but I agree that "faved" is not a word.)
posted by fritley at 2:26 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
So, after favoriting everything in protest, now that things are back to normal, I feel like favoriting everything in celebration.
I think I'm going to go get a drink of water.
posted by oaf at 2:26 PM on November 1, 2009
I think I'm going to go get a drink of water.
posted by oaf at 2:26 PM on November 1, 2009
It is working now. I'm both impatient AND slow.
The reason I've turned the numbers back on for now at least is that having a whole thread where something like 98% of the comments have 'faved' next to them, which is what much of this thread looks like, becomes meaningless. That word alone just adds noise and I'd rather get rid it all together than having it tacked on everywhere. At least the numbers give the whole thing purpose. I'll probably try turning it off again later in the month when I'm feeling more up for trying something new.
posted by shelleycat at 2:26 PM on November 1, 2009
The reason I've turned the numbers back on for now at least is that having a whole thread where something like 98% of the comments have 'faved' next to them, which is what much of this thread looks like, becomes meaningless. That word alone just adds noise and I'd rather get rid it all together than having it tacked on everywhere. At least the numbers give the whole thing purpose. I'll probably try turning it off again later in the month when I'm feeling more up for trying something new.
posted by shelleycat at 2:26 PM on November 1, 2009
Thank you for adding the preference back.
posted by kingjoeshmoe at 2:26 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by kingjoeshmoe at 2:26 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
cavalier, there is a link to my comment about disabling the experiment from the top of the MetaTalk front page.
posted by pb (staff) at 2:26 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by pb (staff) at 2:26 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
whether it's possible that we've reached a size where no change can happen because there's going to be enough people feeling strongly on both sides of any decision that if we take the position of "stay the course" every time, we'll go noplace.
I think we got the answer to that question. Other people will disagree, though.
posted by Houstonian at 2:27 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think we got the answer to that question. Other people will disagree, though.
posted by Houstonian at 2:27 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Can I suggest that this thread, or at least a mention of the change and an indication that opt-out is now possible via a preference setting, be sidebarred or otherwise noted on the front pages of MeFi and AxMe? Obviously it's a small (though loud) minority of us who tend to frequent MetaTalk threads, so mentions elsewhere would be helpful to those who don't often wade into the Gray.
posted by killdevil at 2:28 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by killdevil at 2:28 PM on November 1, 2009
I'd just like to point out that this thread is a perfect demonstration of the uselessness of the new system in terms of conveying information about comment quality or if people agree with someone, as probably greater than 80% of the comments have been "faved".
If the intention behind favorites is not for people to express agreement or interest or whatever, and rather to serve merely as a personal bookmark then favorites should just be hidden altogether behind the comments. As it stands now the "faved" indication is just clutter.
Furthermore the new system has undoubtedly made this thread more unwieldy because if anyone else is like me they no longer see the point in adding a favorite to something that has been faved if its not just for personal bookmark purposes. So instead of finding the post that best articulates my sentiment and adding my support, I'm instead just extending the threads length with my opinion hoping that it will be heard.
On preview maybe it's a preference now? Sweet!
posted by 12%juicepulp at 2:28 PM on November 1, 2009
If the intention behind favorites is not for people to express agreement or interest or whatever, and rather to serve merely as a personal bookmark then favorites should just be hidden altogether behind the comments. As it stands now the "faved" indication is just clutter.
Furthermore the new system has undoubtedly made this thread more unwieldy because if anyone else is like me they no longer see the point in adding a favorite to something that has been faved if its not just for personal bookmark purposes. So instead of finding the post that best articulates my sentiment and adding my support, I'm instead just extending the threads length with my opinion hoping that it will be heard.
On preview maybe it's a preference now? Sweet!
posted by 12%juicepulp at 2:28 PM on November 1, 2009
jason's_planet: I am also surprised, though I really should not be. People here have far too much of their self-worth invested in little numbers on a screen.
This is either an uncharitable reading or a misreading entirely of the heart of the objection here. I think the vast majority of people who are objecting to not seeing numbers of favorites are not objecting because that little number no longer appears next to our own names; we are objecting to the fact that the number no longer appears next to comments made by users other than ourselves. This affects the usefulness of the site.
I admit it's nice to get favorites for my own comments, but that has little to no effect on the usefulness of the site for me, and therefore, those are not the grounds of my objection.
posted by scody at 2:28 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
This is either an uncharitable reading or a misreading entirely of the heart of the objection here. I think the vast majority of people who are objecting to not seeing numbers of favorites are not objecting because that little number no longer appears next to our own names; we are objecting to the fact that the number no longer appears next to comments made by users other than ourselves. This affects the usefulness of the site.
I admit it's nice to get favorites for my own comments, but that has little to no effect on the usefulness of the site for me, and therefore, those are not the grounds of my objection.
posted by scody at 2:28 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Yay! I'm very glad to have the favorite count back. Hugs to all.
The only thing is, I had just found this lovely Greasemonkey script by pronoiac which let me change "faved" to "butts lol." And I was kind of looking forward to having that for a month. Oh well.
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 2:29 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
The only thing is, I had just found this lovely Greasemonkey script by pronoiac which let me change "faved" to "butts lol." And I was kind of looking forward to having that for a month. Oh well.
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 2:29 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I'd be happy with the whole scheme being completely gone, but I've been here pre-2006. Also highly amused at those who can't cope with temporary changes.
posted by keli at 2:29 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by keli at 2:29 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
A quick observation from someone's who's been out hiking for 3 days, came back and discovered this an hour ago.
To me, it feels more like voting than the previous system did.
The binary state of "this comment was faved, this comment wasn't" actually feels more judgmental than the continuous "this is just a comment, this comment has 2 favourites, this comment has 20 favourites" system.
Maybe that's just me.
posted by Jimbob at 2:30 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
To me, it feels more like voting than the previous system did.
The binary state of "this comment was faved, this comment wasn't" actually feels more judgmental than the continuous "this is just a comment, this comment has 2 favourites, this comment has 20 favourites" system.
Maybe that's just me.
posted by Jimbob at 2:30 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
"fave" did not play well with the focus group
posted by found missing at 2:30 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by found missing at 2:30 PM on November 1, 2009
And sometimes the comments that aren't going to be well-received by the community are the ones that the community most needs to hear.
Like what?
Criticisms, differing perspectives.
posted by jason's_planet at 2:31 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Like what?
Criticisms, differing perspectives.
posted by jason's_planet at 2:31 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
It'll be default to "off" for NovemberAssuming that the experiment shows that the change is, generally speaking, a failure, what does this mean for December? I assume it defaults to "on". But for whom? Just new users who have registered in December or later? Or will it suddenly flip to "on" for everybody who currently has it "off"?
Unless you actually know who has and has not explicitly set it, which I don't see how you can know, generally speaking (since there's just one "save preferences" button which affects all preferences).
posted by Flunkie at 2:31 PM on November 1, 2009
Jimbob, but you do like "fave," right?
posted by Houstonian at 2:32 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Houstonian at 2:32 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I actually think it might ruin the experiment (the greasemonkey script too). If half of the prolific users are using the site exactly as it was before, we'll probably see no change to the sorts of discussions being had. The hypothesis isn't that obscuring favorites leads to a better user experience if others have access to favorites; it's that if we abolish favorites entirely, discussion will improve. This is why in threads on the subject in the past, all the greasemonkey suggestions (such as the one that lets individual users hide their favorite counts) miss the point entirely.
Yes. The argument is that discussions will improve when the reward for a good contribution is further engagement in the conversation instead of a sign of approval from the crowd. Having a work-around completely subverts that possibility.
posted by BigSky at 2:33 PM on November 1, 2009
Yes. The argument is that discussions will improve when the reward for a good contribution is further engagement in the conversation instead of a sign of approval from the crowd. Having a work-around completely subverts that possibility.
posted by BigSky at 2:33 PM on November 1, 2009
This is a good thing. I've always hated how favorites added a bandwagon element to debates on MeFi. Over the years, it's really made me lose interest in discussions where I hold the minority opinion. I mean, it's one thing to see a bunch of people disagreeing with you. It's another thing to see 45 people "me too!" a particularly biting remark. I know some people out there think it's perfectly reasonable to punish people with the "wrong" ideas, but all that really does is turn the conversation into an echo chamber.
So perhaps I'll start joining in debates again, although there's a good chance that my previous experiences have irrevocably soured me. Too many pile-ons.
posted by Afroblanco at 2:34 PM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
So perhaps I'll start joining in debates again, although there's a good chance that my previous experiences have irrevocably soured me. Too many pile-ons.
posted by Afroblanco at 2:34 PM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
I could totally see interpreting it that way that if this was an official permanent change-- but you really feel like a one month "let's see how things would be different if we changed X" experiment sends that message too? Not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely trying to understand.
Suppose you're a member of a club, and one day the club announces it's going to kick you out for a month in order to see if that improves things.
I'm not saying that's really the best way to interpret this, but I can at least imagines that's how someone who uses favorites regularly might feel.
posted by Ms. Saint at 2:34 PM on November 1, 2009
Suppose you're a member of a club, and one day the club announces it's going to kick you out for a month in order to see if that improves things.
I'm not saying that's really the best way to interpret this, but I can at least imagines that's how someone who uses favorites regularly might feel.
posted by Ms. Saint at 2:34 PM on November 1, 2009
"fave" did not play well with the focus group
The development of a Greasemonkey script allowing "butts lol" to be substituted for "faves" may well be the most redeeming aspect of the situation.
posted by killdevil at 2:35 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
The development of a Greasemonkey script allowing "butts lol" to be substituted for "faves" may well be the most redeeming aspect of the situation.
posted by killdevil at 2:35 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
December we should have an experiment where a script just assigns a number of favourites between one and a shedload to comments selected at random. See if the discussion survives that.
posted by Abiezer at 2:38 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Abiezer at 2:38 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
what does this mean for December? I assume it defaults to "on". But for whom?
In December, it's likely the preference will go away and we'll go back to how things were, if that seems like the best option. We'll change stuff next month, most likely to something close to what was there (with knowledge gained from a month-long experiment, we might change stuff it's way too early to tell barely more than a dozen hours into the first day of the month).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:40 PM on November 1, 2009
In December, it's likely the preference will go away and we'll go back to how things were, if that seems like the best option. We'll change stuff next month, most likely to something close to what was there (with knowledge gained from a month-long experiment, we might change stuff it's way too early to tell barely more than a dozen hours into the first day of the month).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:40 PM on November 1, 2009
Thanks mods! No longer will the scourge of faved haunt every comment.
posted by iamabot at 2:40 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by iamabot at 2:40 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'll play along with the experiment for a month, as I am spending half the month in the Arctic anyway.
I definitely fave a "butts lol" option on every comment.
I heart faves.
posted by fourcheesemac at 2:43 PM on November 1, 2009
I definitely fave a "butts lol" option on every comment.
I heart faves.
posted by fourcheesemac at 2:43 PM on November 1, 2009
By golly, I liked the old preferences page just the way it is. How dare you people try and add a new checkbox what the hell is wrong with you what the FUCK is wrong with you MAN I HAVE SO MANY OPINIONS ABOUT THIS CHECKBOX RIGHT N--
--etc. etc.
posted by shadytrees at 2:45 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
--etc. etc.
posted by shadytrees at 2:45 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Ok, we've got a favorite counts on/off feature in the preferences working now and will show it off soon (possibly in a new metatalk thread). Please hold on and everyone will be welcome to use it shortly.
I'm willing to wait half an hour longer for that if it gives you time to turn off the "month-long experiment" first.
posted by gum at 2:46 PM on November 1, 2009
Now that there's a built-in preference option, I'd like to see the "faved" indicator disappear altogether when display is set to "off" and I haven't favorited a comment. If I favorite, then have it say "faved" or "favorited" or whatever you want to call it.
posted by anifinder at 2:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by anifinder at 2:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
My husband now has a greasemonkey script to change "favorite" and "fave" to "bean" and every time he reads a comment that has any number of favorites, he giggles and wakes the cat.
help meeeeeeeeeeee
posted by subbes at 2:49 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
help meeeeeeeeeeee
posted by subbes at 2:49 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'll just say dersins articulated my feelings about this around....180 comments or so ago.
posted by marxchivist at 2:50 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by marxchivist at 2:50 PM on November 1, 2009
Wow. At least now I know why it seems increasingly like people have been commenting without reading the thread--apparently many many of you are and now you're pissed that skimming requires slightly more effort than it used it.
I am not here for high fives and snark, I'm here for conversation. Those of you who are skimming by favorites are not really engaging in a conversation. The rest of the internet is a great place for that--people shouting over each other and the loudest voice wins is what the internet has mostly become. Can't we have Metafilter as the one place on the internet where people actually do read what other people are writing, follow the flow of a conversation, not just the popular comments, and respond to the conversation as a whole? And can't we allow the mods one little experiment for 30 days to try fix that?
Or, to be more blunt, why should I read your comment if you couldn't be arsed to read mine because it didn't get all faved?
posted by hydropsyche at 2:52 PM on November 1, 2009 [20 favorites]
I am not here for high fives and snark, I'm here for conversation. Those of you who are skimming by favorites are not really engaging in a conversation. The rest of the internet is a great place for that--people shouting over each other and the loudest voice wins is what the internet has mostly become. Can't we have Metafilter as the one place on the internet where people actually do read what other people are writing, follow the flow of a conversation, not just the popular comments, and respond to the conversation as a whole? And can't we allow the mods one little experiment for 30 days to try fix that?
Or, to be more blunt, why should I read your comment if you couldn't be arsed to read mine because it didn't get all faved?
posted by hydropsyche at 2:52 PM on November 1, 2009 [20 favorites]
Sarah Palin favorited this thread.
posted by evilmidnightbomberwhatbombsatmidnight at 2:55 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by evilmidnightbomberwhatbombsatmidnight at 2:55 PM on November 1, 2009
our long fave nightmare is over.
kudos to the mods for responding well to community disappointment with the new pref option.
posted by modernnomad at 2:57 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
kudos to the mods for responding well to community disappointment with the new pref option.
posted by modernnomad at 2:57 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
You know what - for a month, it's a really, really interesting experiment, and I applaud the mods for rocking the boat and trying it out. Trying it out unilaterally, not just offering it to a self-selecting group (of johnny-no-faves).
It will be really interesting to see how it affects favouriting behaviour. Because we all know favourites is a catch-all for a stack of different words and actions, and the current use has grown around a kludge.
I was freaked out when I first saw this. But on reflection, as a grown up and thinking a minute, I can see what a fascinating experiment it will be, and what a good place this is for it to take place. I do hope the resulting data are shared, as I think they'll provide a unique outcome and insight. And yes, they will.
just a month, you say?
posted by davemee at 2:58 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
It will be really interesting to see how it affects favouriting behaviour. Because we all know favourites is a catch-all for a stack of different words and actions, and the current use has grown around a kludge.
I was freaked out when I first saw this. But on reflection, as a grown up and thinking a minute, I can see what a fascinating experiment it will be, and what a good place this is for it to take place. I do hope the resulting data are shared, as I think they'll provide a unique outcome and insight. And yes, they will.
just a month, you say?
posted by davemee at 2:58 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Thanks to the moderators for listening to the community on this one.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:58 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:58 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Or, to be more blunt, why should I read your comment if you couldn't be arsed to read mine because it didn't get all faved?
A user-led option would be for one or more people to delete all the favorites they put on comments. This might lead to a Great Unwinding as people delete their favorites to the first person/people to show disapproval, and then ultimately might lead to favorites not being as valuable or useful.
If people don't give favorites, favorites will lose their value.
posted by Houstonian at 2:59 PM on November 1, 2009
A user-led option would be for one or more people to delete all the favorites they put on comments. This might lead to a Great Unwinding as people delete their favorites to the first person/people to show disapproval, and then ultimately might lead to favorites not being as valuable or useful.
If people don't give favorites, favorites will lose their value.
posted by Houstonian at 2:59 PM on November 1, 2009
hydropsyche: Speaking for myself, if I'm commenting in a thread, I'll read all the comments; to do otherwise is rude and thoughtless, as you say. I am not convinced that this change to the favoriting system will make those people suddenly become avid readers of threads before they post.
But if I'm reading a thread that I don't intend to comment in, I'll just skim the highly-favorited ones, and it harms no-one (other than potentially myself, and I'd argue the opposite); this change made that behaviour impossible.
(until the mods made a new preference option, which is cool, but the whole thing still bothers me).
posted by adrianhon at 2:59 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
But if I'm reading a thread that I don't intend to comment in, I'll just skim the highly-favorited ones, and it harms no-one (other than potentially myself, and I'd argue the opposite); this change made that behaviour impossible.
(until the mods made a new preference option, which is cool, but the whole thing still bothers me).
posted by adrianhon at 2:59 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Ok, we've got a favorite counts on/off feature in the preferences working now and will show it off soon (possibly in a new metatalk thread). Please hold on and everyone will be welcome to use it shortly.
Thank you.
I typing up the following leave for when I disabled my account for the month of November:
Thank you.
I typing up the following leave for when I disabled my account for the month of November:
I'm really pissed off about the change to Favorites, particularly in light of my proposed to the Recent Activity page being rejected just because Matt doesn't like it. I was annoyed when it was originally rejected, but figure hey, it's Matt's site and everything can't be the way I would like, eh, I'll live.posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:01 PM on November 1, 2009
Then to have the Favorites experiment foisted upon me (and yes, I'm speaking only for myself here and goddamnit, I'm not a guinea pig) feels...wrong. I can't change the UI to suit my needs or get it changed to suit them, but changes can and will be made without my consent? Sure, that's part of the community site, not everyone can be made happy by everything and not all change is bad. But this one really rankles me and I don't want to participate (I loathe the word "faved" with a fiery hot passion) So with that in mind, I'm ducking out for November, will check back in December.
Yes, I may come crawling back before then, but for now I'm so pissed about this unwelcomed change that I don't want to commit much time or energy to caring about the site since one day I make wake to discover I'm part of an experiment.
Therefore I stand by my assumption that this was done not to improve the site but to shut someone (or somepeople) up about the frikkin Favorites numbers. Which it seems to be doing nicely.
Does it help at all if I plainly assert that that's not the case? Because that's not the case. We're really not pulling some "ha ha, you got what you asked for, now suck it" shit here. It's a good-faith experiment.
It does make me wonder, however, if we are now going to try and parse motivation when a user favorites a lot of comments in a thread - do they just like to favorite lots of stuff, or are they trying to obscure "truly" popular comments?
It's kind of a given that some folks will be idiosyncratic about any given feature, whether it's favoriting or flagging or commenting or what they do with their profile page or whatever. At a basic level, we're not too worried about it if someone doesn't seem to be actively trying to cause grief, though we'll talk to someone if their idiosyncrasies seem to be actively causing a problem.
I appreciate the apology re: the stunt faving in here. I'm not angry about it or anything, really, and I can understand how it can happen, but, yeah, it's really not a productive approach to the discussion and I do really appreciate you coming around on it.
favred.
Heh.
If half of the prolific users are using the site exactly as it was before, we'll probably see no change to the sorts of discussions being had.
True, and my preference is that anyone who can stand it at all try giving the no-count thing a shot for as much of the month as they can because I'd really like to have feedback from the deeply skeptical along with that from the willing. But if what we learn is that a really, really big share of the active userbase decides they can't stand the change, that's useful information.
As far as that goes, I'd encourage anyone who has opted for a stylesheet solution in these first dozen+ hours to consider going ahead and using the native option we've added, since having some idea of the hard numbers would be useful. And, again, if you're willing to give it a shot without the counts to try and get a sense of how you feel about it from some regular use, that'd be great and we'd appreciate it.
Assuming that the experiment shows that the change is, generally speaking, a failure, what does this mean for December? I assume it defaults to "on". But for whom? Just new users who have registered in December or later? Or will it suddenly flip to "on" for everybody who currently has it "off"?
It'll default to "off" for everybody. Anybody who wants to turn counts on can now do so natively, regardless of their browser and without the need for third party scripts or css hacking.
Unless you actually know who has and has not explicitly set it, which I don't see how you can know, generally speaking (since there's just one "save preferences" button which affects all preferences).
AFAIK we can tell who has set it and who has not. pb can answer this more authoritatively.
I'm really pissed off about the change to Favorites, particularly in light of my proposed to the Recent Activity page being rejected just because Matt doesn't like it. I was annoyed when it was originally rejected, but figure hey, it's Matt's site and everything can't be the way I would like, eh, I'll live.
Brandon, I love you to death and value the hell out of your contributions here, but I do want to say that independent of the weird bumpiness of this thread in general I feel like you've taken that specific feature request denial really personally and are kind of dwelling on it in a way that's out of proportion with what actually went down.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:07 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Does it help at all if I plainly assert that that's not the case? Because that's not the case. We're really not pulling some "ha ha, you got what you asked for, now suck it" shit here. It's a good-faith experiment.
It does make me wonder, however, if we are now going to try and parse motivation when a user favorites a lot of comments in a thread - do they just like to favorite lots of stuff, or are they trying to obscure "truly" popular comments?
It's kind of a given that some folks will be idiosyncratic about any given feature, whether it's favoriting or flagging or commenting or what they do with their profile page or whatever. At a basic level, we're not too worried about it if someone doesn't seem to be actively trying to cause grief, though we'll talk to someone if their idiosyncrasies seem to be actively causing a problem.
I appreciate the apology re: the stunt faving in here. I'm not angry about it or anything, really, and I can understand how it can happen, but, yeah, it's really not a productive approach to the discussion and I do really appreciate you coming around on it.
favred.
Heh.
If half of the prolific users are using the site exactly as it was before, we'll probably see no change to the sorts of discussions being had.
True, and my preference is that anyone who can stand it at all try giving the no-count thing a shot for as much of the month as they can because I'd really like to have feedback from the deeply skeptical along with that from the willing. But if what we learn is that a really, really big share of the active userbase decides they can't stand the change, that's useful information.
As far as that goes, I'd encourage anyone who has opted for a stylesheet solution in these first dozen+ hours to consider going ahead and using the native option we've added, since having some idea of the hard numbers would be useful. And, again, if you're willing to give it a shot without the counts to try and get a sense of how you feel about it from some regular use, that'd be great and we'd appreciate it.
Assuming that the experiment shows that the change is, generally speaking, a failure, what does this mean for December? I assume it defaults to "on". But for whom? Just new users who have registered in December or later? Or will it suddenly flip to "on" for everybody who currently has it "off"?
It'll default to "off" for everybody. Anybody who wants to turn counts on can now do so natively, regardless of their browser and without the need for third party scripts or css hacking.
Unless you actually know who has and has not explicitly set it, which I don't see how you can know, generally speaking (since there's just one "save preferences" button which affects all preferences).
AFAIK we can tell who has set it and who has not. pb can answer this more authoritatively.
I'm really pissed off about the change to Favorites, particularly in light of my proposed to the Recent Activity page being rejected just because Matt doesn't like it. I was annoyed when it was originally rejected, but figure hey, it's Matt's site and everything can't be the way I would like, eh, I'll live.
Brandon, I love you to death and value the hell out of your contributions here, but I do want to say that independent of the weird bumpiness of this thread in general I feel like you've taken that specific feature request denial really personally and are kind of dwelling on it in a way that's out of proportion with what actually went down.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:07 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
I just want to point out that I'm pissed I came into this so late and didn't get one of the free faves that empath was handing out.
Now, it's back to the middle of the thread, because I am determined to read at least a few words from every comment ... because, somehow it eases the pain of being alive.
posted by philip-random at 3:07 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Now, it's back to the middle of the thread, because I am determined to read at least a few words from every comment ... because, somehow it eases the pain of being alive.
posted by philip-random at 3:07 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Thanks for the preferences option.
posted by marxchivist at 3:08 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by marxchivist at 3:08 PM on November 1, 2009
And yeah, what Matt said: our default assumption going into this is that things will revert to exactly how they were before, pending some compelling reason to make any changes/tweaks once the thing has actually run its course. The default assumption is most certainly not that this is a coy way to make the change permanent.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:10 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:10 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Could anyone point me to any particular comment or comments where the case AGAINST displaying a favorites count is well-stated?
posted by jayder at 3:11 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by jayder at 3:11 PM on November 1, 2009
Wow. At least now I know why it seems increasingly like people have been commenting without reading the thread--apparently many many of you are and now you're pissed that skimming requires slightly more effort than it used it.
Oh sweet, delicious irony-- I love you so.
Which is to say, hydropsyche, that if you had in fact bothered to read the entire thread you would have noted a not insignificant number of people remarking that they use visible favorites to enhance their reading of an entire thread, rather than subsitute for reading an entire thread.
Just, y'know, an FYI since you clearly didn't have time to read the entire thread but felt the need to comment anyway.
That said, thank you very much to mathowie and pb for responding to the community's call and providing an opt-out option. Can we assume that an opt-out will be taken as a "vote against," and if so should those of us who'd installed one of the Greasemonkey or CSS-based workarounds also opt out in our preferences in order to ensure that our feeling are known to you?
posted by dersins at 3:14 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Oh sweet, delicious irony-- I love you so.
Which is to say, hydropsyche, that if you had in fact bothered to read the entire thread you would have noted a not insignificant number of people remarking that they use visible favorites to enhance their reading of an entire thread, rather than subsitute for reading an entire thread.
Just, y'know, an FYI since you clearly didn't have time to read the entire thread but felt the need to comment anyway.
That said, thank you very much to mathowie and pb for responding to the community's call and providing an opt-out option. Can we assume that an opt-out will be taken as a "vote against," and if so should those of us who'd installed one of the Greasemonkey or CSS-based workarounds also opt out in our preferences in order to ensure that our feeling are known to you?
posted by dersins at 3:14 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
It'll default to "off" for everybody. Anybody who wants to turn counts on can now do so natively, regardless of their browser and without the need for third party scripts or css hacking.Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but wouldn't that make it a permanent change rather than a month-long experiment? Also, isn't that pretty much the opposite of what mathowie said would happen in December?
AFAIK we can tell who has set it and who has not. pb can answer this more authoritatively.Maybe I'm misunderstanding this too, but I don't see how it's even possible.
Let's say I go into my preferences and change my website. I then click "save preferences".
How do you know whether I explicitly decided to set this new setting to be off, or whether I just left it off without even knowing I had a choice?
posted by Flunkie at 3:14 PM on November 1, 2009
"I beg to differ. See, for example, the 47 comment-by-comment responses from koeselitz above, taking people to task for reading the site "wrong"."
Yeah, your Foamometer is calibrated too sensitively. He disagreed, strongly at points, but only really went too far on one comment. The anti folks have been fairly cogent and calm about the whole thing.
"If only there were some way for them to express their agreement in a less obtrusive manner."
Psh. Like I care whether people blurt out their inarticulate opinions. I have a liberal arts degree; I learned to skim long before favorites.
posted by klangklangston at 3:15 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Yeah, your Foamometer is calibrated too sensitively. He disagreed, strongly at points, but only really went too far on one comment. The anti folks have been fairly cogent and calm about the whole thing.
"If only there were some way for them to express their agreement in a less obtrusive manner."
Psh. Like I care whether people blurt out their inarticulate opinions. I have a liberal arts degree; I learned to skim long before favorites.
posted by klangklangston at 3:15 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
And yeah, what Matt said: our default assumption going into this is that things will revert to exactly how they were before, pending some compelling reason to make any changes/tweaks once the thing has actually run its course. The default assumption is most certainly not that this is a coy way to make the change permanent.Then I'm definitely misunderstanding what you said in your post prior to this one: "It'll default to 'off' for everybody", in response to "What will happen in December".
posted by Flunkie at 3:16 PM on November 1, 2009
I'm enjoying the experiment so far. I'm surprised by how much I had been inadvertently skimming by favorites-count, and how much I was influenced by seeing what was very popular.
It's been cool to read threads without visible favorites. Clicking on the "faved" to see how many favorites a comment has, I have been surprised by how often an excellent comment turns out to have only one favorite. There are a lot of good comments I would have skipped over.
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
It's been cool to read threads without visible favorites. Clicking on the "faved" to see how many favorites a comment has, I have been surprised by how often an excellent comment turns out to have only one favorite. There are a lot of good comments I would have skipped over.
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
Thank you.
That New Coke Faver had bad aftertaste.
posted by meerkatty at 3:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
That New Coke Faver had bad aftertaste.
posted by meerkatty at 3:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
At the end of the month, you should also poll non-users. It takes some time before people move from actively browsing the site to paying and signing up. Those that don't have a preference pane have no choice on the matter currently (and are highly unlikely to install greasemonkey and set it up properly), which may have an impact on signups. Perhaps a front-page link to a poll at the end of the month that includes both users and non-users (giving a different link for each) may be helpful in gauging the majority opinion?
posted by amuseDetachment at 3:16 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by amuseDetachment at 3:16 PM on November 1, 2009
Thank you for the option in Preferences. I've checked it.
Count me in the "don't like the faves" group. Given the choice, I'll always pick more information over less.
posted by fiercecupcake at 3:16 PM on November 1, 2009
Count me in the "don't like the faves" group. Given the choice, I'll always pick more information over less.
posted by fiercecupcake at 3:16 PM on November 1, 2009
Thank you mods for giving the Wahhhmbulance drivers a much needed break.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:18 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by P.o.B. at 3:18 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Upon further reflection, maybe you (cortex) are considering "off" to mean "turn the new behavior off", whereas I am considering "off" to mean "turn the checkbox off" (which is equivalent to "turn the new behavior on")?
posted by Flunkie at 3:18 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Flunkie at 3:18 PM on November 1, 2009
Finally, I am disappointed that Matt sees the ability to favorite a comment as echo-chambery, especially in the context of supporting individuals who speak out and make sometimes-unpopular comments in contentious threads.
The comments that get many favorites are, very nearly tautologically, not unpopular.
I have never liked favorites and have always wished they would go away completely. I wonder how many of you who use them to screen comments, as it were, ever go back and read the whole thread afterward — do you really find the most-favorited comments to be the most interesting, informative, entertaining, etc.? I almost never find them to be. The comments that seem to get favorites are those that are either reiterating an opinion that is strongly felt and widely held (see the million lame and over-favorited Sarah Palin jokes, not that I'm guiltless on that count), cruel (people love a pile-on), or long (seriously, you can post the most banal shit on this site and rack up the favorites if only you can manage to stretch it out to a page or two). Not surprisingly, each of these kinds of comments has become much more common than it was before favorites were implemented.
That having been said, while I like this change, I think it really addresses the wrong problem; it's much more problematic that favorites encourage the commenter to post certain types of noisy comments than that they encourage the reader to ascribe those comments too much weight. Wouldn't it better address the concerns of both the pro- and anti- brigades to make favorites invisible to the commenter but visible to everyone else? Favorites would retain their utility for skimmers and there would be less feedback for that part of the reptile hind-brain that sees a number and wants to make it go up.
Lastly, if at the end of November you want to revert to displaying favorites by default, I hope you'll reconsider removing the user preference — I use a non-Firefox Gecko-based browser and am really enjoying reading the site without the constant feeling that I'm watching people high-fiving each other and shouting "You sure told 'em!" at each other all the time.
posted by enn at 3:19 PM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
The comments that get many favorites are, very nearly tautologically, not unpopular.
I have never liked favorites and have always wished they would go away completely. I wonder how many of you who use them to screen comments, as it were, ever go back and read the whole thread afterward — do you really find the most-favorited comments to be the most interesting, informative, entertaining, etc.? I almost never find them to be. The comments that seem to get favorites are those that are either reiterating an opinion that is strongly felt and widely held (see the million lame and over-favorited Sarah Palin jokes, not that I'm guiltless on that count), cruel (people love a pile-on), or long (seriously, you can post the most banal shit on this site and rack up the favorites if only you can manage to stretch it out to a page or two). Not surprisingly, each of these kinds of comments has become much more common than it was before favorites were implemented.
That having been said, while I like this change, I think it really addresses the wrong problem; it's much more problematic that favorites encourage the commenter to post certain types of noisy comments than that they encourage the reader to ascribe those comments too much weight. Wouldn't it better address the concerns of both the pro- and anti- brigades to make favorites invisible to the commenter but visible to everyone else? Favorites would retain their utility for skimmers and there would be less feedback for that part of the reptile hind-brain that sees a number and wants to make it go up.
Lastly, if at the end of November you want to revert to displaying favorites by default, I hope you'll reconsider removing the user preference — I use a non-Firefox Gecko-based browser and am really enjoying reading the site without the constant feeling that I'm watching people high-fiving each other and shouting "You sure told 'em!" at each other all the time.
posted by enn at 3:19 PM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
True, and my preference is that anyone who can stand it at all try giving the no-count thing a shot for as much of the month as they can because I'd really like to have feedback from the deeply skeptical along with that from the willing.
Upthread, it's been mentioned that it'll be useful data for the mods to see who opted out of the experiment. So, now, I want to know if it's better for the mods if we opt out (so they can see how many people do that) or if we live through the experiment (because then we can give feedback, etc).
I said upthread I like favorites, but I certainly can live without them for a month. I'm keen to help with the experiment in whichever way would be best.
posted by Ms. Saint at 3:20 PM on November 1, 2009
Upthread, it's been mentioned that it'll be useful data for the mods to see who opted out of the experiment. So, now, I want to know if it's better for the mods if we opt out (so they can see how many people do that) or if we live through the experiment (because then we can give feedback, etc).
I said upthread I like favorites, but I certainly can live without them for a month. I'm keen to help with the experiment in whichever way would be best.
posted by Ms. Saint at 3:20 PM on November 1, 2009
Thank you mods for giving the Wahhhmbulance drivers a much needed break.
Suddenly felt like I was in a boing moderation thread.
posted by found missing at 3:20 PM on November 1, 2009
Suddenly felt like I was in a boing moderation thread.
posted by found missing at 3:20 PM on November 1, 2009
Less information is bad.
posted by mediareport at 3:22 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by mediareport at 3:22 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Suddenly felt like I was in a boing moderation thread.
You must be skimming then, because there's been worse.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:24 PM on November 1, 2009
You must be skimming then, because there's been worse.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:24 PM on November 1, 2009
Which is to say, hydropsyche, that if you had in fact bothered to read the entire thread you would have noted a not insignificant number of people remarking that they use visible favorites to enhance their reading of an entire thread, rather than subsitute for reading an entire thread.
I read the vast majority of the thread, without skimming by favorites (I will admit to skimming by "this is the fifth times this person has made this argument in this thread so I probably don't need to read the whole thing.") Yes, some people are absolutely saying what you're saying. But many other people are also saying that they don't have time to read all of the comments on Metafilter and prefer to just skim popular favorites. I felt like there were equal numbers of users saying both things on this thread. And to the latter people, I say thbbbt.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:27 PM on November 1, 2009
I read the vast majority of the thread, without skimming by favorites (I will admit to skimming by "this is the fifth times this person has made this argument in this thread so I probably don't need to read the whole thing.") Yes, some people are absolutely saying what you're saying. But many other people are also saying that they don't have time to read all of the comments on Metafilter and prefer to just skim popular favorites. I felt like there were equal numbers of users saying both things on this thread. And to the latter people, I say thbbbt.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:27 PM on November 1, 2009
Less information is bad.
No mediareport, that's definitely not true in all cases. For example, I don't think you'd argue that information about comment flagging should be made publicly viewable, do you?
posted by anifinder at 3:28 PM on November 1, 2009
No mediareport, that's definitely not true in all cases. For example, I don't think you'd argue that information about comment flagging should be made publicly viewable, do you?
posted by anifinder at 3:28 PM on November 1, 2009
Less information is bad.
Not according to the skimmers.
posted by Brian B. at 3:29 PM on November 1, 2009
Not according to the skimmers.
posted by Brian B. at 3:29 PM on November 1, 2009
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but wouldn't that make it a permanent change rather than a month-long experiment? Also, isn't that pretty much the opposite of what mathowie said would happen in December?
...
Let's say I go into my preferences and change my website. I then click "save preferences".
How do you know whether I explicitly decided to set this new setting to be off, or whether I just left it off without even knowing I had a choice?
Sorry, I may have been unclear. So:
1. It's not a permanent change if you do or don't fiddle with the new preference; it's a change for the duration of November. After November, the likely situation is that the option goes away and things return to their original state.
2. If you don't choose to turn the favorite counts on in November, you don't choose to do so. Because it defaults to off, we don't have any reason to look for people who deliberately turned it off, no; those people we would be able to say only decided, for whatever reason, to leave it off. With a banner at the top of Metatalk and a very sizeable chunk of the userbase visiting Metatalk on at least a monthly basis, getting the attention of at least minimally actively engaged users shouldn't be too much of a problem.
At that, we understand that some people may just not care enough to turn it on despite being a little brow-furrowed about the change, but as a basic objective measure of who finds it practically rather than just theoretically objectionable the use or not of the preference setting is a decent ballpark figure. Beyond that, I am certain we will continue to talk about this, so I think we'll be able to pick up some of the grey area in conversation.
Upthread, it's been mentioned that it'll be useful data for the mods to see who opted out of the experiment. So, now, I want to know if it's better for the mods if we opt out (so they can see how many people do that) or if we live through the experiment (because then we can give feedback, etc).
My take is, I'd like people to try it, but if you want to try living through the experiment and ultimately decide you're really against it, opt out before the end of the month in any case and we can see that you chose to do that. Best of both worlds, from a compromising point of view anyway.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:29 PM on November 1, 2009
...
Let's say I go into my preferences and change my website. I then click "save preferences".
How do you know whether I explicitly decided to set this new setting to be off, or whether I just left it off without even knowing I had a choice?
Sorry, I may have been unclear. So:
1. It's not a permanent change if you do or don't fiddle with the new preference; it's a change for the duration of November. After November, the likely situation is that the option goes away and things return to their original state.
2. If you don't choose to turn the favorite counts on in November, you don't choose to do so. Because it defaults to off, we don't have any reason to look for people who deliberately turned it off, no; those people we would be able to say only decided, for whatever reason, to leave it off. With a banner at the top of Metatalk and a very sizeable chunk of the userbase visiting Metatalk on at least a monthly basis, getting the attention of at least minimally actively engaged users shouldn't be too much of a problem.
At that, we understand that some people may just not care enough to turn it on despite being a little brow-furrowed about the change, but as a basic objective measure of who finds it practically rather than just theoretically objectionable the use or not of the preference setting is a decent ballpark figure. Beyond that, I am certain we will continue to talk about this, so I think we'll be able to pick up some of the grey area in conversation.
Upthread, it's been mentioned that it'll be useful data for the mods to see who opted out of the experiment. So, now, I want to know if it's better for the mods if we opt out (so they can see how many people do that) or if we live through the experiment (because then we can give feedback, etc).
My take is, I'd like people to try it, but if you want to try living through the experiment and ultimately decide you're really against it, opt out before the end of the month in any case and we can see that you chose to do that. Best of both worlds, from a compromising point of view anyway.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:29 PM on November 1, 2009
Bloody hell it has taken a long time to catch up with the 330+ comments since my last post.
Thanks for adding the preference, I'll be sticking with the experiment for a few days to see if I can stand it, but I'll likely be opting out in the near future.
If the choice is between [faved] and [x favorites], I probably want [x favorites]. However, I'm still not entirely sure that I wouldn't in fact prefer nothing at all, and to be honest, I still don't see the reason for having [faved] over having nothing.
posted by knapah at 3:30 PM on November 1, 2009
Thanks for adding the preference, I'll be sticking with the experiment for a few days to see if I can stand it, but I'll likely be opting out in the near future.
If the choice is between [faved] and [x favorites], I probably want [x favorites]. However, I'm still not entirely sure that I wouldn't in fact prefer nothing at all, and to be honest, I still don't see the reason for having [faved] over having nothing.
posted by knapah at 3:30 PM on November 1, 2009
How do you know whether I explicitly decided to set this new setting to be off, or whether I just left it off without even knowing I had a choice?
I think the thinking is that if the no-count option makes you totally batshit crazy [or mildly irked] you'll change the numbers-showing, esp after this has sort of sunk in, people learn what their options are for November, that sort of thing. I'm sure we'll have some other "tell us how this makes you feel" MeTa thread later on, but not for a bit now. And yeah the plan is still to go back to normal in December but have a little more data on what a no-fave-numbers-showing MeFi would look like nowadays (as opposed to what it looked like back before favorites existed, which was a much different community).
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:31 PM on November 1, 2009
I think the thinking is that if the no-count option makes you totally batshit crazy [or mildly irked] you'll change the numbers-showing, esp after this has sort of sunk in, people learn what their options are for November, that sort of thing. I'm sure we'll have some other "tell us how this makes you feel" MeTa thread later on, but not for a bit now. And yeah the plan is still to go back to normal in December but have a little more data on what a no-fave-numbers-showing MeFi would look like nowadays (as opposed to what it looked like back before favorites existed, which was a much different community).
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:31 PM on November 1, 2009
Yeah, your Foamometer is calibrated too sensitively.
So, where do I go to get that tightened up? Oh right, I'm already there.
Actually, I don't think there was much more foaming than I might expect in any MeTa thread about favorites, I was just objecting to the notion it was one-sided. I'm not all hyped up one way or the other about the change, and it seems to me that short of the couple people who took direct and rude jabs at the moderators, emotions ran equally high on both sides. koeselitz was just the example I chose. In my opinion, making 47 comments in one thread in less than 12 hours has...frothy qualities, at the very least.
posted by donnagirl at 3:33 PM on November 1, 2009
So, where do I go to get that tightened up? Oh right, I'm already there.
Actually, I don't think there was much more foaming than I might expect in any MeTa thread about favorites, I was just objecting to the notion it was one-sided. I'm not all hyped up one way or the other about the change, and it seems to me that short of the couple people who took direct and rude jabs at the moderators, emotions ran equally high on both sides. koeselitz was just the example I chose. In my opinion, making 47 comments in one thread in less than 12 hours has...frothy qualities, at the very least.
posted by donnagirl at 3:33 PM on November 1, 2009
> Or, to be more blunt, why should I read your comment if you couldn't be arsed to read mine because it didn't get all faved?
How many times do people have to say that they read more carefully on threads they are interested enough to comment in, but like to skim longer less-interesting ones before y'all stop characterizing your objection this way? Do you think these people are lying, or did you just not, you know, read this thread yourself to see what people are actually saying?
I have no doubt whatsoever some people post without reading the entire thread. It is not clear to me this is because of favorites or would improve by the removal of them. I suspect it'd result in people having read less of it, actually. It certainly isn't the position anyone is taking in this thread so please stop erecting this particular strawman.
> I wonder how many of you who use them to screen comments, as it were, ever go back and read the whole thread afterward — do you really find the most-favorited comments to be the most interesting, informative, entertaining, etc.?
Yes, fairly often. After skimming a bit of a thread I don't think I'll much care for, if I find my interest level has increased, I'll go back to get context, especially if I want to comment. And yeah, generally speaking, I find faved comments to be the more interesting or funny. Not 100% of the time, but mostly. But even if they weren't the best, they helped pique my interest in the otherwise uninteresting (to me) thread.
Also, when a discussion devolves into some ridiculous back-and-forth or bullshit derail (this is frequent), I find favorite-ed comments serve as little lighthouses that signal to me I can stop paging down.
posted by cj_ at 3:34 PM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
How many times do people have to say that they read more carefully on threads they are interested enough to comment in, but like to skim longer less-interesting ones before y'all stop characterizing your objection this way? Do you think these people are lying, or did you just not, you know, read this thread yourself to see what people are actually saying?
I have no doubt whatsoever some people post without reading the entire thread. It is not clear to me this is because of favorites or would improve by the removal of them. I suspect it'd result in people having read less of it, actually. It certainly isn't the position anyone is taking in this thread so please stop erecting this particular strawman.
> I wonder how many of you who use them to screen comments, as it were, ever go back and read the whole thread afterward — do you really find the most-favorited comments to be the most interesting, informative, entertaining, etc.?
Yes, fairly often. After skimming a bit of a thread I don't think I'll much care for, if I find my interest level has increased, I'll go back to get context, especially if I want to comment. And yeah, generally speaking, I find faved comments to be the more interesting or funny. Not 100% of the time, but mostly. But even if they weren't the best, they helped pique my interest in the otherwise uninteresting (to me) thread.
Also, when a discussion devolves into some ridiculous back-and-forth or bullshit derail (this is frequent), I find favorite-ed comments serve as little lighthouses that signal to me I can stop paging down.
posted by cj_ at 3:34 PM on November 1, 2009 [10 favorites]
I like any change that pisses off this many people and am disappointed, but not surprised, at the later changes for that same reason.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 3:35 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 3:35 PM on November 1, 2009
mathowie: Ok, we've got a favorite counts on/off feature in the preferences working now and will show it off soon (possibly in a new metatalk thread). Please hold on and everyone will be welcome to use it shortly.
Just FYI, if you're planning to count users with and without that opt-out turned on: even though I viscerally dislike the 'faved' approach, I'm not going to turn it off for the month, because it's not a very useful experiment if I don't actually participate. So, at least in my case, please don't take my lack of opting out as support of the fundamental idea. I suspect it probably isn't a very good one.
But, at the same time, you guys ARE pretty damn clever, and I think I should give you the benefit of the doubt. So I'll be staying with 'faved' for November, no matter what I actually think of it during. I'll register my opinion again after a few weeks' experience.
I dislike the idea, but I'll give it a try. Maybe lima beans actually are good for me.
posted by Malor at 3:35 PM on November 1, 2009
Just FYI, if you're planning to count users with and without that opt-out turned on: even though I viscerally dislike the 'faved' approach, I'm not going to turn it off for the month, because it's not a very useful experiment if I don't actually participate. So, at least in my case, please don't take my lack of opting out as support of the fundamental idea. I suspect it probably isn't a very good one.
But, at the same time, you guys ARE pretty damn clever, and I think I should give you the benefit of the doubt. So I'll be staying with 'faved' for November, no matter what I actually think of it during. I'll register my opinion again after a few weeks' experience.
I dislike the idea, but I'll give it a try. Maybe lima beans actually are good for me.
posted by Malor at 3:35 PM on November 1, 2009
You should all wait & see what We have planned for the December Surprise!
(It involves cupcakes)
posted by the Cabal at 3:36 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
(It involves cupcakes)
posted by the Cabal at 3:36 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
For example, I don't think you'd argue that information about comment flagging should be made publicly viewable, do you?
I'd be very happy to have a flagged (23) count shown, particularly to the commenter. No need to show it to the world and launch a witch hunt, but that is actually useful feedback to have when you make a comment that steps over a line.
posted by DarlingBri at 3:37 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'd be very happy to have a flagged (23) count shown, particularly to the commenter. No need to show it to the world and launch a witch hunt, but that is actually useful feedback to have when you make a comment that steps over a line.
posted by DarlingBri at 3:37 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
People read in different ways; people use the site in different ways, and those ways are just as valid as yours.
This is bullshit. Different does not always mean equal. Some ways of using the site are actually less valid than others. Reading the entire thread before commenting should be encouraged.
No, sorry, but this is bullshit. Metafilter is only as valuable as all of its contributing members--and by "contributing members," I mean the people who comment, not the people who read. It's unreasonable to expect all members to read every comment on every post, nor is it even realistic to encourage members to do so. And I'm saying this despite the fact that I'd say that, personally, I read every comment on 95% of the posts I comment to. People here are, generally, intelligent enough to follow the gist of a conversation and to add something valuable to it even if they haven't read every comment--and, in fact, posts with high favorite counts are a good indication of the gist of a conversation, as this thread has really clearly illustrated.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 3:40 PM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
This is bullshit. Different does not always mean equal. Some ways of using the site are actually less valid than others. Reading the entire thread before commenting should be encouraged.
No, sorry, but this is bullshit. Metafilter is only as valuable as all of its contributing members--and by "contributing members," I mean the people who comment, not the people who read. It's unreasonable to expect all members to read every comment on every post, nor is it even realistic to encourage members to do so. And I'm saying this despite the fact that I'd say that, personally, I read every comment on 95% of the posts I comment to. People here are, generally, intelligent enough to follow the gist of a conversation and to add something valuable to it even if they haven't read every comment--and, in fact, posts with high favorite counts are a good indication of the gist of a conversation, as this thread has really clearly illustrated.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 3:40 PM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
Hey, don't provide me a reasonable solution! I'm busy railing against the Man!
Thanks pb.
Now, can we sort the tag pages? ;)
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:41 PM on November 1, 2009
Thanks pb.
Now, can we sort the tag pages? ;)
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:41 PM on November 1, 2009
GAH! Fast moving thread, that was directed at ten pounds etc...
posted by cavalier at 3:43 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by cavalier at 3:43 PM on November 1, 2009
Look I'm glad the lights came back on, but who put cortex's boxers on my head and why am I holding koeselitz's penis?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:46 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:46 PM on November 1, 2009
I'd be very happy to have a flagged (23) count shown, particularly to the commenter. No need to show it to the world and launch a witch hunt, but that is actually useful feedback to have when you make a comment that steps over a line.
Again, a separate discussion (and, really, a firm no), but one difference here is that a pile of negative flags as a recurring issue tends to manifest itself already as a diplomatic email from the mods saying "we've got a problem here", which is something that we can choose to do when we feel like there's enough of a problem to justify the touchy process of engaging someone with site-interaction criticism.
Dangling non-threshold-crossing flags in front of someone's nose runs the risk of getting them upset and reactive in a way that's not necessarily useful, and we're pretty powerfully disinclined to go there in any sense as a default thing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Again, a separate discussion (and, really, a firm no), but one difference here is that a pile of negative flags as a recurring issue tends to manifest itself already as a diplomatic email from the mods saying "we've got a problem here", which is something that we can choose to do when we feel like there's enough of a problem to justify the touchy process of engaging someone with site-interaction criticism.
Dangling non-threshold-crossing flags in front of someone's nose runs the risk of getting them upset and reactive in a way that's not necessarily useful, and we're pretty powerfully disinclined to go there in any sense as a default thing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Never said that I liked pissing off people. I said that I like change that pisses (many) people off.
This kind of misreading, by the way, is the cause of a lot of the anger in this thread, which is why I also like it when people post knee-jerk responses.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 3:48 PM on November 1, 2009
This kind of misreading, by the way, is the cause of a lot of the anger in this thread, which is why I also like it when people post knee-jerk responses.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 3:48 PM on November 1, 2009
Well, that's better. Thank you.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:48 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:48 PM on November 1, 2009
Oh, and this is something that I thought I'd mention because my girlfriend and I talked a little about it while we walked to the store:
I am, in general, pro-favorites. I don't particularly use them as a way to skim the threads, but I do like the high five aspect, I like the way it feels to give one or get one.
But in thinking about this as a political question, I can definitely see the argument that koeselitz is making, and I think that it represents a way of thinking that's valuable. I was trying to explain it to my girlfriend, and I asked, "Well, have you ever read the Crito?" There's a strain of political philosophy that is deeply skeptical of democracy, and for good reason. Democracy killed Socrates, the Iraq war was widely popular, gay marriage was just repealed in California.
And because I've argued with koeselitz before, I know that he's a guy who is partial to arguments from Plato and Nietzsche, both deeply anti-democratic philosophers, and I can see that carry through here. I know how he thinks, at least to some extent.
I do think that something that's being lost in the responses to him is the notion that there isn't ever really a uniformly better system of filtering or ranking or valuing. Even if skimming by favorites works better for you, generic reader, that doesn't mean you're not giving up some parts of Metafilter that are also valuable or important.
Which is why I'm fine with participating in this experiment, because I understand that shifts in information influence framing, and because more information isn't always better regarding experience. I think that folks who are already angrily opting out are missing the opportunity to carry out a fairly significant n=1 experiment, and are negatively impacting the ability of the folks who would participate to get clean data, but hey, it's really not that big of a deal. As I alluded to prior, I think a more interesting experiment in snark reduction would be returning to the forced-preview scheme, but I know that trying to do that like this (for a month) would bring nuclearpocalypse to MeTa.
posted by klangklangston at 3:48 PM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
I am, in general, pro-favorites. I don't particularly use them as a way to skim the threads, but I do like the high five aspect, I like the way it feels to give one or get one.
But in thinking about this as a political question, I can definitely see the argument that koeselitz is making, and I think that it represents a way of thinking that's valuable. I was trying to explain it to my girlfriend, and I asked, "Well, have you ever read the Crito?" There's a strain of political philosophy that is deeply skeptical of democracy, and for good reason. Democracy killed Socrates, the Iraq war was widely popular, gay marriage was just repealed in California.
And because I've argued with koeselitz before, I know that he's a guy who is partial to arguments from Plato and Nietzsche, both deeply anti-democratic philosophers, and I can see that carry through here. I know how he thinks, at least to some extent.
I do think that something that's being lost in the responses to him is the notion that there isn't ever really a uniformly better system of filtering or ranking or valuing. Even if skimming by favorites works better for you, generic reader, that doesn't mean you're not giving up some parts of Metafilter that are also valuable or important.
Which is why I'm fine with participating in this experiment, because I understand that shifts in information influence framing, and because more information isn't always better regarding experience. I think that folks who are already angrily opting out are missing the opportunity to carry out a fairly significant n=1 experiment, and are negatively impacting the ability of the folks who would participate to get clean data, but hey, it's really not that big of a deal. As I alluded to prior, I think a more interesting experiment in snark reduction would be returning to the forced-preview scheme, but I know that trying to do that like this (for a month) would bring nuclearpocalypse to MeTa.
posted by klangklangston at 3:48 PM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
As one of the people who uses favorites mostly for bookmarking, with an occasional "Beautifully said" marker (85/15 ratio, I'd say), I'm looking forward to this monthlong experiment, and to participating. I hope people who are fervently on one side and the other will also participate, because I'm interested in hearing from other people who can tell us how favorites really impact their reading of the site, and if they see any difference in site discourse, overall.
Several people in this thread have mentioned that they'd be less likely to favorite if favorite counts were hidden a click away because there wouldn't be any value in favoriting, and I'd be interested to see if reality and prediction specifically met. I'm also interested in finding out if favorites help people read more or lead to reading less, and to whether it impacts their perceptions of threads to not have that numerical information at hand.
posted by julen at 3:48 PM on November 1, 2009
Several people in this thread have mentioned that they'd be less likely to favorite if favorite counts were hidden a click away because there wouldn't be any value in favoriting, and I'd be interested to see if reality and prediction specifically met. I'm also interested in finding out if favorites help people read more or lead to reading less, and to whether it impacts their perceptions of threads to not have that numerical information at hand.
posted by julen at 3:48 PM on November 1, 2009
DarlingBri: It's practically a guarantee in online communities that if you allow negative votes of any kind to be visible live, it creates groupthink. It's entirely one thing for people that disagree to not favorite each other, but it's much easier to be discouraged from active negative votes. It's the positive reinforcement vs. negative reinforcement idea.
It's definitely useful feedback for the individual, but it will create a larger systemic problem.
posted by amuseDetachment at 3:49 PM on November 1, 2009
It's definitely useful feedback for the individual, but it will create a larger systemic problem.
posted by amuseDetachment at 3:49 PM on November 1, 2009
Thanks for the option, mods.
posted by chrisamiller at 3:51 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by chrisamiller at 3:51 PM on November 1, 2009
I've been trying really hard to catch up, and I'm sorry for perhaps skimming, but a couple things. I see that the workaround has been implemented, and I'm grateful for that. Thanks for listening to the community.
However, in response to the echo chamber idea, I don't know that I agree. Sometimes it takes something to get over the threshhold to commenting (especially early on as a member). Receiving a favorite or two gives you a sense that you're not alone, that other people value your comments. It's a nice, pleasant feeling.
It's especially a nice, pleasant feeling when someone, like, say, mitheral directly calls you out and makes you feel profoundly unwelcome, seeing that people do actually support you lessens the sting of being told your input isn't worthy.
As for the comments, I lurked before joining, and I used to be able to read most everything. Now, when I wake up in the morning (on the opposite side of the world from most people) I usually see up to 20 posts on the blue, and maybe 60 on the green. It's not easy to get through all of those, and I usually can't do it, which makes me a touch sad. By removing the favorites, I think you'll see an additional problem pop up, as it has in this thread, of people posting to register their approval of another post, rather than clicking the neutered favorite button. The noise, as you're calling it, has gone up in this post already.
Oh, and mitheral, majick made the point you were trying to make, but without being a dick. Look into it.
posted by Ghidorah at 3:51 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
However, in response to the echo chamber idea, I don't know that I agree. Sometimes it takes something to get over the threshhold to commenting (especially early on as a member). Receiving a favorite or two gives you a sense that you're not alone, that other people value your comments. It's a nice, pleasant feeling.
It's especially a nice, pleasant feeling when someone, like, say, mitheral directly calls you out and makes you feel profoundly unwelcome, seeing that people do actually support you lessens the sting of being told your input isn't worthy.
As for the comments, I lurked before joining, and I used to be able to read most everything. Now, when I wake up in the morning (on the opposite side of the world from most people) I usually see up to 20 posts on the blue, and maybe 60 on the green. It's not easy to get through all of those, and I usually can't do it, which makes me a touch sad. By removing the favorites, I think you'll see an additional problem pop up, as it has in this thread, of people posting to register their approval of another post, rather than clicking the neutered favorite button. The noise, as you're calling it, has gone up in this post already.
Oh, and mitheral, majick made the point you were trying to make, but without being a dick. Look into it.
posted by Ghidorah at 3:51 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Can we please stop telling other people that they're reading the site "wrong"? If the goal in obscuring favorites is to raise the level of discussion, making jokes about how pro-favorite people are whiners (those skimmers suck amirite??) is kind of ironic. Also, rude as hell.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:52 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:52 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Can we please stop telling other people that they're reading the site "wrong"? If the goal in obscuring favorites is to raise the level of discussion, making jokes about how pro-favorite people are whiners (those skimmers suck amirite??) is kind of ironic. Also, rude as hell.
To be fair, everyone should stop with the broad generalizations.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:56 PM on November 1, 2009
To be fair, everyone should stop with the broad generalizations.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:56 PM on November 1, 2009
Damn, I forgot (consequences of reading the whole thread just after my bowl of cereal, I tend to lose track). About the vituperative nature of the comments: in all the previous MeTa threads on how favorites are evil, I imagine that most people who like favorites just never commented. Their repetitive nature, with the same people making the same tired claims, it just didn't seem like it was worth fighting about. What you're seeing here is people finally putting the two cents in that maybe we should have put in a long time ago. What seems like piling on to you might actually be the mass of members disagreeing with you.
posted by Ghidorah at 3:56 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by Ghidorah at 3:56 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Ok, we've got a favorite counts on/off feature in the preferences working now and will show it off soon (possibly in a new metatalk thread). Please hold on and everyone will be welcome to use it shortly.
Phew, that was an uncomfortable couple of hours.
posted by milarepa at 4:00 PM on November 1, 2009
Phew, that was an uncomfortable couple of hours.
posted by milarepa at 4:00 PM on November 1, 2009
I like "favoured" (ok "favored") instead of "faved", for its slightly old-world nption of having been the recipient of "favour", perhaps even the Queen's grace and favour.
I'm going to keep the option as it is for now, that is, go with the experiment and I encourage others to try it (especially now that you know you have a choice). I say this as someone who probably in the end will prefer the current system: this site didn't get to be a great site (where a change causes you to froth at the mouth) by accident, it got that way because actual human beings made it that way in a slow motion dialogue with the users that has gone on for pver a decade now. The fact that the mods are not complete power-crazed assholes like they are at BoingBoing? Good judgment by mathowie. The fact that we don't have threaded conversations? Good judgment by mathowie, in the face of a web-wide trend. The fact that favouriting is not "upvoting" in any real sense of the word (it does not affect what is shown on screen other than a number)? Good judgment by the mods. The fact that there is no "downvoting"? Good judgement. Little things, like many fewer metatalk threads on the main page at any one time, subtly discouraging endless arguments? Good judgment implemented in design. I mean, people, I am not calling for deference to authority mindlessly or anything -- I am calling for a little respect to be given to the people that have a demonstrated track record of good judgment about what features are or are not for fostering a sense of community and a respectful yet not cramped social space. I know we are all "expert users" of online communities but mathowie, jessamyn and cortex are "expert enablers" of these communities and it wouldn't hurt to have given them the slightest benefit of the doubt. They have the bird's eye view of that which we see from the perspective of the worm.
and vacapinta and pb of course. It's not like I know these folks either, though I did get email from jessamyn once.
posted by Rumple at 4:01 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I'm going to keep the option as it is for now, that is, go with the experiment and I encourage others to try it (especially now that you know you have a choice). I say this as someone who probably in the end will prefer the current system: this site didn't get to be a great site (where a change causes you to froth at the mouth) by accident, it got that way because actual human beings made it that way in a slow motion dialogue with the users that has gone on for pver a decade now. The fact that the mods are not complete power-crazed assholes like they are at BoingBoing? Good judgment by mathowie. The fact that we don't have threaded conversations? Good judgment by mathowie, in the face of a web-wide trend. The fact that favouriting is not "upvoting" in any real sense of the word (it does not affect what is shown on screen other than a number)? Good judgment by the mods. The fact that there is no "downvoting"? Good judgement. Little things, like many fewer metatalk threads on the main page at any one time, subtly discouraging endless arguments? Good judgment implemented in design. I mean, people, I am not calling for deference to authority mindlessly or anything -- I am calling for a little respect to be given to the people that have a demonstrated track record of good judgment about what features are or are not for fostering a sense of community and a respectful yet not cramped social space. I know we are all "expert users" of online communities but mathowie, jessamyn and cortex are "expert enablers" of these communities and it wouldn't hurt to have given them the slightest benefit of the doubt. They have the bird's eye view of that which we see from the perspective of the worm.
and vacapinta and pb of course. It's not like I know these folks either, though I did get email from jessamyn once.
posted by Rumple at 4:01 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Well, just to put my 2 cents in, I like the visible favorites. We're classier than digg, but the idea of knowing the pulse of popular opinion is helpful. I've made arguments before where I saw everyone favoriting my opponent and not me, and it made me take a second look at my argument. Things work just fine as they are. I know this is an experiment and all, but I thought I'd just publicly voice my support of the system as-is.
posted by MythMaker at 4:01 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by MythMaker at 4:01 PM on November 1, 2009
To be fair, everyone should stop with the broad generalizations.
I actually wasn't addressing "broad generalizations." Those happen and aren't really offensive. I was addressing meanness. I certainly may have missed/or been less sensitive to name-calling at the "anti-faves" group.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 4:02 PM on November 1, 2009
I actually wasn't addressing "broad generalizations." Those happen and aren't really offensive. I was addressing meanness. I certainly may have missed/or been less sensitive to name-calling at the "anti-faves" group.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 4:02 PM on November 1, 2009
"In my opinion, making 47 comments in one thread in less than 12 hours has...frothy qualities, at the very least."
I realize that's your opinion, but I believe your opinion is wrong. This is a huge thread, and koeselitz was one of the few defending an unpopular decision against a lot of people challenging it. That takes a lot of work, work seen here as 47 comments.
"No, sorry, but this is bullshit. Metafilter is only as valuable as all of its contributing members--and by "contributing members," I mean the people who comment, not the people who read. It's unreasonable to expect all members to read every comment on every post, nor is it even realistic to encourage members to do so. And I'm saying this despite the fact that I'd say that, personally, I read every comment on 95% of the posts I comment to. People here are, generally, intelligent enough to follow the gist of a conversation and to add something valuable to it even if they haven't read every comment--and, in fact, posts with high favorite counts are a good indication of the gist of a conversation, as this thread has really clearly illustrated."
No, while I like having my nose up the communal MeFi ass as much as the next guy, that's really not a supportable argument. As MeFi grows, the membership will regress to the mean intelligence of the internet users as a whole. There are already plenty of topics that Metafilter is idiotic about (fat people, TSA baby-napping). You can't argue that because MeFi is above the mean, as it expands it will remain so. The quality here takes work, both of the aristocratic (mod) set, and us plebes. Lowering the barrier to entry lets more people contribute, but requires more work from the community to keep standards high.
posted by klangklangston at 4:03 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I realize that's your opinion, but I believe your opinion is wrong. This is a huge thread, and koeselitz was one of the few defending an unpopular decision against a lot of people challenging it. That takes a lot of work, work seen here as 47 comments.
"No, sorry, but this is bullshit. Metafilter is only as valuable as all of its contributing members--and by "contributing members," I mean the people who comment, not the people who read. It's unreasonable to expect all members to read every comment on every post, nor is it even realistic to encourage members to do so. And I'm saying this despite the fact that I'd say that, personally, I read every comment on 95% of the posts I comment to. People here are, generally, intelligent enough to follow the gist of a conversation and to add something valuable to it even if they haven't read every comment--and, in fact, posts with high favorite counts are a good indication of the gist of a conversation, as this thread has really clearly illustrated."
No, while I like having my nose up the communal MeFi ass as much as the next guy, that's really not a supportable argument. As MeFi grows, the membership will regress to the mean intelligence of the internet users as a whole. There are already plenty of topics that Metafilter is idiotic about (fat people, TSA baby-napping). You can't argue that because MeFi is above the mean, as it expands it will remain so. The quality here takes work, both of the aristocratic (mod) set, and us plebes. Lowering the barrier to entry lets more people contribute, but requires more work from the community to keep standards high.
posted by klangklangston at 4:03 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I made it halfway through this thread under the new "Faved" system before I gave in and skipped to the bottom to add my cricket-chirp to the noise. What strikes me as the worst part of the experimental binary system is that it's now incredibly difficult to take the temperature of a lengthy thread's conversation. The old tally of people's hitting the + sign was the closest thing the community had to saying "hear, hear". Reducing that to a single mark is the equivalent of a buzzer, where we once had the murmurs and shouts of the crowd.
In any case, from all I can tell in this thread under the experimental system, the community seems to hate it. I could, of course, be mistaken: A few enthusiastic comments could have dozens of Mefites behind the single "faved" marks they've received, and I could be subconsciously emphasizing the detractors as I've made my way through this. In any experiment, measurement must be able to win out over personal preferences.
Short version: I don't like it.
posted by Doktor Zed at 4:03 PM on November 1, 2009
In any case, from all I can tell in this thread under the experimental system, the community seems to hate it. I could, of course, be mistaken: A few enthusiastic comments could have dozens of Mefites behind the single "faved" marks they've received, and I could be subconsciously emphasizing the detractors as I've made my way through this. In any experiment, measurement must be able to win out over personal preferences.
Short version: I don't like it.
posted by Doktor Zed at 4:03 PM on November 1, 2009
To be fair, everyone should stop with the broad generalizations.
I bet they won't, though. Everyone's a total jerk like that.
posted by Sys Rq at 4:03 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I bet they won't, though. Everyone's a total jerk like that.
posted by Sys Rq at 4:03 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
If 500 people favorite this comment, then 500 people will have faved this comment. But no one will ever know! Mwahaha!
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:05 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think that everyone, no matter what their stance on favorites, should understand this: A change to the favorite system can only affect the culture of MetaFilter if it applies to everyone. The reason favorites-haters object to favorites is not that they somehow can't bear to see a number next to the word "favorites", but because the system encourages other people to read less carefully and make low-quality comments. Favorite counts are not really part of the "interface"; this is about the content.
I'm not even a favorites-hater myself (I'm undecided), but I think it's important for people to understand that making it a preference defeats the point.
(Thus I have no idea what this month's "experiment" could possibly show even if there were a way to measure it.)
posted by k. at 4:07 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm not even a favorites-hater myself (I'm undecided), but I think it's important for people to understand that making it a preference defeats the point.
(Thus I have no idea what this month's "experiment" could possibly show even if there were a way to measure it.)
posted by k. at 4:07 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
While the experimental methodology seems ill conceived and the "word" faved is intellectually jarring, this all certainly has made for good MetaTalk.
posted by gruchall at 4:07 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by gruchall at 4:07 PM on November 1, 2009
I tend to read threads top to bottom, which makes the scanning side not affect me. Also, I tend to treat favourites as a communication between me and the commenter: "thanks for posting that, rather than not posting". Not affected.
Yes, that's how I use favorites as well. If, y'know, we're collecting data on this or anything.
Lately, though, it seems like way too large a percentage of the threads I look at just devolve into snarky, uninteresting, and pointless "this is a bad post and you're a bad person for posting it" conversations.. And I hate it. I really, really do. I'm starting to avoid the Blue more just because I find that kind of thread-death so very frustrating. So, if there is a correlation between favorite-culture and that kind of behavior, I totally approve of removing favorites.
I also totally agree with this.
The comment stressed how they felt safe knowing x many other people agree with them before hitting the favorite button. That's an echo chamber. That's sub-optimal.
If we're talking politics, I agree with you. But knowing that x many other people agree with you that [INSERT ISM HERE] is bad is actually really helpful since there can be an equal number of "Stop crying about it, you big baby!" posts along with someone pointing out that they felt slighted. Seeing the number of favorites to the person valiantly tilting at their own personal windmill does help others say "Oh yes! This bugged me too!" even if there are an equal number of comments saying "Pfft. You people who don't like this have sand in your panties."
It's only an echo chamber if the dissenting agreements, y'know, make sense. Or are respectful. But oh so often they're not. I don't think favoriting helps this per se, but I do get where that POV is coming from (about the favoriting and the safe-feeling).
(Or what oinopaponton said.)
One thing I think Metafilter does really well is breaking news,
*SPIT TAKE* I'm sorry, are we living in the same reality?!
I'm pretty sure the largest thread before this was probably 9622 in-jokery of some sort. We're better than that too.
Oh, no, no we're not. In the same reality that is. I'm in the reality that's playing an alphabet game with orifice names.
Also: Wow, thanks mathowie and pb for reaching a solution to this. I may or may not put favorite counts back, I'm not necessarily missing them, but it's really awesome to see a solution to this.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 4:08 PM on November 1, 2009
Yes, that's how I use favorites as well. If, y'know, we're collecting data on this or anything.
Lately, though, it seems like way too large a percentage of the threads I look at just devolve into snarky, uninteresting, and pointless "this is a bad post and you're a bad person for posting it" conversations.. And I hate it. I really, really do. I'm starting to avoid the Blue more just because I find that kind of thread-death so very frustrating. So, if there is a correlation between favorite-culture and that kind of behavior, I totally approve of removing favorites.
I also totally agree with this.
The comment stressed how they felt safe knowing x many other people agree with them before hitting the favorite button. That's an echo chamber. That's sub-optimal.
If we're talking politics, I agree with you. But knowing that x many other people agree with you that [INSERT ISM HERE] is bad is actually really helpful since there can be an equal number of "Stop crying about it, you big baby!" posts along with someone pointing out that they felt slighted. Seeing the number of favorites to the person valiantly tilting at their own personal windmill does help others say "Oh yes! This bugged me too!" even if there are an equal number of comments saying "Pfft. You people who don't like this have sand in your panties."
It's only an echo chamber if the dissenting agreements, y'know, make sense. Or are respectful. But oh so often they're not. I don't think favoriting helps this per se, but I do get where that POV is coming from (about the favoriting and the safe-feeling).
(Or what oinopaponton said.)
One thing I think Metafilter does really well is breaking news,
*SPIT TAKE* I'm sorry, are we living in the same reality?!
I'm pretty sure the largest thread before this was probably 9622 in-jokery of some sort. We're better than that too.
Oh, no, no we're not. In the same reality that is. I'm in the reality that's playing an alphabet game with orifice names.
Also: Wow, thanks mathowie and pb for reaching a solution to this. I may or may not put favorite counts back, I'm not necessarily missing them, but it's really awesome to see a solution to this.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 4:08 PM on November 1, 2009
Holy shit, pushing 1000 comments. Smells like shark in here.
I'm very much of two minds about all this, having slept on it. I am one of the people that thinks that favorites (both because of the implicit approbation implied in that word and because of the ways I reckon they have changed the tenor of the site since their introduction, for better and worse) might not have been an entirely positive addition to the community and its interactions. On the other hand, I do think that their visibility in-thread (I note because people seem to be missing it in their hair-on-fire ululations that it's just the visibility that has changed) does provide a big hook for a lot of people in the ways they read the site, and it's clearly come to feel essential to many.
I agree with most that the +faved link thing, though I understand it had to have been a hard thing to get right, is sub-optimal. The implication is that I have favorited an item, and it really adds nothing to a thread in terms of user-experience hooks, other than being a link anchor to a list of people who favorited an item (which very few people other than the poster him or herself will ever click through to).
So I'm conflicted. But I will say this: I kinda feel like there was a time when a thread like this would have been more discussion about what's right for the site as a whole, how best to re-engineer things (and how and why and whether it had become necessary), about issues of web community and intended and unintended consequences and all that. Though there is some of that in this thread, we're up to 1000 comments and it feels like the vast majority of comments are about how it affects ME and how much I hate it. I guess that's just human nature and maybe it's no different than it ever would have been and it's natural that if people dislike a change they're going to speak up. I guess it's a natural outgrowth of Metafilter shifting a little bit, as it has scaled, towards the Owner/Customer model and a little bit less a collaboration between Matt and a bunch of people who liked what he was doing and wanted to help. Not that that level of engagement has gone away, but I think it may have thinned a bit.
Anyway, for my part, I've always been more interested in the overall group dynamic, the way that small incremental changes in policy or design can mold community behaviour and norms, all that crap.
But, again, I don't have much in the way of ideas that would satisfy all the requirements here, and I'm less engaged with the site lately anyway. I was thinking about hiding the count and the 'faved' thing, making the [+] get 'hotter' as an item got more favorites, from say whitish to bright yellow or something to indicate popularity without a raw counter display, but I don't think that's a very good idea either.
Again, I think the experiment is an interesting one. But at this stage, if I were voting, even though I have always had some reservations about the unintended consequences of +favorites, I'd probably vote for the regular old count visibility, or some other rethink of the way things work.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:10 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'm very much of two minds about all this, having slept on it. I am one of the people that thinks that favorites (both because of the implicit approbation implied in that word and because of the ways I reckon they have changed the tenor of the site since their introduction, for better and worse) might not have been an entirely positive addition to the community and its interactions. On the other hand, I do think that their visibility in-thread (I note because people seem to be missing it in their hair-on-fire ululations that it's just the visibility that has changed) does provide a big hook for a lot of people in the ways they read the site, and it's clearly come to feel essential to many.
I agree with most that the +faved link thing, though I understand it had to have been a hard thing to get right, is sub-optimal. The implication is that I have favorited an item, and it really adds nothing to a thread in terms of user-experience hooks, other than being a link anchor to a list of people who favorited an item (which very few people other than the poster him or herself will ever click through to).
So I'm conflicted. But I will say this: I kinda feel like there was a time when a thread like this would have been more discussion about what's right for the site as a whole, how best to re-engineer things (and how and why and whether it had become necessary), about issues of web community and intended and unintended consequences and all that. Though there is some of that in this thread, we're up to 1000 comments and it feels like the vast majority of comments are about how it affects ME and how much I hate it. I guess that's just human nature and maybe it's no different than it ever would have been and it's natural that if people dislike a change they're going to speak up. I guess it's a natural outgrowth of Metafilter shifting a little bit, as it has scaled, towards the Owner/Customer model and a little bit less a collaboration between Matt and a bunch of people who liked what he was doing and wanted to help. Not that that level of engagement has gone away, but I think it may have thinned a bit.
Anyway, for my part, I've always been more interested in the overall group dynamic, the way that small incremental changes in policy or design can mold community behaviour and norms, all that crap.
But, again, I don't have much in the way of ideas that would satisfy all the requirements here, and I'm less engaged with the site lately anyway. I was thinking about hiding the count and the 'faved' thing, making the [+] get 'hotter' as an item got more favorites, from say whitish to bright yellow or something to indicate popularity without a raw counter display, but I don't think that's a very good idea either.
Again, I think the experiment is an interesting one. But at this stage, if I were voting, even though I have always had some reservations about the unintended consequences of +favorites, I'd probably vote for the regular old count visibility, or some other rethink of the way things work.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:10 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
But I am going to keep the count turned off, I think, and see how it feels in a week or three.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:12 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:12 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Ok, we've got a favorite counts on/off feature in the preferences working now and will show it off soon
Thanks, Matt, much appreciated.
posted by languagehat at 4:14 PM on November 1, 2009
Thanks, Matt, much appreciated.
posted by languagehat at 4:14 PM on November 1, 2009
Gosh. Talk about a missed opportunity. Matt should have offered the favorites on setting as a $5 upgrade. Alas. Perhaps a t-shirt can yet recover the loss profits...
posted by Atreides at 4:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Atreides at 4:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
> I kinda feel like there was a time when a thread like this would have been more discussion about what's right for the site as a whole, how best to re-engineer things (and how and why and whether it had become necessary), about issues of web community and intended and unintended consequences and all that. Though there is some of that in this thread, we're up to 1000 comments and it feels like the vast majority of comments are about how it affects ME and how much I hate it.
Um, I know this isn't your intention, but that smells to me a lot like "Ask not what MetaFilter can do for you, ask rather what you can do for MetaFilter." Why should people ignore how a change affects THEM and concentrate on an imagined benefit to a misty alternative group of users? "I know flogging me will hurt, but it will be good for my people, so flog away! Flog harder!"
posted by languagehat at 4:17 PM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
Um, I know this isn't your intention, but that smells to me a lot like "Ask not what MetaFilter can do for you, ask rather what you can do for MetaFilter." Why should people ignore how a change affects THEM and concentrate on an imagined benefit to a misty alternative group of users? "I know flogging me will hurt, but it will be good for my people, so flog away! Flog harder!"
posted by languagehat at 4:17 PM on November 1, 2009 [8 favorites]
You can't argue that because MeFi is above the mean, as it expands it will remain so. The quality here takes work, both of the aristocratic (mod) set, and us plebes. Lowering the barrier to entry lets more people contribute, but requires more work from the community to keep standards high.
If this is an anticipatory measure against the increasing stupidity of metafilter, I don't see how it can possibly help--as many people have said, favorites are something that have been used increasingly not only simply to skim long posts but also to get the drift of the general arguments of long posts. They can actually help filter out noise and stupidity.
If the goal is to force every commenter to read every comment, then, I don't know, put a little check mark next to every post that you have to click before you can comment. I realize this is a stupid-sounding suggestion, but it would solve the "problem" (problem in quotes because, again, I'm pretty sure it's not one) a lot better than removing favorite numbers does.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:18 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
If this is an anticipatory measure against the increasing stupidity of metafilter, I don't see how it can possibly help--as many people have said, favorites are something that have been used increasingly not only simply to skim long posts but also to get the drift of the general arguments of long posts. They can actually help filter out noise and stupidity.
If the goal is to force every commenter to read every comment, then, I don't know, put a little check mark next to every post that you have to click before you can comment. I realize this is a stupid-sounding suggestion, but it would solve the "problem" (problem in quotes because, again, I'm pretty sure it's not one) a lot better than removing favorite numbers does.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:18 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
The reason favorites-haters object to favorites is not that they somehow can't bear to see a number next to the word "favorites", but because the system encourages other people to read less carefully and make low-quality comments.
Merely speaking as just one person in favor of numbered favorites, I fully understand this fact, as well as the implication that it has an effect on the larger system. My tongue-in-cheek response to that argument is appealing to an even deeper social undercurrent: Metafilter is getting too big to read everything.
Metafilter seems to be changing. Back when I was just lurking without an account, it was definitely possible to read every post and comment on the site. It is quite literally impossible now. To be able to get a good feel of the daily "best of the web", I have to be able to cull comments and maybe only have enough time to read all the comments of only one or two posts per day.
Without tools like comment filtering and the associated greasemonkey scripts, I can't follow Metafilter comments today. This site is never going back to the early days where everything was gold, there's more users, more posts, more comments, and the signal-to-noise ratio has gone down marginally. 100+ comment posts are the new normal. Not displaying favorite counts will not decrease or filter the comment counts — which is my primary problem.
posted by amuseDetachment at 4:22 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Merely speaking as just one person in favor of numbered favorites, I fully understand this fact, as well as the implication that it has an effect on the larger system. My tongue-in-cheek response to that argument is appealing to an even deeper social undercurrent: Metafilter is getting too big to read everything.
Metafilter seems to be changing. Back when I was just lurking without an account, it was definitely possible to read every post and comment on the site. It is quite literally impossible now. To be able to get a good feel of the daily "best of the web", I have to be able to cull comments and maybe only have enough time to read all the comments of only one or two posts per day.
Without tools like comment filtering and the associated greasemonkey scripts, I can't follow Metafilter comments today. This site is never going back to the early days where everything was gold, there's more users, more posts, more comments, and the signal-to-noise ratio has gone down marginally. 100+ comment posts are the new normal. Not displaying favorite counts will not decrease or filter the comment counts — which is my primary problem.
posted by amuseDetachment at 4:22 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
If you favorite this comment I promise to read all of your comments in dull detail and depth forever and until the end of time amen.
posted by The Whelk at 4:22 PM on November 1, 2009 [24 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 4:22 PM on November 1, 2009 [24 favorites]
I like this change. Normally I wouldn't add anything this late in a thread, but I hear too many people loudly whining about how this has destroyed Metafilter and I know too well how much a few squeeky wheels can make it sound like there's a serious problem when really it's just a few loudmouths.
But as I said, I like this change. I'm really surprised to hear people worry that this is going to encourage more comments beucase that's a big part of what I like about it. In this thread I'm seeing a bunch of names I don't recognize and that's awesome. I do agree that a favorited comment does have a little more authority, but it's an anonymous authority. While I can click on a favorite link to see who favorited it, that takes more effort. And when I do that, most of the time I have no idea who these poeple are, because they really don't post much so their names are just meaningless. Yeah I could go peruse their past favorites and learn more about them, but that's getting a bit stalkerish. But if someone actually posts comments, over time I'm goign to start to recognize them and they are no longer some anonymous person saying "hear hear" but a real person who has built a reputation that I can take into account. And that's a good thing.
MetaFilter is one of the few internet sites that have actually made me rethink things that I thought were pretty set in stone. There's some metafilter users out there that, while I don't always agree with them, when I do disagree I stop and carefully reevaluate my position, taking their arguments and take those into consideration. These users aren't (mostly) the super prolific posters either, as a lot of those people seem to be too much in love with their own voice to be worth listening to. But they are generally people who have occasionally waded into a shouting match and said something intelligent and non fighty. I see that a few times and I'm going to remember that person.
Reputation matters. Let's encourage more of them.
posted by aspo at 4:23 PM on November 1, 2009
But as I said, I like this change. I'm really surprised to hear people worry that this is going to encourage more comments beucase that's a big part of what I like about it. In this thread I'm seeing a bunch of names I don't recognize and that's awesome. I do agree that a favorited comment does have a little more authority, but it's an anonymous authority. While I can click on a favorite link to see who favorited it, that takes more effort. And when I do that, most of the time I have no idea who these poeple are, because they really don't post much so their names are just meaningless. Yeah I could go peruse their past favorites and learn more about them, but that's getting a bit stalkerish. But if someone actually posts comments, over time I'm goign to start to recognize them and they are no longer some anonymous person saying "hear hear" but a real person who has built a reputation that I can take into account. And that's a good thing.
MetaFilter is one of the few internet sites that have actually made me rethink things that I thought were pretty set in stone. There's some metafilter users out there that, while I don't always agree with them, when I do disagree I stop and carefully reevaluate my position, taking their arguments and take those into consideration. These users aren't (mostly) the super prolific posters either, as a lot of those people seem to be too much in love with their own voice to be worth listening to. But they are generally people who have occasionally waded into a shouting match and said something intelligent and non fighty. I see that a few times and I'm going to remember that person.
Reputation matters. Let's encourage more of them.
posted by aspo at 4:23 PM on November 1, 2009
I think it was Terry Pratchett who said that skimming is just like reading, except without the comprehension part.
posted by Ritchie at 4:23 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Ritchie at 4:23 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Um, I know this isn't your intention, but that smells to me a lot like "Ask not what MetaFilter can do for you, ask rather what you can do for MetaFilter."
Sure, why not. Community in the larger sense only works when that kind of attitude underlies at least some of the way people approach participation in it. The differences and similarities between 'real' community and web community has always fascinated me, I admit.
Why should people ignore how a change affects THEM and concentrate on an imagined benefit to a misty alternative group of users? "
They shouldn't. That's why I tried to be careful to say that that was perfectly OK-like.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:25 PM on November 1, 2009
Sure, why not. Community in the larger sense only works when that kind of attitude underlies at least some of the way people approach participation in it. The differences and similarities between 'real' community and web community has always fascinated me, I admit.
Why should people ignore how a change affects THEM and concentrate on an imagined benefit to a misty alternative group of users? "
They shouldn't. That's why I tried to be careful to say that that was perfectly OK-like.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:25 PM on November 1, 2009
I feel like you've taken that specific feature request denial really personally and are kind of dwelling on it in a way that's out of proportion with what actually went down.
No, it's not so much person as no coherent reason was given, other than one person doesn't like up that high, he feels or thinks it's a rarely used feature and he's on the fence about re-adding threads once they've been blocked.
Later a few other people decide it's time to experiment with the interface and oh, "it's happening tomorrow." Yeah that's really freaking annoying.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:26 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
No, it's not so much person as no coherent reason was given, other than one person doesn't like up that high, he feels or thinks it's a rarely used feature and he's on the fence about re-adding threads once they've been blocked.
Later a few other people decide it's time to experiment with the interface and oh, "it's happening tomorrow." Yeah that's really freaking annoying.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:26 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
"I know flogging me will hurt, but it will be good for my people, so flog away! Flog harder!"
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:27 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:27 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
If you favorite this comment I promise to read all of your comments in dull detail and depth forever and until the end of time amen.
I'll buy that for a favorite.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:27 PM on November 1, 2009
I'll buy that for a favorite.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:27 PM on November 1, 2009
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
promises promises
posted by The Whelk at 4:29 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
promises promises
posted by The Whelk at 4:29 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Houstonian writes "I wish we wouldn't do that. Going by user numbers only (which isn't correct, as it counts abandoned sign-ups, but it's close enough), that encompasses over 78,000 users -- some who are even your contacts. Surely you have found that you have gotten something from the participation of at least one of those people? Or are we really all not welcome, and should just close our accounts?"
That wasn't what I was saying, though I suppose if one is strongly opposed to faves one might see it that way. Metafilter needs new users. Metafilter also needs to throttle new user signups. I think those points are mostly agreeable without debate. Whether charging $5 is the best way to throttle those users is debatable IMO and I'm still on the fence. Especially since, as so many people have commented in this thread, the daily volume of comments across the site is growing I think a good argument could be made that enough throttling isn't been done. While we don't have the physical limitations of a golf club or church I think Metafilter can not continue to grow without limit and still be the excellent resource it is perceived as.
kingjoeshmoe writes "So, most of my functionality is now returned, but that just raises the question: What's the point? If I can so easily circumvent this feature/bug, what benefit does it serve to hide the info in the first place? People tech-savvy enough to mess with style-sheets and greasemonkey scripts get to have a secret easter-egg feature that is denied to those who can't deal?"
Greasemonkey scrips exist to enable kill files, avatars and many other things the web site doesn't support natively. Many of those would be buck easy to support natively. However not supporting by them by default is a design feature as much as is unthreaded comments.
threetoed writes "I remember the days when it was easily possible to read through every single post of the day. Nowadays, not so much."
It's a lot easier if you skip youtubery and Anon Askmes.
gerryblog writes "When was the last time a big site change was made in the way this one was? I can't remember the last time matthowie et all just DID SOMETHING without it having been discussed for weeks or even months in advance."
Uh, probably not the last time but the very existence of favourites in the first place is exactly this kind of change. It was just *Boom* there it is with some tweaking afterwards after feedback. Matt however was wrong on the acceptance the name would eventually have. Also the introduction of $5 signups; big, img, marquee and blink tags being withdrawn, custom user pages implemented and withdrawn; new moderators; users being able to unilaterally close their account and the re-introduction of blink (thanks again cortex). Some security stuff in there requiring quick action but not all of it.
kingjoeshmoe writes "You know the thing I think is the funniest about this? Many people have come in begging for ways to revert to the old view, even though there are now multiple repeat comments explaining exactly how to do that. Of course, if this change were never implemented, those posts would be among the easiest ones to find. You want to talk about how favorites increase noise? This right here is a prime example of exactly the opposite."
The TSA-Baby thread is proof that you can't draw this conclusion. Comments outing it as a hoax were favourited to hell and back and the TL;DRers were still jumping in a week and a Meta later decrying the injustice.
posted by Mitheral at 4:31 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
That wasn't what I was saying, though I suppose if one is strongly opposed to faves one might see it that way. Metafilter needs new users. Metafilter also needs to throttle new user signups. I think those points are mostly agreeable without debate. Whether charging $5 is the best way to throttle those users is debatable IMO and I'm still on the fence. Especially since, as so many people have commented in this thread, the daily volume of comments across the site is growing I think a good argument could be made that enough throttling isn't been done. While we don't have the physical limitations of a golf club or church I think Metafilter can not continue to grow without limit and still be the excellent resource it is perceived as.
kingjoeshmoe writes "So, most of my functionality is now returned, but that just raises the question: What's the point? If I can so easily circumvent this feature/bug, what benefit does it serve to hide the info in the first place? People tech-savvy enough to mess with style-sheets and greasemonkey scripts get to have a secret easter-egg feature that is denied to those who can't deal?"
Greasemonkey scrips exist to enable kill files, avatars and many other things the web site doesn't support natively. Many of those would be buck easy to support natively. However not supporting by them by default is a design feature as much as is unthreaded comments.
threetoed writes "I remember the days when it was easily possible to read through every single post of the day. Nowadays, not so much."
It's a lot easier if you skip youtubery and Anon Askmes.
gerryblog writes "When was the last time a big site change was made in the way this one was? I can't remember the last time matthowie et all just DID SOMETHING without it having been discussed for weeks or even months in advance."
Uh, probably not the last time but the very existence of favourites in the first place is exactly this kind of change. It was just *Boom* there it is with some tweaking afterwards after feedback. Matt however was wrong on the acceptance the name would eventually have. Also the introduction of $5 signups; big, img, marquee and blink tags being withdrawn, custom user pages implemented and withdrawn; new moderators; users being able to unilaterally close their account and the re-introduction of blink (thanks again cortex). Some security stuff in there requiring quick action but not all of it.
kingjoeshmoe writes "You know the thing I think is the funniest about this? Many people have come in begging for ways to revert to the old view, even though there are now multiple repeat comments explaining exactly how to do that. Of course, if this change were never implemented, those posts would be among the easiest ones to find. You want to talk about how favorites increase noise? This right here is a prime example of exactly the opposite."
The TSA-Baby thread is proof that you can't draw this conclusion. Comments outing it as a hoax were favourited to hell and back and the TL;DRers were still jumping in a week and a Meta later decrying the injustice.
posted by Mitheral at 4:31 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Though I intend to keep favourites off for the month, I just turned it back on to read this thread and remind myself what it was like. Being in the minority view in this case, attempting to pick out comments interesting to me no longer worked using favourites - as many heavily favourited comments were simply repeating things I had already disagreed with. As I usually agree with the Mefi majority view on many issues, that was a good reminder that favourites only work for you when you want the opinion of the majority.
And this is connected to the issue with favouriting in threads such as the feminism ones - I also use my favourites to attempt the support the voices of feminists and in particular feminist women against dismissive attitudes. It's my way of doing my bit when others have already communicated something much better than I could have, or when I just don't have it in me to fight the good fight - and yes, it feels good and the place feels more welcoming when you see reasonable positions receive heavy support.
However, it really only works when you have a significant number of people agreeing with you. Imagine the reverse: if Mefi were, say, much more "Boyzone", and dismissive, mocking comments of women's experiences receive 30, 40-odd favourites while the feminist comments you like to see get 2 or 3. The place would very quickly feel unwelcoming.
I'm not saying favourites are bad - I really think they have both good and bad points, and this experiment could've allowed us to have a better idea of what that balance is. I do think "faved" may be making it seem worse than if favourites had gone away altogether. (and I still think the mouseover idea I mentioned earlier is a good compromise, though maybe it's just me.) But I really hope this experiment is not cut short - I think there is something valuable here. And for those of you deeply attached to favourites, think of it this way: if it doesn't work out after the month, it'll be much harder for people to complain about them in the future. So, win-win as far as I can see, if you are willing to give it a little time.
posted by catchingsignals at 4:31 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
And this is connected to the issue with favouriting in threads such as the feminism ones - I also use my favourites to attempt the support the voices of feminists and in particular feminist women against dismissive attitudes. It's my way of doing my bit when others have already communicated something much better than I could have, or when I just don't have it in me to fight the good fight - and yes, it feels good and the place feels more welcoming when you see reasonable positions receive heavy support.
However, it really only works when you have a significant number of people agreeing with you. Imagine the reverse: if Mefi were, say, much more "Boyzone", and dismissive, mocking comments of women's experiences receive 30, 40-odd favourites while the feminist comments you like to see get 2 or 3. The place would very quickly feel unwelcoming.
I'm not saying favourites are bad - I really think they have both good and bad points, and this experiment could've allowed us to have a better idea of what that balance is. I do think "faved" may be making it seem worse than if favourites had gone away altogether. (and I still think the mouseover idea I mentioned earlier is a good compromise, though maybe it's just me.) But I really hope this experiment is not cut short - I think there is something valuable here. And for those of you deeply attached to favourites, think of it this way: if it doesn't work out after the month, it'll be much harder for people to complain about them in the future. So, win-win as far as I can see, if you are willing to give it a little time.
posted by catchingsignals at 4:31 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Thank you for the ability to opt out. Metafilter is still my favorite website and my login here remains the best $5 I've ever spent, but I don't like the idea of removing the visible favorites count one bit. I understand Team Mod's reasons for wanting to test it out, but please count my vote on its permanent implementation as vehemently against. If this change winds up sticking (and I dearly hope that it doesn't), please make the ability to opt out permanent as well.
posted by EatTheWeek at 4:33 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by EatTheWeek at 4:33 PM on November 1, 2009
I'm not sure, but I think this was done the same way (2006): Announcing: Favorites and flagging. It's a pretty interesting read...
I can't believe I was pro favs. It didn't take me long to become skeptical though. Just goes to show how trying something out for a while can change your mind about it.
posted by Chuckles at 4:34 PM on November 1, 2009
I can't believe I was pro favs. It didn't take me long to become skeptical though. Just goes to show how trying something out for a while can change your mind about it.
posted by Chuckles at 4:34 PM on November 1, 2009
I suspect that the flat "faved" thing is going to mean more agreeing with/"nthing"/pointing out previous comments... which I don't think is great. And, yeah... it just might mean more people jumping to try to get their comment into the first 20 or 30 so they'll be noticed.
I could write a lot about my various thoughts on this, but I won't, right now. I'll grit my teeth and try it out... However, I will mention one thing that hasn't been brought up (at least in the 729 comments I read before posting):
One way I know for sure this will negatively impact me is that I'm resistant to clicking away from the page to something a commenter is linking to. If it's very clear that it's something I want to see ("here's an excellent chart that breaks down the exact numbers", etc.), yes - but there are tons and tons of links to jpgs, to youtube, to I-don't-know-what that just say something like "see also"; I almost never click on them... unless they have an unusual number of favorites. In this way, I've seen some really remarkable things, sometimes even better than the original post - stuff I really wanted to see, but didn't know it except for the favorites.
Without the faves indication, I imagine there will be plenty of people adding comments like "don't miss so-and-so's link to X," so perhaps I'll still hit most of the quality stuff, but, again... more comments added to already long threads, meaning fewer people will even get to the comments that say "don't miss that other comment!"
posted by taz at 4:35 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I could write a lot about my various thoughts on this, but I won't, right now. I'll grit my teeth and try it out... However, I will mention one thing that hasn't been brought up (at least in the 729 comments I read before posting):
One way I know for sure this will negatively impact me is that I'm resistant to clicking away from the page to something a commenter is linking to. If it's very clear that it's something I want to see ("here's an excellent chart that breaks down the exact numbers", etc.), yes - but there are tons and tons of links to jpgs, to youtube, to I-don't-know-what that just say something like "see also"; I almost never click on them... unless they have an unusual number of favorites. In this way, I've seen some really remarkable things, sometimes even better than the original post - stuff I really wanted to see, but didn't know it except for the favorites.
Without the faves indication, I imagine there will be plenty of people adding comments like "don't miss so-and-so's link to X," so perhaps I'll still hit most of the quality stuff, but, again... more comments added to already long threads, meaning fewer people will even get to the comments that say "don't miss that other comment!"
posted by taz at 4:35 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Is it just me or is the fact that almost every comment in this thread seems to be faved a case in point of how this idea needs rethinking?
posted by azarbayejani at 4:39 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by azarbayejani at 4:39 PM on November 1, 2009
Metatalk threads are like ratings sites. People tend not to rate if they don't really care, and people don't comment if they don't have a strong opinion.
I'm looking forward to hearing how many people do actually opt-out and what percentage that is. Heck, even tell me what percentage of the total posting/commenting volume these people contribute (I'm not sure about the general balance of posting, but I do get the impression that there probably are a few that post disproportionately).
posted by that girl at 4:39 PM on November 1, 2009
I'm looking forward to hearing how many people do actually opt-out and what percentage that is. Heck, even tell me what percentage of the total posting/commenting volume these people contribute (I'm not sure about the general balance of posting, but I do get the impression that there probably are a few that post disproportionately).
posted by that girl at 4:39 PM on November 1, 2009
Honestly, I don't care about numbers - I JUST HATED SEEING "FAVED" all of over the place when I had not in fact "faved" (gags) that comment. I hate that word, and the context was badly presented.
posted by strixus at 4:40 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by strixus at 4:40 PM on November 1, 2009
Probably late on this, but re: complaints on the closed thread, if some people do work by checking for the most favorited comments, they could set it that way, and others could hide it too.
Either that, or drop favorites all together. Just seems like an attempt to "control" the way users handle the site. Its something different from moderation, which is to keep mean-spirited people from wrecking the site.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:40 PM on November 1, 2009
Either that, or drop favorites all together. Just seems like an attempt to "control" the way users handle the site. Its something different from moderation, which is to keep mean-spirited people from wrecking the site.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:40 PM on November 1, 2009
So I turned the counter off and re-read this thread. And one thing jumped out at me in a hurry.
Here's the most favorited comment of the thread. As of my snapshot, it sits at 159. In the opening sentence of the comment Rhaomi says "Hopefully somebody cooks up a Greasemonkey script for it soon...."
Here's the most favorited "solution" comment, which pretty much gives Rhaomi and answer (though not with Greasemonkey). It has 24 favorites.
Admittedly, these are just two data points, but it does suggest to me that most people DON'T use favorites to bookmark. They use them like karma points. And that's the vector through which gameplay has been entering. There does seem to be a problem here, but just from comparing favorite counts on this thread I don't think removing the count is any real solution. It does hide that the anti-change posts and the handful of retorts to the moderators are drawing lots of favorites while the pro-change posts (or even the moderators' own posts) are drawing far fewer. So in a sense it's minimizing the Katamari Damancy effect (favorited posts pick up more favories than non-favorited ones), but at the same time it's having zero effect on the snark.
Another useless fact: In the first 300 comments or so, a majority of the comments have just one favorite. A lot of it appears to be griefing the system, but the thing is that even when you have the count turned on it makes it more difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. So you get drawn to the double-digited favorites, which actually increases the Katamari Damancy effect.
posted by dw at 4:41 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Here's the most favorited comment of the thread. As of my snapshot, it sits at 159. In the opening sentence of the comment Rhaomi says "Hopefully somebody cooks up a Greasemonkey script for it soon...."
Here's the most favorited "solution" comment, which pretty much gives Rhaomi and answer (though not with Greasemonkey). It has 24 favorites.
Admittedly, these are just two data points, but it does suggest to me that most people DON'T use favorites to bookmark. They use them like karma points. And that's the vector through which gameplay has been entering. There does seem to be a problem here, but just from comparing favorite counts on this thread I don't think removing the count is any real solution. It does hide that the anti-change posts and the handful of retorts to the moderators are drawing lots of favorites while the pro-change posts (or even the moderators' own posts) are drawing far fewer. So in a sense it's minimizing the Katamari Damancy effect (favorited posts pick up more favories than non-favorited ones), but at the same time it's having zero effect on the snark.
Another useless fact: In the first 300 comments or so, a majority of the comments have just one favorite. A lot of it appears to be griefing the system, but the thing is that even when you have the count turned on it makes it more difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. So you get drawn to the double-digited favorites, which actually increases the Katamari Damancy effect.
posted by dw at 4:41 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Also, can we keep them on music? I'd definitely like to be able to tell how many people liked a song I posted! Comments, could take or leave, but music is different.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:41 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Ironmouth at 4:41 PM on November 1, 2009
I sometimes only read posts that have, say, more than 3 favorites, particularly in very long threads where the comments start to become simply reiterative of prior posts.
Or, if it's a topic I don't understand or appreciate, then I will scroll down and use the multiple favorites to guide me to posts that interpret or explain the topic.
Meaning that I often do not read every single post in a thread. I'm lazy like that. Or, rather, efficient like that. Depends, I guess.
I don't like this change, but if it's going to stay, I'm sure I'll get used to it and perhaps come to prefer it. It's kind of a "meh" change, and it has somewhat discouraged me from reading Mefi posts (notsomuch AskMe posts).
posted by jabberjaw at 4:42 PM on November 1, 2009
Or, if it's a topic I don't understand or appreciate, then I will scroll down and use the multiple favorites to guide me to posts that interpret or explain the topic.
Meaning that I often do not read every single post in a thread. I'm lazy like that. Or, rather, efficient like that. Depends, I guess.
I don't like this change, but if it's going to stay, I'm sure I'll get used to it and perhaps come to prefer it. It's kind of a "meh" change, and it has somewhat discouraged me from reading Mefi posts (notsomuch AskMe posts).
posted by jabberjaw at 4:42 PM on November 1, 2009
Terrific!
One down, one to go: Please now remove the word "faved" and substitute any of 100 better suggestions above. I favor "favored," but I don't really care as long as it's not "faved." "Faved" is not a word, even if it is in the dictionary; it's a sloppy crappy forgot-to-button-my-something piece of linguistic laziness. It's something to make someone stop abruptly in the middle of a conversation and not continue because the phrase "and then I faved it" almost came out of someone's mouth.
A month of "faves" pollutes the Internet. Clean up this act!
posted by gum at 4:42 PM on November 1, 2009
One down, one to go: Please now remove the word "faved" and substitute any of 100 better suggestions above. I favor "favored," but I don't really care as long as it's not "faved." "Faved" is not a word, even if it is in the dictionary; it's a sloppy crappy forgot-to-button-my-something piece of linguistic laziness. It's something to make someone stop abruptly in the middle of a conversation and not continue because the phrase "and then I faved it" almost came out of someone's mouth.
A month of "faves" pollutes the Internet. Clean up this act!
posted by gum at 4:42 PM on November 1, 2009
I wonder how much this thread has depressed the volume of posting on the other sites.
Oh, and this:
2) Now when I read a post which is "faved," the date at the "faved" run together, for me. So, today, as I read, it looks at first like each faved thread has been faved once. And tomorrow, each one will look like it's been faved twice.
This is actually happening for me.
posted by knapah at 4:46 PM on November 1, 2009
Oh, and this:
2) Now when I read a post which is "faved," the date at the "faved" run together, for me. So, today, as I read, it looks at first like each faved thread has been faved once. And tomorrow, each one will look like it's been faved twice.
This is actually happening for me.
posted by knapah at 4:46 PM on November 1, 2009
Threads often have hundreds of comments before I even get to them. I thought it was a very useful feature that some comments were highlighted by high favorite counts. That's the hive mind at work. The filter is now off.
This change is going to cause people to rush to get a comment near the top of the stack (even more so) and cause people to "highlight" their comments in other ways, such as funky formatting or length.
posted by whiskeyspider at 4:47 PM on November 1, 2009
This change is going to cause people to rush to get a comment near the top of the stack (even more so) and cause people to "highlight" their comments in other ways, such as funky formatting or length.
posted by whiskeyspider at 4:47 PM on November 1, 2009
"If this is an anticipatory measure against the increasing stupidity of metafilter, I don't see how it can possibly help--as many people have said, favorites are something that have been used increasingly not only simply to skim long posts but also to get the drift of the general arguments of long posts. They can actually help filter out noise and stupidity."
Look, this is kind of frustrating for me, because I get that they can help filter out noise and stupidity. I've said as much. But when you say that you can't understand the counter-argument at all, even after it's been laid out pretty clearly a number of times, well, it feels like you're either not trying or that you're not bright enough to get it. And this is frustrating, because I know that you're bright enough to get it.
There's no doubt that internet filters on library computers keep many obscene things from being viewed; they filter out "noise and stupidity." But because there's no such thing as a perfect filter, and because filters have systemic behavioral effects, that they are able to filter some things doesn't mean that they are beneficial for the greater community. The costs of what is filtered and what is unfiltered can overwhelm the benefits of filtering.
Some people have held that the costs of the favorites filtering have outweighed the benefits, and it seems surprisingly blinkered to hold simultaneously that opponents of favoriting don't recognize any benefits and that there aren't any costs.
posted by klangklangston at 4:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Look, this is kind of frustrating for me, because I get that they can help filter out noise and stupidity. I've said as much. But when you say that you can't understand the counter-argument at all, even after it's been laid out pretty clearly a number of times, well, it feels like you're either not trying or that you're not bright enough to get it. And this is frustrating, because I know that you're bright enough to get it.
There's no doubt that internet filters on library computers keep many obscene things from being viewed; they filter out "noise and stupidity." But because there's no such thing as a perfect filter, and because filters have systemic behavioral effects, that they are able to filter some things doesn't mean that they are beneficial for the greater community. The costs of what is filtered and what is unfiltered can overwhelm the benefits of filtering.
Some people have held that the costs of the favorites filtering have outweighed the benefits, and it seems surprisingly blinkered to hold simultaneously that opponents of favoriting don't recognize any benefits and that there aren't any costs.
posted by klangklangston at 4:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
> at the same time it's having zero effect on the snark.
I sure hope you're not implying that rhaomi's much-favorited comment was snark, because it wasn't.
posted by languagehat at 4:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I sure hope you're not implying that rhaomi's much-favorited comment was snark, because it wasn't.
posted by languagehat at 4:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
DO.NOT.WANT.
I'm usually quiet about changes throughout the site because they are good or at worst do not affect me much. I really really do not like this one. It is 1) easy to ignore 2) hard to scroll for things that really affected other readers 3) as a subset of that, hard to pick out the really important answers or very strongly seconded ideas in topics I do not understand a lot about.
Sure we all use favorites for different things, but this is not good as a binary signal. It was so much better in analog.
posted by whatzit at 4:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm usually quiet about changes throughout the site because they are good or at worst do not affect me much. I really really do not like this one. It is 1) easy to ignore 2) hard to scroll for things that really affected other readers 3) as a subset of that, hard to pick out the really important answers or very strongly seconded ideas in topics I do not understand a lot about.
Sure we all use favorites for different things, but this is not good as a binary signal. It was so much better in analog.
posted by whatzit at 4:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
The road to hell is paved
with comments that are faved
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:48 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
with comments that are faved
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:48 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
almost every comment in this thread seems to be faved
It would be interesting to see how this thread ranks in average-faves-per comment, against other threads in MeTa history.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:51 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
It would be interesting to see how this thread ranks in average-faves-per comment, against other threads in MeTa history.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:51 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I sure hope you're not implying that rhaomi's much-favorited comment was snark, because it wasn't.
I wasn't. I was saying there's still plenty of snark and it's received what appears to be a normal amount of favoriting. IOW, the disappearance of the count hasn't affected the snark:noise ratio.
posted by dw at 4:54 PM on November 1, 2009
I wasn't. I was saying there's still plenty of snark and it's received what appears to be a normal amount of favoriting. IOW, the disappearance of the count hasn't affected the snark:noise ratio.
posted by dw at 4:54 PM on November 1, 2009
They faved the mefites -
Shut up a snarking lot.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:58 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Shut up a snarking lot.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:58 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Also, can we keep them on music? I'd definitely like to be able to tell how many people liked a song I posted! Comments, could take or leave, but music is different.
To be clear, you can still see how many favorites you have on things you posted, on Music or anywhere else, by looking through the information on your profile page, whether by reviewing your posts directly or by checking out your favorited by others results, or by looking at the threads themselves.
We haven't changed favorites-display behavior anywhere except in actual thread views on comments.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:58 PM on November 1, 2009
To be clear, you can still see how many favorites you have on things you posted, on Music or anywhere else, by looking through the information on your profile page, whether by reviewing your posts directly or by checking out your favorited by others results, or by looking at the threads themselves.
We haven't changed favorites-display behavior anywhere except in actual thread views on comments.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:58 PM on November 1, 2009
Jesus fuck. 1001 comments about a change in one aspect of the UI. We truly are the kings of navelgazing. Uh, I mean introspection.
posted by dersins at 4:59 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by dersins at 4:59 PM on November 1, 2009
Kings, or vikings?
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:03 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:03 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
We haven't changed favorites-display behavior anywhere except in actual thread views on comments.
Speaking of that, I think it might be time to up the number of favorites it takes to get a comment or post listed on the Contact Activity sidebar. I think "favorites inflation" has made 12 favorites more common than it used to be (which I always figured was due to a larger number of people using favorites on the site- is that the case?). Maybe up it 18 or 20?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:03 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Speaking of that, I think it might be time to up the number of favorites it takes to get a comment or post listed on the Contact Activity sidebar. I think "favorites inflation" has made 12 favorites more common than it used to be (which I always figured was due to a larger number of people using favorites on the site- is that the case?). Maybe up it 18 or 20?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:03 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
(which I always figured was due to a larger number of people using favorites on the site- is that the case?)
I don't know offhand, though it's certainly an attractive hypothesis.
*lights up the Infodump signal*
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:04 PM on November 1, 2009
I don't know offhand, though it's certainly an attractive hypothesis.
*lights up the Infodump signal*
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:04 PM on November 1, 2009
In the past I would have just favorited this, but instead I'll quote it wholesale from a comment above:
I totally respect the decision of the mods to run this experiment, and I can only imagine the amount of thought and debate that went into it. Kudos to you guys for trying something new - it's the only way to find out whether something works, and regardless of the decision made in the end, at least people will appreciate what they had before.
That said, dear lord - I hate it. Like many others in this thread, I read Mefi comments by scanning for the highly-favorited ones; this change prevents me from doing that. Of course, that's the point - we're now supposed to read through all the comments so as to prevent group-think and give lower-rated comments more of a chance. The problem is, I don't want to do that.
It's not that I don't have enough time - if I really wanted to, I'd make time. I just know that it'd be a waste of my time, because generally I'm not interested in most comments. When favorites were introduced, I actually spent more time on Metafilter reading comments because I could skip to the more interesting ones. Yes, I'm sure I missed some hidden gems that weren't favorited, but I would never have looked at those threads anyway. And while I will read every single comment in a thread I'm interested in and posting in, that's quite rare.
posted by meinvt at 5:07 PM on November 1, 2009
I totally respect the decision of the mods to run this experiment, and I can only imagine the amount of thought and debate that went into it. Kudos to you guys for trying something new - it's the only way to find out whether something works, and regardless of the decision made in the end, at least people will appreciate what they had before.
That said, dear lord - I hate it. Like many others in this thread, I read Mefi comments by scanning for the highly-favorited ones; this change prevents me from doing that. Of course, that's the point - we're now supposed to read through all the comments so as to prevent group-think and give lower-rated comments more of a chance. The problem is, I don't want to do that.
It's not that I don't have enough time - if I really wanted to, I'd make time. I just know that it'd be a waste of my time, because generally I'm not interested in most comments. When favorites were introduced, I actually spent more time on Metafilter reading comments because I could skip to the more interesting ones. Yes, I'm sure I missed some hidden gems that weren't favorited, but I would never have looked at those threads anyway. And while I will read every single comment in a thread I'm interested in and posting in, that's quite rare.
posted by meinvt at 5:07 PM on November 1, 2009
In line with Mizu's suggestion above, that we should use 'beans' instead of favorites, perhaps we could also replace the term thread with plate?
posted by knapah at 5:09 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by knapah at 5:09 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Look, this is kind of frustrating for me, because I get that they can help filter out noise and stupidity. I've said as much. But when you say that you can't understand the counter-argument at all, even after it's been laid out pretty clearly a number of times, well, it feels like you're either not trying or that you're not bright enough to get it. And this is frustrating, because I know that you're bright enough to get it.
Call me not bright, then. Or whatever. I hear the arguments against favoriting, but I don't agree with them as tenable ways to interact with the site as it is now. I think that what some people seem to be implying were the good ol' days of metafilter (admittedly, before I was here, so I don't have any nostalgia for it) when you could read every comment or reasonably expect contributors to read every comment are long gone. What the mods have to do now is figure out how to support the needs of a large and diverse userbase while still fostering and encouraging intelligent discussion. The favorites system, as it was until yesterday, seemed to work for that fine. And I'll be honest: in the short time I've been here, the (granted, small) reward of even one favorite from another user provided real motivation to compose thoughtful responses. Now this aspect of the community is flattened and large threads are more difficult to read in the default. As a relatively new user, I'm also really, really not down with what seems to be a running undercurrent to these arguments: that newer users are collectively contributing to the dumbing down of the site. I don't know. The whole sum of this thread, and this decision (even if it is temporary), is to make me feel pretty devalued. Maybe that's just me being not bright. I don't know. Whatever.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 5:10 PM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
Call me not bright, then. Or whatever. I hear the arguments against favoriting, but I don't agree with them as tenable ways to interact with the site as it is now. I think that what some people seem to be implying were the good ol' days of metafilter (admittedly, before I was here, so I don't have any nostalgia for it) when you could read every comment or reasonably expect contributors to read every comment are long gone. What the mods have to do now is figure out how to support the needs of a large and diverse userbase while still fostering and encouraging intelligent discussion. The favorites system, as it was until yesterday, seemed to work for that fine. And I'll be honest: in the short time I've been here, the (granted, small) reward of even one favorite from another user provided real motivation to compose thoughtful responses. Now this aspect of the community is flattened and large threads are more difficult to read in the default. As a relatively new user, I'm also really, really not down with what seems to be a running undercurrent to these arguments: that newer users are collectively contributing to the dumbing down of the site. I don't know. The whole sum of this thread, and this decision (even if it is temporary), is to make me feel pretty devalued. Maybe that's just me being not bright. I don't know. Whatever.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 5:10 PM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
Being a favoriting whore, I will say that the number of favorites is a motivation for me to write better posts, not to say things off the cuff. The feedback tells me when I'm doing my best.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:11 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:11 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
amuseDetachment writes "100+ comment posts are the new normal."
While a 100+ comments aren't rare I think it's stretching it a bit to say they are the new normal. There were, if I counted right, 78 threads with a 100 (yes one had 100 exactly) or more comment in September for example. Out of 849 posts. Less than 10%. Contra-wise easily twice as many posts (I counted 70 during 09/1-09/11 and then crossed over my boredom threshold) had less than 20 comments.
azarbayejani writes "Is it just me or is the fact that almost every comment in this thread seems to be faved a case in point of how this idea needs rethinking?"
No. It just proves users will stunt post/stunt flag/stunt favourite/stunt comment/stunt spouse etc. etc. to prove a point/grief the system/can't control their cats etc. I guess we should be glad a stunt user already forced a 100 favourite per day cap.
posted by Mitheral at 5:12 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
While a 100+ comments aren't rare I think it's stretching it a bit to say they are the new normal. There were, if I counted right, 78 threads with a 100 (yes one had 100 exactly) or more comment in September for example. Out of 849 posts. Less than 10%. Contra-wise easily twice as many posts (I counted 70 during 09/1-09/11 and then crossed over my boredom threshold) had less than 20 comments.
azarbayejani writes "Is it just me or is the fact that almost every comment in this thread seems to be faved a case in point of how this idea needs rethinking?"
No. It just proves users will stunt post/stunt flag/stunt favourite/stunt comment/stunt spouse etc. etc. to prove a point/grief the system/can't control their cats etc. I guess we should be glad a stunt user already forced a 100 favourite per day cap.
posted by Mitheral at 5:12 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
No. It just proves users will stunt post/stunt flag/stunt favourite/stunt comment/stunt spouse etc. etc. to prove a point/grief the system/can't control their cats etc. I guess we should be glad a stunt user already forced a 100 favourite per day cap.
faved
posted by caddis at 5:15 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
faved
posted by caddis at 5:15 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm not going write a big usability essay. I'll just put down my vote as: DO NOT WANT.
Thank you.
posted by idiomatika at 5:16 PM on November 1, 2009
Thank you.
posted by idiomatika at 5:16 PM on November 1, 2009
I went on an internetless vacation for a week and came back to this. Totally confused right now.
posted by dogwalker at 5:17 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by dogwalker at 5:17 PM on November 1, 2009
I think that what some people seem to be implying were the good ol' days of metafilter (admittedly, before I was here, so I don't have any nostalgia for it) when you could read every comment or reasonably expect contributors to read every comment are long gone.
This is another opportunity for some analysis, but based on my memories of previous datawankery ventures I think it bears breaking things down a bit here:
- Metafilter went from early ghosttown to bustling metropolis fairly early. By 2003 or 2004, I think we were more or less at modern levels of activity. Likely some growth over time, but not an order of magnitude or anything even close to that in the ensuing five years.
- Favorites came in sometime in 2006. Modern comment volume patterns were, again, mostly in place and had been for a couple years.
So the days where you could read every comment were gone for a significant amount of time before favorites ever came along. We're talking about 2001 and earlier, really, is my recollection of the numbers I've looked at.
Which is not to say that how favorites have been used since they were introduced hasn't had some potentially useful benefits along the lines of what folks have brought up in here. But I want to be clear that dismissing anti-favorites folks' recollections of the days pre-favorites as being simply yearning for a distinctly-partitioned period where the volume itself was fundamentally different is not necessarily sensible. The curve of growth of the site is more complicated than that.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:18 PM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
This is another opportunity for some analysis, but based on my memories of previous datawankery ventures I think it bears breaking things down a bit here:
- Metafilter went from early ghosttown to bustling metropolis fairly early. By 2003 or 2004, I think we were more or less at modern levels of activity. Likely some growth over time, but not an order of magnitude or anything even close to that in the ensuing five years.
- Favorites came in sometime in 2006. Modern comment volume patterns were, again, mostly in place and had been for a couple years.
So the days where you could read every comment were gone for a significant amount of time before favorites ever came along. We're talking about 2001 and earlier, really, is my recollection of the numbers I've looked at.
Which is not to say that how favorites have been used since they were introduced hasn't had some potentially useful benefits along the lines of what folks have brought up in here. But I want to be clear that dismissing anti-favorites folks' recollections of the days pre-favorites as being simply yearning for a distinctly-partitioned period where the volume itself was fundamentally different is not necessarily sensible. The curve of growth of the site is more complicated than that.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:18 PM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
My "Contact activity" sidebar has been an interesting way to filter comments in this thread. I'm also going to leave visible favorites "off" for at least a couple of weeks, to see how it affects or changes how I navigate things, or if it does.
And the game's just starting so GO PHILLIES!
posted by rtha at 5:24 PM on November 1, 2009
And the game's just starting so GO PHILLIES!
posted by rtha at 5:24 PM on November 1, 2009
Which is not to say that how favorites have been used since they were introduced hasn't had some potentially useful benefits along the lines of what folks have brought up in here. But I want to be clear that dismissing anti-favorites folks' recollections of the days pre-favorites as being simply yearning for a distinctly-partitioned period where the volume itself was fundamentally different is not necessarily sensible. The curve of growth of the site is more complicated than that.
Thanks for the clarification, cortex. As I said, I'm a relatively new member, so I was extrapolating that mostly from what others were saying here, both about comment numbers and about a perceived deflation in quality thanks to favorites and , I think too many new members (and I tried to scroll back to find comments along those lines, but, good lord, this thread is a behemoth!).
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 5:29 PM on November 1, 2009
Thanks for the clarification, cortex. As I said, I'm a relatively new member, so I was extrapolating that mostly from what others were saying here, both about comment numbers and about a perceived deflation in quality thanks to favorites and , I think too many new members (and I tried to scroll back to find comments along those lines, but, good lord, this thread is a behemoth!).
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 5:29 PM on November 1, 2009
Wait, so you people don't read every comment in every thread?
posted by cjorgensen at 5:29 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by cjorgensen at 5:29 PM on November 1, 2009
Wait, so you people don't read every comment in every thread?
I do, and now I feel a little like that weird kid who reads the dictionary (who, to be fair, I also am).
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:34 PM on November 1, 2009 [18 favorites]
I do, and now I feel a little like that weird kid who reads the dictionary (who, to be fair, I also am).
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:34 PM on November 1, 2009 [18 favorites]
Long, (*long*), time lurker, here. Just wanted to say that this definitely makes the site less useful to me for reasons that have been expounded on at length above. (Harder to skim if you want to, harder to say 'me too' without cluttering up a thread, etc.)
Please keep the opt out, if you decide to run with this in the long term.
posted by mordax at 5:37 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Please keep the opt out, if you decide to run with this in the long term.
posted by mordax at 5:37 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
"It's interesting to think about how there will essentially be two groups perceiving the site differently. If I want to agree with an answer in AskMe, I wonder if I'll still hit the plus sign or write out "nthing X" because the asker might not be able to see the favorite."
I think this is kind of a big problem...
While I feel that the focus on favourites is not necessarily positive and deserves to be tested,
I think that a relative consistency and transparency of function is more important.
It seems danger-point for users to have such different experiences of the site
particularly as - given credence in this thread - favourites have such a large role in determining how the discussion proceeds
Of course, for those who want to diminish their role, that's the point...
but now some fraction of the users will play that game and the rest something else?
And if favourites OFF is the default, but everyone in the know turns them back on, won't that further alienate new or casual users?
that is,
1/2 the peeps are jumping between favourite heavy local minima while the other half are reading all content or discriminating in some idiosyncratic manner?
If it's going to be that, then just go back to what was there before -
or make it that the default is favourite count ON so that the more casual/naive user can see what is going down but those who actively want to opt out can do so very much on purpose
posted by sloe at 5:40 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think this is kind of a big problem...
While I feel that the focus on favourites is not necessarily positive and deserves to be tested,
I think that a relative consistency and transparency of function is more important.
It seems danger-point for users to have such different experiences of the site
particularly as - given credence in this thread - favourites have such a large role in determining how the discussion proceeds
Of course, for those who want to diminish their role, that's the point...
but now some fraction of the users will play that game and the rest something else?
And if favourites OFF is the default, but everyone in the know turns them back on, won't that further alienate new or casual users?
that is,
1/2 the peeps are jumping between favourite heavy local minima while the other half are reading all content or discriminating in some idiosyncratic manner?
If it's going to be that, then just go back to what was there before -
or make it that the default is favourite count ON so that the more casual/naive user can see what is going down but those who actively want to opt out can do so very much on purpose
posted by sloe at 5:40 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
As a relatively new user, I'm also really, really not down with what seems to be a running undercurrent to these arguments: that newer users are collectively contributing to the dumbing down of the site. I don't know. The whole sum of this thread, and this decision (even if it is temporary), is to make me feel pretty devalued. Maybe that's just me being not bright. I don't know. Whatever.
The argument over favorites has nothing to do with new users dumbing down the site. It's actually easiest to understand if you assume new users are the same as new users.
It's basically a Skinnerian Behaviorist argument. Favorites introduced a new reward lever into the the little metal box that is metafilter. When you introduce a new reward mechanism into any system, it will invariably change the behavior of the agents in that system. New users and old users are equally affected.
posted by afu at 5:41 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
The argument over favorites has nothing to do with new users dumbing down the site. It's actually easiest to understand if you assume new users are the same as new users.
It's basically a Skinnerian Behaviorist argument. Favorites introduced a new reward lever into the the little metal box that is metafilter. When you introduce a new reward mechanism into any system, it will invariably change the behavior of the agents in that system. New users and old users are equally affected.
posted by afu at 5:41 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Rather than have a religious war over what we call our chicken scratch comment markers, let's just make it another user confusable option:
I'd like my thread markers to be called ______.
where one could type beans, favorites, marks, zeitgeist tracker. Whatever.
posted by pjern at 5:43 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'd like my thread markers to be called ______.
where one could type beans, favorites, marks, zeitgeist tracker. Whatever.
posted by pjern at 5:43 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Man, the last time a thread took this long to load for me it was about Sarah Palin.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:44 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by cjorgensen at 5:44 PM on November 1, 2009
It's basically a Skinnerian Behaviorist argument. Favorites introduced a new reward lever into the the little metal box that is metafilter. When you introduce a new reward mechanism into any system, it will invariably change the behavior of the agents in that system. New users and old users are equally affected.
No, I get that, but that doesn't mean that there haven't been comments in here that seem to imply, obliquely or directly, that new users are part of the problem ("Metafilter also needs to throttle new user signups. I think those points are mostly agreeable without debate. Whether charging $5 is the best way to throttle those users is debatable IMO and I'm still on the fence. Especially since, as so many people have commented in this thread, the daily volume of comments across the site is growing I think a good argument could be made that enough throttling isn't been done."; "MetaFilter commenters are shittier today than they were before the feature was released. Most of the dire predictions about scoreboard-driven behavior came true, then we added in a royal shitload of new users who thought they should play the site against the scoreboard. Those new users are in the majority now, so I suppose there's some value in appeasing them, but three years of the 'tyranny of the scoreboard' has certainly changed the quality and tone of discourse on the site for the worse.") But really, I guess the people conflating the two seem to be in the minority, to be fair, and I should really just be less frigging sensitive.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 5:50 PM on November 1, 2009
No, I get that, but that doesn't mean that there haven't been comments in here that seem to imply, obliquely or directly, that new users are part of the problem ("Metafilter also needs to throttle new user signups. I think those points are mostly agreeable without debate. Whether charging $5 is the best way to throttle those users is debatable IMO and I'm still on the fence. Especially since, as so many people have commented in this thread, the daily volume of comments across the site is growing I think a good argument could be made that enough throttling isn't been done."; "MetaFilter commenters are shittier today than they were before the feature was released. Most of the dire predictions about scoreboard-driven behavior came true, then we added in a royal shitload of new users who thought they should play the site against the scoreboard. Those new users are in the majority now, so I suppose there's some value in appeasing them, but three years of the 'tyranny of the scoreboard' has certainly changed the quality and tone of discourse on the site for the worse.") But really, I guess the people conflating the two seem to be in the minority, to be fair, and I should really just be less frigging sensitive.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 5:50 PM on November 1, 2009
I DID IT. I read the entire thread, every comment, just like I said I would. Do you know what? It was horrible. I normally do, in fact, read almost all comments in a thread that holds my interest, but this was just a giant, numbing slog and I'm kicking my own stubbornness for keeping my promise. It took me hours, something like 5 of them, and somewhere in between I literally went and got myself a frickin' latte. Seriously, this comment is just to express publicly my own useless accomplishment to the MetaTalk world.
Further thoughts:
I'm amazed that my "beans" suggestion was commented on favorably more than once, it gave me an enormous glowy fuzzy feeling in my tummy-areas. I think MeFi needs a happy-injection crazy bad and beans would do it. Of course this will never really happen but a girl can dream, right?
As to whether or not to flip the option for displaying Favorite #s on again, I'm torn. Do I keep it defaulted off and see if my site-wide behavior changes? Do I flip it on to express my dislike? Do I keep it off to express my support for Science? Do I flip it on to make the whole thing go away? I've spent my whole damn Sunday reading this thread, so I'll just end up leaving it defaulted off for at least a day when I go about my normal MeFi activities. But thank you, mods, for putting that option in there. I *do* use Firefox but I'm not a clever user and greasemonkey terrifies me.
Having actually read this whole thread, I'm very interested that a number of commenters early on pointed out the language issue of "Favorites" being the key, and the response by cortex (I think?) that this is a separate issue. It's not separate from my perspective, of course, it's all wound up in the same ball of yarn, but I was intrigued to know that changing a language term on the site was actually a far greater undertaking than obscuring numeric information. I think the discussion about the meaning of "Favorite" vs. its use, and possible alternatives, or better fits, or whatever you want to call that discussion, is one that NEEDS to occur, some time soon. Three years of pushing the term "Favorite" on *this* long-time reader, short-term member has done nothing to ingrain its site-wide meaning onto my brain. The first time I found out that people used them as bookmarks I was shocked.
And now to refresh and discover twenty more comments that need reading. Happy Sunday to you all!
posted by Mizu at 5:51 PM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
Further thoughts:
I'm amazed that my "beans" suggestion was commented on favorably more than once, it gave me an enormous glowy fuzzy feeling in my tummy-areas. I think MeFi needs a happy-injection crazy bad and beans would do it. Of course this will never really happen but a girl can dream, right?
As to whether or not to flip the option for displaying Favorite #s on again, I'm torn. Do I keep it defaulted off and see if my site-wide behavior changes? Do I flip it on to express my dislike? Do I keep it off to express my support for Science? Do I flip it on to make the whole thing go away? I've spent my whole damn Sunday reading this thread, so I'll just end up leaving it defaulted off for at least a day when I go about my normal MeFi activities. But thank you, mods, for putting that option in there. I *do* use Firefox but I'm not a clever user and greasemonkey terrifies me.
Having actually read this whole thread, I'm very interested that a number of commenters early on pointed out the language issue of "Favorites" being the key, and the response by cortex (I think?) that this is a separate issue. It's not separate from my perspective, of course, it's all wound up in the same ball of yarn, but I was intrigued to know that changing a language term on the site was actually a far greater undertaking than obscuring numeric information. I think the discussion about the meaning of "Favorite" vs. its use, and possible alternatives, or better fits, or whatever you want to call that discussion, is one that NEEDS to occur, some time soon. Three years of pushing the term "Favorite" on *this* long-time reader, short-term member has done nothing to ingrain its site-wide meaning onto my brain. The first time I found out that people used them as bookmarks I was shocked.
And now to refresh and discover twenty more comments that need reading. Happy Sunday to you all!
posted by Mizu at 5:51 PM on November 1, 2009 [11 favorites]
Man, the last time a thread took this long to load for me it was about Sarah Palin.
Is that a bug or a feature ?
posted by iamabot at 5:52 PM on November 1, 2009
Is that a bug or a feature ?
posted by iamabot at 5:52 PM on November 1, 2009
Now that I have my favorites thing turned back on in my profile, I no longer feel the pains of withdrawal and can think more clearly. If big political and other contentious threads are part of the issue, turn it off on those threads. I realize there's a lot of grey area, and it is more administrative work, but if I'm going to leave a big favorite me turd in those threads, I'd think twice the first time my favorites number was wiped out.
posted by geoff. at 5:58 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by geoff. at 5:58 PM on November 1, 2009
Mitheral: While a 100+ comments aren't rare I think it's stretching it a bit to say they are the new normal.
Yeah, saying 100+ comments is the new normal is a bit of hyperbole, but you must agree that comment counts have skyrocketed. My main point is that there are many more posts with a huge amount of comments now compared to the mid 2000s.
We already have too many comments to read. My argument is that fostering good comments over bad by hiding favorites does not help much. Any good comments will be made, increasing comment counts create an infinite-moneys situation where the gems will be posted. The problem is filtering out those gems because higher posts means more difficulty finding them. If there are a plurality of opinions/comments/ideas, they should all get enough favorites to be able to filter the good ones (without the ability for disagreement to shut out others).
cortex: So the days where you could read every comment were gone for a significant amount of time before favorites ever came along.
Perhaps my memory is cloudy or I used to have more time, but I do remember just reading the longer comments and ignoring the shorter ones for a period of time. In any case, I see the problem of more comments will get worse, irrespective of the past.
afu: It's basically a Skinnerian Behaviorist argument. Favorites introduced a new reward lever into the the little metal box that is metafilter.
It does change the desire for posters to appeal to people, but it doesn't necessarily create the need to appeal to the majority, as there's no downvote to force your opinions down. So long as you have a minority that agrees with you, it's no big deal, some people (albiet a smaller minority,) will plunk down the pluses. Further, by having the button there, it allows people to say "Me Too!" without posting another comment rehashing other comments. I see this as also a nice route to have people clicking on plus signs instead of being redundant. Without the number counter going up, I suspect that it wouldn't be sufficient to keep down that desire, people that want to say "Me Too!" need the reward of having their opinions heard. I believe that hitting the plus sign and having the number go up is enough of a reward for many.
posted by amuseDetachment at 6:00 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, saying 100+ comments is the new normal is a bit of hyperbole, but you must agree that comment counts have skyrocketed. My main point is that there are many more posts with a huge amount of comments now compared to the mid 2000s.
We already have too many comments to read. My argument is that fostering good comments over bad by hiding favorites does not help much. Any good comments will be made, increasing comment counts create an infinite-moneys situation where the gems will be posted. The problem is filtering out those gems because higher posts means more difficulty finding them. If there are a plurality of opinions/comments/ideas, they should all get enough favorites to be able to filter the good ones (without the ability for disagreement to shut out others).
cortex: So the days where you could read every comment were gone for a significant amount of time before favorites ever came along.
Perhaps my memory is cloudy or I used to have more time, but I do remember just reading the longer comments and ignoring the shorter ones for a period of time. In any case, I see the problem of more comments will get worse, irrespective of the past.
afu: It's basically a Skinnerian Behaviorist argument. Favorites introduced a new reward lever into the the little metal box that is metafilter.
It does change the desire for posters to appeal to people, but it doesn't necessarily create the need to appeal to the majority, as there's no downvote to force your opinions down. So long as you have a minority that agrees with you, it's no big deal, some people (albiet a smaller minority,) will plunk down the pluses. Further, by having the button there, it allows people to say "Me Too!" without posting another comment rehashing other comments. I see this as also a nice route to have people clicking on plus signs instead of being redundant. Without the number counter going up, I suspect that it wouldn't be sufficient to keep down that desire, people that want to say "Me Too!" need the reward of having their opinions heard. I believe that hitting the plus sign and having the number go up is enough of a reward for many.
posted by amuseDetachment at 6:00 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm really interested in seeing how this works. I'm pretty sure I remember a time before favourites, and I remember being confused by them when they appeared.
I'm surprised to hear that people decide what comments to read based on number of favourites. I hope this change adds some diversity to people's reading. Maybe this will expose people to some hidden gems?
I can assure the metafilter community that my snark is completely unrelated to favourites and will continue unabated. (Sorry mods.)
posted by Hildegarde at 6:03 PM on November 1, 2009
I'm surprised to hear that people decide what comments to read based on number of favourites. I hope this change adds some diversity to people's reading. Maybe this will expose people to some hidden gems?
I can assure the metafilter community that my snark is completely unrelated to favourites and will continue unabated. (Sorry mods.)
posted by Hildegarde at 6:03 PM on November 1, 2009
After a light day's use I'm pretty much just annoyed by this. It hinders me from using the site the way I am used to, but does not stop me completely. I was not, it should be noted, a person who read the site with some sort of favorites threshold as skimming criteria.
But I'm not going to turn favorite counts on. I want to at least know I've given this a try. The reason it is annoying to me now is because I am trying to use the site the way I did yesterday, and I have to circumvent stuff. Maybe eventually I'll be able to use the site the way it is today, and I'll see the light, or not.
posted by dirtdirt at 6:07 PM on November 1, 2009
But I'm not going to turn favorite counts on. I want to at least know I've given this a try. The reason it is annoying to me now is because I am trying to use the site the way I did yesterday, and I have to circumvent stuff. Maybe eventually I'll be able to use the site the way it is today, and I'll see the light, or not.
posted by dirtdirt at 6:07 PM on November 1, 2009
"The whole sum of this thread, and this decision (even if it is temporary), is to make me feel pretty devalued. Maybe that's just me being not bright. I don't know. Whatever."
Yeah, "whatever" is right.
This isn't the first time that I've seen someone in this thread complain that they were feeling devalued, which is nonsense. I'm a $5 n00b; koeselitz is a $5 n00b. It should go without saying that plenty, literally hundreds and maybe even thousands, of great members have joined since membership became open, and that great members will continue to join and contribute.
But instead of responding rationally to my comment, now I've got to spend time validating your feelings instead of discussing policy on merit? Because otherwise, you can't even concede that you could see any problems at all with your behavior or that the other side's argument has any merit at all?
Look, the fact of the matter is that it feels to me like manipulative, emotional blackmail and is antithetical to what I consider reasoned conversation. And beyond that, I respect you, and most of the other members here, too much to have to tell you that you're a valued member before having an argument with you. I assume—I respect you enough to assume—that you will be able to argue reasonably and keep up, and that you're secure enough in your place in the community that you don't have to worry about other people having to write our their valuing of you in order to state your opinion.
posted by klangklangston at 6:24 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Yeah, "whatever" is right.
This isn't the first time that I've seen someone in this thread complain that they were feeling devalued, which is nonsense. I'm a $5 n00b; koeselitz is a $5 n00b. It should go without saying that plenty, literally hundreds and maybe even thousands, of great members have joined since membership became open, and that great members will continue to join and contribute.
But instead of responding rationally to my comment, now I've got to spend time validating your feelings instead of discussing policy on merit? Because otherwise, you can't even concede that you could see any problems at all with your behavior or that the other side's argument has any merit at all?
Look, the fact of the matter is that it feels to me like manipulative, emotional blackmail and is antithetical to what I consider reasoned conversation. And beyond that, I respect you, and most of the other members here, too much to have to tell you that you're a valued member before having an argument with you. I assume—I respect you enough to assume—that you will be able to argue reasonably and keep up, and that you're secure enough in your place in the community that you don't have to worry about other people having to write our their valuing of you in order to state your opinion.
posted by klangklangston at 6:24 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I'll agree with the folks that are saying that using the word "favorite" is definitely wrapped up in the "voting for a comment" issue. The connotations of the word favorite being ignored is a major challenge in this conversation. A word, such as bean, has none of this baggage.
Another thing to consider, is that beans ARE being used a popularity or scoring mechanism. People DO go to their profiles to see what their total number of beans are. To discourage this kind of a game, instead of having a running total of beans - there should be a link to the the comments/posts that have been beaned. While a member could go thru all of their beaned items and add up the total - it wouldn't be displayed as a total in the profile page. This would likely discourage using beans in a "gaming" manner.
posted by bigmusic at 6:24 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Another thing to consider, is that beans ARE being used a popularity or scoring mechanism. People DO go to their profiles to see what their total number of beans are. To discourage this kind of a game, instead of having a running total of beans - there should be a link to the the comments/posts that have been beaned. While a member could go thru all of their beaned items and add up the total - it wouldn't be displayed as a total in the profile page. This would likely discourage using beans in a "gaming" manner.
posted by bigmusic at 6:24 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
"Another thing to consider, is that beans ARE being used a popularity or scoring mechanism."
It's MeFi, not Mankala.
posted by klangklangston at 6:32 PM on November 1, 2009
It's MeFi, not Mankala.
posted by klangklangston at 6:32 PM on November 1, 2009
Absolutely agree with this move. It's unsettling when you read threads from the days before favourites -- after a bit, it feels like something's missing, and then you realise it's the lack of posturing fave-bait posts. People made jokes and were witty and goofed around, but more often than not there were also threads that just got going without a 30-post please-fave-me lulfest first of all.
It also seems to me that many of the people clamouring for them to be displayed again so they can skim the threads better are possibly asking for the wrong thing. Favourite counts are a pretty bad way to skim a thread -- you either have to use a script (which isn't affected by this change), or you have to manually search-and-skip to look for the higher-favourited comments. What you really want is a way to filter out the lower-faved posts, and there are better ways to do that.
True, there are also those who want to see them to get a feel of what the chorus is saying, but I'm really not sure how great a thing that is -- in this model, they just act as a gang hanging about going "mmmmhmmm that's right" to posts. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not -- I sure hate it in large conversations in real life.
Either way, I'm pretty sure there are legitimate concerns about favourites, and it really would have been nice to see how things were without them. I think it's a pity that the experiment has effectively already been killed by making a cop-out preference that amounts to "carry on behaving just as you were! We'll see if things change if you don't change at all!" It's like putting an optional window in the box for Schrödinger's cat.
posted by fightorflight at 6:37 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
It also seems to me that many of the people clamouring for them to be displayed again so they can skim the threads better are possibly asking for the wrong thing. Favourite counts are a pretty bad way to skim a thread -- you either have to use a script (which isn't affected by this change), or you have to manually search-and-skip to look for the higher-favourited comments. What you really want is a way to filter out the lower-faved posts, and there are better ways to do that.
True, there are also those who want to see them to get a feel of what the chorus is saying, but I'm really not sure how great a thing that is -- in this model, they just act as a gang hanging about going "mmmmhmmm that's right" to posts. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not -- I sure hate it in large conversations in real life.
Either way, I'm pretty sure there are legitimate concerns about favourites, and it really would have been nice to see how things were without them. I think it's a pity that the experiment has effectively already been killed by making a cop-out preference that amounts to "carry on behaving just as you were! We'll see if things change if you don't change at all!" It's like putting an optional window in the box for Schrödinger's cat.
posted by fightorflight at 6:37 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
But, bigmusic, I like seeing my score! It makes me feel validated, and dammit, I'm not afraid to say so. Why are you appropriating my bean-term in a manner that would make me sad? This is what I get for contributing to the discourse, I suppose!
(I kind of use my number of total favorites to remind me to contribute, honestly. When I haven't had one or two favorites in, say, a week or so, that says to me "you need to thoughtfully contribute something, Mizu!" and then I do.)
posted by Mizu at 6:37 PM on November 1, 2009
(I kind of use my number of total favorites to remind me to contribute, honestly. When I haven't had one or two favorites in, say, a week or so, that says to me "you need to thoughtfully contribute something, Mizu!" and then I do.)
posted by Mizu at 6:37 PM on November 1, 2009
Look, the fact of the matter is that it feels to me like manipulative, emotional blackmail and is antithetical to what I consider reasoned conversation.
Oh God.
Frankly, it feels like bullying to be told that I'm not bright for agreeing to the arguments of those on the other side of the debate. Yes, I can understand why they're making those arguments, and why those changes might be important to them, but I don't agree with the general tenor of their complaints about the site. Telling me that I'm not trying or not bright enough to get it doesn't seem any more reasonable or productive to me, and made me feel pretty crappy. I don't mean to manipulate you by saying so. And I don't think that I, or any other member of this community, needs their egos stroked personally, but I think validation of the contributions of individual members is one of the things metafilter has going for it. Despite being a big community, full of people, it seemed like it was filled with individuals who I could connect with, whether through favorites or discussion. This dilutes that. Severely.
Sorry to bring feelings into it. I'm not trying to emotionally blackmail anyone. I just feel really pretty passionately about this site, particularly the community aspects of it.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 6:37 PM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
Oh God.
Frankly, it feels like bullying to be told that I'm not bright for agreeing to the arguments of those on the other side of the debate. Yes, I can understand why they're making those arguments, and why those changes might be important to them, but I don't agree with the general tenor of their complaints about the site. Telling me that I'm not trying or not bright enough to get it doesn't seem any more reasonable or productive to me, and made me feel pretty crappy. I don't mean to manipulate you by saying so. And I don't think that I, or any other member of this community, needs their egos stroked personally, but I think validation of the contributions of individual members is one of the things metafilter has going for it. Despite being a big community, full of people, it seemed like it was filled with individuals who I could connect with, whether through favorites or discussion. This dilutes that. Severely.
Sorry to bring feelings into it. I'm not trying to emotionally blackmail anyone. I just feel really pretty passionately about this site, particularly the community aspects of it.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 6:37 PM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
Kudos for the experiment!
Will comment with an opinion after I've seen how it affects the way I use MeFi over the next few days.
posted by zarq at 6:40 PM on November 1, 2009
Will comment with an opinion after I've seen how it affects the way I use MeFi over the next few days.
posted by zarq at 6:40 PM on November 1, 2009
Wait, so you people don't read every comment in every thread?
I do, and now I feel a little like that weird kid who reads the dictionary (who, to be fair, I also am).
Me too on both counts. I have actually had the dictionary physically removed from me because it was proving to be harmful to the well being of others. Yes, my idea of a good time is getting drunk and reading the dictionary. I suppose the objection was that other people didn't want me to do so outloud.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:45 PM on November 1, 2009
I do, and now I feel a little like that weird kid who reads the dictionary (who, to be fair, I also am).
Me too on both counts. I have actually had the dictionary physically removed from me because it was proving to be harmful to the well being of others. Yes, my idea of a good time is getting drunk and reading the dictionary. I suppose the objection was that other people didn't want me to do so outloud.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:45 PM on November 1, 2009
Oh, and on the "read every comment" tally: me too!
posted by Hildegarde at 6:47 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Hildegarde at 6:47 PM on November 1, 2009
No sir, I do not like it.
posted by zippy at 6:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by zippy at 6:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I like the change. Although I will admit to using favorite counts as a way to quickly find the so-called "cream of the crop" in each thread, since they were instituted I've been dismayed at how they've turned into a kind of popularity contest, with people trying to outsnark one another in the hopes of getting a higher favorite count. Frankly, Metafilter worked fine without the favorites for a long time, even in really long threads -- and I'm not terribly sympathetic to those who say they are absolutely necessary to find the "best" comments. Isn't that what the sidebar (and best answers in AskMe) is for?
One idea: what about hiding favorite counts for any comments posted by you? You can see everyone else's favorite counts, but you cannot see your own (perhaps aside from knowing that your comment has been "faved"). Those logged out cannot see favorite counts whatsoever. Alternatively, if one wants to highlight highly-favorited comments, perhaps they could be shaded a certain color (as with best answers in AskMe) once a particular favorite count threshold is passed. This could be disabled in one's preferences. This might cut down on some of the snark and assholishness that favorites cause.
posted by armage at 6:48 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
One idea: what about hiding favorite counts for any comments posted by you? You can see everyone else's favorite counts, but you cannot see your own (perhaps aside from knowing that your comment has been "faved"). Those logged out cannot see favorite counts whatsoever. Alternatively, if one wants to highlight highly-favorited comments, perhaps they could be shaded a certain color (as with best answers in AskMe) once a particular favorite count threshold is passed. This could be disabled in one's preferences. This might cut down on some of the snark and assholishness that favorites cause.
posted by armage at 6:48 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Never posted in metatalk before but just wanted to say I really miss the old favorites system. I access metafilter from all over the place including my public library. The browser scripts aren't a feasible solution for me. :(
posted by laptolain at 6:56 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by laptolain at 6:56 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
1) I like the idea that this experiment is being tried for a whole month, and I really don't understand the anger.
2) I think I will like MeFi better without the favourites displayed in the thread view.
3) The experimental interface for this is hideous and will have to go if the obscured view sticks. The unpleasant past-participle of the nasty non-verb is one thing that everyone has complained about; also the difference between [faved +] and [faved -] is kind of horrible.
Here is one possible alternative: Clicking the [+] pops up a menu with the options "save this as a favourite" and "n users saved this as a favourite" - where selecting the second option takes you to the list.
Posts that you have saved as favourites should be highlighted in some way - we already have indented sidebar things and different-coloured backgrounds so I guess those are out. Maybe a box? Or the highlight could be limited to the [+]. Possibly the [+] could change into a star or something - that would make sense as it no longer has an 'add' function.
Do posts that other people have saved as favourites need to be highlighted? I would guess 'no' but I'll tell you in a month. Bold-facing the [+] should do the trick; maybe the brackets could change colour.
4) Excellent move to leave the favourite counts readily available to monkey-greasers. If it is decided that obscured is the way to go, it could even be an opt-in preference to display them.
5) If the favourite counts remain obscured in thread views in the future, an overhaul of the "popular favourites" system will be necessary, as it's currently bewildering.
posted by nowonmai at 6:58 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
2) I think I will like MeFi better without the favourites displayed in the thread view.
3) The experimental interface for this is hideous and will have to go if the obscured view sticks. The unpleasant past-participle of the nasty non-verb is one thing that everyone has complained about; also the difference between [faved +] and [faved -] is kind of horrible.
Here is one possible alternative: Clicking the [+] pops up a menu with the options "save this as a favourite" and "n users saved this as a favourite" - where selecting the second option takes you to the list.
Posts that you have saved as favourites should be highlighted in some way - we already have indented sidebar things and different-coloured backgrounds so I guess those are out. Maybe a box? Or the highlight could be limited to the [+]. Possibly the [+] could change into a star or something - that would make sense as it no longer has an 'add' function.
Do posts that other people have saved as favourites need to be highlighted? I would guess 'no' but I'll tell you in a month. Bold-facing the [+] should do the trick; maybe the brackets could change colour.
4) Excellent move to leave the favourite counts readily available to monkey-greasers. If it is decided that obscured is the way to go, it could even be an opt-in preference to display them.
5) If the favourite counts remain obscured in thread views in the future, an overhaul of the "popular favourites" system will be necessary, as it's currently bewildering.
posted by nowonmai at 6:58 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Floating this trial balloon and simultaneously allowing people to disable it sort of defeats the purpose of the experiment.
posted by cgomez at 6:59 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by cgomez at 6:59 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
laptolain, given that we're now over 1,000 comments, you may have missed the announcement that you can now restore the old display by means of a checkbox in your preferences, no Greasemonkey necessary.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:59 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:59 PM on November 1, 2009
I dunno why I should bother posting this far down in the thread, but after being at this for a day, I can see that it will change the way I use the site. Seems I just skip the comments threads now unless something good gets started right off the bat, above the fold. If i scroll through the threads, the log ones stand out but those aren't always quality and unless they grab me i just pass on by.
I'm one who used the comments counts to get involved in a thread I came late to (like this one). So if anyone's counting, I'm for the old way.
posted by salishsea at 6:59 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm one who used the comments counts to get involved in a thread I came late to (like this one). So if anyone's counting, I'm for the old way.
posted by salishsea at 6:59 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
HI I'M ON METAFILTER AND I COULD OVERTHINK A PLATE OF FAVES.
posted by Effigy2000 at 6:59 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Effigy2000 at 6:59 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I DID IT. I read the entire thread, every comment, just like I said I would. Do you know what? It was horrible. I normally do, in fact, read almost all comments in a thread that holds my interest, but this was just a giant, numbing slog and I'm kicking my own stubbornness for keeping my promise.
Hugs! For what it's worth, this is a horrible case study, being so absurdly long and in one respect very pollish compared to any even reasonably normal thread. So I wouldn't let the experience of slogging through it color your take on this dynamic of reading in general—give some more moderate-length threads on the blue and the green a go and see how that feels for a better representative take on it.
(My secret: reading the thread all day long. Not totally recommended for those not being paid to do so or who do not get some direct sociological pleasure from rolling in this particular brand of mud, but it's easier to parcel it out throughout the day than to do it in one go, regardless.)
Perhaps my memory is cloudy or I used to have more time, but I do remember just reading the longer comments and ignoring the shorter ones for a period of time. In any case, I see the problem of more comments will get worse, irrespective of the past.
I don't know what's in your memory or what you spent time reading vs. not reading, so I won't try to speculate. I certainly have had differing amounts of time for the site over the years, and I'd speculate that in general as the average mefite ages they will (a) lose some portion of their peak enthusiasm for the site or specific aspects of discussion on the site and (b) likely have less net time to spend in general what with real life getting more time-consuming for any number of reason, so I suspect there are external factors that may play into any reading like this irrespective of how the site dynamic itself has changed.
That said, I am starting to sort of itch for some meaty quant work on these volume-over-time envelopes because I think it'd be interesting to examine perception vs. fact on things like user and comment growth. My impression is that things have actually been pretty steady in general for a number of years now, mild growth but nothing drastic, but it bears looking at in detail.
Scaling issues are certainly one of the great challenges of managing the health of a community, and that plays into this discussion in general certainly, but I think while it's dangerous to ignore those issues it's also a little dangerous to overestimate the degree to which they are extant.
The reason it is annoying to me now is because I am trying to use the site the way I did yesterday, and I have to circumvent stuff.
Yeah, and while I'm not in any way trying to belittle or dismiss the negative reactions folks have had today, I think there's a factor of just raw twitch-memory-betrayal that can come into this sort of thing.
As a concrete example of it, we made a change to the admin view earlier this year that replaced what had for a long time been a simple bold-faced IP record for any given comment (so something like like posted by whoever at 4:34 PM on November 1 [192.168.1.1] [2 favorites +] [!] basically) with a version of the byline that links to a couple of IP-related search tools instead, which was an effort to simultaneously give us direct access to the IP-related tools we use most often (instead of having to go off to a separate admin page and paste an IP in) and to get IPs out of the thread display so we didn't have to worry about e.g. accidentally screenshotting or copypasting someone's IP address.
And the replacement text looks instead like posted by whoever at 4:34 PM on November 1 [IP:whois|search] [2 favorites +] [!], which, note the lack of bold around the new search-tool links. Totally trivial visual change in general, but it totally fucked with me for a couple days to the point where I was asking pb about changing it to bold, because my eyes were scanning that non-bold text near the terminus of the byline and trying to read it as a favorites line.
But I sat on it for a couple days and it stopped bothering me at all. And that muscle-memory aspect of it was driving a lot of my visceral reaction. I think for anyone feeling sort of a twitch aspect to their negative reaction, that may be part of it (though I totally understand that that's not all of it and may not be a significant part of it at all for a lot of people), and that's worth keeping in mind.
Never posted in metatalk before but just wanted to say I really miss the old favorites system. I access metafilter from all over the place including my public library. The browser scripts aren't a feasible solution for me. :(
Heya, laptolain, there's now a mefi-native preferences option you can use to change this; check the link at the top of the Metatalk front page or in the top of this post for info.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:59 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Hugs! For what it's worth, this is a horrible case study, being so absurdly long and in one respect very pollish compared to any even reasonably normal thread. So I wouldn't let the experience of slogging through it color your take on this dynamic of reading in general—give some more moderate-length threads on the blue and the green a go and see how that feels for a better representative take on it.
(My secret: reading the thread all day long. Not totally recommended for those not being paid to do so or who do not get some direct sociological pleasure from rolling in this particular brand of mud, but it's easier to parcel it out throughout the day than to do it in one go, regardless.)
Perhaps my memory is cloudy or I used to have more time, but I do remember just reading the longer comments and ignoring the shorter ones for a period of time. In any case, I see the problem of more comments will get worse, irrespective of the past.
I don't know what's in your memory or what you spent time reading vs. not reading, so I won't try to speculate. I certainly have had differing amounts of time for the site over the years, and I'd speculate that in general as the average mefite ages they will (a) lose some portion of their peak enthusiasm for the site or specific aspects of discussion on the site and (b) likely have less net time to spend in general what with real life getting more time-consuming for any number of reason, so I suspect there are external factors that may play into any reading like this irrespective of how the site dynamic itself has changed.
That said, I am starting to sort of itch for some meaty quant work on these volume-over-time envelopes because I think it'd be interesting to examine perception vs. fact on things like user and comment growth. My impression is that things have actually been pretty steady in general for a number of years now, mild growth but nothing drastic, but it bears looking at in detail.
Scaling issues are certainly one of the great challenges of managing the health of a community, and that plays into this discussion in general certainly, but I think while it's dangerous to ignore those issues it's also a little dangerous to overestimate the degree to which they are extant.
The reason it is annoying to me now is because I am trying to use the site the way I did yesterday, and I have to circumvent stuff.
Yeah, and while I'm not in any way trying to belittle or dismiss the negative reactions folks have had today, I think there's a factor of just raw twitch-memory-betrayal that can come into this sort of thing.
As a concrete example of it, we made a change to the admin view earlier this year that replaced what had for a long time been a simple bold-faced IP record for any given comment (so something like like posted by whoever at 4:34 PM on November 1 [192.168.1.1] [2 favorites +] [!] basically) with a version of the byline that links to a couple of IP-related search tools instead, which was an effort to simultaneously give us direct access to the IP-related tools we use most often (instead of having to go off to a separate admin page and paste an IP in) and to get IPs out of the thread display so we didn't have to worry about e.g. accidentally screenshotting or copypasting someone's IP address.
And the replacement text looks instead like posted by whoever at 4:34 PM on November 1 [IP:whois|search] [2 favorites +] [!], which, note the lack of bold around the new search-tool links. Totally trivial visual change in general, but it totally fucked with me for a couple days to the point where I was asking pb about changing it to bold, because my eyes were scanning that non-bold text near the terminus of the byline and trying to read it as a favorites line.
But I sat on it for a couple days and it stopped bothering me at all. And that muscle-memory aspect of it was driving a lot of my visceral reaction. I think for anyone feeling sort of a twitch aspect to their negative reaction, that may be part of it (though I totally understand that that's not all of it and may not be a significant part of it at all for a lot of people), and that's worth keeping in mind.
Never posted in metatalk before but just wanted to say I really miss the old favorites system. I access metafilter from all over the place including my public library. The browser scripts aren't a feasible solution for me. :(
Heya, laptolain, there's now a mefi-native preferences option you can use to change this; check the link at the top of the Metatalk front page or in the top of this post for info.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:59 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'm all for experimentation, but I've turned this newfangled thing off simply because I cannot CANNOT stand the word faved. If this were done with real words I'd be all for guinea pigging out on it.
posted by Cold Lurkey at 7:05 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Cold Lurkey at 7:05 PM on November 1, 2009
Logged in, tried to skim what I'd missed, confused by "faved", found this, irritated by "faved", reverted in preferences, experiment over.
If some people don't like the counts I'm glad they can now turn them off. If I had been unable to turn mine back on this would have broken the site for me.
posted by patrick rhett at 7:06 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
If some people don't like the counts I'm glad they can now turn them off. If I had been unable to turn mine back on this would have broken the site for me.
posted by patrick rhett at 7:06 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
This may be stated above, but I am not going to read all of the comments. Maybe after a thread is closed the number of favorites could be displayed. This way the number of favorites will not interfere with a live thread, but will be accessible after the commenting is closed. Just an idea.
posted by Frank Grimes at 7:08 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Frank Grimes at 7:08 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Why do these threads always happen when I'm asleep? Diving in at the end of 1000+ comments seems futile.
Anyway, for the record - I don't like the change. I thought favourites was working fine before and wasn't really contributing to bad behaviour. Bad behaviour in a thread appears without the help of favourites (this thread is a good example).
posted by awfurby at 7:09 PM on November 1, 2009
Anyway, for the record - I don't like the change. I thought favourites was working fine before and wasn't really contributing to bad behaviour. Bad behaviour in a thread appears without the help of favourites (this thread is a good example).
posted by awfurby at 7:09 PM on November 1, 2009
This is kinda like the latest Facebook "improvement":
(a) it solves no real problem
(b) it puts people off using the site
(c) it rips the rug out from under the way people have been using the site
... go back! Go back, I say!
posted by jbickers at 7:09 PM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
(a) it solves no real problem
(b) it puts people off using the site
(c) it rips the rug out from under the way people have been using the site
... go back! Go back, I say!
posted by jbickers at 7:09 PM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
I've just popped in to comment that it is remarkable how this is affecting how I read a thread. I don't know if that's good or bad, but there you have it.
I don't usually have enough time to read an entire thread and so tend to pay more attention to the posts with 2+ favs when short on time. This is mighty disruptive of that, but maybe better? I kind of like Frank Grimes' idea as posted above.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 7:18 PM on November 1, 2009
I don't usually have enough time to read an entire thread and so tend to pay more attention to the posts with 2+ favs when short on time. This is mighty disruptive of that, but maybe better? I kind of like Frank Grimes' idea as posted above.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 7:18 PM on November 1, 2009
I hate this. Another vote to return to the older, better system.
posted by Spacelegoman at 7:18 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Spacelegoman at 7:18 PM on November 1, 2009
Wow folks.
If anyone deserves 30 days to try something - even something some percentage of people may not care for - it's the mods.
And if anyone should be a little more supportive and circumspect towards the mods, during a *rare* experiment, it's the rest of us.
I love favorites. Love them. I toss out favorites like candy on halloween, often in a "Right on!, Preach!", 'terrorist-fist-bump-of-agreement' sort of a way. I don't think they should have been touched, no more than you 'touch up' the Mona Lisa, by renaming her 'Mo-mo' and obscuring her from view. But regardless of how 'right' we feel we are, I'm kind of stunned by the lack of generosity displayed by some of us, particularly since the complaints seem to boil down to 'inconvenienced'.
Considering how few of us ever think about often we might 'inconvenience' a mod who has to clean up the verbal poo of thoughtless behavior on a daily basis in any number of threads (and I'm always amazed that afterwards they are generous enough to even HEAR everyone's sad-assed 'I'm so-reeee about my comments yesterday, everyone, I was smoking crack. I'm soooo embarrassed, and gave myself a time out!' mea culpas, and respond with overall consistent generosity), I kind of thought everyone would just go with being patient, give the mods a pass, work around this for a month - or maybe take a break if it that 'that' bad, if need be, and let them go on with their bad, experimenting selves.
I still wish we, as a community, had just done that.
posted by anitanita at 7:20 PM on November 1, 2009 [13 favorites]
If anyone deserves 30 days to try something - even something some percentage of people may not care for - it's the mods.
And if anyone should be a little more supportive and circumspect towards the mods, during a *rare* experiment, it's the rest of us.
I love favorites. Love them. I toss out favorites like candy on halloween, often in a "Right on!, Preach!", 'terrorist-fist-bump-of-agreement' sort of a way. I don't think they should have been touched, no more than you 'touch up' the Mona Lisa, by renaming her 'Mo-mo' and obscuring her from view. But regardless of how 'right' we feel we are, I'm kind of stunned by the lack of generosity displayed by some of us, particularly since the complaints seem to boil down to 'inconvenienced'.
Considering how few of us ever think about often we might 'inconvenience' a mod who has to clean up the verbal poo of thoughtless behavior on a daily basis in any number of threads (and I'm always amazed that afterwards they are generous enough to even HEAR everyone's sad-assed 'I'm so-reeee about my comments yesterday, everyone, I was smoking crack. I'm soooo embarrassed, and gave myself a time out!' mea culpas, and respond with overall consistent generosity), I kind of thought everyone would just go with being patient, give the mods a pass, work around this for a month - or maybe take a break if it that 'that' bad, if need be, and let them go on with their bad, experimenting selves.
I still wish we, as a community, had just done that.
posted by anitanita at 7:20 PM on November 1, 2009 [13 favorites]
First, thank you, thank you, thank you for making this a user preference. One of the things I love about MeFi is that the people who run the site actually listen to the users.
A suggestion for a future option/experiment. Instead of displaying "Faved [+]" when someone else favorites a comment, why not just leave it at "[+]"? The current system is this weird meta-position between turning favorites off and leaving them on. If the goal is to eliminate the "voting" aspect of favorites, why not go all the way?
As it stands, it's still got the popularity contest aspect, but all you can tell by default is that at least one person liked it.
Sorry if the idea has been suggested already upthread; I may have missed it in my read through.
posted by JDHarper at 7:22 PM on November 1, 2009
A suggestion for a future option/experiment. Instead of displaying "Faved [+]" when someone else favorites a comment, why not just leave it at "[+]"? The current system is this weird meta-position between turning favorites off and leaving them on. If the goal is to eliminate the "voting" aspect of favorites, why not go all the way?
As it stands, it's still got the popularity contest aspect, but all you can tell by default is that at least one person liked it.
Sorry if the idea has been suggested already upthread; I may have missed it in my read through.
posted by JDHarper at 7:22 PM on November 1, 2009
Hmmm, further reflection throughout the day like others.
It seems to me, the perceived problem here is the snark, especially lulz at the start of the thread snark. There are arguments that the favourite system enables this snark - but they're just arguments, having less weight even then the people who say favourites ennoble them, encourage a higher and more thoughtful standard in their posts and make them feel good about themsevles (because no one has come forward and said "Yea! Verily doth I make jokes about butts and/or taters for the precious favouritesssssssss! Precious Favvvvvesssss").
So if snark is the problem, I think we should focus solutions that address that (if it's felt to be a problem) rather than a quick sidestep that clearly has engendered a lot of collateral damage. Favourites are, at worst, a mixed bag, community-value-wise. Surely there are other avenues to pursue with less ambiguity? Perhaps the flagging system could be considered?
posted by smoke at 7:26 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
It seems to me, the perceived problem here is the snark, especially lulz at the start of the thread snark. There are arguments that the favourite system enables this snark - but they're just arguments, having less weight even then the people who say favourites ennoble them, encourage a higher and more thoughtful standard in their posts and make them feel good about themsevles (because no one has come forward and said "Yea! Verily doth I make jokes about butts and/or taters for the precious favouritesssssssss! Precious Favvvvvesssss").
So if snark is the problem, I think we should focus solutions that address that (if it's felt to be a problem) rather than a quick sidestep that clearly has engendered a lot of collateral damage. Favourites are, at worst, a mixed bag, community-value-wise. Surely there are other avenues to pursue with less ambiguity? Perhaps the flagging system could be considered?
posted by smoke at 7:26 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Okay, it's now about six hours since I stumbled into this thread (other than a brief look-in last night before the change had actually been instituted). Day has turned to night, a meal has been eaten, a cigar smoked, some wine sipped, I've listened to lots of cool tranced out music from the 1970s and I'm still only about 75 percent of the way through ...
(people just keep adding f***ing comments!!!!)
Anyway, a couple of quick thoughts:
1. this may not be longest thread in MeFi history, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it that it eventually has the largest tally of different individual contributors; a nerve has most definitely been struck.
2. the negative opposite of an echo chamber is a vacuum, which sadly, is what I feel (so far) with this new change ... like wandering into my favourite pub and all the regular faces are there, but something's wrong, I'm not reading the nonverbal cues the way I used to ... those subtle glances of encouragement or discouragement, winks, threatening looks, sudden outbursts of laughter; I'm not completely blind, mind you, or deaf; but things are muted in a way they weren't before, and it's frustrating. What's wrong?
posted by philip-random at 7:30 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
(people just keep adding f***ing comments!!!!)
Anyway, a couple of quick thoughts:
1. this may not be longest thread in MeFi history, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it that it eventually has the largest tally of different individual contributors; a nerve has most definitely been struck.
2. the negative opposite of an echo chamber is a vacuum, which sadly, is what I feel (so far) with this new change ... like wandering into my favourite pub and all the regular faces are there, but something's wrong, I'm not reading the nonverbal cues the way I used to ... those subtle glances of encouragement or discouragement, winks, threatening looks, sudden outbursts of laughter; I'm not completely blind, mind you, or deaf; but things are muted in a way they weren't before, and it's frustrating. What's wrong?
posted by philip-random at 7:30 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
At first, I was reading along thinking, "hey why not give this a try...it's not a huge change."
I lasted 20 minutes. Luckily I saw the comment that mentioned the "opt-out" option.
Do. Not. Want.
posted by schyler523 at 7:35 PM on November 1, 2009
I lasted 20 minutes. Luckily I saw the comment that mentioned the "opt-out" option.
Do. Not. Want.
posted by schyler523 at 7:35 PM on November 1, 2009
Sorry if the idea has been suggested already upthread; I may have missed it in my read through.
Yes, klangklangston suggested that earlier. And yes, I also read all the comments. It often leads to interesting insights into what everyone in the thread thinks.
posted by P.o.B. at 7:37 PM on November 1, 2009
Yes, klangklangston suggested that earlier. And yes, I also read all the comments. It often leads to interesting insights into what everyone in the thread thinks.
posted by P.o.B. at 7:37 PM on November 1, 2009
I just want to remind everyone that the largest through on the site is a thread on Sarah Palin's announcement as VP, at 5,555 comments.
So far, the comments on this thread are mainly on-topic. Which is pretty incredible.
posted by grouse at 7:47 PM on November 1, 2009
So far, the comments on this thread are mainly on-topic. Which is pretty incredible.
posted by grouse at 7:47 PM on November 1, 2009
Well, at least the outpouring of hate shows that favourites are having an effect on behaviour.
posted by fightorflight at 7:48 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by fightorflight at 7:48 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'd go so far at this point as to suggest that where we're at now is optimal; you can view or not view favorite counts as you choose. I suppose we still need to figure out what the default for guests and new users will be, though.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:48 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:48 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Thanks cortex I'll definitely check that out. The mods here rock.
posted by laptolain at 7:52 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by laptolain at 7:52 PM on November 1, 2009
Do not want. Thanks for the opt-out option. The term "faved" is particularly jarring.
I don't have the time or wherewithal to read this entire thread, or to see if anyone's suggested this before, but: if the point of this is to eliminate gaming of the favorites system, then the solution would be something along the lines of making favorites only appear to the person who gave the favorite. Perhaps the commenter could still check her or his profile page for an actual favorite count, but then again I don't know if that would hurt or help.
Of course this kind of ruins the idea that favorite superclusters are indicators of particularly novel, incisive, or witty posts, as judged by the community, but there's the rub.
If there's some huge debate about "Favorites as bookmarks" and "Favorites as OMGI<3THISCOMMENT" that absolutely has to be settled on all fronts, in all ledgers, for all eternity and without equivocation, then why not make a "Bookmark" widget to go along with the "Favorite" widget? Again, forgive me if any of this has been covered before.
posted by m0nm0n at 8:00 PM on November 1, 2009
I don't have the time or wherewithal to read this entire thread, or to see if anyone's suggested this before, but: if the point of this is to eliminate gaming of the favorites system, then the solution would be something along the lines of making favorites only appear to the person who gave the favorite. Perhaps the commenter could still check her or his profile page for an actual favorite count, but then again I don't know if that would hurt or help.
Of course this kind of ruins the idea that favorite superclusters are indicators of particularly novel, incisive, or witty posts, as judged by the community, but there's the rub.
If there's some huge debate about "Favorites as bookmarks" and "Favorites as OMGI<3THISCOMMENT" that absolutely has to be settled on all fronts, in all ledgers, for all eternity and without equivocation, then why not make a "Bookmark" widget to go along with the "Favorite" widget? Again, forgive me if any of this has been covered before.
posted by m0nm0n at 8:00 PM on November 1, 2009
I'd go so far at this point as to suggest that where we're at now is optimal; you can view or not view favorite counts as you choose.
How so? If the alleged problem is that visible favourites prompt changes in user behaviour that are negative for the site, how is giving the people indulging in the negative behaviour an option to carry on regardless "optimal"?
posted by fightorflight at 8:00 PM on November 1, 2009
How so? If the alleged problem is that visible favourites prompt changes in user behaviour that are negative for the site, how is giving the people indulging in the negative behaviour an option to carry on regardless "optimal"?
posted by fightorflight at 8:00 PM on November 1, 2009
I'd go so far at this point as to suggest that where we're at now is optimal; you can view or not view favorite counts as you choose.
Or not optimal, if (part of) the intent is to discourage favourite-whoring - ie discouraging throwaway witty or snarky comments, as opposed to more serious, thought-out arguments.
Personally, I have nothing against the former. I love the wittiness shown by so many people here as much as I appreciate the more serious comments, and I see no reason why these should be treated as if it's some kind of either/or situation; which seems to be how some of the members waxing nostalgically for the good old days are choosing to frame the issue.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:04 PM on November 1, 2009
Or not optimal, if (part of) the intent is to discourage favourite-whoring - ie discouraging throwaway witty or snarky comments, as opposed to more serious, thought-out arguments.
Personally, I have nothing against the former. I love the wittiness shown by so many people here as much as I appreciate the more serious comments, and I see no reason why these should be treated as if it's some kind of either/or situation; which seems to be how some of the members waxing nostalgically for the good old days are choosing to frame the issue.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:04 PM on November 1, 2009
"Frankly, it feels like bullying to be told that I'm not bright for agreeing to the arguments of those on the other side of the debate."
Well, see, again, that's frustrating, because both parts of that sentence are wrong.
You said that you just couldn't see the counter-arguments, not that you didn't agree with them. And I explicitly said that you were bright enough to get them, which was why it was frustrating to see you claim that you didn't.
It feels like you're arguing in bad faith, that you're calling me a bully over things that I did not say, and it seems pretty fair to call that manipulative and shitty.
"Telling me that I'm not trying or not bright enough to get it doesn't seem any more reasonable or productive to me, and made me feel pretty crappy."
But the truth is that you pretty much did get them, or were able to get them (I hope you get them now) with a few honest questions. So while you feel pretty crappy, it's not because I bullied you, it's because I was skeptical of your false statement. While I'm not calling you a liar per se, it is analogous to a liar feeling crappy for being caught in a lie. (I don't think you're a liar, but I think you said something rhetorically expedient and were emotionally involved in a tangential topic that's been discussed prior without knowing those discussions. It's a lot more abstract to people who have argued it before).
I'd also say that by arguing that people are devaluing you as a member, you're also devaluing the experience of people who have been here longer and who have had these debates before. You haven't seen a lot of these changes in real time. Hell, you've never really had a significant barrier to entry, which will obviously bias you toward a more democratic view of Metafilter, rather than meritocratic or aristocratic.
posted by klangklangston at 8:05 PM on November 1, 2009
Well, see, again, that's frustrating, because both parts of that sentence are wrong.
You said that you just couldn't see the counter-arguments, not that you didn't agree with them. And I explicitly said that you were bright enough to get them, which was why it was frustrating to see you claim that you didn't.
It feels like you're arguing in bad faith, that you're calling me a bully over things that I did not say, and it seems pretty fair to call that manipulative and shitty.
"Telling me that I'm not trying or not bright enough to get it doesn't seem any more reasonable or productive to me, and made me feel pretty crappy."
But the truth is that you pretty much did get them, or were able to get them (I hope you get them now) with a few honest questions. So while you feel pretty crappy, it's not because I bullied you, it's because I was skeptical of your false statement. While I'm not calling you a liar per se, it is analogous to a liar feeling crappy for being caught in a lie. (I don't think you're a liar, but I think you said something rhetorically expedient and were emotionally involved in a tangential topic that's been discussed prior without knowing those discussions. It's a lot more abstract to people who have argued it before).
I'd also say that by arguing that people are devaluing you as a member, you're also devaluing the experience of people who have been here longer and who have had these debates before. You haven't seen a lot of these changes in real time. Hell, you've never really had a significant barrier to entry, which will obviously bias you toward a more democratic view of Metafilter, rather than meritocratic or aristocratic.
posted by klangklangston at 8:05 PM on November 1, 2009
If the alleged problem is that visible favourites prompt changes in user behaviour that are negative for the site, how is giving the people indulging in the negative behaviour an option to carry on regardless "optimal"?
That's an unproven allegation, and one that it would be, frankly, impossible to objectively prove or disprove. Further, as seen in the thousand or so comments above, an awful lot of people do not agree in the slightest. As such, it seems to me that since this is fundamentally a difference of opinion and preference, the best solution is to allow both sides to view what they want to.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:06 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
That's an unproven allegation, and one that it would be, frankly, impossible to objectively prove or disprove. Further, as seen in the thousand or so comments above, an awful lot of people do not agree in the slightest. As such, it seems to me that since this is fundamentally a difference of opinion and preference, the best solution is to allow both sides to view what they want to.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:06 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I like this experiment. I do think it will be hard to have any coherent outcomes at the end of the month but for users that did not opt-out, I think it will be interesting to see what their thoughts are and how the lack of favorites changed their personal interaction with the site.
posted by Staggering Jack at 8:07 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Staggering Jack at 8:07 PM on November 1, 2009
That's an unproven allegation, and one that it would be, frankly, impossible to objectively prove or disprove.
But that's the whole point of this exercise! To try and see if it makes any difference, even one that can even be felt.
As such, it seems to me that since this is fundamentally a difference of opinion and preference, the best solution is to allow both sides to view what they want to.
Well, yes, but this misses the point -- the people who don't like favourites don't, it seems to me, have a problem with seeing them personally: rather, they don't like the effect their publicity has on the wider community.
Hiding them from people-who-don't-like-favourites isn't optimal, it fixes nothing at all -- not even alleged problems.
posted by fightorflight at 8:11 PM on November 1, 2009
But that's the whole point of this exercise! To try and see if it makes any difference, even one that can even be felt.
As such, it seems to me that since this is fundamentally a difference of opinion and preference, the best solution is to allow both sides to view what they want to.
Well, yes, but this misses the point -- the people who don't like favourites don't, it seems to me, have a problem with seeing them personally: rather, they don't like the effect their publicity has on the wider community.
Hiding them from people-who-don't-like-favourites isn't optimal, it fixes nothing at all -- not even alleged problems.
posted by fightorflight at 8:11 PM on November 1, 2009
While I'm not calling you a liar per se, it is analogous to a liar feeling crappy for being caught in a lie.
Oh, Jesus, dude, just stop.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
Oh, Jesus, dude, just stop.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
I'm game. I don't think I like it, but I'll try it for a month. Then I'll see if I suddenly start hating the old way, or if I'm glad to be back.
posted by ctmf at 8:19 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by ctmf at 8:19 PM on November 1, 2009
Not to pick on you directly ctmf, because a few people have said this, but that's not really what the test is going to show. I expect people to feel broadly the same way about the showing of favourites at the end of the month as they do now.
What the test could show (though it's now pretty crippled) is whether or not there is a change in the tone and flow of conversation with favourites off. Are people now engaging with more comments, reading the threads in greater depth, going in for more context-aware replies and fewer standalone zingers -- or is it just the same level of noise but now with less ability to navigate it?
The change isn't going to be felt overnight, and that's why I think it's a shame that some people have dismissed it and raced to preferences on day one.
posted by fightorflight at 8:26 PM on November 1, 2009
What the test could show (though it's now pretty crippled) is whether or not there is a change in the tone and flow of conversation with favourites off. Are people now engaging with more comments, reading the threads in greater depth, going in for more context-aware replies and fewer standalone zingers -- or is it just the same level of noise but now with less ability to navigate it?
The change isn't going to be felt overnight, and that's why I think it's a shame that some people have dismissed it and raced to preferences on day one.
posted by fightorflight at 8:26 PM on November 1, 2009
Thank you best-moderators-on-the-internet. I have turned off my Stylish add-on and selected the checkbox in my user preferences to better register in your tallies so that I can have at least a small part in your experiment.
posted by iurodivii at 8:28 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by iurodivii at 8:28 PM on November 1, 2009
"Oh, Jesus, dude, just stop."
I know it seemed imperious and officious, but y'know, there was that parenthetical where I elaborated. Maybe you missed it. Feel free to scroll up.
posted by klangklangston at 8:30 PM on November 1, 2009
I know it seemed imperious and officious, but y'know, there was that parenthetical where I elaborated. Maybe you missed it. Feel free to scroll up.
posted by klangklangston at 8:30 PM on November 1, 2009
Skimmed thread, reverted back to displaying favorite counts via profile page, spent a moment reflecting on what great mods this site has, and am now almost entirely through with thinking about this. It wouldn't bother me a bit if favorites went away entirely, but I do like using them as a rough guage of thread merit. I favorite posts as bookmarks but comments as lolworthy or informative or yay! or whatever. I like that the system as it stands encourages users to put favorites to any use they wish. But I don't see them as an essential feature of the site. OK. But I kinda hate the word "fave". Now I really am through thinking about this.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 8:33 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by BitterOldPunk at 8:33 PM on November 1, 2009
I know it seemed imperious and officious, but y'know, there was that parenthetical where I elaborated. Maybe you missed it. Feel free to scroll up.
I know exactly what it seemed like, and I really think you should just walk away from it, because you are not coming off well at all in this.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:35 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I know exactly what it seemed like, and I really think you should just walk away from it, because you are not coming off well at all in this.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:35 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Oh, wow does turning back on the favorite counts make this thread readable.
I can skip all the 'fuck you, no fuck you!' posts and just read the important ones now.
posted by empath at 8:36 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I can skip all the 'fuck you, no fuck you!' posts and just read the important ones now.
posted by empath at 8:36 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Wow. This is huge. I could try responding to all the interesting and insightful comments by all kinds of people who have put a lot into their responses (Rhaomi, oinopaponton, majick, klangklangston, etc) but I think now is the time for as much brevity as I can muster.
I stand by my repeated statements that, while things weren't "better" in the past than they are now, our problems are different now, and our biggest problem now is pile-ons. The TSA thread and the 'Annoying Ticket' askme are only two of about a dozen examples I could probably give from the last two weeks of this.
Now, pile-ons clearly aren't simply down to favorites. Most directly they're the result of a slow but finally dramatic rise in the number of people who actively comment on Metafilter. In many ways, I think it would be futile to try to prevent that growth; it's happened, and it will continue to happen.
However, I do believe – I've said this before, and I stand by it – that the system of favorites has encouraged pile-ons by putting an exponentially increasing weight on the most popular of comments and by thus encouraging a free-for-all mentality where the majority always – always – rules. Note please that that doesn't mean "people who like favorites aren't bright" (has anybody said that here?) but rather that they encourage all of us, myself included, to engage in a community dynamic that isn't healthy.
Participating on Metafilter is now more frightening, more dangerous, more emotionally taxing and more generally painful than it's ever been for me before. That's not to say that it doesn't have rewards, and I know that some of that is just a result of my personal quirks, one of which is apparently inadvertantly sounding somewhat condescending sometimes. But the fact remains: if you don't agree with the majority, or if you try to express a controversial opinion here, WOE UNTO YOU. You will be pummelled to within an inch of your life by dozens upon dozens of people armed with the most devastating weapon available to them: casual dismissal. The worst thing about that weapon is that there's no defense against it; no one person can be blamed for coming in here and saying 'ugh, I don't like this, and why is everybody being so condescending?'
The mob votes with favorites and with little remarks which are just cutting enough. If you think that all of this is in my head, note please that jessamyn said it above, too: the mods have been punished severely for trying this; not by a few crude, personal attacks but by a whole vast influx of people who pile casually dismissive complaint upon casually dismissive complaint. It's like being beaten to death by a thousand people who are each armed with a blade of grass.
If this experiment changes this even slightly, well, I'm all in favor of it.
languagehat: koeselitz, I thought you were "quit of this" and "out." I'm pretty sure you've made every point you have to make at least a dozen times, and you're not coming off very well.
Et tu, brute? You're the last person I would have expected this from. But go ahead, my friend – twist the knife.
posted by koeselitz at 8:38 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
I stand by my repeated statements that, while things weren't "better" in the past than they are now, our problems are different now, and our biggest problem now is pile-ons. The TSA thread and the 'Annoying Ticket' askme are only two of about a dozen examples I could probably give from the last two weeks of this.
Now, pile-ons clearly aren't simply down to favorites. Most directly they're the result of a slow but finally dramatic rise in the number of people who actively comment on Metafilter. In many ways, I think it would be futile to try to prevent that growth; it's happened, and it will continue to happen.
However, I do believe – I've said this before, and I stand by it – that the system of favorites has encouraged pile-ons by putting an exponentially increasing weight on the most popular of comments and by thus encouraging a free-for-all mentality where the majority always – always – rules. Note please that that doesn't mean "people who like favorites aren't bright" (has anybody said that here?) but rather that they encourage all of us, myself included, to engage in a community dynamic that isn't healthy.
Participating on Metafilter is now more frightening, more dangerous, more emotionally taxing and more generally painful than it's ever been for me before. That's not to say that it doesn't have rewards, and I know that some of that is just a result of my personal quirks, one of which is apparently inadvertantly sounding somewhat condescending sometimes. But the fact remains: if you don't agree with the majority, or if you try to express a controversial opinion here, WOE UNTO YOU. You will be pummelled to within an inch of your life by dozens upon dozens of people armed with the most devastating weapon available to them: casual dismissal. The worst thing about that weapon is that there's no defense against it; no one person can be blamed for coming in here and saying 'ugh, I don't like this, and why is everybody being so condescending?'
The mob votes with favorites and with little remarks which are just cutting enough. If you think that all of this is in my head, note please that jessamyn said it above, too: the mods have been punished severely for trying this; not by a few crude, personal attacks but by a whole vast influx of people who pile casually dismissive complaint upon casually dismissive complaint. It's like being beaten to death by a thousand people who are each armed with a blade of grass.
If this experiment changes this even slightly, well, I'm all in favor of it.
languagehat: koeselitz, I thought you were "quit of this" and "out." I'm pretty sure you've made every point you have to make at least a dozen times, and you're not coming off very well.
Et tu, brute? You're the last person I would have expected this from. But go ahead, my friend – twist the knife.
posted by koeselitz at 8:38 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
the mods have been punished severely for trying this; not by a few crude, personal attacks but by a whole vast influx of people who pile casually dismissive complaint upon casually dismissive complaint.
To be fair, the attackers have all said "greatest modz evar" once they got what they wanted. It's like bullies who parade you around on their shoulders because you gave over your lunch money so promptly.
posted by fightorflight at 8:44 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
To be fair, the attackers have all said "greatest modz evar" once they got what they wanted. It's like bullies who parade you around on their shoulders because you gave over your lunch money so promptly.
posted by fightorflight at 8:44 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Oh, and people keep making the assumption that people are using favorites to skim threads they are commenting in, which is absurd, and no one has said that they do that. (that i noticed, anyway)
Not everyone comments in every post. Just because you're using favorites to skim, that does not mean that you are using favorites to skim a thread that you intend to comment in, and there is nothing wrong with skimming a thread, if you don't comment. Not all of us have the time or the inclination to comment in every thread. There are plenty of threads I just hop into because they have tons of comments, even though I'm not that interested in the subject, and I usually just skim to see what's being favorited in case I missed something good.
-----
I'm not even sure there's anything wrong with skimming a thread and commenting as long as you're not trying to jump into the midst of a debate.
For example, what if someone posts a new pop single, and the thread is like 400 comments long and you just have a story to tell about the time you met the singer at a hotel bar. There's nothing wrong with just jumping in and commenting without reading the entire thread.
Though obviously one should if you're getting into the latest I/P thread or something similarly contentious, but I think the people that get into shouty threads tend to be the type that read comments. (For some reason the TSA mommy thread was an exception, but I don't see what favorites had to do with that).
posted by empath at 8:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Not everyone comments in every post. Just because you're using favorites to skim, that does not mean that you are using favorites to skim a thread that you intend to comment in, and there is nothing wrong with skimming a thread, if you don't comment. Not all of us have the time or the inclination to comment in every thread. There are plenty of threads I just hop into because they have tons of comments, even though I'm not that interested in the subject, and I usually just skim to see what's being favorited in case I missed something good.
-----
I'm not even sure there's anything wrong with skimming a thread and commenting as long as you're not trying to jump into the midst of a debate.
For example, what if someone posts a new pop single, and the thread is like 400 comments long and you just have a story to tell about the time you met the singer at a hotel bar. There's nothing wrong with just jumping in and commenting without reading the entire thread.
Though obviously one should if you're getting into the latest I/P thread or something similarly contentious, but I think the people that get into shouty threads tend to be the type that read comments. (For some reason the TSA mommy thread was an exception, but I don't see what favorites had to do with that).
posted by empath at 8:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
i think instead of favorites we should be giving out victimization points - because so many seem to want to compete for them
posted by pyramid termite at 8:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by pyramid termite at 8:47 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Not to pick on you directly ctmf, because a few people have said this, but that's not really what the test is going to show.
That's what it's going to show ME before I go complaining about it and defeating the stated purpose by turning the favorite count back on.
posted by ctmf at 8:48 PM on November 1, 2009
That's what it's going to show ME before I go complaining about it and defeating the stated purpose by turning the favorite count back on.
posted by ctmf at 8:48 PM on November 1, 2009
klang, I don't think I can really engage with you any more on this, but I do want to say that I think that calling people "not bright" and insinuating that they're "not really trying" when they don't agree with you (or use common verbal/written shorthand for not agreeing with you) is pretty cruddy and doesn't engender reasonable, emotionally removed debate.
That being said, I just went over a friend's to watch Mad Men just now and, when I realized that I could hardly follow the dialogue, finally figured out how exhausted and, likely, still a bit hung over I am (remember kids: don't mix your liquors) and I'm sorry if my own muddle-headedness soured the dialogue here at all. I don't doubt that I'll still be frustrated by this change in the coming weeks, but at least its spurred discussion about the type of community we want here, and what we value (and don't) about Metafilter.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:48 PM on November 1, 2009
That being said, I just went over a friend's to watch Mad Men just now and, when I realized that I could hardly follow the dialogue, finally figured out how exhausted and, likely, still a bit hung over I am (remember kids: don't mix your liquors) and I'm sorry if my own muddle-headedness soured the dialogue here at all. I don't doubt that I'll still be frustrated by this change in the coming weeks, but at least its spurred discussion about the type of community we want here, and what we value (and don't) about Metafilter.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:48 PM on November 1, 2009
> But that's the whole point of this exercise! To try and see if it makes any difference, even one that can even be felt.
Uh huh. I can tell you exactly how that will turn out: Everyone arguing favorites ruined metafilter will say it totes made a difference, and everyone saying, "wevs, it's fine, wtf?" will claim it got worse.
posted by cj_ at 8:48 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Uh huh. I can tell you exactly how that will turn out: Everyone arguing favorites ruined metafilter will say it totes made a difference, and everyone saying, "wevs, it's fine, wtf?" will claim it got worse.
posted by cj_ at 8:48 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
"I know exactly what it seemed like, and I really think you should just walk away from it, because you are not coming off well at all in this."
Frankly, I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I value coming off well above being understood.
I've already got my favorites, it's not like I need to be popular.
posted by klangklangston at 8:49 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Frankly, I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I value coming off well above being understood.
I've already got my favorites, it's not like I need to be popular.
posted by klangklangston at 8:49 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's like bullies who parade you around on their shoulders because you gave over your lunch money so promptly.
This is a pretty clumsy analogy because, like I said, I don't think the mods meant any harm at all, but it's more like you're happy you got your lunch money back. I think the whole thing was pretty much a not great experience with an ending that's happy in the sense that everybody who was looking for it has again what they had to start out with.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:50 PM on November 1, 2009
This is a pretty clumsy analogy because, like I said, I don't think the mods meant any harm at all, but it's more like you're happy you got your lunch money back. I think the whole thing was pretty much a not great experience with an ending that's happy in the sense that everybody who was looking for it has again what they had to start out with.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:50 PM on November 1, 2009
To be fair, the attackers have all said "greatest modz evar" once they got what they wanted.
It is so bitterly, harshly ironic to read this kind of comment, one that is typical from the small group of whiners who have complained about favorites.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:51 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
It is so bitterly, harshly ironic to read this kind of comment, one that is typical from the small group of whiners who have complained about favorites.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:51 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I've already got my favorites, it's not like I need to be popular.
i've got to admit, eliminating favorites so people couldn't make knavish statement like this would be a plus
posted by pyramid termite at 8:52 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
i've got to admit, eliminating favorites so people couldn't make knavish statement like this would be a plus
posted by pyramid termite at 8:52 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
our biggest problem now is pile-ons
YEAH AND THE REST OF YOU CAN SUCK EGGS!
posted by GuyZero at 8:53 PM on November 1, 2009
YEAH AND THE REST OF YOU CAN SUCK EGGS!
posted by GuyZero at 8:53 PM on November 1, 2009
kittens for breakfast: This is a pretty clumsy analogy because, like I said, I don't think the mods meant any harm at all...
You misunderstand the analogy. The analogy was that the mods are the helpless kids who got their lunch money stolen. And I think it's a pretty apt comparison.
posted by koeselitz at 8:54 PM on November 1, 2009
You misunderstand the analogy. The analogy was that the mods are the helpless kids who got their lunch money stolen. And I think it's a pretty apt comparison.
posted by koeselitz at 8:54 PM on November 1, 2009
I don't like it one bit. I find that I'm clicking the "faved" link all the time to see how many people have favorited since I'm generally curious about that. Also, just knowing that it's been favorited by some number urges me on to find out how many....is it just one....is it 200??? Ohhhhh must click "faved" and find out......
So now I'm also faced with feeling like I have to interpret the list of who favorited the thread as well since I am presented with it in order to get the number of favorites. Before I could just glance at the end of the comment and see the number and move on with my thoughts. Now, in order to get that number, I get more information than I wanted but somehow feel obliged to make that extra information make sense. It also takes me longer to click back and forth between the list of favoriters and the comment itself. Blech. Also hate "faved" as a word.
posted by otherwordlyglow at 8:54 PM on November 1, 2009
So now I'm also faced with feeling like I have to interpret the list of who favorited the thread as well since I am presented with it in order to get the number of favorites. Before I could just glance at the end of the comment and see the number and move on with my thoughts. Now, in order to get that number, I get more information than I wanted but somehow feel obliged to make that extra information make sense. It also takes me longer to click back and forth between the list of favoriters and the comment itself. Blech. Also hate "faved" as a word.
posted by otherwordlyglow at 8:54 PM on November 1, 2009
if you don't agree with the majority, or if you try to express a controversial opinion here, WOE UNTO YOU.
But favorites are the best way around this problem. Without favorites, the unpopular opinions are guaranteed to be swamped by other opinions. The potential for heavy favoriting of a single comment gives more of a chance for going-against-the-grain views to be appreciated.
our biggest problem now is pile-ons. The TSA thread and the 'Annoying Ticket' askme are only two of about a dozen examples I could probably give from the last two weeks of this.
There was nothing wrong with the ticket thread. In fact, much of it was pretty brilliant. You can characterize it as a "pile-on" because you didn't agree with the majority of the comments, but those comments would have been posted no matter what favoriting system (or lack thereof) the site had.
posted by Jaltcoh at 8:55 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
But favorites are the best way around this problem. Without favorites, the unpopular opinions are guaranteed to be swamped by other opinions. The potential for heavy favoriting of a single comment gives more of a chance for going-against-the-grain views to be appreciated.
our biggest problem now is pile-ons. The TSA thread and the 'Annoying Ticket' askme are only two of about a dozen examples I could probably give from the last two weeks of this.
There was nothing wrong with the ticket thread. In fact, much of it was pretty brilliant. You can characterize it as a "pile-on" because you didn't agree with the majority of the comments, but those comments would have been posted no matter what favoriting system (or lack thereof) the site had.
posted by Jaltcoh at 8:55 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
you can revert it now, no reason to complain about it any more (see link in the FPP). (I have a feeling that every thread for the next 4 weeks will have at least one post explaining how to revert the favorite count)
posted by empath at 8:56 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by empath at 8:56 PM on November 1, 2009
How in the name of ever-living fuck have favorites got anything to do with causing pile-ons? If anything, they provide a non-comment "you go girl" outlet to alleviate that problem.
If there's still a problem with pile-ons, the solution there seems to be to make a newrule guideline against that kind of behaviour, rather than to simply rip out features that were part of the site when we five-digit-usernames paid to join.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:56 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
If there's still a problem with pile-ons, the solution there seems to be to make a new
posted by Sys Rq at 8:56 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
No, sorry, but this is bullshit. Metafilter is only as valuable as all of its contributing members--and by "contributing members," I mean the people who comment, not the people who read. It's unreasonable to expect all members to read every comment on every post, nor is it even realistic to encourage members to do so. And I'm saying this despite the fact that I'd say that, personally, I read every comment on 95% of the posts I comment to. People here are, generally, intelligent enough to follow the gist of a conversation and to add something valuable to it even if they haven't read every comment--and, in fact, posts with high favorite counts are a good indication of the gist of a conversation, as this thread has really clearly illustrated.
The group of contributing members makes Metafilter valuable, but that doesn't mean that every contributing (in the sense of making a post or comment) member adds value, or that they each add equal value. There is nothing unrealistic about encouraging members to read all the comments in a thread before posting. And sure, some won't do so. That's OK, too, we'll get along somehow. But no, posts with a high favorite count are not a good indication of the gist of the conversation. And this thread has not clearly illustrated that in any fashion. More likely, the belief that it does, and the pandering to the audience that it encourages, helps shape the thread.
I can't see how adding an extra incentive, like the applause of an audience on a talk show, improves the discussion.
And as for your later comment:
Despite being a big community, full of people, it seemed like it was filled with individuals who I could connect with, whether through favorites or discussion. This dilutes that. Severely.
No it doesn't. I've lurked here since early 2001. As koeselitz mentioned earlier, members with strong voices stood out. That doesn't change. If anything, having a system where the community can register their approval, makes that less likely. Individual posters stand out less when numerous readers are skimming for favorites.
-----
One idea: what about hiding favorite counts for any comments posted by you? You can see everyone else's favorite counts, but you cannot see your own (perhaps aside from knowing that your comment has been "faved"). Those logged out cannot see favorite counts whatsoever.
I really like this. My preference is still for total elimination, but this is an interesting twist. Those who are desperate to check out their community approval rating can pay $5.
posted by BigSky at 8:56 PM on November 1, 2009
The group of contributing members makes Metafilter valuable, but that doesn't mean that every contributing (in the sense of making a post or comment) member adds value, or that they each add equal value. There is nothing unrealistic about encouraging members to read all the comments in a thread before posting. And sure, some won't do so. That's OK, too, we'll get along somehow. But no, posts with a high favorite count are not a good indication of the gist of the conversation. And this thread has not clearly illustrated that in any fashion. More likely, the belief that it does, and the pandering to the audience that it encourages, helps shape the thread.
I can't see how adding an extra incentive, like the applause of an audience on a talk show, improves the discussion.
And as for your later comment:
Despite being a big community, full of people, it seemed like it was filled with individuals who I could connect with, whether through favorites or discussion. This dilutes that. Severely.
No it doesn't. I've lurked here since early 2001. As koeselitz mentioned earlier, members with strong voices stood out. That doesn't change. If anything, having a system where the community can register their approval, makes that less likely. Individual posters stand out less when numerous readers are skimming for favorites.
-----
One idea: what about hiding favorite counts for any comments posted by you? You can see everyone else's favorite counts, but you cannot see your own (perhaps aside from knowing that your comment has been "faved"). Those logged out cannot see favorite counts whatsoever.
I really like this. My preference is still for total elimination, but this is an interesting twist. Those who are desperate to check out their community approval rating can pay $5.
posted by BigSky at 8:56 PM on November 1, 2009
one that is typical from the small group of whiners who have complained about favorites.
Did somebody say something about generalizations earlier?
posted by P.o.B. at 8:58 PM on November 1, 2009
Did somebody say something about generalizations earlier?
posted by P.o.B. at 8:58 PM on November 1, 2009
if you don't agree with the majority, or if you try to express a controversial opinion here, WOE UNTO YOU.
Wait, is this whole thing about Dios and the rest of the conservatives constant whining about being picked on? For fucks sake, the Republicans ruin EVERYTHING.
posted by empath at 8:58 PM on November 1, 2009
Wait, is this whole thing about Dios and the rest of the conservatives constant whining about being picked on? For fucks sake, the Republicans ruin EVERYTHING.
posted by empath at 8:58 PM on November 1, 2009
"I don't think I can really engage with you any more on this, but I do want to say that I think that calling people "not bright" and insinuating that they're "not really trying" when they don't agree with you (or use common verbal/written shorthand for not agreeing with you) is pretty cruddy and doesn't engender reasonable, emotionally removed debate."
NOT. WHAT. I. WROTE.
Forget it. In the good ol' days, before you were here, someone would have said, "Take it to email," so I will.
posted by klangklangston at 8:58 PM on November 1, 2009
NOT. WHAT. I. WROTE.
Forget it. In the good ol' days, before you were here, someone would have said, "Take it to email," so I will.
posted by klangklangston at 8:58 PM on November 1, 2009
With all due respect, koeselitz, the pro-experiment crowd has come across as elitist, snobbish, vituperative, nasty and hypocritical - you're calling the kettle black with rare intensity. This is because the pro-experiment crowd is very, very small, and you and klangklangston are it's loudest champions, not because of any merit or lack of merit of the experiment itself. If you want to defend your perspective, you may want to try it in a way that doesn't sound like one of the script writers for Frasier got high on meth and went after a bum with a broken-off Fin-Du-Monde bottle. Acknowledging that people on the other side of the debate are generally not idiots, and feel as strongly as you do about their point of view, would be a good start in helping people adjust to the idea of the change.
Right now, you're effectively making the best arguments to go back to the way things were, by going out of your way to try to make this an us-vs-them debate, framed as smart-individuals-vs-stupid-mob. It's really, really not working well for you.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:59 PM on November 1, 2009 [19 favorites]
Right now, you're effectively making the best arguments to go back to the way things were, by going out of your way to try to make this an us-vs-them debate, framed as smart-individuals-vs-stupid-mob. It's really, really not working well for you.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:59 PM on November 1, 2009 [19 favorites]
You misunderstand the analogy. The analogy was that the mods are the helpless kids who got their lunch money stolen. And I think it's a pretty apt comparison.
No, I get it; I just turned it around so that it came a little closer to reflecting what I see as the actual situation. It's imperfect, because I don't think the mods saw it as taking anything away, but the general consensus was that something had been taken away, and now it's fixed and no harm done, is how I read the whole thing.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:01 PM on November 1, 2009
No, I get it; I just turned it around so that it came a little closer to reflecting what I see as the actual situation. It's imperfect, because I don't think the mods saw it as taking anything away, but the general consensus was that something had been taken away, and now it's fixed and no harm done, is how I read the whole thing.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:01 PM on November 1, 2009
"But favorites are the best way around this problem. Without favorites, the unpopular opinions are guaranteed to be swamped by other opinions. The potential for heavy favoriting of a single comment gives more of a chance for going-against-the-grain views to be appreciated."
Golly gee, it'd be great if there was some data to support this opinion.
posted by klangklangston at 9:02 PM on November 1, 2009
Golly gee, it'd be great if there was some data to support this opinion.
posted by klangklangston at 9:02 PM on November 1, 2009
I just feel really pretty passionately about this site, particularly the community aspects of it.
Which is really an interesting point in this topic, and it hasn't been brought up as much as it should. Are people really looking at this from a vantage point of the community or from their own? It's obvious from most comments that it isn't so much about the community unless it just props up an argument. But is a personal viewpoint mutually exclusive from the communities? I suppose it's yes and no, but that's a different conversation (although maybe it's one we should be having?) . Although on that note I used to be against snark, but then I realized it's a great contribution to the (wait for it) community.
So, anyway, I'm for favorites. I used to be against them, but I found their utilitarian value outweighed my personal nitpicks. I still feel they are used in ways that are not productive. Once I realized there wasn't a normative value (which is also arguable, what with the face value term and so on) for them, I came to the conclusion that I really didn't care about them. I mean it's great that people do favorite or like or whatever my comments but without an expressed statement as to why they favorited then how/why should I value them?
With that in mind, this change didn't affect my usage of this site one freakin' iota. So why do I like it? Personally, I feel it evens playing field. This thread is going to be an outlier in this whole thing but there is an example people keep pointing out “hey there was a great comment earlier”. Well guess what? I didn't think it was a great/awesome/stupendous comment. I just thought that person was the first to put down a well reasoned argument early in the thread. One that some people agree with, but obviously some disagree with also. The comment was not any better or more reasoned than some other comments here. I mean sure we could go all day about it but ya know subjectivity is subjectivity. Why should one comment be expressively and openly value over another comment that is just as valid and “truthful”. So it's easier for someone to skim and see and therefore easier to place value on those specific comments? That is a ripe recipe for bandwagonning and echo chambers.
A different, and probably more apt, example would be some of the “advice” given in AskMe. I understand the usability of favorite counts are quite a bit more attractive there, but that isn't the case. I've seen just plain wrong info given out to a question, and by way of gaining favorites becomes best answer. That example is few and far between though.
As far as the question of whether favorites encourage bad behavior? A reinforcer is a reinforcer. It encourages both good and bad behavior. I think this is a fantastic way to address that particular problem. Favorites effect things on multiple vectors and I don't see anything wrong with tweaking them to increase the positives for the betterment of the community.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:02 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Which is really an interesting point in this topic, and it hasn't been brought up as much as it should. Are people really looking at this from a vantage point of the community or from their own? It's obvious from most comments that it isn't so much about the community unless it just props up an argument. But is a personal viewpoint mutually exclusive from the communities? I suppose it's yes and no, but that's a different conversation (although maybe it's one we should be having?) . Although on that note I used to be against snark, but then I realized it's a great contribution to the (wait for it) community.
So, anyway, I'm for favorites. I used to be against them, but I found their utilitarian value outweighed my personal nitpicks. I still feel they are used in ways that are not productive. Once I realized there wasn't a normative value (which is also arguable, what with the face value term and so on) for them, I came to the conclusion that I really didn't care about them. I mean it's great that people do favorite or like or whatever my comments but without an expressed statement as to why they favorited then how/why should I value them?
With that in mind, this change didn't affect my usage of this site one freakin' iota. So why do I like it? Personally, I feel it evens playing field. This thread is going to be an outlier in this whole thing but there is an example people keep pointing out “hey there was a great comment earlier”. Well guess what? I didn't think it was a great/awesome/stupendous comment. I just thought that person was the first to put down a well reasoned argument early in the thread. One that some people agree with, but obviously some disagree with also. The comment was not any better or more reasoned than some other comments here. I mean sure we could go all day about it but ya know subjectivity is subjectivity. Why should one comment be expressively and openly value over another comment that is just as valid and “truthful”. So it's easier for someone to skim and see and therefore easier to place value on those specific comments? That is a ripe recipe for bandwagonning and echo chambers.
A different, and probably more apt, example would be some of the “advice” given in AskMe. I understand the usability of favorite counts are quite a bit more attractive there, but that isn't the case. I've seen just plain wrong info given out to a question, and by way of gaining favorites becomes best answer. That example is few and far between though.
As far as the question of whether favorites encourage bad behavior? A reinforcer is a reinforcer. It encourages both good and bad behavior. I think this is a fantastic way to address that particular problem. Favorites effect things on multiple vectors and I don't see anything wrong with tweaking them to increase the positives for the betterment of the community.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:02 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I turned it off. I really thought about participating in the experiment despite my reservations, but it seriously took about five minutes for me to give up and check the box. Which is probably why you didn't want to include that option at first. Sorry.
I should say that when I noticed the change, I assumed that the site was broken. And then I immediately came to MeTa to see if anyone else had noticed it yet, and to report it if not. Because that's how much it bothered me.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:04 PM on November 1, 2009
I should say that when I noticed the change, I assumed that the site was broken. And then I immediately came to MeTa to see if anyone else had noticed it yet, and to report it if not. Because that's how much it bothered me.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:04 PM on November 1, 2009
The reason favorites-haters object to favorites is not that they somehow can't bear to see a number next to the word "favorites", but because the system encourages other people to read less carefully and make low-quality comments.
I agree, and would caution that there will always be a dignity-lowering phenomenon with giving a point system away freely, not even rationed, so that anyone can favorite anything at will. As a reward economy, it attracts and encourages people with low self-esteem to seek opportunities for situations with easy one-liners in order to minimize effort, and those situations are usually insults and fights.
posted by Brian B. at 9:06 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I agree, and would caution that there will always be a dignity-lowering phenomenon with giving a point system away freely, not even rationed, so that anyone can favorite anything at will. As a reward economy, it attracts and encourages people with low self-esteem to seek opportunities for situations with easy one-liners in order to minimize effort, and those situations are usually insults and fights.
posted by Brian B. at 9:06 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Jesus it's like a run on the banks in here.
posted by nola at 9:07 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by nola at 9:07 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
with an ending that's happy in the sense that everybody who was looking for it has again what they had to start out with.
Well, firstly it's still going on, and secondly, the people who remember and lost the site as it was pre-2006 and think there's a problem with favourites aren't even getting a fair shot at having their complaints investigated, let alone what they had to start out with.
because the pro-experiment crowd is very, very small,
...
one that is typical from the small group of whiners who have complained about favorites.
Is this whole thing about size? Might is right, and damn any minority who'd speak out on what they see as a problem? (Well, unless it's the minority who insist they get their snowflake-counter back, right now on pain of punishment, because they must and should be sated, immediately.)
I can see why visible favourites are so urgently necessary, then. After all, how can one know who's right unless they're obviously part of a large group?
Worth noting, Slap*Happy, that this small minority includes the site's owner and all its moderators.
posted by fightorflight at 9:08 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Well, firstly it's still going on, and secondly, the people who remember and lost the site as it was pre-2006 and think there's a problem with favourites aren't even getting a fair shot at having their complaints investigated, let alone what they had to start out with.
because the pro-experiment crowd is very, very small,
...
one that is typical from the small group of whiners who have complained about favorites.
Is this whole thing about size? Might is right, and damn any minority who'd speak out on what they see as a problem? (Well, unless it's the minority who insist they get their snowflake-counter back, right now on pain of punishment, because they must and should be sated, immediately.)
I can see why visible favourites are so urgently necessary, then. After all, how can one know who's right unless they're obviously part of a large group?
Worth noting, Slap*Happy, that this small minority includes the site's owner and all its moderators.
posted by fightorflight at 9:08 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
(btw, my last comment probably came off way more shouty than i intended. I'm not really bothered by this now, because my favorites are back. I do think that if this was primarily done just to make the dozen or so conservatives who don't feel welcome here happier, then it was both misguided and pointless, because they won't feel more welcome here when 20 people tell them how they're wrong about everything instead of just favoriting the one guy who said it first.
posted by empath at 9:08 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by empath at 9:08 PM on November 1, 2009
With all due respect, koeselitz, the pro-experiment crowd has come across as elitist, snobbish, vituperative, nasty and hypocritical...This is because the pro-experiment crowd is very, very small,
Bull. Fucking. Shit. Sir.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:09 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Bull. Fucking. Shit. Sir.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:09 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Did somebody say something about generalizations earlier?
The statement:
the attackers have all said "greatest modz evar" once they got what they wanted
is rich and thick in juicy irony, given how much grief anti-favorite whiners have caused over the subject. The sooner this month is over, the better, I think.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:10 PM on November 1, 2009
The statement:
the attackers have all said "greatest modz evar" once they got what they wanted
is rich and thick in juicy irony, given how much grief anti-favorite whiners have caused over the subject. The sooner this month is over, the better, I think.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:10 PM on November 1, 2009
Only twenty-nine more days of this to go!
posted by shammack at 9:12 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by shammack at 9:12 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
I do think that if this was primarily done just to make the dozen or so conservatives who don't feel welcome here happier, then it was both misguided and pointless
Give us some credit, please.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:12 PM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
Give us some credit, please.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:12 PM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
is rich and thick in juicy irony, given how much grief anti-favorite whiners have caused over the subject. The sooner this month is over, the better, I think.
Really? People threatened punishment on the mods unless favourites were removed instanto, without delay? They wrote greasemonkey scripts to try and circumvent the system? They, in short, threw their toys out of the pram? I haven't seen that anywhere, so "how much grief" is a bit rich, given what we're talking about in comparison.
posted by fightorflight at 9:15 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Really? People threatened punishment on the mods unless favourites were removed instanto, without delay? They wrote greasemonkey scripts to try and circumvent the system? They, in short, threw their toys out of the pram? I haven't seen that anywhere, so "how much grief" is a bit rich, given what we're talking about in comparison.
posted by fightorflight at 9:15 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Oh, hey, since there's a mod around, it's probably a good time to point out that the Preferences checkbox thing only works for one login session.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:15 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Sys Rq at 9:15 PM on November 1, 2009
is rich and thick in juicy irony, given how much grief anti-favorite whiners have caused over the subject.
You do see the juicy irony in what you just said though, right?
posted by P.o.B. at 9:16 PM on November 1, 2009
You do see the juicy irony in what you just said though, right?
posted by P.o.B. at 9:16 PM on November 1, 2009
I'm actually not sure why this thread is even still open. Frankly, it doesn't seem to be bringing out the best in anybody at this point, and the situation is resolved. What's left to say?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
By the way, I think the advent of an easy option restoring inline favorite counts (thanks, pb & co!) brings up another possibility which is interesting. One of the central difficulties of this thread, I think, has been the fact that people who 'support favorites' have generally been arguing two different points: first, they've been registering their own dislike of the sudden change (as they have every right to do) and making it clear that not seeing favorites is an big inconvenience to them in their Metafiltering; second, they've been making the broader point that, as Rhaomi put it quite cogently earlier in the thread, crowdsourcing works, and, as they see it, the system whereby favorites are used by lots of people as a social metric is a good one that helps drive community quality and participation. Maybe my reading of this thread is off, but my sense is that the vast majority of 'favorites supporters' (apologies for lumping people together, but what can I do) have been making the first point, and relatively fewer have made the second. That is: most of the unhappiness here came from the loss of a mechanism that was essential to a lot of people for using this site.
So that brings up the interesting question: now that it's easy for people to opt back in to favorites – now that anyone who objected to the sudden loss of usability has a simple and complete recourse on that front – what would happen if we kept things this way? If not seeing favorites is the default, and yet there's still an easy and convenient switch to pull to see that information if you want to – how would that impact the site? Would it be good or bad?
I'm interested in this question because it sort of strips away the personal immediacy a lot of us felt about it right away. We can all switch on favorites if we like, so it's no longer a question of that option being unavailable if you find it beneficial. So now that you can choose whatever you want for yourself, what change do you think it will have on the site now that most people don't see favorites on first joining? Almost all of us started on this site after the favorites system was instituted, and it's been in place long enough that even those of us who've been around longer can't really say we haven't grown accustomed to it. It's pretty clear from past numbers that we'll continue to get more new users steadily; what impact do you think the lack of favorites will have on their reading of the site?
posted by koeselitz at 9:17 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
So that brings up the interesting question: now that it's easy for people to opt back in to favorites – now that anyone who objected to the sudden loss of usability has a simple and complete recourse on that front – what would happen if we kept things this way? If not seeing favorites is the default, and yet there's still an easy and convenient switch to pull to see that information if you want to – how would that impact the site? Would it be good or bad?
I'm interested in this question because it sort of strips away the personal immediacy a lot of us felt about it right away. We can all switch on favorites if we like, so it's no longer a question of that option being unavailable if you find it beneficial. So now that you can choose whatever you want for yourself, what change do you think it will have on the site now that most people don't see favorites on first joining? Almost all of us started on this site after the favorites system was instituted, and it's been in place long enough that even those of us who've been around longer can't really say we haven't grown accustomed to it. It's pretty clear from past numbers that we'll continue to get more new users steadily; what impact do you think the lack of favorites will have on their reading of the site?
posted by koeselitz at 9:17 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I really really hate the word faved. Can we pick something less folksy?
posted by Lord_Pall at 9:17 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Lord_Pall at 9:17 PM on November 1, 2009
Maybe next time we do something like this, it's on a night where all of us aren't all hopped up on booze, sugar and zombie movies...
posted by iamabot at 9:18 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by iamabot at 9:18 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
They wrote greasemonkey scripts to try and circumvent the system? They, in short, threw their toys out of the pram?
This is precisely the kind of ironic behavior I'm talking about.
This is Jessamyn's first comment in this thread, about the tenth or so comment in. Seems like the mods didn't really mind this approach, given the neutral tone and how early the comment was made:
Greasemonkey workarounds will be available [though we're not providing them, but I assume people will write them].
Rich and juicy, this irony.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:19 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
This is precisely the kind of ironic behavior I'm talking about.
This is Jessamyn's first comment in this thread, about the tenth or so comment in. Seems like the mods didn't really mind this approach, given the neutral tone and how early the comment was made:
Greasemonkey workarounds will be available [though we're not providing them, but I assume people will write them].
Rich and juicy, this irony.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:19 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm gonna try it with faves off for a few days. I kinda like not knowing who has more favorites, I think it will make me pay more attention to the comments that didn't get all the snowflake points. Still, I do like that I can opt in or out at any time. (That greasemonkey script made my metafilter so slow...)
posted by not_on_display at 9:20 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by not_on_display at 9:20 PM on November 1, 2009
It's now November 2 in the eastern time zone. Be glad November 1 was the only 25 hour day of the month.
(I switched back on the favourites count when it showed up in Preferences -- thanks! -- then switched it off again to show the clunky "faved" marker. I'll see how long I can handle it.)
posted by maudlin at 9:20 PM on November 1, 2009
(I switched back on the favourites count when it showed up in Preferences -- thanks! -- then switched it off again to show the clunky "faved" marker. I'll see how long I can handle it.)
posted by maudlin at 9:20 PM on November 1, 2009
Slap*Happy: With all due respect, koeselitz, the pro-experiment crowd has come across as elitist, snobbish, vituperative, nasty and hypocritical - you're calling the kettle black with rare intensity.
If you can show me where I said that, then I will state that I was an asshole and apologize. But I've reread my comments here over and over and over, and while there are a lot of problems with them and they've sometimes been controversial I can't find anywhere I've said that anyone personally is a bad reader, that anyone is worthy of insult, that anybody isn't bright, or that anybody is reading wrong. Seriously. If you saw that in my comments, I remain convinced that you were seeing what you wanted to see.
But again, feel free to quote to me the nasty, terrible things I and others have said to people here, and I will apologize.
posted by koeselitz at 9:21 PM on November 1, 2009
If you can show me where I said that, then I will state that I was an asshole and apologize. But I've reread my comments here over and over and over, and while there are a lot of problems with them and they've sometimes been controversial I can't find anywhere I've said that anyone personally is a bad reader, that anyone is worthy of insult, that anybody isn't bright, or that anybody is reading wrong. Seriously. If you saw that in my comments, I remain convinced that you were seeing what you wanted to see.
But again, feel free to quote to me the nasty, terrible things I and others have said to people here, and I will apologize.
posted by koeselitz at 9:21 PM on November 1, 2009
So you are talking about the irony of anti-favoriters griefing all the while griefing in the name of pro-favoriting?
posted by P.o.B. at 9:22 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by P.o.B. at 9:22 PM on November 1, 2009
You do see the juicy irony in what you just said though, right?
Where? No one in this thread said anything close to "greatest modz evar". I certainly didn't. I did express thanks for listening to the majority about the problems this caused and coming up with a temporary fix that didn't require a CSS hack on every computer. But how is that and everyone else's comments even close to "greatest modz evar"?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:23 PM on November 1, 2009
Where? No one in this thread said anything close to "greatest modz evar". I certainly didn't. I did express thanks for listening to the majority about the problems this caused and coming up with a temporary fix that didn't require a CSS hack on every computer. But how is that and everyone else's comments even close to "greatest modz evar"?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:23 PM on November 1, 2009
Actually given that the anti-favorite contingent's argument is not simply that they don't like seeing favorite counts, but that favorites are systemically bad, and so must be removed for the good of everyone, whether they like it or not, then I can't imagine they'd be satisfied if the 'echo chamber' went right back to the old system (as has apparently pretty much happened now that he feature is available), and all that's really changed is that the anti-favorite people have lost functionality.
In other words, what's the point of doing this at all, if all of the people who are causing the problem (according to the anti-favorites) just continue using the site the way they were?
posted by empath at 9:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
In other words, what's the point of doing this at all, if all of the people who are causing the problem (according to the anti-favorites) just continue using the site the way they were?
posted by empath at 9:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
With all due respect, koeselitz, the pro-experiment crowd has come across as elitist, snobbish, vituperative, nasty and hypocritical...This is because the pro-experiment crowd is very, very small,
Yeah, that can't be allowed to slide. The pro-experiment crowd is the pro-experiment crowd because it's a goddamn experiment intended to better the community, and we'd like to help out with that. I'm personally on the fence and would like to ride out the next month to see if it makes things better. But here's essentially what went down:
Mods: "Hey, we'd like to do an experiment in November that one way or another will let us know if we can do something with favorites to make the community better. Just a heads-up, very likely things will go back to normal in 30 days."
Most of MeTa: NOOOO DON'T DO THIS IT'S TERRIBLE IT BREAKS MY PARTICULAR WAY OF READING MEFI
Mods: Seriously, this is just likely temporary and will help us understand whether there are social problems with the way favorites are implemented. Pretty please? Just for a few weeks?
Most of MeTa: NOOOOOO THIS IS BAD YOU'RE TAKING FAVORITES AWAY
Mods: We're not taking it away, just changing it a bit, and likely only temporarily. Look, here are simple instructions that take a few minutes to implement, and you can opt out of the experiment totally, if helping us out with this is that much of a pain for you.
Most of MeTa: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO FIX IT FOR MY BROWSER BOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Mods: Okay, fine, we've added an option to your profile to turn it off and we'll likely just stop it in a month. Please stop punching us in the head now.
Most of MeTa: YAAAAAAAAAAAAY YOU'RE THE BEST
Is this an unflattering oversimplification? Yup. But the fact of the matter is that this was implemented with the intent of experimenting to try to make the community better, and most of what they got back was no, I'm not going to help you with that because I have my own particular way of reading the site, and you've got to be kidding if you think I'm going to change that for any reason whatsoever. Oh, and the mods are (talk about your irony) anti-community for not taking a poll to see if the most vocal members of the site would hate it.
posted by middleclasstool at 9:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [20 favorites]
Yeah, that can't be allowed to slide. The pro-experiment crowd is the pro-experiment crowd because it's a goddamn experiment intended to better the community, and we'd like to help out with that. I'm personally on the fence and would like to ride out the next month to see if it makes things better. But here's essentially what went down:
Mods: "Hey, we'd like to do an experiment in November that one way or another will let us know if we can do something with favorites to make the community better. Just a heads-up, very likely things will go back to normal in 30 days."
Most of MeTa: NOOOO DON'T DO THIS IT'S TERRIBLE IT BREAKS MY PARTICULAR WAY OF READING MEFI
Mods: Seriously, this is just likely temporary and will help us understand whether there are social problems with the way favorites are implemented. Pretty please? Just for a few weeks?
Most of MeTa: NOOOOOO THIS IS BAD YOU'RE TAKING FAVORITES AWAY
Mods: We're not taking it away, just changing it a bit, and likely only temporarily. Look, here are simple instructions that take a few minutes to implement, and you can opt out of the experiment totally, if helping us out with this is that much of a pain for you.
Most of MeTa: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO FIX IT FOR MY BROWSER BOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Mods: Okay, fine, we've added an option to your profile to turn it off and we'll likely just stop it in a month. Please stop punching us in the head now.
Most of MeTa: YAAAAAAAAAAAAY YOU'RE THE BEST
Is this an unflattering oversimplification? Yup. But the fact of the matter is that this was implemented with the intent of experimenting to try to make the community better, and most of what they got back was no, I'm not going to help you with that because I have my own particular way of reading the site, and you've got to be kidding if you think I'm going to change that for any reason whatsoever. Oh, and the mods are (talk about your irony) anti-community for not taking a poll to see if the most vocal members of the site would hate it.
posted by middleclasstool at 9:25 PM on November 1, 2009 [20 favorites]
if you don't agree with the majority, or if you try to express a controversial opinion here, WOE UNTO YOU.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I have had many, many lucid, illuminating and polite conversations with lots of users on this site where we disagreed on one point or several. I believe me and the others in the dialogue all came away better for it, and certainly more knowledgeable.
I'm not saying your verbal short skirt is asking for it, Koeselitz, (I too have seen examples where someone making a harmless but thoughtless remark was hammered into kingdom come), but I believe this challenges are more to do with the ease of lettting rip on someone on the internet than a community feature like favourites.
It's quite possible to disagree on metafilter in 2009 in a civil, friendly, good-faith and accomodating way. Why, we're doing it right now!
More typically, I find people tend to receive as they give. Throw out a pedantic, racist, insulting dogmatic, or arrogant comment, expect the same in return with interest. I always try (try!) to sound friendly, engaged and approachable, and like to think the result of this is avoiding "run-ins".
posted by smoke at 9:26 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I wholeheartedly disagree. I have had many, many lucid, illuminating and polite conversations with lots of users on this site where we disagreed on one point or several. I believe me and the others in the dialogue all came away better for it, and certainly more knowledgeable.
I'm not saying your verbal short skirt is asking for it, Koeselitz, (I too have seen examples where someone making a harmless but thoughtless remark was hammered into kingdom come), but I believe this challenges are more to do with the ease of lettting rip on someone on the internet than a community feature like favourites.
It's quite possible to disagree on metafilter in 2009 in a civil, friendly, good-faith and accomodating way. Why, we're doing it right now!
More typically, I find people tend to receive as they give. Throw out a pedantic, racist, insulting dogmatic, or arrogant comment, expect the same in return with interest. I always try (try!) to sound friendly, engaged and approachable, and like to think the result of this is avoiding "run-ins".
posted by smoke at 9:26 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Blazecock Pileon: Where? No one in this thread said anything close to "greatest modz evar". I certainly didn't. I did express thanks for listening to the majority about the problems this caused and coming up with a temporary fix that didn't require a CSS hack on every computer. But how is that and everyone else's comments even close to "greatest modz evar"?
I don't think he was trying to say you were inarticulate in expressing your thanks. That might be sort of insulting, yes, but I don't think he meant to imply that.
posted by koeselitz at 9:27 PM on November 1, 2009
I don't think he was trying to say you were inarticulate in expressing your thanks. That might be sort of insulting, yes, but I don't think he meant to imply that.
posted by koeselitz at 9:27 PM on November 1, 2009
Is this an unflattering oversimplification? Yup.
I agree, and have no idea why you just made it. Anyway, this is over, so goodnight all.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:28 PM on November 1, 2009
I agree, and have no idea why you just made it. Anyway, this is over, so goodnight all.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:28 PM on November 1, 2009
Really ironic: today is the first time I've ever hit the favorite limit.
Anyway, what kfb said. Good night, you princes of metafilter.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:29 PM on November 1, 2009
Anyway, what kfb said. Good night, you princes of metafilter.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:29 PM on November 1, 2009
I agree, and have no idea why you just made it.
Reading the sentences following what you excerpted would explain it.
posted by middleclasstool at 9:31 PM on November 1, 2009
Reading the sentences following what you excerpted would explain it.
posted by middleclasstool at 9:31 PM on November 1, 2009
I don't think he was trying to say you were inarticulate in expressing your thanks.
No, he was just issuing shrill hyperbole. It was just funny to read a comment that showed a complete lack of awareness.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:31 PM on November 1, 2009
No, he was just issuing shrill hyperbole. It was just funny to read a comment that showed a complete lack of awareness.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:31 PM on November 1, 2009
Oh, and the mods are (talk about your irony) anti-community for not taking a poll to see if the most vocal members of the site would hate it.
I don't see how it's particularly ironic to suggest that the notion of three or four people deciding to spring something like this on tens of thousand without any sort of prior warning might seem like a bit of a Fuck You to the userbase.
I like the mods and all, and I'm sorry their little experiment got a bit fucked up, but, let's face it: This whole thing could probably have been implemented a little less hastily.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:32 PM on November 1, 2009
I don't see how it's particularly ironic to suggest that the notion of three or four people deciding to spring something like this on tens of thousand without any sort of prior warning might seem like a bit of a Fuck You to the userbase.
I like the mods and all, and I'm sorry their little experiment got a bit fucked up, but, let's face it: This whole thing could probably have been implemented a little less hastily.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:32 PM on November 1, 2009
middleclasstool: Yeah that sums it about up. I'm a whiny baby about this, won't lie. Of course, in my defense, my argument is that even though I've installed the greasemonkey script (and I've been using it for a while), my argument is that it will make people be less inclined to use favorites, which will directly hurt the way I use metafilter.
posted by amuseDetachment at 9:32 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by amuseDetachment at 9:32 PM on November 1, 2009
If you want to defend your perspective, you may want to try it in a way that doesn't sound like one of the script writers for Frasier got high on meth and went after a bum with a broken-off Fin-Du-Monde bottle.
This is why I love snark. It makes me laugh. And this deep, eight f***ing hours after I started this f***ing thing, I needed a laugh. Thanks for that SlapHappy.
Otherwise, I'd have to say, I'm with the majority. If it ain't broke, don't fix it and all that jazz. But that said, I will be going along with the test for the month. FAVED only ... and guess what? I don't even hate the world. I prefer NOTED but my inner 12-year-old couldn't care less.
Finally, I gotta say I don't regret these past hours. Feels like civic duty or something. And it's been a history lesson. All kinds of crucial (and not) Metafilter history served up in weird fragments (some rather sharp and nasty).
posted by philip-random at 9:32 PM on November 1, 2009
This is why I love snark. It makes me laugh. And this deep, eight f***ing hours after I started this f***ing thing, I needed a laugh. Thanks for that SlapHappy.
Otherwise, I'd have to say, I'm with the majority. If it ain't broke, don't fix it and all that jazz. But that said, I will be going along with the test for the month. FAVED only ... and guess what? I don't even hate the world. I prefer NOTED but my inner 12-year-old couldn't care less.
Finally, I gotta say I don't regret these past hours. Feels like civic duty or something. And it's been a history lesson. All kinds of crucial (and not) Metafilter history served up in weird fragments (some rather sharp and nasty).
posted by philip-random at 9:32 PM on November 1, 2009
empath: Actually given that the anti-favorite contingent's argument is not simply that they don't like seeing favorite counts, but that favorites are systemically bad, and so must be removed for the good of everyone, whether they like it or not, then I can't imagine they'd be satisfied if the 'echo chamber' went right back to the old system (as has apparently pretty much happened now that he feature is available), and all that's really changed is that the anti-favorite people have lost functionality.
Mine is an as-yet-ill-informed opinion (this experiment has only started) and I'm only therefore making a sort of guess, but:
Yes, I would be quite satisfied if favorites were off by default and only visible via an option on the user preference page. I think that would be fantastic. That should be the first view people have when they come to Metafilter; if they choose to turn it on later, in a certain way I think favorites have come far enough that there's little we can reasonably do to stop them. That's what I meant by my penultimate comment: I think keeping things exactly like this – with favorites invisible by default and visible as a user option – would be great for the site.
Again, that's really more of a loose prediction than an educated opinion, but there you are, for whatever it's worth.
posted by koeselitz at 9:33 PM on November 1, 2009
Mine is an as-yet-ill-informed opinion (this experiment has only started) and I'm only therefore making a sort of guess, but:
Yes, I would be quite satisfied if favorites were off by default and only visible via an option on the user preference page. I think that would be fantastic. That should be the first view people have when they come to Metafilter; if they choose to turn it on later, in a certain way I think favorites have come far enough that there's little we can reasonably do to stop them. That's what I meant by my penultimate comment: I think keeping things exactly like this – with favorites invisible by default and visible as a user option – would be great for the site.
Again, that's really more of a loose prediction than an educated opinion, but there you are, for whatever it's worth.
posted by koeselitz at 9:33 PM on November 1, 2009
I cannot WAIT to hear the podcast that covers the month of November; in my head I hear some very, very exhausted mods who sound like they've spent the last month in combat.
posted by davejay at 9:35 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by davejay at 9:35 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think there's something inherently insulting in the very premise of the experiment, in that it's assumed that metafilter users aren't capable of consuming and using information appropriately.
I don't think the mods intended it, but that's how it's comes across, especially given a lot of the comments from the 'anti-favorites' about how they don't like the behavior of fellow mefites and that they think this change would improve it. Which is why I think there is so much GRAR and yelling in this thread.
A lot of us like metafilter just fine the way it is, and I personally don't care how YOU read the site, but changing the way that _I_ read the site because you don't like the way that I use it, or other people use it just comes across as condescending.
You don't like the favorite counts? Fine, don't look at them. I do like them, and I'm thrilled that they're back.
I'm always happy with more options for viewing the site and more information, but not so happy when stuff gets taken away.
posted by empath at 9:35 PM on November 1, 2009 [17 favorites]
I don't think the mods intended it, but that's how it's comes across, especially given a lot of the comments from the 'anti-favorites' about how they don't like the behavior of fellow mefites and that they think this change would improve it. Which is why I think there is so much GRAR and yelling in this thread.
A lot of us like metafilter just fine the way it is, and I personally don't care how YOU read the site, but changing the way that _I_ read the site because you don't like the way that I use it, or other people use it just comes across as condescending.
You don't like the favorite counts? Fine, don't look at them. I do like them, and I'm thrilled that they're back.
I'm always happy with more options for viewing the site and more information, but not so happy when stuff gets taken away.
posted by empath at 9:35 PM on November 1, 2009 [17 favorites]
Where? No one in this thread said anything close to "greatest modz evar". I certainly didn't.
Sorry, I missed your "Thanks to the moderators for listening to the community on this one." comment, which I now realise looks in this context like you were thanking them for caving in so promptly to a minority's hectoring, bullying and vocal demands of which you were a big part.
Oh wait, you were.
But you too seem to have missed a lot of other kudos and thanks going to the "great mods" from other people who were insta-girning and certainly not granting the mods they profess to appreciate so much even a single day -- let alone 30 -- to try out something on their site.
posted by fightorflight at 9:35 PM on November 1, 2009
Sorry, I missed your "Thanks to the moderators for listening to the community on this one." comment, which I now realise looks in this context like you were thanking them for caving in so promptly to a minority's hectoring, bullying and vocal demands of which you were a big part.
Oh wait, you were.
But you too seem to have missed a lot of other kudos and thanks going to the "great mods" from other people who were insta-girning and certainly not granting the mods they profess to appreciate so much even a single day -- let alone 30 -- to try out something on their site.
posted by fightorflight at 9:35 PM on November 1, 2009
Wow, I got to the bottom!
Just want to post and register my dislike of the new system. It's just poor design, in my opinion, An example: browsing this thread was a nightmare and I ended up skipping over where Matt relented and offered up the preferences fix as I skimmed down the page. I'm sure that I would have seen it had I seen the number of favorites that comment had, but without that visual marker, I scrolled past it until I happened to catch it quoted by someone, then I had to scroll back up. It's just really awkward not to have the number right there when I'm used to it.
And don't get me started on the word choice of "faved." I don't care if it's a word; it's lazy and too informal like a text message by a teenage girl. This isn't Twitter. We type out the word "you" here.
posted by MegoSteve at 9:35 PM on November 1, 2009
Just want to post and register my dislike of the new system. It's just poor design, in my opinion, An example: browsing this thread was a nightmare and I ended up skipping over where Matt relented and offered up the preferences fix as I skimmed down the page. I'm sure that I would have seen it had I seen the number of favorites that comment had, but without that visual marker, I scrolled past it until I happened to catch it quoted by someone, then I had to scroll back up. It's just really awkward not to have the number right there when I'm used to it.
And don't get me started on the word choice of "faved." I don't care if it's a word; it's lazy and too informal like a text message by a teenage girl. This isn't Twitter. We type out the word "you" here.
posted by MegoSteve at 9:35 PM on November 1, 2009
You misunderstand the analogy. The analogy was that the mods are the helpless kids who got their lunch money stolen. And I think it's a pretty apt comparison.
No, it's really not. Just, y'know, FYI.
posted by dersins at 9:38 PM on November 1, 2009
No, it's really not. Just, y'know, FYI.
posted by dersins at 9:38 PM on November 1, 2009
I don't see how it's particularly ironic to suggest that the notion of three or four people deciding to spring something like this on tens of thousand without any sort of prior warning might seem like a bit of a Fuck You to the userbase.
The irony is that there are people here who refuse to participate in an experiment that might one way or another better the community, because of their own personal desires for how to read the site, and have then accused the mods of being anti-community. It's pot/kettle. Not to mention if you (not you specifically, just the general "you") honestly think that mathowie, cortex and jessamyn would in any way say fuck you to the userbase, you're either new here or you're kind of a self-centered jerk.
posted by middleclasstool at 9:39 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
The irony is that there are people here who refuse to participate in an experiment that might one way or another better the community, because of their own personal desires for how to read the site, and have then accused the mods of being anti-community. It's pot/kettle. Not to mention if you (not you specifically, just the general "you") honestly think that mathowie, cortex and jessamyn would in any way say fuck you to the userbase, you're either new here or you're kind of a self-centered jerk.
posted by middleclasstool at 9:39 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
The irony is that there are people here who refuse to participate in an experiment that might one way or another better the community
Typically, experiments are participated in by volunteers.
posted by empath at 9:42 PM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
Typically, experiments are participated in by volunteers.
posted by empath at 9:42 PM on November 1, 2009 [12 favorites]
I appreciate the idea of doing an experiment, but add me to the chorus hating "faved." The annoyance I feel at being stymied in how I read the site is quadrupled by the word itself. I echo: what about "noted", "marked" or just about anything else that doesn't make us all sound like we're fourteen? Saved is good, too.
It does seem like there should be some quantitative evaluation. Maybe the amount of snark stays the same but I don't notice it (say, because I pick some new way of skimming)? Here is a draft list of variables: total favorites, total comments, comments flagged, comments deleted by mods, interpersonal Meta callouts, percentage of words copied and pasted from above (italicized might be the best proxy), and the number of unique commenters in threads longer than 75 comments and longer than 200 comments.
posted by salvia at 9:42 PM on November 1, 2009
It does seem like there should be some quantitative evaluation. Maybe the amount of snark stays the same but I don't notice it (say, because I pick some new way of skimming)? Here is a draft list of variables: total favorites, total comments, comments flagged, comments deleted by mods, interpersonal Meta callouts, percentage of words copied and pasted from above (italicized might be the best proxy), and the number of unique commenters in threads longer than 75 comments and longer than 200 comments.
posted by salvia at 9:42 PM on November 1, 2009
don't think the mods intended it, but that's how it's comes across, especially given a lot of the comments from the 'anti-favorites' about how they don't like the behavior of fellow mefites and that they think this change would improve it. Which is why I think there is so much GRAR and yelling in this thread.
The tragedy of the commons doesn't reflect badly on any of its participants. People do what is right for them, but the overall result is a negative.
There's an argument that it's the same with favourites. People show their appreciation or approval, and that's fine, but in the aggregate, suddenly you have a groupthink and majority-opinion reinforcement method, which also allows others to see how well they're doing when they make comments that try and earn the approval of that majority.
Because of this "don't look at them" isn't really a great option. It's like saying "you don't want the commons grazed to death? Fine, don't take your sheep there. I'm taking all of mine, and I'm thrilled it's there".
posted by fightorflight at 9:42 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
The tragedy of the commons doesn't reflect badly on any of its participants. People do what is right for them, but the overall result is a negative.
There's an argument that it's the same with favourites. People show their appreciation or approval, and that's fine, but in the aggregate, suddenly you have a groupthink and majority-opinion reinforcement method, which also allows others to see how well they're doing when they make comments that try and earn the approval of that majority.
Because of this "don't look at them" isn't really a great option. It's like saying "you don't want the commons grazed to death? Fine, don't take your sheep there. I'm taking all of mine, and I'm thrilled it's there".
posted by fightorflight at 9:42 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
No, he was just issuing shrill hyperbole. It was just funny to read a comment that showed a complete lack of awareness.
It is funny, 'cuz my ambulance comment was directly riffing your *ahem* "thanks for listening to the majority/community" comment. Which, by the way, has all kinds of implicit connotations. Like that I'm in the minority, which as far as I can tell means fuck-all and isn't that small anyway and comparatively isn't a minority. I'm not part off the community that counts. And so on and so on.
So, yeah,l you were saying about the lack of awareness and griefing stuff...?
posted by P.o.B. at 9:43 PM on November 1, 2009
It is funny, 'cuz my ambulance comment was directly riffing your *ahem* "thanks for listening to the majority/community" comment. Which, by the way, has all kinds of implicit connotations. Like that I'm in the minority, which as far as I can tell means fuck-all and isn't that small anyway and comparatively isn't a minority. I'm not part off the community that counts. And so on and so on.
So, yeah,l you were saying about the lack of awareness and griefing stuff...?
posted by P.o.B. at 9:43 PM on November 1, 2009
Not to mention if you (not you specifically, just the general "you") honestly think that mathowie, cortex and jessamyn would in any way say fuck you to the userbase, you're either new here or you're kind of a self-centered jerk.
Oh, not you specifically--the nonexistent you. I see.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:44 PM on November 1, 2009
Oh, not you specifically--the nonexistent you. I see.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:44 PM on November 1, 2009
Sorry, I missed your "Thanks to the moderators for listening to the community on this one." comment, which I now realise looks in this context like you were thanking them for caving in so promptly to a minority's hectoring, bullying and vocal demands of which you were a big part.
I'll just point out again that your shrill hyperbole is of the variety we have seen from the few people who kept complaining about favorites in other Metatalk threads since day one. The irony is that you are accusing others of the kind of bullying and manipulation that you few have repeated time and again, to try to get this scheme in place. I hope this backfires on you.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:46 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'll just point out again that your shrill hyperbole is of the variety we have seen from the few people who kept complaining about favorites in other Metatalk threads since day one. The irony is that you are accusing others of the kind of bullying and manipulation that you few have repeated time and again, to try to get this scheme in place. I hope this backfires on you.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:46 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Typically, experiments are participated in by volunteers.
And, for the millionth time, you can opt out. Meaning your participation is voluntary.
posted by middleclasstool at 9:46 PM on November 1, 2009
And, for the millionth time, you can opt out. Meaning your participation is voluntary.
posted by middleclasstool at 9:46 PM on November 1, 2009
By the way if anyone is still wondering why this is still around, the mods have already said they are interested in what people think about this. I wouldn't have actually spent time trying to put together my (still incomplete) thoughts on it if they hadn't mentioned that.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:46 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by P.o.B. at 9:46 PM on November 1, 2009
Oh, not you specifically--the nonexistent you. I see.
Oh, Jesus. "One," then. I was trying to underscore that I wasn't singling you out.
posted by middleclasstool at 9:49 PM on November 1, 2009
Oh, Jesus. "One," then. I was trying to underscore that I wasn't singling you out.
posted by middleclasstool at 9:49 PM on November 1, 2009
I don't have a halloween candy problem, I can quit any time I want.
posted by iamabot at 9:49 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by iamabot at 9:49 PM on November 1, 2009
It's just weird to see BP's comment in light of the fact that the mods changed their approach to this whole thing by way of the sheer amount of...complaints.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:50 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by P.o.B. at 9:50 PM on November 1, 2009
I'll just point out again that your shrill hyperbole is of the variety we have seen from the few people who kept complaining about favorites in other Metatalk threads since day one.
Links? I certainly can't recall anything like this at any time over favourites being introduced, definitely nothing of "this kind".
As for "shrill", well, sorry, I don't mean to be, but "hyperbole" I'm definitely not shooting for: vocal hectoring and bullying is literally what I see here (and is what's being felt by the mods, if Jessamyn's "we're being punished" comment is anything to go by).
posted by fightorflight at 9:51 PM on November 1, 2009
Links? I certainly can't recall anything like this at any time over favourites being introduced, definitely nothing of "this kind".
As for "shrill", well, sorry, I don't mean to be, but "hyperbole" I'm definitely not shooting for: vocal hectoring and bullying is literally what I see here (and is what's being felt by the mods, if Jessamyn's "we're being punished" comment is anything to go by).
posted by fightorflight at 9:51 PM on November 1, 2009
"I think there's something inherently insulting in the very premise of the experiment, in that it's assumed that metafilter users aren't capable of consuming and using information appropriately."
Right, which is why we have publicly displayed flag counts, and you can see deleted comments, and profile information is mandatory. Hell, HTML tags are just information, which is why we can all make things scroll in marquee, and why we can post images (information!) in threads. There is literally no hidden information for users, which is how I know the IP address you're posting from.
posted by klangklangston at 9:55 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Right, which is why we have publicly displayed flag counts, and you can see deleted comments, and profile information is mandatory. Hell, HTML tags are just information, which is why we can all make things scroll in marquee, and why we can post images (information!) in threads. There is literally no hidden information for users, which is how I know the IP address you're posting from.
posted by klangklangston at 9:55 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood. Been ten years since the last one. You know, you gotta stop them at the beginning. Like they should have stopped Hitler at Munich, they should never let him get away with that, they was just asking for trouble.
posted by Bookhouse at 9:56 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by Bookhouse at 9:56 PM on November 1, 2009
As for "shrill", well, sorry, I don't mean to be
But you were, and I'm sure you did. I just hope this scheme doesn't damage the site too much.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:57 PM on November 1, 2009
But you were, and I'm sure you did. I just hope this scheme doesn't damage the site too much.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:57 PM on November 1, 2009
> the pro-experiment crowd has come across as elitist, snobbish, vituperative, nasty and hypocritical
I don't think I have.
posted by nowonmai at 9:59 PM on November 1, 2009
I don't think I have.
posted by nowonmai at 9:59 PM on November 1, 2009
empath: I think there's something inherently insulting in the very premise of the experiment, in that it's assumed that metafilter users aren't capable of consuming and using information appropriately.
I understand that that's been the source of most of the unhappiness here: a lot of people feel like they're being insulted by implication. And I can grok that feeling; I think it was felt especially in the heat of the moment, when people felt a very personal annoyance that something they cared about had vanished (or become much more difficult to use) – since people were coming here largely to look for a personal solution, and largely seeing this in terms of their own immediate reaction, it was natural for everyone to start making this argument very personal. And while I might not have actually insulted anybody, I think there have been times during this discussion when I've forgotten that; and for that, I'm sorry.
But what's interesting is that it's actually very difficult to discuss any community-wide policy or site-dominant user behavior without saying something that, at least in the heat of a personalized conflict, will seem to many people to be "inherently insulting."
Let's try to take a neutral example: say we, the Unified Congress, decide that, by law, everyone in Freedonia must drive on the right side, and that you will get a ticket and have to pay a fine if you drive on the left. Now, context obviously matters; if there's a contingent of people in Freedonia who have, since cars were invented, enjoyed driving on the left, then that contingent will clearly feel some inconvenience at this decision. They might even feel more than simple inconvenience but also an implied slight in the law. "See here," they might say; "are you honestly implying that those of us who drive on the left are not proper drivers, and that we haven't been doing it right all these years?" And they might have something of a point. Yes, to choose to make driving on the right the law of the land implies that driving on the right just makes more sense, and our Unified Congress would be amiss if it didn't take into account, for example, what the major metropolitan areas customarily did to arrange their drivers, how most people solved the problem, et cetera. But the fact is that our Unified Congress didn't make a statement about which drivers were better; we only make that decision because we were forced by the circumstance to do so
That's the position I think the mods are almost always in here. They spend their days deleting comments, closing threads, removing spam, and killing crappy content. Now often it can feel like a very real insult to have your own comment or post deleted, especially when posts are frequently deleted for not being good enough for Metafilter. And the person who posts a virtually link-free post which amounts to nothing more than, say, a meditation on the fact that their grocer doesn't know about a particular type of mushroom – that person, who might be used to posting on their own blog little thoughts and experiences from the day, is almost certain to feel hurt and a little slighted. But it's unfortunately necessary; not because those people need to be hurt but because otherwise the site itself would fall apart. In fact, the perceived insult wasn't intended as an insult at all; it's just an unfortunate side effect.
Now, it's clear that favorites haven't destroyed the site; but it's pretty much the mods' job to try to think about what policies will encourage good user behavior and help the site as a whole. It is possible to think about 'crowdsourcing,' the pluses and minuses of voting systems, and what behaviors those things encourage without making the discussion a referendum on the personal worth of people on either side of the argument. That's what we have to try to do.
posted by koeselitz at 10:03 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
I understand that that's been the source of most of the unhappiness here: a lot of people feel like they're being insulted by implication. And I can grok that feeling; I think it was felt especially in the heat of the moment, when people felt a very personal annoyance that something they cared about had vanished (or become much more difficult to use) – since people were coming here largely to look for a personal solution, and largely seeing this in terms of their own immediate reaction, it was natural for everyone to start making this argument very personal. And while I might not have actually insulted anybody, I think there have been times during this discussion when I've forgotten that; and for that, I'm sorry.
But what's interesting is that it's actually very difficult to discuss any community-wide policy or site-dominant user behavior without saying something that, at least in the heat of a personalized conflict, will seem to many people to be "inherently insulting."
Let's try to take a neutral example: say we, the Unified Congress, decide that, by law, everyone in Freedonia must drive on the right side, and that you will get a ticket and have to pay a fine if you drive on the left. Now, context obviously matters; if there's a contingent of people in Freedonia who have, since cars were invented, enjoyed driving on the left, then that contingent will clearly feel some inconvenience at this decision. They might even feel more than simple inconvenience but also an implied slight in the law. "See here," they might say; "are you honestly implying that those of us who drive on the left are not proper drivers, and that we haven't been doing it right all these years?" And they might have something of a point. Yes, to choose to make driving on the right the law of the land implies that driving on the right just makes more sense, and our Unified Congress would be amiss if it didn't take into account, for example, what the major metropolitan areas customarily did to arrange their drivers, how most people solved the problem, et cetera. But the fact is that our Unified Congress didn't make a statement about which drivers were better; we only make that decision because we were forced by the circumstance to do so
That's the position I think the mods are almost always in here. They spend their days deleting comments, closing threads, removing spam, and killing crappy content. Now often it can feel like a very real insult to have your own comment or post deleted, especially when posts are frequently deleted for not being good enough for Metafilter. And the person who posts a virtually link-free post which amounts to nothing more than, say, a meditation on the fact that their grocer doesn't know about a particular type of mushroom – that person, who might be used to posting on their own blog little thoughts and experiences from the day, is almost certain to feel hurt and a little slighted. But it's unfortunately necessary; not because those people need to be hurt but because otherwise the site itself would fall apart. In fact, the perceived insult wasn't intended as an insult at all; it's just an unfortunate side effect.
Now, it's clear that favorites haven't destroyed the site; but it's pretty much the mods' job to try to think about what policies will encourage good user behavior and help the site as a whole. It is possible to think about 'crowdsourcing,' the pluses and minuses of voting systems, and what behaviors those things encourage without making the discussion a referendum on the personal worth of people on either side of the argument. That's what we have to try to do.
posted by koeselitz at 10:03 PM on November 1, 2009 [5 favorites]
There's an argument that it's the same with favourites. People show their appreciation or approval, and that's fine, but in the aggregate, suddenly you have a groupthink and majority-opinion reinforcement method, which also allows others to see how well they're doing when they make comments that try and earn the approval of that majority.
as if the majority couldn't just try imposing their taste on people by shouting down those they disagree with and cheering those they like - that happens all the time around here - it happened before we had favorites and if we get rid of them, it will still happen
blaming it on favorites is just scapegoating
posted by pyramid termite at 10:03 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
as if the majority couldn't just try imposing their taste on people by shouting down those they disagree with and cheering those they like - that happens all the time around here - it happened before we had favorites and if we get rid of them, it will still happen
blaming it on favorites is just scapegoating
posted by pyramid termite at 10:03 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I just hope this scheme doesn't damage the site too much.
What sanctimonious twaddle.
posted by BigSky at 10:03 PM on November 1, 2009
What sanctimonious twaddle.
posted by BigSky at 10:03 PM on November 1, 2009
Honestly, if you want to raise the quality of comments on the site, limit the number someone can leave in a day in the same way posts to the front page and questions on AskMe are limited.
*ducks
posted by MegoSteve at 10:07 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
*ducks
posted by MegoSteve at 10:07 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
"But you were, and I'm sure you did. I just hope this scheme doesn't damage the site too much."
If that was shrill, you need to turn down your tweeter.
posted by klangklangston at 10:08 PM on November 1, 2009
If that was shrill, you need to turn down your tweeter.
posted by klangklangston at 10:08 PM on November 1, 2009
Also, I'm with Malor in thinking I'll try it just for experimentation's sake (at least as long as I can stand it). It will be interesting. Am I right in thinking that I should turn it off by the end of November if I want to vote against the change?
The nice thing about the on/off option is that even the experiment-participators can still turn favorites on to see what's really going on in some thread or to help skim.
posted by salvia at 10:14 PM on November 1, 2009
The nice thing about the on/off option is that even the experiment-participators can still turn favorites on to see what's really going on in some thread or to help skim.
posted by salvia at 10:14 PM on November 1, 2009
I'm not the kind that likes to tell you
Just what you want me to
posted by koeselitz at 10:15 PM on November 1, 2009
Just what you want me to
posted by koeselitz at 10:15 PM on November 1, 2009
I just hope this scheme doesn't damage the site too much.
Awww, now you're just saying stuff to be cute!
posted by P.o.B. at 10:16 PM on November 1, 2009
Awww, now you're just saying stuff to be cute!
posted by P.o.B. at 10:16 PM on November 1, 2009
If that was shrill, you need to turn down your tweeter.
Nah, I'm fairly sure that most rational people understand that calling someone who wrote or use a Greasemonkey script with the mods' approval a baby "who threw [its] toys out of the pram" is pretty shrill nonsense.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Nah, I'm fairly sure that most rational people understand that calling someone who wrote or use a Greasemonkey script with the mods' approval a baby "who threw [its] toys out of the pram" is pretty shrill nonsense.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:16 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
This is so brilliant. Most people would say that non-threaded comments "break" usability too, but they're the best part of mefi's UI. Actually, I've stopped lurking as often as I once did on metafilter because the dialogue here, sadly, has plummeted as the site gains membership. It's not that the quality of the people here is being brought down by all rafts of incoming plebes, or something like that--it's only that, in my imagination (something I'll be writing a lot to justify my thinking), the human brain is incapable of forming meaningful communities out of hundreds of users [citation needed]. The most interesting part of metafilter is the community.
I don't think that site quality diving inversely proportionate to membership is a unique phenomenon. Sometimes I try to imagine what could keep community sites from the inevitable slide into meme-propagation hell as their community grows to unmanageable sizes, but I'll be damned if I can think of anything. But I'm excited now: I think this will really work.
Reddit, for example, lets users abandon ship into subreddits, essentially skirting the problem of unmanageable community size by allowing their users to fork communities and then hope that they can rebuild into a right-sized community. I don't think this works so well, and if you read reddit, you may have noticed the same sentiment being repeated ad nauseum in the threads that get upvoted to the front page. Most people are not fleeing into subreddits, and everyone still expects the threads that make it to the front page to be quality stuff.
Getting rid of favorites, though, I think has the potential to be excellent for managing community size, even if that wasn't what it was intended for (but it was in my imagination). Instead of trying to work around the issue with a UI kluge a la subreddits, getting rid of favorites breaks the heuristic most people were using to manage, inside their brains, unmanagable community size: skimming through looking for big numbers. The problem is, that heuristic breaks community within the site as users skate around from popular comment to popular comment, trying to craft popular comments of their own. They no longer respond to and discuss with known community members, instead they subconsciously end up conforming to some kind of gestalt hive-mind appeasement strategy. This doesn't make interesting discussion (for me).
But here, because there's now no site-local way to manage overly-large community size, the users will do it for themselves (hoepfully) in organic ways. Who knows how that will work, but I'm pretty sure we'll see that happening as the month progresses.
With right-sized communities, you may get an occasional user drifting by and crapping in a thread, but you won't have an entire segment of your site usership swarming from thread to thread like locusts, shitting all over each other to drop a little sarcasm into the thread, which then is multiplied by hundreds, turning most threads into an unreadable sarcasm-fest.
Now, I'm not saying that there are some bad seeds that purposefully do this in online communities; I think that this is an emergent behavior. The wonderful thing about the favorites change is that it no longer allows metafilter to become so large that this behavior emerges. I'm sure, though, that there's a place for everyone on metafilter, and that everyone will find their place. It just won't be in the same tiny thread, all at once. Thank god.
posted by olaguera at 10:18 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I don't think that site quality diving inversely proportionate to membership is a unique phenomenon. Sometimes I try to imagine what could keep community sites from the inevitable slide into meme-propagation hell as their community grows to unmanageable sizes, but I'll be damned if I can think of anything. But I'm excited now: I think this will really work.
Reddit, for example, lets users abandon ship into subreddits, essentially skirting the problem of unmanageable community size by allowing their users to fork communities and then hope that they can rebuild into a right-sized community. I don't think this works so well, and if you read reddit, you may have noticed the same sentiment being repeated ad nauseum in the threads that get upvoted to the front page. Most people are not fleeing into subreddits, and everyone still expects the threads that make it to the front page to be quality stuff.
Getting rid of favorites, though, I think has the potential to be excellent for managing community size, even if that wasn't what it was intended for (but it was in my imagination). Instead of trying to work around the issue with a UI kluge a la subreddits, getting rid of favorites breaks the heuristic most people were using to manage, inside their brains, unmanagable community size: skimming through looking for big numbers. The problem is, that heuristic breaks community within the site as users skate around from popular comment to popular comment, trying to craft popular comments of their own. They no longer respond to and discuss with known community members, instead they subconsciously end up conforming to some kind of gestalt hive-mind appeasement strategy. This doesn't make interesting discussion (for me).
But here, because there's now no site-local way to manage overly-large community size, the users will do it for themselves (hoepfully) in organic ways. Who knows how that will work, but I'm pretty sure we'll see that happening as the month progresses.
With right-sized communities, you may get an occasional user drifting by and crapping in a thread, but you won't have an entire segment of your site usership swarming from thread to thread like locusts, shitting all over each other to drop a little sarcasm into the thread, which then is multiplied by hundreds, turning most threads into an unreadable sarcasm-fest.
Now, I'm not saying that there are some bad seeds that purposefully do this in online communities; I think that this is an emergent behavior. The wonderful thing about the favorites change is that it no longer allows metafilter to become so large that this behavior emerges. I'm sure, though, that there's a place for everyone on metafilter, and that everyone will find their place. It just won't be in the same tiny thread, all at once. Thank god.
posted by olaguera at 10:18 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Honestly, if you want to raise the quality of comments on the site, limit the number someone can leave in a day in the same way posts to the front page and questions on AskMe are limited.
But then you wouldn't be able to really nail home a point with 55 (and counting) comments in a thread. I mean really nail it home good, because after all, you're right and the others need to comply.
posted by clearly at 10:19 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
But then you wouldn't be able to really nail home a point with 55 (and counting) comments in a thread. I mean really nail it home good, because after all, you're right and the others need to comply.
posted by clearly at 10:19 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
I like having the favorites number turned off. For me, the change in the reading atmosphere is a little bit like moving from high school to college. A little less herd mentality, a little more thinking for myself. So, thanks for the change.
posted by onlyconnect at 10:20 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by onlyconnect at 10:20 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Honestly, if you want to raise the quality of comments on the site, limit the number someone can leave in a day in the same way posts to the front page and questions on AskMe are limited.
I know you're joking, but that's not a bad idea.
posted by empath at 10:20 PM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
I know you're joking, but that's not a bad idea.
posted by empath at 10:20 PM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
clearly: But then you wouldn't be able to really nail home a point with 55 (and counting) comments in a thread. I mean really nail it home good, because after all, you're right and the others need to comply.
56
posted by koeselitz at 10:22 PM on November 1, 2009
56
posted by koeselitz at 10:22 PM on November 1, 2009
As I've been getting caught up on this thread, I've been thinking about the decisions that went into how a thread is constructed, and the things that are deliberately not there. We have no threaded comments, as I recall because the point is to comment on the original post links, not each other. Mefi doesn't highlight the author; you need to scroll to the end of the comment to see who wrote it. So it's about the text of the comment rather than the author.
Favourites I think kind of goes against this philosophy, so I can see why an experiment with them would be interesting and useful. Favourites let you read the terrain of the thread before looking at its content. They let users highlight certain comments and raise them above others. I don't know that well-known members of the site are consistently favourited more often, or if favourites are generally spread out across the board, but that would be interesting to know. Do people favourite partly because of the comment itself, and partly because they like the person who said it (or want to be part of a perceived clique)? Does this basically inflate the name of the user in a way that's not necessarily consistent with being topic-driven in a thread?
I like to use favourites, and I don't use them to bookmark. I use them to say, "I agree". I suppose I'm part of the problem I'm outlining.
I certainly don't mind reading threads without favourites. It makes it all feel more..fresh somehow. Content without judgment. It would be really interesting to see if we're all still favouriting the same comments. What if favourites get reduced and get spread out more? Could be there's that element of wanting to be on the "right" side of things. If we can't see that everyone else already agrees with something, it lets us consider more independently, with less influence.
I think that kind of deliberate lack of influence is consistent with the rest of mefi's UI, so I was a bit surprised when favourites appeared in the first place.
That said, I would personally enjoy an "I agree" button on every comment. Not sure it would really add anything interesting to the site, though. But it would feel good to push it.
posted by Hildegarde at 10:24 PM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
Favourites I think kind of goes against this philosophy, so I can see why an experiment with them would be interesting and useful. Favourites let you read the terrain of the thread before looking at its content. They let users highlight certain comments and raise them above others. I don't know that well-known members of the site are consistently favourited more often, or if favourites are generally spread out across the board, but that would be interesting to know. Do people favourite partly because of the comment itself, and partly because they like the person who said it (or want to be part of a perceived clique)? Does this basically inflate the name of the user in a way that's not necessarily consistent with being topic-driven in a thread?
I like to use favourites, and I don't use them to bookmark. I use them to say, "I agree". I suppose I'm part of the problem I'm outlining.
I certainly don't mind reading threads without favourites. It makes it all feel more..fresh somehow. Content without judgment. It would be really interesting to see if we're all still favouriting the same comments. What if favourites get reduced and get spread out more? Could be there's that element of wanting to be on the "right" side of things. If we can't see that everyone else already agrees with something, it lets us consider more independently, with less influence.
I think that kind of deliberate lack of influence is consistent with the rest of mefi's UI, so I was a bit surprised when favourites appeared in the first place.
That said, I would personally enjoy an "I agree" button on every comment. Not sure it would really add anything interesting to the site, though. But it would feel good to push it.
posted by Hildegarde at 10:24 PM on November 1, 2009 [6 favorites]
This is why events unnerve me57
They find it all a different story
Notice for whom wheels are turning...
posted by koeselitz at 10:24 PM on November 1, 2009
What if the option of enabling or disabling favorites was made by thread original posters, on a thread-by-thread basis? If flat, un-echoed conversation was wanted, the OP could disable favorites. If the OP thinks that a spiky, consensus-driven format better suits the material, they could turn them on. Obviously some context to guide the choice would be needed (and difficult to devise)
If the concern is that some users are posting with the intention to whore favorites, then disabling favorites on a thread would remove the incentive and send them elsewhere. And a better experiment could be made, comparing the quality of discussion on threads with and without favorites (as well as the proportion of OPs who choose one or the other).
There definitely could be downsides - the first 10 comments would inevitably be about not only how poor a post it was, but the choice of favorite enabling/disabling. Also, eventually the favorite full/free camps would descend into civil war.
posted by anthill at 10:24 PM on November 1, 2009
If the concern is that some users are posting with the intention to whore favorites, then disabling favorites on a thread would remove the incentive and send them elsewhere. And a better experiment could be made, comparing the quality of discussion on threads with and without favorites (as well as the proportion of OPs who choose one or the other).
There definitely could be downsides - the first 10 comments would inevitably be about not only how poor a post it was, but the choice of favorite enabling/disabling. Also, eventually the favorite full/free camps would descend into civil war.
posted by anthill at 10:24 PM on November 1, 2009
So, olaguera, are you saying that this would work, but only because it will make the site so unusable for people that they leave, and that will make metafilter a smaller, more manageable community?
I somehow don't think that's the intended result.
I do think having more subsites would be useful, though. Music.metafilter is quite a tight-knit little community, seemingly. I'm not sure how to further segment out metafilter, short of having a politics/news/obitfilter site which would get a lot of the shouty echo-chamber-y stuff off the blue.
posted by empath at 10:27 PM on November 1, 2009
I somehow don't think that's the intended result.
I do think having more subsites would be useful, though. Music.metafilter is quite a tight-knit little community, seemingly. I'm not sure how to further segment out metafilter, short of having a politics/news/obitfilter site which would get a lot of the shouty echo-chamber-y stuff off the blue.
posted by empath at 10:27 PM on November 1, 2009
56
That's 58.
The MeFi Navigator Greasemonkey script told me so. (More information is a good thing.)
posted by clearly at 10:27 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
That's 58.
The MeFi Navigator Greasemonkey script told me so. (More information is a good thing.)
posted by clearly at 10:27 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Oh oh this just occured to me...
People are using built-in Metafilter functionality (favourites) to filter metafilter content.
Talk about a Meta. Filter.
posted by Hildegarde at 10:31 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
People are using built-in Metafilter functionality (favourites) to filter metafilter content.
Talk about a Meta. Filter.
posted by Hildegarde at 10:31 PM on November 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
PhoBWanKenobi writes "No, I get that, but that doesn't mean that there haven't been comments in here that seem to imply, obliquely or directly, that new users are part of the problem ('Metafilter also needs to throttle new user signups. I think those points are mostly agreeable without debate. Whether charging $5 is the best way to throttle those users is debatable IMO and I'm still on the fence. Especially since, as so many people have commented in this thread, the daily volume of comments across the site is growing I think a good argument could be made that enough throttling isn't been done.';"
I want to clarify again that I don't think new users per se are the problem (though start suggesting threaded comments or avatars in Meta after a week of membership and you're going to get a STFU NOOB!) and individually can be excellent metafilter members. That the size of the active userbase is growing is the problem. Even now as so many have stated in this thread a lot of metafilter members can no longer keep up with the majority (or heck even one fast moving) of threads. At somepoint Metafilter will have their Kibo and then there will be none. I think Metafilter will be worse for it and I'd bet my participation drops off remarkably somewhere around that time.
The easiest way to reduce post and commenting volume would be to reduce or stop the flow of new members in and let attrition do the work. Wouldn't be the only way of course but generally the easiest because the people being kept from participating can't voice their opinions of being excluded. Or, and this is the wildest of out there ideas not an advocation for change, hold a lottery every month a comment threshold is passed. Each comment gets you a ticket and we disable random users by comment draw until their collective comment count drops equals the threshold overdraw.
kittens for breakfast writes "I'm actually not sure why this thread is even still open. Frankly, it doesn't seem to be bringing out the best in anybody at this point, and the situation is resolved. What's left to say?"
The experiment continues even if numerous people have opted out.
posted by Mitheral at 10:33 PM on November 1, 2009
I want to clarify again that I don't think new users per se are the problem (though start suggesting threaded comments or avatars in Meta after a week of membership and you're going to get a STFU NOOB!) and individually can be excellent metafilter members. That the size of the active userbase is growing is the problem. Even now as so many have stated in this thread a lot of metafilter members can no longer keep up with the majority (or heck even one fast moving) of threads. At somepoint Metafilter will have their Kibo and then there will be none. I think Metafilter will be worse for it and I'd bet my participation drops off remarkably somewhere around that time.
The easiest way to reduce post and commenting volume would be to reduce or stop the flow of new members in and let attrition do the work. Wouldn't be the only way of course but generally the easiest because the people being kept from participating can't voice their opinions of being excluded. Or, and this is the wildest of out there ideas not an advocation for change, hold a lottery every month a comment threshold is passed. Each comment gets you a ticket and we disable random users by comment draw until their collective comment count drops equals the threshold overdraw.
kittens for breakfast writes "I'm actually not sure why this thread is even still open. Frankly, it doesn't seem to be bringing out the best in anybody at this point, and the situation is resolved. What's left to say?"
The experiment continues even if numerous people have opted out.
posted by Mitheral at 10:33 PM on November 1, 2009
I don't know that well-known members of the site are consistently favourited more often, or if favourites are generally spread out across the board, but that would be interesting to know. Do people favourite partly because of the comment itself, and partly because they like the person who said it (or want to be part of a perceived clique)? Does this basically inflate the name of the user in a way that's not necessarily consistent with being topic-driven in a thread?
Actually, i think the 'contact' sidebar might contribute to favoriting (and maybe the echo chamber factor) quite a bit. I notice that I get a fairly significant percentage of my favorites from people who have contacted me, I think possibly because my posts show up in their sidebar when they log in once I've gotten a few favorites.
Actually, if you're a 'name' on metafilter like Astro Zombie -- 178 contacts -- all you really have to do is get 10 or so favorites to show up on people's sidebars, then you get another 50 or 60 favorites from that, then you're on the 'popular favorites' page, and before you know it, 180 favorites on a comment. I've seen a similar pattern happen to some of my FPP's.
posted by empath at 10:33 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Actually, i think the 'contact' sidebar might contribute to favoriting (and maybe the echo chamber factor) quite a bit. I notice that I get a fairly significant percentage of my favorites from people who have contacted me, I think possibly because my posts show up in their sidebar when they log in once I've gotten a few favorites.
Actually, if you're a 'name' on metafilter like Astro Zombie -- 178 contacts -- all you really have to do is get 10 or so favorites to show up on people's sidebars, then you get another 50 or 60 favorites from that, then you're on the 'popular favorites' page, and before you know it, 180 favorites on a comment. I've seen a similar pattern happen to some of my FPP's.
posted by empath at 10:33 PM on November 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
No, I'm not saying that metafilter will be better because users will leave, I'm saying that when usability doesn't allow more than a (reasonable) number of users to participate in one spot, community is maintained.
My ideas here are pretty half-baked and there are some pretty big leaps in them, I know.
PS: I was saying that subsites don't work to restore community. Aside from that, they're obfuscatory and they suck if you allow users to make as many as they want.
posted by olaguera at 10:41 PM on November 1, 2009
My ideas here are pretty half-baked and there are some pretty big leaps in them, I know.
PS: I was saying that subsites don't work to restore community. Aside from that, they're obfuscatory and they suck if you allow users to make as many as they want.
posted by olaguera at 10:41 PM on November 1, 2009
Oh, hey, since there's a mod around, it's probably a good time to point out that the Preferences checkbox thing only works for one login session.
That's the nature of mefi preference settings in general; various of the pref toggles are stored locally in cookie form. I used to use the plain theme at work and the normal theme at home, for example, which wasn't a problem except when I had to do something like log out and back in again and the preferences would be refreshed to a new cookie locally.
I'm actually not sure why this thread is even still open. Frankly, it doesn't seem to be bringing out the best in anybody at this point, and the situation is resolved. What's left to say?
Well, this isn't a thread about whether or not we should add a preference setting re: the experiment, it's a thread about the experiment. Closing it at this point would be pretty odd.
Also, I'm with Malor in thinking I'll try it just for experimentation's sake (at least as long as I can stand it). It will be interesting. Am I right in thinking that I should turn it off by the end of November if I want to vote against the change?
Yeah, I think that's fine. It's not voting in the strict sense, since we're not putting it up for a vote in a meaningful sense, but as a way to sort of throw your chip into the bucket you prefer it's a decent method, yeah.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:53 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
That's the nature of mefi preference settings in general; various of the pref toggles are stored locally in cookie form. I used to use the plain theme at work and the normal theme at home, for example, which wasn't a problem except when I had to do something like log out and back in again and the preferences would be refreshed to a new cookie locally.
I'm actually not sure why this thread is even still open. Frankly, it doesn't seem to be bringing out the best in anybody at this point, and the situation is resolved. What's left to say?
Well, this isn't a thread about whether or not we should add a preference setting re: the experiment, it's a thread about the experiment. Closing it at this point would be pretty odd.
Also, I'm with Malor in thinking I'll try it just for experimentation's sake (at least as long as I can stand it). It will be interesting. Am I right in thinking that I should turn it off by the end of November if I want to vote against the change?
Yeah, I think that's fine. It's not voting in the strict sense, since we're not putting it up for a vote in a meaningful sense, but as a way to sort of throw your chip into the bucket you prefer it's a decent method, yeah.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:53 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's chips in the MeTa bucket these days? I think that's an improvement.
posted by nowonmai at 11:03 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by nowonmai at 11:03 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
This is the shrill back-and-forth horseshit I like to have favorites around for so I can easily skip past it and maybe see something less tedious. I guess I'm outta here for a while. I hope this proposed change doesn't become permanent, I'm already feeling a certain disinvestment with the site I did not have previous to this occasion. Which kinda blows, but whatever.
posted by cj_ at 11:11 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by cj_ at 11:11 PM on November 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Actually, i think the 'contact' sidebar might contribute to favoriting (and maybe the echo chamber factor) quite a bit. I notice that I get a fairly significant percentage of my favorites from people who have contacted me, I think possibly because my posts show up in their sidebar when they log in once I've gotten a few favorites.
Also, I find myself (and others) significantly more likely to give a favorite to someone I've met in person, or developed a rapport with on the site. I mention this because I almost never use the contacts sidebar, but am still exhibiting the behavior you're describing.
posted by potch at 11:13 PM on November 1, 2009
Also, I find myself (and others) significantly more likely to give a favorite to someone I've met in person, or developed a rapport with on the site. I mention this because I almost never use the contacts sidebar, but am still exhibiting the behavior you're describing.
posted by potch at 11:13 PM on November 1, 2009
Although I could change my tune yet, so far I approve of this new way of doing favorites.
posted by dunkadunc at 11:16 PM on November 1, 2009
posted by dunkadunc at 11:16 PM on November 1, 2009
Perhaps it would help if we considered the format and spirit of experimenting on Mefi. I've only been here since 2006, and I think this is the first experiment I've noticed. I realize for me my unspoken parameters/framework/values are that:
* I'm a guest here.
* The mods can do whatever experiment they like, except maybe sell my personal information
*Intention is important. Is their intent in the experiment positive, regardless of the unexpected consequences?
*24 hour notice is good
*Opt out is nice
*Everything won't work for me.
*If I don't like it, I can leave whenever I like. And I can come back later, if I haven't been banned.
So I didn't feel like anything was violated in this experiment. Reading the comments, it feels like some folks feel as if some principles have been violated. People want more notice, but how much more? Do people feel the mods have the right to experiment, particularly if they are inconvenienced?
It's clear to me that some of the folks I seriously disagree with on this thread hold different values, so there is no way we'd agree. But I don't think that's a reason to attack them personally. It's not personal. So maybe we could all appreciate those of us who are disagreeing without making it a personal attack? By that I mean accusing someone of anything that dead ends into a : "yes you are/no I'm not, you are!" point-off. I always find when I'm in those scenarios, we both kinda are and kinda aren't, so maybe everyone should get a pass, and a do over.
Alrighty, I'm going to go turn off the favorites, embrace the faved and see what happens.
posted by anitanita at 11:28 PM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
* I'm a guest here.
* The mods can do whatever experiment they like, except maybe sell my personal information
*Intention is important. Is their intent in the experiment positive, regardless of the unexpected consequences?
*24 hour notice is good
*Opt out is nice
*Everything won't work for me.
*If I don't like it, I can leave whenever I like. And I can come back later, if I haven't been banned.
So I didn't feel like anything was violated in this experiment. Reading the comments, it feels like some folks feel as if some principles have been violated. People want more notice, but how much more? Do people feel the mods have the right to experiment, particularly if they are inconvenienced?
It's clear to me that some of the folks I seriously disagree with on this thread hold different values, so there is no way we'd agree. But I don't think that's a reason to attack them personally. It's not personal. So maybe we could all appreciate those of us who are disagreeing without making it a personal attack? By that I mean accusing someone of anything that dead ends into a : "yes you are/no I'm not, you are!" point-off. I always find when I'm in those scenarios, we both kinda are and kinda aren't, so maybe everyone should get a pass, and a do over.
Alrighty, I'm going to go turn off the favorites, embrace the faved and see what happens.
posted by anitanita at 11:28 PM on November 1, 2009 [7 favorites]
Hm. Not even a day in, and I'm starting to like it, too. It's like the problems in a textbook with the answers in the back. Though, maybe it would be neat to have the number of favorites show when you hover the mouse over the "favorites" link instead of "marked as a favorite."
posted by ctmf at 11:31 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by ctmf at 11:31 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Can I note that the repeated suggestion that koeselitz is posting too much in this thread is a good example of the kind of crap that puts me off posting? Specifically here, in defense of this experiment. Right now. Maybe others feel the same, I don't know.
When the mob brays for favourites to be re-implemented immediately, and then repeatedly attacks not only the 'opposing side' in general, but individual users arguing for that side (specifically koeselitz), well, who needs the grief? I've been the lone voice that gets shouted down here many times, and it's a real drag.
This is part of the problem with favourites. They create a big voice, they amplify opinions, and it has the side-effect of silencing those marginal opinions that don't fit in with the groupthink. It's chasing away something that was a wonderful part of Metafilter, and it seems to be leaving a snark-heavy gray zone where opinions rarely diverge too much from the status quo.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:37 PM on November 1, 2009
When the mob brays for favourites to be re-implemented immediately, and then repeatedly attacks not only the 'opposing side' in general, but individual users arguing for that side (specifically koeselitz), well, who needs the grief? I've been the lone voice that gets shouted down here many times, and it's a real drag.
This is part of the problem with favourites. They create a big voice, they amplify opinions, and it has the side-effect of silencing those marginal opinions that don't fit in with the groupthink. It's chasing away something that was a wonderful part of Metafilter, and it seems to be leaving a snark-heavy gray zone where opinions rarely diverge too much from the status quo.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:37 PM on November 1, 2009
Now when I click on 'faved' to see how many have favorited a comment, I feel cheated if it's only one or two people. Off to change the preferences!
Also, I suggest sidebarring this thread.
posted by incessant at 11:42 PM on November 1, 2009
Also, I suggest sidebarring this thread.
posted by incessant at 11:42 PM on November 1, 2009
I do not like this.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
posted by aniola at 11:47 PM on November 1, 2009
I do not like green eggs and ham.
posted by aniola at 11:47 PM on November 1, 2009
I don't really have an opinion on this. Not nuts about "faved", though. Other people suggested "marked", "saved" and "noted", and any of these would be an improvement.
Another suggestion, for when you're not displaying the number of favourites:
[list +]
And for when you are:
[N +]
where N is the number of favourites, and would be linked to the list of user-ids that clicked the "+". With 5 favourites, the byline would be [5 +].
posted by rjs at 11:49 PM on November 1, 2009
Another suggestion, for when you're not displaying the number of favourites:
[list +]
And for when you are:
[N +]
where N is the number of favourites, and would be linked to the list of user-ids that clicked the "+". With 5 favourites, the byline would be [5 +].
posted by rjs at 11:49 PM on November 1, 2009
I'm not seeing where it's supposed to be a vocal, cranky minority, throwing a tantrum who against removing favorites. In fact, someone with more time than I've got (since I keep reading the thread from where I left off, leaving me no time for, well, anything) could go through and check a couple of things, like just how many individual users came in to say they didn't like it, and how many times users from a different, smaller group of people posted to tell them they were being rude, ungrateful, and childlike (toys from prams, if you will). How many people posting their dislike of the change posted in MeTa for their first time?
And, middleclasstool, seriously, you don't see any issue with painting, as you said "most of MeTa" as whiny children? Do you think that's "raising the level of discourse?" Most of MeTa has said, with varying levels of politeness, some, regrettably, less polite than others, that they don't like this change to their community. The idea of that community is so powerful to a lot of us (and by that, I'm saying all the users, everyone included) that being confronted by sudden changes to the community while likely hungover, sugar-comaed*, or otherwise exhausted is not going to result in an approving nod from Miss Manners.
*If "faved" can be a word, so can comaed.
posted by Ghidorah at 11:52 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
And, middleclasstool, seriously, you don't see any issue with painting, as you said "most of MeTa" as whiny children? Do you think that's "raising the level of discourse?" Most of MeTa has said, with varying levels of politeness, some, regrettably, less polite than others, that they don't like this change to their community. The idea of that community is so powerful to a lot of us (and by that, I'm saying all the users, everyone included) that being confronted by sudden changes to the community while likely hungover, sugar-comaed*, or otherwise exhausted is not going to result in an approving nod from Miss Manners.
*If "faved" can be a word, so can comaed.
posted by Ghidorah at 11:52 PM on November 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Maybe they're really just testing out the server's ability to handle large threads.
posted by secret about box at 12:17 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by secret about box at 12:17 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've begun to like not having visible comment favorites. Partly this has to do with the fact that comment favorites had no particular use for me beyond being able to say "I think this is a good comment" in a non-intrusive way. Post favorites, however, give me something quantitative to consider when I'm thinking about what makes a good post to the front page of MetaFilter, both my own and those by others, and are therefore really useful to how I use MetaFilter. Besides that, I like to get positive reinforcement when I've spent time making a post. But I really don't miss having visible comment favorites. For me they were just noise in the user interface. I don't like skimming so skimming aids are not something that I want.
That said there is one argument for the prior system that no one's given a good rebuttal to, koeselitz's point that this takes the focus in long comment threads away from prominent users and puts it onto heavily favorited comments, which are often made by nonprolific commenters. I feel that MetaFilter should be democratic and not clique-driven and if visible favorites foster a more democratic environment that then it's an extremely valuable feature. That is the best argument I've read so far for the system we've had and it's an argument that makes me want to retain it.
posted by Kattullus at 12:26 AM on November 2, 2009
That said there is one argument for the prior system that no one's given a good rebuttal to, koeselitz's point that this takes the focus in long comment threads away from prominent users and puts it onto heavily favorited comments, which are often made by nonprolific commenters. I feel that MetaFilter should be democratic and not clique-driven and if visible favorites foster a more democratic environment that then it's an extremely valuable feature. That is the best argument I've read so far for the system we've had and it's an argument that makes me want to retain it.
posted by Kattullus at 12:26 AM on November 2, 2009
stinkycheese, I'm not sure I get the connection between people making personal attacks against other members and generally being jerks and favorites contributing to that behavior. If anything, I would think that having favorites would reduce the number of hateful comments, because people can just click to agree instead of having big pile-ons saying nasty stuff.
I also really don't get how it marginalizes other opinions. I actually mean this - I really don't get it. It isn't as if flags show up. I don't vote somebody's comments down, I don't have a little button I click to tell someone I hate their comment. I just get to point out the ones that I like. But every comment starts out the same, and for me at least there isn't anything more inherently valid about a comment with 20 favorites and a comment with none. It just means that 20 people liked or wanted to save the first one.
I can sort of see that favoriting the opposing view point could make someone feel unwelcome. If the comments in the sexism threads that got the most favorites were 'shut up, you're being too sensitive/stop getting your panties in a twist' etc, I'd probably feel unwelcome, but I tend to think that's because part of sexism is this idea that as a woman my thoughts don't count and my voice doesn't matter. I don't think I would have that reaction in a thread about, say, whether havings certain kinds of dogs as pets is ecologically irresponsible. Is that really what you see happening in a lot of circumstances as a result of favorites? If so, no wonder the mods want to take a second look at it.
posted by rosethorn at 12:32 AM on November 2, 2009
I also really don't get how it marginalizes other opinions. I actually mean this - I really don't get it. It isn't as if flags show up. I don't vote somebody's comments down, I don't have a little button I click to tell someone I hate their comment. I just get to point out the ones that I like. But every comment starts out the same, and for me at least there isn't anything more inherently valid about a comment with 20 favorites and a comment with none. It just means that 20 people liked or wanted to save the first one.
I can sort of see that favoriting the opposing view point could make someone feel unwelcome. If the comments in the sexism threads that got the most favorites were 'shut up, you're being too sensitive/stop getting your panties in a twist' etc, I'd probably feel unwelcome, but I tend to think that's because part of sexism is this idea that as a woman my thoughts don't count and my voice doesn't matter. I don't think I would have that reaction in a thread about, say, whether havings certain kinds of dogs as pets is ecologically irresponsible. Is that really what you see happening in a lot of circumstances as a result of favorites? If so, no wonder the mods want to take a second look at it.
posted by rosethorn at 12:32 AM on November 2, 2009
I for one really enjoy havings things. It's a lot better than having them. Especially when it comes to dogs.
posted by rosethorn at 12:38 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by rosethorn at 12:38 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
When the mob brays for favourites to be re-implemented immediately, and then repeatedly attacks not only the 'opposing side' in general, but individual users arguing for that side (specifically koeselitz), well, who needs the grief? I've been the lone voice that gets shouted down here many times, and it's a real drag.
What does that have to do with favorites? People can shout down opposing viewpoints with or without them.
posted by empath at 12:50 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
What does that have to do with favorites? People can shout down opposing viewpoints with or without them.
posted by empath at 12:50 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Wow. Many, many people here are acting like children. Getting this wound up over a month-long change to a website, in many cases over a single word, is bizarre. Is it that important to your life?
posted by smorange at 1:14 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by smorange at 1:14 AM on November 2, 2009
It's the limiting nature other people put on the conversation due to favorites.
Just because some people want to favorite doesn't mean that others have to go along with it. Same thing with the "do I have to read one of these posts" comments. No, you don't have to read them. No, you don't have to assign any meaning to favorites if you don't want to.
What I don't understand is why people can't just have the ability to just disable the particular feature if they want, whereas others don't have to? It just seems like a whole bunch of people telling a bunch of other people they are wrong and wanting them to act the way they want to. That's just weird. People ought to be able to use the site the way they want to. If they don't like favorites, create a feature to turn them off and turn them off. If they do, they can leave them on. Why this has to be imposed on some people because other people do not like the (utterly blameless) behavior of others? It just smacks of overmoderation.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:18 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Just because some people want to favorite doesn't mean that others have to go along with it. Same thing with the "do I have to read one of these posts" comments. No, you don't have to read them. No, you don't have to assign any meaning to favorites if you don't want to.
What I don't understand is why people can't just have the ability to just disable the particular feature if they want, whereas others don't have to? It just seems like a whole bunch of people telling a bunch of other people they are wrong and wanting them to act the way they want to. That's just weird. People ought to be able to use the site the way they want to. If they don't like favorites, create a feature to turn them off and turn them off. If they do, they can leave them on. Why this has to be imposed on some people because other people do not like the (utterly blameless) behavior of others? It just smacks of overmoderation.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:18 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Ok, complaints withdrawn, after having read that you can reenable the old style.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:23 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by Ironmouth at 1:23 AM on November 2, 2009
A tiny question:
Could someone please explain to me, for the purposes of this November experiment, why the word "faved" is there at all? Why do we (those who choose to try the new interface) need to know if anybody else likes the comment or not?
Wouldn't it be "purer" for the experiment if there was no marker whatsoever?
posted by thisperon at 1:23 AM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
Could someone please explain to me, for the purposes of this November experiment, why the word "faved" is there at all? Why do we (those who choose to try the new interface) need to know if anybody else likes the comment or not?
Wouldn't it be "purer" for the experiment if there was no marker whatsoever?
posted by thisperon at 1:23 AM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
As a low-frequency poster, I think this is an experiment worth performing in the hope of increasing the quality of conversation here. Frankly, some of the arguments being made against it do seem to suggest an approach to reading and commenting on the site which is likely to reduce quality content.
posted by Busy Old Fool at 1:31 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Busy Old Fool at 1:31 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
I made it halfway through this thread, reading most of the comments, back when it had maybe 1100 or so comments (I clicked a link from the closed thread).
The one thing I did not see is any sense that "noise" is not perhaps itself valuable. For example, comments are reviled/removed/lauded because they are examples of "shitting in the thread," but to my mind this is a way of dismissing a dissenting/disruptive opinion as something without value.
If favorites encourage people to snark or shit in a thread, why is that something that should be discouraged? If such is to be discouraged, for whom and from which perspective is the discouragement produced?
The other point I see is that information has been removed. koeselitz and majick both seem to be arguing that favorites increase echoes and noise rather than showcase value. For them, the visible sign of value generates non-value. Remove the sign of value and value will be preserved!
What koeselitz, majcik, and others like them really seek to keep others ignorant of the opinions of others about opinions. That is, they don't want others to know what things others find valuable, what others find worth favoriting. The presence of such a knowledge system ruins comments because users then "play to favorites," which is about as meaningful as saying good is bad because people think it's good.
Anyhow, yeah, the flattening of hierarchy is a loss. Crowdsourcing (as someone mentioned way way way upthread) works.
I look forward to the end of this experiment and the implementation of a way for users like koeselitz and majick to invisiblize favorites in their preferences, leaving the rest of us to benefit from the aggregate wisdom forged by the favoriting activity of our fellow MetaFilter users.
posted by mistersquid at 1:34 AM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
The one thing I did not see is any sense that "noise" is not perhaps itself valuable. For example, comments are reviled/removed/lauded because they are examples of "shitting in the thread," but to my mind this is a way of dismissing a dissenting/disruptive opinion as something without value.
If favorites encourage people to snark or shit in a thread, why is that something that should be discouraged? If such is to be discouraged, for whom and from which perspective is the discouragement produced?
The other point I see is that information has been removed. koeselitz and majick both seem to be arguing that favorites increase echoes and noise rather than showcase value. For them, the visible sign of value generates non-value. Remove the sign of value and value will be preserved!
What koeselitz, majcik, and others like them really seek to keep others ignorant of the opinions of others about opinions. That is, they don't want others to know what things others find valuable, what others find worth favoriting. The presence of such a knowledge system ruins comments because users then "play to favorites," which is about as meaningful as saying good is bad because people think it's good.
Anyhow, yeah, the flattening of hierarchy is a loss. Crowdsourcing (as someone mentioned way way way upthread) works.
I look forward to the end of this experiment and the implementation of a way for users like koeselitz and majick to invisiblize favorites in their preferences, leaving the rest of us to benefit from the aggregate wisdom forged by the favoriting activity of our fellow MetaFilter users.
posted by mistersquid at 1:34 AM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
I don't understand what the arguments against groupthink (nearest reverse search) even mean, as if MetaFilter has no personality, its own set of unique biases and proclivities. Is this simply a zone of pure neutrality, or do MetaFilter users represent a for-real demographic with identifiable tastes, aesthetics, and tendencies, with representamen outliers?
Yes, I read backwards with my machine.
posted by mistersquid at 1:43 AM on November 2, 2009
Yes, I read backwards with my machine.
posted by mistersquid at 1:43 AM on November 2, 2009
And finally: tomorrow is my birthday.
posted by mistersquid at 1:44 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by mistersquid at 1:44 AM on November 2, 2009
middleclasstool, summarizing the anti-change, pro-favorites crowd:
... most of what they got back was no, I'm not going to help you with that because I have my own particular way of reading the site, and you've got to be kidding if you think I'm going to change that for any reason whatsoever.
I think the strong response here is due to surprise. When you change a UI feature people use a lot, and without some warning, you can get a reaction stronger than you might see otherwise.
posted by zippy at 1:46 AM on November 2, 2009
... most of what they got back was no, I'm not going to help you with that because I have my own particular way of reading the site, and you've got to be kidding if you think I'm going to change that for any reason whatsoever.
I think the strong response here is due to surprise. When you change a UI feature people use a lot, and without some warning, you can get a reaction stronger than you might see otherwise.
posted by zippy at 1:46 AM on November 2, 2009
Ghidora: I'm not seeing where it's supposed to be a vocal, cranky minority, throwing a tantrum who against removing favorites. In fact, someone with more time than I've got (since I keep reading the thread from where I left off, leaving me no time for, well, anything) could go through and check a couple of things, like just how many individual users came in to say they didn't like it, and how many times users from a different, smaller group of people posted to tell them they were being rude, ungrateful, and childlike
So I did that. I went back and read the first few hundred comments. I found a couple of interesting things. I looked around for the shrillness. I ascribed good faith to comments, jokes and snark alike, but dismissed jokey one-liners. I looked for snark/shrillness that didn't express and opinion or if it did how was it in proportion to the comment. There is one person who tended to keep up a good amount of shrillness early on without making a fair opinionated argument, and instead settle for snarking. It would be unfair to out that person, but it's interesting to see someone building that wall of divisiveness. I also was looking for pros and cons. This is may be subjective here, but if you like you can go back and look. The pros to cons are roughly 50/50 for quite a while at the beginning there. But something I did find interesting that had no basis in reality wasthis. It's you first interjecting some bullshit about the minority, and you've done it over and over and over, like you did just now. Since you seem to think there's some cabal of anti-favouriters who are whiny and cranky, can you please tell me what that's about? Seriously, because there are a number of people who are for favorites but are also for this experiment and you've been intent on making it into some kind of anti/pro us vs. them scenario when that really isn't the case at all. So if you want to drop the charade and enter the discussion that would be cool. Oh, yeah and here's a hint: Nobody but the mods knew about this before hand.
posted by P.o.B. at 2:13 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
So I did that. I went back and read the first few hundred comments. I found a couple of interesting things. I looked around for the shrillness. I ascribed good faith to comments, jokes and snark alike, but dismissed jokey one-liners. I looked for snark/shrillness that didn't express and opinion or if it did how was it in proportion to the comment. There is one person who tended to keep up a good amount of shrillness early on without making a fair opinionated argument, and instead settle for snarking. It would be unfair to out that person, but it's interesting to see someone building that wall of divisiveness. I also was looking for pros and cons. This is may be subjective here, but if you like you can go back and look. The pros to cons are roughly 50/50 for quite a while at the beginning there. But something I did find interesting that had no basis in reality wasthis. It's you first interjecting some bullshit about the minority, and you've done it over and over and over, like you did just now. Since you seem to think there's some cabal of anti-favouriters who are whiny and cranky, can you please tell me what that's about? Seriously, because there are a number of people who are for favorites but are also for this experiment and you've been intent on making it into some kind of anti/pro us vs. them scenario when that really isn't the case at all. So if you want to drop the charade and enter the discussion that would be cool. Oh, yeah and here's a hint: Nobody but the mods knew about this before hand.
posted by P.o.B. at 2:13 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Actually, this is your first shot at being dismissive. Someone who later on talked about how vituperative the thread is and that was your first comment.
posted by P.o.B. at 2:23 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by P.o.B. at 2:23 AM on November 2, 2009
cortex says: The more valid question of how homogeneous a thread looks when it's not being fucked with intentionally could be answered by checking out fave distribution via the Infodump—just partitioning comments into faved-at-all vs. not buckets for any given thread would give a good picture of the natural state of things, and might be worth doing if anyone is interested in doing a little bit of quantitative work.
I haven't mined the infodump, but I can give you some qualitative handwaving. I use a script that adds decorations to comments depending on the number of favorites. If a comment has at least one favorite, I alter its background color. When I originally wrote the script, this was useful. But nowadays, one or two favorites don't mean shit.
5 is the threshold to start paying attention.
15 marks something pretty good.
50 is generally a sign of something special.
Hugely popular threads mess up the balance, but only for the first hundred comments or so. Favoriting slows down after that as people get tired of reading and/or clicking [+].
posted by ryanrs at 2:27 AM on November 2, 2009
I haven't mined the infodump, but I can give you some qualitative handwaving. I use a script that adds decorations to comments depending on the number of favorites. If a comment has at least one favorite, I alter its background color. When I originally wrote the script, this was useful. But nowadays, one or two favorites don't mean shit.
5 is the threshold to start paying attention.
15 marks something pretty good.
50 is generally a sign of something special.
Hugely popular threads mess up the balance, but only for the first hundred comments or so. Favoriting slows down after that as people get tired of reading and/or clicking [+].
posted by ryanrs at 2:27 AM on November 2, 2009
I had a dream this monstrosity had been undone. (Really, I did. In my defense, it wasn't a long dream and was incidental to something non-internet-related.) I was pretty sad to still see it here.
posted by DU at 2:41 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by DU at 2:41 AM on November 2, 2009
Just came in to add a few hopefully helpful comments from my own personal perspective (although it might overlap others, I don't know, this thread is crazy long after just a day)
1) Re Favorites causing pile-ons thus losing the whole context of discussion: I'll have to disagree. When I think about it, when I read highly favorited comments because they support a certain side of an argument, I usually do go back to re-skim the thread to figure out what they were responding to and am better informed because of it. Otherwise, I might miss that whole dialogue, particularly in very long threads. So basically, I think Original Favorites made me a better reader.
2) Re Favorites producing unworthy comments: Like I said before, as much as snark and throwaway comments get favorites (like virtual high-fives) very thoughtful, well written comments get favorited just as often. And when I read a bunch of favorites I realize that what I would want to write has already been written, only better so I end up favoriting rather than adding a repetitive, unoriginal thought. Original Favorites made me a better participant.
I kind of like the idea of limiting the number of favorites you can have a day as a compromise, but that number will be a crapshoot. (I totally caught that comment by pure luck)
Apologies if someone else has already covered these points above thread, but maybe it was good to know this particular individual feels this way. (Although I think that's quite undeservedly flattering.)
posted by like_neon at 2:42 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
1) Re Favorites causing pile-ons thus losing the whole context of discussion: I'll have to disagree. When I think about it, when I read highly favorited comments because they support a certain side of an argument, I usually do go back to re-skim the thread to figure out what they were responding to and am better informed because of it. Otherwise, I might miss that whole dialogue, particularly in very long threads. So basically, I think Original Favorites made me a better reader.
2) Re Favorites producing unworthy comments: Like I said before, as much as snark and throwaway comments get favorites (like virtual high-fives) very thoughtful, well written comments get favorited just as often. And when I read a bunch of favorites I realize that what I would want to write has already been written, only better so I end up favoriting rather than adding a repetitive, unoriginal thought. Original Favorites made me a better participant.
I kind of like the idea of limiting the number of favorites you can have a day as a compromise, but that number will be a crapshoot. (I totally caught that comment by pure luck)
Apologies if someone else has already covered these points above thread, but maybe it was good to know this particular individual feels this way. (Although I think that's quite undeservedly flattering.)
posted by like_neon at 2:42 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
DU, you can undo it yourself. The dream is real!
Just read a few AskMe threads, liking the absence of a number. I'm still missing it in this thread, since maybe 70% of the comments are "faved." (The rest, what's wrong with them?) I'd almost rather know which had received at least 6 favorites or something rather than having the threshold be 1.
posted by salvia at 2:57 AM on November 2, 2009
Just read a few AskMe threads, liking the absence of a number. I'm still missing it in this thread, since maybe 70% of the comments are "faved." (The rest, what's wrong with them?) I'd almost rather know which had received at least 6 favorites or something rather than having the threshold be 1.
posted by salvia at 2:57 AM on November 2, 2009
I don't like the change, but I do like experiments, so I'm going to leave the ticky-box un-ticked for now. But I absolutely agree that favourites are being made a scapegoat for undesirable behaviour.
What do these things have in common?
a) snark
b) people commenting without reading first
c) pile-ons
They're all things that happen all over the web, on sites that have faves/likes/upvotes/etc and sites that don't. And to be honest, I don't think Metafilter has a huge problem with b) and c) beyond that caused by having tens of thousands of members. And I like the snark, when it's playful slaps rather than a full-on savaging.
posted by harriet vane at 3:06 AM on November 2, 2009
What do these things have in common?
a) snark
b) people commenting without reading first
c) pile-ons
They're all things that happen all over the web, on sites that have faves/likes/upvotes/etc and sites that don't. And to be honest, I don't think Metafilter has a huge problem with b) and c) beyond that caused by having tens of thousands of members. And I like the snark, when it's playful slaps rather than a full-on savaging.
posted by harriet vane at 3:06 AM on November 2, 2009
Removing favorites from the sight of the poster|commenter (mentioned above) would maintain the utility of favorites while removing the reward craved by the demagogues. No one would complain because no one engages in that here.
I slay me.
As to "faved", well, I think it's a marvy word.
Metafilter moderator has moved up to right above daycare worker on my "Jobs I Do Not Want" list after reading this thread.
posted by vapidave at 3:07 AM on November 2, 2009
I slay me.
As to "faved", well, I think it's a marvy word.
Metafilter moderator has moved up to right above daycare worker on my "Jobs I Do Not Want" list after reading this thread.
posted by vapidave at 3:07 AM on November 2, 2009
So I found out about turning off the experience in My Profile settings and damn, it's like being in a buffet after a long diet. Yes, in a side by side comparison, I do like the old system a lot more, and reading this thread again with favorite counts on has shown me this. I like that other people are helping me read the site better. It feels like, you know, a community.
But still, I'm going to go back and turn it off in the spirit of experimenting. I'll grumble and be annoyed, but I'll participate because I understand that the mods are in this with the best of intentions so I'll have a go. (grumble)
posted by like_neon at 3:12 AM on November 2, 2009
But still, I'm going to go back and turn it off in the spirit of experimenting. I'll grumble and be annoyed, but I'll participate because I understand that the mods are in this with the best of intentions so I'll have a go. (grumble)
posted by like_neon at 3:12 AM on November 2, 2009
mistersquid: I don't understand what the arguments against groupthink (nearest reverse search) even mean, as if MetaFilter has no personality, its own set of unique biases and proclivities. Is this simply a zone of pure neutrality, or do MetaFilter users represent a for-real demographic with identifiable tastes, aesthetics, and tendencies, with representamen outliers?
You say you 'don't know what the arguments against groupthink even mean.' I presume that you mean to imply that they seem to lack meaning because in your view they signify empty values. But those arguments were clearly intended in the first place to point out that Metafilter really has no personality except in a very loose, very general, and very symbolic way. Personality, if I may be so bold to say so, implies unitarity; and to define unitarity is to exclude as well as include. If Metafilter's 'demographic' (by which I take it you mean its generally liberal political outlook, its dislike of sexism, its generally English-speaking membership, et cetera) is defined as constituting a personality, you are excluding as well as including on the basis of your chosen parameters.
To put it bluntly: if you say "Metafilter has a personality! Look!" you're saying that anybody who doesn't share the particular characteristics you're pointing to is not part of Metafilter. That simply doesn't seem very communitarian to me. People worry about groupthink because democracy is susceptible to tyranny of the majority, to a situation in which variants which differ from the dominant strain are quashed and any deviation is swiftly eliminated. Anyone who is familiar with modernity ought to be aware that the mechanisms of oppression have now progressed far beyond the simple, blunt methods which Stalin and Hitler used; now a differing opinion is not forcibly ejected but simply ignored.
mistersquid: koeselitz and majick both seem to be arguing that favorites increase echoes and noise rather than showcase value. For them, the visible sign of value generates non-value. Remove the sign of value and value will be preserved!
That's just silly. Popularity is not an intrinsic value; popularity only takes part in goodness (goodness and value are synonymous, after all; people only see as valuable that which they perceive as partaking of goodness) only accidentally insofar as it is imbued with other qualities which are good. An emblem which indicates popularity is not therefore "a visible sign of value." In fact, this was the entire point of my objections: that some people who are confused about signs (hypothetical people, of course) might come along and make the same mistake, presuming that because something had a greater number of favorites it partakes more of goodness than other comments.
What koeselitz, majcik, and others like them really seek to keep others ignorant of the opinions of others about opinions. That is, they don't want others to know what things others find valuable, what others find worth favoriting. The presence of such a knowledge system ruins comments because users then "play to favorites," which is about as meaningful as saying good is bad because people think it's good.
This is nonsense, of course; I think even most of those have argued against me here would agree, although of course I can't speak for them. If majick, myself and others actually wanted to keep others ignorant of the opinions of others about opinions we would be proposing that commenting be disallowed. We are asking no such think. We aren't even asking that favorites be removed completely. What we are asking for is an environment free from the politicization and homogenization that an incessant emphasis on popular opinion to the exclusion of an emphasis on the intrinsic correctness or usefulness of the comments of individual people. In his essay The Fixation Of Belief, C S Peirce calls this "the method of authority:"
Anyhow, yeah, the flattening of hierarchy is a loss. Crowdsourcing (as someone mentioned way way way upthread) works.
I wasn't the one who first mentioned 'groupthink' here, but I'm glad it came up. The coining by Orwell was intended as a warning that there are ways that the majority of people might adopt horrible, destructive beliefs which not only crowd out and exclude all deviations from the norm but even make life less worthwhile for those who are comfortable members of that crowd. In short, 'groupthink' represents the notion that the majority isn't always right, and can be destructively wrong. In our times probably the most important living expression of this notion was the people of Germany between 1933 and 1945, or, as Daniel Goldhagen's universally-lauded book calls them, Hitler's Willing Executioners. To say glibly that "crowdsourcing works" is to say that every argument against groupthink is wrong, and thus is morally equivalent to standing with Hitler and his minions on Kristallnacht. Like those valiant few in the minorities who stood against Hitler, I am appalled.
While I'm comparing myself to Holocaust victims I feel like I may as well also note that I'm not really into semiotics – can't stand all that gobbledeegook, give me real philosophy to chew on – but I did really like an essay in semiotics that I read recently called Fractures of Unfamiliarity & Circumvention in Pursuit of a Nice Time by Robert Hunter, lyricist for the Grateful Dead.
posted by koeselitz at 3:15 AM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
You say you 'don't know what the arguments against groupthink even mean.' I presume that you mean to imply that they seem to lack meaning because in your view they signify empty values. But those arguments were clearly intended in the first place to point out that Metafilter really has no personality except in a very loose, very general, and very symbolic way. Personality, if I may be so bold to say so, implies unitarity; and to define unitarity is to exclude as well as include. If Metafilter's 'demographic' (by which I take it you mean its generally liberal political outlook, its dislike of sexism, its generally English-speaking membership, et cetera) is defined as constituting a personality, you are excluding as well as including on the basis of your chosen parameters.
To put it bluntly: if you say "Metafilter has a personality! Look!" you're saying that anybody who doesn't share the particular characteristics you're pointing to is not part of Metafilter. That simply doesn't seem very communitarian to me. People worry about groupthink because democracy is susceptible to tyranny of the majority, to a situation in which variants which differ from the dominant strain are quashed and any deviation is swiftly eliminated. Anyone who is familiar with modernity ought to be aware that the mechanisms of oppression have now progressed far beyond the simple, blunt methods which Stalin and Hitler used; now a differing opinion is not forcibly ejected but simply ignored.
mistersquid: koeselitz and majick both seem to be arguing that favorites increase echoes and noise rather than showcase value. For them, the visible sign of value generates non-value. Remove the sign of value and value will be preserved!
That's just silly. Popularity is not an intrinsic value; popularity only takes part in goodness (goodness and value are synonymous, after all; people only see as valuable that which they perceive as partaking of goodness) only accidentally insofar as it is imbued with other qualities which are good. An emblem which indicates popularity is not therefore "a visible sign of value." In fact, this was the entire point of my objections: that some people who are confused about signs (hypothetical people, of course) might come along and make the same mistake, presuming that because something had a greater number of favorites it partakes more of goodness than other comments.
What koeselitz, majcik, and others like them really seek to keep others ignorant of the opinions of others about opinions. That is, they don't want others to know what things others find valuable, what others find worth favoriting. The presence of such a knowledge system ruins comments because users then "play to favorites," which is about as meaningful as saying good is bad because people think it's good.
This is nonsense, of course; I think even most of those have argued against me here would agree, although of course I can't speak for them. If majick, myself and others actually wanted to keep others ignorant of the opinions of others about opinions we would be proposing that commenting be disallowed. We are asking no such think. We aren't even asking that favorites be removed completely. What we are asking for is an environment free from the politicization and homogenization that an incessant emphasis on popular opinion to the exclusion of an emphasis on the intrinsic correctness or usefulness of the comments of individual people. In his essay The Fixation Of Belief, C S Peirce calls this "the method of authority:"
If the settlement of opinion is the sole object of inquiry, and if belief is of the nature of a habit, why should we not attain the desired end, by taking any answer to a question which we may fancy, and constantly reiterating it to ourselves, dwelling on all which may conduce to that belief, and learning to turn with contempt and hatred from anything that might disturb it? This simple and direct method is really pursued by many men...I think that's a pretty good description of what I've gone through in this thread. Sort of the internet version, say. Except thankfully this way I got to drink a few beers meanwhile.
Unless we make ourselves hermits, we shall necessarily influence each other’s opinions; so that the problem becomes how to fix belief, not in the individual merely, but in the community...
Let an institution be created which shall have for its object to keep correct doctrines before the attention of the people, to reiterate them perpetually, and to teach them to the young; having at the same time power to prevent contrary doctrines from being taught, advocated, or expressed. Let all possible causes of a change of mind be removed from men’s apprehensions. Let them be kept ignorant, lest they should learn of some reason to think otherwise than they do. Let their passions be enlisted, so that they may regard private and unusual opinions with hatred and horror. Then, let all men who reject the established belief be terrified into silence.
Anyhow, yeah, the flattening of hierarchy is a loss. Crowdsourcing (as someone mentioned way way way upthread) works.
I wasn't the one who first mentioned 'groupthink' here, but I'm glad it came up. The coining by Orwell was intended as a warning that there are ways that the majority of people might adopt horrible, destructive beliefs which not only crowd out and exclude all deviations from the norm but even make life less worthwhile for those who are comfortable members of that crowd. In short, 'groupthink' represents the notion that the majority isn't always right, and can be destructively wrong. In our times probably the most important living expression of this notion was the people of Germany between 1933 and 1945, or, as Daniel Goldhagen's universally-lauded book calls them, Hitler's Willing Executioners. To say glibly that "crowdsourcing works" is to say that every argument against groupthink is wrong, and thus is morally equivalent to standing with Hitler and his minions on Kristallnacht. Like those valiant few in the minorities who stood against Hitler, I am appalled.
While I'm comparing myself to Holocaust victims I feel like I may as well also note that I'm not really into semiotics – can't stand all that gobbledeegook, give me real philosophy to chew on – but I did really like an essay in semiotics that I read recently called Fractures of Unfamiliarity & Circumvention in Pursuit of a Nice Time by Robert Hunter, lyricist for the Grateful Dead.
posted by koeselitz at 3:15 AM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Two things I notice about people here:
1. They talk a hell of a lot
2. They are quick to judge.
I mean, I don't like this idea much, but I'm prepared to let it run for at least a few days before going off the deep end about it.
Sheesh.
posted by dg at 3:25 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
1. They talk a hell of a lot
2. They are quick to judge.
I mean, I don't like this idea much, but I'm prepared to let it run for at least a few days before going off the deep end about it.
Sheesh.
posted by dg at 3:25 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
P.o.B., I don't know what you're seeing. I mean it. I said I've read previous threads about favorites, and usually it's the same group of people, including people now, complaining about them. I never implied you, or anyone but the mods had a say in this. What I did say is it felt like a PTA meeting where most people hadn't attended, and changes were made because the folks that did attend, they complained a lot. I was referencing all the old threads.
As for being fighty, I believe I have, by and large, responded to people making pretty harsh judgements about, from what this thread seemed like, a large number of people. I think, to some extent, koeselitz and I understand each other better now, and I certainly respect majick's take on things, and said so.
If it seems like I'm commenting too much, well, I'd like to say that I really, really don't want the change to become permanent. I'd rather make a bit of noise, perhaps post too much, than do nothing and end up losing something I cherish. I have tried to keep to the level of discourse I was responding to, and, when compared to a whiny baby, or when it was insinuated that, as a lowly plebe who actually had to pay to be a member, I must somehow not be good enough, I responded as you, or anyone might, with less than loving and compassionate words.
If any of the above offends you, well, I'm not sure where I'm supposed to go from here. I'd like to think I'm posting in a civil manner, but if not, I'll see what I can do.
posted by Ghidorah at 3:50 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
As for being fighty, I believe I have, by and large, responded to people making pretty harsh judgements about, from what this thread seemed like, a large number of people. I think, to some extent, koeselitz and I understand each other better now, and I certainly respect majick's take on things, and said so.
If it seems like I'm commenting too much, well, I'd like to say that I really, really don't want the change to become permanent. I'd rather make a bit of noise, perhaps post too much, than do nothing and end up losing something I cherish. I have tried to keep to the level of discourse I was responding to, and, when compared to a whiny baby, or when it was insinuated that, as a lowly plebe who actually had to pay to be a member, I must somehow not be good enough, I responded as you, or anyone might, with less than loving and compassionate words.
If any of the above offends you, well, I'm not sure where I'm supposed to go from here. I'd like to think I'm posting in a civil manner, but if not, I'll see what I can do.
posted by Ghidorah at 3:50 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Dang you guys! I'm supposed to be getting ready for work, not catching up on 400 comments.
On the plus side, (oh - he he!) I was able to FAVE comments to provide my "mee too" and "And how!" without having to type them. It was neat!
But I didn't see anyone capture middleclasstool's comment..
"And, for the millionth time, you can opt out. Meaning your participation is voluntary."
Um, dude, that only happened at the end of your over simplification. When the experiment first started, and from your simplification everyone went RAWR, they in part went RAWR as they had no way to opt out. Opting out was added after the fact, and probably would have saved most of the rawr. Probably is also going to defeat the experiment, too..
Agreeing with cj_. Folks who loathe favorites are going to say yay everything is better. Folks who love favorites are going to say boo everything is worse. Will Joe Beese drop less rapid fire one liners? (SHOUT OUT TO MY BOY!) Will keyboard warriors be less snarky or less apt to tell each other "fuck you" even though they hide in 3 sentences of collegiate creative writing? We'll see!
"faved" should totally be "beaned" though. I mean, really. While I like the current system (I'm either go all the way or go home, this halfway point thing is weeeeird), I would have probably given the new one at least a few hours if the word "faved" didn't drive me into a rage every time I read it.
LIKE TOTALLY FAVED DUDE!
posted by cavalier at 4:00 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
On the plus side, (oh - he he!) I was able to FAVE comments to provide my "mee too" and "And how!" without having to type them. It was neat!
But I didn't see anyone capture middleclasstool's comment..
"And, for the millionth time, you can opt out. Meaning your participation is voluntary."
Um, dude, that only happened at the end of your over simplification. When the experiment first started, and from your simplification everyone went RAWR, they in part went RAWR as they had no way to opt out. Opting out was added after the fact, and probably would have saved most of the rawr. Probably is also going to defeat the experiment, too..
Agreeing with cj_. Folks who loathe favorites are going to say yay everything is better. Folks who love favorites are going to say boo everything is worse. Will Joe Beese drop less rapid fire one liners? (SHOUT OUT TO MY BOY!) Will keyboard warriors be less snarky or less apt to tell each other "fuck you" even though they hide in 3 sentences of collegiate creative writing? We'll see!
"faved" should totally be "beaned" though. I mean, really. While I like the current system (I'm either go all the way or go home, this halfway point thing is weeeeird), I would have probably given the new one at least a few hours if the word "faved" didn't drive me into a rage every time I read it.
LIKE TOTALLY FAVED DUDE!
posted by cavalier at 4:00 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
COUGH. 3 edit WINDOW. While I DISLIKE the current system.
posted by cavalier at 4:01 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by cavalier at 4:01 AM on November 2, 2009
First, I'm compared to babies who 'threw their toys out of the pram', now I'm being compared to a those who stood 'with Hitler and his minions on Kristallnacht'.
And I'm seeing one of the most vocal anti-favoriters comparing himself to 'those valiant few in the minorities who stood against Hitler'.
Wow, just wow...
I tolerated the first one, this last one gets the 'offensive' flag from me.
posted by marsha56 at 4:05 AM on November 2, 2009 [13 favorites]
And I'm seeing one of the most vocal anti-favoriters comparing himself to 'those valiant few in the minorities who stood against Hitler'.
Wow, just wow...
I tolerated the first one, this last one gets the 'offensive' flag from me.
posted by marsha56 at 4:05 AM on November 2, 2009 [13 favorites]
How I Use Favorites,
(by a closeted favorites whore)
Mostly I'm posting this to explain the "favorites-whoring" that seems to get a lot of people worried. I'm gonna come out to you guys as a serious favorites whore.
I don't usually make a lot of noise on the site. I'm also definitely one of those who skims threads by using favorites as a guide, but usually I only start skimming when my brain starts clicking into the idea that people are starting to repeat themselves. Some threads turn ugly, and then I kind of just ignore comments by people who are being the most vituperative, unless I see that one of the comments has a lot of favorites. Those are usually the reasonable apologies, in my experience. (These might be the addled hopes of a general optimist, but it's what my memory is telling me.)
The whoring, then. If I'm going to add anything to a thread, my threshold on when I should chime in is usually set pretty high. I ask myself whether what I have to say will really contribute anything new, either in knowledge or in maybe a little bit of prettiness. If I'm going to comment, then, I read the whole thread carefully and make sure I'm actually adding something. And then I use the favorite count that such a comment might receive later as validation that it was true; that what I made for everybody was worth making.
It's like if I wanted to cook you guys all some yummy soup: if I cook it up for a while and then serve it to you with careful seasoning, and someone says "Mmm," then I'm on the right track and it feels good. If not, maybe I should have made it a little less salty or a little less bland, you know?
And I guess the reason I'm posting this now is that it seems pretty likely that there are other high-comment-thresholders out there sitting on their hands and taking in everyone yelling at each other. I like favorites. I like getting favorites and I like getting to say "Mmm," to other people, too.
When I'm reading, seeing a little number on the favorite counter for other people's comments just gives me a general idea of the most interesting comments in a given thread. Especially after people start repeating themselves. It's not a "Jump. Jump. Jump. Jump. Great: now I can holler," kind of usage, since I'm careful to read before I post. So I like having the number. I disabled the "faved," but without any grouchy fanfare.
posted by lauranesson at 4:09 AM on November 2, 2009 [24 favorites]
(by a closeted favorites whore)
Mostly I'm posting this to explain the "favorites-whoring" that seems to get a lot of people worried. I'm gonna come out to you guys as a serious favorites whore.
I don't usually make a lot of noise on the site. I'm also definitely one of those who skims threads by using favorites as a guide, but usually I only start skimming when my brain starts clicking into the idea that people are starting to repeat themselves. Some threads turn ugly, and then I kind of just ignore comments by people who are being the most vituperative, unless I see that one of the comments has a lot of favorites. Those are usually the reasonable apologies, in my experience. (These might be the addled hopes of a general optimist, but it's what my memory is telling me.)
The whoring, then. If I'm going to add anything to a thread, my threshold on when I should chime in is usually set pretty high. I ask myself whether what I have to say will really contribute anything new, either in knowledge or in maybe a little bit of prettiness. If I'm going to comment, then, I read the whole thread carefully and make sure I'm actually adding something. And then I use the favorite count that such a comment might receive later as validation that it was true; that what I made for everybody was worth making.
It's like if I wanted to cook you guys all some yummy soup: if I cook it up for a while and then serve it to you with careful seasoning, and someone says "Mmm," then I'm on the right track and it feels good. If not, maybe I should have made it a little less salty or a little less bland, you know?
And I guess the reason I'm posting this now is that it seems pretty likely that there are other high-comment-thresholders out there sitting on their hands and taking in everyone yelling at each other. I like favorites. I like getting favorites and I like getting to say "Mmm," to other people, too.
When I'm reading, seeing a little number on the favorite counter for other people's comments just gives me a general idea of the most interesting comments in a given thread. Especially after people start repeating themselves. It's not a "Jump. Jump. Jump. Jump. Great: now I can holler," kind of usage, since I'm careful to read before I post. So I like having the number. I disabled the "faved," but without any grouchy fanfare.
posted by lauranesson at 4:09 AM on November 2, 2009 [24 favorites]
marsha56: First, I'm compared to babies who 'threw their toys out of the pram', now I'm being compared to a those who stood 'with Hitler and his minions on Kristallnacht'. And I'm seeing one of the most vocal anti-favoriters comparing himself to 'those valiant few in the minorities who stood against Hitler'. Wow, just wow... I tolerated the first one, this last one gets the 'offensive' flag from me.
Well, you're right. To be quite fair, I think the SS were much snappier dressers than most Mefites.
posted by koeselitz at 4:13 AM on November 2, 2009
Well, you're right. To be quite fair, I think the SS were much snappier dressers than most Mefites.
posted by koeselitz at 4:13 AM on November 2, 2009
i really, really, REALLY HATE THIS CHANGE.
when it comes to giving out FAVES am pretty much SantaClaus ---I actually go out of my way to favorite people who may actually been passed over. yes, this means i read most of the comments but having the numbers out there actually helps me jump up and down threads.
i mean, for chrissake, am a nietszschean at heart. i hate teleology and linear reading. this change is a complete disregard for how a lot of people read on the web ---by scanning keywords and/or interest markers on a web page.
i cant believe you guys would want us to read this site as if were a friggin' newspaper page. you've broken a major UI on the site. my question is WHY? nothing on this post suggests there was a pressing need for this.
ugh.
BRING BACK THE NUMBERS :P
posted by liza at 4:26 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
when it comes to giving out FAVES am pretty much SantaClaus ---I actually go out of my way to favorite people who may actually been passed over. yes, this means i read most of the comments but having the numbers out there actually helps me jump up and down threads.
i mean, for chrissake, am a nietszschean at heart. i hate teleology and linear reading. this change is a complete disregard for how a lot of people read on the web ---by scanning keywords and/or interest markers on a web page.
i cant believe you guys would want us to read this site as if were a friggin' newspaper page. you've broken a major UI on the site. my question is WHY? nothing on this post suggests there was a pressing need for this.
ugh.
BRING BACK THE NUMBERS :P
posted by liza at 4:26 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Too good.
MetaFilter: I like getting to say "Mmm".
(+1)
posted by cavalier at 4:28 AM on November 2, 2009
MetaFilter: I like getting to say "Mmm".
(+1)
posted by cavalier at 4:28 AM on November 2, 2009
liza: i mean, for chrissake, am a nietszschean at heart. i hate teleology and linear reading.
Nietzsche may have had mixed feelings about teleology (feelings which nonetheless could not by any stretch have been characterized as "hatred") but there's no doubt that he loved linear reading. He makes clear over and over again, particularly in some of the more revealing passages of Gaya Scienza (which I'm not going to dig up unless it's absolutely necessary) that the key to reading his books is reading them linearly, and that his method of writing in epigrams is really merely a mask designed to obscure and to confuse those who read his works by skipping around.
BRING BACK THE NUMBERS :P
First, please take a deep breath. Second, do it yourself. Take a look at the second sentence of this post up above, the one in brackets. Or just go to your user preferences page.
posted by koeselitz at 4:32 AM on November 2, 2009
Nietzsche may have had mixed feelings about teleology (feelings which nonetheless could not by any stretch have been characterized as "hatred") but there's no doubt that he loved linear reading. He makes clear over and over again, particularly in some of the more revealing passages of Gaya Scienza (which I'm not going to dig up unless it's absolutely necessary) that the key to reading his books is reading them linearly, and that his method of writing in epigrams is really merely a mask designed to obscure and to confuse those who read his works by skipping around.
BRING BACK THE NUMBERS :P
First, please take a deep breath. Second, do it yourself. Take a look at the second sentence of this post up above, the one in brackets. Or just go to your user preferences page.
posted by koeselitz at 4:32 AM on November 2, 2009
Running the Nazi references into the ground isn't really making them any funnier.
posted by shammack at 4:52 AM on November 2, 2009 [14 favorites]
posted by shammack at 4:52 AM on November 2, 2009 [14 favorites]
marsha56: First, I'm compared to babies who 'threw their toys out of the pram', now I'm being compared to a those who stood 'with Hitler and his minions on Kristallnacht'. And I'm seeing one of the most vocal anti-favoriters comparing himself to 'those valiant few in the minorities who stood against Hitler'. Wow, just wow... I tolerated the first one, this last one gets the 'offensive' flag from me.
Okay, before this sort of drifts off somewhere else (and given how long this is I have no doubt it will) and recollecting that sarcasm is officially dead on the internet, I want to say this:
marsha56, I now know that it was foolish of me, but I honestly believed that we all knew that anyone who would honestly compare themselves to would-be holocaust victims fighting valiantly against the Nazis would have to be not only crude and cruel but actually pathologically insane. As such, I thought it would be obvious that when I compared a person who had disagreed with me to a Nazi (and, I might add, in the very next line wished him a happy birthday) it would be quite clear that I was joking. Please understand that this completely unsuccessful humor was intended to lampoon my own sometime tendentiousness in this thread and to a smaller degree mistersquid's (slightly silly, and I think intentionally so) reference to 'representamen outliers' and other philosophiical terms. Yes, it was a joke. I was also joking when I said earlier in that comment that I was like oppressed people "terrified into silence" (in Peirce's phrase) except that I got to drink a few beers meanwhile. Tasteless, maybe, but mostly because it relied on what I thought was a consensus that Nazis are obviously bad; I need to keep in mind that there are actually a lot of real idiots on the web who might really and truly say that sort of thing. Also, given that you didn't realize that I was kidding, apparently I come off as more of a raving nutjob most of the time than I'd wanted to admit to myself. Heh.
posted by koeselitz at 4:58 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Okay, before this sort of drifts off somewhere else (and given how long this is I have no doubt it will) and recollecting that sarcasm is officially dead on the internet, I want to say this:
marsha56, I now know that it was foolish of me, but I honestly believed that we all knew that anyone who would honestly compare themselves to would-be holocaust victims fighting valiantly against the Nazis would have to be not only crude and cruel but actually pathologically insane. As such, I thought it would be obvious that when I compared a person who had disagreed with me to a Nazi (and, I might add, in the very next line wished him a happy birthday) it would be quite clear that I was joking. Please understand that this completely unsuccessful humor was intended to lampoon my own sometime tendentiousness in this thread and to a smaller degree mistersquid's (slightly silly, and I think intentionally so) reference to 'representamen outliers' and other philosophiical terms. Yes, it was a joke. I was also joking when I said earlier in that comment that I was like oppressed people "terrified into silence" (in Peirce's phrase) except that I got to drink a few beers meanwhile. Tasteless, maybe, but mostly because it relied on what I thought was a consensus that Nazis are obviously bad; I need to keep in mind that there are actually a lot of real idiots on the web who might really and truly say that sort of thing. Also, given that you didn't realize that I was kidding, apparently I come off as more of a raving nutjob most of the time than I'd wanted to admit to myself. Heh.
posted by koeselitz at 4:58 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
And I will take the fact that people actually think I would say something like that as punishment for the fact that there are certain things I probably shouldn't joke about, and that was one of them.
posted by koeselitz at 5:00 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by koeselitz at 5:00 AM on November 2, 2009
Could someone please explain to me, for the purposes of this November experiment, why the word "faved" is there at all? Why do we (those who choose to try the new interface) need to know if anybody else likes the comment or not?
Wouldn't it be "purer" for the experiment if there was no marker whatsoever?
I've already opted out of the experiment partly for this reason. Having half or more of a thread's comments annotated simply as "faved" adds nothing to the conversation—in my opinion actually distracts from it. No marker at all would be better, or a rollover that showed the number of favorites.
As another fairly infrequent commenter, I find that being favorited makes me feel more a part of the community. To me, it's like a little note of thanks for adding something constructive or provocative or informative or sometimes just plain funny to the conversation.
Also, hate "faved" as slangy and banal. Metafilter, you're better than that.
posted by stargell at 5:06 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Wouldn't it be "purer" for the experiment if there was no marker whatsoever?
I've already opted out of the experiment partly for this reason. Having half or more of a thread's comments annotated simply as "faved" adds nothing to the conversation—in my opinion actually distracts from it. No marker at all would be better, or a rollover that showed the number of favorites.
As another fairly infrequent commenter, I find that being favorited makes me feel more a part of the community. To me, it's like a little note of thanks for adding something constructive or provocative or informative or sometimes just plain funny to the conversation.
Also, hate "faved" as slangy and banal. Metafilter, you're better than that.
posted by stargell at 5:06 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Having slept on it and come back to read the ~300 comments that I slept during, I don't miss the numbers.
I hardly notice [faved] today, and as it consequently adds nothing to our enjoyment or understanding of the site, it should be taken out behind the server yard and shot.
(or the numbered favourites could be brought back.)
posted by knapah at 5:14 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I hardly notice [faved] today, and as it consequently adds nothing to our enjoyment or understanding of the site, it should be taken out behind the server yard and shot.
(or the numbered favourites could be brought back.)
posted by knapah at 5:14 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Data point: I would be happy to have favorites totally invisible - i.e., I could see what I favorited but not the general "faved." Seeing "faved" without any other info was making me bats, so I turned favorite count back ON since I can't turn it OFF entirely.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:15 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:15 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Koeselitz, spamming the everliving fuck out of the thread to shutdown effective debate and to keep newcommers to the discussion from posting isn't working so well for your team, either. Nobody likes a troll.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:16 AM on November 2, 2009 [11 favorites]
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:16 AM on November 2, 2009 [11 favorites]
,,, <--- newcommers
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:18 AM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:18 AM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
OK, I was initially enjoying just sitting back and watching my puppets dance, but I am starting to feel a little icky and would like to come (partially) clean.
The terrestrial mods are correct in that this is indeed an experiment. But who are the test subjects? Perhaps (just wondering aloud here) someone on a higher plane of existence was bored and, on a whim, decided to see what it would be like for the terrestrial mods to suddenly make a radical and deeply unpopular change to the site architecture. How much conviction would they have in explaining and defending the change? How quickly would they scramble to get pb to rollout an opt-out for the irate userbase? How would they explain the expected outcomes and methodology of an experiment that they themselves did not design, which they didn't fully understand, and in which they themselves were the test subjects? Mwahahahaha!! * rubs hands together, twists moustache *
I would say more, but I don't want to skew the results of this experiment. Just trust me, I promise it will be really interesting!
You should all wait & see what We have planned for the December Surprise!
(It involves cupcakes)
Yes, I send cortex to your house late on Christmas eve and he throws all of your lovely cupcakes in the dumpster. And he defends his actions as an "experiment"!! Mwahahahaha!! * rubs hands together, twists moustache *
posted by Meatbomb at 5:26 AM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
The terrestrial mods are correct in that this is indeed an experiment. But who are the test subjects? Perhaps (just wondering aloud here) someone on a higher plane of existence was bored and, on a whim, decided to see what it would be like for the terrestrial mods to suddenly make a radical and deeply unpopular change to the site architecture. How much conviction would they have in explaining and defending the change? How quickly would they scramble to get pb to rollout an opt-out for the irate userbase? How would they explain the expected outcomes and methodology of an experiment that they themselves did not design, which they didn't fully understand, and in which they themselves were the test subjects? Mwahahahaha!! * rubs hands together, twists moustache *
I would say more, but I don't want to skew the results of this experiment. Just trust me, I promise it will be really interesting!
You should all wait & see what We have planned for the December Surprise!
(It involves cupcakes)
Yes, I send cortex to your house late on Christmas eve and he throws all of your lovely cupcakes in the dumpster. And he defends his actions as an "experiment"!! Mwahahahaha!! * rubs hands together, twists moustache *
posted by Meatbomb at 5:26 AM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
Ubu, I read that in the voice of the British announcers for the World Cup held in Japan and Korea. It sounds exactly like they'd have said new commas. Especially after hearing Yokohahmer, Niigatter, and Osakker.
posted by Ghidorah at 5:30 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by Ghidorah at 5:30 AM on November 2, 2009
I also like the idea of no marker, and a rollover display.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 5:31 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Solon and Thanks at 5:31 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Slap*Happy: Koeselitz, spamming the everliving fuck out of the thread to shutdown effective debate and to keep newcommers to the discussion from posting isn't working so well for your team, either. Nobody likes a troll.
Jesus Christ, guy. We're 1254 in. Lighten up. If it helps, I am officially sorry for making you feel so soggy.
posted by koeselitz at 5:33 AM on November 2, 2009
Jesus Christ, guy. We're 1254 in. Lighten up. If it helps, I am officially sorry for making you feel so soggy.
posted by koeselitz at 5:33 AM on November 2, 2009
Can someone please explain this to me?
If the function of favorites are for personal use only ("bookmarks") then why can I see what others have "faved"? There's no functional reason for the code to show me other people's bookmarks.
Either you want to show post popularity, or you want to make it agnostic. I can see good reasons for either. But the current implementation… "faved"… it's half-assed at best. It solves nothing. If anything, you've created confusion where previously there was none.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:42 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
If the function of favorites are for personal use only ("bookmarks") then why can I see what others have "faved"? There's no functional reason for the code to show me other people's bookmarks.
Either you want to show post popularity, or you want to make it agnostic. I can see good reasons for either. But the current implementation… "faved"… it's half-assed at best. It solves nothing. If anything, you've created confusion where previously there was none.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:42 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
I'm not saying your verbal short skirt is asking for it, Koeselitz,
I hope not, because that's terrible horrible awful no-good very bad thing to say.
Anyone who is familiar with modernity ought to be aware that the mechanisms of oppression have now progressed far beyond the simple, blunt methods which Stalin and Hitler used; now a differing opinion is not forcibly ejected but simply ignored.
So's this. My un-solicited advice here would be for koeselitz to take three steps back from this thread. This is obviously touching a lot of nerves and the discussion is degenerating from "heated" to "ricockulous."
First, please take a deep breath.
Yes indeed, koeselitz, you would do well to take your own advice here. You say that you're kidding, but then realize that a lot of people say equally inflammatory things who *aren't* kidding - I think that solution here is to realize that if you're about to make a Nazi analogy (in jest or not), it's time to leave the internet because it's gone far, far, far too far. Yes, we all realize that they're bad, but if you have to go THAT FAR to make your point, it's not really a point that needs to be made.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:44 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
I hope not, because that's terrible horrible awful no-good very bad thing to say.
Anyone who is familiar with modernity ought to be aware that the mechanisms of oppression have now progressed far beyond the simple, blunt methods which Stalin and Hitler used; now a differing opinion is not forcibly ejected but simply ignored.
So's this. My un-solicited advice here would be for koeselitz to take three steps back from this thread. This is obviously touching a lot of nerves and the discussion is degenerating from "heated" to "ricockulous."
First, please take a deep breath.
Yes indeed, koeselitz, you would do well to take your own advice here. You say that you're kidding, but then realize that a lot of people say equally inflammatory things who *aren't* kidding - I think that solution here is to realize that if you're about to make a Nazi analogy (in jest or not), it's time to leave the internet because it's gone far, far, far too far. Yes, we all realize that they're bad, but if you have to go THAT FAR to make your point, it's not really a point that needs to be made.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:44 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
> The tragedy of the commons doesn't reflect badly on any of its participants. People do what is right for them, but the overall result is a negative.
The recent "Nobel Prize" in Economics post here featured discussion of the tragedy of the commons, because one of this year's winners' research is focused on why - sometimes - it doesn't happen.
Now this place isn't a commons (it's not rival in consumption, although it is congestible), but there are similarities. It's interesting to note Ostrom's design principles:
 
Every one of those is easily recognisable as an issue dealt with pretty effectively by MetaFilter. However, MeFi lacks the "small and stable population" also identified as being an important component of success.
And that's the problem that people are worried about here: as places like this age and grow, things can fall apart. Quickly and permanently. Most posters will know of places they used to go that used to be filled with vibrant user-provided content. Sometimes you go back for a look and it's a stagnant pond. Sometimes it's just chat amongst a few diehards. Or spam, or snark. Or it's mostly dead - the first time I came here I tried to click on memepool and missed.
It's not at all clear what the recipe for ongoing success is. Nostalgia isn't the answer. Posters get jaded and focused on internal matters without new blood. A site that works will have to grow or become a clique. "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" won't fly either if institutions don't scale.
So while I don't like the change, I understand that:
1. Just because it's not broken, doesn't mean it's not breaking;
2. Just because I - or everyone - like the up-to-November system doesn't mean its effects are good in aggregate; and
3. It's good that the mods are experimenting.
That said, I still think that what I said upthread - that the ability of readers to contribute to other readers' experience - is a big thing to give up, and that targeting the problematic elements of favourites is the way to go. If it's the case - mods, is it? - that the degree of support for the old favourite system is a bit of a surprise, then this experiment might focus minds on that:
If favourite-hunting is the root of concern, break the aggregation of favourites on a user's page.
If the mob mentality is the root of concern, report favourites as whole numbers, but count them so that they have positive but diminishing marginal value.
posted by hawthorne at 5:46 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
The recent "Nobel Prize" in Economics post here featured discussion of the tragedy of the commons, because one of this year's winners' research is focused on why - sometimes - it doesn't happen.
Now this place isn't a commons (it's not rival in consumption, although it is congestible), but there are similarities. It's interesting to note Ostrom's design principles:
 
1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external unentitled parties);
2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources are adapted to local conditions;
3. Collective-choice arrangements allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process;
4. Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators;
5. There is a scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;
6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution are cheap and of easy access;
7. The self-determination of the community is recognized by higher-level authorities;
8. In the case of larger common-pool resources: organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level.
Every one of those is easily recognisable as an issue dealt with pretty effectively by MetaFilter. However, MeFi lacks the "small and stable population" also identified as being an important component of success.
And that's the problem that people are worried about here: as places like this age and grow, things can fall apart. Quickly and permanently. Most posters will know of places they used to go that used to be filled with vibrant user-provided content. Sometimes you go back for a look and it's a stagnant pond. Sometimes it's just chat amongst a few diehards. Or spam, or snark. Or it's mostly dead - the first time I came here I tried to click on memepool and missed.
It's not at all clear what the recipe for ongoing success is. Nostalgia isn't the answer. Posters get jaded and focused on internal matters without new blood. A site that works will have to grow or become a clique. "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" won't fly either if institutions don't scale.
So while I don't like the change, I understand that:
1. Just because it's not broken, doesn't mean it's not breaking;
2. Just because I - or everyone - like the up-to-November system doesn't mean its effects are good in aggregate; and
3. It's good that the mods are experimenting.
That said, I still think that what I said upthread - that the ability of readers to contribute to other readers' experience - is a big thing to give up, and that targeting the problematic elements of favourites is the way to go. If it's the case - mods, is it? - that the degree of support for the old favourite system is a bit of a surprise, then this experiment might focus minds on that:
If favourite-hunting is the root of concern, break the aggregation of favourites on a user's page.
If the mob mentality is the root of concern, report favourites as whole numbers, but count them so that they have positive but diminishing marginal value.
posted by hawthorne at 5:46 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Jesus Christ, guy. We're 1254 in. Lighten up. If it helps, I am officially sorry for making you feel so soggy.
Koeselitz, it's not just Slap*Happy who has been made to feel soggy. I, the bean-suggester, who would like everybody to please give everybody else a nice pat on the back and possibly share their tasty pies or alcoholic beverages, have grown so tired by your spamming and your noise and your constant reiterations that I have been *darkened down*. Normally I would flag it and move on, or simply favorite the comment with which I agree, but this is just driving me to act in a way wholly unhinged from my normal commenting behaviors. Please, for the love of all that is rational, could you just step away from the thread for a while and let new people register their opinions without filling this thread further with attempts at humor or personal arguments?
See, because I know you won't have seen that I've favorited Slap*Happy's concise (if a bit rude) comment, I now have to be actively aggressive in order to feel even minimally heard. You don't like pilings-on? Neither do I. That's why I just favorite or flag and move on when shit is being flung.
Now maybe I can sleep.
posted by Mizu at 5:49 AM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
Koeselitz, it's not just Slap*Happy who has been made to feel soggy. I, the bean-suggester, who would like everybody to please give everybody else a nice pat on the back and possibly share their tasty pies or alcoholic beverages, have grown so tired by your spamming and your noise and your constant reiterations that I have been *darkened down*. Normally I would flag it and move on, or simply favorite the comment with which I agree, but this is just driving me to act in a way wholly unhinged from my normal commenting behaviors. Please, for the love of all that is rational, could you just step away from the thread for a while and let new people register their opinions without filling this thread further with attempts at humor or personal arguments?
See, because I know you won't have seen that I've favorited Slap*Happy's concise (if a bit rude) comment, I now have to be actively aggressive in order to feel even minimally heard. You don't like pilings-on? Neither do I. That's why I just favorite or flag and move on when shit is being flung.
Now maybe I can sleep.
posted by Mizu at 5:49 AM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
grapefruitmoon: Yes indeed, koeselitz, you would do well to take your own advice here. You say that you're kidding, but then realize that a lot of people say equally inflammatory things who *aren't* kidding - I think that solution here is to realize that if you're about to make a Nazi analogy (in jest or not), it's time to leave the internet because it's gone far, far, far too far. Yes, we all realize that they're bad, but if you have to go THAT FAR to make your point, it's not really a point that needs to be made.
What point did you think I was trying to make? I was trying to laugh at myself and invite others to do so as well. What's the sin there?
posted by koeselitz at 5:53 AM on November 2, 2009
What point did you think I was trying to make? I was trying to laugh at myself and invite others to do so as well. What's the sin there?
posted by koeselitz at 5:53 AM on November 2, 2009
I'm fine with koeselitz continuing to post in this thread because it underscores the fact that those agitating for change really are a small number of people who repeat themselves over and over.
Who thinks the favorite system worked well in October? Almost everyone.
Who thinks it should be changed? Mainly koeselitz. Also majick and a few other people I can't remember.
posted by grouse at 5:55 AM on November 2, 2009 [13 favorites]
Who thinks the favorite system worked well in October? Almost everyone.
Who thinks it should be changed? Mainly koeselitz. Also majick and a few other people I can't remember.
posted by grouse at 5:55 AM on November 2, 2009 [13 favorites]
i'm beginning to wonder if this anti-favorite campaign is something like where the high school science club campaigns to have a goat elected homecoming queen to get back at the jocks
posted by pyramid termite at 5:56 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 5:56 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Maybe somebody has beaten me to this, but P.o.B.'s claim that The pros to cons are roughly 50/50 for quite a while at the beginning there prompted me to go and count, with a spreadsheet and everything. I looked at the first post of the first 100 unique commenters on this thread, ignoring cortex and jessamyn. I looked at them only with an eye to opinions expressed about whether they liked the elimination of visible favorite counts. Of those 100, I found...
...56 to be ambiguous.
..32 to expressly dislike the change.
...12 to expressly like the change.
posted by jon1270 at 6:00 AM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
...56 to be ambiguous.
..32 to expressly dislike the change.
...12 to expressly like the change.
posted by jon1270 at 6:00 AM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
Jesus Christ, guy. We're 1254 in. Lighten up. If it helps, I am officially sorry for making you feel so soggy.
goddamn, stop being such a spoilt victorian child.
the last i have to say on this initiative is...to nkroachment: yarbles.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:02 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
goddamn, stop being such a spoilt victorian child.
the last i have to say on this initiative is...to nkroachment: yarbles.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:02 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Meatbomb, that's a frightening scenario. I for one welcome...
[But I already won the thread about a thousand comments ago when I pointed out the likelihood that it is lewistate who is pulling the strings--and I'm becoming more convinced that he has DARPA funding for this secret segment of his diss. research.]
posted by Mngo at 6:07 AM on November 2, 2009
[But I already won the thread about a thousand comments ago when I pointed out the likelihood that it is lewistate who is pulling the strings--and I'm becoming more convinced that he has DARPA funding for this secret segment of his diss. research.]
posted by Mngo at 6:07 AM on November 2, 2009
I keep expecting things to fizzle, but still rolling along at a comment every 4-ish minutes over the last two hours. Longest thread contender?
posted by Kwine at 6:11 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by Kwine at 6:11 AM on November 2, 2009
Also, can we keep them on music? I'd definitely like to be able to tell how many people liked a song I posted! Comments, could take or leave, but music is different. - Ironmouth
I think this hits on a use of favorites I didn't see much expressed in this thread (which I've read, not skimmed), which is "favorites-as-feedback-to-creatives". I like seeing favorites on some of the long-form stuff I've posted, they encourage me to do more as they are a signal that I'm not just wasting other people's time. Without them, I think I'd be less inclined to go for longer comments.
I don't tend to get into the arguethreads very much, so I don't use favorites as a "You Show'em!" very much. I tend to give favorites when I want to bookmark/remember something, as a 'more of this, please' signal, and as a marker when someone steals the words from my very fingers before I even knew I was supposed to type them.
I turned the numbers back on. But, if there was a middle of the road option where I could only see the numbers for contributions I've made, I'd go with that, no problem.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:12 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think this hits on a use of favorites I didn't see much expressed in this thread (which I've read, not skimmed), which is "favorites-as-feedback-to-creatives". I like seeing favorites on some of the long-form stuff I've posted, they encourage me to do more as they are a signal that I'm not just wasting other people's time. Without them, I think I'd be less inclined to go for longer comments.
I don't tend to get into the arguethreads very much, so I don't use favorites as a "You Show'em!" very much. I tend to give favorites when I want to bookmark/remember something, as a 'more of this, please' signal, and as a marker when someone steals the words from my very fingers before I even knew I was supposed to type them.
I turned the numbers back on. But, if there was a middle of the road option where I could only see the numbers for contributions I've made, I'd go with that, no problem.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:12 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Boy am I pleased to see the discussion still simmering merrily! It's been almost 800 comments since I poked my nose in here and then wandered off to play Borderlands* with some friends so I think I can repeat myself.
FLAVED! YEAH BOYEEEEE! (+1 Good Idea)
__
*My god the menu interface on that game is intolerably console-port horrible. Why go to the trouble of making a fun game and then slathering it with the world's worst user interface?
posted by majick at 6:20 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
FLAVED! YEAH BOYEEEEE! (+1 Good Idea)
__
*My god the menu interface on that game is intolerably console-port horrible. Why go to the trouble of making a fun game and then slathering it with the world's worst user interface?
posted by majick at 6:20 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Longest thread contender?
Not yet, not even close. That Sarah Palin thing last year - more than 5k comments. And there have been some epic, longer than 2 or 3k meTas as well.
posted by rtha at 6:20 AM on November 2, 2009
Not yet, not even close. That Sarah Palin thing last year - more than 5k comments. And there have been some epic, longer than 2 or 3k meTas as well.
posted by rtha at 6:20 AM on November 2, 2009
Frankly wow - such a lot of frettin'. It's not permanent it's not definitive you can even opt out... I still think change (especially non-binding, temporary change) is good, and this is a worthwhile inquiry, even if so many people vocally appear to be against it.
The best suggestion I think I've seen was to have a sort of revert option that would go into affect a month in, and then tally how many people choose to do so.
To investigate the wY the site functions for people the waythe Cabal<> the mods have come up with is way totally like worthwhile.
posted by From Bklyn at 6:21 AM on November 2, 2009
The best suggestion I think I've seen was to have a sort of revert option that would go into affect a month in, and then tally how many people choose to do so.
To investigate the wY the site functions for people the way
posted by From Bklyn at 6:21 AM on November 2, 2009
Thanks for reminding me to NEVER COMPROMISE.
I'm not so sure I hate the premise, but my god. This word "faved" crawls under my skin and lays putrid, fetid eggs which cannot be excised. It makes me want to take a razor blade to my soul.
posted by malocchio at 6:22 AM on November 2, 2009
I'm not so sure I hate the premise, but my god. This word "faved" crawls under my skin and lays putrid, fetid eggs which cannot be excised. It makes me want to take a razor blade to my soul.
posted by malocchio at 6:22 AM on November 2, 2009
grapefruitmoon: Yes indeed, koeselitz, you would do well to take your own advice here. You say that you're kidding, but then realize that a lot of people say equally inflammatory things who *aren't* kidding - I think that solution here is to realize that if you're about to make a Nazi analogy (in jest or not), it's time to leave the internet because it's gone far, far, far too far. Yes, we all realize that they're bad, but if you have to go THAT FAR to make your point, it's not really a point that needs to be made.
What point did you think I was trying to make? I was trying to laugh at myself and invite others to do so as well. What's the sin there?
Ok, so that's a decent point to make and there's no sin in that. But really, NAZIS aren't the way to ever, ever make a point that doesn't tip the line into "batshit insane." There is no rational analogy to be made that involves invoking National Socialism. (Other than, of course, "Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos.")
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:27 AM on November 2, 2009
What point did you think I was trying to make? I was trying to laugh at myself and invite others to do so as well. What's the sin there?
Ok, so that's a decent point to make and there's no sin in that. But really, NAZIS aren't the way to ever, ever make a point that doesn't tip the line into "batshit insane." There is no rational analogy to be made that involves invoking National Socialism. (Other than, of course, "Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos.")
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:27 AM on November 2, 2009
As such, I thought it would be obvious that when I compared a person who had disagreed with me to a Nazi (and, I might add, in the very next line wished him a happy birthday) it would be quite clear that I was joking.
For what it's worth, I read it as serious (if a bit deranged), and was surprised to find that you meant it as a joke. I didn't flag it or anything -- my standards for offense are a bit higher, I guess -- but I did raise my eyebrows a bit. Maybe that makes me a humorless idiot, I don't know.
posted by Forktine at 6:31 AM on November 2, 2009
For what it's worth, I read it as serious (if a bit deranged), and was surprised to find that you meant it as a joke. I didn't flag it or anything -- my standards for offense are a bit higher, I guess -- but I did raise my eyebrows a bit. Maybe that makes me a humorless idiot, I don't know.
posted by Forktine at 6:31 AM on November 2, 2009
Thanks for reminding me to NEVER COMPROMISE.
You understand that that road ends with a Cherenkov-coloured guy exploding you in Antarctica, right?
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:36 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
You understand that that road ends with a Cherenkov-coloured guy exploding you in Antarctica, right?
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:36 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm fine with koeselitz continuing to post in this thread because it underscores the fact that those agitating for change really are a small number of people who repeat themselves over and over.
Just curious: Are you saying that they're wrong because they're a small number? That because a larger number came out, mostly immediately and without giving it anything like a chance, in favour of the status quo they're right?
posted by fightorflight at 6:45 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Just curious: Are you saying that they're wrong because they're a small number? That because a larger number came out, mostly immediately and without giving it anything like a chance, in favour of the status quo they're right?
posted by fightorflight at 6:45 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Wow. Many, many people here are acting like children. Getting this wound up over a month-long change to a website, in many cases over a single word, is bizarre. Is it that important to your life?
Jumping back in, though it's probably unwise, because I want to address this.
I've only been on here for a smidge longer than a year, but, in that time, the site has become incredibly important to me. I've received mail (real mail! in my real mailbox!) from people on metafilter. I've gotten a job through metafilter. I've made what I can only hope will be lasting platonic and creative relationships through metafilter, because already, those relationships have enriched my life. Before metafilter, the only person I ever met through the internet was my now-husband. Metafilter's awesomeness spurred me to drive two hours to meet a bunch of strangers, who I didn't even know through the site, to share beers with them, and I had faith that they would be awesome because metafilter, as a community, is awesome. And you know what? I was right. They were.
So, yeah, it's that important to my life. It means a lot to me, and I'm sure there are tons of people on both sides of this debate who feel the same way. I think the passion over this (again, on both sides) is really a reflection as to how important metafilter is to many of our lives, and how much we care about the community here. That might seem bizarre to you. To me, it just seems awesome.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 6:52 AM on November 2, 2009 [14 favorites]
Jumping back in, though it's probably unwise, because I want to address this.
I've only been on here for a smidge longer than a year, but, in that time, the site has become incredibly important to me. I've received mail (real mail! in my real mailbox!) from people on metafilter. I've gotten a job through metafilter. I've made what I can only hope will be lasting platonic and creative relationships through metafilter, because already, those relationships have enriched my life. Before metafilter, the only person I ever met through the internet was my now-husband. Metafilter's awesomeness spurred me to drive two hours to meet a bunch of strangers, who I didn't even know through the site, to share beers with them, and I had faith that they would be awesome because metafilter, as a community, is awesome. And you know what? I was right. They were.
So, yeah, it's that important to my life. It means a lot to me, and I'm sure there are tons of people on both sides of this debate who feel the same way. I think the passion over this (again, on both sides) is really a reflection as to how important metafilter is to many of our lives, and how much we care about the community here. That might seem bizarre to you. To me, it just seems awesome.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 6:52 AM on November 2, 2009 [14 favorites]
(Also thank you for giving me the chance to reference Cherenkov radiation, which is sooooo pretty.)
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:01 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:01 AM on November 2, 2009
Yeah, that "internet is serious business lols" garbage can stay off of Metafilter. No matter how you feel about this change, I think that everyone that's arguing so passionately is doing so because of their strong personal connection to this site.
posted by anifinder at 7:01 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by anifinder at 7:01 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
fightorflight, I think what's being pointed out is that the group is small, and repeats itself. That large number of people not giving it a chance? Have you missed the people saying either that they didn't like it, but would give it a chance, or the many people who said that, in the short time before there were ways around it, that it negatively impacted the way they use the site?
posted by Ghidorah at 7:02 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by Ghidorah at 7:02 AM on November 2, 2009
Hmm, threads have gone back to just saying "faved" for me, even though I've checked the box, and it's still showing as checked.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:02 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:02 AM on November 2, 2009
Ok, I just skimmed something about fave being likened to putrid eggs, or festering, or something, and I just want to say, well, I kinda agree, but, ew.
posted by cavalier at 7:03 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by cavalier at 7:03 AM on November 2, 2009
OK, I resaved my preferences and I'm back to seeing numbers.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:04 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:04 AM on November 2, 2009
Horace, gotta do a big refresh, ctrl-F5 or shift or what have you, I think, since it's coming from your cookie or whatever the hell magic those web kids are doing these days. I ran into that when I changed to the work PC.
posted by cavalier at 7:04 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by cavalier at 7:04 AM on November 2, 2009
ave you missed the people saying either that they didn't like it, but would give it a chance, or the many people who said that, in the short time before there were ways around it, that it negatively impacted the way they use the site?
I'm not missing either group -- but neither of those reasonable stances would have led to the mods feeling punished into putting it back on day 1, would they? There must have been some other dynamic at work, yes?
posted by fightorflight at 7:09 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm not missing either group -- but neither of those reasonable stances would have led to the mods feeling punished into putting it back on day 1, would they? There must have been some other dynamic at work, yes?
posted by fightorflight at 7:09 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
This is a bad idea. But we'll see what happens in a month.
Prediction: MeFi's Elders bow to the tyranny of the noisy minority still aggrieved that they always got picked last in kickball and therefore hate anything that smacks of meritocracy or popularity.
Bummer for your wounded, 9-year-old self.
I liked favoriting something to show the writer that I liked it and wanted to see more of it. Under this policy, we will have less of a means to do so.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:09 AM on November 2, 2009 [11 favorites]
Prediction: MeFi's Elders bow to the tyranny of the noisy minority still aggrieved that they always got picked last in kickball and therefore hate anything that smacks of meritocracy or popularity.
Bummer for your wounded, 9-year-old self.
I liked favoriting something to show the writer that I liked it and wanted to see more of it. Under this policy, we will have less of a means to do so.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:09 AM on November 2, 2009 [11 favorites]
Are you saying that they're wrong because they're a small number?
No, I'm saying that the original impetus, a perceived popular outcry against the favorites system and its ills, was false. Jessamyn says they did this because of "many suggestions to 'do something about favorites,'" and I think the number of such suggestions were overestimated, and the number of people who were happy with the existing system were underestimated.
And while this is not a democracy, it is a community, and I do think that if an overwhelming number of people here say that removing a feature that was an integral part of how they used the site is harmful to their experience here, that should be listened to.
That because a larger number came out, mostly immediately and without giving it anything like a chance, in favour of the status quo they're right?
The thing some seem to forget is that we've already had an experiment on what this site would be like without favorites of any sort (not just removing the count from the display in threads). It lasted for seven years. Obviously there is disagreement on whether the addition of favorites was a harmful influence on the site. This disagreement arises not from a lack of data, but from an inability to objectively interpret the data. So I don't think another month without favorites will add anything to the discussion.
Personally, I'm relatively satisfied with the preferences option for myself, and I think it's great for those who don't like to see the favorites (yes, I am fully aware it does not address their concerns, which is about how other people read the site, not them). I'm going to withhold judgment for now on what the default setting of it should be.
posted by grouse at 7:09 AM on November 2, 2009 [8 favorites]
No, I'm saying that the original impetus, a perceived popular outcry against the favorites system and its ills, was false. Jessamyn says they did this because of "many suggestions to 'do something about favorites,'" and I think the number of such suggestions were overestimated, and the number of people who were happy with the existing system were underestimated.
And while this is not a democracy, it is a community, and I do think that if an overwhelming number of people here say that removing a feature that was an integral part of how they used the site is harmful to their experience here, that should be listened to.
That because a larger number came out, mostly immediately and without giving it anything like a chance, in favour of the status quo they're right?
The thing some seem to forget is that we've already had an experiment on what this site would be like without favorites of any sort (not just removing the count from the display in threads). It lasted for seven years. Obviously there is disagreement on whether the addition of favorites was a harmful influence on the site. This disagreement arises not from a lack of data, but from an inability to objectively interpret the data. So I don't think another month without favorites will add anything to the discussion.
Personally, I'm relatively satisfied with the preferences option for myself, and I think it's great for those who don't like to see the favorites (yes, I am fully aware it does not address their concerns, which is about how other people read the site, not them). I'm going to withhold judgment for now on what the default setting of it should be.
posted by grouse at 7:09 AM on November 2, 2009 [8 favorites]
I've come to the conclusion this whole favorites thing is just cortex fucking with lewistate's research.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:13 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by cjorgensen at 7:13 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
You're in luck, koeselitz, because I was not saying "anybody who doesn't share the particular characteristics you're pointing to is not part of Metafilter". Not only do I think MetaFilter is a community, but I also think it is a community possessing distinct and durable political, religious, and philosophical characteristics that may change over time. (Simondonian/Latourian sense of durable.)
I was merely saying that the expression of a tendency by the aggregate of non-randomly chosen MetaFilter users is a, wait for it, tendency, a personality, a characteristic. People who exhibit different tendencies are still part of the community. They just aren’t part of the tendency. They may possess atypical characteristics compared to most other members of the community. (For Foucauldian senses of normativity.) *
The whole concept of the “tyranny of the majority” does not apply here because favorites do not eliminate dissent, however they may affect a group of hypothetical users who only read high-favorited comments.
I also reassert, more forcefully and with some modification, that you do want people by default to be ignorant of the opinion of other people about other people’s opinions. You don’t believe a certain group of users/readers should by default be exposed to the “superficial” ranking system of favorites because it might encourage those users/readers to not read low-favorited comments.
Favorites, groupthink, echo chamber: these are all terms identifying tendencies of a population. The connotation depends on what your opinions are of those tendencies.
* See how referencing intellectuals is really a kind of clubbiness, sort of like favoriting? ↩
posted by mistersquid at 7:20 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
I was merely saying that the expression of a tendency by the aggregate of non-randomly chosen MetaFilter users is a, wait for it, tendency, a personality, a characteristic. People who exhibit different tendencies are still part of the community. They just aren’t part of the tendency. They may possess atypical characteristics compared to most other members of the community. (For Foucauldian senses of normativity.) *
The whole concept of the “tyranny of the majority” does not apply here because favorites do not eliminate dissent, however they may affect a group of hypothetical users who only read high-favorited comments.
I also reassert, more forcefully and with some modification, that you do want people by default to be ignorant of the opinion of other people about other people’s opinions. You don’t believe a certain group of users/readers should by default be exposed to the “superficial” ranking system of favorites because it might encourage those users/readers to not read low-favorited comments.
Favorites, groupthink, echo chamber: these are all terms identifying tendencies of a population. The connotation depends on what your opinions are of those tendencies.
* See how referencing intellectuals is really a kind of clubbiness, sort of like favoriting? ↩
posted by mistersquid at 7:20 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Are you saying that they're wrong because they're a small number?
it's not a matter of right or wrong - it's a matter of what people want or like - and most seem to think things were just fine as they were - i thought it was poorly set up for an experiment, but was kind of neutral about favorites until so many people who rarely comment made a point of coming in and saying it was useful for them
all the sniping at the majority and democracy forgets that the alternative offered is a benevolent dictatorship by an elite - and that alternative stops being so benevolent if a small group of people endlessly try to dictate what that elite should be changing when a lot of other people really don't want the elite to change things
some have even done this in the name of community - community is something that happens from the bottom up - it can't be imposed from the top down, not online, where people always have a choice - and it can't be defined or acted upon by a small group of dissidents
if anything, this has demonstrated the limits as to what can be imposed on this community before the community starts to fracture
and through my many years of being online, i've learned one thing - the trolls, or the snarky, or the fighty can damage a site - but it's the complainers, the netcops and those who want to legislate for others that can kill it
frankly, some of you need to accept that there are going to be people and ways of participating that you just don't like and that your attempts to fix it, especially by changing things that don't have a proven relationship to what you dislike, could be worse for us than the problem
posted by pyramid termite at 7:22 AM on November 2, 2009 [18 favorites]
it's not a matter of right or wrong - it's a matter of what people want or like - and most seem to think things were just fine as they were - i thought it was poorly set up for an experiment, but was kind of neutral about favorites until so many people who rarely comment made a point of coming in and saying it was useful for them
all the sniping at the majority and democracy forgets that the alternative offered is a benevolent dictatorship by an elite - and that alternative stops being so benevolent if a small group of people endlessly try to dictate what that elite should be changing when a lot of other people really don't want the elite to change things
some have even done this in the name of community - community is something that happens from the bottom up - it can't be imposed from the top down, not online, where people always have a choice - and it can't be defined or acted upon by a small group of dissidents
if anything, this has demonstrated the limits as to what can be imposed on this community before the community starts to fracture
and through my many years of being online, i've learned one thing - the trolls, or the snarky, or the fighty can damage a site - but it's the complainers, the netcops and those who want to legislate for others that can kill it
frankly, some of you need to accept that there are going to be people and ways of participating that you just don't like and that your attempts to fix it, especially by changing things that don't have a proven relationship to what you dislike, could be worse for us than the problem
posted by pyramid termite at 7:22 AM on November 2, 2009 [18 favorites]
Prediction: MeFi's Elders bow to the tyranny of the noisy minority still aggrieved that they always got picked last in kickball and therefore hate anything that smacks of meritocracy or popularity.
Ho, I'll take that bet. Because I think it's actually the "me too!" choir that will win this day. After all, they're great at hanging around in the back, adding nothing but "yeah!" and clapping each other on the back. Your kickball thing really just exemplifies how much of this is playground-level bullshit to a lot of people.
I do think that if an overwhelming number of people here say that removing a feature that was an integral part of how they used the site is harmful to their experience here, that should be listened to.
And they were, and would have been, listened to. But was it really so catastrophically destructful to their experience that they couldn't have yielded -- no, not for one second! -- to the stewards of this community who were asking for a short amount of time to try and examine and address concerns about its development?
A mob with demands is not a community.
Obviously there is disagreement on whether the addition of favorites was a harmful influence on the site. This disagreement arises not from a lack of data, but from an inability to objectively interpret the data. So I don't think another month without favorites will add anything to the discussion.
It would have added the experience of the large numbers of people who have no experience of this site without favourites, and given the other section of posters a better comparison of what the site is like without them than just their memory of 2005. Both of these make the sort of unquantifiable comparisons we're talking about much easier to work with.
I think it's great for those who don't like to see the favorites
Is there anybody who doesn't like to see the favourites? I feel this is a canard.
posted by fightorflight at 7:25 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Ho, I'll take that bet. Because I think it's actually the "me too!" choir that will win this day. After all, they're great at hanging around in the back, adding nothing but "yeah!" and clapping each other on the back. Your kickball thing really just exemplifies how much of this is playground-level bullshit to a lot of people.
I do think that if an overwhelming number of people here say that removing a feature that was an integral part of how they used the site is harmful to their experience here, that should be listened to.
And they were, and would have been, listened to. But was it really so catastrophically destructful to their experience that they couldn't have yielded -- no, not for one second! -- to the stewards of this community who were asking for a short amount of time to try and examine and address concerns about its development?
A mob with demands is not a community.
Obviously there is disagreement on whether the addition of favorites was a harmful influence on the site. This disagreement arises not from a lack of data, but from an inability to objectively interpret the data. So I don't think another month without favorites will add anything to the discussion.
It would have added the experience of the large numbers of people who have no experience of this site without favourites, and given the other section of posters a better comparison of what the site is like without them than just their memory of 2005. Both of these make the sort of unquantifiable comparisons we're talking about much easier to work with.
I think it's great for those who don't like to see the favorites
Is there anybody who doesn't like to see the favourites? I feel this is a canard.
posted by fightorflight at 7:25 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Having played around with this for a while, and reflected on it as well, this seems like an appropriate moving of the cheese. I'll have to see how I feel in a month, but right now this seems like a well though out and long overdue change. There probably never should have been favorites for comments in the first place, but now that it is long established this seems like just the right remedy. Users can see favorites on their own comments and can with a click see the favorites on another user's comment.
posted by caddis at 7:29 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by caddis at 7:29 AM on November 2, 2009
why the word "faved" is there at all? Why do we (those who choose to try the new interface) need to know if anybody else likes the comment or not?
Our basic feeling was that it was necessary assuming we were still going to have favorites, which was the plan, that you could see if your own favoerite had been recorded. As such, just an indicator that "hey this has been favorited" of some sort seemed to be important. And, honestly, we thought people wouldn't like favorites going away entirely -- which is not whats going on here -- and just wanted to take the numbers out to see what sort of effects that would have.
Again I'm sorry about the word faved, we spent a week thinking about it and couldn't really come up with anything that we thought was better, we didn't like it much either. We'll likely just toss "favorited" back in there, which we thought was long and awkward but at least is a word people all agree is a word.
I'm sorry, very sorry, that this approach seemed so wrong and so abrupt to people. That said, it's worth remembering that generally what we do is either float a trial balloon about a feature [edit window] which usually winds up killing the feature because this community is too large to achieve consensus on most things, or change it with the default to "stays the same" [contact viewer] which wouldn't actually look at the issue we're trying to look at [i.e. how having EVERYONE viewing EVERYONES favorites might or might not affect power laws and general me-too-ism on the site]. We'll probably open another Meta thread later in the week for a little debrief about the first few days of this. Again I'd really appreciate people's patience some.
We've been instructed by Matt to take an afternoon off for ourselves this week and do something very nice and offline that makes us happy, and I suggest that might be a good idea for a lot of people reading this thread as well.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:30 AM on November 2, 2009 [17 favorites]
Our basic feeling was that it was necessary assuming we were still going to have favorites, which was the plan, that you could see if your own favoerite had been recorded. As such, just an indicator that "hey this has been favorited" of some sort seemed to be important. And, honestly, we thought people wouldn't like favorites going away entirely -- which is not whats going on here -- and just wanted to take the numbers out to see what sort of effects that would have.
Again I'm sorry about the word faved, we spent a week thinking about it and couldn't really come up with anything that we thought was better, we didn't like it much either. We'll likely just toss "favorited" back in there, which we thought was long and awkward but at least is a word people all agree is a word.
I'm sorry, very sorry, that this approach seemed so wrong and so abrupt to people. That said, it's worth remembering that generally what we do is either float a trial balloon about a feature [edit window] which usually winds up killing the feature because this community is too large to achieve consensus on most things, or change it with the default to "stays the same" [contact viewer] which wouldn't actually look at the issue we're trying to look at [i.e. how having EVERYONE viewing EVERYONES favorites might or might not affect power laws and general me-too-ism on the site]. We'll probably open another Meta thread later in the week for a little debrief about the first few days of this. Again I'd really appreciate people's patience some.
We've been instructed by Matt to take an afternoon off for ourselves this week and do something very nice and offline that makes us happy, and I suggest that might be a good idea for a lot of people reading this thread as well.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:30 AM on November 2, 2009 [17 favorites]
I don't like this, but I understand the need for the experiment. There have been numerous threads where people bemoan favourites as the death of MeFi and I can see that this is an attempt to prove or disprove that argument. In the meantime I will go back to making jokey comments, popular culture references and innuendos. But not because I want to be faved. Oh no.
posted by ob at 7:31 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by ob at 7:31 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Flavor Flaved
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:31 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:31 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
and most seem to think things were just fine as they were
Again with the "mosts". But as I just mentioned, most people have no frame of reference: for them, there have always been favourites so they really don't know what the site was like without them.
and through my many years of being online, i've learned one thing - the trolls, or the snarky, or the fighty can damage a site - but it's the complainers, the netcops and those who want to legislate for others that can kill it
Interesting, because my experience is the exact opposite: trolling and fighting can thoroughly destroy a site. It doesn't look dead at first glance, but that's because it's a zombified, hollow chamber of people shouting at one another. Complainers don't destroy a site, they just make it all the more duller.
frankly, some of you need to accept that there are going to be people and ways of participating that you just don't like and that your attempts to fix it, especially by changing things that don't have a proven relationship to what you dislike, could be worse for us than the problem
Equally, some people need to accept that this wasn't an attempt to "fix" anything: it was an attempt to see if concerns that were being raised were actually legitimate or not. Any purported fix would have been a long way beyond that.
posted by fightorflight at 7:32 AM on November 2, 2009
Again with the "mosts". But as I just mentioned, most people have no frame of reference: for them, there have always been favourites so they really don't know what the site was like without them.
and through my many years of being online, i've learned one thing - the trolls, or the snarky, or the fighty can damage a site - but it's the complainers, the netcops and those who want to legislate for others that can kill it
Interesting, because my experience is the exact opposite: trolling and fighting can thoroughly destroy a site. It doesn't look dead at first glance, but that's because it's a zombified, hollow chamber of people shouting at one another. Complainers don't destroy a site, they just make it all the more duller.
frankly, some of you need to accept that there are going to be people and ways of participating that you just don't like and that your attempts to fix it, especially by changing things that don't have a proven relationship to what you dislike, could be worse for us than the problem
Equally, some people need to accept that this wasn't an attempt to "fix" anything: it was an attempt to see if concerns that were being raised were actually legitimate or not. Any purported fix would have been a long way beyond that.
posted by fightorflight at 7:32 AM on November 2, 2009
Not yet, not even close. That Sarah Palin thing last year 5k...
Yes, it's been up for 1.5 days, so it is not yet the longest thread, you are correct! Note that it is already in the Metatalk top ten:
15931 19008 30:53.6 5 3649 44
9622 14007 21:04.6 5 2686 10
16706 654 19:07.2 5 2014 19
14194 47942 18:07.8 3 1723 11
17517 76438 20:17.3 2 1687 0
17862 83298 27:42.1 3 1446 28
15547 19344 44:44.3 5 1426 163
THIS THREAD
15281 56747 46:02.5 5 1163 42
In my sample-7:07 to 9:07 this morning, there were 29 comments. In the #1 metatalk thread, I sampled two hours at about 1.5 days in-8:51-10:51 pm March 11 2008 and only found 18 comments. It should be a top 5 Metatalk thread easily and my guess is that it makes it to #3.
posted by Kwine at 7:35 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yes, it's been up for 1.5 days, so it is not yet the longest thread, you are correct! Note that it is already in the Metatalk top ten:
15931 19008 30:53.6 5 3649 44
9622 14007 21:04.6 5 2686 10
16706 654 19:07.2 5 2014 19
14194 47942 18:07.8 3 1723 11
17517 76438 20:17.3 2 1687 0
17862 83298 27:42.1 3 1446 28
15547 19344 44:44.3 5 1426 163
THIS THREAD
15281 56747 46:02.5 5 1163 42
In my sample-7:07 to 9:07 this morning, there were 29 comments. In the #1 metatalk thread, I sampled two hours at about 1.5 days in-8:51-10:51 pm March 11 2008 and only found 18 comments. It should be a top 5 Metatalk thread easily and my guess is that it makes it to #3.
posted by Kwine at 7:35 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
forgot my headers: post number, poster id, timestamp, metatalk category, # of comments, # of favorites
posted by Kwine at 7:37 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by Kwine at 7:37 AM on November 2, 2009
I was pondering this and came up with something interesting.
Favorites are useful metadata about threads, but they do have drawbacks because of the kind of posting behavior they encourage.
An all-or-nothing approach isn't really viable because you're losing out one way or another. A more finetuned approach (much like the site moderation itself) is preferable.
What if it was set up like this:
1) Someone posts an FPP.
2) For 24 hours after the post is made, comment favorites are invisible in the thread to all users by default. The data would still be accessible via Greasemonkey like earlier, but there would be no built-in preference option.
3) After 24 hours, the favorites become visible and the thread is essentially just like it was before the experiment started.
This has the advantage of giving us some of the benefits of a favorites-free environment (since most comments are going to be made in the first 24 hours) while allowing other users to use the metadata to quickly read threads. The 24 hours would also help favorites made during that time be less affected by earlier favorites, so that readers in the future will get a "cleaner" favorites curve for the thread that will more accurately indicate comment popularity/usefulness while minimizing the impact of network/snowball/katamari effects.
This also has the advantage of being completely implementable clientside so that there's little to no load increase on the server.
posted by anifinder at 7:40 AM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
Favorites are useful metadata about threads, but they do have drawbacks because of the kind of posting behavior they encourage.
An all-or-nothing approach isn't really viable because you're losing out one way or another. A more finetuned approach (much like the site moderation itself) is preferable.
What if it was set up like this:
1) Someone posts an FPP.
2) For 24 hours after the post is made, comment favorites are invisible in the thread to all users by default. The data would still be accessible via Greasemonkey like earlier, but there would be no built-in preference option.
3) After 24 hours, the favorites become visible and the thread is essentially just like it was before the experiment started.
This has the advantage of giving us some of the benefits of a favorites-free environment (since most comments are going to be made in the first 24 hours) while allowing other users to use the metadata to quickly read threads. The 24 hours would also help favorites made during that time be less affected by earlier favorites, so that readers in the future will get a "cleaner" favorites curve for the thread that will more accurately indicate comment popularity/usefulness while minimizing the impact of network/snowball/katamari effects.
This also has the advantage of being completely implementable clientside so that there's little to no load increase on the server.
posted by anifinder at 7:40 AM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
Data point for the mods: in reading this (whole) thread over the last day, I haven't missed the favorite count yet. I'll be interested in seeing the results for the month. I don't expect to opt out of the experiment.
I suspect I'll miss favorite counts in AskMe more than the other subsites (I don't play around in Music), but I'm not sure I'll miss them that much. I generally don't favorite for agreement but for bookmarking. I'm also the mean person who occasionally unfavorites threads when I'm done with reading all the links or getting all the responses in AskMe. If I cared, I'd definitely get the sense of "favorites, ur doin it rong" from the masses here and possibly that I'd insulted other people by unfavoriting them. Also, I'm glad to hear that "faved" as a word is probably not going to survive. It's sort of annoying, but I promise not to slit my wrists or anything over it.
Hugs to all the mods, who probably need them and certainly deserve them after wading through this thread.
posted by immlass at 7:47 AM on November 2, 2009
I suspect I'll miss favorite counts in AskMe more than the other subsites (I don't play around in Music), but I'm not sure I'll miss them that much. I generally don't favorite for agreement but for bookmarking. I'm also the mean person who occasionally unfavorites threads when I'm done with reading all the links or getting all the responses in AskMe. If I cared, I'd definitely get the sense of "favorites, ur doin it rong" from the masses here and possibly that I'd insulted other people by unfavoriting them. Also, I'm glad to hear that "faved" as a word is probably not going to survive. It's sort of annoying, but I promise not to slit my wrists or anything over it.
Hugs to all the mods, who probably need them and certainly deserve them after wading through this thread.
posted by immlass at 7:47 AM on November 2, 2009
"But really, NAZIS aren't the way to ever, ever make a point that doesn't tip the line into "batshit insane." There is no rational analogy to be made that involves invoking National Socialism."
Hannah Arendt disagrees.
posted by klangklangston at 7:49 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Hannah Arendt disagrees.
posted by klangklangston at 7:49 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
* rubs hands together, twists moustache *
Dammit, I knew I was Job.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:59 AM on November 2, 2009
Dammit, I knew I was Job.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:59 AM on November 2, 2009
We're trying a favorites experiment in November. You can disable the experiment in your preferences.
I know it's already been pointed out, but this neuters the experiment to the point where it is achieving nothing (except still irritating people who are allergic to its mere mention). "We'd like to see how people's collective behavior changes in response to a certain month-long change in the site structure. But here: anyone who wants to can easily avoid seeing the change we're studying after being exposed to it for less than a day." I was in favor of the original experiment, but this is simply bizarre. There is no chance now for this to affect anyone's behavior, and no chance to learn anything significant. When you come back from your nice afternoon, just go ahead and make people happy.
posted by Wolfdog at 8:01 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I know it's already been pointed out, but this neuters the experiment to the point where it is achieving nothing (except still irritating people who are allergic to its mere mention). "We'd like to see how people's collective behavior changes in response to a certain month-long change in the site structure. But here: anyone who wants to can easily avoid seeing the change we're studying after being exposed to it for less than a day." I was in favor of the original experiment, but this is simply bizarre. There is no chance now for this to affect anyone's behavior, and no chance to learn anything significant. When you come back from your nice afternoon, just go ahead and make people happy.
posted by Wolfdog at 8:01 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm sorry, very sorry, that this approach seemed so wrong and so abrupt to people. That said, it's worth remembering that generally what we do is either float a trial balloon about a feature [edit window] which usually winds up killing the feature because this community is too large to achieve consensus on most things, or change it with the default to "stays the same" [contact viewer] which wouldn't actually look at the issue we're trying to look at [i.e. how having EVERYONE viewing EVERYONES favorites might or might not affect power laws and general me-too-ism on the site].
I think that there is a distinction between adding a feature and removing one. The edit window is something that would have been perfect for a "here it is for a month" test. I can imagine both qualitative and quantitative outcomes, and if not consensus, at least there might be a general sense of whether the feature was working or not. There's no real need for consensus beforehand, forewarning, or anything like that -- you just roll it out and see how it goes.
In contrast, removing a feature, permanently or as an "experiment," is (obviously, given this discussion) much more fraught and needs to approached with a lot more care. And (as with favorites) I think there can be a phenomenon where we think an issue has been fully discussed, again and again, only to discover that there were a bunch of elements (such as how many people use favorite counts as part of the way they read the site) that weren't part of those discussions, and many people who weren't part of those discussions, too.
Over and above that, though (dare I say "meta"?), I think that it would have been better to, rather than focussing on favorite counts (with the hope of affecting underlying dynamics by changing how they are presented), instead directly confront whatever the underlying issues are. I was really struck by how many long-standing users (most notably the founder himself) expressed dismay at the quantity of comments (and, in some cases implicitly and in other cases explicitly, at the quantity of users). There's a lot of discomfort being felt by some people at the site's growth, and a wistfulness towards the "good old days" when everyone knew each other and you could read a much larger fraction of the site's verbiage every day.
Personally (as a member for three years and a reader for much longer), I appreciate the changes and growth. I especially appreciate the changes that took place because of the set of brutal-but-good feminist (for lack of a better label -- but it was more than that) discussions a year or so ago. Those issues are still blind-spots for many here, as can be seen in the dismissive "echo chamber" comment earlier in this thread, among others.
So rather than just focusing on how favorite counts are or are not displayed, I wish that the next discussion of this would go a layer deeper and instead focus on the community and the ways it can both grow and stay strong. Some of that will have to be technological (perhaps involving favorite counts, for all I know), but more of it is going to involve decisions about moderation and community-wide decisions about when to flag, when to favorite, and when to speak up or step out of a discussion.
posted by Forktine at 8:02 AM on November 2, 2009 [13 favorites]
I think that there is a distinction between adding a feature and removing one. The edit window is something that would have been perfect for a "here it is for a month" test. I can imagine both qualitative and quantitative outcomes, and if not consensus, at least there might be a general sense of whether the feature was working or not. There's no real need for consensus beforehand, forewarning, or anything like that -- you just roll it out and see how it goes.
In contrast, removing a feature, permanently or as an "experiment," is (obviously, given this discussion) much more fraught and needs to approached with a lot more care. And (as with favorites) I think there can be a phenomenon where we think an issue has been fully discussed, again and again, only to discover that there were a bunch of elements (such as how many people use favorite counts as part of the way they read the site) that weren't part of those discussions, and many people who weren't part of those discussions, too.
Over and above that, though (dare I say "meta"?), I think that it would have been better to, rather than focussing on favorite counts (with the hope of affecting underlying dynamics by changing how they are presented), instead directly confront whatever the underlying issues are. I was really struck by how many long-standing users (most notably the founder himself) expressed dismay at the quantity of comments (and, in some cases implicitly and in other cases explicitly, at the quantity of users). There's a lot of discomfort being felt by some people at the site's growth, and a wistfulness towards the "good old days" when everyone knew each other and you could read a much larger fraction of the site's verbiage every day.
Personally (as a member for three years and a reader for much longer), I appreciate the changes and growth. I especially appreciate the changes that took place because of the set of brutal-but-good feminist (for lack of a better label -- but it was more than that) discussions a year or so ago. Those issues are still blind-spots for many here, as can be seen in the dismissive "echo chamber" comment earlier in this thread, among others.
So rather than just focusing on how favorite counts are or are not displayed, I wish that the next discussion of this would go a layer deeper and instead focus on the community and the ways it can both grow and stay strong. Some of that will have to be technological (perhaps involving favorite counts, for all I know), but more of it is going to involve decisions about moderation and community-wide decisions about when to flag, when to favorite, and when to speak up or step out of a discussion.
posted by Forktine at 8:02 AM on November 2, 2009 [13 favorites]
I worry about what happens to a society that fails to reward wit.
posted by sexyrobot at 8:05 AM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by sexyrobot at 8:05 AM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
I am really attempting to give this a chance and I think the reasons for trying it out for a month are valid, but I am totally completely hating it, especially in askme and especially seeing "faved" which grates on me like a Miley Cyrus song.
I will suck it up for the next few weeks, because I think the experiment is worthy, but I die a little inside each time I see "faved."
The month-long trial is a good idea though, and I agree with Forktine that we should test the edit window with it, and see if it wreaks as much havoc as some think it will.
posted by rmless at 8:11 AM on November 2, 2009
I will suck it up for the next few weeks, because I think the experiment is worthy, but I die a little inside each time I see "faved."
The month-long trial is a good idea though, and I agree with Forktine that we should test the edit window with it, and see if it wreaks as much havoc as some think it will.
posted by rmless at 8:11 AM on November 2, 2009
I worry about what happens to a society that fails to reward wit.
Ah! So you've been to New England then?
posted by The Whelk at 8:12 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Ah! So you've been to New England then?
posted by The Whelk at 8:12 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I keed! I keed! Oh god NOT THE BEES
posted by The Whelk at 8:12 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 8:12 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Too lazy to read all the comments, but this decision and action strikes this user as an example of a fix for something that isn't broken.
Or, in other words, cortex needs something constructive to do.
posted by notyou at 8:13 AM on November 2, 2009
Or, in other words, cortex needs something constructive to do.
posted by notyou at 8:13 AM on November 2, 2009
What I hate about the internet in general is this compulsion to fix things that are not broken. Facebook does it all the time, and now YOU GUYS.
Concur.
posted by notyou at 8:19 AM on November 2, 2009
Concur.
posted by notyou at 8:19 AM on November 2, 2009
Burhanistan: ...I think the people who bitched and kvetched the loudest and most vehemently here have all kinds of personality issues that are simply being displaced. This is ostensibly a continuously evolving/refined online community, and the mods tried to implement something as an experiment. Before any results could even be gauged people act like their children are being sold to cannibal child molesters.
It's true those who disagree with you are not expressing different tastes, or simply wrong, or but terrible human beings with pathological personality defects. You should continue to ignore everything they actually say.
posted by gerryblog at 8:20 AM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
It's true those who disagree with you are not expressing different tastes, or simply wrong, or but terrible human beings with pathological personality defects. You should continue to ignore everything they actually say.
posted by gerryblog at 8:20 AM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
It's already started and i don't like it, NOT ONE BIT!
Heh.
posted by notyou at 8:23 AM on November 2, 2009
Heh.
posted by notyou at 8:23 AM on November 2, 2009
koeselitz, I tempted to simply say that Hitler isn't funny, ever, so please, just shut up. But that would be wrong. Hitler can be very funny. Look no further than all those Downfall spoofs on YouTube.
What isn't funny is feeling a little persecuted and likening your oppressors to the same gang of barbarians who methodically murdered as many as 17 million people during the years of World War 2.
Actually, come to think of it, there's even conceivable humor in this, but only on the level that somebody might think to make of light of it, and then take umbrage that the peanut gallery did not laugh along ...
Or as the great Jesus (the pedophile bowler, not the savior of all mankind) puts it in the Big Lebowski: "Laughable."
posted by philip-random at 8:23 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
What isn't funny is feeling a little persecuted and likening your oppressors to the same gang of barbarians who methodically murdered as many as 17 million people during the years of World War 2.
Actually, come to think of it, there's even conceivable humor in this, but only on the level that somebody might think to make of light of it, and then take umbrage that the peanut gallery did not laugh along ...
Or as the great Jesus (the pedophile bowler, not the savior of all mankind) puts it in the Big Lebowski: "Laughable."
posted by philip-random at 8:23 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Man, the typos in that sentence really undercut what I was trying to say.
It's true that those who disagree with you are not expressing different tastes, or simply wrong, but terrible human beings with pathological personality defects. You should continue to ignore everything they actually say.
I wasn't going to comment in this thread again after saying my piece about the rushed implementation, but seeing this sort of nonsensical personal attack lodged again and again (from both "sides") is really astounding. Everyone really does need a hug.
posted by gerryblog at 8:24 AM on November 2, 2009
It's true that those who disagree with you are not expressing different tastes, or simply wrong, but terrible human beings with pathological personality defects. You should continue to ignore everything they actually say.
I wasn't going to comment in this thread again after saying my piece about the rushed implementation, but seeing this sort of nonsensical personal attack lodged again and again (from both "sides") is really astounding. Everyone really does need a hug.
posted by gerryblog at 8:24 AM on November 2, 2009
Too lazy to read all the comments, but this decision and action strikes this user as an example of a fix for something that isn't broken.
Or, in other words, cortex needs something constructive to do.
This makes me feel like punching and screaming. Time to take mathowie's advice and take the afternoon off the Metafilter and avoid this thread when I come back.
posted by cimbrog at 8:25 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Or, in other words, cortex needs something constructive to do.
This makes me feel like punching and screaming. Time to take mathowie's advice and take the afternoon off the Metafilter and avoid this thread when I come back.
posted by cimbrog at 8:25 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Forktine: "I wish that the next discussion of this would go a layer deeper and instead focus on the community and the ways it can both grow and stay strong."
I'm still a few weeks shy of a year here - so please believe me that I don't say this out of any antipathy towards new arrivals...
But to the best of my understanding, this whole brouhaha arose from the difficulties created by the site having grown as large as it has. So unless there's a financial aspect I'm not taking into consideration, it's by no means clear to me that future growth is something worth actively pursuing.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:26 AM on November 2, 2009
I'm still a few weeks shy of a year here - so please believe me that I don't say this out of any antipathy towards new arrivals...
But to the best of my understanding, this whole brouhaha arose from the difficulties created by the site having grown as large as it has. So unless there's a financial aspect I'm not taking into consideration, it's by no means clear to me that future growth is something worth actively pursuing.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:26 AM on November 2, 2009
Workarounds have been posted in thread in two places so far:Thanks!
1) using Stylish for Firefox
2) using Greasemonkey for Firefox or using a bookmarklet
posted by notyou at 8:27 AM on November 2, 2009
I know it's already been pointed out, but this neuters the experiment to the point where it is achieving nothing (except still irritating people who are allergic to its mere mention). ... There is no chance now for this to affect anyone's behavior, and no chance to learn anything significant.
It's fairer to say that there's no chance now for this to affect everyone's behavior, but that's okay with us and it was okay with us going in—adding the preference was a response to greater-than-expected discomfort with DIY script/CSS solutions from the opt-out folks, basically, not a modification to what we had been intending to be the state of things. Having that in place out of the gate is looking like it would have been the better plan.
If the large majority of users don't opt-out, we get to see what happens with the large majority of users participating (whether willfully or just shruggingly) in the experiment. That for November the default experience will be sans-counts is the key thing. And one silver lining on the opt-out thing is that we can try and take a look at the opt-out group as a semi-distinct population in any of the quantitative stuff we elect to do. Again, not aiming for scientific rigor here, but being able to look at some of this stuff qualitatively and quantitatively will be interesting.
Or, in other words, cortex needs something constructive to do.
Oh man you have no idea how much constructive stuff I'm already avoiding.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:29 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
It's fairer to say that there's no chance now for this to affect everyone's behavior, but that's okay with us and it was okay with us going in—adding the preference was a response to greater-than-expected discomfort with DIY script/CSS solutions from the opt-out folks, basically, not a modification to what we had been intending to be the state of things. Having that in place out of the gate is looking like it would have been the better plan.
If the large majority of users don't opt-out, we get to see what happens with the large majority of users participating (whether willfully or just shruggingly) in the experiment. That for November the default experience will be sans-counts is the key thing. And one silver lining on the opt-out thing is that we can try and take a look at the opt-out group as a semi-distinct population in any of the quantitative stuff we elect to do. Again, not aiming for scientific rigor here, but being able to look at some of this stuff qualitatively and quantitatively will be interesting.
Or, in other words, cortex needs something constructive to do.
Oh man you have no idea how much constructive stuff I'm already avoiding.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:29 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
It might be worth a sitewide MeFi Mail to let people know about the new favorites preference.
posted by starman at 8:29 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by starman at 8:29 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
A system to reward good posts actually weeded out a tremendous amount of trolling and pointless snark.
I think the favorites numbers do a better job of rewarding insight and humor than they do stifling conversation. It's a nice "attaboy!" and an aspirational goal for other contributors.
Yep.
posted by notyou at 8:32 AM on November 2, 2009
I think the favorites numbers do a better job of rewarding insight and humor than they do stifling conversation. It's a nice "attaboy!" and an aspirational goal for other contributors.
Yep.
posted by notyou at 8:32 AM on November 2, 2009
I also don't like the new change.
While I realize the world is not static, this feature was included in the package that I paid $5 for. Adding features is great, but removing them from a paid service is not so cool.
posted by Slenny at 8:34 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
While I realize the world is not static, this feature was included in the package that I paid $5 for. Adding features is great, but removing them from a paid service is not so cool.
posted by Slenny at 8:34 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I would like to register my vote against this change.
A conversation involves more than just what is spoken. In real life, when someone tells a joke or makes a point, you are able to see and hear not just the speaker, but the reaction of the group. People laugh, people nod, people are uncomfortably silent. Those reactions are an essential aspect to group dialog, and help you understand not just what the speaker was trying to communicate, but understand how the community feels about it.
Favorites function here in much the same way, and are incredibly helpful to grok the flow of the conversation. For a serious comment, I interpret a ton of favorites as either agreement or at least respect for the argument. For a joke, I interpret it as laughter. Long comments that receive little to no favorites I get the impression that the group wasn't all that interested or impressed.
Do these things color my own impression of the comment? Of course, because thats how real communities function. Thats a feature, not a bug. I would think that we would like MetaFilter to function more, not less, like a real world conversation, and I think favorites help us do that by adding a nonverbal layer to the conversation.
Also, there are people like me who are forced to run IE at work and cannot run greasemonkey.
posted by jpdoane at 8:35 AM on November 2, 2009 [12 favorites]
A conversation involves more than just what is spoken. In real life, when someone tells a joke or makes a point, you are able to see and hear not just the speaker, but the reaction of the group. People laugh, people nod, people are uncomfortably silent. Those reactions are an essential aspect to group dialog, and help you understand not just what the speaker was trying to communicate, but understand how the community feels about it.
Favorites function here in much the same way, and are incredibly helpful to grok the flow of the conversation. For a serious comment, I interpret a ton of favorites as either agreement or at least respect for the argument. For a joke, I interpret it as laughter. Long comments that receive little to no favorites I get the impression that the group wasn't all that interested or impressed.
Do these things color my own impression of the comment? Of course, because thats how real communities function. Thats a feature, not a bug. I would think that we would like MetaFilter to function more, not less, like a real world conversation, and I think favorites help us do that by adding a nonverbal layer to the conversation.
Also, there are people like me who are forced to run IE at work and cannot run greasemonkey.
posted by jpdoane at 8:35 AM on November 2, 2009 [12 favorites]
It might be worth a sitewide MeFi Mail to let people know about the new favorites preference.
This would also make it more like something resembling a real experiment, because then at least you could compare opt-out to the new status quo across the whole population of paid members. It's not clear to me what sorts of conclusions one would be able to draw from the current version of the experiment (no count by default but with opt-out for power users likely to read long MetaTalk threads). The various populations involved and the various effects of the new fave-form are too muddled to be properly accounted right now.
posted by gerryblog at 8:37 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
This would also make it more like something resembling a real experiment, because then at least you could compare opt-out to the new status quo across the whole population of paid members. It's not clear to me what sorts of conclusions one would be able to draw from the current version of the experiment (no count by default but with opt-out for power users likely to read long MetaTalk threads). The various populations involved and the various effects of the new fave-form are too muddled to be properly accounted right now.
posted by gerryblog at 8:37 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Okay. I read most of this thread and the experience was somewhat miserable. And most of what I feel has already been said but, even though I've favorited the most pertinent and well-stated stuff, I feel as if I need to repeat some of it now (thanks, temporary favorite system!--which I do not at all disapprove of the experimenting, for the record).
A lot of what is being tossed around are some pretty remarkable assumptions based, I guess, on anecdotal evidence on 'the way things used to be'. Up top koeselitz made a big deal of how there's yet to be any good arguments posted in favor of the favorites system. I feel like that's been resolved upthread, and I can only hope it was properly noted and considered, but to be honest I'm not seeing much solid evidence from the other side of the argument, either.
Mostly I want to reply to hydropsyche's comment as a jumping off point for some of the other points made in the thread. I actually found it a little bit offensive in addition to disagreeing with a large number of things. And we're all here to point out one-another's biases, right? Because that's part of what makes a diverse discussion so great.
At least now I know why it seems increasingly like people have been commenting without reading the thread--apparently many many of you are and now you're pissed that skimming requires slightly more effort than it used it.
Aside from the less-than-gracious tone in a lot of these sorts of comments, I don't think anything about either the favorite or non-favorite system gives any guarantee that people will read the entire thread before commenting. I don't think it guarantees that they'll even rtfa. And if 'guarantee' is too strong of a word for anyone, I don't think either system explicitly encourages either of these approaches. I may be wrong on this, but this experiment (if any real data is going to come of it?) could help us better understand this point. Until we have any hard data, though, there's not really much we can say about it.
If this is a problem that needs to be addressed, like many people have said upthread, how is the favorite system a detriment rather than a boon towards gaining thread comprehension? People who intend to read every single comment before posting will do so. People who are already too lazy, busy, or whatever-else to read every single comment before posting, unless we find some way to bend the space-time continuum, are not going to. What the favorites offer is a way of gaining at least some, if not a complete, understanding of what is being discussed in the thread, what has already been hashed out, and what has not gained a good deal of attention yet in the discussion. Favorites, I think, can be argued to help the general comprehension of a thread amongst all users-- both those who are going to read every single comment and those who are not.
Like many others have stated, I personally use the favorites as a good way to skim threads I have minimal interest in and then, if I want to make a comment, I go back and read through in an attempt to be sure I haven't missed anything or am not repeating something verbatim, unnecessarily. Funnily enough, if I find I am about to repeat something, I can just click the lovely '+' button and call it a day rather than repeating things.
Although this isn't necessarily a point that hydropsyche was making, how, exactly, would the non-favorite system help with what some might call unnecessary clutter (without going into the topic of whether or not additional comments are actually 'unnecessary clutter')? Others have talked a lot about the apparently growing occurrence of 'pile-ons'. Is a post with a high favorite count considered more of a pile-on than multiple posts with the same sentiment? Or is the problem that we are getting both of these at one time? Regardless, I don't think removing the favorites option is going to solve this problem. Is there any solid justification for this method? Because if there is, I've failed to see it.
I am not here for high fives and snark, I'm here for conversation. Those of you who are skimming by favorites are not really engaging in a conversation. The rest of the internet is a great place for that--people shouting over each other and the loudest voice wins is what the internet has mostly become. Can't we have Metafilter as the one place on the internet where people actually do read what other people are writing, follow the flow of a conversation, not just the popular comments, and respond to the conversation as a whole?
There is an incredible lack of good faith on pretty much all sides in this thread, but this sort of thing irks me. I am really, really not at all keen on being told by many of the anti-favorite crowd that my way of using MetaFilter is sub-par or not as intended or somehow less intelligent. I am, on days when somewhat rushed, apparently not really engaging in a conversation, or perhaps worse, I am only shouting. Thanks. I don't understand your characterization of 'shouting' vs. a 'conversation'. We're on the internet; it's all text. What are you interpreting as 'shouting', what to you is 'conversation', and more importantly, why?
This aside, I'm really not understanding where this argument is coming from in terms of the pro- vs. anti-favorites camps. Is it that repeating a point or posting a response to only one comment is that not 'really engaging in a conversation' because it doesn't address absolutely everything in the context of the thread (or the 'conversation as a whole')? If so, how often can comments even hope to accomplish this? This seems like a ridiculous standard to hold, and I'm not sure it's even admirable.
I think I understand what you are saying, but when you use vague terms like 'respond[ing] to the conversation as a whole' I'm basically forced to take the extreme position; I am not going to write a novel that addresses every single previous comment when I post. No one does this. No one genuinely wants this. We naturally respond to what resonates with us or what we're interested in, and luckily the variety of people on MeFi means that most facets of a conversation get some attention. Both giving favorites and seeing what has been favorited the most give a great metric to either show your interest/support or to see what the majority of the community is appreciating. I think it is a great tool. I don't see how it's causing issue with thread comprehension, and I've not seen any solid or even semi-solid link between the two.
Or, to be more blunt, why should I read your comment if you couldn't be arsed to read mine because it didn't get all faved?
Not all of us post in every thread. A lot of us mark our agreement or support or appreciation for comments with favorites. And because of this, you don't have to read more of the same, hum-drum, 'me too!' sorts of comments. In a similar vein, you're not required to read any of my posts if you don't want to. You're welcome.
I've missed out on the previous threads on the topic, so it's very possible that I'm discussing things that have already been discussed, but I simply do not have time to dig through past history and read all previous threads.
But this brings up my main issue with hydropsyche's and others' posts, and it is this: does my lack of time somehow invalidate my contributions to the site? Should I not be allowed to contribute simply because I haven't read every pertinent thing to the discussion, for fear of repeating things? Because if so, thanks. You've just cut out a huge segment of MeFi-- the more casual readers of the site. Instead of having the site be biased via the favorite system you are saying it should be biased towards 'regulars', or people with more free time.
I can understand this, to some degree, but is this really what we want as a site? Is our community really entirely incompatible with the casual contributor? I'm willing to bet (although I must put a disclaimer that of course I can't be sure, because this is MeFi) that many casual contributors, or people who occasionally skim things before posting, still contribute some awesome information, stories, and points of view. I guess what I'm wondering is, is it better to give some slack to posters who may not have read the entire thread, or is it better to discourage them from posting at all?
To even imply that these people should a) feel bad about their contributions or b) simply not offer them anymore really bothers me. I didn't think this was the sort of road we wanted to go down. I like the site for being as reasonably inclusive as it is to such a wide variety of people, because as suggested earlier in this comment, it's the variety on this site that makes it so great.
I hope this was follow-able, as I'm a little disorganized this morning, but if nothing else maybe it's a slightly different take on a few things.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 8:38 AM on November 2, 2009 [21 favorites]
A lot of what is being tossed around are some pretty remarkable assumptions based, I guess, on anecdotal evidence on 'the way things used to be'. Up top koeselitz made a big deal of how there's yet to be any good arguments posted in favor of the favorites system. I feel like that's been resolved upthread, and I can only hope it was properly noted and considered, but to be honest I'm not seeing much solid evidence from the other side of the argument, either.
Mostly I want to reply to hydropsyche's comment as a jumping off point for some of the other points made in the thread. I actually found it a little bit offensive in addition to disagreeing with a large number of things. And we're all here to point out one-another's biases, right? Because that's part of what makes a diverse discussion so great.
At least now I know why it seems increasingly like people have been commenting without reading the thread--apparently many many of you are and now you're pissed that skimming requires slightly more effort than it used it.
Aside from the less-than-gracious tone in a lot of these sorts of comments, I don't think anything about either the favorite or non-favorite system gives any guarantee that people will read the entire thread before commenting. I don't think it guarantees that they'll even rtfa. And if 'guarantee' is too strong of a word for anyone, I don't think either system explicitly encourages either of these approaches. I may be wrong on this, but this experiment (if any real data is going to come of it?) could help us better understand this point. Until we have any hard data, though, there's not really much we can say about it.
If this is a problem that needs to be addressed, like many people have said upthread, how is the favorite system a detriment rather than a boon towards gaining thread comprehension? People who intend to read every single comment before posting will do so. People who are already too lazy, busy, or whatever-else to read every single comment before posting, unless we find some way to bend the space-time continuum, are not going to. What the favorites offer is a way of gaining at least some, if not a complete, understanding of what is being discussed in the thread, what has already been hashed out, and what has not gained a good deal of attention yet in the discussion. Favorites, I think, can be argued to help the general comprehension of a thread amongst all users-- both those who are going to read every single comment and those who are not.
Like many others have stated, I personally use the favorites as a good way to skim threads I have minimal interest in and then, if I want to make a comment, I go back and read through in an attempt to be sure I haven't missed anything or am not repeating something verbatim, unnecessarily. Funnily enough, if I find I am about to repeat something, I can just click the lovely '+' button and call it a day rather than repeating things.
Although this isn't necessarily a point that hydropsyche was making, how, exactly, would the non-favorite system help with what some might call unnecessary clutter (without going into the topic of whether or not additional comments are actually 'unnecessary clutter')? Others have talked a lot about the apparently growing occurrence of 'pile-ons'. Is a post with a high favorite count considered more of a pile-on than multiple posts with the same sentiment? Or is the problem that we are getting both of these at one time? Regardless, I don't think removing the favorites option is going to solve this problem. Is there any solid justification for this method? Because if there is, I've failed to see it.
I am not here for high fives and snark, I'm here for conversation. Those of you who are skimming by favorites are not really engaging in a conversation. The rest of the internet is a great place for that--people shouting over each other and the loudest voice wins is what the internet has mostly become. Can't we have Metafilter as the one place on the internet where people actually do read what other people are writing, follow the flow of a conversation, not just the popular comments, and respond to the conversation as a whole?
There is an incredible lack of good faith on pretty much all sides in this thread, but this sort of thing irks me. I am really, really not at all keen on being told by many of the anti-favorite crowd that my way of using MetaFilter is sub-par or not as intended or somehow less intelligent. I am, on days when somewhat rushed, apparently not really engaging in a conversation, or perhaps worse, I am only shouting. Thanks. I don't understand your characterization of 'shouting' vs. a 'conversation'. We're on the internet; it's all text. What are you interpreting as 'shouting', what to you is 'conversation', and more importantly, why?
This aside, I'm really not understanding where this argument is coming from in terms of the pro- vs. anti-favorites camps. Is it that repeating a point or posting a response to only one comment is that not 'really engaging in a conversation' because it doesn't address absolutely everything in the context of the thread (or the 'conversation as a whole')? If so, how often can comments even hope to accomplish this? This seems like a ridiculous standard to hold, and I'm not sure it's even admirable.
I think I understand what you are saying, but when you use vague terms like 'respond[ing] to the conversation as a whole' I'm basically forced to take the extreme position; I am not going to write a novel that addresses every single previous comment when I post. No one does this. No one genuinely wants this. We naturally respond to what resonates with us or what we're interested in, and luckily the variety of people on MeFi means that most facets of a conversation get some attention. Both giving favorites and seeing what has been favorited the most give a great metric to either show your interest/support or to see what the majority of the community is appreciating. I think it is a great tool. I don't see how it's causing issue with thread comprehension, and I've not seen any solid or even semi-solid link between the two.
Or, to be more blunt, why should I read your comment if you couldn't be arsed to read mine because it didn't get all faved?
Not all of us post in every thread. A lot of us mark our agreement or support or appreciation for comments with favorites. And because of this, you don't have to read more of the same, hum-drum, 'me too!' sorts of comments. In a similar vein, you're not required to read any of my posts if you don't want to. You're welcome.
I've missed out on the previous threads on the topic, so it's very possible that I'm discussing things that have already been discussed, but I simply do not have time to dig through past history and read all previous threads.
But this brings up my main issue with hydropsyche's and others' posts, and it is this: does my lack of time somehow invalidate my contributions to the site? Should I not be allowed to contribute simply because I haven't read every pertinent thing to the discussion, for fear of repeating things? Because if so, thanks. You've just cut out a huge segment of MeFi-- the more casual readers of the site. Instead of having the site be biased via the favorite system you are saying it should be biased towards 'regulars', or people with more free time.
I can understand this, to some degree, but is this really what we want as a site? Is our community really entirely incompatible with the casual contributor? I'm willing to bet (although I must put a disclaimer that of course I can't be sure, because this is MeFi) that many casual contributors, or people who occasionally skim things before posting, still contribute some awesome information, stories, and points of view. I guess what I'm wondering is, is it better to give some slack to posters who may not have read the entire thread, or is it better to discourage them from posting at all?
To even imply that these people should a) feel bad about their contributions or b) simply not offer them anymore really bothers me. I didn't think this was the sort of road we wanted to go down. I like the site for being as reasonably inclusive as it is to such a wide variety of people, because as suggested earlier in this comment, it's the variety on this site that makes it so great.
I hope this was follow-able, as I'm a little disorganized this morning, but if nothing else maybe it's a slightly different take on a few things.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 8:38 AM on November 2, 2009 [21 favorites]
If this is not completely rolled back in December, then I would really, really hope that the change would be to allow users to select one of the following:
1) Old-style pre-November favorite numbering.
and
2) Either don't show favorites at all or show them with the numbers as a rollover as several others have suggested.
But, option #2 should not be to show 'faved' for comments that only get 1 favorite.
I don't share the strong feelings that others have about the word FAVED itself, BUT I HATE that casual users and first-time MeFi readers will get the impression that this community equally values inane snark that one or two people found mildly amusing and Nattie's horizon-expanding contribution that 514 have found meaningful.
If we keep this change in December, and make no favorites the default, then PLEASE, PLEASE make it truly 'no favorites' and NOT 'FAVED' for any and all comments that get even one little '+'.
posted by marsha56 at 8:39 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
1) Old-style pre-November favorite numbering.
and
2) Either don't show favorites at all or show them with the numbers as a rollover as several others have suggested.
But, option #2 should not be to show 'faved' for comments that only get 1 favorite.
I don't share the strong feelings that others have about the word FAVED itself, BUT I HATE that casual users and first-time MeFi readers will get the impression that this community equally values inane snark that one or two people found mildly amusing and Nattie's horizon-expanding contribution that 514 have found meaningful.
If we keep this change in December, and make no favorites the default, then PLEASE, PLEASE make it truly 'no favorites' and NOT 'FAVED' for any and all comments that get even one little '+'.
posted by marsha56 at 8:39 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't have a problem with favorites in general. I have, however, noticed an uptick in the number of tedious, redundant comments* in long threads, where clearly most people didn't read the previous comments but felt like they had to add their own -- and now that I know how many people use favorites counts to skim threads, it's obvious how and why that happens. [Note that skimming threads is not the problem; skimming threads and then commenting is the problem.] This experiment is for those people; unfortunately, they seem to be the ones most unwilling to try it. That is a sad thing.
*Yes, I see the irony, as others have pretty much already said the same as I have here. The mods asked for feedback, though, so consider this my pro-experiment vote.
posted by chowflap at 8:40 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
*Yes, I see the irony, as others have pretty much already said the same as I have here. The mods asked for feedback, though, so consider this my pro-experiment vote.
posted by chowflap at 8:40 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Is there anybody who doesn't like to see the favourites? I feel this is a canard.
For the most part I see them as noise that needs filtering out. When this feature was rolled out I didn't see the utility in it because I'd been using del.icio.us to bookmark what I found interesting, I still do. imho any usefulness find in them beyond an internal bookmarking system came about because the number count was visible, for instance using it as "I agree" on the green. As grouse said the site existed without the feature for years and, I wonder how people managed to read the site without it.
posted by squeak at 8:41 AM on November 2, 2009
For the most part I see them as noise that needs filtering out. When this feature was rolled out I didn't see the utility in it because I'd been using del.icio.us to bookmark what I found interesting, I still do. imho any usefulness find in them beyond an internal bookmarking system came about because the number count was visible, for instance using it as "I agree" on the green. As grouse said the site existed without the feature for years and, I wonder how people managed to read the site without it.
posted by squeak at 8:41 AM on November 2, 2009
Also, there are people like me who are forced to run IE at work and cannot run greasemonkey.
You can opt-out at any time by visiting your site preferences, checking the box next to "Show comment favorite counts?", and clicking save at the bottom of the page. Works in IE, no Greasemonkey required.
posted by pb (staff) at 8:42 AM on November 2, 2009
You can opt-out at any time by visiting your site preferences, checking the box next to "Show comment favorite counts?", and clicking save at the bottom of the page. Works in IE, no Greasemonkey required.
posted by pb (staff) at 8:42 AM on November 2, 2009
Adding features is great, but removing them from a paid service is not so cool.
You paid $5 three years ago.
posted by dirtdirt at 8:43 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
You paid $5 three years ago.
posted by dirtdirt at 8:43 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Dude, if you weren't so concerned with dogging on cortex you would've seen that you can turn it on or off in your profile settings.
Dude, cortex can clearly handle a little dogging. Second of all, this thread is probably the best place for me to conduct my own experiments in favorite replacements.
posted by notyou at 8:43 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Dude, cortex can clearly handle a little dogging. Second of all, this thread is probably the best place for me to conduct my own experiments in favorite replacements.
posted by notyou at 8:43 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
when every comment is 'faved' it's the same as if none are.
posted by sexyrobot at 8:46 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by sexyrobot at 8:46 AM on November 2, 2009
jon1270: I looked at them only with an eye to opinions expressed about whether they liked the elimination of visible favorite counts. Of those 100, I found...
You're metric is off. What I was talking about was whether people are for or against the experiment, because that's that's what we're talking about. Just to be clear, I don't think this is repersentative of the numbers at large of but I think it's telling of bs rhetoric about the binary breakdown minority/majority that some people keep harping on.
Maybe the mods have better tally somewhere. But I went back to the first fifty (or so) comments (possible a couple commentators counted as double hash marks), discounted mods, and you're numbers are off at that point:
Pro - 15
Con - 14
Unclear Op - 22
posted by P.o.B. at 8:48 AM on November 2, 2009
You're metric is off. What I was talking about was whether people are for or against the experiment, because that's that's what we're talking about. Just to be clear, I don't think this is repersentative of the numbers at large of but I think it's telling of bs rhetoric about the binary breakdown minority/majority that some people keep harping on.
Maybe the mods have better tally somewhere. But I went back to the first fifty (or so) comments (possible a couple commentators counted as double hash marks), discounted mods, and you're numbers are off at that point:
Pro - 15
Con - 14
Unclear Op - 22
posted by P.o.B. at 8:48 AM on November 2, 2009
Sorry that came across as way shoutier that I intended. I still believe in the points I made, but expressed them poorly.
I've flagged myself and am now walking away from this thread for at least awhile.
posted by marsha56 at 8:48 AM on November 2, 2009
I've flagged myself and am now walking away from this thread for at least awhile.
posted by marsha56 at 8:48 AM on November 2, 2009
sexyrobot: "when every comment is 'faved' it's the same as if none are."
This was the LEET (1337) comment, btw.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:49 AM on November 2, 2009
This was the LEET (1337) comment, btw.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:49 AM on November 2, 2009
I still kind of hate this but I'm going to try it for the month without the opt out. I do read every comment instead of skimming now, which is probably a good thing to some degree.
posted by janelikes at 8:49 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by janelikes at 8:49 AM on November 2, 2009
This thread is a good example, now, of why this is not a good change: I don't have time or inclination to read each comment, in this or most other threads. I'm sorry if this is counter to some "optimal" ideal people have for the site, but it's how I engage with MetaFilter.
posted by everichon at 8:51 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by everichon at 8:51 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Hey, since it crops up and I don't recall seeing a big grab at it by the MAHDZ;
Why 'faved' instead of []? Why there at all? That would be really interesting and I would be all about it, just to throw that $.02 in. Remove favorites entirely from view.
posted by cavalier at 8:58 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Why 'faved' instead of []? Why there at all? That would be really interesting and I would be all about it, just to throw that $.02 in. Remove favorites entirely from view.
posted by cavalier at 8:58 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
this feature was included in the package that I paid $5 for. Adding features is great, but removing them from a paid service is not so cool.
I'm....speechless.
posted by mediareport at 8:58 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm....speechless.
posted by mediareport at 8:58 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Thanks for linking nattie's comment, marsha56. I hadn't seen it and it is pretty incredible.
posted by Kwine at 8:58 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Kwine at 8:58 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I tried it out for a day. I hated it. I opted out. Consider this my official "Nay" vote. Thanks.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:02 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:02 AM on November 2, 2009
P.o.B.: What I was talking about was whether people are for or against the experiment
Thanks for clarifying. Out metrics are, indeed, different.
posted by jon1270 at 9:02 AM on November 2, 2009
Thanks for clarifying. Out metrics are, indeed, different.
posted by jon1270 at 9:02 AM on November 2, 2009
janelikes: "I still kind of hate this but I'm going to try it for the month without the opt out."
Can any of the "I'm willing to be miserable for a month" people explain their reasoning?
The only justifications I can conceive of for such a decision is that you feel you owe it to our much-abused mods in some way. And I doubt that this is how they view it.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:03 AM on November 2, 2009
Can any of the "I'm willing to be miserable for a month" people explain their reasoning?
The only justifications I can conceive of for such a decision is that you feel you owe it to our much-abused mods in some way. And I doubt that this is how they view it.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:03 AM on November 2, 2009
Why 'faved' instead of []? Why there at all?
We wanted to keep the familiar access-to-a-list-of-favoriting-events thing in place. We considered both the with-an-indicator plan and the no-indicator plan and settled on this one, is all. Two different possible approaches.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:04 AM on November 2, 2009
We wanted to keep the familiar access-to-a-list-of-favoriting-events thing in place. We considered both the with-an-indicator plan and the no-indicator plan and settled on this one, is all. Two different possible approaches.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:04 AM on November 2, 2009
For those who think something valuable is lost, please note there are still places where comment favorite counts (rather than post favorite counts, which are less controversial in nature) continue to appear while the experiment is enabled. I hope those of you who are game enough to continue with the experiment feel free to take advantage of these tools to get your scoreboard fix:
Also: VOTE FOR "FLAVED!" YEAH BOYEEE! The mods are listening! Mash that fave+ button like you've never mashed it before! Vote vote vote! We want "flaved!"
posted by majick at 9:06 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by majick at 9:06 AM on November 2, 2009
We're not coming at it from a "we're owed it" position, certainly, but a number of people have expressed some notion of being game for trying something they don't initially like just to see how it feels after an adjustment period.
My expectation as far as that goes is that some will adjust and find it interesting/not-grating enough to stick with and others will conclude that, nope, that's enough of that. Either of which is fine. Question of being owed anything entirely to the side, I definitely appreciate folks' willingness to give it a shot.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:09 AM on November 2, 2009
My expectation as far as that goes is that some will adjust and find it interesting/not-grating enough to stick with and others will conclude that, nope, that's enough of that. Either of which is fine. Question of being owed anything entirely to the side, I definitely appreciate folks' willingness to give it a shot.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:09 AM on November 2, 2009
Can any of the "I'm willing to be miserable for a month" people explain their reasoning?
Did you try it? Savor it? Flavor it? Dare I say, Fave it? If you immediately just spit out anything at the first hint of bitterness or unpleasantness, how are you supposed gather new insights?
posted by P.o.B. at 9:11 AM on November 2, 2009
Did you try it? Savor it? Flavor it? Dare I say, Fave it? If you immediately just spit out anything at the first hint of bitterness or unpleasantness, how are you supposed gather new insights?
posted by P.o.B. at 9:11 AM on November 2, 2009
FYI, under lynx, it still shows the numbers.
"[4 favorites faved]"
life without javascript =p
posted by nomisxid at 9:11 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
"[4 favorites faved]"
life without javascript =p
posted by nomisxid at 9:11 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
"many of the anti-favorite crowd that my way of using MetaFilter is sub-par or not as intended or somehow less intelligent. I am, on days when somewhat rushed, apparently not really engaging in a conversation, or perhaps worse, I am only shouting."
Your argument is contradictory. Surely you can see that being rushed and unable to devote your attention fully to a conversation is sub-optimal when compared to having the time to read a thread fully and to contemplate it at your leisure.
The problem is that this isn't always feasible.
I also don't think it's that unreasonable to say that casual readers have less investment in the site as a whole. That's kind of the definition of casual. That doesn't mean that their ways of interacting with the site are wrong or bad per se, just that they either don't have the time or inclination to get all hardcore about it, and that their patterns of use are going to be different.
It's like saying, for argument, that posting FPPs is the most important way to contribute to the site. Does that mean that people who never post any FPPs aren't making any important contributions? No. Does it mean that they're not making the most important contributions? Yes. Does that mean that it's likely that their contributions are, on the whole for that individual member, less important? Yes.
Casual readers are less important individually, because they contribute less, and more important collectively because there are more of them. And I'm kind of surprised how people are taking that discussion of abstract value really personally.
posted by klangklangston at 9:13 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Your argument is contradictory. Surely you can see that being rushed and unable to devote your attention fully to a conversation is sub-optimal when compared to having the time to read a thread fully and to contemplate it at your leisure.
The problem is that this isn't always feasible.
I also don't think it's that unreasonable to say that casual readers have less investment in the site as a whole. That's kind of the definition of casual. That doesn't mean that their ways of interacting with the site are wrong or bad per se, just that they either don't have the time or inclination to get all hardcore about it, and that their patterns of use are going to be different.
It's like saying, for argument, that posting FPPs is the most important way to contribute to the site. Does that mean that people who never post any FPPs aren't making any important contributions? No. Does it mean that they're not making the most important contributions? Yes. Does that mean that it's likely that their contributions are, on the whole for that individual member, less important? Yes.
Casual readers are less important individually, because they contribute less, and more important collectively because there are more of them. And I'm kind of surprised how people are taking that discussion of abstract value really personally.
posted by klangklangston at 9:13 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
We've been instructed by Matt to take an afternoon off for ourselves this week and do something very nice and offline that makes us happy, and I suggest that might be a good idea for a lot of people reading this thread as well.
You guys really want to run an experiment, how about you all take a day off? The same day. No site moderation for a whole day. See what happens. Doubles, self-links, obnoxious comments, malformed html, ignored callouts...it would be grand fun! There would be tears, fires, a death or three, and finally people could find out the best way to commit suicide.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:15 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
You guys really want to run an experiment, how about you all take a day off? The same day. No site moderation for a whole day. See what happens. Doubles, self-links, obnoxious comments, malformed html, ignored callouts...it would be grand fun! There would be tears, fires, a death or three, and finally people could find out the best way to commit suicide.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:15 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I've been thinking about the utility of how an improved favorite-count-obscured system could work, though for reasons of skimming/improved reading, I'm still hoping that favorite views will remain an option in December--and for reasons of nthing, that they'll be enabled by default on ask.metafilter (if different functionality is possible).
What if, by default, no count was visible, and every comment just had a little plus sign? Clicking on the plus might bring up a link that says "favorited"--and then, clicking on that link (or mousing over) might produce a link of others who have also favorited it. Under this model, perhaps, you'd still be able to see when other people favorite your comments, and high-favorite comments of contacts might still be side-barred, so the encouraging, community aspects of favoriting would remain intact by default, but the "echo chamber" effect that people (not me, but clearly others) see as problematic would be reduced: you wouldn't be able to tell that people "agreed" with you until you registered their agreement.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:17 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
What if, by default, no count was visible, and every comment just had a little plus sign? Clicking on the plus might bring up a link that says "favorited"--and then, clicking on that link (or mousing over) might produce a link of others who have also favorited it. Under this model, perhaps, you'd still be able to see when other people favorite your comments, and high-favorite comments of contacts might still be side-barred, so the encouraging, community aspects of favoriting would remain intact by default, but the "echo chamber" effect that people (not me, but clearly others) see as problematic would be reduced: you wouldn't be able to tell that people "agreed" with you until you registered their agreement.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:17 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
nomisxid, yep, that's how it's going to be in browsers link Lynx that don't understand CSS I'm afraid. If it gets too annoying we might start looking for those browsers and select one side of the experiment or the other to display.
posted by pb (staff) at 9:18 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by pb (staff) at 9:18 AM on November 2, 2009
Registered your agreement, rather.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:18 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:18 AM on November 2, 2009
I worry about what happens to a society that fails to reward wit.
But you don't worry about a society that equally rewards burps, fart jokes and catcalls?
posted by P.o.B. at 9:18 AM on November 2, 2009
But you don't worry about a society that equally rewards burps, fart jokes and catcalls?
posted by P.o.B. at 9:18 AM on November 2, 2009
"No site moderation for a whole day."
The rest of the consequences are fine, sure, but they can't do so, or nobody will be on duty to prevent a Tom Cruise post from appearing.
posted by majick at 9:19 AM on November 2, 2009
The rest of the consequences are fine, sure, but they can't do so, or nobody will be on duty to prevent a Tom Cruise post from appearing.
posted by majick at 9:19 AM on November 2, 2009
finally people could find out the best way to commit suicide.
I know this is a joke, I do, but as someone who wrote yet another "I see you've asked a question about suicide, we can't approve this for bla bla bla reasons but if you need someone to talk to, here is my personal phone number" types of emails this weekend I really wish I had a psychic mindbeam that could give you an idea of how the real world/online world barrier is very very different for some people than for others, and how people who goof with this sort of thing in "hey it's just a website!" ways often wind up creating real-world situations that they may have a hard time imagining are possible.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:20 AM on November 2, 2009 [28 favorites]
I know this is a joke, I do, but as someone who wrote yet another "I see you've asked a question about suicide, we can't approve this for bla bla bla reasons but if you need someone to talk to, here is my personal phone number" types of emails this weekend I really wish I had a psychic mindbeam that could give you an idea of how the real world/online world barrier is very very different for some people than for others, and how people who goof with this sort of thing in "hey it's just a website!" ways often wind up creating real-world situations that they may have a hard time imagining are possible.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:20 AM on November 2, 2009 [28 favorites]
"Can any of the "I'm willing to be miserable for a month" people explain their reasoning?
The only justifications I can conceive of for such a decision is that you feel you owe it to our much-abused mods in some way. And I doubt that this is how they view it."
Well, first off, I'm not miserable.
Second off, I'm curious about my relationship to the greater community.
Third off, my favorites are no longer really usable as bookmarks, and I'm wondering if I'll go back to getting that utility.
Fourth, I wonder if my behavior will change, and correspondingly, I wonder if community behavior will change, and if it does, how it will change.
Fifth, I don't really use the favorites in the way that most people are complaining about, the ability to skim. I skim just fine on my own, and tend to ignore all the byline info when I skim. (I certainly think it's a valid argument that other people do use them to skim, though I think that some of the folks here are using that as a more acceptable excuse than admitting that they're attention whores).
posted by klangklangston at 9:27 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
The only justifications I can conceive of for such a decision is that you feel you owe it to our much-abused mods in some way. And I doubt that this is how they view it."
Well, first off, I'm not miserable.
Second off, I'm curious about my relationship to the greater community.
Third off, my favorites are no longer really usable as bookmarks, and I'm wondering if I'll go back to getting that utility.
Fourth, I wonder if my behavior will change, and correspondingly, I wonder if community behavior will change, and if it does, how it will change.
Fifth, I don't really use the favorites in the way that most people are complaining about, the ability to skim. I skim just fine on my own, and tend to ignore all the byline info when I skim. (I certainly think it's a valid argument that other people do use them to skim, though I think that some of the folks here are using that as a more acceptable excuse than admitting that they're attention whores).
posted by klangklangston at 9:27 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
P.o.B.: "If you immediately just spit out anything at the first hint of bitterness or unpleasantness, how are you supposed gather new insights?"
Fair question.
I worked at acquiring a taste for beer because I knew that the vast majority of people considered the eventual benefits (i.e. cool refreshment, inebriation) worthwhile.
As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I believe that the number of people who thought any change to the favorites system was needed comprise an insignificant minority. Nor could they make a coherent claim for what I might eventually gain - as opposed to what I had immediately lost.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:29 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Fair question.
I worked at acquiring a taste for beer because I knew that the vast majority of people considered the eventual benefits (i.e. cool refreshment, inebriation) worthwhile.
As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I believe that the number of people who thought any change to the favorites system was needed comprise an insignificant minority. Nor could they make a coherent claim for what I might eventually gain - as opposed to what I had immediately lost.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:29 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
But this brings up my main issue with hydropsyche's and others' posts, and it is this: does my lack of time somehow invalidate my contributions to the site? Should I not be allowed to contribute simply because I haven't read every pertinent thing to the discussion, for fear of repeating things?
I don't believe this is true. I mean, I agree that someone who lacks time isn't automatically less valuable to the site than someone who does nothing but sit in front of the computer.
I've done and will do my share of skimming long threads sometimes, because, you know, life and stuff. But I'm also mindful of the fact that treating many-favorited comments as somehow representative of how a thread is going or what people are thinking (but not all saying) is not great. As has been repeatedly asserted here (and in other favorite-discussing meTas) people use favorites for a zillion different reasons. And in long threads especially, there may be lots of awesome comments that don't get favorited at all, or get one or two instead of a dozen, because long threads are long and a lot of people skim at least parts of them.
On preview: what klang said about why I'm probably going to leave favorites in the "invisible count" position for the month.
posted by rtha at 9:31 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't believe this is true. I mean, I agree that someone who lacks time isn't automatically less valuable to the site than someone who does nothing but sit in front of the computer.
I've done and will do my share of skimming long threads sometimes, because, you know, life and stuff. But I'm also mindful of the fact that treating many-favorited comments as somehow representative of how a thread is going or what people are thinking (but not all saying) is not great. As has been repeatedly asserted here (and in other favorite-discussing meTas) people use favorites for a zillion different reasons. And in long threads especially, there may be lots of awesome comments that don't get favorited at all, or get one or two instead of a dozen, because long threads are long and a lot of people skim at least parts of them.
On preview: what klang said about why I'm probably going to leave favorites in the "invisible count" position for the month.
posted by rtha at 9:31 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
(Thoughts from a barely-there metafilter user)
This change probably won't affect how I personally read the site because the popular favourites pages for metafilter and ask.metafilter posts are still there, still with favourite counts. I also subscribe to the RSS feed for popular metafilter comments across the site which also gives a nice overview of really stellar, highly favourited comments.
I find favourites helpful because they point me towards totally awesome posts and comments which would otherwise have been missed in a wall of text, rather than to get the jist of a discussion in a thread. For me -- and other metafilter users who use favourites this way, I'd wager -- the absence of in-thread favourite counts is not such a big deal. However I can see that if you are using favourites to keep track of the main comments in a discussion, the change might be a bit more disorientating.
I don't know if this is a good or bad change, but I actually quite like the way it looks, and I'm curious about the results.
And now I have spent half my lunchbreak writing a thread about the favorites policy in a website I barely ever contribute to. Blarg!
posted by the cat's pyjamas at 9:31 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
This change probably won't affect how I personally read the site because the popular favourites pages for metafilter and ask.metafilter posts are still there, still with favourite counts. I also subscribe to the RSS feed for popular metafilter comments across the site which also gives a nice overview of really stellar, highly favourited comments.
I find favourites helpful because they point me towards totally awesome posts and comments which would otherwise have been missed in a wall of text, rather than to get the jist of a discussion in a thread. For me -- and other metafilter users who use favourites this way, I'd wager -- the absence of in-thread favourite counts is not such a big deal. However I can see that if you are using favourites to keep track of the main comments in a discussion, the change might be a bit more disorientating.
I don't know if this is a good or bad change, but I actually quite like the way it looks, and I'm curious about the results.
And now I have spent half my lunchbreak writing a thread about the favorites policy in a website I barely ever contribute to. Blarg!
posted by the cat's pyjamas at 9:31 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
just want to register:
hate it. hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it.
hate it.
posted by shmegegge at 9:33 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
hate it. hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it.
hate it.
posted by shmegegge at 9:33 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Thanks very much for the on/off switch in preferences.
posted by everichon at 9:35 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by everichon at 9:35 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think the essential difference between this and, say, trying out editing is that editing is not predicated on an insult to the intelligence of the majority of users.
But sure, let's try it for a month. AND THEN UNDO IT AND NEVER SPEAK OF IT AGAIN.
posted by Artw at 9:38 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
But sure, let's try it for a month. AND THEN UNDO IT AND NEVER SPEAK OF IT AGAIN.
posted by Artw at 9:38 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Though the pissing about that has to be done to get the "opt out" to actually work did briefly tip me over into the FUCK THIS SHIT DECLARE IT A FAILURE AND GET RID OF IT RIGHT NOW camp this morning. You might want to look at ways of improving that.
posted by Artw at 9:40 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:40 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Can December's experiment be no label at all?
This horse! I beat him! He does not taste like raisins!
posted by cavalier at 9:43 AM on November 2, 2009
This horse! I beat him! He does not taste like raisins!
posted by cavalier at 9:43 AM on November 2, 2009
I think the essential difference between this and, say, trying out editing is that editing is not predicated on an insult to the intelligence of the majority of users.
This really, really isn't. I'm not sure how anyone can get to the notion of the experiment being predicated on any such thing from what we've actually said about this without inventing motivations from whole cloth.
You might want to look at ways of improving that.
We have, and did. Look at the top of the thread, or at the top of the front page of Metatalk.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:43 AM on November 2, 2009
This really, really isn't. I'm not sure how anyone can get to the notion of the experiment being predicated on any such thing from what we've actually said about this without inventing motivations from whole cloth.
You might want to look at ways of improving that.
We have, and did. Look at the top of the thread, or at the top of the front page of Metatalk.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:43 AM on November 2, 2009
I would disagree. The notion that the presence of the number provokes MeFites to act like jackasses because they don;t know any better is an insult to the intelligence of MeFites. I am perfectly capable of acting like a jackass without it, thank you very much.
We have, and did. Look at the top of the thread, or at the top of the front page of Metatalk.
So users don't have to to all the log-out, log-in crap to get the checkbox to actually work now? Because that was very annoying. You might want to extend that technology to backgrounds as well, which have always had the same problem.
posted by Artw at 9:47 AM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
We have, and did. Look at the top of the thread, or at the top of the front page of Metatalk.
So users don't have to to all the log-out, log-in crap to get the checkbox to actually work now? Because that was very annoying. You might want to extend that technology to backgrounds as well, which have always had the same problem.
posted by Artw at 9:47 AM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
I did a mock-up of what I meant here, because I suspect it wasn't clear, and, apparently, I don't want to get any work done today.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:49 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:49 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
So it seems to me I have to comment here, because otherwise there's no way for me to indicate that I'm number-free right not because I hate favorites... but instead because I don't wish to corrupt anyone else's experimental data.
Actually I liked having numbers and miss them very much. But I think the mods (or other people concerned about how the visibility of favorites affect the site) should get their numbers, or qualitative feelings, or whatever, too.
posted by nat at 9:50 AM on November 2, 2009
Actually I liked having numbers and miss them very much. But I think the mods (or other people concerned about how the visibility of favorites affect the site) should get their numbers, or qualitative feelings, or whatever, too.
posted by nat at 9:50 AM on November 2, 2009
The notion that the presence of the number provokes MeFites to act like jackasses because they don;t know any better is an insult to the intelligence of MeFites.
It is, but the only insult to your intelligence here comes from you holding that notion. The actual notion is that the presence of the number leads to intelligent decisions by individuals that leads to a negative effect overall. A tragedy of the commons type of thing.
You might want to extend that technology to backgrounds as well, which have always had the same problem.
It's a feature for me. I like having different backgrounds and font settings depending on which terminal I'm at. Should we yank it immediately to please the minority of you? (On top of that, I think it's good that there's a speedbump or two for opting out of this test. The more people who stay opted-in, the cleaner the results are).
Nor could they make a coherent claim for what I might eventually gain - as opposed to what I had immediately lost.
Well, after a month you would potentially have gained an insight into what the dynamic of the site was like without favouritism. There are people who say that favourites being on causes some posters to play to the gallery, enables people to skim threads they would otherwise have read, and leads to posters being ignored if they didn't garner enough favourites.
With favourites off, the contention is that you could gain a site with more engaged commenting, fewer non sequitor lulz and pile-ons that take more to achieve than the clicking of a single button. It's by no means a proven claim, which I suppose was the point of the test.
posted by fightorflight at 9:57 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
It is, but the only insult to your intelligence here comes from you holding that notion. The actual notion is that the presence of the number leads to intelligent decisions by individuals that leads to a negative effect overall. A tragedy of the commons type of thing.
You might want to extend that technology to backgrounds as well, which have always had the same problem.
It's a feature for me. I like having different backgrounds and font settings depending on which terminal I'm at. Should we yank it immediately to please the minority of you? (On top of that, I think it's good that there's a speedbump or two for opting out of this test. The more people who stay opted-in, the cleaner the results are).
Nor could they make a coherent claim for what I might eventually gain - as opposed to what I had immediately lost.
Well, after a month you would potentially have gained an insight into what the dynamic of the site was like without favouritism. There are people who say that favourites being on causes some posters to play to the gallery, enables people to skim threads they would otherwise have read, and leads to posters being ignored if they didn't garner enough favourites.
With favourites off, the contention is that you could gain a site with more engaged commenting, fewer non sequitor lulz and pile-ons that take more to achieve than the clicking of a single button. It's by no means a proven claim, which I suppose was the point of the test.
posted by fightorflight at 9:57 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
So users don't have to to all the log-out, log-in crap to get the checkbox to actually work now? Because that was very annoying. You might want to extend that technology to backgrounds as well, which have always had the same problem.
If you're having weirdness with preferences not taking, definitely drop us a bug report about it via the contact form; I'm not clear if you're having unusual trouble with how preferences work though or just want them to not be cookie-based the way they have been for years now.
I am perfectly capable of acting like a jackass without it, thank you very much.
Again, though, where have we declared anyone a jackass or said that this was some sort of hardline effort to punished what we perceived to be a direct causal relationship of jackassery, etc? You're reading a very harsh and negative motivation into what's been a pretty mildly and skeptically-presented experiment, is what I'm objecting to.
I think it's totally fine to question the usefulness of this or to disagree with the stated or perceived arguments for or against it, but don't go attributing motives or judgements to us that don't exist in plain fact, please.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:58 AM on November 2, 2009
If you're having weirdness with preferences not taking, definitely drop us a bug report about it via the contact form; I'm not clear if you're having unusual trouble with how preferences work though or just want them to not be cookie-based the way they have been for years now.
I am perfectly capable of acting like a jackass without it, thank you very much.
Again, though, where have we declared anyone a jackass or said that this was some sort of hardline effort to punished what we perceived to be a direct causal relationship of jackassery, etc? You're reading a very harsh and negative motivation into what's been a pretty mildly and skeptically-presented experiment, is what I'm objecting to.
I think it's totally fine to question the usefulness of this or to disagree with the stated or perceived arguments for or against it, but don't go attributing motives or judgements to us that don't exist in plain fact, please.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:58 AM on November 2, 2009
like_neon writes "I kind of like the idea of limiting the number of favorites you can have a day as a compromise, but that number will be a crapshoot. (I totally caught that comment by pure luck)"
They are already capped at 100.
grouse writes "Who thinks it should be changed? Mainly koeselitz. Also majick and a few other people I can't remember."
And those most insignificant of users cortex, jessamyn, mathowie, and pb. At least on a trial basis.
pyramid termite writes "community is something that happens from the bottom up - it can't be imposed from the top down, not online, where people always have a choice"
This is false on the face of it. The structure that Matt imposed lo so many years ago is directly responsible for what community we have here now. Metafilter would not exist as it is if Matt was running phpBB. Further augmented by the historical signup policy, mod policy and judicious use of the banhammer.
"It might be worth a sitewide MeFi Mail to let people know about the new favorites preference."
Ugh, please no. How much collective time would that waste for every active member to have to deal with that MetaMail? It's not like this is some stealthy change. If you're so disconnected from the community that you need an email to figure this stuff out or an email where to get updates on changes you should have to deal with the defaults administration sets for you. It's not tough; there is a banner at the top of Meta.
Slenny writes "While I realize the world is not static, this feature was included in the package that I paid $5 for. Adding features is great, but removing them from a paid service is not so cool."
And the worst part about the $5 sign up fee, the sense of entitlement people somehow wring from it, rears it's head again. The $5 neither guarantees nor buys you anything, not even an account. Matt could decide this afternoon to ban you for what ever transgression he felt worthy of a banning and you would be gone.
posted by Mitheral at 9:58 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
They are already capped at 100.
grouse writes "Who thinks it should be changed? Mainly koeselitz. Also majick and a few other people I can't remember."
And those most insignificant of users cortex, jessamyn, mathowie, and pb. At least on a trial basis.
pyramid termite writes "community is something that happens from the bottom up - it can't be imposed from the top down, not online, where people always have a choice"
This is false on the face of it. The structure that Matt imposed lo so many years ago is directly responsible for what community we have here now. Metafilter would not exist as it is if Matt was running phpBB. Further augmented by the historical signup policy, mod policy and judicious use of the banhammer.
"It might be worth a sitewide MeFi Mail to let people know about the new favorites preference."
Ugh, please no. How much collective time would that waste for every active member to have to deal with that MetaMail? It's not like this is some stealthy change. If you're so disconnected from the community that you need an email to figure this stuff out or an email where to get updates on changes you should have to deal with the defaults administration sets for you. It's not tough; there is a banner at the top of Meta.
Slenny writes "While I realize the world is not static, this feature was included in the package that I paid $5 for. Adding features is great, but removing them from a paid service is not so cool."
And the worst part about the $5 sign up fee, the sense of entitlement people somehow wring from it, rears it's head again. The $5 neither guarantees nor buys you anything, not even an account. Matt could decide this afternoon to ban you for what ever transgression he felt worthy of a banning and you would be gone.
posted by Mitheral at 9:58 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yesterday I thought all these posts had one favourite. Now I think they have 2. The date is so close!
posted by fightorflight at 9:59 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by fightorflight at 9:59 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I tried it, disliked it, opted out. Thanks mods!
posted by StrikeTheViol at 10:00 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by StrikeTheViol at 10:00 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
It is, but the only insult to your intelligence here comes from you holding that notion. The actual notion is that the presence of the number leads to intelligent decisions by individuals that leads to a negative effect overall. A tragedy of the commons type of thing.
Oh, so the problem is not that we are sheeple, it's that we are morally corrupt? Thanks!
You're reading a very harsh and negative motivation into what's been a pretty mildly and skeptically-presented experiment, is what I'm objecting to.
Hey, good on you for running an experiment . But the theory that your experiment is based on is espoused by snobby jerkwads who consider other users to be stupid, sheeple, or corrupt. That's why you are getting the response you are getting.
I'm not clear if you're having unusual trouble with how preferences work though or just want them to not be cookie-based the way they have been for years now.
And that's usually pretty benign, occasionally resulting in minor annoyances like background colour preferences not being carried over. This morning however it resulted in my turning of a feature that annoyed the crap out of me not carrying over, so it was a bigger deal.
posted by Artw at 10:08 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Oh, so the problem is not that we are sheeple, it's that we are morally corrupt? Thanks!
You're reading a very harsh and negative motivation into what's been a pretty mildly and skeptically-presented experiment, is what I'm objecting to.
Hey, good on you for running an experiment . But the theory that your experiment is based on is espoused by snobby jerkwads who consider other users to be stupid, sheeple, or corrupt. That's why you are getting the response you are getting.
I'm not clear if you're having unusual trouble with how preferences work though or just want them to not be cookie-based the way they have been for years now.
And that's usually pretty benign, occasionally resulting in minor annoyances like background colour preferences not being carried over. This morning however it resulted in my turning of a feature that annoyed the crap out of me not carrying over, so it was a bigger deal.
posted by Artw at 10:08 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
As cortex and jessamyn have mentioned several times, the word "faved" was our least-objectionable choice after agonizing for a while over how to reduce the visual weight of favorites in the byline. We honestly didn't realize it would be so hated, and we'd like to replace it. However, as part of this experiment, we don't want to introduce a new word such as "marked", "noted", or "beaned" that could bring a whole host of unintended connotations to the table. So we'd like to stick with "favorite" and all of the baggage that term has both gathered and shed here over the years.
With that in mind, we're thinking about moving toward "has favorites" in place of "faved" with every other aspect of the experiment staying the same. If there are any strong objections to this change, please let us know here. Thanks, and thanks for all of the feedback so far.
posted by pb (staff) at 10:17 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
With that in mind, we're thinking about moving toward "has favorites" in place of "faved" with every other aspect of the experiment staying the same. If there are any strong objections to this change, please let us know here. Thanks, and thanks for all of the feedback so far.
posted by pb (staff) at 10:17 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
FYI: the numbers option seems not to work on the iPhone.
Hang in there, mods! Have an angry cupcake.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:17 AM on November 2, 2009
Hang in there, mods! Have an angry cupcake.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:17 AM on November 2, 2009
Oh, so the problem is not that we are sheeple, it's that we are morally corrupt? Thanks!
You're trying really hard to put a negative spin on the motivations that just aren't there. There's not really a clear moral line about negative things that arise in aggregate from neutral or even morally good individual actions.
But the theory that your experiment is based on is espoused by snobby jerkwads who consider other users to be stupid, sheeple, or corrupt. That's why you are getting the response you are getting.
You're projecting way too much. Instead of leaping on the high horse to accuse people of holding a theory that thinks of you as stupid and so forth, try instead not viewing them as snobby jerkwards and then considering if they might conceivably hold an image of you that isn't totally derogatory. At least, one that wasn't at the start, anyway. Principle of charity, etc.
To put it another way: to just assume that this theory is an insult to you, is in fact an insult to others; others who have tried to be reasonable in outlining their thinking to boot.
posted by fightorflight at 10:17 AM on November 2, 2009
You're trying really hard to put a negative spin on the motivations that just aren't there. There's not really a clear moral line about negative things that arise in aggregate from neutral or even morally good individual actions.
But the theory that your experiment is based on is espoused by snobby jerkwads who consider other users to be stupid, sheeple, or corrupt. That's why you are getting the response you are getting.
You're projecting way too much. Instead of leaping on the high horse to accuse people of holding a theory that thinks of you as stupid and so forth, try instead not viewing them as snobby jerkwards and then considering if they might conceivably hold an image of you that isn't totally derogatory. At least, one that wasn't at the start, anyway. Principle of charity, etc.
To put it another way: to just assume that this theory is an insult to you, is in fact an insult to others; others who have tried to be reasonable in outlining their thinking to boot.
posted by fightorflight at 10:17 AM on November 2, 2009
After reading more of the reasoning and sleeping on it, I think it is a valid experiment and my whole problem was the half-assed you-can-use-greasemonkey stuff that was meant to be a compromise to placate folks, but turned out to be a surprising sore point.
I think if you guys want to do this, and I see why you do, you should do it all the way by not showing "faves" at all and just removing that information for everyone. [I know it's probably too late.]
posted by fritley at 10:21 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think if you guys want to do this, and I see why you do, you should do it all the way by not showing "faves" at all and just removing that information for everyone. [I know it's probably too late.]
posted by fritley at 10:21 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
If there are any strong objections to this change, please let us know here.
NO MORE CHANGE! CHANGE BAD!!! CHANGE HURT BRAIN OF SIMPLE USER!
posted by JeffK at 10:21 AM on November 2, 2009
NO MORE CHANGE! CHANGE BAD!!! CHANGE HURT BRAIN OF SIMPLE USER!
posted by JeffK at 10:21 AM on November 2, 2009
gnfti, did you go into your prefs and save them on the iPhone? The MeFi preferences are cookie-based, so the only way to set them is by saving your preferences or logging in/out for each browser you use.
posted by pb (staff) at 10:24 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by pb (staff) at 10:24 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: you would be gone.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 10:24 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by flapjax at midnite at 10:24 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
fightorflight - I;m sorry, but you just seem to be handwaving. Even it;s predicated on visible favourites having some kind of effect on users that is negative and that users can't possibly handle, in which case it is an insult, or or it isn;t, in which case what is the point? None that anyone has put forwards.
So either it is an insult, or it is pointless. And given that, I've changed my mind. I don't think it should be allowed to run and then changed back, I want it gone as soon as possible. Thanks!
posted by Artw at 10:28 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
So either it is an insult, or it is pointless. And given that, I've changed my mind. I don't think it should be allowed to run and then changed back, I want it gone as soon as possible. Thanks!
posted by Artw at 10:28 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
gnfti, did you go into your prefs and save them on the iPhone? The MeFi preferences are cookie-based, so the only way to set them is by saving your preferences or logging in/out for each browser you use.
To clarify my point above re: The preference setting, that is exactly the kind of thing I found annoying.
posted by Artw at 10:29 AM on November 2, 2009
To clarify my point above re: The preference setting, that is exactly the kind of thing I found annoying.
posted by Artw at 10:29 AM on November 2, 2009
Oh, so the problem is not that we are sheeple, it's that we are morally corrupt? Thanks!
Look, it's not an insult. It's nature. Gameplay is an inherent trait that's been demonstrated not only in humans but in other animals as well. It is just what we are.
And while you'll go, oh, I NEVER do that, how DARE you insult me, well, if you think long and hard you've probably done it. You make a good comment, it gets 20 favorites, you feel satisfaction. This ever so slightly affects your behavior.
I'm firmly in the pro-experiment group, but I'm not anti-favorites. What I want is to see how we can improve the way we play the game. If this experiment returns any information that's helpful in refining the rules, awesome. If not, well, it's just 30 days and you can opt out long before.
But I hear a lot of the anger here as "The mods are changing the rules -- how dare they!" Over the last three years the community has learned, embraced, and exploited the rules of the game. Now that someone suggests that maybe that game isn't 100% beneficial, there's a betrayal.
Another thing I learned about Flickr -- they used to have a page ranking photos by "interestingness." Soon people figured out the "favoriteness" algorithm and began to exploit it. Soon it was a daily race to the top, one that was more about winning the game, not creating interesting photos.
Their solution: Eliminate the rankings. Now the "interestingness" page pulls nine random images that have met the "interestingness" threshold. Refresh the page, nine new ones. With gameplay eliminated, users reported an improved experience. Of course, the ones playing the game were irate.
Taking the count off favorites is an experiment to see if there is gameplay and whether removing the number affects it. I'm interesting as well to see if it obviates the Katamari Damancy effect as well with comments -- that is, them that's got favorites get more favorites.
posted by dw at 10:29 AM on November 2, 2009 [12 favorites]
Look, it's not an insult. It's nature. Gameplay is an inherent trait that's been demonstrated not only in humans but in other animals as well. It is just what we are.
And while you'll go, oh, I NEVER do that, how DARE you insult me, well, if you think long and hard you've probably done it. You make a good comment, it gets 20 favorites, you feel satisfaction. This ever so slightly affects your behavior.
I'm firmly in the pro-experiment group, but I'm not anti-favorites. What I want is to see how we can improve the way we play the game. If this experiment returns any information that's helpful in refining the rules, awesome. If not, well, it's just 30 days and you can opt out long before.
But I hear a lot of the anger here as "The mods are changing the rules -- how dare they!" Over the last three years the community has learned, embraced, and exploited the rules of the game. Now that someone suggests that maybe that game isn't 100% beneficial, there's a betrayal.
Another thing I learned about Flickr -- they used to have a page ranking photos by "interestingness." Soon people figured out the "favoriteness" algorithm and began to exploit it. Soon it was a daily race to the top, one that was more about winning the game, not creating interesting photos.
Their solution: Eliminate the rankings. Now the "interestingness" page pulls nine random images that have met the "interestingness" threshold. Refresh the page, nine new ones. With gameplay eliminated, users reported an improved experience. Of course, the ones playing the game were irate.
Taking the count off favorites is an experiment to see if there is gameplay and whether removing the number affects it. I'm interesting as well to see if it obviates the Katamari Damancy effect as well with comments -- that is, them that's got favorites get more favorites.
posted by dw at 10:29 AM on November 2, 2009 [12 favorites]
I hate the change. Being able to see which comments have lots of favorites makes the site easier to use, adds tremendously to the sense of community, and provides a game-like incentive for participation.
The one-bit "faved/not-faved" dichotomy is almost useless, since such a high number of comments will be favorited by someone.
If you do want favorites to be used as solely as a personal bookmarking system, and not as "whuffie," then there's no reason to display "faved" at all. It's just confusing.
posted by designbot at 10:31 AM on November 2, 2009
The one-bit "faved/not-faved" dichotomy is almost useless, since such a high number of comments will be favorited by someone.
If you do want favorites to be used as solely as a personal bookmarking system, and not as "whuffie," then there's no reason to display "faved" at all. It's just confusing.
posted by designbot at 10:31 AM on November 2, 2009
Of course! That worked, pb, thanks.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:32 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:32 AM on November 2, 2009
cortex: "Again, though, where have we declared anyone a jackass or said that this was some sort of hardline effort to punished what we perceived to be a direct causal relationship of jackassery, etc?"
in truth, I'm not sure what the perceived problem is that this is supposed to solve. I wouldn't go so far as to phrase it how some people have, (for example, to curtail jackass-ery) but I've read your comments, and I can't figure out what the motivation is. I'm totally sure you guys are being thoughtful and are not approaching this from the perspective of not trusting the users. So let me just be totally clear about that. I'm absolutely positive you guys have the best intentions about this. But I'd like to note that I still don't get what the problem is. I've seen the many conversations about favorite count, and my understanding of the conversation as it has existed is that some users feel the favorite count contributes to what I'll reluctantly call "favorite whoring" for lack of a better term. call it jackassery or whatever, but it seems to me that the idea is to see what happens when people don't see a number they can try to raise through snark or low hanging fruit. if that's not the goal, then I don't know what the goal is. maybe that's just my thick headedness, but I feel like the goal maybe hasn't been expressed as clearly as it could be, though you've obviously been trying to be as clear as you can be.
posted by shmegegge at 10:35 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
in truth, I'm not sure what the perceived problem is that this is supposed to solve. I wouldn't go so far as to phrase it how some people have, (for example, to curtail jackass-ery) but I've read your comments, and I can't figure out what the motivation is. I'm totally sure you guys are being thoughtful and are not approaching this from the perspective of not trusting the users. So let me just be totally clear about that. I'm absolutely positive you guys have the best intentions about this. But I'd like to note that I still don't get what the problem is. I've seen the many conversations about favorite count, and my understanding of the conversation as it has existed is that some users feel the favorite count contributes to what I'll reluctantly call "favorite whoring" for lack of a better term. call it jackassery or whatever, but it seems to me that the idea is to see what happens when people don't see a number they can try to raise through snark or low hanging fruit. if that's not the goal, then I don't know what the goal is. maybe that's just my thick headedness, but I feel like the goal maybe hasn't been expressed as clearly as it could be, though you've obviously been trying to be as clear as you can be.
posted by shmegegge at 10:35 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
dw - I'd have been amenable to the argument regarding letting it run as an experiment beofre all the sanctimonious bullshit and handwaving . Post sanctimonious bullshit I am not. It breaks the site. There is no good reason for it. It should go.
posted by Artw at 10:36 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by Artw at 10:36 AM on November 2, 2009
YAY for no more "faved"!!
I've probably spent too much time thinking about this in the last 24 hours or so, but here's what's been said that makes sense to me, so far:
People have argued that favorites are useful for:
In terms of the experiment itself, while I'm glad the the opt-out has decreased GRAR levels, offering an opt-out creates two distinct groups of users on Metafilter, which I find myself uneasy about, although I'm not sure why. My initial reaction is that I would rather not see this particular state of affairs become permanent, as new sign-ups and less frequent users would likely find themselves in the non-switch-throwing group (for whatever effect throwing the switch has) out of lack of familiarity with the site, which strikes me as unfair.
Using favorites as a skimming aid wasn't a function I had thought of before, and has been the one I've been thinking most about. Maybe it's just because I spent a lot of time as an internet n00b on Television Without Pity, where not reading the thread before commenting was grounds for an forced time-out, but it irks me to see a comment start with "I didn't read the whole thread, but..." because (and I realize this is my own opinion and reaction) that seems disrespectful to me. I assume the people who do it see it as being honest about their level of engagement, but I see it as the equivalent of admitting that someone hasn't been listening to a conversation but is going to have their say, regardless. The easy out for this would be to not say "I haven't read the thread". The more contentious would be disabling people's skimming-enabling tool. But TWoP didn't have favorites, and people still commented without reading the whole thread - they were just (generally) smart about how they did it. For now, I don't think using favorites as a tool to smarter skimming is a bad thing, particularly if it helps people decide whether they want to read a thread in more depth or not before commenting. I strongly support reading the whole thread before commenting, although interestingly, before this thread got started, I don't think I had seen this articulated as a community norm or ideal on MetaFilter - it's something I do here because I'd carried over the etiquette from a different community I admired.
Personally, I think the arguments against favorites are good ones and need to be considered, but I'm not persuaded that the negative effects of favorites outweigh their utility. I also don't think we've yet hit on a proposal for a different approach that, in theory, maximizes the positive effects of favoriting while minimizing the negative effects, and I think that stems from the fact that we haven't quite yet gotten from "BOO CHANGE / YAY CHANGE and this is why I feel that way" to discussing what negative effects we want to minimize, what positive effects we want to maximize, and whether we're willing to make sacrifices on one side or the other. I haven't yet seen a proposal that will maximize all the positive effects of favorites while minimizing all the negative effects of favorites (and given the complexity of how favorites function, I tend to doubt that ideal solution is achieveable). I don't expect that to happen soon, or in this thread, necessarily, but I do hope it takes place within the next month or so, and I think it'll be fascinating.
Now, if only there was a system for favoriting inside comments to facilitate skimming through long-winded comments ... no, no, I kid mods, I kid. Hugs?
posted by EvaDestruction at 10:36 AM on November 2, 2009 [18 favorites]
I've probably spent too much time thinking about this in the last 24 hours or so, but here's what's been said that makes sense to me, so far:
People have argued that favorites are useful for:
- Getting an overview of the conversation in large threads (with the caveat that it's still generally considered good manners to read all of the comments in a long thread before commenting yourself).
- Keeping a conversation relatively noise-free by reducing the number of "I agree with x, and don't really have much else to add" comments.
- Supporting commenters in contentious threads who are taking a minority position.
- Providing newer commenters feedback on what kind of comments are appreciated by other community members.
- Providing the closest thing we're going to get to non-verbal indications of engagement with and agreement in the conversation.
- Encouraging the propagation of memes on the site. Things like "Metafilter: xxxxxxx" may well die sooner (and/or have more of a wave pattern in frequency of appearance, rather than being more-or-less constant features) if they didn't get easy affirmation through favorites.
- Rewarding people who make cutting but funny remarks in contentious threads.
- Providing facile indicator in contentious threads of what the minority and majority viewpoints are, regardless of the quality of those viewpoints.
- Creating a sense that MetaFilter participation is a popularity contest.
In terms of the experiment itself, while I'm glad the the opt-out has decreased GRAR levels, offering an opt-out creates two distinct groups of users on Metafilter, which I find myself uneasy about, although I'm not sure why. My initial reaction is that I would rather not see this particular state of affairs become permanent, as new sign-ups and less frequent users would likely find themselves in the non-switch-throwing group (for whatever effect throwing the switch has) out of lack of familiarity with the site, which strikes me as unfair.
Using favorites as a skimming aid wasn't a function I had thought of before, and has been the one I've been thinking most about. Maybe it's just because I spent a lot of time as an internet n00b on Television Without Pity, where not reading the thread before commenting was grounds for an forced time-out, but it irks me to see a comment start with "I didn't read the whole thread, but..." because (and I realize this is my own opinion and reaction) that seems disrespectful to me. I assume the people who do it see it as being honest about their level of engagement, but I see it as the equivalent of admitting that someone hasn't been listening to a conversation but is going to have their say, regardless. The easy out for this would be to not say "I haven't read the thread". The more contentious would be disabling people's skimming-enabling tool. But TWoP didn't have favorites, and people still commented without reading the whole thread - they were just (generally) smart about how they did it. For now, I don't think using favorites as a tool to smarter skimming is a bad thing, particularly if it helps people decide whether they want to read a thread in more depth or not before commenting. I strongly support reading the whole thread before commenting, although interestingly, before this thread got started, I don't think I had seen this articulated as a community norm or ideal on MetaFilter - it's something I do here because I'd carried over the etiquette from a different community I admired.
Personally, I think the arguments against favorites are good ones and need to be considered, but I'm not persuaded that the negative effects of favorites outweigh their utility. I also don't think we've yet hit on a proposal for a different approach that, in theory, maximizes the positive effects of favoriting while minimizing the negative effects, and I think that stems from the fact that we haven't quite yet gotten from "BOO CHANGE / YAY CHANGE and this is why I feel that way" to discussing what negative effects we want to minimize, what positive effects we want to maximize, and whether we're willing to make sacrifices on one side or the other. I haven't yet seen a proposal that will maximize all the positive effects of favorites while minimizing all the negative effects of favorites (and given the complexity of how favorites function, I tend to doubt that ideal solution is achieveable). I don't expect that to happen soon, or in this thread, necessarily, but I do hope it takes place within the next month or so, and I think it'll be fascinating.
Now, if only there was a system for favoriting inside comments to facilitate skimming through long-winded comments ... no, no, I kid mods, I kid. Hugs?
posted by EvaDestruction at 10:36 AM on November 2, 2009 [18 favorites]
Even it;s predicated on visible favourites having some kind of effect on users that is negative and that users can't possibly handle, in which case it is an insult, or or it isn;t, in which case what is the point? None that anyone has put forwards.
No, it's predicated on an idea that visible favourites have an emergent effect that is negative and that may be inextricably connected to visible scores. The point is to test whether this connection is true, and if it is whether taking favourites away really ruins the site for people and causes more damage than just having them there.
There's really no insult, and stretching to see one is taking you way off the reservation into semicolon-nutso land.
on preview: dw puts this really well. I hadn't thought about the Flickr connection, but it's a good one.
posted by fightorflight at 10:37 AM on November 2, 2009
No, it's predicated on an idea that visible favourites have an emergent effect that is negative and that may be inextricably connected to visible scores. The point is to test whether this connection is true, and if it is whether taking favourites away really ruins the site for people and causes more damage than just having them there.
There's really no insult, and stretching to see one is taking you way off the reservation into semicolon-nutso land.
on preview: dw puts this really well. I hadn't thought about the Flickr connection, but it's a good one.
posted by fightorflight at 10:37 AM on November 2, 2009
There is so much going on in here but I'll work on replying and I hope I haven't missed anything.
Your argument is contradictory. Surely you can see that being rushed and unable to devote your attention fully to a conversation is sub-optimal when compared to having the time to read a thread fully and to contemplate it at your leisure.
Of course it's sub-optimal. But as you said, sitting down and digesting for three hours before posting isn't feasible. I don't understand where people are wanting to draw this line. When does 'not quite engaging in a conversation' become hydropsyche's 'really engaging in a conversation'?
Nothing said so far negates the fact that, as a casual reader, I might still have some very valuable things to contribute, and I don't like the way this is being discussed by a few as saying that casual readers are not really contributing to the conversation. Of course there are scenarios where this is true, but by the tone of these posts it seems the assumption is being made that all casual readers are the type who drop a one-off of little value in the thread (perhaps inflammatory) and leave, never to respond or return.
What I'm saying is that, by ragging on all of the people who use the skim-and-post or skim-reread-and-post method and lumping them into the group of 'shouters' or whatever else we've been called, people are failing to acknowledge that the casual readers no doubt contribute a lot to this site, even if they don't read the entire thread. A good example might be when you see a post related to your profession, take 30 minutes to read the article, and then only have 30 minutes to post. Could a doctor post an amazing and comprehensive comment on a medical thread if s/he had more time? Of course. Can they always do that? Hell no. Invalidating responses because of the way a person reads the thread seems a little strange to me.
So I pose the question just to draw attention to the fact that the skimmers should not be equivalent to shouters: is it better to have limited input from someone like this doctor, or to have no input at all?
And bringing this back to the topic at hand, what exactly does this have to do with favorites, anyway? This link is still missing for me. It sounds like people are saying that shouters are the favewhores who are causing the problems, and now it sounds like people are making the connection that skimmers are shouters, and I beg to differ. So please, anyone, spell out to me how favorites come into the equation. I am seriously having trouble making the connection.
I also don't think it's that unreasonable to say that casual readers have less investment in the site as a whole.
Fine and good. But I disagree that FPPs are the most important contributions. They're more of a jumping-off point to the real discussion, to me. I like hearing people's reactions to it, or else I'd just read the FPP and be done with it. Good threads can, I think, stand alone with the comments and not even need the FPP when it's all said and done.
Anyway. All of that's beside the point. Are skimmers the problem? If they aren't, why are we bitching so much about them? And if so, will changing the favorite system fix it?
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 10:37 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Your argument is contradictory. Surely you can see that being rushed and unable to devote your attention fully to a conversation is sub-optimal when compared to having the time to read a thread fully and to contemplate it at your leisure.
Of course it's sub-optimal. But as you said, sitting down and digesting for three hours before posting isn't feasible. I don't understand where people are wanting to draw this line. When does 'not quite engaging in a conversation' become hydropsyche's 'really engaging in a conversation'?
Nothing said so far negates the fact that, as a casual reader, I might still have some very valuable things to contribute, and I don't like the way this is being discussed by a few as saying that casual readers are not really contributing to the conversation. Of course there are scenarios where this is true, but by the tone of these posts it seems the assumption is being made that all casual readers are the type who drop a one-off of little value in the thread (perhaps inflammatory) and leave, never to respond or return.
What I'm saying is that, by ragging on all of the people who use the skim-and-post or skim-reread-and-post method and lumping them into the group of 'shouters' or whatever else we've been called, people are failing to acknowledge that the casual readers no doubt contribute a lot to this site, even if they don't read the entire thread. A good example might be when you see a post related to your profession, take 30 minutes to read the article, and then only have 30 minutes to post. Could a doctor post an amazing and comprehensive comment on a medical thread if s/he had more time? Of course. Can they always do that? Hell no. Invalidating responses because of the way a person reads the thread seems a little strange to me.
So I pose the question just to draw attention to the fact that the skimmers should not be equivalent to shouters: is it better to have limited input from someone like this doctor, or to have no input at all?
And bringing this back to the topic at hand, what exactly does this have to do with favorites, anyway? This link is still missing for me. It sounds like people are saying that shouters are the favewhores who are causing the problems, and now it sounds like people are making the connection that skimmers are shouters, and I beg to differ. So please, anyone, spell out to me how favorites come into the equation. I am seriously having trouble making the connection.
I also don't think it's that unreasonable to say that casual readers have less investment in the site as a whole.
Fine and good. But I disagree that FPPs are the most important contributions. They're more of a jumping-off point to the real discussion, to me. I like hearing people's reactions to it, or else I'd just read the FPP and be done with it. Good threads can, I think, stand alone with the comments and not even need the FPP when it's all said and done.
Anyway. All of that's beside the point. Are skimmers the problem? If they aren't, why are we bitching so much about them? And if so, will changing the favorite system fix it?
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 10:37 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
cortex: "It's kind of a given that some folks will be idiosyncratic about any given feature, whether it's favoriting or flagging or commenting or what they do with their profile page or whatever."
I'm sure you guys have considered what I'm about to say. I'll say it anyway: It has occurred to you that this version of the feature makes it easier for a single user to devalue all favorites, yeah? Are you concerned with the extra effort to moderate favorites in that respect going forward, should this feature become more lasting? What are your thoughts about that possibility, not as a matter of griefing, but as a matter of people's natural tendency to muddy aggregate information? am I making sense when I ask this question? if needed, I'll happily clarify what I'm getting at.
posted by shmegegge at 10:39 AM on November 2, 2009
I'm sure you guys have considered what I'm about to say. I'll say it anyway: It has occurred to you that this version of the feature makes it easier for a single user to devalue all favorites, yeah? Are you concerned with the extra effort to moderate favorites in that respect going forward, should this feature become more lasting? What are your thoughts about that possibility, not as a matter of griefing, but as a matter of people's natural tendency to muddy aggregate information? am I making sense when I ask this question? if needed, I'll happily clarify what I'm getting at.
posted by shmegegge at 10:39 AM on November 2, 2009
Who is this "Faved" and what has he done to my egoboos?
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:40 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:40 AM on November 2, 2009
I've thought about this a lot more too. I'm going to hang in there and see what happens with this experiment. There may be some hidden upsides that I'm currently blind to, because I'm focusing on what's 'lost'.
It's like when you move. You're sitting there wondering where your table will go because it seems soooo perfect in the room you were used to. You get to the new place and the table doesn't fit at all, but what do you know, the couch was like, MADE for it. And hey look, there's a mail slot in the front door! Neat!
So, anyways, change is good. Change back is good too. It's the internet and there's lots of other stuff in life to worry about too. We can all learn a lot from this. And shit people, let's not take the internet so seriously, k? The point has been made, we're beating our heads against a dead horse, the kittens out of the bag can't go back in the cat, and the milk is always free after a $5 deposit, same as in town.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:42 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
It's like when you move. You're sitting there wondering where your table will go because it seems soooo perfect in the room you were used to. You get to the new place and the table doesn't fit at all, but what do you know, the couch was like, MADE for it. And hey look, there's a mail slot in the front door! Neat!
So, anyways, change is good. Change back is good too. It's the internet and there's lots of other stuff in life to worry about too. We can all learn a lot from this. And shit people, let's not take the internet so seriously, k? The point has been made, we're beating our heads against a dead horse, the kittens out of the bag can't go back in the cat, and the milk is always free after a $5 deposit, same as in town.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:42 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm just posting to say that I ate the plums -- whoa, try again -- to say that I like PhoBWanKenobi's alternative as shown in this mockup .
Her original explanation (quoted from here ):
What if, by default, no count was visible, and every comment just had a little plus sign? Clicking on the plus might bring up a link that says "favorited"--and then, clicking on that link (or mousing over) might produce a link of others who have also favorited it. Under this model, perhaps, you'd still be able to see when other people favorite your comments, and high-favorite comments of contacts might still be side-barred, so the encouraging, community aspects of favoriting would remain intact by default, but the "echo chamber" effect that people (not me, but clearly others) see as problematic would be reduced: you wouldn't be able to tell that people "agreed" with you until you registered their agreement.On the one hand, I love mouseovers -- more info! more info! -- but maybe removing that element would mean that people who honestly and independently like a comment can favourite it, then see who else shares their opinion only after they commit. That would help me on my outlier hunt, and those of us who also like finding crowdsourced posts and comments would still have the sidebar and the Popular Favorites page.
And it would remove the distracting and near-meaningless "faved" on everything with 1 to n favourites.
I think there's some herdlike behaviour and granfalloonery going on in favourites, and that people can be such favourite aficionados that the quality of their comments can suffer. I'm just not yet convinced that it's a large enough problem that dumping favourites entirely would be a net plus.
posted by maudlin at 10:44 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
dw - I'd have been amenable to the argument regarding letting it run as an experiment beofre all the sanctimonious bullshit and handwaving . Post sanctimonious bullshit I am not. It breaks the site. There is no good reason for it. It should go.
Actually in the light of follow on comments which do absolutely nothing to lessen my concerns modify my position: I absolutely do not want anything to do with this "experiential" being carried in order to appease a minority of users who clearly do not like or trust other users, and as such I would like my account to be suspended for it's duration. Thank you.
posted by Artw at 10:49 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Actually in the light of follow on comments which do absolutely nothing to lessen my concerns modify my position: I absolutely do not want anything to do with this "experiential" being carried in order to appease a minority of users who clearly do not like or trust other users, and as such I would like my account to be suspended for it's duration. Thank you.
posted by Artw at 10:49 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Suspend your own account. Jesus.
posted by enn at 10:54 AM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by enn at 10:54 AM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I believe that the number of people who thought any change to the favorites system was needed comprise an insignificant minority. Nor could they make a coherent claim for what I might eventually gain - as opposed to what I had immediately lost.
Well, the first assertion is absolutely wrong and has been reiterated by the mods a few times here. Your second assertion is your opinion, which is fine but doesn't make other opinions any less valid.
posted by P.o.B. at 10:54 AM on November 2, 2009
Well, the first assertion is absolutely wrong and has been reiterated by the mods a few times here. Your second assertion is your opinion, which is fine but doesn't make other opinions any less valid.
posted by P.o.B. at 10:54 AM on November 2, 2009
anthill: What if the option of enabling or disabling favorites was made by thread original posters, on a thread-by-thread basis? If flat, un-echoed conversation was wanted, the OP could disable favorites. If the OP thinks that a spiky, consensus-driven format better suits the material, they could turn them on. Obviously some context to guide the choice would be needed (and difficult to devise)
An interesting idea. Certainly in terms of this experiment, randomly selecting threads that just don't have favorites at all would be a much cleaner approach.
vapiddave: Removing favorites from the sight of the poster|commenter (mentioned above) would maintain the utility of favorites while removing the reward craved by the demagogues. No one would complain because no one engages in that here.
Half of the problem with favorites is people trying to up their popularity count ticker another notch or 50. What are the benefits of having the "favorited by others" popularity count visible?
hawthorne: If the mob mentality is the root of concern, report favourites as whole numbers, but count them so that they have positive but diminishing marginal value.
I initially liked this idea myself, but I don't think it will actually make any difference. As long as the score is monotonically increasing, people will see right through any attempt at non-linear scaling.
anifinder: For 24 hours after the post is made, comment favorites are invisible in the thread to all users by default. [...] After 24 hours, the favorites become visible
This would be a huge improvement in the favorites system.
Anonymized: While I realize the world is not static, this feature was included in the package that I paid $5 for. Adding features is great, but removing them from a paid service is not so cool.
This idea has come up a couple of times in thread. I wondered if it was just a joke, but it doesn't appear to be. I'm astonished that people are letting it stand without more comment and derision. Doesn't anyone remember the uproar here?
posted by Chuckles at 10:55 AM on November 2, 2009
An interesting idea. Certainly in terms of this experiment, randomly selecting threads that just don't have favorites at all would be a much cleaner approach.
vapiddave: Removing favorites from the sight of the poster|commenter (mentioned above) would maintain the utility of favorites while removing the reward craved by the demagogues. No one would complain because no one engages in that here.
Half of the problem with favorites is people trying to up their popularity count ticker another notch or 50. What are the benefits of having the "favorited by others" popularity count visible?
hawthorne: If the mob mentality is the root of concern, report favourites as whole numbers, but count them so that they have positive but diminishing marginal value.
I initially liked this idea myself, but I don't think it will actually make any difference. As long as the score is monotonically increasing, people will see right through any attempt at non-linear scaling.
anifinder: For 24 hours after the post is made, comment favorites are invisible in the thread to all users by default. [...] After 24 hours, the favorites become visible
This would be a huge improvement in the favorites system.
Anonymized: While I realize the world is not static, this feature was included in the package that I paid $5 for. Adding features is great, but removing them from a paid service is not so cool.
This idea has come up a couple of times in thread. I wondered if it was just a joke, but it doesn't appear to be. I'm astonished that people are letting it stand without more comment and derision. Doesn't anyone remember the uproar here?
posted by Chuckles at 10:55 AM on November 2, 2009
It's nuts to me that I came into this thread with an opinion, but seeing how passionate people are about this whole thing, well, my opinion has changed to meh.
Now that this thread has fallen off the front page of meta I am sure things will calm down in here.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:55 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Now that this thread has fallen off the front page of meta I am sure things will calm down in here.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:55 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Hey, good on you for running an experiment . But the theory that your experiment is based on is espoused by snobby jerkwads who consider other users to be stupid, sheeple, or corrupt. That's why you are getting the response you are getting.
Jesus Christ. You're starting to sound like the guy on the crowded bus who shoots someone for accidentally stepping on his foot. You are reading the worst possible motivations into this experiment, despite the multiple explanations from multiple mods about what this experiment is for. Please take a breath, step back, go for a run, whatever.
On preview: Or yes, push the button and give yourself a month-long timeout. Talk about hoppitamoppita.
posted by rtha at 11:00 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Jesus Christ. You're starting to sound like the guy on the crowded bus who shoots someone for accidentally stepping on his foot. You are reading the worst possible motivations into this experiment, despite the multiple explanations from multiple mods about what this experiment is for. Please take a breath, step back, go for a run, whatever.
On preview: Or yes, push the button and give yourself a month-long timeout. Talk about hoppitamoppita.
posted by rtha at 11:00 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
fightorflight: "...after a month you would potentially have gained an insight into what the dynamic of the site was like without favouritism. There are people who say that favourites being on causes some posters to play to the gallery, enables people to skim threads they would otherwise have read, and leads to posters being ignored if they didn't garner enough favourites. ... It's by no means a proven claim, which I suppose was the point of the test."
It's not just that it's an unproven claim. It's an unproven claim by a small number of people whose premises I don't respect.
I have a great deal of respect for the mods, but I do believe that this is a case of them trying to fix something that isn't broken.
posted by Joe Beese at 11:02 AM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
It's not just that it's an unproven claim. It's an unproven claim by a small number of people whose premises I don't respect.
I have a great deal of respect for the mods, but I do believe that this is a case of them trying to fix something that isn't broken.
posted by Joe Beese at 11:02 AM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Whoa. Flameout #1 after 1404 comments. I hope Artw reconsiders. I like his FPPs.
posted by dersins at 11:03 AM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
posted by dersins at 11:03 AM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
Does anyone fave the comments down here?
posted by davejay at 11:04 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by davejay at 11:04 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Also: a sense of entitlement is really really awesome, all the cool kids have one.
posted by davejay at 11:05 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by davejay at 11:05 AM on November 2, 2009
With that in mind, we're thinking about moving toward "has favorites" in place of "faved" with every other aspect of the experiment staying the same. If there are any strong objections to this change, please let us know here. Thanks, and thanks for all of the feedback so far.
I really don't feel that's the best option pb. While the one thing most people agree on is that "faved" doesn't work as is, I don't think that's just because of the word itself - it's the fact that comments now appear to be divided into two tiers - the have-favourites and the have-nots, if you like. I feel that any indication of whether a comment has been favourited of that sort is hugely counterproductive, particularly for the purpose of this experiment, but if you feel it is necessary, I really hope you would consider a more unobtrusive symbol. Like a star or a heart or something, which are somewhat universally-understood symbols of specialness or liking. But that's if you have to - my personal preference would definitely be to not have an indicator at all. Isn't that part of the point of this experiment? Any favourites information could be provided on mouseover/rollover, as several others and myself have suggested. But I really hope you don't go with "has favourites" - it really seems as unfortunate as "faved" to me.
posted by catchingsignals at 11:05 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I really don't feel that's the best option pb. While the one thing most people agree on is that "faved" doesn't work as is, I don't think that's just because of the word itself - it's the fact that comments now appear to be divided into two tiers - the have-favourites and the have-nots, if you like. I feel that any indication of whether a comment has been favourited of that sort is hugely counterproductive, particularly for the purpose of this experiment, but if you feel it is necessary, I really hope you would consider a more unobtrusive symbol. Like a star or a heart or something, which are somewhat universally-understood symbols of specialness or liking. But that's if you have to - my personal preference would definitely be to not have an indicator at all. Isn't that part of the point of this experiment? Any favourites information could be provided on mouseover/rollover, as several others and myself have suggested. But I really hope you don't go with "has favourites" - it really seems as unfortunate as "faved" to me.
posted by catchingsignals at 11:05 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
One reason there aren't more people in here chiming for the removal of favourites is probably the fact that those who hate hate hate them have already voted with their feet and left the site. I was going down that road myself shortly before this experiment started.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:08 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by stinkycheese at 11:08 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
and thanks to EvaDestruction for being the voice of reason.
posted by catchingsignals at 11:08 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by catchingsignals at 11:08 AM on November 2, 2009
i propose that we use the unicode snowman is the favorite symbol: I believe it is sufficiently content-neutral -- ☃
posted by empath at 11:10 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by empath at 11:10 AM on November 2, 2009
How about "Noted"?
posted by iamkimiam at 11:00 AM on November 2 [Noted] [!]
posted by iamkimiam at 11:10 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by iamkimiam at 11:00 AM on November 2 [Noted] [!]
posted by iamkimiam at 11:10 AM on November 2, 2009
Artw flameout. Didn't see that coming. Everyone needs a hug, Artw!
posted by Kwine at 11:10 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Kwine at 11:10 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I really hope you would consider a more unobtrusive symbol...
The problem with a symbol is that in the MeFi universe it implies an action that user can take. + and ! both mean something you can do. Using a single letter or symbol will imply action can be taken. And a star has a special meaning because it's used in so many places across the web as an actionable item. Ratings, for example, often use stars and some won't like the "1 star" aspect. Any symbol or word we choose is going to have baggage, and we'd like to stick with our current baggage.
...it really seems as unfortunate as "faved" to me.
Thanks, I hear you. But we'd like to stick with the experiment as we've outlined it for now. The only change we want to make at this time is away from "faved" but using "favorite" in some way.
posted by pb (staff) at 11:11 AM on November 2, 2009
The problem with a symbol is that in the MeFi universe it implies an action that user can take. + and ! both mean something you can do. Using a single letter or symbol will imply action can be taken. And a star has a special meaning because it's used in so many places across the web as an actionable item. Ratings, for example, often use stars and some won't like the "1 star" aspect. Any symbol or word we choose is going to have baggage, and we'd like to stick with our current baggage.
...it really seems as unfortunate as "faved" to me.
Thanks, I hear you. But we'd like to stick with the experiment as we've outlined it for now. The only change we want to make at this time is away from "faved" but using "favorite" in some way.
posted by pb (staff) at 11:11 AM on November 2, 2009
Count me as among those who often think that favourites cause undesirable behaviour on MetaFilter. I do this without any sort of evidence though, just a general feeling on my part.
I think part of my feeling stems from the way favourites were explained to the userbase vs. the way they are used. When they were introduced it seemed we could use them for whatever. Instead they seem to be used only as 'I agree' or 'well said', which isn't horrible, but leaves those of us who use them as bookmarks kind of feeling awkward. If I want to bookmark a comment that says something I disagree with, I feel like I have to monitor the thread for when someone inevitably says "Soandso is against ______ and FIVE people have favourited her comment!" I'm left not favouriting much of anything as a result.
Another issue is that they're treated as a kind of currency which I see as less than ideal.
So yeah, nothing scientific, but more of a general feeling that I don't want this place to devolve into a mess of "favourite whoring" where no one is really communicating so much as competing. I do continue to enjoy the community though and it has been awhile since favourites were introduced and we haven't gone into a dark ages, so obviously the system's still working in my opinion.
I do notice favourite counts being useful in some instances, especially since they have been hidden. Notably, it is much easier to see any sort of consensus in an AskMe thread, which is nice. Granted, the consensus might be wrong, but it's nice to know what the consensus is in any case.
It's an interesting experiment and I'm glad it's running. I'll leave the counts off for now and see if I notice any other differences in how I read the site.
There are many people saying some variant of this to which I'd like to respond (I'll just quote the latest):
The one-bit "faved/not-faved" dichotomy is almost useless, since such a high number of comments will be favorited by someone.
Isn't this the point of the experiment? Faved and not faved comments look pretty much the same and thus carry about the same visual weight. The word "faved" is there to give you a link to see who the comment has been favourited by.
Also, a bunch of something like the following has also been posted:
If only there were some way for them to express their agreement in a less obtrusive manner.
Maybe it's just because I'm not really a favouriter, but it seems weird to express your agreement or lack thereof in every thread. If we have something substantial to add, post a comment, sure, but if not and there's no favouriting system are we obligated to post near content-free posts to make sure everyone knows what we think? I guess we just might find that out this month.
posted by ODiV at 11:12 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
I think part of my feeling stems from the way favourites were explained to the userbase vs. the way they are used. When they were introduced it seemed we could use them for whatever. Instead they seem to be used only as 'I agree' or 'well said', which isn't horrible, but leaves those of us who use them as bookmarks kind of feeling awkward. If I want to bookmark a comment that says something I disagree with, I feel like I have to monitor the thread for when someone inevitably says "Soandso is against ______ and FIVE people have favourited her comment!" I'm left not favouriting much of anything as a result.
Another issue is that they're treated as a kind of currency which I see as less than ideal.
So yeah, nothing scientific, but more of a general feeling that I don't want this place to devolve into a mess of "favourite whoring" where no one is really communicating so much as competing. I do continue to enjoy the community though and it has been awhile since favourites were introduced and we haven't gone into a dark ages, so obviously the system's still working in my opinion.
I do notice favourite counts being useful in some instances, especially since they have been hidden. Notably, it is much easier to see any sort of consensus in an AskMe thread, which is nice. Granted, the consensus might be wrong, but it's nice to know what the consensus is in any case.
It's an interesting experiment and I'm glad it's running. I'll leave the counts off for now and see if I notice any other differences in how I read the site.
There are many people saying some variant of this to which I'd like to respond (I'll just quote the latest):
The one-bit "faved/not-faved" dichotomy is almost useless, since such a high number of comments will be favorited by someone.
Isn't this the point of the experiment? Faved and not faved comments look pretty much the same and thus carry about the same visual weight. The word "faved" is there to give you a link to see who the comment has been favourited by.
Also, a bunch of something like the following has also been posted:
If only there were some way for them to express their agreement in a less obtrusive manner.
Maybe it's just because I'm not really a favouriter, but it seems weird to express your agreement or lack thereof in every thread. If we have something substantial to add, post a comment, sure, but if not and there's no favouriting system are we obligated to post near content-free posts to make sure everyone knows what we think? I guess we just might find that out this month.
posted by ODiV at 11:12 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
"With that in mind, we're thinking about moving toward "has favorites" in place of "faved" with every other aspect of the experiment staying the same. If there are any strong objections to this change, please let us know here. Thanks, and thanks for all of the feedback so far."
You know that "favored" is a word, right? It's the ore that favorite is made from.
This reminds me of being told at my old job that "orient" was a place and not a verb, and that I meant "orientate."
posted by klangklangston at 11:12 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
You know that "favored" is a word, right? It's the ore that favorite is made from.
This reminds me of being told at my old job that "orient" was a place and not a verb, and that I meant "orientate."
posted by klangklangston at 11:12 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm a dork. I missed this in the 200's. This thread is too long.
posted by iamkimiam at 11:13 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by iamkimiam at 11:13 AM on November 2, 2009
man, I hope Artw comes back. I like him and his stuff. this is not worth timing out for.
posted by shmegegge at 11:14 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by shmegegge at 11:14 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Well, if nothing else, I've been convinced from this thread to opt back in to the experiment. I'd only lasted one day, but I'll limp through it for a while longer. I do it for you, Metafilter, because I love you.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 11:14 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 11:14 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm with iamkimiam with preferring "Noted" as an alternative...
posted by iamabot at 11:15 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by iamabot at 11:15 AM on November 2, 2009
i think the change broke the site, in that it created this massively ugly thread. i tried to read it last night and failed. there's just too many comments.
what a fucking epic fight.
i don't like the change, but i'd have lived with it, cause i love metafilter. but i can't believe how badly it's all gone.
posted by ninjew at 11:15 AM on November 2, 2009
what a fucking epic fight.
i don't like the change, but i'd have lived with it, cause i love metafilter. but i can't believe how badly it's all gone.
posted by ninjew at 11:15 AM on November 2, 2009
NO MORE CHANGE! CHANGE BAD!!! CHANGE HURT BRAIN OF SIMPLE USER!
Jesus, proponents of this mess are a shrill lot. Please stop hurting Metafilter.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:15 AM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
Jesus, proponents of this mess are a shrill lot. Please stop hurting Metafilter.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:15 AM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
So let me just be totally clear about that. I'm absolutely positive you guys have the best intentions about this. But I'd like to note that I still don't get what the problem is.
We're not trying to attack a specific, discrete problem; where we're coming from on this is that there has been a lot of slow-burn debate about and criticism of the favorites feature ever since its launch, and that a primary locus of that has been the display of favorite counts in bylines. Whether or not there is some kind of systemic/emergent group behavior driven by that visibility is basically the core question, and our motivation for doing this is to at long last try poking at that question a little bit. Will we see some measurable difference in any kind of site behavior? Will folks collectively have some change in their thinking about or perception of how they use and how they are affected by others' use of the feature? These are the sorts of things we're wondering about.
Our approach is to give it a shot and see what happens. Not as a try-before-you-buy thing to ease the change in; we're all fully expecting to go back to just how it was before December, all else being equal. But by doing this we can at least test some of these perceptions a little and see if anything surprising turns up.
So for folks who want a really discrete problem-and-solution approach to this, there's probably not a satisfying answer. It's not hard science and we're not pursing a specific goal so much as trying to see if there's something we can learn from the temporary switch-around of how the count displays work.
I'm sure you guys have considered what I'm about to say. I'll say it anyway: It has occurred to you that this version of the feature makes it easier for a single user to devalue all favorites, yeah?
We've considerd the possibility, yeah. I think in general none of us expect single-user favorite-devaluation to be a significant problem—again allowing for the rare idiosyncratic favoriter, most people don't regularly go on thread-wide favoriting sprees, so setting aside specific griefing behavior we're not expecting it to be an issue in that sense.
Whether or not the overall volume of aggregate favoriting makes this scheme problematic is probably the more important question, and it's interesting to see that to some extent folks feel that that is a clear problem. I think I'll try doing the faved-or-not partitioning analysis I mentioned up thread, at some point this week, because it'd be good to know just how much of a problem that is likely to be in practice. It'll also be interesting to see if there's a change there by the end of the month compared to the last year or so, which would be an interesting observed systemic shift to see. Not counting on it by any means, but it's one thing to look at in terms of how the different view could lead to different emergent use of the function.
Are you concerned with the extra effort to moderate favorites in that respect going forward, should this feature become more lasting? What are your thoughts about that possibility, not as a matter of griefing, but as a matter of people's natural tendency to muddy aggregate information? am I making sense when I ask this question? if needed, I'll happily clarify what I'm getting at.
Again, not really concerned about extra favorite moderation stuff, but it's certainly an interesting question and we could be surprised about that by the time this is done. In general, this is a "we don't really know until we see" thing, which is part of what I think is interesting about the whole thing.
If I missed something there in what you were asking, lemme know.
I initially liked this idea myself, but I don't think it will actually make any difference. As long as the score is monotonically increasing, people will see right through any attempt at non-linear scaling.
Yeah, I had the idea at some point (probably stealing it from hawthorne in the first place without realizing, actually) of fiddling with a f(count) = floor(ln(count)) idea, but it doesn't resolve anything fundamentally and introduces some fairly counterintuitive math into what has traditionally been a very straightforward arithmetic function.
Shiny idea, but not really useful here.
I really don't feel that's the best option pb. While the one thing most people agree on is that "faved" doesn't work as is, I don't think that's just because of the word itself - it's the fact that comments now appear to be divided into two tiers - the have-favourites and the have-nots, if you like.
To be clear, while we totally hear that (see above) and it's an interesting part of what folks are reacting to, we're not planning on changing that aspect of how this alternate view works. We're just looking to find some alternative to a specific bit of vocabulary choice that has on review been both semantically ambiguous and melted a surprising number of faces off.
So it's not "has favorites?" vs. "change how the experiment works?" that pb's asking about. It's "has favorites?" vs "faved?" vs some third argument on word choice.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:16 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
We're not trying to attack a specific, discrete problem; where we're coming from on this is that there has been a lot of slow-burn debate about and criticism of the favorites feature ever since its launch, and that a primary locus of that has been the display of favorite counts in bylines. Whether or not there is some kind of systemic/emergent group behavior driven by that visibility is basically the core question, and our motivation for doing this is to at long last try poking at that question a little bit. Will we see some measurable difference in any kind of site behavior? Will folks collectively have some change in their thinking about or perception of how they use and how they are affected by others' use of the feature? These are the sorts of things we're wondering about.
Our approach is to give it a shot and see what happens. Not as a try-before-you-buy thing to ease the change in; we're all fully expecting to go back to just how it was before December, all else being equal. But by doing this we can at least test some of these perceptions a little and see if anything surprising turns up.
So for folks who want a really discrete problem-and-solution approach to this, there's probably not a satisfying answer. It's not hard science and we're not pursing a specific goal so much as trying to see if there's something we can learn from the temporary switch-around of how the count displays work.
I'm sure you guys have considered what I'm about to say. I'll say it anyway: It has occurred to you that this version of the feature makes it easier for a single user to devalue all favorites, yeah?
We've considerd the possibility, yeah. I think in general none of us expect single-user favorite-devaluation to be a significant problem—again allowing for the rare idiosyncratic favoriter, most people don't regularly go on thread-wide favoriting sprees, so setting aside specific griefing behavior we're not expecting it to be an issue in that sense.
Whether or not the overall volume of aggregate favoriting makes this scheme problematic is probably the more important question, and it's interesting to see that to some extent folks feel that that is a clear problem. I think I'll try doing the faved-or-not partitioning analysis I mentioned up thread, at some point this week, because it'd be good to know just how much of a problem that is likely to be in practice. It'll also be interesting to see if there's a change there by the end of the month compared to the last year or so, which would be an interesting observed systemic shift to see. Not counting on it by any means, but it's one thing to look at in terms of how the different view could lead to different emergent use of the function.
Are you concerned with the extra effort to moderate favorites in that respect going forward, should this feature become more lasting? What are your thoughts about that possibility, not as a matter of griefing, but as a matter of people's natural tendency to muddy aggregate information? am I making sense when I ask this question? if needed, I'll happily clarify what I'm getting at.
Again, not really concerned about extra favorite moderation stuff, but it's certainly an interesting question and we could be surprised about that by the time this is done. In general, this is a "we don't really know until we see" thing, which is part of what I think is interesting about the whole thing.
If I missed something there in what you were asking, lemme know.
I initially liked this idea myself, but I don't think it will actually make any difference. As long as the score is monotonically increasing, people will see right through any attempt at non-linear scaling.
Yeah, I had the idea at some point (probably stealing it from hawthorne in the first place without realizing, actually) of fiddling with a f(count) = floor(ln(count)) idea, but it doesn't resolve anything fundamentally and introduces some fairly counterintuitive math into what has traditionally been a very straightforward arithmetic function.
Shiny idea, but not really useful here.
I really don't feel that's the best option pb. While the one thing most people agree on is that "faved" doesn't work as is, I don't think that's just because of the word itself - it's the fact that comments now appear to be divided into two tiers - the have-favourites and the have-nots, if you like.
To be clear, while we totally hear that (see above) and it's an interesting part of what folks are reacting to, we're not planning on changing that aspect of how this alternate view works. We're just looking to find some alternative to a specific bit of vocabulary choice that has on review been both semantically ambiguous and melted a surprising number of faces off.
So it's not "has favorites?" vs. "change how the experiment works?" that pb's asking about. It's "has favorites?" vs "faved?" vs some third argument on word choice.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:16 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
God this is a weird thread.
So, uh, specific mechanism of change aside, I think that part of the weirdness regarding the reason for the change, as I understand it, is that all the symptoms of healthy favorites are present in unhealthy ones too. So a truly insightful, well-written, conceptually succinct upsight (the sort of comment that should probably be encouraged, and that no one is arguing against) gets a bunch of favorites, but a nasty little snark, or tagline, or "what" (comments that are at best throwaway and at worst destructive, and that many people feel like we could do with less of (although, lord knows, I've made 'em and I've favorited 'em, and I probably will again)) gets treated exactly the same, favorite wise.
But this solution doesn't address that at all - if anything it removes the visible marker for an obviously terrific comment. Throwaway jokes or venom get some favorites, sure, but when you see something with 50 or 100 or 500 favorites it's pretty much going to be worth your time to look twice. I'm not really a skimmer, I tend to read whole threads or come as close to it as I can, but let me tell you: when I come to a comment with 100 favorites I slow down. Now crap that one person commented by accident gets the same treatment on the page as Wall-e flying your girlfriend to California. All there are are faves and comments that suck. And it only takes one fave to break on through. I don't know how instructive or helpful this experiment is going to be, in the long run.
posted by dirtdirt at 11:18 AM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
So, uh, specific mechanism of change aside, I think that part of the weirdness regarding the reason for the change, as I understand it, is that all the symptoms of healthy favorites are present in unhealthy ones too. So a truly insightful, well-written, conceptually succinct upsight (the sort of comment that should probably be encouraged, and that no one is arguing against) gets a bunch of favorites, but a nasty little snark, or tagline, or "what" (comments that are at best throwaway and at worst destructive, and that many people feel like we could do with less of (although, lord knows, I've made 'em and I've favorited 'em, and I probably will again)) gets treated exactly the same, favorite wise.
But this solution doesn't address that at all - if anything it removes the visible marker for an obviously terrific comment. Throwaway jokes or venom get some favorites, sure, but when you see something with 50 or 100 or 500 favorites it's pretty much going to be worth your time to look twice. I'm not really a skimmer, I tend to read whole threads or come as close to it as I can, but let me tell you: when I come to a comment with 100 favorites I slow down. Now crap that one person commented by accident gets the same treatment on the page as Wall-e flying your girlfriend to California. All there are are faves and comments that suck. And it only takes one fave to break on through. I don't know how instructive or helpful this experiment is going to be, in the long run.
posted by dirtdirt at 11:18 AM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
I look at favorites largely as bookmarks - a way to mark something that I'd like to revisit for some reason (in fact, this thread has sent me back through my favorites to clean them out - something I do every so often; otherwise, they aren't very useful even as bookmarks). I recognize and respect that other people use favorites differently. I also personally think that for some people, the favorites system results in attention-seeking behavior that is not beneficial to the community, and might also create an unfortunate barrier to entry for new users trying to grasp the intricate community aspects of the site. This has nothing to do with me liking or trusting other users. I do appreciate that there's such careful thought on the part of the moderation/administration staff regarding the community aspects of the site.
I don't think any of this makes me a "noisy minority", a "whiner", someone who was "picked last in kickball", someone who wants revenge on the popular kids, an elitist, a pedant, someone who wants to cover your favorites with a "burqa". I think using language like this to describe someone who doesn't share your opinion is not conducive to healthy debate, and maybe people are sitting out this conversation because of this language - perhaps this helps create the perception that they are in the minority. I know I was unwilling to jump in, but I'm really very rankled by all the talk mentioned above.
posted by ersatzkat at 11:21 AM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
I don't think any of this makes me a "noisy minority", a "whiner", someone who was "picked last in kickball", someone who wants revenge on the popular kids, an elitist, a pedant, someone who wants to cover your favorites with a "burqa". I think using language like this to describe someone who doesn't share your opinion is not conducive to healthy debate, and maybe people are sitting out this conversation because of this language - perhaps this helps create the perception that they are in the minority. I know I was unwilling to jump in, but I'm really very rankled by all the talk mentioned above.
posted by ersatzkat at 11:21 AM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Anecdotally, I think I've noticed I am getting more favorites. People could just be screwing around, but I can't help but wonder if when someone says something slightly amusing, and you see it has 23 favorites, you might think, "It's not that funny," and not favorite it. whereas when you can't really see how many a comment has you might just hit it.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:21 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 11:21 AM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
So a truly insightful, well-written, conceptually succinct upsight (the sort of comment that should probably be encouraged, and that no one is arguing against) gets a bunch of favorites, but a nasty little snark, or tagline, or "what" (comments that are at best throwaway and at worst destructive, and that many people feel like we could do with less of (although, lord knows, I've made 'em and I've favorited 'em, and I probably will again)) gets treated exactly the same, favorite wise.
Well the solution to that is slashdot-style moderation (funny/insightful/informative), but I definitely wouldn't want to go that route.
posted by empath at 11:21 AM on November 2, 2009
Well the solution to that is slashdot-style moderation (funny/insightful/informative), but I definitely wouldn't want to go that route.
posted by empath at 11:21 AM on November 2, 2009
cortex: "If I missed something there in what you were asking, lemme know."
nope, you got 'em all. thanks a bunch. now I get that this is just a "poke it and let's see" thing, so yay for my comprehension. that being the case, I'm not considering turning the feature back on. I had lasted all of 10 minutes, if that, before turning it off because I was so unhappy with it. But if we're talking about a good faith effort just to see what happens, maybe I should approach it with equal faith.
I just really really hate it, though. the favorites functionality, with numbers, is so integral to how I use mefi these days that without it I feel completely at odds with the interface. I suppose users are free to judge me for that, but that's where I'm at right now. anyway, thanks for the response.
posted by shmegegge at 11:22 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
nope, you got 'em all. thanks a bunch. now I get that this is just a "poke it and let's see" thing, so yay for my comprehension. that being the case, I'm not considering turning the feature back on. I had lasted all of 10 minutes, if that, before turning it off because I was so unhappy with it. But if we're talking about a good faith effort just to see what happens, maybe I should approach it with equal faith.
I just really really hate it, though. the favorites functionality, with numbers, is so integral to how I use mefi these days that without it I feel completely at odds with the interface. I suppose users are free to judge me for that, but that's where I'm at right now. anyway, thanks for the response.
posted by shmegegge at 11:22 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I am just looking for a used car...what is all this?
I wanted to read through this thread, but it's growing too fast and I don't see a lot of really unique comments in my awkward bits of skimming (though I did find that there is an option to make favorites visible). I share the mentality of Joe Beese on this topic. I value my favorites and appreciate those who share them, though I recognize that nothing draws a crowd like a crowd. Also, like empath, I like making FPPs that get favorites. I don't post just to get attention via comments and favorites, but I feel like my efforts are appreciated (and in that way, worthwhile).
I'm interested to see how this month goes, especially with the work-arounds being offered way up-thread, and the official toggle option. I feel like there are some folks who provide pot-shots of snark, but was that not present pre-favorites? I think that, for better or worse, this is part of MeFi now. Maybe there would be less uninformed snark (yes, as compared to informed snark, from people who have read the linked material and prior comments, which can be topical and fitting), but I don't see it disappearing all-together. I think that is an element from having hundreds (if not thousands) of active users, all interacting at various levels with the site. There's no down-voting to penalize random misfit comments that miss the mark and ignore the existing thread content, so there is no motivation to not make a pot-shot post. Make enough, and people will call you out, but make a few weird comments, and they're lost in the masses.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:22 AM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
I wanted to read through this thread, but it's growing too fast and I don't see a lot of really unique comments in my awkward bits of skimming (though I did find that there is an option to make favorites visible). I share the mentality of Joe Beese on this topic. I value my favorites and appreciate those who share them, though I recognize that nothing draws a crowd like a crowd. Also, like empath, I like making FPPs that get favorites. I don't post just to get attention via comments and favorites, but I feel like my efforts are appreciated (and in that way, worthwhile).
I'm interested to see how this month goes, especially with the work-arounds being offered way up-thread, and the official toggle option. I feel like there are some folks who provide pot-shots of snark, but was that not present pre-favorites? I think that, for better or worse, this is part of MeFi now. Maybe there would be less uninformed snark (yes, as compared to informed snark, from people who have read the linked material and prior comments, which can be topical and fitting), but I don't see it disappearing all-together. I think that is an element from having hundreds (if not thousands) of active users, all interacting at various levels with the site. There's no down-voting to penalize random misfit comments that miss the mark and ignore the existing thread content, so there is no motivation to not make a pot-shot post. Make enough, and people will call you out, but make a few weird comments, and they're lost in the masses.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:22 AM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Wait, Artw is gone?
You mean I can't just talk shit about comics all morning now? You mean I actually have to get shit done?
You. Fuckers.
posted by The Whelk at 11:23 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
You mean I can't just talk shit about comics all morning now? You mean I actually have to get shit done?
You. Fuckers.
posted by The Whelk at 11:23 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
shmegegge: "that being the case, I'm not considering turning the feature back on."
I'm NOW considering turning the feature back on. jesus christ, typos. give me a break for one god damn thread, huh?
posted by shmegegge at 11:25 AM on November 2, 2009
I'm NOW considering turning the feature back on. jesus christ, typos. give me a break for one god damn thread, huh?
posted by shmegegge at 11:25 AM on November 2, 2009
Apologies if this has been mentioned, but the opt out seems to be a bit buggy if you are browsing from multiple machines. I had to apply the changes on each machine separately despite the box already being checked on the second machine when I went to the preferences page.
posted by juv3nal at 11:28 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by juv3nal at 11:28 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
With that in mind, we're thinking about moving toward "has favorites" in place of "faved" with every other aspect of the experiment staying the same.
May I suggest using just the word "favorites"? It's shorter, makes sense (being a link to the favorites this comment has received), and maintains consistency with the number option.
For the record, I am otherwise undecided on this, so let's just keep it around for a while and see what happens.
posted by Dr Dracator at 11:28 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
May I suggest using just the word "favorites"? It's shorter, makes sense (being a link to the favorites this comment has received), and maintains consistency with the number option.
For the record, I am otherwise undecided on this, so let's just keep it around for a while and see what happens.
posted by Dr Dracator at 11:28 AM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I used the Stylish workaround before the new opt-out became available, so I'm seeing the classic favorites view. Not sure how you are tallying results for your experiment, so I just thought I'd throw that out there.
For what it's worth, it never occurred to me for a second that this was some kind of insult to the readers of the site. I prefer favorites, but I've certainly seen several threads come up where they were discussed, and I just figured you were trying to come up with a system that worked for everyone. IMO, this isn't it, but I don't feel slighted or anything by it!
posted by misha at 11:30 AM on November 2, 2009
For what it's worth, it never occurred to me for a second that this was some kind of insult to the readers of the site. I prefer favorites, but I've certainly seen several threads come up where they were discussed, and I just figured you were trying to come up with a system that worked for everyone. IMO, this isn't it, but I don't feel slighted or anything by it!
posted by misha at 11:30 AM on November 2, 2009
"With that in mind, we're thinking about moving toward "has favorites" in place of "faved" with every other aspect of the experiment staying the same. If there are any strong objections to this change, please let us know here. Thanks, and thanks for all of the feedback so far."
You know that "favored" is a word, right? It's the ore that favorite is made from.
This reminds me of being told at my old job that "orient" was a place and not a verb, and that I meant "orientate."
While I don't love "favorited", it does have internety precedence--it's not a totally neologism, like faved, and, it's like, used on flickr and stuff. So that's also an option.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:31 AM on November 2, 2009
You know that "favored" is a word, right? It's the ore that favorite is made from.
This reminds me of being told at my old job that "orient" was a place and not a verb, and that I meant "orientate."
While I don't love "favorited", it does have internety precedence--it's not a totally neologism, like faved, and, it's like, used on flickr and stuff. So that's also an option.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:31 AM on November 2, 2009
It seems like a small, but vocal minority
I love how people on both sides of this argument assume that anyone who didn't speak, if they did speak, would agree with the side that benefits their argument most. [HAMBURGER]
posted by nomisxid at 11:34 AM on November 2, 2009
I love how people on both sides of this argument assume that anyone who didn't speak, if they did speak, would agree with the side that benefits their argument most. [HAMBURGER]
posted by nomisxid at 11:34 AM on November 2, 2009
But we'd like to stick with the experiment as we've outlined it for now. The only change we want to make at this time is away from "faved" but using "favorite" in some way.
Then even just "favourited" by itself would be better than "has favourited" I think. tries to slip in British spelling
posted by catchingsignals at 11:34 AM on November 2, 2009
Then even just "favourited" by itself would be better than "has favourited" I think. tries to slip in British spelling
posted by catchingsignals at 11:34 AM on November 2, 2009
All this talk of "favorite whoring" as a bad thing has me a bit confused, and probably not just because I'm in favor of legalizing prostitution.
I realize I can only speak for myself here, but when I favorite a comment, it's because (in the vast majority of cases) it's a good comment. It's the kind of comment I'd like to read more of. It's the kind of comment I want to go back and read again in the future. Maybe it's an interesting way of framing a debate that I hadn't considered before. Maybe it's touching personal anecdote. Maybe it's a hilarious joke. In any case, it's a comment that I think deserves taking note of.
The notion that we should be against encouraging people to make great, noteworthy comments is some kind of bizzaro-world community policy. I would love it if every comment on MetaFilter was something someone thought was worthy of favoriting. It's like saying that Einstein was just "Nobel Prize whoring" when he did all that work on relativity - erm, maybe he was, but isn't that a laudable goal? Isn't making a comment that makes a bunch of people take note and say "Hey that's worth clicking on" something that should be at least okay to endeavor toward?
I don't buy the argument that it encourages "snark" - most shitty snarky comments really don't gather many favorites and I get the sense that snarkers snark for the pure joy of snarking. I've never seen anything with > 15 favorites that wasn't a pretty good comment of one form or another. If people are shitting in threads to get favorites, they're doing it wrong.
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:34 AM on November 2, 2009 [28 favorites]
I realize I can only speak for myself here, but when I favorite a comment, it's because (in the vast majority of cases) it's a good comment. It's the kind of comment I'd like to read more of. It's the kind of comment I want to go back and read again in the future. Maybe it's an interesting way of framing a debate that I hadn't considered before. Maybe it's touching personal anecdote. Maybe it's a hilarious joke. In any case, it's a comment that I think deserves taking note of.
The notion that we should be against encouraging people to make great, noteworthy comments is some kind of bizzaro-world community policy. I would love it if every comment on MetaFilter was something someone thought was worthy of favoriting. It's like saying that Einstein was just "Nobel Prize whoring" when he did all that work on relativity - erm, maybe he was, but isn't that a laudable goal? Isn't making a comment that makes a bunch of people take note and say "Hey that's worth clicking on" something that should be at least okay to endeavor toward?
I don't buy the argument that it encourages "snark" - most shitty snarky comments really don't gather many favorites and I get the sense that snarkers snark for the pure joy of snarking. I've never seen anything with > 15 favorites that wasn't a pretty good comment of one form or another. If people are shitting in threads to get favorites, they're doing it wrong.
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:34 AM on November 2, 2009 [28 favorites]
Total neologism. Seriously, can we test out comment editing in December?
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:35 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:35 AM on November 2, 2009
I don't think any of this makes me a "noisy minority", a "whiner", someone who was "picked last in kickball", someone who wants revenge on the popular kids, an elitist, a pedant, someone who wants to cover your favorites with a "burqa". I think using language like this to describe someone who doesn't share your opinion is not conducive to healthy debate, and maybe people are sitting out this conversation because of this language - perhaps this helps create the perception that they are in the minority.
Yeah, but your saying all that with a "shrill and cranky" voice your a small part of the population and your opinion shouldn't even be considered!
What's funny is that it's only about three or four people who've repeated that same thing over and over. Talk about a minority of opinion.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:35 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, but your saying all that with a "shrill and cranky" voice your a small part of the population and your opinion shouldn't even be considered!
What's funny is that it's only about three or four people who've repeated that same thing over and over. Talk about a minority of opinion.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:35 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
The notion that we should be against encouraging people to make great, noteworthy comments is some kind of bizzaro-world community policy.
No one is suggesting that.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:37 AM on November 2, 2009
No one is suggesting that.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:37 AM on November 2, 2009
sorry, "has favorites".
posted by catchingsignals at 11:37 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by catchingsignals at 11:37 AM on November 2, 2009
It's really funny now that i think more about it. Anyone who is saying "vocal minority" is actually just part of a vocal minority.
The LULZ. I loves 'em.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:40 AM on November 2, 2009
The LULZ. I loves 'em.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:40 AM on November 2, 2009
Man, there sure are a number of people I would rather have seen abandon ship over this. Some of them are right in THIS VERY ROOM.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:40 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:40 AM on November 2, 2009
Cortex: there has been a lot of slow-burn debate about and criticism of the favorites feature ever since its launch, and that a primary locus of that has been the display of favorite counts in bylines.
That has only ever been part of the problem. Please stop overlooking the "favorited by others" popularity contest.
Cortex: by doing this we can at least test some of these perceptions a little and see if anything surprising turns up.
Something surprising has already turned up, I think: the passion of the favorites aficionado.
posted by Chuckles at 11:40 AM on November 2, 2009
That has only ever been part of the problem. Please stop overlooking the "favorited by others" popularity contest.
Cortex: by doing this we can at least test some of these perceptions a little and see if anything surprising turns up.
Something surprising has already turned up, I think: the passion of the favorites aficionado.
posted by Chuckles at 11:40 AM on November 2, 2009
Wow, didn't think this was a "SUSPEND MY ACCOUNT FORTHWITH" problem, particularly as there's a built-in opt out in place.
I'm still mentally filtering out [faved] (hence still questioning the merits of having other people's favouriting habits visible), except when I subconsciously read "November 2 [faved +]" as implying that a post has 2 favourites. Changing it to "has favourites" would probably resolve that problem though.
posted by knapah at 11:41 AM on November 2, 2009
I'm still mentally filtering out [faved] (hence still questioning the merits of having other people's favouriting habits visible), except when I subconsciously read "November 2 [faved +]" as implying that a post has 2 favourites. Changing it to "has favourites" would probably resolve that problem though.
posted by knapah at 11:41 AM on November 2, 2009
Apologies if this has been mentioned, but the opt out seems to be a bit buggy if you are browsing from multiple machines. I had to apply the changes on each machine separately despite the box already being checked on the second machine when I went to the preferences page.
That's the nature of mefi's cookie-based preferences in general, not a bug related to this new option, yeah.
May I suggest using just the word "favorites"? It's shorter, makes sense (being a link to the favorites this comment has received), and maintains consistency with the number option.
We thought about that, and our main concern there is that it makes the change look like a "oops the counts are missing" bug rather than a clearly deliberate change, otherwise that's probably what we'd be planning to go with.
You know that "favored" is a word, right? It's the ore that favorite is made from.
For better or for worse "to fave" as a verb derived from the noun use of fave, both as transparently replaceable synonyms/foreshortenings for "favorite", is I think less bumpy of a jump from "favorite" in the same context than is a jump to "to favor" and the noun derivation of that. Favor is a lovely word, but it does put us into some of that introducing-new-semantic-baggage territory pb was talking about, and the syntactic details are a bit wonky as well.
I do personally, in a talking-about-this-as-a-lark capacity, like "noted" or "duly noted". Not going there, but they charm me and I think work semantically in a way that some other suggestions don't so much in my humble.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:41 AM on November 2, 2009
That's the nature of mefi's cookie-based preferences in general, not a bug related to this new option, yeah.
May I suggest using just the word "favorites"? It's shorter, makes sense (being a link to the favorites this comment has received), and maintains consistency with the number option.
We thought about that, and our main concern there is that it makes the change look like a "oops the counts are missing" bug rather than a clearly deliberate change, otherwise that's probably what we'd be planning to go with.
You know that "favored" is a word, right? It's the ore that favorite is made from.
For better or for worse "to fave" as a verb derived from the noun use of fave, both as transparently replaceable synonyms/foreshortenings for "favorite", is I think less bumpy of a jump from "favorite" in the same context than is a jump to "to favor" and the noun derivation of that. Favor is a lovely word, but it does put us into some of that introducing-new-semantic-baggage territory pb was talking about, and the syntactic details are a bit wonky as well.
I do personally, in a talking-about-this-as-a-lark capacity, like "noted" or "duly noted". Not going there, but they charm me and I think work semantically in a way that some other suggestions don't so much in my humble.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:41 AM on November 2, 2009
I don't think any of this makes me a "noisy minority", a "whiner", someone who was "picked last in kickball", someone who wants revenge on the popular kids, an elitist, a pedant, someone who wants to cover your favorites with a "burqa". I think using language like this to describe someone who doesn't share your opinion is not conducive to healthy debate
Yes, in this extremely long thread, some of the comments make their point in an exaggerated or colorful way. "Kickball," "burqa" ... admittedly, these terms (which I didn't use) were unnecessary. But ... "not conducive to healthy debate"?
There's something weird about this thread. It started out as a discussion about the merits of the UI change. Some people liked it, some didn't, and they detailed their reasons why.
But then the thread became largely about the way people were expressing those thoughts. And this criticism seems to have been almost entirely on the pro-hiding-favorite-counts side.
It does look a bit like some people realized that the debate was leaning strongly against the new UI, so they tried to shift the focus to meta-commentary instead. If there were actually a lot of truly vitriolic or aggressive comments against the change, then I could understand that. But in a Metafilter thread with over 1,400 comments, there are inevitably going to be the occasional overly colorful, Metafilter-esque phrasing ("burqa," "picked last in kickball"). There have probably been hundreds of comments here complaining about the wording of other comments instead of discussing the UI itself. It seems like a real overreaction, and a distraction.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:42 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yes, in this extremely long thread, some of the comments make their point in an exaggerated or colorful way. "Kickball," "burqa" ... admittedly, these terms (which I didn't use) were unnecessary. But ... "not conducive to healthy debate"?
There's something weird about this thread. It started out as a discussion about the merits of the UI change. Some people liked it, some didn't, and they detailed their reasons why.
But then the thread became largely about the way people were expressing those thoughts. And this criticism seems to have been almost entirely on the pro-hiding-favorite-counts side.
It does look a bit like some people realized that the debate was leaning strongly against the new UI, so they tried to shift the focus to meta-commentary instead. If there were actually a lot of truly vitriolic or aggressive comments against the change, then I could understand that. But in a Metafilter thread with over 1,400 comments, there are inevitably going to be the occasional overly colorful, Metafilter-esque phrasing ("burqa," "picked last in kickball"). There have probably been hundreds of comments here complaining about the wording of other comments instead of discussing the UI itself. It seems like a real overreaction, and a distraction.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:42 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's "has favorites?" vs "faved?" vs some third argument on word choice.
Since clicking on this bit of text brings up a list of people who've favorited that comment, how about "show favorites", or "list favorites", or even just "favorites"? I guess technically it's a list of favorers/favoriters but those are both horrible words.
posted by FishBike at 11:42 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Since clicking on this bit of text brings up a list of people who've favorited that comment, how about "show favorites", or "list favorites", or even just "favorites"? I guess technically it's a list of favorers/favoriters but those are both horrible words.
posted by FishBike at 11:42 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
'has favorites'
YES. This is definitely an improvement over 'faved.
'faved', 'beaned', 'noted' or snowman or '*' COULD be seen by the casual or first time user as some sign that the community has endorsed the comment and that a silly comment with one or two favorites is as highly regarded as totally awesome mega-favorited post.
But 'has favorites' seems much more factually neutral. It just says that one or more people have favorited this comment. Nothing more.
Of course someone might point out that 'has favorite(s)' is slightly more factual if we are going to give this to just one comment.
And if we do keep this as an option in December, I still hope that when time permits, we add the rollover/mouseover option to see the actual number for the moused-over comment.
And yes, I know I said I was stepping away. But I really am now, for a few hours anyway.
posted by marsha56 at 11:44 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
YES. This is definitely an improvement over 'faved.
'faved', 'beaned', 'noted' or snowman or '*' COULD be seen by the casual or first time user as some sign that the community has endorsed the comment and that a silly comment with one or two favorites is as highly regarded as totally awesome mega-favorited post.
But 'has favorites' seems much more factually neutral. It just says that one or more people have favorited this comment. Nothing more.
Of course someone might point out that 'has favorite(s)' is slightly more factual if we are going to give this to just one comment.
And if we do keep this as an option in December, I still hope that when time permits, we add the rollover/mouseover option to see the actual number for the moused-over comment.
And yes, I know I said I was stepping away. But I really am now, for a few hours anyway.
posted by marsha56 at 11:44 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
"But really, NAZIS aren't the way to ever, ever make a point that doesn't tip the line into "batshit insane." There is no rational analogy to be made that involves invoking National Socialism."
Hannah Arendt disagrees.
Well, that's awesome for her. I know that world consensus on my own opinions is impossible.
This kind of comment is hard to read in tone - I guess I've been having this issue myself where I think it's totally obvious that I'm kidding, but to a reader that's not me, it isn't. I can't tell if you're poking fun at me in a jokeful ha-ha kind of way or if you're seriously trying to make me defensive. Like I say, I'm having this problem in tone myself so maybe I'm more sensitive to it, but this is seriously difficult to parse.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 11:44 AM on November 2, 2009
Hannah Arendt disagrees.
Well, that's awesome for her. I know that world consensus on my own opinions is impossible.
This kind of comment is hard to read in tone - I guess I've been having this issue myself where I think it's totally obvious that I'm kidding, but to a reader that's not me, it isn't. I can't tell if you're poking fun at me in a jokeful ha-ha kind of way or if you're seriously trying to make me defensive. Like I say, I'm having this problem in tone myself so maybe I'm more sensitive to it, but this is seriously difficult to parse.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 11:44 AM on November 2, 2009
AMAZING FACTS!
-The median number of comments for a MeTa thread is TWENTY!
-The lowest non-negative integer for which there is no MeTa thread with the corresponding number of comments is TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR!
-I had an awkward time phrasing the above AMAZING FACT and would APPRECIATE SUGGESTIONS!
-The deleted MeTa thread with the most comments is THIS ONE!
-The MeTa thread with the highest favorite to comment ratio, excluding threads with no comments because of the HORRORS of DIVIDING by ZERO is THIS ONE!
-If I keep dicking around with the data dump instead of working, I'm going to GET FIRED!
posted by Kwine at 11:46 AM on November 2, 2009 [19 favorites]
-The median number of comments for a MeTa thread is TWENTY!
-The lowest non-negative integer for which there is no MeTa thread with the corresponding number of comments is TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR!
-I had an awkward time phrasing the above AMAZING FACT and would APPRECIATE SUGGESTIONS!
-The deleted MeTa thread with the most comments is THIS ONE!
-The MeTa thread with the highest favorite to comment ratio, excluding threads with no comments because of the HORRORS of DIVIDING by ZERO is THIS ONE!
-If I keep dicking around with the data dump instead of working, I'm going to GET FIRED!
posted by Kwine at 11:46 AM on November 2, 2009 [19 favorites]
P.o.B.: "[[ As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I believe that the number of people who thought any change to the favorites system was needed comprise an insignificant minority. Nor could they make a coherent claim for what I might eventually gain - as opposed to what I had immediately lost.]]
Well, the first assertion is absolutely wrong and has been reiterated by the mods a few times here."
I was not aware that you or the mods had any hard numbers to support that. [Nor, at this point in the thread's metastasis, am I inclined to go hunting for any.]
posted by Joe Beese at 11:47 AM on November 2, 2009
Well, the first assertion is absolutely wrong and has been reiterated by the mods a few times here."
I was not aware that you or the mods had any hard numbers to support that. [Nor, at this point in the thread's metastasis, am I inclined to go hunting for any.]
posted by Joe Beese at 11:47 AM on November 2, 2009
FishBike: "Since clicking on this bit of text brings up a list of people who've favorited that comment, how about "show favorites", or "list favorites", or even just "favorites"? I guess technically it's a list of favorers/favoriters but those are both horrible words."
For that matter, how about just having "favorites" constantly present (since if you opt in, it'll be on most comments anyway, so may as well make it a full sweep). When you click on it, if there are no favorites, the list would instead just be empty. "No user has favorited this comment" or similar.
posted by Drastic at 11:50 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
For that matter, how about just having "favorites" constantly present (since if you opt in, it'll be on most comments anyway, so may as well make it a full sweep). When you click on it, if there are no favorites, the list would instead just be empty. "No user has favorited this comment" or similar.
posted by Drastic at 11:50 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Actually, Dr. Dracator's plain simple "favorites" is probably better than "favorited". And it's closest to what people have been used to - only the number would be hidden.
posted by catchingsignals at 11:51 AM on November 2, 2009
posted by catchingsignals at 11:51 AM on November 2, 2009
But then the thread became largely about the way people were expressing those thoughts. And this criticism seems to have been almost entirely on the pro-hiding-favorite-counts side.
How much money you got in your pocket? I'd place a bet that you're wrong on that one. You're anti-experiment? You sure your opinion isn't coloring your opinion on this?
posted by P.o.B. at 11:51 AM on November 2, 2009
How much money you got in your pocket? I'd place a bet that you're wrong on that one. You're anti-experiment? You sure your opinion isn't coloring your opinion on this?
posted by P.o.B. at 11:51 AM on November 2, 2009
it's not a totally neologism, like faved, and, it's like, used on flickr and stuff.
I feel weird continually going to bat for a word that I don't even like very much and am glad we're going to go ahead and change, but "faved" too gets a fair amount of use out there in the wild, so it's not much of an argument. And, again, "fave" is not some blushing coinage spawned fresh from the late eighties or anything.
-If I keep dicking around with the data dump instead of working, I'm going to GET FIRED!
Heh. I laughed, Kwine.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:52 AM on November 2, 2009
I feel weird continually going to bat for a word that I don't even like very much and am glad we're going to go ahead and change, but "faved" too gets a fair amount of use out there in the wild, so it's not much of an argument. And, again, "fave" is not some blushing coinage spawned fresh from the late eighties or anything.
-If I keep dicking around with the data dump instead of working, I'm going to GET FIRED!
Heh. I laughed, Kwine.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:52 AM on November 2, 2009
I had an awkward time phrasing the above AMAZING FACT and would APPRECIATE SUGGESTIONS!
Two hundred and thirty four (or even TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR) is the lowest non-negative integer that is not the number of comments in some MeTa thread.
posted by Dr Dracator at 11:54 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Two hundred and thirty four (or even TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR) is the lowest non-negative integer that is not the number of comments in some MeTa thread.
posted by Dr Dracator at 11:54 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
fightorflight, I think what's being pointed out is that the group is small, and repeats itself. That large number of people not giving it a chance? Have you missed the people saying either that they didn't like it, but would give it a chance, or the many people who said that, in the short time before there were ways around it, that it negatively impacted the way they use the site?
Oh FFS, again, the number of participants on MeTa is not even representative of participants in the site as a whole. The number of people who get pissed and come here is bound to be greater than the number of people who shrug their shoulders and go on with their MetaFiltering lives. Please stop pretending 1) that any side posting here in MeTa represents the majority of anything other than people that have posted in MeTa, 2) that there are only two sides to this issue, and you are somehow on the winning side because you believe that more people have posted agreeing with you. It's not scientific. It's not helpful to your argument. It is fucking frustrating that many people here use their expression of a perceived majority opinion as an argument against experimentation.
posted by oneirodynia at 11:54 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Oh FFS, again, the number of participants on MeTa is not even representative of participants in the site as a whole. The number of people who get pissed and come here is bound to be greater than the number of people who shrug their shoulders and go on with their MetaFiltering lives. Please stop pretending 1) that any side posting here in MeTa represents the majority of anything other than people that have posted in MeTa, 2) that there are only two sides to this issue, and you are somehow on the winning side because you believe that more people have posted agreeing with you. It's not scientific. It's not helpful to your argument. It is fucking frustrating that many people here use their expression of a perceived majority opinion as an argument against experimentation.
posted by oneirodynia at 11:54 AM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
"Nothing said so far negates the fact that, as a casual reader, I might still have some very valuable things to contribute, and I don't like the way this is being discussed by a few as saying that casual readers are not really contributing to the conversation."
No, of course it doesn't negate that. Casual readers can and do make great contributions all the time—in aggregate. But I'd argue that it's pretty much definitional that most casual users are going to make casual comments that don't add all that much by themselves.
Again, I'm just not sure what you're not getting about this, as it seems pretty much straightforward to me, and honestly it feels like this is more about placating the egos of casual members, and I wish I knew how to say that in a way that didn't seem somehow insulting.
I have a casual level of engagement with local politics, where I vote and talk to people and keep informed, but don't go to rallies and don't donate or organize or volunteer (generally). While I'm important as a voter, and certainly I believe that I have valuable insights into some issues, my opinion won't carry as much weight as someone who does volunteer or write lots of letters or donate money. There are plenty of ways to remedy that, but it's my choice not to pursue them. I'm a less valuable member of that community than, say, the city council member or anyone on the neighborhood councils or whatever. I add less value. My preferences only really matter in aggregate.
This is different from arguing that someone is morally less valuable or that their contributions are worthless or anything like that. Worth less, sure, but worthless, no.
And finally, outside of a very small number of people, there really aren't any essential members of Metafilter. This can be seen by looking at the number of folks who have dropped out over time, the Etherial Blighs, the Ikkyu2s, occassionally the Jonmcs. I like ArtW's FPPs, but if he decides not to come back, well, there's already more Metafilter than I can read. It would be a loss, but not a mortal one. Just like how if I left it wouldn't kill MeFi or anything. And individually, casual users are going to be less noticeable when they leave. If a bunch all split, that would be noteworthy. If a few dribble off, well, that happens all the time anyway.
I'll try to address your other concern, that all casual users are being lumped together as a bunch of yahoos and louts, it's that casual users who aren't goobers don't stick out. I'd bet that for every five casual folks who only ever pop by to say things like "Great post!", there is one who crashes loudly into a discussion ignoring what's already been said because they skimmed and were dumb about it. More to the point, I'd say that often, that lout is one of the folks who's otherwise great! And that it happens even when non-casual users read threads casually, with the effects more noticeable on crappy, contentious, fast-moving posts.
posted by klangklangston at 11:57 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
No, of course it doesn't negate that. Casual readers can and do make great contributions all the time—in aggregate. But I'd argue that it's pretty much definitional that most casual users are going to make casual comments that don't add all that much by themselves.
Again, I'm just not sure what you're not getting about this, as it seems pretty much straightforward to me, and honestly it feels like this is more about placating the egos of casual members, and I wish I knew how to say that in a way that didn't seem somehow insulting.
I have a casual level of engagement with local politics, where I vote and talk to people and keep informed, but don't go to rallies and don't donate or organize or volunteer (generally). While I'm important as a voter, and certainly I believe that I have valuable insights into some issues, my opinion won't carry as much weight as someone who does volunteer or write lots of letters or donate money. There are plenty of ways to remedy that, but it's my choice not to pursue them. I'm a less valuable member of that community than, say, the city council member or anyone on the neighborhood councils or whatever. I add less value. My preferences only really matter in aggregate.
This is different from arguing that someone is morally less valuable or that their contributions are worthless or anything like that. Worth less, sure, but worthless, no.
And finally, outside of a very small number of people, there really aren't any essential members of Metafilter. This can be seen by looking at the number of folks who have dropped out over time, the Etherial Blighs, the Ikkyu2s, occassionally the Jonmcs. I like ArtW's FPPs, but if he decides not to come back, well, there's already more Metafilter than I can read. It would be a loss, but not a mortal one. Just like how if I left it wouldn't kill MeFi or anything. And individually, casual users are going to be less noticeable when they leave. If a bunch all split, that would be noteworthy. If a few dribble off, well, that happens all the time anyway.
I'll try to address your other concern, that all casual users are being lumped together as a bunch of yahoos and louts, it's that casual users who aren't goobers don't stick out. I'd bet that for every five casual folks who only ever pop by to say things like "Great post!", there is one who crashes loudly into a discussion ignoring what's already been said because they skimmed and were dumb about it. More to the point, I'd say that often, that lout is one of the folks who's otherwise great! And that it happens even when non-casual users read threads casually, with the effects more noticeable on crappy, contentious, fast-moving posts.
posted by klangklangston at 11:57 AM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yes, in this extremely long thread, some of the comments make their point in an exaggerated or colorful way. "Kickball," "burqa" ... admittedly, these terms (which I didn't use) were unnecessary. But ... "not conducive to healthy debate"?
There's something weird about this thread. It started out as a discussion about the merits of the UI change. Some people liked it, some didn't, and they detailed their reasons why.
Yep, and the first paragraph of my comment (which you didn't quote) described how I feel about favorites, how I respect that others view them differently and how I feel this is a good-faith effort by the mods. I'm not just cherry-picking invective - I'm suggesting that language like this might keep others from joining the debate.
posted by ersatzkat at 11:58 AM on November 2, 2009
There's something weird about this thread. It started out as a discussion about the merits of the UI change. Some people liked it, some didn't, and they detailed their reasons why.
Yep, and the first paragraph of my comment (which you didn't quote) described how I feel about favorites, how I respect that others view them differently and how I feel this is a good-faith effort by the mods. I'm not just cherry-picking invective - I'm suggesting that language like this might keep others from joining the debate.
posted by ersatzkat at 11:58 AM on November 2, 2009
I believe that the number of people who thought any change to the favorites system was needed comprise an insignificant minority.
For some reason I saw that as compromise. Meh. Anywho, minority-shminority. Say it as many times as you like, it just increases my chances of winning the bet. It is diminutive, and an attempt at sidelining opinions from the discussion. "Insignificant" only highlights that.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:59 AM on November 2, 2009
For some reason I saw that as compromise. Meh. Anywho, minority-shminority. Say it as many times as you like, it just increases my chances of winning the bet. It is diminutive, and an attempt at sidelining opinions from the discussion. "Insignificant" only highlights that.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:59 AM on November 2, 2009
May I suggest using just the word "favorites"? It's shorter, makes sense (being a link to the favorites this comment has received), and maintains consistency with the number option.
We thought about that, and our main concern there is that it makes the change look like a "oops the counts are missing" bug rather than a clearly deliberate change, otherwise that's probably what we'd be planning to go with.
Should've previewed fast-moving thread. I'd vote for FishBike's "show favorites" then - "has favorites" to me feels very "I have something you don't" about it, but "show favorites" seems close to just right.
posted by catchingsignals at 12:02 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
We thought about that, and our main concern there is that it makes the change look like a "oops the counts are missing" bug rather than a clearly deliberate change, otherwise that's probably what we'd be planning to go with.
Should've previewed fast-moving thread. I'd vote for FishBike's "show favorites" then - "has favorites" to me feels very "I have something you don't" about it, but "show favorites" seems close to just right.
posted by catchingsignals at 12:02 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
I picked the wrong month to stop sniffing glue transition to a different username (not a new one, this was the title of my 1999 blog and I paid $5 for this account 5 years ago just to make sure nobody else used the name... hi, I'm the MeFite formerly known as wendell), because the preference to opt out of the 'faved experiment' resets every time I log out because I'm logging into the old account periodically to monitor MeFiMail and reactions to old comments. Comments like this one where I addressed the real problem with Favorites, its 'one size fits all' nature that could only be fixed by splitting it up into designators for "Bookmark" (possibly non-public), "Like" and "Best.Ever." (with a low number limit).
But I'll keep opting out because the 'faved experiment' is the first change/enhancement I can recall in the history of MeFi that negatively affects my use of the site, not by very much, but after 10 years of pretty ponies, it's a shock seeing a mule.
And I'm still pissy with the fact that the MetaPowersThatBe choose not even to 'experiment' with the 3-Minute-Edit which would have saved us at least one in the comment count and saved schmegegge and many others of us some unneeded angst. Funny how that was the last comment before I started this comment.
And why am I un-wendelling? It's (1) complicated, (b) not MeFi-directly-related and (IV) none of anybody's business.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:04 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
But I'll keep opting out because the 'faved experiment' is the first change/enhancement I can recall in the history of MeFi that negatively affects my use of the site, not by very much, but after 10 years of pretty ponies, it's a shock seeing a mule.
And I'm still pissy with the fact that the MetaPowersThatBe choose not even to 'experiment' with the 3-Minute-Edit which would have saved us at least one in the comment count and saved schmegegge and many others of us some unneeded angst. Funny how that was the last comment before I started this comment.
And why am I un-wendelling? It's (1) complicated, (b) not MeFi-directly-related and (IV) none of anybody's business.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:04 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
THAT IS MUCH BETTER....er, that is much better indeed, Dr. Dracator, thank you.
posted by Kwine at 12:07 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by Kwine at 12:07 PM on November 2, 2009
oneswellfoop: "And I'm still pissy with the fact that the MetaPowersThatBe choose not even to 'experiment' with the 3-Minute-Edit which would have saved us at least one in the comment count and saved schmegegge and many others of us some unneeded angst."
you know, I can sympathize with this. I'm practically a typo factory supplying the eastern seaboard with its daily typo quota all by myself.
on the other hand. there's a preview button right there that I can press before I press "Post Comment." It's my own damn fault for not using it.
posted by shmegegge at 12:08 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
you know, I can sympathize with this. I'm practically a typo factory supplying the eastern seaboard with its daily typo quota all by myself.
on the other hand. there's a preview button right there that I can press before I press "Post Comment." It's my own damn fault for not using it.
posted by shmegegge at 12:08 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
> Et tu, brute? You're the last person I would have expected this from. But go ahead, my friend – twist the knife.
Yeah, sorry about that, compadre. I was unnecessarily mean-spirited, and I apologize. This thread is making us all CRAAAA-ZEEE!
That said, surely you realize announcing "OK, I'm outta here" and then coming back repeatedly is just asking for trouble.
posted by languagehat at 12:08 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yeah, sorry about that, compadre. I was unnecessarily mean-spirited, and I apologize. This thread is making us all CRAAAA-ZEEE!
That said, surely you realize announcing "OK, I'm outta here" and then coming back repeatedly is just asking for trouble.
posted by languagehat at 12:08 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
RAGNARSNARK
posted by The Whelk at 12:10 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 12:10 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I feel weird continually going to bat for a word that I don't even like very much and am glad we're going to go ahead and change, but "faved" too gets a fair amount of use out there in the wild, so it's not much of an argument. And, again, "fave" is not some blushing coinage spawned fresh from the late eighties or anything.
"Fave" isn't, but I still think "faved" as a verb just has too . . . youthful? Goofy? of a feel to it, which, I think, was what a lot of people were reacting to so strongly. Honestly, I don't think I've seen it at all on the internets before this, at least not that I can remember, but maybe that's just me.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:12 PM on November 2, 2009
"Fave" isn't, but I still think "faved" as a verb just has too . . . youthful? Goofy? of a feel to it, which, I think, was what a lot of people were reacting to so strongly. Honestly, I don't think I've seen it at all on the internets before this, at least not that I can remember, but maybe that's just me.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:12 PM on November 2, 2009
Personal rambling: When I first joined, I was all a-flutter with the potential with people liking my contributions and noting as much through favorites. This lasted until I realized that this community is chock-full of intelligent, insightful, witty, and snarky individuals with far better fact retention and reading speed than I have. In short, my comments didn't get as many favorites as I thought they might. I realized I didn't need to post in every thread, and that I could save my words for when they were worthwhile. Or I could join in, toss in my two bits, and let them float as they may.
I still check my favorites count too often, and ponder what sort of tact to take with my comments, even wondering if I had worded something better it would have been better received. And because of this, I think my writing is improving. Maybe not significantly yet, but I believe I am being more critical of my own writing. For that, I am glad the system of favorites in place.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:12 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
I still check my favorites count too often, and ponder what sort of tact to take with my comments, even wondering if I had worded something better it would have been better received. And because of this, I think my writing is improving. Maybe not significantly yet, but I believe I am being more critical of my own writing. For that, I am glad the system of favorites in place.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:12 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
Not that anyone asked, but put me in the "this is a really bad idea" camp. And yeah, I spent a decade as a usability consultant, like the many other UI folks on MeFi who are similarly pointing out what a textbook bad move this is. If they even realize there's a place to discuss it after the fact, that is. (Just doing it is also bad user service.)
Not wanting them to be treated as some kind of "vote" is a sort of silly concern, when that is in fact how they are used today. Whether that was the original intent isn't relevant anymore, because it's the users who should be deciding this sort of thing. That's what usability is all about.
When I see "Cortex made a comment with 64 favorites yesterday" in the sidebar, I go read that comment, since hey 64 people thought it was fave-worthy. And as a result often I often back up and read the whole thread, especially if I missed it originally. This is a serious entry point for me, one of the most useful parts of MeFi, and removing it just flattens MeFi into a less navigable soup of everything-is-the-same. Without these spotlights of the "best" articles and comments, I'll end up reading less MetaFilter, and miss a whole lot more of the best parts.
In AskMe it's also lame, though in a different way, to remove counts, because in that context it's obviously a vote of agreement or support to a previous answer. I've always liked this because its tops AskMe from becoming a see of "Me too" or "Exactly" or other comments that do nothing but endorse an earlier one. Soon we'll see people actually COUNTING UP VOTES for answers manually and pasting them in the thread to summarize. We'll have a slow and awkward method instead of the easy and automatic tool we used to have.
(Heck, the same is true for many blue discussion threads. If faves don't show anymore, we'll slowly move to entire threads full of "Yes" and "I agree" and "This". That's all noise, and the quiet little "17 other MeFi users liked this" was a much smarter way to handle that.)
Removing information that people are actually using and adding noise in its place is a bad, bad decision, always.
The fact you're removing something that many people use specifically as a filter just makes it sort of funnily bad.
posted by rokusan at 12:12 PM on November 2, 2009 [20 favorites]
Not wanting them to be treated as some kind of "vote" is a sort of silly concern, when that is in fact how they are used today. Whether that was the original intent isn't relevant anymore, because it's the users who should be deciding this sort of thing. That's what usability is all about.
When I see "Cortex made a comment with 64 favorites yesterday" in the sidebar, I go read that comment, since hey 64 people thought it was fave-worthy. And as a result often I often back up and read the whole thread, especially if I missed it originally. This is a serious entry point for me, one of the most useful parts of MeFi, and removing it just flattens MeFi into a less navigable soup of everything-is-the-same. Without these spotlights of the "best" articles and comments, I'll end up reading less MetaFilter, and miss a whole lot more of the best parts.
In AskMe it's also lame, though in a different way, to remove counts, because in that context it's obviously a vote of agreement or support to a previous answer. I've always liked this because its tops AskMe from becoming a see of "Me too" or "Exactly" or other comments that do nothing but endorse an earlier one. Soon we'll see people actually COUNTING UP VOTES for answers manually and pasting them in the thread to summarize. We'll have a slow and awkward method instead of the easy and automatic tool we used to have.
(Heck, the same is true for many blue discussion threads. If faves don't show anymore, we'll slowly move to entire threads full of "Yes" and "I agree" and "This". That's all noise, and the quiet little "17 other MeFi users liked this" was a much smarter way to handle that.)
Removing information that people are actually using and adding noise in its place is a bad, bad decision, always.
The fact you're removing something that many people use specifically as a filter just makes it sort of funnily bad.
posted by rokusan at 12:12 PM on November 2, 2009 [20 favorites]
Wait, Artw is gone?
He says he'll be back. And given the bizarre way he was flipping out for no reason at the bottom of the thread it's probably for the best that he step away for a bit.
posted by mediareport at 12:14 PM on November 2, 2009
He says he'll be back. And given the bizarre way he was flipping out for no reason at the bottom of the thread it's probably for the best that he step away for a bit.
posted by mediareport at 12:14 PM on November 2, 2009
I have opted out from the change, but the opt-out doesn't seem to be effective. I am still seeing "faved."
I want Metafilter back the way I like it, and I want it back NOW, please.
posted by jayder at 12:17 PM on November 2, 2009
I want Metafilter back the way I like it, and I want it back NOW, please.
posted by jayder at 12:17 PM on November 2, 2009
When I see "Cortex made a comment with 64 favorites yesterday" in the sidebar ... Without these spotlights of the "best" articles and comments, I'll end up reading less MetaFilter, and miss a whole lot more of the best parts.
I thought this is something that has stayed the same. Can someone with an active sidebar confirm?
posted by ODiV at 12:19 PM on November 2, 2009
I thought this is something that has stayed the same. Can someone with an active sidebar confirm?
posted by ODiV at 12:19 PM on November 2, 2009
> Instead they seem to be used only as 'I agree' or 'well said', which isn't horrible, but leaves those of us who use them as bookmarks kind of feeling awkward.
That's self-contradictory and, frankly, incomprehensible. If there is a class of "those of us who use them as bookmarks," then clearly they are not "used only as 'I agree' or 'well said.'" People use, and have used, them in all kinds of ways. There are enough contentious issues running around in here that I would have thought there was no need to try to invent new ones.
Also, a big hug to all the mods; they couldn't possibly have had any idea what they were letting themselves in for, and I'll bet each of them is wishing he or she were on an internet-free vacation right about now.
posted by languagehat at 12:21 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
That's self-contradictory and, frankly, incomprehensible. If there is a class of "those of us who use them as bookmarks," then clearly they are not "used only as 'I agree' or 'well said.'" People use, and have used, them in all kinds of ways. There are enough contentious issues running around in here that I would have thought there was no need to try to invent new ones.
Also, a big hug to all the mods; they couldn't possibly have had any idea what they were letting themselves in for, and I'll bet each of them is wishing he or she were on an internet-free vacation right about now.
posted by languagehat at 12:21 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
CORTEX AVOIDS METAFILTER
where cortex flies around the country, specifically hiding from any and all meetups and mefites in the hopes of recovering his sanity.
posted by shmegegge at 12:26 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
where cortex flies around the country, specifically hiding from any and all meetups and mefites in the hopes of recovering his sanity.
posted by shmegegge at 12:26 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
jayder: Try a forced refresh yet?
F5 in IE, right? Yeah, it doesn't work.
posted by jayder at 12:28 PM on November 2, 2009
F5 in IE, right? Yeah, it doesn't work.
posted by jayder at 12:28 PM on November 2, 2009
I would like to express my support for this experiment; I think there are good reasons for and against visible favorites and it will be interesting to see if there are any clear changes in November.
posted by tomcooke at 12:29 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by tomcooke at 12:29 PM on November 2, 2009
"Fave" isn't, but I still think "faved" as a verb just has too . . . youthful? Goofy? of a feel to it, which, I think, was what a lot of people were reacting to so strongly. Honestly, I don't think I've seen it at all on the internets before this, at least not that I can remember, but maybe that's just me.
I totally hear that, and while I'm willing to quibble over how much work needs to go into such a straightforward inflection as fave -> faved and hence how defensible an attempt to try and partition the two is, etc, etc, I can really understand that "I do not like it" reaction. I just get language counter-peeved about the escalation from "I do not like this usage" to "I will make something up about this usage". Trivia, in any case, I've gone on too much about it already.
When I see "Cortex made a comment with 64 favorites yesterday" in the sidebar, I go read that comment, since hey 64 people thought it was fave-worthy. And as a result often I often back up and read the whole thread, especially if I missed it originally. This is a serious entry point for me, one of the most useful parts of MeFi, and removing it just flattens MeFi into a less navigable soup of everything-is-the-same. Without these spotlights of the "best" articles and comments, I'll end up reading less MetaFilter, and miss a whole lot more of the best parts.
This functionality has not changed.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:31 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I totally hear that, and while I'm willing to quibble over how much work needs to go into such a straightforward inflection as fave -> faved and hence how defensible an attempt to try and partition the two is, etc, etc, I can really understand that "I do not like it" reaction. I just get language counter-peeved about the escalation from "I do not like this usage" to "I will make something up about this usage". Trivia, in any case, I've gone on too much about it already.
When I see "Cortex made a comment with 64 favorites yesterday" in the sidebar, I go read that comment, since hey 64 people thought it was fave-worthy. And as a result often I often back up and read the whole thread, especially if I missed it originally. This is a serious entry point for me, one of the most useful parts of MeFi, and removing it just flattens MeFi into a less navigable soup of everything-is-the-same. Without these spotlights of the "best" articles and comments, I'll end up reading less MetaFilter, and miss a whole lot more of the best parts.
This functionality has not changed.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:31 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I am in favor of the change.
posted by Sailormom at 12:31 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Sailormom at 12:31 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
If there is a class of "those of us who use them as bookmarks," then clearly they are not "used only as 'I agree' or 'well said.'"
Change "only" to "primarily" then. Sorry for the logical inconsistency.
People use, and have used, them in all kinds of ways. There are enough contentious issues running around in here that I would have thought there was no need to try to invent new ones.
I don't think it's an invented issue. I've frequently seen people conclude that a comment they felt was inappropriate was agreed with by those who favourited it. I could search for some if you'd like. It's probably not something I should care about, but I don't like people getting the wrong idea about what I think.
posted by ODiV at 12:31 PM on November 2, 2009
Change "only" to "primarily" then. Sorry for the logical inconsistency.
People use, and have used, them in all kinds of ways. There are enough contentious issues running around in here that I would have thought there was no need to try to invent new ones.
I don't think it's an invented issue. I've frequently seen people conclude that a comment they felt was inappropriate was agreed with by those who favourited it. I could search for some if you'd like. It's probably not something I should care about, but I don't like people getting the wrong idea about what I think.
posted by ODiV at 12:31 PM on November 2, 2009
I bet none of the mods thought that this release train was the express line to CRAZYTOWN.
Also, more A/B testing going forward please. Like, one day where 5% of the users see no Dios comments and a different 5% see only Dios comments. And 1% see every languagehat comment three times. pb will then be fully qualified to work at Google's UI dept at determine the right shade of blue.
posted by GuyZero at 12:32 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Also, more A/B testing going forward please. Like, one day where 5% of the users see no Dios comments and a different 5% see only Dios comments. And 1% see every languagehat comment three times. pb will then be fully qualified to work at Google's UI dept at determine the right shade of blue.
posted by GuyZero at 12:32 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Our approach is to give it a shot and see what happens. Not as a try-before-you-buy thing to ease the change in; we're all fully expecting to go back to just how it was before December, all else being equal. But by doing this we can at least test some of these perceptions a little and see if anything surprising turns up.
I bet a user revolt and a man-the-barricades flamewar was a surprise...
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:36 PM on November 2, 2009
I bet a user revolt and a man-the-barricades flamewar was a surprise...
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:36 PM on November 2, 2009
I just get language counter-peeved about the escalation from "I do not like this usage" to "I will make something up about this usage". Trivia, in any case, I've gone on too much about it already.
Well, like I said, it's a usage that I, personally, really hadn't seen around widely (though googling makes it seem like it might be somewhat common on twitter and deviant art--I don't really use either). Google searching back to results only before y2kish brought up less than one page of results, whereas there were still 10+ pages of "favorited" in that time; there's also still no urbandictionary page for faved while there is one for favorited. I'm not sure how accurate any of these are measures for commonality in usage--faved seems more broadly used than I thought it was, admittedly, but still seems rarely enough used that I don't think it's unusual that any of us who were taken aback by it were.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:42 PM on November 2, 2009
Well, like I said, it's a usage that I, personally, really hadn't seen around widely (though googling makes it seem like it might be somewhat common on twitter and deviant art--I don't really use either). Google searching back to results only before y2kish brought up less than one page of results, whereas there were still 10+ pages of "favorited" in that time; there's also still no urbandictionary page for faved while there is one for favorited. I'm not sure how accurate any of these are measures for commonality in usage--faved seems more broadly used than I thought it was, admittedly, but still seems rarely enough used that I don't think it's unusual that any of us who were taken aback by it were.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:42 PM on November 2, 2009
mathowie: "I skim threads when I don't have time but I don't regularly look for just the highest favorited comments in threads, and you have to admit that kind of activity devalues everything else and creates an environment where comments are seen as useless noise with the votes pushing up the signal.
"
honestly? i don't agree with that. I see where you're coming from, but from where I'm standing the sheer number of people on a site where the thread format (and we've had this discussion before) simply doesn't scale past a certain threshold has devalued the comments. in a thread with 154 comments, how many of these am I supposed to digest and consider? and that's not even close to the level some of our threads get to. favorites was devised to give us ways to sort the massive data being fed to us. so let's not forget that massive amount of data in our rush to figure out where the environment comes from. favorites may tell me what I'd like to read in a big thread, sure, and that precludes - depending on my behavior - reading some less favorited comments sometimes. but without some filter, all comments have that minimum value. favorites do not devalue comments. they add value on top of a greatly devalued base comment value, because our growing userbase has devalued comments.
posted by shmegegge at 12:47 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
"
honestly? i don't agree with that. I see where you're coming from, but from where I'm standing the sheer number of people on a site where the thread format (and we've had this discussion before) simply doesn't scale past a certain threshold has devalued the comments. in a thread with 154 comments, how many of these am I supposed to digest and consider? and that's not even close to the level some of our threads get to. favorites was devised to give us ways to sort the massive data being fed to us. so let's not forget that massive amount of data in our rush to figure out where the environment comes from. favorites may tell me what I'd like to read in a big thread, sure, and that precludes - depending on my behavior - reading some less favorited comments sometimes. but without some filter, all comments have that minimum value. favorites do not devalue comments. they add value on top of a greatly devalued base comment value, because our growing userbase has devalued comments.
posted by shmegegge at 12:47 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
I actually find it useful to know how many other people considered a comment valuable to themselves. I think you're removing a feature that provides real value.
posted by xammerboy at 12:52 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by xammerboy at 12:52 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
> Change "only" to "primarily" then.
But you don't know that either.
> I've frequently seen people conclude that a comment they felt was inappropriate was agreed with by those who favourited it.
Yeah, but that tells you something about their feelings, not about the site or any other members. I certainly don't mean to belittle your concerns (god knows there's enough of that in this thread already), I would just suggest that you would be better off trying to ignore that feeling and just use favorites the way you like and not make assumptions about how others are using them. It works for me.
posted by languagehat at 12:53 PM on November 2, 2009
But you don't know that either.
> I've frequently seen people conclude that a comment they felt was inappropriate was agreed with by those who favourited it.
Yeah, but that tells you something about their feelings, not about the site or any other members. I certainly don't mean to belittle your concerns (god knows there's enough of that in this thread already), I would just suggest that you would be better off trying to ignore that feeling and just use favorites the way you like and not make assumptions about how others are using them. It works for me.
posted by languagehat at 12:53 PM on November 2, 2009
I (like my previous incarnation) am not afraid to admit when I'm wrong (although I am reconsidering that often-losing strategy). So I'll happily note that the opt-out no longer resets for me when I log out and back in on the same machine. Relief. I can think of many other UI thingies that would benefit from opt-out-in capabilities, but I don't wish to make anyone's head asplode (at this time). And yeah, "faved" is so not Best of the Web. I vote for "favorites" with an informative mouse-over as a reasonable alternative (that might just get me to un-opt-out and accept the temporary experimental status quo). But while I am opted-out, how will I know?
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:53 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:53 PM on November 2, 2009
[WARNING: massive comment ahoy. I've been adding to it off and on since morning as replies have come up... sorry!]
koeselitz: "So that brings up the interesting question: now that it's easy for people to opt back in to favorites – now that anyone who objected to the sudden loss of usability has a simple and complete recourse on that front – what would happen if we kept things this way? If not seeing favorites is the default, and yet there's still an easy and convenient switch to pull to see that information if you want to – how would that impact the site? Would it be good or bad?
I'm interested in this question because it sort of strips away the personal immediacy a lot of us felt about it right away. We can all switch on favorites if we like, so it's no longer a question of that option being unavailable if you find it beneficial. So now that you can choose whatever you want for yourself, what change do you think it will have on the site now that most people don't see favorites on first joining?"
I think leaving favorite counts on by default is best, not only because the majority of users are in favor of it and it makes sense for the minority preference to be the opt-in, but because rendering favorites invisible by default would significantly damage the efficacy of the system as an outlet for nonverbal community feedback.
I suspect that a minority of members ever bother to fiddle with their preferences. That seems to be part of the spirit behind this experiment, after all -- if the default position is "favorites off", then most of the userbase (apart from the people who find them really important to their experience) will go with the flow. So if the experiment is extended indefinitely a significant number of users will continue to participate out of sheer inertia.
On top of that, all new members who join would enter into a community without visible favorites. Their potential use as a signifier of support or as an overlay of community sentiment would be non-obvious, relegated to a checkbox in their preferences page alongside their font size and time offset. These people probably would have favorited things themselves and even have found public favorites as useful and enriching to their reading experience as most of us do now, but by hiding that possibility from them by default and requiring them to enable an arcane option to even view them, it essentially obscures that decision from them.
The effect would be that only those of us who were aware of the opt-in and felt strongly enough to go in and select it would be seeing public favorite counts and thus be presented with favorites as anything other than a del.icio.us-style bookmarker. When reading a thread, only this relatively small group would even consider favoriting a comment in order to express kudos or publicly agree. To everyone else -- especially to newcomers who never knew the old system -- the [+] would be nothing more than a semi-private archival function.
This would cripple the non-bookmarking aspect of favorites in the long run. Instead of allowing the entire community to favorite what they want for whatever reason they please, and allowing all of us to use that information however we see fit, the audience of people favoriting things the original way would be more or less equal to the people opting out of the experiment now. For everyone else, both newcomers and people who neglect to opt-in to public favorites, any use of favorites beyond saving them for reference wouldn't even be a consideration. And this disparity would only grow over time.
klangklangston: "It's like saying, for argument, that posting FPPs is the most important way to contribute to the site. Does that mean that people who never post any FPPs aren't making any important contributions? No. Does it mean that they're not making the most important contributions? Yes. Does that mean that it's likely that their contributions are, on the whole for that individual member, less important? Yes. "
The problem with this analogy is that the casual user who doesn't post FPPs is not doing something, whereas the casual user who skims via favorites is. If you want to "remedy" the behavior of the latter, you have to actively interfere with the way they interact with the site, which strikes me as a very bad (and somewhat presumptuous) move.
dw: "You make a good comment, it gets 20 favorites, you feel satisfaction. This ever so slightly affects your behavior."
If it affects you by motivating you to post more interesting comments that people enjoy, what's wrong with that?
I had the same thing happen to me when I first joined. I was some months before I went out of my way to compose a really creative, out-of-the-box comment. I was quite nervous about it, actually, because I thought it would be too strange. But then it got a ton of favorites! Way more than the humdrum matter-of-fact stuff I'd always said before. Since nobody actually responded to it in-thread, it was the only sign that my comment was a worthwhile contribution that people appreciated. It encouraged me to write more such comments in the future, which continued to get a lot of approbation.
Favorites as feedback are good. They let newcomers know what sort of commentary is liked, give creative writers a little something back for the work they put into their jokes and stories, and highlight the cool stuff for other readers to see. What's wrong with that? Or more specifically, what bad behavior do favorites cause specifically that's bad enough to scrap the feedback/kudos/highlight phenomenon I just described?
dw: "Another thing I learned about Flickr -- they used to have a page ranking photos by "interestingness." Soon people figured out the "favoriteness" algorithm and began to exploit it. Soon it was a daily race to the top, one that was more about winning the game, not creating interesting photos."
Like the comparisons to Digg, this analogy doesn't apply to favorites. There is no algorithm or ranking system that sends the most favorited content to the top. If such a thing were proposed, I'd be wholeheartedly against it. But favorites do not change how the conversation is presented. They merely supplement and add to the discussion, not alter it.
Also, "gaming" favorites is not like cheating an algorithm. If you want to "win the favorites game" you have to post content that lots of people like enough to bookmark or give accolades to. Again... how is encouraging the creation of content the community likes a bad thing?
Now, I admit that sometimes people can try to seek favorites for the wrong reasons -- with harsh rebukes or cutting jokes that play to popular prejudices. But such bad behavior is rare in my experience, much rarer than the good contributions favorites encourage, and anything that crosses the line can just be deleted. Since more good than harm comes out of the favorites system, why throw the baby out with the bathwater by removing or crippling the system entirely in an imperfect attempt to silence the bozos?
Think of Mefi as a gigantic cocktail party, with people gathered in scattered groups telling jokes, swapping stories, exchanging recipes and business cards and baby names. Everyone's backslapping, high-fiving, and having a good time. And when somebody makes a particularly clever pun or articulates an exceptionally well-worded argument, it gets a round of laughs or applause and maybe even attracts a bigger crowd. Some are there to cheer, others to jot down the moment in their diaries for later reference, but the hubbub of activity adds color and attaches additional importance to the words being spoken.
Now, let's say some people start harshing everyone's style, either by jumping up on tables with lampshades on their heads for laughs or by acting like Internet Tough Guys to get some "right on"s from their cronies. Some people think this behavior is ruining the party.
Would the solution be to ban all laughter, all nods, all smiles, so as not to egg on the wrong sorts of people? Project face blindness onto everybody and make them sit in quiet little sharing circles of staid conversation so that no comment is received better than others, every word is taken in individually, and no one story or joke is publicly hailed by anybody? Surely the better answer would be to discipline the troublemakers, rather than hobbling a communication method that a whole lot of people find useful.
As iamkimiam pointed out upthread, in an all-text medium favorites are a kind of paralinguistic channel that replace the body language and nonverbal cues present in all face-to-face conversations. They add a texture to the discussion and embellish the flat presentation of text with granular measures of appreciation, interest, and/or approval. Removing or hampering easy access to this data reduces the bandwidth of community interaction and makes feedback more difficult and more inefficient. It compartmentalizes and obscures an important response mechanism. It might stifle those who seek favorites for bad reasons, but it stifles a whole lot of beneficial behavior along with it.
In conclusion (finally), I ask people who decry "favorites whoring" to do something to illustrate their concerns: pick a user, any user. Preferably one that you think is prone to engaging in harmful favorites-seeking behavior (I suppose I am one, under the loosest definition). Go to their profile, click on their "Favorited by others", and sort by popularity. Now go through this list of highly favorited contributions, probably contributions that were made with the possibility of gaining a lot of favorites in mind, and tell me which ones harmed the site. Surely if favorites are a problem because they encourage negative attention-seeking behavior, then such attention-seeking behavior would logically be successful in garnering a lot of favorites. And if that's true, then the "toplists" for many users should be rife with petty, useless, or pandering commentary that we'd be better off without.
And yet, going through my own list, I see some unorthodox formatting jokes, a photoshopped image, some roundups of useful links, some comedic writing, and some political commentary. (Plus two comments talking about why I thought this UI change was a bad idea). Nothing that, to my mind, detracted from the site, even if some of it was written at least partially in anticipation of the way it would be received. If that's gamesmanship or attention whoring, I certainly don't see anything wrong with it, and in fact see it as some of the best stuff I've ever contributed to the site. And I have a feeling that's true for most Mefites, too.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:00 PM on November 2, 2009 [32 favorites]
koeselitz: "So that brings up the interesting question: now that it's easy for people to opt back in to favorites – now that anyone who objected to the sudden loss of usability has a simple and complete recourse on that front – what would happen if we kept things this way? If not seeing favorites is the default, and yet there's still an easy and convenient switch to pull to see that information if you want to – how would that impact the site? Would it be good or bad?
I'm interested in this question because it sort of strips away the personal immediacy a lot of us felt about it right away. We can all switch on favorites if we like, so it's no longer a question of that option being unavailable if you find it beneficial. So now that you can choose whatever you want for yourself, what change do you think it will have on the site now that most people don't see favorites on first joining?"
I think leaving favorite counts on by default is best, not only because the majority of users are in favor of it and it makes sense for the minority preference to be the opt-in, but because rendering favorites invisible by default would significantly damage the efficacy of the system as an outlet for nonverbal community feedback.
I suspect that a minority of members ever bother to fiddle with their preferences. That seems to be part of the spirit behind this experiment, after all -- if the default position is "favorites off", then most of the userbase (apart from the people who find them really important to their experience) will go with the flow. So if the experiment is extended indefinitely a significant number of users will continue to participate out of sheer inertia.
On top of that, all new members who join would enter into a community without visible favorites. Their potential use as a signifier of support or as an overlay of community sentiment would be non-obvious, relegated to a checkbox in their preferences page alongside their font size and time offset. These people probably would have favorited things themselves and even have found public favorites as useful and enriching to their reading experience as most of us do now, but by hiding that possibility from them by default and requiring them to enable an arcane option to even view them, it essentially obscures that decision from them.
The effect would be that only those of us who were aware of the opt-in and felt strongly enough to go in and select it would be seeing public favorite counts and thus be presented with favorites as anything other than a del.icio.us-style bookmarker. When reading a thread, only this relatively small group would even consider favoriting a comment in order to express kudos or publicly agree. To everyone else -- especially to newcomers who never knew the old system -- the [+] would be nothing more than a semi-private archival function.
This would cripple the non-bookmarking aspect of favorites in the long run. Instead of allowing the entire community to favorite what they want for whatever reason they please, and allowing all of us to use that information however we see fit, the audience of people favoriting things the original way would be more or less equal to the people opting out of the experiment now. For everyone else, both newcomers and people who neglect to opt-in to public favorites, any use of favorites beyond saving them for reference wouldn't even be a consideration. And this disparity would only grow over time.
klangklangston: "It's like saying, for argument, that posting FPPs is the most important way to contribute to the site. Does that mean that people who never post any FPPs aren't making any important contributions? No. Does it mean that they're not making the most important contributions? Yes. Does that mean that it's likely that their contributions are, on the whole for that individual member, less important? Yes. "
The problem with this analogy is that the casual user who doesn't post FPPs is not doing something, whereas the casual user who skims via favorites is. If you want to "remedy" the behavior of the latter, you have to actively interfere with the way they interact with the site, which strikes me as a very bad (and somewhat presumptuous) move.
dw: "You make a good comment, it gets 20 favorites, you feel satisfaction. This ever so slightly affects your behavior."
If it affects you by motivating you to post more interesting comments that people enjoy, what's wrong with that?
I had the same thing happen to me when I first joined. I was some months before I went out of my way to compose a really creative, out-of-the-box comment. I was quite nervous about it, actually, because I thought it would be too strange. But then it got a ton of favorites! Way more than the humdrum matter-of-fact stuff I'd always said before. Since nobody actually responded to it in-thread, it was the only sign that my comment was a worthwhile contribution that people appreciated. It encouraged me to write more such comments in the future, which continued to get a lot of approbation.
Favorites as feedback are good. They let newcomers know what sort of commentary is liked, give creative writers a little something back for the work they put into their jokes and stories, and highlight the cool stuff for other readers to see. What's wrong with that? Or more specifically, what bad behavior do favorites cause specifically that's bad enough to scrap the feedback/kudos/highlight phenomenon I just described?
dw: "Another thing I learned about Flickr -- they used to have a page ranking photos by "interestingness." Soon people figured out the "favoriteness" algorithm and began to exploit it. Soon it was a daily race to the top, one that was more about winning the game, not creating interesting photos."
Like the comparisons to Digg, this analogy doesn't apply to favorites. There is no algorithm or ranking system that sends the most favorited content to the top. If such a thing were proposed, I'd be wholeheartedly against it. But favorites do not change how the conversation is presented. They merely supplement and add to the discussion, not alter it.
Also, "gaming" favorites is not like cheating an algorithm. If you want to "win the favorites game" you have to post content that lots of people like enough to bookmark or give accolades to. Again... how is encouraging the creation of content the community likes a bad thing?
Now, I admit that sometimes people can try to seek favorites for the wrong reasons -- with harsh rebukes or cutting jokes that play to popular prejudices. But such bad behavior is rare in my experience, much rarer than the good contributions favorites encourage, and anything that crosses the line can just be deleted. Since more good than harm comes out of the favorites system, why throw the baby out with the bathwater by removing or crippling the system entirely in an imperfect attempt to silence the bozos?
Think of Mefi as a gigantic cocktail party, with people gathered in scattered groups telling jokes, swapping stories, exchanging recipes and business cards and baby names. Everyone's backslapping, high-fiving, and having a good time. And when somebody makes a particularly clever pun or articulates an exceptionally well-worded argument, it gets a round of laughs or applause and maybe even attracts a bigger crowd. Some are there to cheer, others to jot down the moment in their diaries for later reference, but the hubbub of activity adds color and attaches additional importance to the words being spoken.
Now, let's say some people start harshing everyone's style, either by jumping up on tables with lampshades on their heads for laughs or by acting like Internet Tough Guys to get some "right on"s from their cronies. Some people think this behavior is ruining the party.
Would the solution be to ban all laughter, all nods, all smiles, so as not to egg on the wrong sorts of people? Project face blindness onto everybody and make them sit in quiet little sharing circles of staid conversation so that no comment is received better than others, every word is taken in individually, and no one story or joke is publicly hailed by anybody? Surely the better answer would be to discipline the troublemakers, rather than hobbling a communication method that a whole lot of people find useful.
As iamkimiam pointed out upthread, in an all-text medium favorites are a kind of paralinguistic channel that replace the body language and nonverbal cues present in all face-to-face conversations. They add a texture to the discussion and embellish the flat presentation of text with granular measures of appreciation, interest, and/or approval. Removing or hampering easy access to this data reduces the bandwidth of community interaction and makes feedback more difficult and more inefficient. It compartmentalizes and obscures an important response mechanism. It might stifle those who seek favorites for bad reasons, but it stifles a whole lot of beneficial behavior along with it.
In conclusion (finally), I ask people who decry "favorites whoring" to do something to illustrate their concerns: pick a user, any user. Preferably one that you think is prone to engaging in harmful favorites-seeking behavior (I suppose I am one, under the loosest definition). Go to their profile, click on their "Favorited by others", and sort by popularity. Now go through this list of highly favorited contributions, probably contributions that were made with the possibility of gaining a lot of favorites in mind, and tell me which ones harmed the site. Surely if favorites are a problem because they encourage negative attention-seeking behavior, then such attention-seeking behavior would logically be successful in garnering a lot of favorites. And if that's true, then the "toplists" for many users should be rife with petty, useless, or pandering commentary that we'd be better off without.
And yet, going through my own list, I see some unorthodox formatting jokes, a photoshopped image, some roundups of useful links, some comedic writing, and some political commentary. (Plus two comments talking about why I thought this UI change was a bad idea). Nothing that, to my mind, detracted from the site, even if some of it was written at least partially in anticipation of the way it would be received. If that's gamesmanship or attention whoring, I certainly don't see anything wrong with it, and in fact see it as some of the best stuff I've ever contributed to the site. And I have a feeling that's true for most Mefites, too.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:00 PM on November 2, 2009 [32 favorites]
Ah geez, Artw's gone for a month minimum? That's really shitty - Art, please do come back when the great unfavening is behind us - you were one of my favorite sources of FPPs and really fun to argue about comics with.
Now, as to the present controversy: When I first discovered this change had been made, I was just coming home from a booze-soaked, sleep deprived Halloween weekend. This thread was already quite long and the opt-out feature had been added. My initial, gut-level reaction was "holy shit, this is the worst idea ever and I couldn't hate it more." I was really surprised that Team Mod deemed this worth testing, as I thought the yay or nay favorites argument had long been settled and that it's occasional reappearance on MeTa was just one of those routine things, like the matching MeTa that appears every time Sarah Palin appears on the blue. I read through the thread-as-it-was yesterday, read the Mods thinking as to why this needed testing and saw their point - the tiresome favorites argument keeps coming up because there's not a lot of data to work from to reach a conclusion. Yeah, the early years of MeFi were favorite-free, but that was a community with a much smaller installed base of users. Time for a new test.
That initial reading phase was done w/ the test favorites system still on, which for my part, was long enough to know that I hated it, goddamn hated it and my conviction that the favorites system was fun and elegant and just fine the way it was. I've never been persuaded by the arguments against it and reading one thread with it changed only further convinced me that it didn't need changing. So I went into my preferences and flipped the switch to make things work properly again.
Reading the ongoing debate, though ... well, I don't feel like my hasty opt-out was really me doing my part to contribute to this community/experiment. The goal is to use SCIENCE! to forge a better community ... so, while I am very much opposed to this change and confident that I would absolutely hate it were this change to become permanent, I'm in favor of SCIENCE! and Better Communities. So, here's how I think I can contribute:
Once I submit this comment, I'm off to my preferences to turn Neu Favorites back on. I do this fully expecting to not last the month before I can't stand it and have to switch back. I'm skeptical that invisible counts will build a better MeFi or make me a better contributor/reader but I'm willing to give it a whirl for awhile. My questions for Team Mod are as follows: among the data you're collecting for this experiment, is rate of opt-out included? Are you watching how many members elect to stick it out versus how many hate it too much to play along? Do you think that'd be a useful ratio to keep your eye on? Are you curious about how this ratio changes over time? Would it be useful at all to you to hear first-person accounts of invisifavorite use after a trial period?
At this early stage, I think this is an awful idea and I'm looking forward to December 1st and the return of the original system. But, I've been wrong before (I thought Survivor would be a one-season fad, for instance). I'll try it out, but I don't expect to last the whole of November. If it would be useful for your experiment to know how invisifaves influenced a user's experience and when and why he decided to pull the plug and go back to visible counts, then I'll return to this thread and "share my findings" if and when I decide to opt back out. If you're collecting all the data you need on the back end, then I'll just quietly reactivate proper favorites whenever I deem in necessary, and resume counting Beans until December, when I shall hope for reinstitution of the original system or an opt-out of any permanent change.
For the moment, it's a rather beautiful sunny day, so I'm going to investigate that rather than get sucked into this argument again. I hope it's sunny where you are, too.
posted by EatTheWeek at 1:10 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Now, as to the present controversy: When I first discovered this change had been made, I was just coming home from a booze-soaked, sleep deprived Halloween weekend. This thread was already quite long and the opt-out feature had been added. My initial, gut-level reaction was "holy shit, this is the worst idea ever and I couldn't hate it more." I was really surprised that Team Mod deemed this worth testing, as I thought the yay or nay favorites argument had long been settled and that it's occasional reappearance on MeTa was just one of those routine things, like the matching MeTa that appears every time Sarah Palin appears on the blue. I read through the thread-as-it-was yesterday, read the Mods thinking as to why this needed testing and saw their point - the tiresome favorites argument keeps coming up because there's not a lot of data to work from to reach a conclusion. Yeah, the early years of MeFi were favorite-free, but that was a community with a much smaller installed base of users. Time for a new test.
That initial reading phase was done w/ the test favorites system still on, which for my part, was long enough to know that I hated it, goddamn hated it and my conviction that the favorites system was fun and elegant and just fine the way it was. I've never been persuaded by the arguments against it and reading one thread with it changed only further convinced me that it didn't need changing. So I went into my preferences and flipped the switch to make things work properly again.
Reading the ongoing debate, though ... well, I don't feel like my hasty opt-out was really me doing my part to contribute to this community/experiment. The goal is to use SCIENCE! to forge a better community ... so, while I am very much opposed to this change and confident that I would absolutely hate it were this change to become permanent, I'm in favor of SCIENCE! and Better Communities. So, here's how I think I can contribute:
Once I submit this comment, I'm off to my preferences to turn Neu Favorites back on. I do this fully expecting to not last the month before I can't stand it and have to switch back. I'm skeptical that invisible counts will build a better MeFi or make me a better contributor/reader but I'm willing to give it a whirl for awhile. My questions for Team Mod are as follows: among the data you're collecting for this experiment, is rate of opt-out included? Are you watching how many members elect to stick it out versus how many hate it too much to play along? Do you think that'd be a useful ratio to keep your eye on? Are you curious about how this ratio changes over time? Would it be useful at all to you to hear first-person accounts of invisifavorite use after a trial period?
At this early stage, I think this is an awful idea and I'm looking forward to December 1st and the return of the original system. But, I've been wrong before (I thought Survivor would be a one-season fad, for instance). I'll try it out, but I don't expect to last the whole of November. If it would be useful for your experiment to know how invisifaves influenced a user's experience and when and why he decided to pull the plug and go back to visible counts, then I'll return to this thread and "share my findings" if and when I decide to opt back out. If you're collecting all the data you need on the back end, then I'll just quietly reactivate proper favorites whenever I deem in necessary, and resume counting Beans until December, when I shall hope for reinstitution of the original system or an opt-out of any permanent change.
For the moment, it's a rather beautiful sunny day, so I'm going to investigate that rather than get sucked into this argument again. I hope it's sunny where you are, too.
posted by EatTheWeek at 1:10 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I set my preference to opt-out in Firefox, then logged into my work browser (IE) to see that the favorites count was not showing. I was still seeing "faved."
PB e-mailed me and said to re-save my preferences. That worked. I'm now seeing the favorites count in IE.
In case anyone cares.
posted by jayder at 1:16 PM on November 2, 2009
PB e-mailed me and said to re-save my preferences. That worked. I'm now seeing the favorites count in IE.
In case anyone cares.
posted by jayder at 1:16 PM on November 2, 2009
Mods,
Thanks for trying something new! Even if I hated this change, which I do not, I would appreciate the way you are testing this out rather than rendering a verdict from on high or polling our collective imagination. I think this is a great experiment, if unscientific.
Yes, it certainly changes the way I read the site. This is not automatically a bad thing. Anyway, I am excited to see how this will affect level of discourse on the blue.
Everybody else,
I am surprised so many people are so sure that they 100% hate this change...2/30 of the way into the month. Give it some time, try it on. We'll see how it fits in a few weeks.
posted by milestogo at 1:16 PM on November 2, 2009
Thanks for trying something new! Even if I hated this change, which I do not, I would appreciate the way you are testing this out rather than rendering a verdict from on high or polling our collective imagination. I think this is a great experiment, if unscientific.
Yes, it certainly changes the way I read the site. This is not automatically a bad thing. Anyway, I am excited to see how this will affect level of discourse on the blue.
Everybody else,
I am surprised so many people are so sure that they 100% hate this change...2/30 of the way into the month. Give it some time, try it on. We'll see how it fits in a few weeks.
posted by milestogo at 1:16 PM on November 2, 2009
My questions for Team Mod are as follows: among the data you're collecting for this experiment, is rate of opt-out included? Are you watching how many members elect to stick it out versus how many hate it too much to play along? Do you think that'd be a useful ratio to keep your eye on? Are you curious about how this ratio changes over time?
We'll be watching the opt-out (and opt-back-in) activity, yeah; I think watching it change over time may be useful in its own right, but it will also be helpful in correlating any other quantitative work we do with who was and wasn't using it for various portions of the month. So it's very much something I'm interested in.
Would it be useful at all to you to hear first-person accounts of invisifavorite use after a trial period?
Absolutely. I'm sure we'll have a December 1 discussion about the whole thing, and probably there'll be some conversation in the interim as well. Sharing thoughts in here throughout the month is fine too.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:17 PM on November 2, 2009
We'll be watching the opt-out (and opt-back-in) activity, yeah; I think watching it change over time may be useful in its own right, but it will also be helpful in correlating any other quantitative work we do with who was and wasn't using it for various portions of the month. So it's very much something I'm interested in.
Would it be useful at all to you to hear first-person accounts of invisifavorite use after a trial period?
Absolutely. I'm sure we'll have a December 1 discussion about the whole thing, and probably there'll be some conversation in the interim as well. Sharing thoughts in here throughout the month is fine too.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:17 PM on November 2, 2009
P.o.B.: "For some reason I saw that as compromise. Meh. Anywho, minority-shminority. Say it as many times as you like, it just increases my chances of winning the bet."
I believe that you have confused me with Jaltcoh. Then again, this is one hydra-headed mess of a thread.
You may also want to address your persuasive "minority-shminority" riposte to Ghidorah, Joseph Gurl, grouse, miss tea, Dormant Gorilla, catching signals, PhoBWanKenobi, fightorflight, and the dear (one hopes, temporarily) departed Artw.
It's possible that in haste I've misread one or two of those comments and that they do not share my opinion that favorites have always been a minority beef. But I think you get the idea.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:21 PM on November 2, 2009
I believe that you have confused me with Jaltcoh. Then again, this is one hydra-headed mess of a thread.
You may also want to address your persuasive "minority-shminority" riposte to Ghidorah, Joseph Gurl, grouse, miss tea, Dormant Gorilla, catching signals, PhoBWanKenobi, fightorflight, and the dear (one hopes, temporarily) departed Artw.
It's possible that in haste I've misread one or two of those comments and that they do not share my opinion that favorites have always been a minority beef. But I think you get the idea.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:21 PM on November 2, 2009
Art, please do come back when the great unfavening is behind us ...
I love that. It's kind of neat to be in the midst of something that, in the timeline of Metafilter history, will turn out to be akin to a time of Biblical strife, like a plague, pestilence or a flood, or an event that caused much beating of breasts and gnashing of teeth.
I think "the great unfavening" is a perfect moniker for this.
posted by jayder at 1:22 PM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
I love that. It's kind of neat to be in the midst of something that, in the timeline of Metafilter history, will turn out to be akin to a time of Biblical strife, like a plague, pestilence or a flood, or an event that caused much beating of breasts and gnashing of teeth.
I think "the great unfavening" is a perfect moniker for this.
posted by jayder at 1:22 PM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
cue: "what's so great about it"
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:24 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:24 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
You may also want to address your persuasive "minority-shminority" riposte
Oh, shoot, I hadn't noticed that the argument rhymed! And sounded faux-Yiddish! Damn, am I convinced!
she said, good hamburger-naturedly.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:27 PM on November 2, 2009
Oh, shoot, I hadn't noticed that the argument rhymed! And sounded faux-Yiddish! Damn, am I convinced!
she said, good hamburger-naturedly.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:27 PM on November 2, 2009
I don't understand the "it's a minority view and should be ignored" position. The minority view, that visible favorite counts cause a deterioration in overall comment quality, either is true or it isn't. Either obscuring it will improve things, or it won't, regardless of how many people subscribe to it. How does the number of people who hold this to be true have any bearing on its truth or falsity? The only way to measure that statement's truth is to test it, to obscure counts and see what happens. If things get better, that's a correlation worth examining further. If they don't, then hey, now we know.
posted by middleclasstool at 1:27 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by middleclasstool at 1:27 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
[The new show-count preference will] default to "off" for everybody. Anybody who wants to turn counts on can now do so natively, regardless of their browser and without the need for third party scripts or css hacking.
Sorry, but now you have the backpedaling fix wrong, too.
It has to default to "on", because that is just plain correct: it works the same way as always, unless you wish to change it, user. Also, we can count on most of the readers still having access to the usual method, and only those who hate favorites disabling it... and therefore losing the functionality by choice.
By defaulting it to "off" you are taking functionality and information away from people who may not even realize what they lost, and worse, you're creating two MetaFilters, because people will now still have to say "THIS" or "ME TOO" all over.... since we can't count on anyone seeing the + favorites to show support otherwise.
posted by rokusan at 1:29 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Sorry, but now you have the backpedaling fix wrong, too.
It has to default to "on", because that is just plain correct: it works the same way as always, unless you wish to change it, user. Also, we can count on most of the readers still having access to the usual method, and only those who hate favorites disabling it... and therefore losing the functionality by choice.
By defaulting it to "off" you are taking functionality and information away from people who may not even realize what they lost, and worse, you're creating two MetaFilters, because people will now still have to say "THIS" or "ME TOO" all over.... since we can't count on anyone seeing the + favorites to show support otherwise.
posted by rokusan at 1:29 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
You lose, asshole. Mods: please ban..... You're consciously trying to dig up ways to fuck with the site and implementing them as you go. Is there something I'm missing here?
Please don't call mathowie an asshole.
He didn't mean to fuck up the site, he just forgot to ask first.
posted by rokusan at 1:30 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Please don't call mathowie an asshole.
He didn't mean to fuck up the site, he just forgot to ask first.
posted by rokusan at 1:30 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think leaving favorite counts on by default is best, not only because the majority of users are in favor of it and it makes sense for the minority preference to be the opt-in, but because rendering favorites invisible by default would significantly damage the efficacy of the system as an outlet for nonverbal community feedback.
It isn't a "minority preference" so much as it is a preference held by about one person in this thread. People who don't want favourites visible don't so much not want to see them themselves, they don't want you to see them. While that'd be a funky preference ("Click here to hide favourites from user X's screen"), it's not really a good one. A preference doesn't solve this issue; it's a bad solution for the month, and would be a pointless one long-term.
If it affects you by motivating you to post more interesting comments that people enjoy, what's wrong with that?
Because sometimes "interesting comments that people enjoy" turns out to be Metafilter: a really bad metric. It's like on Flickr, where people join up, post little pictures of their cats and share stuff with their friends, then a few suddenly notice the favourites counts and the view counts and want some of that action, and before you know it their photostream is all HDR-tastic super-saturated FlickrPOP.
What's wrong with that? Or more specifically, what bad behavior do favorites cause specifically that's bad enough to scrap the feedback/kudos/highlight phenomenon I just described?
In short, they arguably cause people to play to the peanut gallery.
If you want to "win the favorites game" you have to post content that lots of people like enough to bookmark or give accolades to. Again... how is encouraging the creation of content the community likes a bad thing?
Because lots of people try and Metafilter: miss badly, cluttering up the top 30 posts with love-me fave-me lulzers.
Would the solution be to ban all laughter, all nods, all smiles, so as not to egg on the wrong sorts of people? Project face blindness onto everybody and make them sit in quiet little sharing circles of staid conversation so that no comment is received better than others, every word is taken in individually, and no one story or joke is publicly hailed by anybody?
Yes, because that's exactly what Metafilter was like pre-2006. Actually, it was more like the cocktail party back then, whereas now it can be more like trying to hold a cocktail party conversation in the middle of a stadium, with a massive crowd cheering and booing for every bon mot.
In conclusion (finally), I ask people who decry "favorites whoring" to do something to illustrate their concerns: pick a user, any user. Preferably one that you think is prone to engaging in harmful favorites-seeking behavior (I suppose I am one, under the loosest definition). Go to their profile, click on their "Favorited by others", and sort by popularity.
The problems, as I've said, aren't the hits, they're the misses. The most popular comments are worthwhile, I don't think anybody has decried that. It's all the flotsam that isn't. And you know who else posted eponysterical flotsam?
posted by fightorflight at 1:31 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
It isn't a "minority preference" so much as it is a preference held by about one person in this thread. People who don't want favourites visible don't so much not want to see them themselves, they don't want you to see them. While that'd be a funky preference ("Click here to hide favourites from user X's screen"), it's not really a good one. A preference doesn't solve this issue; it's a bad solution for the month, and would be a pointless one long-term.
If it affects you by motivating you to post more interesting comments that people enjoy, what's wrong with that?
Because sometimes "interesting comments that people enjoy" turns out to be Metafilter: a really bad metric. It's like on Flickr, where people join up, post little pictures of their cats and share stuff with their friends, then a few suddenly notice the favourites counts and the view counts and want some of that action, and before you know it their photostream is all HDR-tastic super-saturated FlickrPOP.
What's wrong with that? Or more specifically, what bad behavior do favorites cause specifically that's bad enough to scrap the feedback/kudos/highlight phenomenon I just described?
In short, they arguably cause people to play to the peanut gallery.
If you want to "win the favorites game" you have to post content that lots of people like enough to bookmark or give accolades to. Again... how is encouraging the creation of content the community likes a bad thing?
Because lots of people try and Metafilter: miss badly, cluttering up the top 30 posts with love-me fave-me lulzers.
Would the solution be to ban all laughter, all nods, all smiles, so as not to egg on the wrong sorts of people? Project face blindness onto everybody and make them sit in quiet little sharing circles of staid conversation so that no comment is received better than others, every word is taken in individually, and no one story or joke is publicly hailed by anybody?
Yes, because that's exactly what Metafilter was like pre-2006. Actually, it was more like the cocktail party back then, whereas now it can be more like trying to hold a cocktail party conversation in the middle of a stadium, with a massive crowd cheering and booing for every bon mot.
In conclusion (finally), I ask people who decry "favorites whoring" to do something to illustrate their concerns: pick a user, any user. Preferably one that you think is prone to engaging in harmful favorites-seeking behavior (I suppose I am one, under the loosest definition). Go to their profile, click on their "Favorited by others", and sort by popularity.
The problems, as I've said, aren't the hits, they're the misses. The most popular comments are worthwhile, I don't think anybody has decried that. It's all the flotsam that isn't. And you know who else posted eponysterical flotsam?
posted by fightorflight at 1:31 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
But anyhow, it sounds like it's not to be, as plenty of the more vocal members are opposed enough to avoid even trying it. The expression "Toys out of the pram" comes to mind. Still, would have been interesting to have an experiment.
As others have pointed out, this wasn't an experiment. If the means of measuring success/failure were defined up front, and it wasn't so easy for the data to become corrupt and meaningless, it might have been an experiment. I would have supported a valid experiment with actual methodology and data that wasn't worthless.
The key failing of the "just use GreaskMonkey" theory is that the mods get not data on who is using a browser-based, post-facto fix like that.
If comment-counts are turned off, but your browser puts them back with GreaskMonkey, that shows up as "counts OFF" to the mods. Not just missing data: completely invalid data.
Moving it to a pref is better, but now the default state is the problem: in addition to creating two different readerships with different information at hand, it only makes sense and produces meaningful information if it defaults to ON (the usual MeFi state) and is possible for those who hate or don't use counts to disable.
Otherwise, we're going to hear this in six months:
Well, the majority of users have comment counting turned off, so.....
From people conveniently ignoring that that "majority" is using the damn default.
posted by rokusan at 1:35 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
As others have pointed out, this wasn't an experiment. If the means of measuring success/failure were defined up front, and it wasn't so easy for the data to become corrupt and meaningless, it might have been an experiment. I would have supported a valid experiment with actual methodology and data that wasn't worthless.
The key failing of the "just use GreaskMonkey" theory is that the mods get not data on who is using a browser-based, post-facto fix like that.
If comment-counts are turned off, but your browser puts them back with GreaskMonkey, that shows up as "counts OFF" to the mods. Not just missing data: completely invalid data.
Moving it to a pref is better, but now the default state is the problem: in addition to creating two different readerships with different information at hand, it only makes sense and produces meaningful information if it defaults to ON (the usual MeFi state) and is possible for those who hate or don't use counts to disable.
Otherwise, we're going to hear this in six months:
Well, the majority of users have comment counting turned off, so.....
From people conveniently ignoring that that "majority" is using the damn default.
posted by rokusan at 1:35 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, but that tells you something about their feelings, not about the site or any other members. I certainly don't mean to belittle your concerns (god knows there's enough of that in this thread already), I would just suggest that you would be better off trying to ignore that feeling and just use favorites the way you like and not make assumptions about how others are using them. It works for me.
If I favorite a comment that says "Marc Lepine had the right idea." in a thread about violence against women, then people are going to get the wrong idea about me. There is no reality in which I would agree with that statement, but there might be a reason I'd favourite it. If I do this though, several mefites might think I'm a violent misogynist, whether they say so in the thread or not.
I agree that I probably shouldn't let what people think change how I view favourites, but part of the reason I'm on MetaFilter is that I care what you guys think.
posted by ODiV at 1:35 PM on November 2, 2009
If I favorite a comment that says "Marc Lepine had the right idea." in a thread about violence against women, then people are going to get the wrong idea about me. There is no reality in which I would agree with that statement, but there might be a reason I'd favourite it. If I do this though, several mefites might think I'm a violent misogynist, whether they say so in the thread or not.
I agree that I probably shouldn't let what people think change how I view favourites, but part of the reason I'm on MetaFilter is that I care what you guys think.
posted by ODiV at 1:35 PM on November 2, 2009
Oh, and I guess this is kind of a tangent, because I don't think The Favening would change how I use favourites. I'll try keep this on topic.
posted by ODiV at 1:37 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by ODiV at 1:37 PM on November 2, 2009
If you are wondering, the only way to get actual freaking information on who wants and doesn't want count disabling would be for that preference choice to be FORCED the next time the person comes to MeFi.
You know, one of those godawful annoying pseudodialog-like things has to open and explain the situation. Welcome back to MeFi. Now, Mr. User #10265, do you want comment-counts left ON (as they were 2006-2009) or turned OFF (as they were pre-2006). CHOOSE NOW, and you can't go on to MeFi until you do. If you want it changed back, it's on the Preferences page.
As an ex UI-person, I cringe at modal absolutes like that, but in this case that would be the only way to get a true and clean measure of who wants the count disabling and who doesn't. It's the only way that you can KNOW that the "on" and "off" settings in user prefs are genuine and deliberate, rather than data tainted by people just leaving the default in place because they don't know how/where/why to change it.
It's a software design rule: the majority of users will keep the default settings. The mods here should know that, and by setting a "default" to this new disabled setting, they're doing it backwards and wrong, unless it's part of an attempt to force this new "no counts" setting in a bait-and-switch way.
posted by rokusan at 1:40 PM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
You know, one of those godawful annoying pseudodialog-like things has to open and explain the situation. Welcome back to MeFi. Now, Mr. User #10265, do you want comment-counts left ON (as they were 2006-2009) or turned OFF (as they were pre-2006). CHOOSE NOW, and you can't go on to MeFi until you do. If you want it changed back, it's on the Preferences page.
As an ex UI-person, I cringe at modal absolutes like that, but in this case that would be the only way to get a true and clean measure of who wants the count disabling and who doesn't. It's the only way that you can KNOW that the "on" and "off" settings in user prefs are genuine and deliberate, rather than data tainted by people just leaving the default in place because they don't know how/where/why to change it.
It's a software design rule: the majority of users will keep the default settings. The mods here should know that, and by setting a "default" to this new disabled setting, they're doing it backwards and wrong, unless it's part of an attempt to force this new "no counts" setting in a bait-and-switch way.
posted by rokusan at 1:40 PM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
I am surprised so many people are so sure that they 100% hate this change...2/30 of the way into the month.
People keep saying this and it keeps not making any sense. What if the mods wanted to do a psychology experiment to see if people could fluently read rot13 given enough practice and decided to rot13 the entire site for a month? Would anyone say "Url, whfg gel vg bhg!" and get taken seriously? There is such a thing as a manifestly bad idea that you don't have to try for an entire month to recognize. I understand you might not think this particular change is a bad idea, but understand that other people do.
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:40 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
People keep saying this and it keeps not making any sense. What if the mods wanted to do a psychology experiment to see if people could fluently read rot13 given enough practice and decided to rot13 the entire site for a month? Would anyone say "Url, whfg gel vg bhg!" and get taken seriously? There is such a thing as a manifestly bad idea that you don't have to try for an entire month to recognize. I understand you might not think this particular change is a bad idea, but understand that other people do.
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:40 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Thanks for the preferences option.
It seems like everyone suggested "on" as the default, but the mods have chosen "off".
This is pretty much like forcing a permanent change, despite the "experiment's" demise.
Bad.
posted by rokusan at 1:42 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
It seems like everyone suggested "on" as the default, but the mods have chosen "off".
This is pretty much like forcing a permanent change, despite the "experiment's" demise.
Bad.
posted by rokusan at 1:42 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
middleclasstool: "I don't understand the "it's a minority view and should be ignored" position. The minority view, that visible favorite counts cause a deterioration in overall comment quality, either is true or it isn't. Either obscuring it will improve things, or it won't, regardless of how many people subscribe to it. How does the number of people who hold this to be true have any bearing on its truth or falsity? The only way to measure that statement's truth is to test it, to obscure counts and see what happens. If things get better, that's a correlation worth examining further. If they don't, then hey, now we know."
One problem with this is that there is no quantitative way to define the words "improve" or "better".
A second problem is that even if November ends with 98.6% of users having opted out of the favesperiment, the vocal minority who have had their collective panties bunched about favorites all along will just say that the test was flawed - which it was. So back to square one.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:43 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
One problem with this is that there is no quantitative way to define the words "improve" or "better".
A second problem is that even if November ends with 98.6% of users having opted out of the favesperiment, the vocal minority who have had their collective panties bunched about favorites all along will just say that the test was flawed - which it was. So back to square one.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:43 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
I've always found it interesting on posts where there are clearly several "warring factions", so to speak, when people (myself included) favorite all of the posts that agree with them.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi
As a fellow member of the "Common Sense Upside Your Head" faction, I approve of Warrior Princess Kenobi's message.
posted by rokusan at 1:43 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi
As a fellow member of the "Common Sense Upside Your Head" faction, I approve of Warrior Princess Kenobi's message.
posted by rokusan at 1:43 PM on November 2, 2009
Could you not have taken a little more time and added an on/off feature? This would be much easier for the non power-user and would provide concrete data for the administrators?
It only creates concrete data on choices if a CHOICE is forced on the users, per my explanation above. If there's a default state, your data is once again meaningless.
posted by rokusan at 1:44 PM on November 2, 2009
It only creates concrete data on choices if a CHOICE is forced on the users, per my explanation above. If there's a default state, your data is once again meaningless.
posted by rokusan at 1:44 PM on November 2, 2009
It has to default to "on", because that is just plain correct: it works the same way as always, unless you wish to change it, user. Also, we can count on most of the readers still having access to the usual method, and only those who hate favorites disabling it... and therefore losing the functionality by choice.
If it defaulted to on, this wouldn't be what it is, which is explicitly an effort to see what happens when the default is off. You're welcome to disagree with the usefulness or validity of trying this, but telling us that we misunderstood our own idea at the base level is kind of pointless. You are describing something different from what we are actually doing.
Otherwise, we're going to hear this in six months:
Well, the majority of users have comment counting turned off, so.....
From people conveniently ignoring that that "majority" is using the damn default.
I can't prevent people six months from now from engaging in specious reasoning about that sort of thing, but I've never been able to prevent it before now either. We're not doing a rigorous study here and we're not using these opt-outs to take a vote on whether or not to keep the change come December, so the stakes are pretty low.
I have encouraged and will continue to encourage folks who jumped to a script/css solution in the first few hours to switch over to the preference solution instead so that we can get a clearer idea of who is using that option. But I'm not counting up all the people who haven't specifically taken that action and drawing any bizarre conclusions from that.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:47 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
If it defaulted to on, this wouldn't be what it is, which is explicitly an effort to see what happens when the default is off. You're welcome to disagree with the usefulness or validity of trying this, but telling us that we misunderstood our own idea at the base level is kind of pointless. You are describing something different from what we are actually doing.
Otherwise, we're going to hear this in six months:
Well, the majority of users have comment counting turned off, so.....
From people conveniently ignoring that that "majority" is using the damn default.
I can't prevent people six months from now from engaging in specious reasoning about that sort of thing, but I've never been able to prevent it before now either. We're not doing a rigorous study here and we're not using these opt-outs to take a vote on whether or not to keep the change come December, so the stakes are pretty low.
I have encouraged and will continue to encourage folks who jumped to a script/css solution in the first few hours to switch over to the preference solution instead so that we can get a clearer idea of who is using that option. But I'm not counting up all the people who haven't specifically taken that action and drawing any bizarre conclusions from that.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:47 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
rokusan: the actual information on who wants and doesn't want count disabling is kind of irrelevant right now, because really nobody knows what the 2009-era site will be like without them, and hence they can't make an informed choice.
All counting up the preferences would tell you is how many people are resistant to change or experimentation, and you know, the answer to that is always "lots and lots". What other answer do you expect to get from "Welcome back to Mefi. Would you like things to be exactly as they were yesterday, or would you like them to be changed? Click now!"?
I'm really not sure why you're so incensed about it. It's not a permanent thing, unless I've missed something, it's a sop to the people who couldn't bear to be without them for a second, for the duration of this trial period. The figures from it aren't going to amount to a hill of beans.
Either way, even for this month, the default has to be off, because they're running an experiment in what the site feels like with them, er, off.
A second problem is that even if November ends with 98.6% of users having opted out of the favesperiment, the vocal minority who have had their collective panties bunched about favorites all along will just say that the test was flawed - which it was.
Well, it wasn't until the other set of panty-bunchers screamed blue murder until they got an option to cripple the test.
posted by fightorflight at 1:48 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
All counting up the preferences would tell you is how many people are resistant to change or experimentation, and you know, the answer to that is always "lots and lots". What other answer do you expect to get from "Welcome back to Mefi. Would you like things to be exactly as they were yesterday, or would you like them to be changed? Click now!"?
I'm really not sure why you're so incensed about it. It's not a permanent thing, unless I've missed something, it's a sop to the people who couldn't bear to be without them for a second, for the duration of this trial period. The figures from it aren't going to amount to a hill of beans.
Either way, even for this month, the default has to be off, because they're running an experiment in what the site feels like with them, er, off.
A second problem is that even if November ends with 98.6% of users having opted out of the favesperiment, the vocal minority who have had their collective panties bunched about favorites all along will just say that the test was flawed - which it was.
Well, it wasn't until the other set of panty-bunchers screamed blue murder until they got an option to cripple the test.
posted by fightorflight at 1:48 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Wow, I didn't realize how dependent I was on the favorites # to identify the truly great comments, especially in the larger threads.
Thank you for bringing it back as an option, I'm just afraid it's going to have far less value now that only a minority of users know how to get to it.
posted by exhilaration at 1:53 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Thank you for bringing it back as an option, I'm just afraid it's going to have far less value now that only a minority of users know how to get to it.
posted by exhilaration at 1:53 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yarrrrrgh! Ahoy mateys.
What the fuck is this Artw flameout shit? Artw, you lug, get back here.
Mods please tell me that Artw arranged to come back -- there's no coming back, is there? Tell me there's an account re-enable button. I mean, he can come back as ArtwII : Disco, but really, I mean, to press the button for a vacation? Ain't a motherfucker ever heard of a host file? Bwahhhh. ARTW! NOOO!
posted by cavalier at 1:57 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
What the fuck is this Artw flameout shit? Artw, you lug, get back here.
Mods please tell me that Artw arranged to come back -- there's no coming back, is there? Tell me there's an account re-enable button. I mean, he can come back as ArtwII : Disco, but really, I mean, to press the button for a vacation? Ain't a motherfucker ever heard of a host file? Bwahhhh. ARTW! NOOO!
posted by cavalier at 1:57 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
fightorflight: "[[ A second problem is that even if November ends with 98.6% of users having opted out of the favesperiment, the vocal minority who have had their collective panties bunched about favorites all along will just say that the test was flawed - which it was. ]]
Well, it wasn't until the other set of panty-bunchers screamed blue murder until they got an option to cripple the test.
Are you including the early, pre-Preference, Stylish/Greasemonkey workarounds as "test-cripplers"?
As I recall having been pointed out frequently a thousand or so comments ago, the only non-crippled test would have been no favorites visible to anyone. That this appears to have never even been considered by the mods suggests to me that favorites are more important to the site than the anti-favorite crowd will ever admit.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:59 PM on November 2, 2009
Well, it wasn't until the other set of panty-bunchers screamed blue murder until they got an option to cripple the test.
Are you including the early, pre-Preference, Stylish/Greasemonkey workarounds as "test-cripplers"?
As I recall having been pointed out frequently a thousand or so comments ago, the only non-crippled test would have been no favorites visible to anyone. That this appears to have never even been considered by the mods suggests to me that favorites are more important to the site than the anti-favorite crowd will ever admit.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:59 PM on November 2, 2009
I'm really not sure why you're so incensed about it. It's not a permanent thing, unless I've missed something, it's a sop to the people who couldn't bear to be without them for a second, for the duration of this trial period. The figures from it aren't going to amount to a hill of beans.
I'm not incensed about it. There are two main problems:
(1) It's a head-slappingly bad idea to remove one of the biggest "filtering" tools from readers; and
(2) the design of the "experiment" was so flawed that I'm shocked the idea even got this far.
The prefs semi-rollback doesn't help with (2) at all, and in facts makes things even worse, because of the defaults problem and the new "two MetaFilters" problem it introduces. A real experiment would have no opting-out by any means, and I'd support that. I also think it would be a disaster, but at least it would be measurable by something other than 'feelings'.
Longtime UI guys like me, like even from before-the-web times, are all professionally flabbergasted over (1). I suspect that longtime science/research people are in similar dropped-jaw stances over (2). There are hundreds (thousands?) of such folk on MetaFilter, and wouldn't it have been useful to, like, talk to them before the bomb? What's a community for?
And unless a mod explains in advance what will or will not happen on Dec 1, based on what information, we're no better off now. The defaulted-on suppression in prefs is too much like a permanent change in a trojan horse.
posted by rokusan at 2:06 PM on November 2, 2009 [12 favorites]
I'm not incensed about it. There are two main problems:
(1) It's a head-slappingly bad idea to remove one of the biggest "filtering" tools from readers; and
(2) the design of the "experiment" was so flawed that I'm shocked the idea even got this far.
The prefs semi-rollback doesn't help with (2) at all, and in facts makes things even worse, because of the defaults problem and the new "two MetaFilters" problem it introduces. A real experiment would have no opting-out by any means, and I'd support that. I also think it would be a disaster, but at least it would be measurable by something other than 'feelings'.
Longtime UI guys like me, like even from before-the-web times, are all professionally flabbergasted over (1). I suspect that longtime science/research people are in similar dropped-jaw stances over (2). There are hundreds (thousands?) of such folk on MetaFilter, and wouldn't it have been useful to, like, talk to them before the bomb? What's a community for?
And unless a mod explains in advance what will or will not happen on Dec 1, based on what information, we're no better off now. The defaulted-on suppression in prefs is too much like a permanent change in a trojan horse.
posted by rokusan at 2:06 PM on November 2, 2009 [12 favorites]
Are you including the early, pre-Preference, Stylish/Greasemonkey workarounds as "test-cripplers"?
No, because they're like the people who go to extreme lengths to crack copy protection on cheap games -- you always get people who'll go a long way to get something they want, and it doesn't really tell you much about the average people, unless huge numbers are doing it. I suspect that's what the mods were expecting -- a smallish number of diehards opting out. Making it much, much easier for them spoils the results much more.
As I recall having been pointed out frequently a thousand or so comments ago, the only non-crippled test would have been no favorites visible to anyone. That this appears to have never even been considered by the mods suggests to me that favorites are more important to the site than the anti-favorite crowd will ever admit.
I agree with the first part -- even having a "faved" flag seems to me to spoil things a bit. Just a link appearing on every post to the faves, even if there were 0, would have been more useful. But I think you're unfair to the mods, if you think they didn't ever consider this.
You're also unfair to the Them you're trying to turn this anti-favourite crowd into -- favourites are important to a lot of people, and nobody is denying that. Look how many have been handed out by people here who are pro-test, for example! It's just that they also suspect there could be drawbacks, and this would have been a good chance to see if that suspicion had any merit.
posted by fightorflight at 2:07 PM on November 2, 2009
No, because they're like the people who go to extreme lengths to crack copy protection on cheap games -- you always get people who'll go a long way to get something they want, and it doesn't really tell you much about the average people, unless huge numbers are doing it. I suspect that's what the mods were expecting -- a smallish number of diehards opting out. Making it much, much easier for them spoils the results much more.
As I recall having been pointed out frequently a thousand or so comments ago, the only non-crippled test would have been no favorites visible to anyone. That this appears to have never even been considered by the mods suggests to me that favorites are more important to the site than the anti-favorite crowd will ever admit.
I agree with the first part -- even having a "faved" flag seems to me to spoil things a bit. Just a link appearing on every post to the faves, even if there were 0, would have been more useful. But I think you're unfair to the mods, if you think they didn't ever consider this.
You're also unfair to the Them you're trying to turn this anti-favourite crowd into -- favourites are important to a lot of people, and nobody is denying that. Look how many have been handed out by people here who are pro-test, for example! It's just that they also suspect there could be drawbacks, and this would have been a good chance to see if that suspicion had any merit.
posted by fightorflight at 2:07 PM on November 2, 2009
This is so brilliant. Most people would say that non-threaded comments "break" usability too, but they're the best part of mefi's UI.
This is not true. There's nothing user hostile or confusing about non-threaded comments. Threading, in fact, adds complexity that is seldom warranted.
posted by rokusan at 2:08 PM on November 2, 2009
This is not true. There's nothing user hostile or confusing about non-threaded comments. Threading, in fact, adds complexity that is seldom warranted.
posted by rokusan at 2:08 PM on November 2, 2009
The problems, as I've said, aren't the hits, they're the misses. The most popular comments are worthwhile, I don't think anybody has decried that. It's all the flotsam that isn't. And you know who else posted eponysterical flotsam?
Titanic Troll?
posted by rokusan at 2:08 PM on November 2, 2009
Titanic Troll?
posted by rokusan at 2:08 PM on November 2, 2009
So it's not "has favorites?" vs. "change how the experiment works?" that pb's asking about. It's "has favorites?" vs "faved?" vs some third argument on word choice.
Yeah, having three controversial changes all tangled up together wasn't especially helpful.
Not that it's important, but I could have lived with the slightly-cloying "faves", if not for the spurious argument about saving four characters. That's just silly.
(If space matters so much, you could save more than that by changing "November" to "Nov".)
posted by rokusan at 2:13 PM on November 2, 2009
Yeah, having three controversial changes all tangled up together wasn't especially helpful.
Not that it's important, but I could have lived with the slightly-cloying "faves", if not for the spurious argument about saving four characters. That's just silly.
(If space matters so much, you could save more than that by changing "November" to "Nov".)
posted by rokusan at 2:13 PM on November 2, 2009
Longtime UI guys like me, like even from before-the-web times, are all professionally flabbergasted over (1).
It's always a very tricky thing to do: Apple tried it with iMovie, and had such a storm that they had to ship the older version as well. Closer to this one, Twitter did it with @replies, and there are still people mumping about it at a low-level.
But really, unless you're going to create the overladen social equivalent of Office 2003, sometimes things just have to go. That there will be howls of protest is a fact, but it doesn't mean the change itself is automatically awful. (Especially when the change is a temporary trial, too.)
posted by fightorflight at 2:14 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's always a very tricky thing to do: Apple tried it with iMovie, and had such a storm that they had to ship the older version as well. Closer to this one, Twitter did it with @replies, and there are still people mumping about it at a low-level.
But really, unless you're going to create the overladen social equivalent of Office 2003, sometimes things just have to go. That there will be howls of protest is a fact, but it doesn't mean the change itself is automatically awful. (Especially when the change is a temporary trial, too.)
posted by fightorflight at 2:14 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I both make and receive a lot of favorite comments and answers. At least, I think it's a lot but really, who knows? I have no idea how many 'faves' other people make or receive. It's not like they have external value anyway.
I have always used and interpreted them as endorse or agree or ha!, without wasting space and making noise by filling the thread with "Hahahaha" or "I agree." I don't believe this is "right" or "wrong", but from observation it seems a common understanding and use.
I don't quite understand why people would use them as comment bookmarks (if you need that, doesn't your browser have that?) but I won't call it "wrong". It's just different. I do favorite posts in that way, so I can find them later.
I have noticed that the site's originators seem to think of the second use (as bookmarks) as the "proper" use, but I think it's time for them to let go of this. The reason MeFi is great is that you let the baby out, and the community made it better and better. Trying to lock it up again won't work.
posted by rokusan at 2:19 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
I have always used and interpreted them as endorse or agree or ha!, without wasting space and making noise by filling the thread with "Hahahaha" or "I agree." I don't believe this is "right" or "wrong", but from observation it seems a common understanding and use.
I don't quite understand why people would use them as comment bookmarks (if you need that, doesn't your browser have that?) but I won't call it "wrong". It's just different. I do favorite posts in that way, so I can find them later.
I have noticed that the site's originators seem to think of the second use (as bookmarks) as the "proper" use, but I think it's time for them to let go of this. The reason MeFi is great is that you let the baby out, and the community made it better and better. Trying to lock it up again won't work.
posted by rokusan at 2:19 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
And unless a mod explains in advance what will or will not happen on Dec 1, based on what information, we're no better off now. The defaulted-on suppression in prefs is too much like a permanent change in a trojan horse.
We have explained several times in this thread that the plan is to roll back to the normal state on Dec 1. I know it's a long thread, but searching for our usernames and skimming that way would have gotten you this information pretty quickly, and the post itself refers to this specifically as an experiment for the month of November, not as a trial run on the new feature.
What the defaulted-on suppression in the prefs represents is a pretty straightforward way to keep the (not scientific, not intended to be scientific) experiment as intended going while making it easier for folks who prefer to opt out to do so.
You can read ill intent or trojan bullshit into it if you want, that's your prerogative, but that's not what we're doing with it and we've been pretty clear about that. pb was awesome enough to code it up on short notice on a Sunday, and it'll stick around for the rest of the month, and then it goes poof.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:20 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
We have explained several times in this thread that the plan is to roll back to the normal state on Dec 1. I know it's a long thread, but searching for our usernames and skimming that way would have gotten you this information pretty quickly, and the post itself refers to this specifically as an experiment for the month of November, not as a trial run on the new feature.
What the defaulted-on suppression in the prefs represents is a pretty straightforward way to keep the (not scientific, not intended to be scientific) experiment as intended going while making it easier for folks who prefer to opt out to do so.
You can read ill intent or trojan bullshit into it if you want, that's your prerogative, but that's not what we're doing with it and we've been pretty clear about that. pb was awesome enough to code it up on short notice on a Sunday, and it'll stick around for the rest of the month, and then it goes poof.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:20 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
fightorflight: "[[ Are you including the early, pre-Preference, Stylish/Greasemonkey workarounds as "test-cripplers"? ]]
No, because they're like the people who go to extreme lengths to crack copy protection on cheap games -- you always get people who'll go a long way to get something they want, and it doesn't really tell you much about the average people, unless huge numbers are doing it.
I assume it wasn't your intention - but I found this comparison offensive.
Working to restore functionality that was suddenly removed for what I believe consensus to have judged as inadequate reasons can hardly be likened to obtaining for free what someone expected you to pay for.
posted by Joe Beese at 2:22 PM on November 2, 2009
No, because they're like the people who go to extreme lengths to crack copy protection on cheap games -- you always get people who'll go a long way to get something they want, and it doesn't really tell you much about the average people, unless huge numbers are doing it.
I assume it wasn't your intention - but I found this comparison offensive.
Working to restore functionality that was suddenly removed for what I believe consensus to have judged as inadequate reasons can hardly be likened to obtaining for free what someone expected you to pay for.
posted by Joe Beese at 2:22 PM on November 2, 2009
Fightorflight, it depends whether you used favorites or not, I suppose. If you don't use them and ignore them, then it's probably difficult to see how removing them can cripple some readers.
For those of us who do use them as a filter, though, it'd be akin to removing the ability to type the letter Z in Microsoft Office.
"Oh, for those of you complaining, just go open another document that already has a Z in it, and copy-paste whenever you need one. See, easy workaround!"
You'd be similarly "WTF" over that I am sure.
posted by rokusan at 2:23 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
For those of us who do use them as a filter, though, it'd be akin to removing the ability to type the letter Z in Microsoft Office.
"Oh, for those of you complaining, just go open another document that already has a Z in it, and copy-paste whenever you need one. See, easy workaround!"
You'd be similarly "WTF" over that I am sure.
posted by rokusan at 2:23 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Joe Beese: "middleclasstool: "I don't understand the "it's a minority view and should be ignored" position. The minority view, that visible favorite counts cause a deterioration in overall comment quality, either is true or it isn't. Either obscuring it will improve things, or it won't, regardless of how many people subscribe to it. How does the number of people who hold this to be true have any bearing on its truth or falsity? The only way to measure that statement's truth is to test it, to obscure counts and see what happens. If things get better, that's a correlation worth examining further. If they don't, then hey, now we know."
One problem with this is that there is no quantitative way to define the words "improve" or "better".
A second problem is that even if November ends with 98.6% of users having opted out of the favesperiment, the vocal minority who have had their collective panties bunched about favorites all along will just say that the test was flawed - which it was. So back to square one."
Another important thing to consider is if the underlying supposition is appropriate for a social site at all. Consider the following:
I could make the argument that overall comment quality could be vastly improved by only allowing posters of above-average intelligence to comment. This is either true or it isn't. The only way to test this is to disallow posting for anyone not a MENSA member and see what happens. If things get better, that's a correlation worth examining further. So, who's up for that? Agreed, it's a minority view, but they shouldn't be ignored...
posted by PontifexPrimus at 2:29 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
One problem with this is that there is no quantitative way to define the words "improve" or "better".
A second problem is that even if November ends with 98.6% of users having opted out of the favesperiment, the vocal minority who have had their collective panties bunched about favorites all along will just say that the test was flawed - which it was. So back to square one."
Another important thing to consider is if the underlying supposition is appropriate for a social site at all. Consider the following:
I could make the argument that overall comment quality could be vastly improved by only allowing posters of above-average intelligence to comment. This is either true or it isn't. The only way to test this is to disallow posting for anyone not a MENSA member and see what happens. If things get better, that's a correlation worth examining further. So, who's up for that? Agreed, it's a minority view, but they shouldn't be ignored...
posted by PontifexPrimus at 2:29 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
jessamyn: how having EVERYONE viewing EVERYONES favorites might or might not affect power laws and general me-too-ism on the site
Could you, when you've rejoined the thread after doing various happy-making things, please elaborate on that? I have vague recollections of this argument being made before but I don't remember how it goes. I haven't seen this argument in this thread.
rhaomi: I think leaving favorite counts on by default is best, not only because the majority of users are in favor of it and it makes sense for the minority preference to be the opt-in, but because rendering favorites invisible by default would significantly damage the efficacy of the system as an outlet for nonverbal community feedback.
One of the many frustrating parts of this thread has been the how blithely some members have decided that some opinions are in the minority on MetaFilter and others are held by the majority. There is absolutely no mechanism that currently exists on MetaFilter that allows anyone to know what opinions are held by the majority of users. We can't know absent some sort of sitewide election process. Finding out any kind of majority opinion on MetaFilter is impossible given the community norms we have. We can only express our opinions and attempt to reach some sort of consensus through discussion. That is the decision process we have. It's one that I, personally, really cherish and think is integral to the quality of this community.
In conclusion (finally), I ask people who decry "favorites whoring" to do something to illustrate their concerns: pick a user, any user. Preferably one that you think is prone to engaging in harmful favorites-seeking behavior (I suppose I am one, under the loosest definition). Go to their profile, click on their "Favorited by others", and sort by popularity. Now go through this list of highly favorited contributions, probably contributions that were made with the possibility of gaining a lot of favorites in mind, and tell me which ones harmed the site. Surely if favorites are a problem because they encourage negative attention-seeking behavior, then such attention-seeking behavior would logically be successful in garnering a lot of favorites. And if that's true, then the "toplists" for many users should be rife with petty, useless, or pandering commentary that we'd be better off without.
This is not a good test because the only way to report transparently what one find is, in effect, to call someone out, and God knows that we don't need more of that in this thread. I am going to attempt to answer this because I did try it out and my experience is probably the opposite of what you expected. In fact, doing this changed my mind to such a degree that while before I was leaning towards keeping the standard system, I have now finally understood that there can be a big problem with visible favorites. I will obscure the names and keep the description general in hopes that this obscures who I am talking about while still providing information.
I did check the "favorited by others" of the first user (let's call that MeFite Foo) that sprang to mind as someone who I feel plays to the crowd, consciously or not. Foo's second most favorited comment ever is one of my least favorite comments of all time. I had come across it before but had mostly forgotten about it. Certainly the huge amount of favorites it received stunned me. In that comment Foo excoriated another MeFite (let's call that user Bab) for holding opinions Bab did not express at all and, in fact, had clearly been saying something completely different. But Foo's comment was well written and well argued, except for the brutal misinterpretation that underlay it, and it got a ton of favorites. Bab replied, explained Foo's misunderstanding but still felt the need to apologize that the comment was misinterpreted, I assume because of the massive amount of favorites that Foo's comment received. It was an incredibly weird moment.
If this is what jessamyn was talking about earlier about visible favorites affecting power laws then yes, this is a problem with visible favorites. To me this is a clear example of someone's manifestly wrong opinion "winning" because a comment had a large number of favorites attached to it.
posted by Kattullus at 2:30 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Could you, when you've rejoined the thread after doing various happy-making things, please elaborate on that? I have vague recollections of this argument being made before but I don't remember how it goes. I haven't seen this argument in this thread.
rhaomi: I think leaving favorite counts on by default is best, not only because the majority of users are in favor of it and it makes sense for the minority preference to be the opt-in, but because rendering favorites invisible by default would significantly damage the efficacy of the system as an outlet for nonverbal community feedback.
One of the many frustrating parts of this thread has been the how blithely some members have decided that some opinions are in the minority on MetaFilter and others are held by the majority. There is absolutely no mechanism that currently exists on MetaFilter that allows anyone to know what opinions are held by the majority of users. We can't know absent some sort of sitewide election process. Finding out any kind of majority opinion on MetaFilter is impossible given the community norms we have. We can only express our opinions and attempt to reach some sort of consensus through discussion. That is the decision process we have. It's one that I, personally, really cherish and think is integral to the quality of this community.
In conclusion (finally), I ask people who decry "favorites whoring" to do something to illustrate their concerns: pick a user, any user. Preferably one that you think is prone to engaging in harmful favorites-seeking behavior (I suppose I am one, under the loosest definition). Go to their profile, click on their "Favorited by others", and sort by popularity. Now go through this list of highly favorited contributions, probably contributions that were made with the possibility of gaining a lot of favorites in mind, and tell me which ones harmed the site. Surely if favorites are a problem because they encourage negative attention-seeking behavior, then such attention-seeking behavior would logically be successful in garnering a lot of favorites. And if that's true, then the "toplists" for many users should be rife with petty, useless, or pandering commentary that we'd be better off without.
This is not a good test because the only way to report transparently what one find is, in effect, to call someone out, and God knows that we don't need more of that in this thread. I am going to attempt to answer this because I did try it out and my experience is probably the opposite of what you expected. In fact, doing this changed my mind to such a degree that while before I was leaning towards keeping the standard system, I have now finally understood that there can be a big problem with visible favorites. I will obscure the names and keep the description general in hopes that this obscures who I am talking about while still providing information.
I did check the "favorited by others" of the first user (let's call that MeFite Foo) that sprang to mind as someone who I feel plays to the crowd, consciously or not. Foo's second most favorited comment ever is one of my least favorite comments of all time. I had come across it before but had mostly forgotten about it. Certainly the huge amount of favorites it received stunned me. In that comment Foo excoriated another MeFite (let's call that user Bab) for holding opinions Bab did not express at all and, in fact, had clearly been saying something completely different. But Foo's comment was well written and well argued, except for the brutal misinterpretation that underlay it, and it got a ton of favorites. Bab replied, explained Foo's misunderstanding but still felt the need to apologize that the comment was misinterpreted, I assume because of the massive amount of favorites that Foo's comment received. It was an incredibly weird moment.
If this is what jessamyn was talking about earlier about visible favorites affecting power laws then yes, this is a problem with visible favorites. To me this is a clear example of someone's manifestly wrong opinion "winning" because a comment had a large number of favorites attached to it.
posted by Kattullus at 2:30 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
You know, I'm kind of enjoying being free of other people's opinions about things. How many people favorited it? Who cares! I can form my own opinion!
Then, I saw right under an AskMe question that exactly 8 people had favorited it. That number felt so... crass. Eight. Why not 9.47? Why should I care either way? I'm finding the lack of numbers on AskMe refreshing, and I say -- if we're going number free, let's go number free for questions as well.
posted by salvia at 2:33 PM on November 2, 2009
Then, I saw right under an AskMe question that exactly 8 people had favorited it. That number felt so... crass. Eight. Why not 9.47? Why should I care either way? I'm finding the lack of numbers on AskMe refreshing, and I say -- if we're going number free, let's go number free for questions as well.
posted by salvia at 2:33 PM on November 2, 2009
For those of us who do use them as a filter, though, it'd be akin to removing the ability to type the letter Z in Microsoft Office.
Is this hyperbole, or are you serious? You think that people lean on visible in-thread favourites that heavily that it's akin to losing a letter off the keyboard? (which, btw, I've known people to survive for much, much longer than a month so even if you are serious, it's still not impossible)
If it's got to the point that people are just totally unable to engage with a thread without knowing what the chorus has decided is worthy then this experiment has thrown up a much deeper change in the site and its users than I think anybody would have predicted, and would have been worth it for that alone.
I don't think that was the case, though, I think it was people who value the information favourites give them reacting in an understandable way to the temporary loss of this functionality being sprung on them. Which is fair enough, but it pretty much always happens, and you have to hold your nerve to see something you believe in through. If you've really fucked up (Hi, Facebook!) the truth doesn't come out in the hours and days after the change, it comes once people have explored the new world and still found it wanting.
posted by fightorflight at 2:34 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Is this hyperbole, or are you serious? You think that people lean on visible in-thread favourites that heavily that it's akin to losing a letter off the keyboard? (which, btw, I've known people to survive for much, much longer than a month so even if you are serious, it's still not impossible)
If it's got to the point that people are just totally unable to engage with a thread without knowing what the chorus has decided is worthy then this experiment has thrown up a much deeper change in the site and its users than I think anybody would have predicted, and would have been worth it for that alone.
I don't think that was the case, though, I think it was people who value the information favourites give them reacting in an understandable way to the temporary loss of this functionality being sprung on them. Which is fair enough, but it pretty much always happens, and you have to hold your nerve to see something you believe in through. If you've really fucked up (Hi, Facebook!) the truth doesn't come out in the hours and days after the change, it comes once people have explored the new world and still found it wanting.
posted by fightorflight at 2:34 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Kattullus: "[[ I ask people who decry "favorites whoring" to do something to illustrate their concerns: pick a user, any user. Preferably one that you think is prone to engaging in harmful favorites-seeking behavior (I suppose I am one, under the loosest definition). Go to their profile, click on their "Favorited by others", and sort by popularity. Now go through this list of highly favorited contributions, probably contributions that were made with the possibility of gaining a lot of favorites in mind, and tell me which ones harmed the site. ]]
I did check the "favorited by others" of the first user (let's call that MeFite Foo) that sprang to mind as someone who I feel plays to the crowd, consciously or not. Foo's second most favorited comment ever is one of my least favorite comments of all time."
"harmed the site" ≠ "one of my least favorite comments"
posted by Joe Beese at 2:38 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I did check the "favorited by others" of the first user (let's call that MeFite Foo) that sprang to mind as someone who I feel plays to the crowd, consciously or not. Foo's second most favorited comment ever is one of my least favorite comments of all time."
"harmed the site" ≠ "one of my least favorite comments"
posted by Joe Beese at 2:38 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Could you, when you've rejoined the thread after doing various happy-making things, please elaborate on that? I have vague recollections of this argument being made before but I don't remember how it goes. I haven't seen this argument in this thread.
Not now, not really, no. There's the MeTa favorites tag which should highlight all the back and forthing about favorites and whether they were a net detriment to the site and us saying "well we don't think so...." and other people saying we were incorrect.
Nothing personal, but I'm exhausted and I'm upset and I don't want to start the "Well here is the thing we were trying to ascertain, and what we thought might be happening...." and then having a bunch of people say how stupid that was. There are many people here who can explain what they thought the problem might have been, and we've been talking on and off for months about how to get a look at what people thought was happening, how to isolate it a little bit. Basically the example you used is the sort of thing we were talking about.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:39 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Not now, not really, no. There's the MeTa favorites tag which should highlight all the back and forthing about favorites and whether they were a net detriment to the site and us saying "well we don't think so...." and other people saying we were incorrect.
Nothing personal, but I'm exhausted and I'm upset and I don't want to start the "Well here is the thing we were trying to ascertain, and what we thought might be happening...." and then having a bunch of people say how stupid that was. There are many people here who can explain what they thought the problem might have been, and we've been talking on and off for months about how to get a look at what people thought was happening, how to isolate it a little bit. Basically the example you used is the sort of thing we were talking about.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:39 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Speaking as someone that loves favorite counts, I would be totally okay with removing favorite counts from user profiles.
This will reduce favorite whoring, as there's no incentive to game the system, while still leaveing me with a way to easily peruse posts. Ideally, in users' profiles the link to favorite counts would be two links to "200 most recent favorites" by the user and given to the user. No incentive to watch the favorite counter go up, and everyone else still has a way to filter.
posted by amuseDetachment at 2:40 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
This will reduce favorite whoring, as there's no incentive to game the system, while still leaveing me with a way to easily peruse posts. Ideally, in users' profiles the link to favorite counts would be two links to "200 most recent favorites" by the user and given to the user. No incentive to watch the favorite counter go up, and everyone else still has a way to filter.
posted by amuseDetachment at 2:40 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
"harmed the site" ≠ "one of my least favorite comments"
"benefited the site" ≠ "one of my most favorite comments"
Now multiply by all the people who favourite.
posted by fightorflight at 2:40 PM on November 2, 2009
"benefited the site" ≠ "one of my most favorite comments"
Now multiply by all the people who favourite.
posted by fightorflight at 2:40 PM on November 2, 2009
"harmed the site" ≠ "one of my least favorite comments"
That comment kept going past what you quoted. Are you unclear on what Kattullus was getting at in the rest of it? Because responding only with this, only to the bit you quoted, doesn't really seem like an effort to engage with what he was describing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:46 PM on November 2, 2009
That comment kept going past what you quoted. Are you unclear on what Kattullus was getting at in the rest of it? Because responding only with this, only to the bit you quoted, doesn't really seem like an effort to engage with what he was describing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:46 PM on November 2, 2009
And unless a mod explains in advance what will or will not happen on Dec 1, based on what information, we're no better off now. The defaulted-on suppression in prefs is too much like a permanent change in a trojan horse.
We have explained several times in this thread that the plan is to roll back to the normal state on Dec 1. I know it's a long thread, but searching for our usernames and skimming that way would have gotten you this information pretty quickly
Cortex, I did read the whole thread, and just now on your advice I re-read every comment you made. I'm afraid I don't know the names of all the mods offhand so that's not a great suggestion (red user names, please). At different times, you say that after Dec 1 things will do different things. The comment count will either be off (hidden):
You're doing some (instinctive?) ducking and weaving on the whole seriousness of the experiment. On the one hand, you say it's not a real study and it's more about how it all seems later, and please guys don't start thinking it's in any way scientific and complain about the uselessness of the data.... but even after all that you keep using words "experiment" and "data" as if they're meaningful, and saying things like this:
(It's also false. I won't opt out during the month because I also want to see how awful it is and what it will be like for new users. So how is that useful data?)
Overall, I don't actually think this is some malevolent plot, but from the get-go there's been quite a bit of ignoring obvious (?) user experience needs and wiffling and waffling from you and the other mods on exactly why you're doing this and how it will be measured and used.
I suspect at this point you're backing away due to a mix of corporate embarrassment at the disaster and some kind of self-preservation instinct (you really want to still get something useful from this, even though it can't happen anymore), so I understand that.
But in return please understand that when I say a defaulted-on new feature will act as a trojan horse to make the change permanent, that's all I mean. That's exactly what will happen if the default is 'hidden'. I don't think you're out to deliberately break MetaFilter, here, that's just how these things work.
posted by rokusan at 2:50 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
We have explained several times in this thread that the plan is to roll back to the normal state on Dec 1. I know it's a long thread, but searching for our usernames and skimming that way would have gotten you this information pretty quickly
Cortex, I did read the whole thread, and just now on your advice I re-read every comment you made. I'm afraid I don't know the names of all the mods offhand so that's not a great suggestion (red user names, please). At different times, you say that after Dec 1 things will do different things. The comment count will either be off (hidden):
Assuming that the experiment shows that the change is, generally speaking, a failure, what does this mean for December?Or 'likely' back on:
CORTEX: It'll default to "off" for everybody.
CORTEX: 1. It's not a permanent change if you do or don't fiddle with the new preference; it's a change for the duration of November. After November, the likely situation is that the option goes away and things return to their original state.I realize this is a long and tangled thread, but some of the confusion is coming from the mods using coy words like 'likely' and 'see how it goes' and other such clarity-ducking terms. If it's an experiment, take it seriously and measure it. If it's not, please don't couch it in those terms.
You're doing some (instinctive?) ducking and weaving on the whole seriousness of the experiment. On the one hand, you say it's not a real study and it's more about how it all seems later, and please guys don't start thinking it's in any way scientific and complain about the uselessness of the data.... but even after all that you keep using words "experiment" and "data" as if they're meaningful, and saying things like this:
And one silver lining on the opt-out thing is that we can try and take a look at the opt-out group as a semi-distinct population in any of the quantitative stuff...Which again raises prickles among the scientists and logicians here.
(It's also false. I won't opt out during the month because I also want to see how awful it is and what it will be like for new users. So how is that useful data?)
Overall, I don't actually think this is some malevolent plot, but from the get-go there's been quite a bit of ignoring obvious (?) user experience needs and wiffling and waffling from you and the other mods on exactly why you're doing this and how it will be measured and used.
I suspect at this point you're backing away due to a mix of corporate embarrassment at the disaster and some kind of self-preservation instinct (you really want to still get something useful from this, even though it can't happen anymore), so I understand that.
But in return please understand that when I say a defaulted-on new feature will act as a trojan horse to make the change permanent, that's all I mean. That's exactly what will happen if the default is 'hidden'. I don't think you're out to deliberately break MetaFilter, here, that's just how these things work.
posted by rokusan at 2:50 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
Speaking as someone that loves favorite counts, I would be totally okay with removing favorite counts from user profiles.
Yeah, I'm fine with that too, as long as I can see what people recently favorited, both comments/answers of my own and the comments/answers favorited by other people whose taste (filter!) I like/admire/respect/value, such as Warrior Princess Kickass Kenobi above.
I often use the "list of things (person) favorited recently" as an entry point to what's good. Again, that's the whole dang point of a filter, right?
(Or: why is MetaFilter opposed to filters?)
posted by rokusan at 2:52 PM on November 2, 2009
Yeah, I'm fine with that too, as long as I can see what people recently favorited, both comments/answers of my own and the comments/answers favorited by other people whose taste (filter!) I like/admire/respect/value, such as Warrior Princess Kickass Kenobi above.
I often use the "list of things (person) favorited recently" as an entry point to what's good. Again, that's the whole dang point of a filter, right?
(Or: why is MetaFilter opposed to filters?)
posted by rokusan at 2:52 PM on November 2, 2009
fightorflight: ""benefited the site" ≠ "one of my most favorite comments"
Now multiply by all the people who favourite."
It seems to me what the pro-favorite people have been saying is that what benefits the site - or at least their ability to make use of it - is not "one of my most favorite comments", but rather "one of everyone else's most favorite comments".
Another important distinction, as I see it, is that the pro-favorite people couldn't care less if the anti-favorite people were given a Preference to have no favoriting information displayed to them. It is the anti-favorite people who seem more determined to make sure that no one is able to use the site in a way with which they disagree.
Granted, if an anti-favorite person is sincere in their conviction that favorites are ruining/have ruined MetaFilter, consistency compels them to get all Taliban on the rest of us. But it's still an unattractive stance, in my view.
posted by Joe Beese at 2:53 PM on November 2, 2009
Now multiply by all the people who favourite."
It seems to me what the pro-favorite people have been saying is that what benefits the site - or at least their ability to make use of it - is not "one of my most favorite comments", but rather "one of everyone else's most favorite comments".
Another important distinction, as I see it, is that the pro-favorite people couldn't care less if the anti-favorite people were given a Preference to have no favoriting information displayed to them. It is the anti-favorite people who seem more determined to make sure that no one is able to use the site in a way with which they disagree.
Granted, if an anti-favorite person is sincere in their conviction that favorites are ruining/have ruined MetaFilter, consistency compels them to get all Taliban on the rest of us. But it's still an unattractive stance, in my view.
posted by Joe Beese at 2:53 PM on November 2, 2009
Have you been to a MENSA mixer? *Shudder*
Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons.
posted by rokusan at 2:53 PM on November 2, 2009
Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons.
posted by rokusan at 2:53 PM on November 2, 2009
Considering how few of us ever think about often we might 'inconvenience' a mod who has to clean up the verbal poo of thoughtless behavior...
I probably leave my share of poo, but not on purpose. I've had stuff deleted that was probably too unkind or insensitive... and stuff that was probably just fine and on-point, too... but whatever. Overall, the hardline deletions keep the site better than most, and that's why it's successful and profitable, so taking some collateral damage is okay.
Which is to say, of course it's rude to deliberately make a mess, but MetaFilter is a money-making enterprise in which people are paid money, right? Mods should have something to do.
Also, they use flagging counts to find things to delete. Funnily, that's exactly how the rest of us use favorite counts to find things to read. :)
posted by rokusan at 2:57 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I probably leave my share of poo, but not on purpose. I've had stuff deleted that was probably too unkind or insensitive... and stuff that was probably just fine and on-point, too... but whatever. Overall, the hardline deletions keep the site better than most, and that's why it's successful and profitable, so taking some collateral damage is okay.
Which is to say, of course it's rude to deliberately make a mess, but MetaFilter is a money-making enterprise in which people are paid money, right? Mods should have something to do.
Also, they use flagging counts to find things to delete. Funnily, that's exactly how the rest of us use favorite counts to find things to read. :)
posted by rokusan at 2:57 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
rokusan, I'd like to politely ask you to not even imply that we don't have anything to do at this juncture.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:59 PM on November 2, 2009 [9 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:59 PM on November 2, 2009 [9 favorites]
Granted, if an anti-favorite person is sincere in their conviction that favorites are ruining/have ruined MetaFilter, consistency compels them to get all Taliban on the rest of us. But it's still an unattractive stance, in my view.
I'm all offended at the Taliban comparison ... oh wait, no, I don't care. Your distinction is meaningless: it's like saying "the pro-gun people couldn't care less if the anti-gun people didn't carry weapons". Well, er, yeah. No shit. Those aren't the guns in question.
posted by fightorflight at 3:01 PM on November 2, 2009
I'm all offended at the Taliban comparison ... oh wait, no, I don't care. Your distinction is meaningless: it's like saying "the pro-gun people couldn't care less if the anti-gun people didn't carry weapons". Well, er, yeah. No shit. Those aren't the guns in question.
posted by fightorflight at 3:01 PM on November 2, 2009
rokusan: "Have you been to a MENSA mixer? *Shudder*
Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons."
were they mensa members? I had no idea.
also, consider chilling out a little bit. love ya, dude.
posted by shmegegge at 3:01 PM on November 2, 2009
Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons."
were they mensa members? I had no idea.
also, consider chilling out a little bit. love ya, dude.
posted by shmegegge at 3:01 PM on November 2, 2009
For those of us who do use them as a filter, though, it'd be akin to removing the ability to type the letter Z in Microsoft Office.
Is this hyperbole, or are you serious?
I was speaking of favorites in general, but I am serious in that I would find a favorite-less MeFi as hard and annoying to use as a Z-less keyboard, yes. I think it would quickly become unusable, and the perceived signal to noise rate would drop tremendously, probably to the point of unusability. Good info would just be too deeply buried and invisible.
If it's got to the point that people are just totally unable to engage with a thread without knowing what the chorus has decided is worthy.
Favorites aren't just about a 'chorus'. As above: "fightorflight made a comment yesterday that received 63 favorites".... that will inspire me read it, even I wouldn't have entered that thread otherwise. That's useful to both of us. Also, if I particularly enjoy fightorflight's posts/comments over time, I will probably go see what he has favorited, because that's bound to be an excellent filter to other things I will probably like.
Members act as automatic filters for other members, and this is a key, valuable way that MeFi can scale up. Member favorites are our sub-filters.
In-thread is not as important, but it does help to have an easy way to say "Amen!" or "Yup", and cuts down on the "Me too" responses. But that's only valid if everyone sees favorites.
Also in-thread: when I see an AskMe answer I agree with has 64 favorites already, I know that I don't need to bother answering/explaining, and the OP probably gets the point by now, and I can just click the [+] and move on. But if it just says "? Faves" or nothing (same difference, really), I will now have to plod ahead and post a me-too response that might be redundant, since I don't have any other info to know whether it's necessary/helpful or not. If there are two indistinguishable answers to "What is 2+2?" and both "4" and "6" have some unknown number of fave(s)... that's reducing the usefulness and readability of AskMe dramatically.
Favorites give me a tool I can use to cut down on noise as a reader, and a method to stop adding noise as a contributor. They're one of the most useful things we have.... but only if everyone sees them.
posted by rokusan at 3:08 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Is this hyperbole, or are you serious?
I was speaking of favorites in general, but I am serious in that I would find a favorite-less MeFi as hard and annoying to use as a Z-less keyboard, yes. I think it would quickly become unusable, and the perceived signal to noise rate would drop tremendously, probably to the point of unusability. Good info would just be too deeply buried and invisible.
If it's got to the point that people are just totally unable to engage with a thread without knowing what the chorus has decided is worthy.
Favorites aren't just about a 'chorus'. As above: "fightorflight made a comment yesterday that received 63 favorites".... that will inspire me read it, even I wouldn't have entered that thread otherwise. That's useful to both of us. Also, if I particularly enjoy fightorflight's posts/comments over time, I will probably go see what he has favorited, because that's bound to be an excellent filter to other things I will probably like.
Members act as automatic filters for other members, and this is a key, valuable way that MeFi can scale up. Member favorites are our sub-filters.
In-thread is not as important, but it does help to have an easy way to say "Amen!" or "Yup", and cuts down on the "Me too" responses. But that's only valid if everyone sees favorites.
Also in-thread: when I see an AskMe answer I agree with has 64 favorites already, I know that I don't need to bother answering/explaining, and the OP probably gets the point by now, and I can just click the [+] and move on. But if it just says "? Faves" or nothing (same difference, really), I will now have to plod ahead and post a me-too response that might be redundant, since I don't have any other info to know whether it's necessary/helpful or not. If there are two indistinguishable answers to "What is 2+2?" and both "4" and "6" have some unknown number of fave(s)... that's reducing the usefulness and readability of AskMe dramatically.
Favorites give me a tool I can use to cut down on noise as a reader, and a method to stop adding noise as a contributor. They're one of the most useful things we have.... but only if everyone sees them.
posted by rokusan at 3:08 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Kattulus: "I did check the "favorited by others" of the first user (let's call that MeFite Foo) that sprang to mind as someone who I feel plays to the crowd, consciously or not. Foo's second most favorited comment ever is one of my least favorite comments of all time. I had come across it before but had mostly forgotten about it. Certainly the huge amount of favorites it received stunned me. In that comment Foo excoriated another MeFite (let's call that user Bab) for holding opinions Bab did not express at all and, in fact, had clearly been saying something completely different. But Foo's comment was well written and well argued, except for the brutal misinterpretation that underlay it, and it got a ton of favorites. Bab replied, explained Foo's misunderstanding but still felt the need to apologize that the comment was misinterpreted, I assume because of the massive amount of favorites that Foo's comment received. It was an incredibly weird moment."
While this is an example of the bad things favorites can sometimes emphasize and unfortunate, the fact that it was "an incredibly weird moment" just goes to show how rare such moments are. Situations where two or more users get into a deeply personal pissing match with readers using favorites to throw their lot behind one side or another (or both) generally only happen in very contentious, high-traffic threads, which usually see attention and comments from the mods to keep things from spiraling out of control.
And of course, who's to say this misunderstanding wouldn't have happened anyway without favorites, just with the one highly-favorited mistaken callout replaced by multiple negative responses? At any rate, it sounds like the misunderstood person got a chance to respond and clear up the problem.
As I see it, favorites highlight good content multiple times in virtually every single thread -- enough to support RSS feeds of popular content that update several times per day -- while they do the same for nasty, divisive commentary much more rarely. I just don't see these occasional stinkbombs as a frequent-enough problem to enact such a sweeping change when simple deletion of the way-over-the-line stuff could deal with it much more cleanly.
posted by Rhaomi at 3:09 PM on November 2, 2009
While this is an example of the bad things favorites can sometimes emphasize and unfortunate, the fact that it was "an incredibly weird moment" just goes to show how rare such moments are. Situations where two or more users get into a deeply personal pissing match with readers using favorites to throw their lot behind one side or another (or both) generally only happen in very contentious, high-traffic threads, which usually see attention and comments from the mods to keep things from spiraling out of control.
And of course, who's to say this misunderstanding wouldn't have happened anyway without favorites, just with the one highly-favorited mistaken callout replaced by multiple negative responses? At any rate, it sounds like the misunderstood person got a chance to respond and clear up the problem.
As I see it, favorites highlight good content multiple times in virtually every single thread -- enough to support RSS feeds of popular content that update several times per day -- while they do the same for nasty, divisive commentary much more rarely. I just don't see these occasional stinkbombs as a frequent-enough problem to enact such a sweeping change when simple deletion of the way-over-the-line stuff could deal with it much more cleanly.
posted by Rhaomi at 3:09 PM on November 2, 2009
rokusan, I'd like to politely ask you to not even imply that we don't have anything to do at this juncture.
I'm sorry, Jessamyn, I don't know what you mean.
posted by rokusan at 3:09 PM on November 2, 2009
I'm sorry, Jessamyn, I don't know what you mean.
posted by rokusan at 3:09 PM on November 2, 2009
rokusan writes ""Longtime UI guys like me, like even from before-the-web times, are all professionally flabbergasted over (1). "
I'm sure they are flabbergasted all the time. No threading, coloured background, no avatars, no sigs, no built in quoting, quirky preview process, nothing obvious of which html tags work, no mod highlighting etc ad nauseum, occasional weird kerning in the title block, etc etc.
rokusan writes "I'm afraid I don't know the names of all the mods offhand so that's not a great suggestion (red user names, please)"
rokusan I'm amazed anyone can type out 8000+ comments here and not know who the mods are. For future reference they are jessamyn, cortex, mathowie and sometimes vacapinta with pb doing the heavy coding lifting.
Red user names wouldn't really help (I mean how would you, who didn't know the mods, know what red means?). They would however generate an endless string of Meta threads from noobs asking why some people have rednames. See Stan Chin's star.
posted by Mitheral at 3:12 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm sure they are flabbergasted all the time. No threading, coloured background, no avatars, no sigs, no built in quoting, quirky preview process, nothing obvious of which html tags work, no mod highlighting etc ad nauseum, occasional weird kerning in the title block, etc etc.
rokusan writes "I'm afraid I don't know the names of all the mods offhand so that's not a great suggestion (red user names, please)"
rokusan I'm amazed anyone can type out 8000+ comments here and not know who the mods are. For future reference they are jessamyn, cortex, mathowie and sometimes vacapinta with pb doing the heavy coding lifting.
Red user names wouldn't really help (I mean how would you, who didn't know the mods, know what red means?). They would however generate an endless string of Meta threads from noobs asking why some people have rednames. See Stan Chin's star.
posted by Mitheral at 3:12 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm afraid I don't know the names of all the mods offhand
There are very few of us, and you've been here for years and are really active on the site. I'm sorry if I'm being insensitive about some unknown something that prevents you from memorizing five short names, but even at that it's covered in the FAQ and there's at least a couple scripts that can put a label on for you if all else fails.
I realize this is a long and tangled thread, but some of the confusion is coming from the mods using coy words like 'likely' and 'see how it goes' and other such clarity-ducking terms.
I habitually qualify things. It's an old, long-standing habit, one I've struggled mostly-successfully to put an end to over the last several years, and especially in the last couple as the scrutiny to which my writing has been subjected has gone up significantly. But it still happens.
I wrote about 5,500 words in this thread as of yesterday evening, and doing a whole lot of writing and being a little exhausted takes a toll on the precision and concision of my writing. If any of those stray qualifiers caused you confusion, I apologize for not being sufficiently clear, but I believe the overall thrust of what I've said has been pretty plain and consistent as to what we were and were not planning to do.
You're doing some (instinctive?) ducking and weaving on the whole seriousness of the experiment. On the one hand, you say it's not a real study and it's more about how it all seems later, and please guys don't start thinking it's in any way scientific and complain about the uselessness of the data.... but even after all that you keep using words "experiment" and "data" as if they're meaningful
These words have lay meanings. I've several times explicitly disclaimed that this is not intended as hard science and that we are not trying to approach this through the lens of rigorous scientific inquiry; I have made the (mostly I think unnecessary, but I was trying to be thorough) disclaimer that none of us are scientists.
I'm a nerd and an armchair datawankery enthusiast, and I can't purge useful words like "experiment" and "data" from my vocabulary easily. Being clear that we're not using them in a rigorous sense, several times throughout the thread, is about as good as it's going to get. Again, I apologize if this has caused you confusion, but I don't think it's that strange of a bit of usage to encounter in any case, and the logicians and scientists in the crowd are just going to have to cut us a little slack and ignore the prickles if they can.
I suspect at this point you're backing away due to a mix of corporate embarrassment at the disaster and some kind of self-preservation instinct (you really want to still get something useful from this, even though it can't happen anymore), so I understand that.
Huh? We've tweaked a couple things because we hear what people are saying and don't see any harm in making those tweaks, but we're sticking with theexperiment venture as intended. I understand that you think extremely little of what we're doing here, but you seem to think we're doing something other than what we were planning and/or something other than what we were doing 24 hours ago and I don't get where you're coming from there.
But in return please understand that when I say a defaulted-on new feature will act as a trojan horse to make the change permanent, that's all I mean. That's exactly what will happen if the default is 'hidden'.
It is temporary. It is for November. I feel like there's some massive disconnect here because you seem to be trying to say that something that is explicitly temporary is somehow going to sneak into permanence based on as far as I can tell a personal speculative conclusion about this situation that's more reliable than us actually saying what we intend, repeatedly, in this thread.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:14 PM on November 2, 2009 [8 favorites]
There are very few of us, and you've been here for years and are really active on the site. I'm sorry if I'm being insensitive about some unknown something that prevents you from memorizing five short names, but even at that it's covered in the FAQ and there's at least a couple scripts that can put a label on for you if all else fails.
I realize this is a long and tangled thread, but some of the confusion is coming from the mods using coy words like 'likely' and 'see how it goes' and other such clarity-ducking terms.
I habitually qualify things. It's an old, long-standing habit, one I've struggled mostly-successfully to put an end to over the last several years, and especially in the last couple as the scrutiny to which my writing has been subjected has gone up significantly. But it still happens.
I wrote about 5,500 words in this thread as of yesterday evening, and doing a whole lot of writing and being a little exhausted takes a toll on the precision and concision of my writing. If any of those stray qualifiers caused you confusion, I apologize for not being sufficiently clear, but I believe the overall thrust of what I've said has been pretty plain and consistent as to what we were and were not planning to do.
You're doing some (instinctive?) ducking and weaving on the whole seriousness of the experiment. On the one hand, you say it's not a real study and it's more about how it all seems later, and please guys don't start thinking it's in any way scientific and complain about the uselessness of the data.... but even after all that you keep using words "experiment" and "data" as if they're meaningful
These words have lay meanings. I've several times explicitly disclaimed that this is not intended as hard science and that we are not trying to approach this through the lens of rigorous scientific inquiry; I have made the (mostly I think unnecessary, but I was trying to be thorough) disclaimer that none of us are scientists.
I'm a nerd and an armchair datawankery enthusiast, and I can't purge useful words like "experiment" and "data" from my vocabulary easily. Being clear that we're not using them in a rigorous sense, several times throughout the thread, is about as good as it's going to get. Again, I apologize if this has caused you confusion, but I don't think it's that strange of a bit of usage to encounter in any case, and the logicians and scientists in the crowd are just going to have to cut us a little slack and ignore the prickles if they can.
I suspect at this point you're backing away due to a mix of corporate embarrassment at the disaster and some kind of self-preservation instinct (you really want to still get something useful from this, even though it can't happen anymore), so I understand that.
Huh? We've tweaked a couple things because we hear what people are saying and don't see any harm in making those tweaks, but we're sticking with the
But in return please understand that when I say a defaulted-on new feature will act as a trojan horse to make the change permanent, that's all I mean. That's exactly what will happen if the default is 'hidden'.
It is temporary. It is for November. I feel like there's some massive disconnect here because you seem to be trying to say that something that is explicitly temporary is somehow going to sneak into permanence based on as far as I can tell a personal speculative conclusion about this situation that's more reliable than us actually saying what we intend, repeatedly, in this thread.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:14 PM on November 2, 2009 [8 favorites]
"I did check the "favorited by others" of the first user (let's call that MeFite Foo) that sprang to mind as someone who I feel plays to the crowd, consciously or not. Foo's second most favorited comment ever is one of my least favorite comments of all time.
Embarassed newbie question, maybe: how the heck do you see a user's most-favorited comments? I just see recent favoriteds and can go Back, Back, Back forever.
posted by rokusan at 3:14 PM on November 2, 2009
Embarassed newbie question, maybe: how the heck do you see a user's most-favorited comments? I just see recent favoriteds and can go Back, Back, Back forever.
posted by rokusan at 3:14 PM on November 2, 2009
For you.
And you can install this which will let you know who the mods are.
posted by gman at 3:17 PM on November 2, 2009
And you can install this which will let you know who the mods are.
posted by gman at 3:17 PM on November 2, 2009
WAH! What is this "has favorites" thing? I LIKED THE GOOD OLD TIMES WHEN COMMENTS WERE FAVED!
posted by qvantamon at 3:17 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by qvantamon at 3:17 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
Embarassed newbie question, maybe: how the heck do you see a user's most-favorited comments? I just see recent favoriteds and can go Back, Back, Back forever.
Profile / Favorited by others / Popular
posted by Sys Rq at 3:19 PM on November 2, 2009
Profile / Favorited by others / Popular
posted by Sys Rq at 3:19 PM on November 2, 2009
rokusan, from someone's profile click the "favorited by others" link. On that page you'll find: "Show Favorites Activity: Fuzzy | Precise | Popular" toward the top of the page. Click Popular and you'll see the most favorited items.
posted by pb (staff) at 3:19 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by pb (staff) at 3:19 PM on November 2, 2009
rokusan writes ""Longtime UI guys like me, like even from before-the-web times, are all professionally flabbergasted over (1). "
I'm sure they are flabbergasted all the time. No threading, coloured background, no avatars, no sigs, no built in quoting, quirky preview process, nothing obvious of which html tags work, no mod highlighting etc ad nauseum, occasional weird kerning in the title block, etc etc.
Well, I can't speak for others, but most of the things you list are pretty textbook bad UI choices or ones that I have little use for. Subthreading is contentious and confusing (I am against it in most cases, including here); there's nothing wrong with colored backgrounds for some purposes and these ones are well-used; avatars and sigs are useless fluff and wankery; not sure what built-in quoting would be; the preview is a bit problematic but it's a technical problem; the which-HTML-works experiment process is badly handled, I agree; I don't expect kerning to work in HTML.
So one and a half out of those eight are 'problems', yeah.
posted by rokusan at 3:20 PM on November 2, 2009
I'm sure they are flabbergasted all the time. No threading, coloured background, no avatars, no sigs, no built in quoting, quirky preview process, nothing obvious of which html tags work, no mod highlighting etc ad nauseum, occasional weird kerning in the title block, etc etc.
Well, I can't speak for others, but most of the things you list are pretty textbook bad UI choices or ones that I have little use for. Subthreading is contentious and confusing (I am against it in most cases, including here); there's nothing wrong with colored backgrounds for some purposes and these ones are well-used; avatars and sigs are useless fluff and wankery; not sure what built-in quoting would be; the preview is a bit problematic but it's a technical problem; the which-HTML-works experiment process is badly handled, I agree; I don't expect kerning to work in HTML.
So one and a half out of those eight are 'problems', yeah.
posted by rokusan at 3:20 PM on November 2, 2009
We've gone ahead, as a couple folks have noted, and made the change to "has favorites" live, yeah.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:20 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:20 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
rokusan: "Embarassed newbie question, maybe: how the heck do you see a user's most-favorited comments? I just see recent favoriteds and can go Back, Back, Back forever."
really? damn, dude. I mean: you're not a newb. but look, you go to the profile page, you click the favorited by others link, and then click "Popular" out of the line that says "Fuzzy | Precise | Popular".
posted by shmegegge at 3:21 PM on November 2, 2009
really? damn, dude. I mean: you're not a newb. but look, you go to the profile page, you click the favorited by others link, and then click "Popular" out of the line that says "Fuzzy | Precise | Popular".
posted by shmegegge at 3:21 PM on November 2, 2009
To the mods: I don't like this change, but I respect your intentions and your right to try to reach Better Living Through Adjustments To The Social UI.
However, I have to say this about the pro-favorite-counts vitriol in this thread: Right or wrong, I think there's a level of resentment that comes with feeling like a guinea pig in a vaguely-defined experiment. I think there's resentment among those who use favorite counts for whatever reason, at the implication that they might be Considered Harmful or Doing It Wrong. I think there's resentment about this being announced with very little notice on a holiday. I think there's resentment at real or perceived mixed messages from the mods, about how this is temporary but they like it better this way but there's no reason to assume this experiment will be used to justify a permanent change but the existing system constitutes an echo chamber and that's suboptimal. I think there's resentment towards oldtimers who think things were so much better back in the day, from those who are newish and feel like their user number shouldn't make them a second-class citizen. I think there's resentment about the idea that you can't comprehend a thread or make a valuable contribution unless you've read every single prior comment and given it equal consideration to every other comment.
But most of all, I think (as acknowledged by cortex) the angst would have been reduced by 95% if the preferences option and its link on the MetaTalk front page had been prepared in advance. I think the leavening agent for all the resentment above was the "pawning off" of the opt-out work onto the community. When the decision was made to support opting out (via the present-but-hidden favorite count), it should have been designed as a preference. Note the sighs of relief in this thread once it was implemented, even though Stylish/GM solutions had already been provided in comments.
I can fully understand why it wasn't designed that way from the start. I know the hidden favorite counts were put there in good faith, as a compromise between the desire to maximize the number of people participating in the experiment while at least offering something to the people who absolutely loathed the new system.
But from the perspective of someone offering less benefit of the doubt, you were basically admitting that you knew some people would hate this and then compounding the problem by making them jump through mildly technical and browser-specific hoops just to break even. What's more, you vocally expected those hoops to be enabled by savvy GreaseMonkey script authors...
...Which means you expected a few MeFites to volunteer their time and expertise, host or find hosting for their solutions, only to have their work maybe-probably rendered moot at the end of the month. By making that the expressed expectation, you also elevated those authors' role as the official providers of that feature, which comes with a lot more stress and guilt if their solutions turn out to have bugs or anything.
With all respect, I think that was terribly wrongheaded. GreaseMonkey (along with its variants) is like duct tape: an amazing tool for savvy end-users who want to patch up some minor issue... but if I ever saw a reference manual that told me to fix a problem with duct tape I would be very concerned about the quality of that product. I love that you all are members of the community and get as much pleasure out of grassroots improvements to the site as we do. But I'd like to politely ask that you draw the line short of relying on those volunteer efforts for anything.
posted by Riki tiki at 3:27 PM on November 2, 2009 [11 favorites]
However, I have to say this about the pro-favorite-counts vitriol in this thread: Right or wrong, I think there's a level of resentment that comes with feeling like a guinea pig in a vaguely-defined experiment. I think there's resentment among those who use favorite counts for whatever reason, at the implication that they might be Considered Harmful or Doing It Wrong. I think there's resentment about this being announced with very little notice on a holiday. I think there's resentment at real or perceived mixed messages from the mods, about how this is temporary but they like it better this way but there's no reason to assume this experiment will be used to justify a permanent change but the existing system constitutes an echo chamber and that's suboptimal. I think there's resentment towards oldtimers who think things were so much better back in the day, from those who are newish and feel like their user number shouldn't make them a second-class citizen. I think there's resentment about the idea that you can't comprehend a thread or make a valuable contribution unless you've read every single prior comment and given it equal consideration to every other comment.
But most of all, I think (as acknowledged by cortex) the angst would have been reduced by 95% if the preferences option and its link on the MetaTalk front page had been prepared in advance. I think the leavening agent for all the resentment above was the "pawning off" of the opt-out work onto the community. When the decision was made to support opting out (via the present-but-hidden favorite count), it should have been designed as a preference. Note the sighs of relief in this thread once it was implemented, even though Stylish/GM solutions had already been provided in comments.
I can fully understand why it wasn't designed that way from the start. I know the hidden favorite counts were put there in good faith, as a compromise between the desire to maximize the number of people participating in the experiment while at least offering something to the people who absolutely loathed the new system.
But from the perspective of someone offering less benefit of the doubt, you were basically admitting that you knew some people would hate this and then compounding the problem by making them jump through mildly technical and browser-specific hoops just to break even. What's more, you vocally expected those hoops to be enabled by savvy GreaseMonkey script authors...
...Which means you expected a few MeFites to volunteer their time and expertise, host or find hosting for their solutions, only to have their work maybe-probably rendered moot at the end of the month. By making that the expressed expectation, you also elevated those authors' role as the official providers of that feature, which comes with a lot more stress and guilt if their solutions turn out to have bugs or anything.
With all respect, I think that was terribly wrongheaded. GreaseMonkey (along with its variants) is like duct tape: an amazing tool for savvy end-users who want to patch up some minor issue... but if I ever saw a reference manual that told me to fix a problem with duct tape I would be very concerned about the quality of that product. I love that you all are members of the community and get as much pleasure out of grassroots improvements to the site as we do. But I'd like to politely ask that you draw the line short of relying on those volunteer efforts for anything.
posted by Riki tiki at 3:27 PM on November 2, 2009 [11 favorites]
I demand you change "has favorites" to the more family-friendly, Cosbyesque "Favorootled!"
posted by Skot at 3:28 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by Skot at 3:28 PM on November 2, 2009
OMG! I thought I had caught some previously unknown disease:
"Pssst...does he have crabs?"
"Noooo...FAVORITES! He has Favorites!"
"Omigosh!"
Alright...enough...sorry...the experiement proceeds.
posted by salishsea at 3:29 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
"Pssst...does he have crabs?"
"Noooo...FAVORITES! He has Favorites!"
"Omigosh!"
Alright...enough...sorry...the experiement proceeds.
posted by salishsea at 3:29 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I would find a favorite-less MeFi as hard and annoying to use as a Z-less keyboard, yes. I think it would quickly become unusable, and the perceived signal to noise rate would drop tremendously, probably to the point of unusability. Good info would just be too deeply buried and invisible.
Are you reading the same metafilter I am? You think each thread is a sea of crap, and comments with 20 or more favourites are the only parts with any value? This isn't using favourites as a skimming tool, that's letting favourites moderate the site for you.
Talk about the two metafilers.
posted by Hildegarde at 3:29 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Are you reading the same metafilter I am? You think each thread is a sea of crap, and comments with 20 or more favourites are the only parts with any value? This isn't using favourites as a skimming tool, that's letting favourites moderate the site for you.
Talk about the two metafilers.
posted by Hildegarde at 3:29 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
There are very few of us, and you've been here for years and are really active on the site. I'm sorry if I'm being insensitive about some unknown something that prevents you from memorizing five short names...
We don't really encounter mods day to day very much at MetaFilter, or at least I don't. I've only ever talked with one of them in e-mail, none in person. I expect they're all over this MetaMeta joint, but I don't visit these gray pages much; I only showed up today trying to figure out WTF happened to favorites.
I remember cortex and jessamyn easily, but probably only because I just saw their names now... mathowie isn't very active, at least in ways that show on my screen: I could summon his real name from memory more easily than his handle here... and now that you mention vacapinta, yes I remember him too, but only because I installed the Show Deleted Posts script (more hidden info, ha)... I'm not sure I'd ever see his name otherwise. I've never noticed pb, I don't think.
The fact MeFi's mods aren't (usually) obviously in your face is a good thing, and probably one of the reasons MeFi is a good place: nobody goes to the game to watch the umps. I was responding to Cortex's suggestion that I "read all the comments by mods above", which is a bit laborious, that's all, even if I somehow do a search/again for five names at the same time. A minor thing.
Hey, maybe they really are like umpires. Mods I don't notice much are probably doing a great job, right? The only time they get attention is when they argue with players, or maybe if they announced before a game "Hey, today we're using some new rules..."
From an outside perspective, MeFi runs quite well. That's what makes weirdness like this "experiment" so striking in their oddness. IMHO.
posted by rokusan at 3:30 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
We don't really encounter mods day to day very much at MetaFilter, or at least I don't. I've only ever talked with one of them in e-mail, none in person. I expect they're all over this MetaMeta joint, but I don't visit these gray pages much; I only showed up today trying to figure out WTF happened to favorites.
I remember cortex and jessamyn easily, but probably only because I just saw their names now... mathowie isn't very active, at least in ways that show on my screen: I could summon his real name from memory more easily than his handle here... and now that you mention vacapinta, yes I remember him too, but only because I installed the Show Deleted Posts script (more hidden info, ha)... I'm not sure I'd ever see his name otherwise. I've never noticed pb, I don't think.
The fact MeFi's mods aren't (usually) obviously in your face is a good thing, and probably one of the reasons MeFi is a good place: nobody goes to the game to watch the umps. I was responding to Cortex's suggestion that I "read all the comments by mods above", which is a bit laborious, that's all, even if I somehow do a search/again for five names at the same time. A minor thing.
Hey, maybe they really are like umpires. Mods I don't notice much are probably doing a great job, right? The only time they get attention is when they argue with players, or maybe if they announced before a game "Hey, today we're using some new rules..."
From an outside perspective, MeFi runs quite well. That's what makes weirdness like this "experiment" so striking in their oddness. IMHO.
posted by rokusan at 3:30 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
GMan, Sys Rq, shmegegge, pb: thanks. I am appropriately red-faced now.
I only ever saw, noticed or used the first page of "Favorited by", the recent activity, and didn't really notice the other tabs. Maybe those concerned with favorite-whoring should be lobbying against the idea of "Popular?"
That's a pretty loaded high-school term right there.
posted by rokusan at 3:33 PM on November 2, 2009
I only ever saw, noticed or used the first page of "Favorited by", the recent activity, and didn't really notice the other tabs. Maybe those concerned with favorite-whoring should be lobbying against the idea of "Popular?"
That's a pretty loaded high-school term right there.
posted by rokusan at 3:33 PM on November 2, 2009
"Has favorites" is a step in the right direction. Plain language, clear, less confusing who the actor is. Well do'ed.
posted by rokusan at 3:34 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by rokusan at 3:34 PM on November 2, 2009
There are very few of us, and you've been here for years and are really active on the site. I'm sorry if I'm being insensitive about some unknown something that prevents you from memorizing five short names...
Cortex, that's about as nice as me saying "You've been moderating an internet site for a long time now, didn't you realize you would cause a shitstorm by removing a feature so many people were using?"
I mean, come on. I don't even have to get to the second part about "something that prevents you" before I'm being rude, right?
posted by rokusan at 3:36 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Cortex, that's about as nice as me saying "You've been moderating an internet site for a long time now, didn't you realize you would cause a shitstorm by removing a feature so many people were using?"
I mean, come on. I don't even have to get to the second part about "something that prevents you" before I'm being rude, right?
posted by rokusan at 3:36 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
if I ever saw a reference manual that told me to fix a problem with duct tape I would be very concerned about the quality of that product.
Unless, of course, the problem was a leaky duct.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:36 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Unless, of course, the problem was a leaky duct.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:36 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
I've had the feeling that I'm a bandwagon favoriter for a while now and am looking forward to properly examining my favoriting habits over the next month. Even at the two day mark, I'm noticing their absence a lot less than I expected but I still expect to turn it back on before December 1st.
Maybe this will seem like sucking up or whatever but the mods have really been great over this whole thing, I can only imagine the shit they're getting in email if the thread is this acrimonious.
posted by minifigs at 3:36 PM on November 2, 2009
Maybe this will seem like sucking up or whatever but the mods have really been great over this whole thing, I can only imagine the shit they're getting in email if the thread is this acrimonious.
posted by minifigs at 3:36 PM on November 2, 2009
i can haz favorites.
posted by ninjew at 3:38 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by ninjew at 3:38 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
cortex: "We've gone ahead, as a couple folks have noted, and made the change to "has favorites" live, yeah."
When the "faves" experiment initially went live, I used the profile checkbox to turn it off, for two reasons:
Anyway, this new "has favorites" looks classier to me, so I'm opting back in to the experiment for now to see if the second point on my list can be crossed out. As for the first one... I'm just going to have to see if I can figure out why I've made such a habit of looking at the favorites count after reading a comment.
posted by FishBike at 3:39 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
When the "faves" experiment initially went live, I used the profile checkbox to turn it off, for two reasons:
- I never realized before how often I read a comment and then look at the favorites count. I haven't actually figured out why I do that, but I definitely noticed when the number was gone.
- Something about the way "faves" looked bothered me in a way that I couldn't quite put my finger on.
Anyway, this new "has favorites" looks classier to me, so I'm opting back in to the experiment for now to see if the second point on my list can be crossed out. As for the first one... I'm just going to have to see if I can figure out why I've made such a habit of looking at the favorites count after reading a comment.
posted by FishBike at 3:39 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
You think each thread is a sea of crap, and comments with 20 or more favourites are the only parts with any value? This isn't using favourites as a skimming tool, that's letting favourites moderate the site for you.
You're thinking of it as "using favorites" and I am thinking of it as "trusting MeFi users".
The favorites placed by other users (especially users I know/like/respect/value most) are a tremendous asset, and the sharpest tool the site has to finding the "best" (to my taste) content.
As the site grows and grows, that will prove more and more valuable.
The users are the filter.
posted by rokusan at 3:41 PM on November 2, 2009
You're thinking of it as "using favorites" and I am thinking of it as "trusting MeFi users".
The favorites placed by other users (especially users I know/like/respect/value most) are a tremendous asset, and the sharpest tool the site has to finding the "best" (to my taste) content.
As the site grows and grows, that will prove more and more valuable.
The users are the filter.
posted by rokusan at 3:41 PM on November 2, 2009
Cortex, that's about as nice as me saying "You've been moderating an internet site for a long time now, didn't you realize you would cause a shitstorm by removing a feature so many people were using?"
I'm honestly sorry if I'm getting short, it's been a tiring day. I feel like you've come into this thread with both barrels loaded and argued a pretty ungenerous reading of this whole thing, and I was legitimately taken aback that you'd throw out not knowing our usernames as some sort of justification for that reading, especially given that you'd apparently read the whole thing anyway and do know that I'm a mod.
I'm pooped, and I'm probably becoming spikier here than I should be, so I'm gonna take a bit of a break and see if I can ease off that. But I was, frankly, struggling for politeness mightily hard to post the comment I did post.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:42 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
I'm honestly sorry if I'm getting short, it's been a tiring day. I feel like you've come into this thread with both barrels loaded and argued a pretty ungenerous reading of this whole thing, and I was legitimately taken aback that you'd throw out not knowing our usernames as some sort of justification for that reading, especially given that you'd apparently read the whole thing anyway and do know that I'm a mod.
I'm pooped, and I'm probably becoming spikier here than I should be, so I'm gonna take a bit of a break and see if I can ease off that. But I was, frankly, struggling for politeness mightily hard to post the comment I did post.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:42 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
i'm not sure if I'm the only one with this issue, or if got changed or something, but..
i opted to show the count, but all i see "has favorites". using chrome.
earlier, i was able to see counts after changing the option in my profile.
posted by ninjew at 3:44 PM on November 2, 2009
i opted to show the count, but all i see "has favorites". using chrome.
earlier, i was able to see counts after changing the option in my profile.
posted by ninjew at 3:44 PM on November 2, 2009
I too couldn't help but think of poor lewistate...
posted by sweetmarie at 3:44 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by sweetmarie at 3:44 PM on November 2, 2009
So far I like having the visible favorites off, and I like "has favorites." I appreciate this experiment and (most) of the comments that have been offered on either side of the debate.
Before today I would have said I liked the favorites system, but after reading a few comments from users who said they felt more valued when they got favorites, I changed my mind. I wish everyone felt liked valued members of the site regardless of whether they got favorites or not.
posted by Mouse Army at 3:44 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Before today I would have said I liked the favorites system, but after reading a few comments from users who said they felt more valued when they got favorites, I changed my mind. I wish everyone felt liked valued members of the site regardless of whether they got favorites or not.
posted by Mouse Army at 3:44 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
fightorflight: "Your distinction is meaningless: it's like saying "the pro-gun people couldn't care less if the anti-gun people didn't carry weapons". Well, er, yeah. No shit. Those aren't the guns in question."
Favorites don't ruin MetaFilter. MeFites ruin MetaFilter.
posted by Joe Beese at 3:45 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Favorites don't ruin MetaFilter. MeFites ruin MetaFilter.
posted by Joe Beese at 3:45 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
My eyes are happier without "faved", thank you!
Kattullus, I thought your test was a great illustration of a possible negative effect of favorites, so thank you for putting in the effort to do it and share the results.
I also think you could be extrapolating a bit too much from it here, possibly: Bab replied, explained Foo's misunderstanding but still felt the need to apologize that the comment was misinterpreted, I assume because of the massive amount of favorites that Foo's comment received.
If I was Bab, and it was the first time Foo had misunderstood me in the exchange (i.e. not a pattern of misinterpretation), it's likely I would've apologized for not getting my point across well. I am apt to say, especially if I'm trying to turn down the volume on a disagreement: "I am sorry I did not express this clearly in a way you understand," rather than tell someone, directly or by implication, that they've read my comment badly (unless there's evidence my argument is being purposefully misrepresented). So in the absence of other information, my assumption about why Bab apologized is different than yours.
I'm not saying you're wrong, though, by any means. The fact that you perceive this as a negative effect of favorites (and that there are likely others who would agree with you - possibly even me if I'd seen the full discussion) is important in considering whether the positive uses of favorites outweigh their negative effects.
posted by EvaDestruction at 3:45 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Kattullus, I thought your test was a great illustration of a possible negative effect of favorites, so thank you for putting in the effort to do it and share the results.
I also think you could be extrapolating a bit too much from it here, possibly: Bab replied, explained Foo's misunderstanding but still felt the need to apologize that the comment was misinterpreted, I assume because of the massive amount of favorites that Foo's comment received.
If I was Bab, and it was the first time Foo had misunderstood me in the exchange (i.e. not a pattern of misinterpretation), it's likely I would've apologized for not getting my point across well. I am apt to say, especially if I'm trying to turn down the volume on a disagreement: "I am sorry I did not express this clearly in a way you understand," rather than tell someone, directly or by implication, that they've read my comment badly (unless there's evidence my argument is being purposefully misrepresented). So in the absence of other information, my assumption about why Bab apologized is different than yours.
I'm not saying you're wrong, though, by any means. The fact that you perceive this as a negative effect of favorites (and that there are likely others who would agree with you - possibly even me if I'd seen the full discussion) is important in considering whether the positive uses of favorites outweigh their negative effects.
posted by EvaDestruction at 3:45 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I feel like there's some massive disconnect here because you seem to be trying to say that something that is explicitly temporary is somehow going to sneak into permanence based on as far as I can tell a personal speculative conclusion...
It's not complaining, and I'm not "trying to say" that.
It's cautionary: an accidental trojan is still a trojan, and I did not see how you considered what you were building before tossing together a quick preferences setting, that's all. Right now you have folks not sure what other people are seeing, so the way people use favorites (reading and writing) and/or "me too" followups has already been corrupted and is sort of meaningless. The month of "data" in the form of posts and comments during this maybe-favey time is going to be a pretty odd capsule.
I guess the 8000-comment Dec 1st thread will cover it though.
posted by rokusan at 3:47 PM on November 2, 2009
It's not complaining, and I'm not "trying to say" that.
It's cautionary: an accidental trojan is still a trojan, and I did not see how you considered what you were building before tossing together a quick preferences setting, that's all. Right now you have folks not sure what other people are seeing, so the way people use favorites (reading and writing) and/or "me too" followups has already been corrupted and is sort of meaningless. The month of "data" in the form of posts and comments during this maybe-favey time is going to be a pretty odd capsule.
I guess the 8000-comment Dec 1st thread will cover it though.
posted by rokusan at 3:47 PM on November 2, 2009
i opted to show the count, but all i see "has favorites". using chrome.
We've changed "faved" to "has favorites", so that part's not a mystery. But:
Not sure if there's a Chrome-specific issue with the preferences, but if a quick re-save of your preferences doesn't do the trick drop us a bug report via the contact form, okay?
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:49 PM on November 2, 2009
We've changed "faved" to "has favorites", so that part's not a mystery. But:
Not sure if there's a Chrome-specific issue with the preferences, but if a quick re-save of your preferences doesn't do the trick drop us a bug report via the contact form, okay?
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:49 PM on November 2, 2009
ninjew, all MeFi preferences are set as cookies. Those cookies are set when you log in or click 'Save your Preferences' on the Preferences page. If you change a preference in one browser, you'll need to update each browser by either logging in or saving your preferences. (Folks often set one browser one way, and another browser another way depending on the environment.) So this system applies to the favorites counts as well.
posted by pb (staff) at 3:50 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by pb (staff) at 3:50 PM on November 2, 2009
nevermind. again, a problem with this unwieldy thread is that it's really difficult to read every comment.
someone mentioned that you might have to re-save your preferences. that worked.
posted by ninjew at 3:50 PM on November 2, 2009
someone mentioned that you might have to re-save your preferences. that worked.
posted by ninjew at 3:50 PM on November 2, 2009
Wow, I can't even express how much more I like "Has favorites" rather than "faved." I didn't realize it would make such a difference, but logging on at home and seeing this is definitely going to keep me from re-setting it back to the old view. I don't really care about the favorite count, but I switched because "faved" was implying to me that *I* had favoriteted it - this subtle change really does make a HUGE difference (to me).
(Y'know, as a data point.)
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:51 PM on November 2, 2009
(Y'know, as a data point.)
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:51 PM on November 2, 2009
I feel like you've come into this thread with both barrels loaded and argued a pretty ungenerous reading of this whole thing....
Yeah, I can see how you'd take it that way, especially if you started out frazzled and defensive based on the billion gripes that were already here before me.
Believe me, though, when I say my underlying tone hasn't been intended as "OMG you idiots are tricking us!"
It's been "OMG how can you usually-smart people not have thought this through?"
posted by rokusan at 3:51 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I can see how you'd take it that way, especially if you started out frazzled and defensive based on the billion gripes that were already here before me.
Believe me, though, when I say my underlying tone hasn't been intended as "OMG you idiots are tricking us!"
It's been "OMG how can you usually-smart people not have thought this through?"
posted by rokusan at 3:51 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Not that it's terribly significant 1500 or so posts in, but I'm back on board with the test group with the change to "has favorites". Thanks again!
posted by iamabot at 3:53 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by iamabot at 3:53 PM on November 2, 2009
Whoah, another change, and this time to lolcat-speak.
I can has favorites??
*adorable head tilt*
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:56 PM on November 2, 2009 [8 favorites]
I can has favorites??
*adorable head tilt*
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:56 PM on November 2, 2009 [8 favorites]
I know "faved" was thrown away for sounding immature, but now I read it as "I can has favorites?"
posted by mccarty.tim at 3:56 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by mccarty.tim at 3:56 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
I'm sure it's been said ... but I didn't find it in the 8+ hours I spent on this thread yesterday, so here goes:
I have been known to skim a long, deep thread, looking for comments with say, 3 or more favorites (depending on how long and deep the thread is). Then, upon finding something in one of those favorited comments that twigs my interest, I'll skip back to the initial comment that inspired it (maybe using my Firebox FIND feature to track it down). And then I'll read back in detail through a sizable chunk of discussion that I OTHERWISE WOULD NEVER HAVE FOUND.
Sorry for shouting but, as I've committed to going with this TRIAL, I've noticed that I really miss this bit of functionality (nothing buggy about it).
posted by philip-random at 3:57 PM on November 2, 2009
I have been known to skim a long, deep thread, looking for comments with say, 3 or more favorites (depending on how long and deep the thread is). Then, upon finding something in one of those favorited comments that twigs my interest, I'll skip back to the initial comment that inspired it (maybe using my Firebox FIND feature to track it down). And then I'll read back in detail through a sizable chunk of discussion that I OTHERWISE WOULD NEVER HAVE FOUND.
Sorry for shouting but, as I've committed to going with this TRIAL, I've noticed that I really miss this bit of functionality (nothing buggy about it).
posted by philip-random at 3:57 PM on November 2, 2009
Wow, this thread looks waaay different with favorite counts enabled.
If I'd seen how strong the response/hatred for the change was when I first came in, I probably would have realized I was unnecessary and would have shut up sooner. Cortex's blood pressure would be at least 20pts lower as a result.
Favorite counts aren't just handy... they're live-saving!
posted by rokusan at 4:01 PM on November 2, 2009
If I'd seen how strong the response/hatred for the change was when I first came in, I probably would have realized I was unnecessary and would have shut up sooner. Cortex's blood pressure would be at least 20pts lower as a result.
Favorite counts aren't just handy... they're live-saving!
posted by rokusan at 4:01 PM on November 2, 2009
I am afraid this is about to be lost to the wind, but here it is. I don't think this idea has been directly engaged with, though maybe in the 800-900 zone where my eyes started tearing up the discussion was framed in this way.
It seems that this conversation is going in circles because the anti-change group is fundamentally talking about a different thing from the pro-(or neutral-so-far)-change group. The former are really saying that the change is bad for them as individuals. "This is how I like to read the site, why are you removing that option from me?" And yet, the experiment has nothing to do with how individual usage, but collective usage: how does the site as a whole improve (or degrade!) with this change in the UI?
It is not possible for any of us to discern what the answer to that question is at this stage. Hence the trial period. Instead, the people against change, uncomfortable with how it affects them personally, are being forced to make up reasons why it might be bad for the site, but those reasons are meaningless because we don't know for sure if they're right or not. But that initial conviction that I don't like how this affects me makes the experiment part really uncomfortable.
I don't know, would it help to think of it like a tax? I know a lot of people in here are pretty progressive. What if every time you made a comment, you got a nickel from mathowie? You'd comment a lot! And then when the mods said "no more nickel comments," you'd say "BUT I LOVE NICKEL COMMENTS." But the site could not survive with nickel comments. Greater good and all that.
To reiterate, it's not clear whether the change in favorites structure will result in a net gain for the site. That's why the trial. It's totally possible that it won't at all, and we can go back to Oct 31. But try this framing: will you sacrifice a little bit of your personal usage of the site for a week or two for the possible net benefit of the entire community ? Does that make it easier to swallow?
Nobody can deny that some people are super pissed that they thought they were losing a feature that they loved individually. And that losing that feature permanently would be a drag for a lot of people. But what if it really made the site better? I personally was kind of bummed about the change, but since I don't know what the emergent effects of losing it will be overall, I'm willing to try it out.
posted by one_bean at 4:02 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
It seems that this conversation is going in circles because the anti-change group is fundamentally talking about a different thing from the pro-(or neutral-so-far)-change group. The former are really saying that the change is bad for them as individuals. "This is how I like to read the site, why are you removing that option from me?" And yet, the experiment has nothing to do with how individual usage, but collective usage: how does the site as a whole improve (or degrade!) with this change in the UI?
It is not possible for any of us to discern what the answer to that question is at this stage. Hence the trial period. Instead, the people against change, uncomfortable with how it affects them personally, are being forced to make up reasons why it might be bad for the site, but those reasons are meaningless because we don't know for sure if they're right or not. But that initial conviction that I don't like how this affects me makes the experiment part really uncomfortable.
I don't know, would it help to think of it like a tax? I know a lot of people in here are pretty progressive. What if every time you made a comment, you got a nickel from mathowie? You'd comment a lot! And then when the mods said "no more nickel comments," you'd say "BUT I LOVE NICKEL COMMENTS." But the site could not survive with nickel comments. Greater good and all that.
To reiterate, it's not clear whether the change in favorites structure will result in a net gain for the site. That's why the trial. It's totally possible that it won't at all, and we can go back to Oct 31. But try this framing: will you sacrifice a little bit of your personal usage of the site for a week or two for the possible net benefit of the entire community ? Does that make it easier to swallow?
Nobody can deny that some people are super pissed that they thought they were losing a feature that they loved individually. And that losing that feature permanently would be a drag for a lot of people. But what if it really made the site better? I personally was kind of bummed about the change, but since I don't know what the emergent effects of losing it will be overall, I'm willing to try it out.
posted by one_bean at 4:02 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
well, I for one will be happy to participate in this experiment as soon as I see your IRB approval statement (how many times has joke been made in this thread?).
I'm going to treat it the same way I try to treat movies that I plan to see - watch it and evaluate it on its own terms and assess it by myself, then follow up and see what the reviewers thought. Not always perfect, but I have faith in the general mefi populace to have good taste when it comes to comments.
"Please 'has favorites' me, it's been so long since I've been close to someone."
posted by Think_Long at 4:02 PM on November 2, 2009
I'm going to treat it the same way I try to treat movies that I plan to see - watch it and evaluate it on its own terms and assess it by myself, then follow up and see what the reviewers thought. Not always perfect, but I have faith in the general mefi populace to have good taste when it comes to comments.
"Please 'has favorites' me, it's been so long since I've been close to someone."
posted by Think_Long at 4:02 PM on November 2, 2009
Wow, this thread looks waaay different with favorite counts enabled.
I still haven't viewed it that way, being the dedicated team player that I am. Maybe in a month's time, I'll take a day to reminisce, or perhaps sometime in the future, with a grandchild on my knee.
"Were they just dumb, Grampa?"
"No. Some of them were some of the smartest people I've ever known. But even smart people get confused, sometimes."
posted by philip-random at 4:05 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
I still haven't viewed it that way, being the dedicated team player that I am. Maybe in a month's time, I'll take a day to reminisce, or perhaps sometime in the future, with a grandchild on my knee.
"Were they just dumb, Grampa?"
"No. Some of them were some of the smartest people I've ever known. But even smart people get confused, sometimes."
posted by philip-random at 4:05 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Wow, this thread looks waaay different with favorite counts enabled.
I still haven't viewed it that way, being the dedicated team player that I am.
Yeah, I'm back to trying it out the suppressed way too, for as long as I can stand it anyway.
I feel like there should be a dialog box that pops up when I favorite something this month: "You realize nobody will see this, right?"
posted by rokusan at 4:08 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I still haven't viewed it that way, being the dedicated team player that I am.
Yeah, I'm back to trying it out the suppressed way too, for as long as I can stand it anyway.
I feel like there should be a dialog box that pops up when I favorite something this month: "You realize nobody will see this, right?"
posted by rokusan at 4:08 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don't think this idea has been directly engaged with, though maybe in the 800-900 zone where my eyes started tearing up the discussion was framed in this way.
It seems that this conversation is going in circles because the anti-change group is fundamentally talking about a different thing from the pro-(or neutral-so-far)-change group. The former are really saying that the change is bad for them as individuals. "This is how I like to read the site, why are you removing that option from me?" And yet, the experiment has nothing to do with how individual usage, but collective usage: how does the site as a whole improve (or degrade!) with this change in the UI?
Oh, don't worry, the whole "you people who oppose this change are just being selfish-- why do you hate metafilter" argument has been made repeatedly in this thread. Couching in more polite language, as you have done, doesn't actually make it any more polite.
posted by dersins at 4:09 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
It seems that this conversation is going in circles because the anti-change group is fundamentally talking about a different thing from the pro-(or neutral-so-far)-change group. The former are really saying that the change is bad for them as individuals. "This is how I like to read the site, why are you removing that option from me?" And yet, the experiment has nothing to do with how individual usage, but collective usage: how does the site as a whole improve (or degrade!) with this change in the UI?
Oh, don't worry, the whole "you people who oppose this change are just being selfish-- why do you hate metafilter" argument has been made repeatedly in this thread. Couching in more polite language, as you have done, doesn't actually make it any more polite.
posted by dersins at 4:09 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
If this were a democracy (I am thinking this way because tomorrow is election day), my vote would go towards returning things back to the way they were prior to November 1st.
posted by msali at 4:14 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by msali at 4:14 PM on November 2, 2009
In-thread is not as important, but it does help to have an easy way to say "Amen!" or "Yup", and cuts down on the "Me too" responses. But that's only valid if everyone sees favorites.
Worth mentioning that this is the only use of favourites that's affected by this, rokusan. All the rest work exactly as they always did, including in the sidebar.
that I OTHERWISE WOULD NEVER HAVE FOUND.
Why are you shouting? You would have found them if you'd read the thread. On the whole, it's not usually all that onerous.
posted by fightorflight at 4:15 PM on November 2, 2009
Worth mentioning that this is the only use of favourites that's affected by this, rokusan. All the rest work exactly as they always did, including in the sidebar.
that I OTHERWISE WOULD NEVER HAVE FOUND.
Why are you shouting? You would have found them if you'd read the thread. On the whole, it's not usually all that onerous.
posted by fightorflight at 4:15 PM on November 2, 2009
I'm a fringe user. I read MeFi, AskMe and "the gray" daily and will contribute if I have something to say that hasn't been said. Well, I'm going to break that last part now, as I'm sure what I'm about to say has probably been said one way or another already here, but since this is an experiment, I figured, "eh, what's a little more anecdotal evidence?"
I use the option to favorite a post for several different reasons and use the results showing what others have favorited for several different reasons as well. (Quite honestly, I don't know how I would have gotten through most of this thread if it weren't for being able to see how many favorites certain comments had. I just don't have the kind of time required to read every single comment in a thread this size.)
It's what works for me.
But the mods are trying to find out what works for the community, not just NoraCharles. And I totally respect that. So I'll give you my perspective as a fringe user and why I think showing favorites brings the community together- or at least allows me to be a part of the community.
MeFi is HUGE.
Favorites allow me a chance to see who I might have something in common with; a hobby, a point of view, an appreciation of something. I begin to notice patterns of who favorites what I'm "favoriting". I start making small connections in this community of thousands. Being able to favorite allows me to continue to keep track of those people and other things they've posted. (Like, "Hey, I notice that MeFiMember1 has favorited two of my comments in education threads." I click on their profile and see from reading their posts they are studying to be a teacher = connection!) I couldn't do this without favorites.
Did I mention that MeFi is huge?
On small sites, you can read just about everything in an hour. That's impossible here - I know I spent over an hour reading this thread alone. For someone like me that can't spend a lot of time here, having favorites makes it a much more user friendly experience. I can skim through threads and quickly get my fix. Most of the time the better comments do have the most favorites and that is a big help reading a large thread. Will my method cause me to miss good posts? Yes, it will, but I just don't have the time. It's as simple as that.
Finally, for someone like me, Favorites allow me a chance to participate, to let my voice be known (using favorites as a "right on") without having to jump all the way in the pool. I can be a part of the community and not have to answer for it every single time. I can let someone know I appreciate what they wrote without all the strings attached.
So those are my reasons why I think having Favorites helps build a community like this one. I do want to thank the Mods for making this an opt in/out kind of thing. I tried it without the favorites and it just didn't work for me.
posted by NoraCharles at 4:28 PM on November 2, 2009 [16 favorites]
I use the option to favorite a post for several different reasons and use the results showing what others have favorited for several different reasons as well. (Quite honestly, I don't know how I would have gotten through most of this thread if it weren't for being able to see how many favorites certain comments had. I just don't have the kind of time required to read every single comment in a thread this size.)
It's what works for me.
But the mods are trying to find out what works for the community, not just NoraCharles. And I totally respect that. So I'll give you my perspective as a fringe user and why I think showing favorites brings the community together- or at least allows me to be a part of the community.
MeFi is HUGE.
Favorites allow me a chance to see who I might have something in common with; a hobby, a point of view, an appreciation of something. I begin to notice patterns of who favorites what I'm "favoriting". I start making small connections in this community of thousands. Being able to favorite allows me to continue to keep track of those people and other things they've posted. (Like, "Hey, I notice that MeFiMember1 has favorited two of my comments in education threads." I click on their profile and see from reading their posts they are studying to be a teacher = connection!) I couldn't do this without favorites.
Did I mention that MeFi is huge?
On small sites, you can read just about everything in an hour. That's impossible here - I know I spent over an hour reading this thread alone. For someone like me that can't spend a lot of time here, having favorites makes it a much more user friendly experience. I can skim through threads and quickly get my fix. Most of the time the better comments do have the most favorites and that is a big help reading a large thread. Will my method cause me to miss good posts? Yes, it will, but I just don't have the time. It's as simple as that.
Finally, for someone like me, Favorites allow me a chance to participate, to let my voice be known (using favorites as a "right on") without having to jump all the way in the pool. I can be a part of the community and not have to answer for it every single time. I can let someone know I appreciate what they wrote without all the strings attached.
So those are my reasons why I think having Favorites helps build a community like this one. I do want to thank the Mods for making this an opt in/out kind of thing. I tried it without the favorites and it just didn't work for me.
posted by NoraCharles at 4:28 PM on November 2, 2009 [16 favorites]
I feel like there should be a dialog box that pops up when I favorite something this month: "You realize nobody will see this, right?"
What are you talking about? I see "has favorites" and I can click to see who favorited it and how many people favorited it. If someone favorites something of mine, I can click the favorites thing in my profile to see who's favorited what.
posted by rtha at 4:32 PM on November 2, 2009
What are you talking about? I see "has favorites" and I can click to see who favorited it and how many people favorited it. If someone favorites something of mine, I can click the favorites thing in my profile to see who's favorited what.
posted by rtha at 4:32 PM on November 2, 2009
"has favorites"
Oh my god. You guys. The comments have gained sentience. And they're picking favorites!
posted by sadmadglad at 4:35 PM on November 2, 2009 [17 favorites]
Oh my god. You guys. The comments have gained sentience. And they're picking favorites!
posted by sadmadglad at 4:35 PM on November 2, 2009 [17 favorites]
pb said: The MeFi preferences are cookie-based, so the only way to set them is by saving your preferences or logging in/out for each browser you use.
Um, if the preferences are stored on the local browsers, how will you get stats for them?
posted by smackfu at 4:38 PM on November 2, 2009
Um, if the preferences are stored on the local browsers, how will you get stats for them?
posted by smackfu at 4:38 PM on November 2, 2009
how will you get stats for them?
The choice is also stored in the db so the preference can be set at login.
posted by pb (staff) at 4:40 PM on November 2, 2009
The choice is also stored in the db so the preference can be set at login.
posted by pb (staff) at 4:40 PM on November 2, 2009
"Wow, this thread looks waaay different with favorite counts enabled.
If I'd seen how strong the response/hatred for the change was when I first came in, I probably would have realized I was unnecessary and would have shut up sooner. Cortex's blood pressure would be at least 20pts lower as a result."
Or you could have… read the thread. If that was too much time for you to invest in the thread, well, y'know, maybe you shouldn't comment on it, or attempt to argue in it.
But blaming your bad behavior on not having a crutch seems to neatly dodge the responsibility for your bad behavior.
posted by klangklangston at 4:42 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
If I'd seen how strong the response/hatred for the change was when I first came in, I probably would have realized I was unnecessary and would have shut up sooner. Cortex's blood pressure would be at least 20pts lower as a result."
Or you could have… read the thread. If that was too much time for you to invest in the thread, well, y'know, maybe you shouldn't comment on it, or attempt to argue in it.
But blaming your bad behavior on not having a crutch seems to neatly dodge the responsibility for your bad behavior.
posted by klangklangston at 4:42 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
/me offers cortex sweaty drunken donutey hugs!!!!!!!1
posted by BigVACub at 4:51 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by BigVACub at 4:51 PM on November 2, 2009
Awful, awful, awful, awful change. Thank you for giving those of us who hate it a way to get back to normality.
posted by longdaysjourney at 4:52 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by longdaysjourney at 4:52 PM on November 2, 2009
Or you could have… read the thread. If that was too much time for you to invest in the thread, well, y'know, maybe you shouldn't comment on it, or attempt to argue in it.
I'm sorry you find my behavior "bad", klangklang, or my desire for MeFi to not degrade in usefulness to be a bad thing. All of my non-jokey comments here have been aimed at making or keeping MeFi as useful as possible for all, especially while growing, even if that's not how they were always read and even when they've not been received well by some.
I believe that taking away or reducing the effective use of user-driven filters (favorites) would make more of a mess than doing nothing, and that's what I have been expressing. It's not a reflex hatred of change, it's a considered (if strong) position. I don't see how that's "bad behavior".
I did read the whole thread. Much of it twice. As many above have pointed out (maybe you should read the thread?) this is useless information:
Favorites are context, and on a big site like this full of so many different and valued opinions, context is everything.
posted by rokusan at 4:53 PM on November 2, 2009 [15 favorites]
I'm sorry you find my behavior "bad", klangklang, or my desire for MeFi to not degrade in usefulness to be a bad thing. All of my non-jokey comments here have been aimed at making or keeping MeFi as useful as possible for all, especially while growing, even if that's not how they were always read and even when they've not been received well by some.
I believe that taking away or reducing the effective use of user-driven filters (favorites) would make more of a mess than doing nothing, and that's what I have been expressing. It's not a reflex hatred of change, it's a considered (if strong) position. I don't see how that's "bad behavior".
I did read the whole thread. Much of it twice. As many above have pointed out (maybe you should read the thread?) this is useless information:
Yes, that's a great idea (has favorites)While this means something:
No, this is a horrible idea (has favorites)
Yes, that's a great idea (3 favorites)The latter issue is pretty much settled at a glance, and I'd guess that if you agreed with that, you'd maybe click the [+] and move on, or maybe just move on, confident that your view was in fact the consensus anyway. But in the former case, the information is either buried or outright unavailable, so you'll be much more likely to weigh in with an opinion that probably isn't necessary, and is fueled by what you may see as no or too little support.
No, this is a horrible idea (72 favorites)
Favorites are context, and on a big site like this full of so many different and valued opinions, context is everything.
posted by rokusan at 4:53 PM on November 2, 2009 [15 favorites]
Cortex should pick a favorite czar so that we have a cheap and easy target to get angry at and defame. The comment czar would have the power to feature a comment on the front page if it's good, to enable or disable the comments, change Faved to whatever he likes, and to ration and redistribute the comments during a raid, time of war, or other emergency.
posted by mccarty.tim at 4:53 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by mccarty.tim at 4:53 PM on November 2, 2009
Pick me! Pick me! I would like to be the "cheap and easy target to get angry at and defame," please! I don't want to do any of that other shit, though. I'm kinda lazy.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:57 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:57 PM on November 2, 2009
Favorites don't ruin threads. People ruin threads.
posted by abc123xyzinfinity at 4:58 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by abc123xyzinfinity at 4:58 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Upthread (up river, into the jungle, the heart of darkness) I mentioned that I thought some of the backlash against the experiment was because it was done without warning.
That's true of me, at least. I disabled the experiment in my prefs once I was able to.
Now that I've had some time to consider the experiment, I've re-enabled it so that I don't see the favorite count. I'll give it a chance and see how it changes my behavior.
posted by zippy at 5:00 PM on November 2, 2009
That's true of me, at least. I disabled the experiment in my prefs once I was able to.
Now that I've had some time to consider the experiment, I've re-enabled it so that I don't see the favorite count. I'll give it a chance and see how it changes my behavior.
posted by zippy at 5:00 PM on November 2, 2009
Hey, on the plus side, at least they made a MetaTalk announcement thread for this debacle.
posted by smackfu at 5:00 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by smackfu at 5:00 PM on November 2, 2009
Now, the playing of the Unofficial Theme Song for This Thread (and pretty much the whole month of November 2009).
NaNoWriMo? No, MeFiFavMo!
posted by evilmidnightbomberwhatbombsatmidnight at 5:01 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
NaNoWriMo? No, MeFiFavMo!
posted by evilmidnightbomberwhatbombsatmidnight at 5:01 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
I feel like there should be a dialog box that pops up when I favorite something this month: "You realize nobody will see this, right?"
On the other hand, clicking one of those sad little +-signs makes it balloon into a fantastically happy [has favourites +]. So if you're the FIRST person to add a favourite, everyone sees the change you made.
(also, I would probably be happier with 'favourited' than 'has favourites'. But at this point in the discussion, I don't think I care enough about it to make a stink.)
posted by kaibutsu at 5:02 PM on November 2, 2009
On the other hand, clicking one of those sad little +-signs makes it balloon into a fantastically happy [has favourites +]. So if you're the FIRST person to add a favourite, everyone sees the change you made.
(also, I would probably be happier with 'favourited' than 'has favourites'. But at this point in the discussion, I don't think I care enough about it to make a stink.)
posted by kaibutsu at 5:02 PM on November 2, 2009
Cortex should pick a favorite czar so that we have a cheap and easy target to get angry at and defame.
And I could pick someone I secretly disliked, but not let on; and they'd be all like, "wow, sir, yes, I'd be honored to serve my website" all earnest-like, and there'd be a nice big metatalk thread with balloons and champagne, and they'd think, by god, this is it. This is what I was put on this earth to accomplish.
And then six weeks later, he sits with a tumble of cheap gin in his claw of a hand, cursing my name and weeping and opening another pack of American Spirits. In the corner, the husk of a balloon sits among tattered streamers.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:04 PM on November 2, 2009 [17 favorites]
And I could pick someone I secretly disliked, but not let on; and they'd be all like, "wow, sir, yes, I'd be honored to serve my website" all earnest-like, and there'd be a nice big metatalk thread with balloons and champagne, and they'd think, by god, this is it. This is what I was put on this earth to accomplish.
And then six weeks later, he sits with a tumble of cheap gin in his claw of a hand, cursing my name and weeping and opening another pack of American Spirits. In the corner, the husk of a balloon sits among tattered streamers.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:04 PM on November 2, 2009 [17 favorites]
An interesting is that by making favoriting a binary "has"/"hasn't" state, the fact that you can favorite your own comments becomes much more meaningful. If someone wishes, every comment of theirs will have "has favorites" next to it.
posted by smackfu at 5:05 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by smackfu at 5:05 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
rokusan writes "I feel like there should be a dialog box that pops up when I favorite something this month: 'You realize nobody will see this, right?'"
I know you aren't all hip to the shadowy back alleys of Metafilter but favourites will still show up on both your and the favouritee's profile pages. Along with dozens of other locations including one click away via the has favourite link.
posted by Mitheral at 5:09 PM on November 2, 2009
I know you aren't all hip to the shadowy back alleys of Metafilter but favourites will still show up on both your and the favouritee's profile pages. Along with dozens of other locations including one click away via the has favourite link.
posted by Mitheral at 5:09 PM on November 2, 2009
(also, I would probably be happier with 'favourited' than 'has favourites'. But at this point in the discussion, I don't think I care enough about it to make a stink.)
I'm a bit surprised that "favorite" doesn't become "favourite" for UK-Canada-Australia and wherever else that is the preferred spelling. Assuming you have a nation or geolocation in your preferences, that is.
(I mean, there's already a check for "1 user" vs "2 users" and other such nicenesses here and there, so it's not without precedent.)
I bet THAT sort of surprise new feature rollout would have brought accolades and back-slappin' all around.
posted by rokusan at 5:10 PM on November 2, 2009
I'm a bit surprised that "favorite" doesn't become "favourite" for UK-Canada-Australia and wherever else that is the preferred spelling. Assuming you have a nation or geolocation in your preferences, that is.
(I mean, there's already a check for "1 user" vs "2 users" and other such nicenesses here and there, so it's not without precedent.)
I bet THAT sort of surprise new feature rollout would have brought accolades and back-slappin' all around.
posted by rokusan at 5:10 PM on November 2, 2009
Seconding NoraCharles.
The suggestion being made by some people here that Mefites are somehow supposed to read every comment of every thread they read ... is ludicrous. I'm about 99.98% sure that no one does this. Yet people in this thread have been referring to "skimming" as if it's some kind of scourge to be eradicated. (Example.)
Face it: you, the person reading this comment, skim Metafilter. Everyone skims. No one reads every comment. This will be true regardless of how the UI is or isn't changed.
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:12 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
The suggestion being made by some people here that Mefites are somehow supposed to read every comment of every thread they read ... is ludicrous. I'm about 99.98% sure that no one does this. Yet people in this thread have been referring to "skimming" as if it's some kind of scourge to be eradicated. (Example.)
Face it: you, the person reading this comment, skim Metafilter. Everyone skims. No one reads every comment. This will be true regardless of how the UI is or isn't changed.
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:12 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
And then six weeks later, he sits with a tumble of cheap gin in his claw of a hand, cursing my name and weeping and opening another pack of American Spirits. In the corner, the husk of a balloon sits among tattered streamers.
See? I'd be perfect, 'cause that's already me! Except that the gin is actually top shelf, and you didn't mention the creepy wall of cortex photos or the shrine to the one waits dreaming.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:14 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
See? I'd be perfect, 'cause that's already me! Except that the gin is actually top shelf, and you didn't mention the creepy wall of cortex photos or the shrine to the one waits dreaming.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:14 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Seconding NoraCharles.
The suggestion being made by some people here that Mefites are somehow supposed to read every comment of every thread they read ... is ludicrous. I'm about 99.98% sure that no one does this. Yet people in this thread have been referring to "skimming" as if it's some kind of scourge to be eradicated. (Example.)
Face it: you, the person reading this comment, skim Metafilter. Everyone skims. No one reads every comment. This will be true regardless of how the UI is or isn't changed.
tl;dr
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:15 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
The suggestion being made by some people here that Mefites are somehow supposed to read every comment of every thread they read ... is ludicrous. I'm about 99.98% sure that no one does this. Yet people in this thread have been referring to "skimming" as if it's some kind of scourge to be eradicated. (Example.)
Face it: you, the person reading this comment, skim Metafilter. Everyone skims. No one reads every comment. This will be true regardless of how the UI is or isn't changed.
tl;dr
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:15 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Mith, your example doesn't help in the "should I pile on or not" decision that we make in every thread, nor with the inability of the reader/favoriter to know whether subsequent readers will even see the result. If they don't see it, or there's a good chance they won't see it, a pile-on "me too" response is warranted. If one knows that all readers will see the results of that [+], though, there's no more need to "me too".
(One of the reasons there are 1800+ comments here is that about four different things related to favorites are being discussed at once, unfortunately.)
(And please, the back alleys of MetaFilter aren't shadowy. 3D-drop-shadowy, maybe. With bevels.)
posted by rokusan at 5:15 PM on November 2, 2009
(One of the reasons there are 1800+ comments here is that about four different things related to favorites are being discussed at once, unfortunately.)
(And please, the back alleys of MetaFilter aren't shadowy. 3D-drop-shadowy, maybe. With bevels.)
posted by rokusan at 5:15 PM on November 2, 2009
Or you could have… read the thread. If that was too much time for you to invest in the thread, well, y'know, maybe you shouldn't comment on it, or attempt to argue in it.
But blaming your bad behavior on not having a crutch seems to neatly dodge the responsibility for your bad behavior.
Klangklangston, normally I love you to death, heck, you're one of three non-mod people whose usernames I remember, and I freely admit to nursing a private beard-crush on you for nearly a year, but are you seriously calling it bad behavior when someone doesn't have the time to read a thread with over 1600 comments, but wishes to express their opinion and be heard? In a thread, no less, where the mods directly ask for "feedback and suggestions".
I've read every freaking comment here and that's due to my hopelessly unemployed status. I would not wish this much free time on anyone! If favorites are a crutch for busy people, by god, then we need more crutches so the busy, and therefor useful-to-society people, can contribute in a productive manner.
I still don't understand why it's selfish to express that one wants to utilize the site in a way that one has individually determined to be best for oneself. Certainly, what may be best for the community in the long-term might be different from current individual preference, but the consistent biting back at people who come in here to provide their individual data points or anecdotes, to share their favoriting behaviors, that's just unreasonable and opaque to me. But in the past two days, that's the impression I've gotten. If I'm not participating in the Can Has Favorites, and come in here to share exactly *why*, not only am I selfish for maintaining my own user experience, but I am doubly selfish for expressing these detailed reasons, and god forbid I cause a mod further distress with a touch of hyperbole.
I would like to have the img tag back so I can embed baby orangutan photos.
posted by Mizu at 5:17 PM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
But blaming your bad behavior on not having a crutch seems to neatly dodge the responsibility for your bad behavior.
Klangklangston, normally I love you to death, heck, you're one of three non-mod people whose usernames I remember, and I freely admit to nursing a private beard-crush on you for nearly a year, but are you seriously calling it bad behavior when someone doesn't have the time to read a thread with over 1600 comments, but wishes to express their opinion and be heard? In a thread, no less, where the mods directly ask for "feedback and suggestions".
I've read every freaking comment here and that's due to my hopelessly unemployed status. I would not wish this much free time on anyone! If favorites are a crutch for busy people, by god, then we need more crutches so the busy, and therefor useful-to-society people, can contribute in a productive manner.
I still don't understand why it's selfish to express that one wants to utilize the site in a way that one has individually determined to be best for oneself. Certainly, what may be best for the community in the long-term might be different from current individual preference, but the consistent biting back at people who come in here to provide their individual data points or anecdotes, to share their favoriting behaviors, that's just unreasonable and opaque to me. But in the past two days, that's the impression I've gotten. If I'm not participating in the Can Has Favorites, and come in here to share exactly *why*, not only am I selfish for maintaining my own user experience, but I am doubly selfish for expressing these detailed reasons, and god forbid I cause a mod further distress with a touch of hyperbole.
I would like to have the img tag back so I can embed baby orangutan photos.
posted by Mizu at 5:17 PM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
At this point, I'd be quite content with the husk of a balloon. Or maybe one of those noisemaker things that doesn't quite unroll all the way and ends with a pathetic whimper.
WHEEEooooorrr.
posted by rokusan at 5:18 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
WHEEEooooorrr.
posted by rokusan at 5:18 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
one_bean: "I am afraid this is about to be lost to the wind, but here it is. I don't think this idea has been directly engaged with, though maybe in the 800-900 zone where my eyes started tearing up the discussion was framed in this way.
It seems that this conversation is going in circles because the anti-change group is fundamentally talking about a different thing from the pro-(or neutral-so-far)-change group. The former are really saying that the change is bad for them as individuals. "This is how I like to read the site, why are you removing that option from me?" And yet, the experiment has nothing to do with how individual usage, but collective usage: how does the site as a whole improve (or degrade!) with this change in the UI?
It is not possible for any of us to discern what the answer to that question is at this stage. Hence the trial period. Instead, the people against change, uncomfortable with how it affects them personally, are being forced to make up reasons why it might be bad for the site, but those reasons are meaningless because we don't know for sure if they're right or not. But that initial conviction that I don't like how this affects me makes the experiment part really uncomfortable.
I don't know, would it help to think of it like a tax? I know a lot of people in here are pretty progressive. What if every time you made a comment, you got a nickel from mathowie? You'd comment a lot! And then when the mods said "no more nickel comments," you'd say "BUT I LOVE NICKEL COMMENTS." But the site could not survive with nickel comments. Greater good and all that.
To reiterate, it's not clear whether the change in favorites structure will result in a net gain for the site. That's why the trial. It's totally possible that it won't at all, and we can go back to Oct 31. But try this framing: will you sacrifice a little bit of your personal usage of the site for a week or two for the possible net benefit of the entire community ? Does that make it easier to swallow?
Nobody can deny that some people are super pissed that they thought they were losing a feature that they loved individually. And that losing that feature permanently would be a drag for a lot of people. But what if it really made the site better? I personally was kind of bummed about the change, but since I don't know what the emergent effects of losing it will be overall, I'm willing to try it out."
I'm quoting the whole thing because I'd like people to have two chances to notice a comment this good. A model of civility and eloquence.
The only thing keeping me from saying, "Shit, he's right. I'm changing sides" is my unwillingness to consider the possibility that anything positive could come from deliberately hindering access to information. Consider it a political conviction, if it helps.
posted by Joe Beese at 5:19 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
It seems that this conversation is going in circles because the anti-change group is fundamentally talking about a different thing from the pro-(or neutral-so-far)-change group. The former are really saying that the change is bad for them as individuals. "This is how I like to read the site, why are you removing that option from me?" And yet, the experiment has nothing to do with how individual usage, but collective usage: how does the site as a whole improve (or degrade!) with this change in the UI?
It is not possible for any of us to discern what the answer to that question is at this stage. Hence the trial period. Instead, the people against change, uncomfortable with how it affects them personally, are being forced to make up reasons why it might be bad for the site, but those reasons are meaningless because we don't know for sure if they're right or not. But that initial conviction that I don't like how this affects me makes the experiment part really uncomfortable.
I don't know, would it help to think of it like a tax? I know a lot of people in here are pretty progressive. What if every time you made a comment, you got a nickel from mathowie? You'd comment a lot! And then when the mods said "no more nickel comments," you'd say "BUT I LOVE NICKEL COMMENTS." But the site could not survive with nickel comments. Greater good and all that.
To reiterate, it's not clear whether the change in favorites structure will result in a net gain for the site. That's why the trial. It's totally possible that it won't at all, and we can go back to Oct 31. But try this framing: will you sacrifice a little bit of your personal usage of the site for a week or two for the possible net benefit of the entire community ? Does that make it easier to swallow?
Nobody can deny that some people are super pissed that they thought they were losing a feature that they loved individually. And that losing that feature permanently would be a drag for a lot of people. But what if it really made the site better? I personally was kind of bummed about the change, but since I don't know what the emergent effects of losing it will be overall, I'm willing to try it out."
I'm quoting the whole thing because I'd like people to have two chances to notice a comment this good. A model of civility and eloquence.
The only thing keeping me from saying, "Shit, he's right. I'm changing sides" is my unwillingness to consider the possibility that anything positive could come from deliberately hindering access to information. Consider it a political conviction, if it helps.
posted by Joe Beese at 5:19 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I have no favorites left, but I strongly support baby orangutan photos.
posted by rokusan at 5:19 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by rokusan at 5:19 PM on November 2, 2009
Taking NoraCharles' lead, I'll give an anecdotal observation of my own:
I live in a consensus-based community, meaning we have big meetings of our 30-something members every two weeks and come to full-community decisions over what we want to do with our space. These meetings generally take a bit under 3 hours, following a group decision to limit the length of meetings a few years ago, when they would often take 4-6 hours.
One of our important rules is to try not to repeat what other people have said, which goes a long way towards reducing the length of the meetings. Instead, we snap our fingers when we hear something we agree with; it's not too intrusive, allows people to express support without repeating a comment, and lets us pretend that we're all beatniks.
I think that favourites in the more debate-style threads can serve a very similar purpose, helping to keep threads shorter and thus more readable. Being able to see the level of support for a particular comment is useful in the debate setting, as well.
Additionally, I think that having favorites available has improved my commenting behavior. I approach commenting with the mindset of 'Is this going to be a comment that someone will value enough to favorite?' I can see how favorites-whoring could reduce people to making disruptive one-line jokes, but I've been using the quantitative favorites system to try to improve the quality of my comments, in much the same way that I use the data from my bicycle computer to become a better cyclist.
All of that said, I support the spirit of the experiment, and will be participating for the remainder of the month.
Finally, I wish to extend hugs and warm fuzzies to all of the moderators because:
a) Their good intentions have gotten them far more shite than they deserve in this thread,
and b) I am told that everyone needs one.
posted by kaibutsu at 5:20 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
I live in a consensus-based community, meaning we have big meetings of our 30-something members every two weeks and come to full-community decisions over what we want to do with our space. These meetings generally take a bit under 3 hours, following a group decision to limit the length of meetings a few years ago, when they would often take 4-6 hours.
One of our important rules is to try not to repeat what other people have said, which goes a long way towards reducing the length of the meetings. Instead, we snap our fingers when we hear something we agree with; it's not too intrusive, allows people to express support without repeating a comment, and lets us pretend that we're all beatniks.
I think that favourites in the more debate-style threads can serve a very similar purpose, helping to keep threads shorter and thus more readable. Being able to see the level of support for a particular comment is useful in the debate setting, as well.
Additionally, I think that having favorites available has improved my commenting behavior. I approach commenting with the mindset of 'Is this going to be a comment that someone will value enough to favorite?' I can see how favorites-whoring could reduce people to making disruptive one-line jokes, but I've been using the quantitative favorites system to try to improve the quality of my comments, in much the same way that I use the data from my bicycle computer to become a better cyclist.
All of that said, I support the spirit of the experiment, and will be participating for the remainder of the month.
Finally, I wish to extend hugs and warm fuzzies to all of the moderators because:
a) Their good intentions have gotten them far more shite than they deserve in this thread,
and b) I am told that everyone needs one.
posted by kaibutsu at 5:20 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Now, the playing of the Unofficial Theme Song for This Thread (and pretty much the whole month of November 2009).
Now, the unveiling of the Unofficial Patron Martyr for This Thread. The video is perfect for our needs: it starts in confusion, then turns into posturing and emo and partial nudity.
And if that doesn't work for you, here's the Random Kitten Generator, because no one has yet invented a random beer generator that actually works, damn it.
posted by maudlin at 5:21 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Now, the unveiling of the Unofficial Patron Martyr for This Thread. The video is perfect for our needs: it starts in confusion, then turns into posturing and emo and partial nudity.
And if that doesn't work for you, here's the Random Kitten Generator, because no one has yet invented a random beer generator that actually works, damn it.
posted by maudlin at 5:21 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
The the "disable experiment" (and thus show favorite counts) preference is no longer working.
posted by orthogonality at 5:22 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by orthogonality at 5:22 PM on November 2, 2009
Ugh, do not want. Obscuring the count sucks, I like seeing what's going on, not having it hidden. Thank goodness there's a way to revert, thank you!
posted by zarah at 5:23 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by zarah at 5:23 PM on November 2, 2009
orthogonality, it's working for me. I just reverted a minute ago.
posted by zarah at 5:25 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by zarah at 5:25 PM on November 2, 2009
So if I favorite my own comment, it'll look just as appreciated in a thread where other comments have 100s of favorites? Sweet. It's the great comment equalizer!
(I agree with zarah above. Do. Not. Want. I'm glad the option to revert exists in the profile.)
posted by eyeballkid at 5:31 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
(I agree with zarah above. Do. Not. Want. I'm glad the option to revert exists in the profile.)
posted by eyeballkid at 5:31 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Hm I missed that koeselitz comment above, that Jaltcoh just pointed out.
I'm finding it hard to get past the irony that the comment is in fact a stupid bit of favorite whoring if I've ever seen one.
posted by fleacircus at 5:31 PM on November 2, 2009
I'm finding it hard to get past the irony that the comment is in fact a stupid bit of favorite whoring if I've ever seen one.
posted by fleacircus at 5:31 PM on November 2, 2009
"I did read the whole thread. Much of it twice. As many above have pointed out (maybe you should read the thread?) this is useless information:
Yes, that's a great idea (has favorites)
No, this is a horrible idea (has favorites)
While this means something:
Yes, that's a great idea (3 favorites)
No, this is a horrible idea (72 favorites)"
BULLSHIT.
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.
The opinions of the users are just as valid, just as informative, just as useful and just as important whether they get a million favorites or none. What counts isn't how popular a truth is, but how true it is. Just like how it doesn't matter who said it was a good idea or a horrible idea—what counts is their reasoning. That's the idea that I think is more insulting than any other on this thread, that people's ideas and feelings and opinions don't matter unless they're popular. That's bullshit, and that's what you're saying.
posted by klangklangston at 5:32 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Yes, that's a great idea (has favorites)
No, this is a horrible idea (has favorites)
While this means something:
Yes, that's a great idea (3 favorites)
No, this is a horrible idea (72 favorites)"
BULLSHIT.
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.
The opinions of the users are just as valid, just as informative, just as useful and just as important whether they get a million favorites or none. What counts isn't how popular a truth is, but how true it is. Just like how it doesn't matter who said it was a good idea or a horrible idea—what counts is their reasoning. That's the idea that I think is more insulting than any other on this thread, that people's ideas and feelings and opinions don't matter unless they're popular. That's bullshit, and that's what you're saying.
posted by klangklangston at 5:32 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
cortex: the logicians and scientists in the crowd are just going to have to cut us a little slack and ignore the prickles if they can.
Fair enough. I'm down for the experiment for the month, and will ignore most of the prickles.
But you really can't say this: "Will we see some measurable difference in any kind of site behavior?" without some perfectly legitimate concern over what constitutes measurable difference. It is hard to see how an experiment with such intangible metrics will ease any "slow-burn debate", no matter what it is about.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 5:32 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Fair enough. I'm down for the experiment for the month, and will ignore most of the prickles.
But you really can't say this: "Will we see some measurable difference in any kind of site behavior?" without some perfectly legitimate concern over what constitutes measurable difference. It is hard to see how an experiment with such intangible metrics will ease any "slow-burn debate", no matter what it is about.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 5:32 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
(also, sarcasm is one of my few functional communication modes. of course I appreciate the mods taking a swing at a solution to a perceived problem (not by me) and expect that the final result will benefit the community, etc, etc)
posted by eyeballkid at 5:33 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by eyeballkid at 5:33 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I have nothing to say that hasn't already been said--I like the old way a lot, and I find favorites a useful bit of information in a variety of ways. On the other hand, if the mods want to do a month-long experiment, I want to support them in that. I can grit my teeth for 30 days while they try to gather some data.
Mainly, I just want to be a part of this historic thread. I'd hate to miss a chance for internet immortality.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:35 PM on November 2, 2009
Mainly, I just want to be a part of this historic thread. I'd hate to miss a chance for internet immortality.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:35 PM on November 2, 2009
What counts isn't how popular a truth is, but how true it is. Just like how it doesn't matter who said it was a good idea or a horrible idea—what counts is their reasoning. That's the idea that I think is more insulting than any other on this thread, that people's ideas and feelings and opinions don't matter unless they're popular. That's bullshit, and that's what you're saying.
Maybe you are comfortable being the arbiter of what's good reasoning and what isn't all by yourself, but for a lot of us, community discernment is a pretty useful tool to check our thinking. I wish that dear Presidente Bush had occasionally cared what the rest of the world thought--it might have made a big difference in some key areas. On a smaller scale, I think this is the same thing. Yeah, maybe the 72 people are wrong and the three are right. That happens sometimes. But it would be pretty damn arrogant to think that "hey! a ton of people agreed with this!" isn't good information that should make me recheck my own assumptions if I'm swimming against the tide.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:39 PM on November 2, 2009 [15 favorites]
Maybe you are comfortable being the arbiter of what's good reasoning and what isn't all by yourself, but for a lot of us, community discernment is a pretty useful tool to check our thinking. I wish that dear Presidente Bush had occasionally cared what the rest of the world thought--it might have made a big difference in some key areas. On a smaller scale, I think this is the same thing. Yeah, maybe the 72 people are wrong and the three are right. That happens sometimes. But it would be pretty damn arrogant to think that "hey! a ton of people agreed with this!" isn't good information that should make me recheck my own assumptions if I'm swimming against the tide.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:39 PM on November 2, 2009 [15 favorites]
"but are you seriously calling it bad behavior when someone doesn't have the time to read a thread with over 1600 comments, but wishes to express their opinion and be heard? In a thread, no less, where the mods directly ask for "feedback and suggestions"."
Nope, not at all. I am calling it bad behavior to wrongly attack the mods, allege bad faith on their parts, and then blame that bad behavior on them.
posted by klangklangston at 5:40 PM on November 2, 2009
Nope, not at all. I am calling it bad behavior to wrongly attack the mods, allege bad faith on their parts, and then blame that bad behavior on them.
posted by klangklangston at 5:40 PM on November 2, 2009
Hey! I liked the "faved" string because I would pronounce it "fah-ved" in my mind while reading. "Has favorites" sounds more like a disease. Please provide a "faved" option for those of us who liked that one. Heck, provide a few, like the "f'd" option suggested about 1500 comments back or better yet, a simple bullet point to mark a comment that has favorites. The less text my mind has to flow past these days the better.
posted by telstar at 5:48 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by telstar at 5:48 PM on November 2, 2009
"I wish that dear Presidente Bush had occasionally cared what the rest of the world thought--it might have made a big difference in some key areas. On a smaller scale, I think this is the same thing. Yeah, maybe the 72 people are wrong and the three are right. That happens sometimes. But it would be pretty damn arrogant to think that "hey! a ton of people agreed with this!" isn't good information that should make me recheck my own assumptions if I'm swimming against the tide."
America's pretty great, but the Bush example cuts both ways—He was elected twice, the second time by a pretty clear majority. The vast majority of the country supported the war in Iraq and has voted against gay marriages. The whole Bill of Rights is based on being skeptical of democracy and majorities. Being on the losing side of Michigan's gay marriage initiative never made me reconsider my views on gay marriage, not once. The majority was wrong, a sizable majority too. Same with Ohio.
posted by klangklangston at 5:50 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
America's pretty great, but the Bush example cuts both ways—He was elected twice, the second time by a pretty clear majority. The vast majority of the country supported the war in Iraq and has voted against gay marriages. The whole Bill of Rights is based on being skeptical of democracy and majorities. Being on the losing side of Michigan's gay marriage initiative never made me reconsider my views on gay marriage, not once. The majority was wrong, a sizable majority too. Same with Ohio.
posted by klangklangston at 5:50 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
That's the idea that I think is more insulting than any other on this thread, that people's ideas and feelings and opinions don't matter unless they're popular. That's bullshit, and that's what you're saying.
It's not what I'm saying, but I don't think you're interested in what I'm saying.
I didn't say anyone's opinions or feelings or ideas don't matter. I said that if 74 people already favorited something, then I can at-a-glance see that the idea has strong weight behind it and my own pile-on is unnecessary. You don't have to use favorites the same way; it doesn't really matter to me how you use them or value them, only that I get to decide for myself.
Neither did I attack the mods. I even explained that I understand their frazzled defensiveness after this thread. I did not allege bad faith: I even clarified when Cortex was offended by restating that an accidental side effect is still a side effect they should have considered, or at least consider now, because it makes the site unworkable in a few fundamental ways and will degrade usefulness over time. I still don't get how this is "bad behavior". I think my motive has been pretty pure all along.
And really, you're complaining about a style used in communicating an opinion or explaining a problem while you're typing "bullshit" four times, complete with all caps, and telling me what I am saying? Really?
posted by rokusan at 5:51 PM on November 2, 2009 [9 favorites]
It's not what I'm saying, but I don't think you're interested in what I'm saying.
I didn't say anyone's opinions or feelings or ideas don't matter. I said that if 74 people already favorited something, then I can at-a-glance see that the idea has strong weight behind it and my own pile-on is unnecessary. You don't have to use favorites the same way; it doesn't really matter to me how you use them or value them, only that I get to decide for myself.
Neither did I attack the mods. I even explained that I understand their frazzled defensiveness after this thread. I did not allege bad faith: I even clarified when Cortex was offended by restating that an accidental side effect is still a side effect they should have considered, or at least consider now, because it makes the site unworkable in a few fundamental ways and will degrade usefulness over time. I still don't get how this is "bad behavior". I think my motive has been pretty pure all along.
And really, you're complaining about a style used in communicating an opinion or explaining a problem while you're typing "bullshit" four times, complete with all caps, and telling me what I am saying? Really?
posted by rokusan at 5:51 PM on November 2, 2009 [9 favorites]
Let's say for the sake of argument that the abolitionists are right. Default access to counted favorites is something that, for whatever reason, the majority of MeFites need to be denied their preference for in the interest of the general welfare.
I don't think it realistic to expect them to thank you for it. And if your cause is as just as is claimed, their refusal to accept it shouldn't matter to you.
posted by Joe Beese at 5:55 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't think it realistic to expect them to thank you for it. And if your cause is as just as is claimed, their refusal to accept it shouldn't matter to you.
posted by Joe Beese at 5:55 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
klangklangston : "The opinions of the users are just as valid, just as informative, just as useful and just as important whether they get a million favorites or none. What counts isn't how popular a truth is, but how true it is. Just like how it doesn't matter who said it was a good idea or a horrible idea—what counts is their reasoning. That's the idea that I think is more insulting than any other on this thread, that people's ideas and feelings and opinions don't matter unless they're popular."
I agree that that idea is bullshit, but I don't think that's what's being said here. Obviously the number of favorites doesn't say anything about the actual merit of the opinion. What it does tell you is how that opinion is currently being perceived on the site. I consider that useful information to have.
posted by shammack at 5:56 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
I agree that that idea is bullshit, but I don't think that's what's being said here. Obviously the number of favorites doesn't say anything about the actual merit of the opinion. What it does tell you is how that opinion is currently being perceived on the site. I consider that useful information to have.
posted by shammack at 5:56 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
And really, you're complaining about a style used in communicating an opinion or explaining a problem while you're typing "bullshit" four times, complete with all caps, and telling me what I am saying? Really?
Well, right or wrong, when the mob's got you outnumbered at more or less 20-1, you do sometimes have to SHOUT to get heard.
posted by philip-random at 5:57 PM on November 2, 2009
Well, right or wrong, when the mob's got you outnumbered at more or less 20-1, you do sometimes have to SHOUT to get heard.
posted by philip-random at 5:57 PM on November 2, 2009
rokusan, you may be going for 'understanding', but you're coming off as extraordinarily condescending toward the mods when you say things like,
I suspect at this point you're backing away due to a mix of corporate embarrassment at the disaster and some kind of self-preservation instinct (you really want to still get something useful from this, even though it can't happen anymore), so I understand that.
and
"OMG how can you usually-smart people not have thought this through?"
How can a usually-smart person not predict how other people will read their words and actions?
posted by zennie at 5:57 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
I suspect at this point you're backing away due to a mix of corporate embarrassment at the disaster and some kind of self-preservation instinct (you really want to still get something useful from this, even though it can't happen anymore), so I understand that.
and
"OMG how can you usually-smart people not have thought this through?"
How can a usually-smart person not predict how other people will read their words and actions?
posted by zennie at 5:57 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
And yet it might also be a good idea to reconsider your position, when you're visualizing your fellow community members as a stupid mob that needs to be shouted down.
posted by fleacircus at 5:59 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by fleacircus at 5:59 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Jaltcoh writes "The suggestion being made by some people here that Mefites are somehow supposed to read every comment of every thread they read ... is ludicrous. I'm about 99.98% sure that no one does this."
I think one should read every comment of a thread one intends on commenting in. Why not? To do otherwise is to be that guy who jumps into a conversation about hot dogs with comments about how he "loves" his dachshund. I'm sure not advocating anyone be required to read the entire site Kibo style though. I do think that it would be nice if that was actually possible, at least most of the time.
kuujjuarapik writes "But you really can't say this: 'Will we see some measurable difference in any kind of site behavior?' without some perfectly legitimate concern over what constitutes measurable difference. It is hard to see how an experiment with such intangible metrics will ease any 'slow-burn debate', no matter what it is about."
Well rokusan thinks favouriting is going to precipitously decline because of no immediate positive feed back. Be interesting to see if that happens. Others think enough people for it to be a concern are going to go nuts favouriting their own comments. Both outcomes can be validated after the experimental period. I'm sure lots of hypothesis will be put forward both in the next month and the years after. Whether they'll easy a slow burn debate or stoke it into a firestorm will be seen.
posted by Mitheral at 5:59 PM on November 2, 2009
I think one should read every comment of a thread one intends on commenting in. Why not? To do otherwise is to be that guy who jumps into a conversation about hot dogs with comments about how he "loves" his dachshund. I'm sure not advocating anyone be required to read the entire site Kibo style though. I do think that it would be nice if that was actually possible, at least most of the time.
kuujjuarapik writes "But you really can't say this: 'Will we see some measurable difference in any kind of site behavior?' without some perfectly legitimate concern over what constitutes measurable difference. It is hard to see how an experiment with such intangible metrics will ease any 'slow-burn debate', no matter what it is about."
Well rokusan thinks favouriting is going to precipitously decline because of no immediate positive feed back. Be interesting to see if that happens. Others think enough people for it to be a concern are going to go nuts favouriting their own comments. Both outcomes can be validated after the experimental period. I'm sure lots of hypothesis will be put forward both in the next month and the years after. Whether they'll easy a slow burn debate or stoke it into a firestorm will be seen.
posted by Mitheral at 5:59 PM on November 2, 2009
rokusan: I did read the whole thread. Much of it twice. As many above have pointed out (maybe you should read the thread?) this is useless information:
The anti favorite folks don't use favorites to vote the way the pro favorite folks do. Hence, the fact that anti favorite statements don't get very many favorites has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
posted by Chuckles at 6:00 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Yes, that's a great idea (has favorites)While this means something:
No, this is a horrible idea (has favorites)
Yes, that's a great idea (3 favorites)Nonsense!
No, this is a horrible idea (72 favorites)
The anti favorite folks don't use favorites to vote the way the pro favorite folks do. Hence, the fact that anti favorite statements don't get very many favorites has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
posted by Chuckles at 6:00 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Joe Beese: You may also want to address your persuasive "minority-shminority" riposte to Ghidorah, Joseph Gurl, grouse, miss tea, Dormant Gorilla, catching signals, PhoBWanKenobi, fightorflight, and the dear (one hopes, temporarily) departed Artw.
It's possible that in haste I've misread one or two of those comments and that they do not share my opinion that favorites have always been a minority beef. But I think you get the idea.
There's a difference between someone reapeating that tired shit over and over and someone else picking up on it and saying it once to join in the fun. You made another commentalong those lines, but it's nice you've since stopped harping on that.
Another important distinction, as I see it, is that the pro-favorite people couldn't care less if the anti-favorite people were given a Preference to have no favoriting information displayed to them. It is the anti-favorite people who seem more determined to make sure that no one is able to use the site in a way with which they disagree.
The lines are not neatly split down that middle like you think they are.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:00 PM on November 2, 2009
It's possible that in haste I've misread one or two of those comments and that they do not share my opinion that favorites have always been a minority beef. But I think you get the idea.
There's a difference between someone reapeating that tired shit over and over and someone else picking up on it and saying it once to join in the fun. You made another commentalong those lines, but it's nice you've since stopped harping on that.
Another important distinction, as I see it, is that the pro-favorite people couldn't care less if the anti-favorite people were given a Preference to have no favoriting information displayed to them. It is the anti-favorite people who seem more determined to make sure that no one is able to use the site in a way with which they disagree.
The lines are not neatly split down that middle like you think they are.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:00 PM on November 2, 2009
I keep going back to it, trying to keep the favorite numbers off just to see what the cabal is going for.
The real problem I have with this is that there are such a large number of posts with at least one favorite. This makes it so that the favorited/not favorited status is not just meaningless, but actively harms the user's interaction with the site. If the information is getting obscured, and that's your goal, go big (just stone cold rip out the favorited/not favorited numbers entirely, or offer an opt-in to make this happen for the anti-favorite lobby) or go home. The current scheme is just aggravating to the user. It detracts from the usability of the site by offering a frequent distraction in the back of the mind ('hmm, that got favorited. but *how* favorited?!') which takes attention away from the content. The favorite numbers, when displayed, help the user to filter (a meta filter, if you will (*ducks*)) the content.
tl;dr: adds noise; bad UI.
posted by mullingitover at 6:02 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
The real problem I have with this is that there are such a large number of posts with at least one favorite. This makes it so that the favorited/not favorited status is not just meaningless, but actively harms the user's interaction with the site. If the information is getting obscured, and that's your goal, go big (just stone cold rip out the favorited/not favorited numbers entirely, or offer an opt-in to make this happen for the anti-favorite lobby) or go home. The current scheme is just aggravating to the user. It detracts from the usability of the site by offering a frequent distraction in the back of the mind ('hmm, that got favorited. but *how* favorited?!') which takes attention away from the content. The favorite numbers, when displayed, help the user to filter (a meta filter, if you will (*ducks*)) the content.
tl;dr: adds noise; bad UI.
posted by mullingitover at 6:02 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
"I didn't say anyone's opinions or feelings or ideas don't matter. I said that if 74 people already favorited something, then I can at-a-glance see that the idea has strong weight behind it and my own pile-on is unnecessary. You don't have to use favorites the same way; it doesn't really matter to me how you use them or value them, only that I get to decide for myself."
Except that you said that the comments without favorites were useless. That's not me putting words in your mouth, that's what you said. And that's bullshit of the first rank.
"I did not allege bad faith: I even clarified when Cortex was offended by restating that an accidental side effect is still a side effect they should have considered, or at least consider now, because it makes the site unworkable in a few fundamental ways and will degrade usefulness over time. I still don't get how this is "bad behavior". I think my motive has been pretty pure all along."
C'mon. You said that this change was a "trojan horse" and then complained that you needed this spelled out in greater detail before you'd take their word for it. That's bad faith.
"And really, you're complaining about a style used in communicating an opinion or explaining a problem while you're typing "bullshit" four times, complete with all caps, and telling me what I am saying? Really?"
Without favorites, I couldn't be sure that you'd read it.
posted by klangklangston at 6:03 PM on November 2, 2009
Except that you said that the comments without favorites were useless. That's not me putting words in your mouth, that's what you said. And that's bullshit of the first rank.
"I did not allege bad faith: I even clarified when Cortex was offended by restating that an accidental side effect is still a side effect they should have considered, or at least consider now, because it makes the site unworkable in a few fundamental ways and will degrade usefulness over time. I still don't get how this is "bad behavior". I think my motive has been pretty pure all along."
C'mon. You said that this change was a "trojan horse" and then complained that you needed this spelled out in greater detail before you'd take their word for it. That's bad faith.
"And really, you're complaining about a style used in communicating an opinion or explaining a problem while you're typing "bullshit" four times, complete with all caps, and telling me what I am saying? Really?"
Without favorites, I couldn't be sure that you'd read it.
posted by klangklangston at 6:03 PM on November 2, 2009
Yes, that's a great idea (3 favorites)
No, this is a horrible idea (72 favorites)
Is it a surprise to you that people who do not care for the counts are not that into favoriting? I'm not going to bookmark every damn comment that I agree with.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:04 PM on November 2, 2009
No, this is a horrible idea (72 favorites)
Is it a surprise to you that people who do not care for the counts are not that into favoriting? I'm not going to bookmark every damn comment that I agree with.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:04 PM on November 2, 2009
I'm sorry, I'm still laughing at the outrageous image that there's an angry mob that needs to be SHOUTED down into civility.
posted by cavalier at 6:04 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by cavalier at 6:04 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Without favorites, I couldn't be sure that you'd read it. [+ Vitriol]
posted by cavalier at 6:05 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by cavalier at 6:05 PM on November 2, 2009
I'm sorry, I'm still laughing at the outrageous image that there's an angry mob that needs to be SHOUTED down into civility.
YOU CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS!!!!!!!!
posted by philip-random at 6:07 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
YOU CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS!!!!!!!!
posted by philip-random at 6:07 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
So, I woke up to a crisp Tokyo morning and found that "faved" is now "has favorites". What other wondrous surprises will this fine day bring? I go forth with breathless anticipation and shining optimism!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:12 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:12 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
Chuckles: The anti favorite folks don't use favorites to vote the way the pro favorite folks do. Hence, the fact that anti favorite statements don't get very many favorites has absolutely no meaning whatsoever."
That's a spectacularly good point, one that should be kept in mind in any discussion here about favorites.
posted by FishBike at 6:12 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
That's a spectacularly good point, one that should be kept in mind in any discussion here about favorites.
posted by FishBike at 6:12 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
I would like to have the img tag back so I can embed baby orangutan photos.
I would also like Mizu to have the img tag back because those are some damn cute orangutans. But just her!
posted by sadmadglad at 6:12 PM on November 2, 2009
I would also like Mizu to have the img tag back because those are some damn cute orangutans. But just her!
posted by sadmadglad at 6:12 PM on November 2, 2009
Did somebody say "obscuring the Count"?
posted by evilmidnightbomberwhatbombsatmidnight at 6:16 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by evilmidnightbomberwhatbombsatmidnight at 6:16 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Taking away the favorite count on comments makes reading a thread with 1000+ comments hard to get up to speed on, in a less than arbitrary fashion, unless you're willing to sit there all night. Same for any threads with long comment lists. On askme, at least, the favorites are generally a good way to get a sense of the question/answers (not perfect and not always, of course). I predict it's likely to keep out people who don't have as much time for personal browsing on-line.
I apologize if I'm repeating what somebody said above. Didn't have time to read through all the comments and don't have any shortcut way to gauge what the popular comments were.
posted by AwkwardPause at 6:17 PM on November 2, 2009
I apologize if I'm repeating what somebody said above. Didn't have time to read through all the comments and don't have any shortcut way to gauge what the popular comments were.
posted by AwkwardPause at 6:17 PM on November 2, 2009
"The anti favorite folks don't use favorites to vote the way the pro favorite folks do. Hence, the fact that anti favorite statements don't get very many favorites has absolutely no meaning whatsoever."
That's a spectacularly good point.
I don't know. A sneetch without a star told it to me, and we all know that sneetches without stars don't use words the same way proper star-sneetches do.
posted by fleacircus at 6:17 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
That's a spectacularly good point.
I don't know. A sneetch without a star told it to me, and we all know that sneetches without stars don't use words the same way proper star-sneetches do.
posted by fleacircus at 6:17 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Mizu & co - I think I've stayed out of this carefully enough, and I really only want to make a few brief points tonight, not too much in this thread, promise.
Rhaomi: In conclusion, I ask people who decry "favorites whoring" to do something to illustrate their concerns: pick a user, any user. Preferably one that you think is prone to engaging in harmful favorites-seeking behavior (I suppose I am one, under the loosest definition). Go to their profile, click on their "Favorited by others", and sort by popularity. Now go through this list of highly favorited contributions, probably contributions that were made with the possibility of gaining a lot of favorites in mind, and tell me which ones harmed the site. Surely if favorites are a problem because they encourage negative attention-seeking behavior, then such attention-seeking behavior would logically be successful in garnering a lot of favorites. And if that's true, then the "toplists" for many users should be rife with petty, useless, or pandering commentary that we'd be better off without.
I know there have been people here who have decried "favorites-whoring" (or must have been, sheesh it's been a long thread) but I just wanted to go on record as saying that though my personal opinions are against the social system of favoriting I am not one of them. That is: some people seem to think that favorites encourage people to make comments that are (as you say) "petty," "useless," or "pandering," or to make loud, cruel, obnoxious comments just to get attention. I believe that's actually close to the opposite of the case.
I think that anyone who really looks over favorites on this site, or democratic voting mechanisms on any largeish site with a reasonably diverse userbase, will see a very different set of trends: on the whole, human beings seem to have an innate dislike of any kind of obvious cruelty, they don't like blatant pandering, they don't like people who are loud and obnoxious just to get attention. As Socrates put it in the Phaedo, people are like arguments: a few are really good, a few are really bad, but almost all of them are somewhere in the middle – and that's okay. And the more people vote, the more clearly this is seen: the really obvious assholes get filtered out, and disruptive stuff isn't really appreciated by the vast majority. That's the guiding principle of democracy, I think, and the chief reason why democracy tends to work well practically: when you leave it up to the majority, the really loud, obnoxious, offensive, cruel practices, which most people don't tend to like anyhow, gradually die out. The edges are taken off.
In fact, I think this goes too far – and that's my objection to the social system of favorites. I don't like assholes and jerks, and without singling people out it is my personal belief that the favorites system has changed the site massively over the past two years by filtering out a majority of the users who were loud, flamboyant, overbearing jerks. [And yes, I know what some of you are thinking; I'm still here. Sorry. Heh.] But I truly believe that as this process continues – in fact, even now, even long before now – we're in danger of filtering out all the opinions that don't square neatly with the majority, that we're in danger of rounding off all the corners. I don't think favorites reward evil, but they do reward mediocrity. And the trouble with mediocrity is that it doesn't make much of an accusation; it just makes the accuser look like an asshole.
That's why your challenge to us to seek out a specific user who's destroying the system through favorites isn't actually relevant, I think: because any one given user isn't "destroying the system," and accusing joe schmoe mefite who happens to like James Blunt and favorites every post about kittens of "trying to destroy metafilter" is just, well, completely silly. I think you meant that to be obvious, but my point is that what counts as passable and wholly unremarkable mediocrity in a single person can be very powerful, even overpowering, in a crowd. When jessamyn noted above that the mods felt somewhat punished for having tried this, I tried going back to pick out the really cruel, hurtful comments that people had made, and I had a very interesting experience: there weren't many really cruel, hurtful personal attacks here at all. Yes, there were maybe three, but three out of [then about] 700 comments doesn't seem like much. And yet I recognize palpably the overwhelmed feeling that I think the mods have sometimes had here; there's just been so much frustration lodged against them that it's overpowering. That's interesting, because it carries us beyond the realm of personal responsibility and into the region of statistical variance. The fact is that you can't with any honesty or decency accuse someone of being crude or cruel when all they've done is made a single metatalk comment that says "ugh, I hate this, and 'faved' is a really stupid word.' It's a fair thing to say, and it's just an expression of an opinion. But when dozens upon dozens upon dozens of people do it, it's like a tidal wave of frustration – and you really and truly cannot blame it on any one person, though it can be quite damaging to the spirit nonetheless.
posted by koeselitz at 6:18 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Rhaomi: In conclusion, I ask people who decry "favorites whoring" to do something to illustrate their concerns: pick a user, any user. Preferably one that you think is prone to engaging in harmful favorites-seeking behavior (I suppose I am one, under the loosest definition). Go to their profile, click on their "Favorited by others", and sort by popularity. Now go through this list of highly favorited contributions, probably contributions that were made with the possibility of gaining a lot of favorites in mind, and tell me which ones harmed the site. Surely if favorites are a problem because they encourage negative attention-seeking behavior, then such attention-seeking behavior would logically be successful in garnering a lot of favorites. And if that's true, then the "toplists" for many users should be rife with petty, useless, or pandering commentary that we'd be better off without.
I know there have been people here who have decried "favorites-whoring" (or must have been, sheesh it's been a long thread) but I just wanted to go on record as saying that though my personal opinions are against the social system of favoriting I am not one of them. That is: some people seem to think that favorites encourage people to make comments that are (as you say) "petty," "useless," or "pandering," or to make loud, cruel, obnoxious comments just to get attention. I believe that's actually close to the opposite of the case.
I think that anyone who really looks over favorites on this site, or democratic voting mechanisms on any largeish site with a reasonably diverse userbase, will see a very different set of trends: on the whole, human beings seem to have an innate dislike of any kind of obvious cruelty, they don't like blatant pandering, they don't like people who are loud and obnoxious just to get attention. As Socrates put it in the Phaedo, people are like arguments: a few are really good, a few are really bad, but almost all of them are somewhere in the middle – and that's okay. And the more people vote, the more clearly this is seen: the really obvious assholes get filtered out, and disruptive stuff isn't really appreciated by the vast majority. That's the guiding principle of democracy, I think, and the chief reason why democracy tends to work well practically: when you leave it up to the majority, the really loud, obnoxious, offensive, cruel practices, which most people don't tend to like anyhow, gradually die out. The edges are taken off.
In fact, I think this goes too far – and that's my objection to the social system of favorites. I don't like assholes and jerks, and without singling people out it is my personal belief that the favorites system has changed the site massively over the past two years by filtering out a majority of the users who were loud, flamboyant, overbearing jerks. [And yes, I know what some of you are thinking; I'm still here. Sorry. Heh.] But I truly believe that as this process continues – in fact, even now, even long before now – we're in danger of filtering out all the opinions that don't square neatly with the majority, that we're in danger of rounding off all the corners. I don't think favorites reward evil, but they do reward mediocrity. And the trouble with mediocrity is that it doesn't make much of an accusation; it just makes the accuser look like an asshole.
That's why your challenge to us to seek out a specific user who's destroying the system through favorites isn't actually relevant, I think: because any one given user isn't "destroying the system," and accusing joe schmoe mefite who happens to like James Blunt and favorites every post about kittens of "trying to destroy metafilter" is just, well, completely silly. I think you meant that to be obvious, but my point is that what counts as passable and wholly unremarkable mediocrity in a single person can be very powerful, even overpowering, in a crowd. When jessamyn noted above that the mods felt somewhat punished for having tried this, I tried going back to pick out the really cruel, hurtful comments that people had made, and I had a very interesting experience: there weren't many really cruel, hurtful personal attacks here at all. Yes, there were maybe three, but three out of [then about] 700 comments doesn't seem like much. And yet I recognize palpably the overwhelmed feeling that I think the mods have sometimes had here; there's just been so much frustration lodged against them that it's overpowering. That's interesting, because it carries us beyond the realm of personal responsibility and into the region of statistical variance. The fact is that you can't with any honesty or decency accuse someone of being crude or cruel when all they've done is made a single metatalk comment that says "ugh, I hate this, and 'faved' is a really stupid word.' It's a fair thing to say, and it's just an expression of an opinion. But when dozens upon dozens upon dozens of people do it, it's like a tidal wave of frustration – and you really and truly cannot blame it on any one person, though it can be quite damaging to the spirit nonetheless.
posted by koeselitz at 6:18 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
In other words, it's not really mean-spirited, jerkish comment getting a hundred favorites that I'm afraid of. That's actually very unlikely to happen; it's quite difficult to round up a hundred people who really like mean-spirited jerks. What I'm afraid of is a dozen dismissive 'whatever, you're wrong'-type comments that each get three or four favorites. I am not accusing people in this thread of doing that, but I have seen this happen over and over again. This is what I mean when I say that pile-ons are more common here now [again, this is distinctly not to say that metafilter used to be better, only that it's different, and that the growth has led to different problems] – that when someone expresses (perhaps controversially) an opinion that's not the majority opinion, they will quite often find themselves swamped under a deluge, not of crude insults or reasoned argument but of many, many obviously popular casual dismissals.
Yes, this is a description of my personal sense and experience of metafilter; and yes, people might wholly disagree with it. But when I look at almost every thread I can find that's really 'gone wrong' recently, I find that these principles are almost always playing a part.
posted by koeselitz at 6:18 PM on November 2, 2009
Yes, this is a description of my personal sense and experience of metafilter; and yes, people might wholly disagree with it. But when I look at almost every thread I can find that's really 'gone wrong' recently, I find that these principles are almost always playing a part.
posted by koeselitz at 6:18 PM on November 2, 2009
"I didn't say anyone's opinions or feelings or ideas don't matter."
Except that you said that the comments without favorites were useless. That's not me putting words in your mouth, that's what you said. And that's bullshit of the first rank.
No, I did not. That's you changing what I said to something you can curse about, or interpreting it in that way because you seem pre-angry.
I said that MeFi presenting the information that way ("has favorites", with no number) was useless. A useless way to present no useful information. Not the comments themselves, which I can't possibly have an opinion about since they're hypothetical example comments anyway. The suppressed note that's saying "this comment has somewhere between 1 to a zillion favorites" is useless information, with the actual useful information not shown to me, while the old-style note that includes a number contains useful information, and it's up to me how to interpret it.
C'mon. You said that this change was a "trojan horse" and then complained that you needed this spelled out in greater detail before you'd take their word for it. That's bad faith.
It would be, if that is what I had said. Read again. I did not say the change "is" a trojan horse. I said that the effect would be "too much like" a trojan horse, and could effectively "act as" one, as an accidental side-effect. And I even emphasized the word accidental. So no, that's not bad faith, unless you're trying very hard to be offended. That's asking whether the mods have really thought this through.
It was Cortex's offended rephrasing that included bad faith language and accusations. (Also, I'm not sure how to read it, but apparently I'm some sort of moron for not remembering five names and how to simul-search for all of them with Control-F in order to stitch together contradictory answers.) But as I mentioned earlier, Cortex was probably having a bad day over this, so I can understand the touchiness. Yours, I'm less sure about. Can you discuss the features and benefits without attacking the people?
Without favorites, I couldn't be sure that you'd read it.
I realize you're just being snarky, but I never said I read things because they have favorites.
But a high number of favorites might make me read (or re-read) a comment more closely, especially if it was in some other thread that I would never have entered otherwise, and twice-especially if some other folks whose opinions I value highly had favorited it in advance, marking it as noteworthy for those who follow along late.
You see, all these MeFites, they act as my handy helpers to mark, rank and filter things that I might enjoy, on a site that has far too many words per day for reading everything. And in turn, I act in the same way for them, should they care what I think or click. It's a pretty sweet system of cooperative support and organic filtering, and it shocks me still that it could be tossed away so perfunctorily, even as a not-really "experiment" in quotation marks. Favorites are very helpful things.
posted by rokusan at 6:21 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Except that you said that the comments without favorites were useless. That's not me putting words in your mouth, that's what you said. And that's bullshit of the first rank.
No, I did not. That's you changing what I said to something you can curse about, or interpreting it in that way because you seem pre-angry.
I said that MeFi presenting the information that way ("has favorites", with no number) was useless. A useless way to present no useful information. Not the comments themselves, which I can't possibly have an opinion about since they're hypothetical example comments anyway. The suppressed note that's saying "this comment has somewhere between 1 to a zillion favorites" is useless information, with the actual useful information not shown to me, while the old-style note that includes a number contains useful information, and it's up to me how to interpret it.
C'mon. You said that this change was a "trojan horse" and then complained that you needed this spelled out in greater detail before you'd take their word for it. That's bad faith.
It would be, if that is what I had said. Read again. I did not say the change "is" a trojan horse. I said that the effect would be "too much like" a trojan horse, and could effectively "act as" one, as an accidental side-effect. And I even emphasized the word accidental. So no, that's not bad faith, unless you're trying very hard to be offended. That's asking whether the mods have really thought this through.
It was Cortex's offended rephrasing that included bad faith language and accusations. (Also, I'm not sure how to read it, but apparently I'm some sort of moron for not remembering five names and how to simul-search for all of them with Control-F in order to stitch together contradictory answers.) But as I mentioned earlier, Cortex was probably having a bad day over this, so I can understand the touchiness. Yours, I'm less sure about. Can you discuss the features and benefits without attacking the people?
Without favorites, I couldn't be sure that you'd read it.
I realize you're just being snarky, but I never said I read things because they have favorites.
But a high number of favorites might make me read (or re-read) a comment more closely, especially if it was in some other thread that I would never have entered otherwise, and twice-especially if some other folks whose opinions I value highly had favorited it in advance, marking it as noteworthy for those who follow along late.
You see, all these MeFites, they act as my handy helpers to mark, rank and filter things that I might enjoy, on a site that has far too many words per day for reading everything. And in turn, I act in the same way for them, should they care what I think or click. It's a pretty sweet system of cooperative support and organic filtering, and it shocks me still that it could be tossed away so perfunctorily, even as a not-really "experiment" in quotation marks. Favorites are very helpful things.
posted by rokusan at 6:21 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
But it would be pretty damn arrogant to think that "hey! a ton of people agreed with this!" isn't good information that should make me recheck my own assumptions if I'm swimming against the tide.
It's been my experience that, generally, when people encounter opinions counter to their own experience or intuition, it's not their assumptions they question; it's yours. And if the discussion system in place tends to amplify those opposing opinions, I think you're more likely to disengage from the site than attempt to provoke debate.
I think the fact that the majority here on Metafilter agrees with something is a bit of a reinforcing thing, in that people with dissenting views are less likely to come on board and stick around.
Hiding the favorite comment count doesn't eliminate groupthink, and no one is claiming it would. It does eliminate an "official" indicator of it, and increases the barrier for doing it (posting "me too" is still more difficult than clicking [+] and knowing your +1 is seen).
After all, if you were reading a right-leaning site (assuming Metafilter is left-leaning, which I believe is reasonable) and lots of opinions you disagreed were reading were getting favorited, would you rethink your point of view? More likely, you'd view the high favorite count of those opinions as official recognition of that view and you'd probably stop reading that site, concluding that it's not worth it.
The same way, it's important to reconsider how you interpret majority/minority opinions here. By choosing to read here, you've necessarily "filtered out" some opinions and are getting a "favorites curve" that is biased in some direction.
I don't speak for all the pro-hiding crowd but, in my opinion, hiding the favorites count is about reducing (not eliminating) that bias and encouraging participation not just for minority opinions but also for the users with those opinions.
I think the arrangement I mentioned earlier would be a good compromise.
posted by anifinder at 6:23 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's been my experience that, generally, when people encounter opinions counter to their own experience or intuition, it's not their assumptions they question; it's yours. And if the discussion system in place tends to amplify those opposing opinions, I think you're more likely to disengage from the site than attempt to provoke debate.
I think the fact that the majority here on Metafilter agrees with something is a bit of a reinforcing thing, in that people with dissenting views are less likely to come on board and stick around.
Hiding the favorite comment count doesn't eliminate groupthink, and no one is claiming it would. It does eliminate an "official" indicator of it, and increases the barrier for doing it (posting "me too" is still more difficult than clicking [+] and knowing your +1 is seen).
After all, if you were reading a right-leaning site (assuming Metafilter is left-leaning, which I believe is reasonable) and lots of opinions you disagreed were reading were getting favorited, would you rethink your point of view? More likely, you'd view the high favorite count of those opinions as official recognition of that view and you'd probably stop reading that site, concluding that it's not worth it.
The same way, it's important to reconsider how you interpret majority/minority opinions here. By choosing to read here, you've necessarily "filtered out" some opinions and are getting a "favorites curve" that is biased in some direction.
I don't speak for all the pro-hiding crowd but, in my opinion, hiding the favorites count is about reducing (not eliminating) that bias and encouraging participation not just for minority opinions but also for the users with those opinions.
I think the arrangement I mentioned earlier would be a good compromise.
posted by anifinder at 6:23 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I should also add that I don't believe anyone here (or any human being, really) is "stupid" or that I think they're unable to think for themselves.
I do, however, think it's a mistake to believe we're not influenced by the design of the systems we use. The way Metafilter is setup absolutely affects how its users, brilliant and average alike, interact with it. This discussion, on a broad level, is about how to optimize one specific part of that design to make those interactions better for everyone.
posted by anifinder at 6:27 PM on November 2, 2009
I do, however, think it's a mistake to believe we're not influenced by the design of the systems we use. The way Metafilter is setup absolutely affects how its users, brilliant and average alike, interact with it. This discussion, on a broad level, is about how to optimize one specific part of that design to make those interactions better for everyone.
posted by anifinder at 6:27 PM on November 2, 2009
Chuckles: The anti favorite folks don't use favorites to vote the way the pro favorite folks do. Hence, the fact that anti favorite statements don't get very many favorites has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
Yes, you'd think so, but you know what's interesting to notice? Many of us still do use favorites to vote – even while we're arguing against it. My comments keep getting favorites, for example, and I have a feeling it's not because people want to mark them to come back to them later (though, hell, it might be so they can use them against me in court, I don't know.) And I notice with some surprise that it's hard for me to read through this thread without favoriting the comments I like just because I happen to like them. Here, take a look: 49 of the last 50 metatalk comments that I've favorited have been in this thread, and that's only the first page, so there are certainly more. It turns out to be a very difficult habit to break. Of course, there's such a thing as bad habits, so this doesn't really influence the argument either way, but it's sort of intriguing.
posted by koeselitz at 6:29 PM on November 2, 2009
Yes, you'd think so, but you know what's interesting to notice? Many of us still do use favorites to vote – even while we're arguing against it. My comments keep getting favorites, for example, and I have a feeling it's not because people want to mark them to come back to them later (though, hell, it might be so they can use them against me in court, I don't know.) And I notice with some surprise that it's hard for me to read through this thread without favoriting the comments I like just because I happen to like them. Here, take a look: 49 of the last 50 metatalk comments that I've favorited have been in this thread, and that's only the first page, so there are certainly more. It turns out to be a very difficult habit to break. Of course, there's such a thing as bad habits, so this doesn't really influence the argument either way, but it's sort of intriguing.
posted by koeselitz at 6:29 PM on November 2, 2009
You couldn't be more wrong, anifinder. I'm totally stupid.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:29 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:29 PM on November 2, 2009
Did somebody say "Favorite Whore"? (Semi-SFW)
Thank you, thank you, I'm here all month, tip your waitress, but no favorites, please...
posted by evilmidnightbomberwhatbombsatmidnight at 6:31 PM on November 2, 2009
Thank you, thank you, I'm here all month, tip your waitress, but no favorites, please...
posted by evilmidnightbomberwhatbombsatmidnight at 6:31 PM on November 2, 2009
I just turned the favorite counts back on and I feel a sense of soothing calm.
posted by diogenes at 6:32 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by diogenes at 6:32 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
P.o.B.: "There's a difference between someone reapeating that tired shit over and over and someone else picking up on it and saying it once to join in the fun. You made another commentalong those lines, but it's nice you've since stopped harping on that. ... The lines are not neatly split down that middle like you think they are.
Glad to hear you follow my work so closely. I've got another comment coming out tomorrow that I'm sure you won't want to miss.
I'm sure we'll disagree on where the line splits. If I had to guess:
Thank goodness! - 2%
Got to like it. - 4%
I can live with it. - 12%
It's only a month, right? - 15%
Sorry, no thanks. - 40%
Fuck this. - 25%
FUCK YOU! - 2%
As they used to say during the War: Is this trip really necessary?
posted by Joe Beese at 6:34 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Glad to hear you follow my work so closely. I've got another comment coming out tomorrow that I'm sure you won't want to miss.
I'm sure we'll disagree on where the line splits. If I had to guess:
Thank goodness! - 2%
Got to like it. - 4%
I can live with it. - 12%
It's only a month, right? - 15%
Sorry, no thanks. - 40%
Fuck this. - 25%
FUCK YOU! - 2%
As they used to say during the War: Is this trip really necessary?
posted by Joe Beese at 6:34 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
"...he sits with a tumble of cheap gin in his claw of a hand"
I thought we agreed to keep that private.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 6:44 PM on November 2, 2009
I thought we agreed to keep that private.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 6:44 PM on November 2, 2009
Although I prefer displaying the #s to not displaying the #s, it's not something to die in a ditch over. I don't like "faved" or "has favorites" though, especially since the latter looks like, "can i has favorites?" Someone probably already said that, but this is a damn long thread so I ain't going through it. Perhaps we can replace the # with little banana stickers?
I will say that getting lots of faves on a comment does feel good, but I find I get way more +s for my occasionally substantive comments than for my even more rare funny comments, so when I make the effort to comment on something that I care about, I try to say something at least halfway worthwhile.
I do also like to skim through a long thread, see that something has 154 favorites, and stop to read what is often a very enlightening passage.
posted by Saxon Kane at 6:47 PM on November 2, 2009
I will say that getting lots of faves on a comment does feel good, but I find I get way more +s for my occasionally substantive comments than for my even more rare funny comments, so when I make the effort to comment on something that I care about, I try to say something at least halfway worthwhile.
I do also like to skim through a long thread, see that something has 154 favorites, and stop to read what is often a very enlightening passage.
posted by Saxon Kane at 6:47 PM on November 2, 2009
Metafilter: Has a wicked case of the favorites.
posted by iamabot at 6:48 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by iamabot at 6:48 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Speaking as a relatively new user here, I would sorely miss the favorite counts. They are a very useful way of digging through a long and often very rich comment thread, and the comments are at least as much the reason I come here as the posts. Disguising the counts greatly diminishes the amount of information available to me about what has gone on previously in the thread, and what the participants before me have found useful or interesting or funny. It seems to me that the harm done by presenting the appearance of a voting system is minor, while the harm done to the many readers who rely on the varying favorite counts is significant, especially for those coming to threads late or, as is often the case (as I'm sure you server logs show) long after it has fallen off the front page.
I'm sure other people have made these points before, and I hesitate the conclude with a "consider this my vote against the change" given the admins' views on voting, but so be it. For my purposes, this is a definite change for the worse.
I also see that you've now let us change it in the prefs. This is okay for the $5 coterie, but I spent many a happy year reading MeFi without the preferences, and so my arguments against the change still stand.
(Oh, and "has favorites" is no good -- it's really annoying have the same words printed repeatedly all down the page like that. "Faved" is no good either -- reeks of admins trying to diggify/Web2.0-ize their site.)
Oop, another point: speaking mathematically for a moment, if there were many more comments that had no favorites at all than comments that had some, then the "has favorites" flag would contain lots of information; however, when a large percentage of comments have at least one favorite, the "has favorites" becomes quite uninformative (for almost everyone), and might as well be abandoned altogether.
Yet another thought: if you think that the count-based favorites are actually doing harm, why not consider the test month as data, and see whether the commentary is any different from what it was before? And if you really can't think of any empirical way to measure that -- then maybe the harm being done by the old system wasn't much of a problem after all. (Independent of this normative question, it would be fun to see some statistics on how the favorites-per-comment distribution differs after the change. If there's no one on MeFi who does that sort of thing, you can always PM me -- I do this sort of stuff for a living.)
And and and ... I say all this as someone whose few comments often go against the prevailing winds of a thread, and to whom being multiply favorited gives a powerful reassurance that, though I may be in the minority, I am not alone.
posted by chortly at 6:50 PM on November 2, 2009
I'm sure other people have made these points before, and I hesitate the conclude with a "consider this my vote against the change" given the admins' views on voting, but so be it. For my purposes, this is a definite change for the worse.
I also see that you've now let us change it in the prefs. This is okay for the $5 coterie, but I spent many a happy year reading MeFi without the preferences, and so my arguments against the change still stand.
(Oh, and "has favorites" is no good -- it's really annoying have the same words printed repeatedly all down the page like that. "Faved" is no good either -- reeks of admins trying to diggify/Web2.0-ize their site.)
Oop, another point: speaking mathematically for a moment, if there were many more comments that had no favorites at all than comments that had some, then the "has favorites" flag would contain lots of information; however, when a large percentage of comments have at least one favorite, the "has favorites" becomes quite uninformative (for almost everyone), and might as well be abandoned altogether.
Yet another thought: if you think that the count-based favorites are actually doing harm, why not consider the test month as data, and see whether the commentary is any different from what it was before? And if you really can't think of any empirical way to measure that -- then maybe the harm being done by the old system wasn't much of a problem after all. (Independent of this normative question, it would be fun to see some statistics on how the favorites-per-comment distribution differs after the change. If there's no one on MeFi who does that sort of thing, you can always PM me -- I do this sort of stuff for a living.)
And and and ... I say all this as someone whose few comments often go against the prevailing winds of a thread, and to whom being multiply favorited gives a powerful reassurance that, though I may be in the minority, I am not alone.
posted by chortly at 6:50 PM on November 2, 2009
Joe Beese: I'm sure we'll disagree on where the line splits. If I had to guess...
First, as Kattullus pointed out more eloquently above, it's impossible to know even remotely what proportion of users like or dislike favorites. We have no mandatory voting mechanism and most people might never look at metatalk, might not even notice the change, or might not realize there's somewhere they can go to check on it; comments in this thread are only that, comments, not votes, and moreover they're comments by a small minority of the people on this site. Second, precisely because we here (those of us who are against favorites and those of us who are for favorites) can frankly make no claims whatsoever that we speak for some majority, we have to recognize that there's no way we can pretend to stand up for the desires of the people. We must instead try to decide what's actually best for the site, using arguments and discussion. I actually think that's a very good thing, generally because it's a much better model for democracy to follow: democracy at its best is not a system in which the majority simply expresses its whims as law. Democracy at its best is a system in which the whole of society engages itself in dialogue, taking in numerous minority positions, and comes to consensus by trying to determine what is right and what is best.
posted by koeselitz at 6:56 PM on November 2, 2009
First, as Kattullus pointed out more eloquently above, it's impossible to know even remotely what proportion of users like or dislike favorites. We have no mandatory voting mechanism and most people might never look at metatalk, might not even notice the change, or might not realize there's somewhere they can go to check on it; comments in this thread are only that, comments, not votes, and moreover they're comments by a small minority of the people on this site. Second, precisely because we here (those of us who are against favorites and those of us who are for favorites) can frankly make no claims whatsoever that we speak for some majority, we have to recognize that there's no way we can pretend to stand up for the desires of the people. We must instead try to decide what's actually best for the site, using arguments and discussion. I actually think that's a very good thing, generally because it's a much better model for democracy to follow: democracy at its best is not a system in which the majority simply expresses its whims as law. Democracy at its best is a system in which the whole of society engages itself in dialogue, taking in numerous minority positions, and comes to consensus by trying to determine what is right and what is best.
posted by koeselitz at 6:56 PM on November 2, 2009
(I CAN) HAS FAVORITES?
Metafilter: Come for the insight, stay for the lulz...
posted by Nanukthedog at 6:58 PM on November 2, 2009
Metafilter: Come for the insight, stay for the lulz...
posted by Nanukthedog at 6:58 PM on November 2, 2009
Wait, there really *is* a professional white background somewhere? Really?
Huh. Just goes to show that many of us go with the default because we don't know any better.
posted by nat at 7:05 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Huh. Just goes to show that many of us go with the default because we don't know any better.
posted by nat at 7:05 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Glad to hear you follow my work so closely. I've got another comment coming out tomorrow that I'm sure you won't want to miss.
Don't be flattered. As I said before, as a rule of thumb, I read all the comments. Maybe I'll read it tomorrow, or I may just give it a rest. I don't know, but don't feel sad if I don't reply. ;)
posted by P.o.B. at 7:05 PM on November 2, 2009
Don't be flattered. As I said before, as a rule of thumb, I read all the comments. Maybe I'll read it tomorrow, or I may just give it a rest. I don't know, but don't feel sad if I don't reply. ;)
posted by P.o.B. at 7:05 PM on November 2, 2009
Thank you, Mods of Mercy, for changing "faved."
I am already 30% less annoyed and will try to stick it out in the It's only a month, right? camp.
posted by rmless at 7:07 PM on November 2, 2009
I am already 30% less annoyed and will try to stick it out in the It's only a month, right? camp.
posted by rmless at 7:07 PM on November 2, 2009
Wait, there really *is* a professional white background somewhere? Really?
I'm still dumbfounded when someone with a user number around mine, or lower, finds out about some obvious feature. You payed the fiver. Go ahead, relax, take a look around. Click the tabs. Push some buttons. You probably won't break anything that can't be fixed by a friendly helpful mod.
posted by P.o.B. at 7:12 PM on November 2, 2009
I'm still dumbfounded when someone with a user number around mine, or lower, finds out about some obvious feature. You payed the fiver. Go ahead, relax, take a look around. Click the tabs. Push some buttons. You probably won't break anything that can't be fixed by a friendly helpful mod.
posted by P.o.B. at 7:12 PM on November 2, 2009
It's all been said already but I'd just like to stick my oar in and say that I opted out for a little while then enabled it again, and I'm getting used to it. I have to fight the urge to click to see how many favorites some of the comments got but it's happening less and I expect it to be gone well before the end of the month. In my head I'm replacing the count with a 'hmm! someone noted that comment'. I suspect that the less I care about how many favorites a comment gets, the better I'll feel about the whole site. It'll almost be just like when I first signed up.
posted by tellurian at 7:14 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by tellurian at 7:14 PM on November 2, 2009
Rhaomi: While this is an example of the bad things favorites can sometimes emphasize and unfortunate, the fact that it was "an incredibly weird moment" just goes to show how rare such moments are. Situations where two or more users get into a deeply personal pissing match with readers using favorites to throw their lot behind one side or another (or both) generally only happen in very contentious, high-traffic threads, which usually see attention and comments from the mods to keep things from spiraling out of control.
And of course, who's to say this misunderstanding wouldn't have happened anyway without favorites, just with the one highly-favorited mistaken callout replaced by multiple negative responses? At any rate, it sounds like the misunderstood person got a chance to respond and clear up the problem.
EvaDestruction: If I was Bab, and it was the first time Foo had misunderstood me in the exchange (i.e. not a pattern of misinterpretation), it's likely I would've apologized for not getting my point across well. I am apt to say, especially if I'm trying to turn down the volume on a disagreement: "I am sorry I did not express this clearly in a way you understand," rather than tell someone, directly or by implication, that they've read my comment badly (unless there's evidence my argument is being purposefully misrepresented). So in the absence of other information, my assumption about why Bab apologized is different than yours.
I'm not saying you're wrong, though, by any means. The fact that you perceive this as a negative effect of favorites (and that there are likely others who would agree with you - possibly even me if I'd seen the full discussion) is important in considering whether the positive uses of favorites outweigh their negative effects.
It's awkward talking about this while keeping it anonymous, but here goes.
Foo's comment started off by quoting Bab saying, roughly: "Speaking as someone who holds position X." Foo's response, however, started as "You're not speaking as someone who holds position X, but someone who holds position Y." And then proceeds to lay into Bab for, essentially, holding position Y (a position which most of MetaFilter agrees is a bad view to espouse).
Foo's response to Bab's elaboration of the earlier comment is, and I paraphrase: "Don't worry about it, you just mangled your words and you didn't realize what they meant. That can happen to us all"
That's such a weird response when you've been shown to misread someone's comment to the point that you call him a horrible person. I'd feel like that the normal response would be to feel sheepish and apologetic but instead Foo accepts Bab's apology and gives a little chiding about using one's words better. The exchange from Foo's original misreading to Foo accepting Bab's unnecessary apology takes all of 10 minutes to unfold.
At this point Foo's comment has already racked up a large number of favorites. Here's something that really bothers me. Even Foo's comment has been shown to be groundless and wrongheaded it keeps getting favorites. A lot. Piles and piles. I don't know exactly how that happened but my guess is that it started showing up on Foo's contacts sidebar and if you read the comment without context it's hard not to agree with Foo, so it accrued more favorites, ended up on the popular favorites page and got more favorites through that, more than a hundred after it had been shown to be completely and utterly wrong. Long after the reason for the pileon is moot the pileon barrels on.
It really bothers me that, as far as I can tell, more than a hundred MeFites read a comment wrongly accusing a member of our community of holding rather terrible views and decided to favorite it even after, sometimes days after, it has been shown that these accusations are baseless and wrong.
It's a very extreme example, I know, but it does demonstrate that sometimes visible favorites create really bad power imbalances. There may be MeFites who assume, having read Foo's comment, that Bab is a terrible person and this colors their reading of all of Bab's comments.
posted by Kattullus at 7:15 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
And of course, who's to say this misunderstanding wouldn't have happened anyway without favorites, just with the one highly-favorited mistaken callout replaced by multiple negative responses? At any rate, it sounds like the misunderstood person got a chance to respond and clear up the problem.
EvaDestruction: If I was Bab, and it was the first time Foo had misunderstood me in the exchange (i.e. not a pattern of misinterpretation), it's likely I would've apologized for not getting my point across well. I am apt to say, especially if I'm trying to turn down the volume on a disagreement: "I am sorry I did not express this clearly in a way you understand," rather than tell someone, directly or by implication, that they've read my comment badly (unless there's evidence my argument is being purposefully misrepresented). So in the absence of other information, my assumption about why Bab apologized is different than yours.
I'm not saying you're wrong, though, by any means. The fact that you perceive this as a negative effect of favorites (and that there are likely others who would agree with you - possibly even me if I'd seen the full discussion) is important in considering whether the positive uses of favorites outweigh their negative effects.
It's awkward talking about this while keeping it anonymous, but here goes.
Foo's comment started off by quoting Bab saying, roughly: "Speaking as someone who holds position X." Foo's response, however, started as "You're not speaking as someone who holds position X, but someone who holds position Y." And then proceeds to lay into Bab for, essentially, holding position Y (a position which most of MetaFilter agrees is a bad view to espouse).
Foo's response to Bab's elaboration of the earlier comment is, and I paraphrase: "Don't worry about it, you just mangled your words and you didn't realize what they meant. That can happen to us all"
That's such a weird response when you've been shown to misread someone's comment to the point that you call him a horrible person. I'd feel like that the normal response would be to feel sheepish and apologetic but instead Foo accepts Bab's apology and gives a little chiding about using one's words better. The exchange from Foo's original misreading to Foo accepting Bab's unnecessary apology takes all of 10 minutes to unfold.
At this point Foo's comment has already racked up a large number of favorites. Here's something that really bothers me. Even Foo's comment has been shown to be groundless and wrongheaded it keeps getting favorites. A lot. Piles and piles. I don't know exactly how that happened but my guess is that it started showing up on Foo's contacts sidebar and if you read the comment without context it's hard not to agree with Foo, so it accrued more favorites, ended up on the popular favorites page and got more favorites through that, more than a hundred after it had been shown to be completely and utterly wrong. Long after the reason for the pileon is moot the pileon barrels on.
It really bothers me that, as far as I can tell, more than a hundred MeFites read a comment wrongly accusing a member of our community of holding rather terrible views and decided to favorite it even after, sometimes days after, it has been shown that these accusations are baseless and wrong.
It's a very extreme example, I know, but it does demonstrate that sometimes visible favorites create really bad power imbalances. There may be MeFites who assume, having read Foo's comment, that Bab is a terrible person and this colors their reading of all of Bab's comments.
posted by Kattullus at 7:15 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I am mostly ambivilent about favorites (I bookmark for my own reference, and occasionally mark things as a "This is what I would have said", but I'm not really pro- or anti- favorites), but I am exploring how people use information and how that impacts the community. I'm looking forward to seeing how my site usage changes this month. I can respect that people would want to opt out of the experiment because the inconvenience level is too high for something that is a leisure activity, but I'm hoping you can still contribute to the information gathering beyond, "yeah, hiding the counts was too painful." or "I really believe hiding the information counts adds noise and reduces post quality."
When we self-report our favoriting-related activities and impressions during this Great Favening, I'd be interested in hearing from people who have chosen to view favorite counts (which you can do in preferences, for latecomers to the thread; also make sure you read the initial post if you are coming here from the closed MeTa post) who care to do some self-analysis about their favoriting activities. Maybe looking at an epic thread in the Blue or Green and reading it as they would normally and then, later, after that post settled down, take a few hours and read it front to back. If you take note on your perceptions both ways, would the things you got out of it be the same? Is there anything you missed in Beacon mode that you wished you hadn't, do you have a (slightly) different take now? Is the experience fundamentally the same, just distilled into the essence? If you wanted to turn off the fave counts for that reread, cool, if not, it would still be interesting to me (and maybe only me).
posted by julen at 7:18 PM on November 2, 2009
When we self-report our favoriting-related activities and impressions during this Great Favening, I'd be interested in hearing from people who have chosen to view favorite counts (which you can do in preferences, for latecomers to the thread; also make sure you read the initial post if you are coming here from the closed MeTa post) who care to do some self-analysis about their favoriting activities. Maybe looking at an epic thread in the Blue or Green and reading it as they would normally and then, later, after that post settled down, take a few hours and read it front to back. If you take note on your perceptions both ways, would the things you got out of it be the same? Is there anything you missed in Beacon mode that you wished you hadn't, do you have a (slightly) different take now? Is the experience fundamentally the same, just distilled into the essence? If you wanted to turn off the fave counts for that reread, cool, if not, it would still be interesting to me (and maybe only me).
posted by julen at 7:18 PM on November 2, 2009
"I said that MeFi presenting the information that way ("has favorites", with no number) was useless. A useless way to present no useful information."
You know what? I misread you and apologize. I don't think the distincction was as clear as you intented, but it's silly to try to force you to defend something you didn't intend.
posted by klangklangston at 7:19 PM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
You know what? I misread you and apologize. I don't think the distincction was as clear as you intented, but it's silly to try to force you to defend something you didn't intend.
posted by klangklangston at 7:19 PM on November 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
Another empirical isse: after a month, I would presume that the frequency of complaints about anything will go down. People just get bored with complaining about the same thing after a few days. But that doesn't mean that the change was an improvement, just the people either got used to it, or got bored complaining. If you just rely on proactive complaints, that number will go way down, no matter how little the underlying dislike does. But even if you rely on polls, people get used to stuff, even stuff which they, in some deeper sense, don't like any the more. What you need is a baseline measurement: change something that is a clear (but relatively minor) detriment to the vast majority of users, and then look at how the complaints and polling changes over the course of the month. When you've established what the baseline decline is, you can then measure more ambiguous changes against that baseline, so that the threshold is not "have complaints gone down or poll approval gone up," but "have complaints gone down more than you would expect through the attrition of time alone". That would be a better measure of whether people have truly come round, rather than just gotten used to yet another of life's little annoyances.
posted by chortly at 7:29 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by chortly at 7:29 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
The lack of visible favorite counts hasn't much changed the way I peruse monster threads:
1. Read the first fifty or so
2. Skip randomly to somewhere around the middle
3. Read comments in order from that until I come across someone replying/linking to a comment I missed that sounds promising
4. Find promising comment in new tab
5. Go to 3
6. Get bored, return to original tab
7. Go to 3
8. Get bored, Ctrl-F for key words/phrases/usernames that seem probable for the thread
9. Go to 3
(etc)
Completely inefficient and mostly ineffective with regards to total comprehension, but damn it, I'm an explorer!
posted by Captain Cardanthian! at 7:39 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
1. Read the first fifty or so
2. Skip randomly to somewhere around the middle
3. Read comments in order from that until I come across someone replying/linking to a comment I missed that sounds promising
4. Find promising comment in new tab
5. Go to 3
6. Get bored, return to original tab
7. Go to 3
8. Get bored, Ctrl-F for key words/phrases/usernames that seem probable for the thread
9. Go to 3
(etc)
Completely inefficient and mostly ineffective with regards to total comprehension, but damn it, I'm an explorer!
posted by Captain Cardanthian! at 7:39 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Yay! Experiment month! I'll also be trying out the professional white background until December. I will also only read every other comment. Don't worry though, any changes in my posting behavior will totally be a result of the favorites thing.
I kid. Please don't make me the favorites czar.
posted by ctmf at 7:39 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I kid. Please don't make me the favorites czar.
posted by ctmf at 7:39 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
"It's a very extreme example, I know, but it does demonstrate that sometimes visible favorites create really bad power imbalances. There may be MeFites who assume, having read Foo's comment, that Bab is a terrible person and this colors their reading of all of Bab's comments."
Let me clarify this part of my comment. I think that this is a case of it being bad that favorites can create power imbalances, that someone's opinion, even when it's been demonstrated to be completely wrong, has the weight of the community behind it (as implied by a very high favorite count).
It is also bad that in this case people may have formed the impression that a MeFite is a bad person based on incorrect information that the favorites system has gotten out onto contact activity sidebars and the popular favorite page and rss feed.
These are two distinct problems.
posted by Kattullus at 7:45 PM on November 2, 2009
Let me clarify this part of my comment. I think that this is a case of it being bad that favorites can create power imbalances, that someone's opinion, even when it's been demonstrated to be completely wrong, has the weight of the community behind it (as implied by a very high favorite count).
It is also bad that in this case people may have formed the impression that a MeFite is a bad person based on incorrect information that the favorites system has gotten out onto contact activity sidebars and the popular favorite page and rss feed.
These are two distinct problems.
posted by Kattullus at 7:45 PM on November 2, 2009
This thread is going to be a goldmine next time anyone starts complaining about the entitlement generation.
posted by aspo at 7:47 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by aspo at 7:47 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
"You know, I agree that all users are valid and important, but I actually completely disagree that all comments are equally informative and useful. This statement seems specifically targeted towards the type of "I agree" usage common to political threads or certain types of AskMe posts, where you and others are concerned that favorites might encourage groupthink or imply absolute truth."
You're disagreeing with something that I didn't write. Comments are not all of equal value. What gives them value is the ideas they express; not all ideas are equal nor are all expressions equal. What gives them value is not how many favorites they have.
posted by klangklangston at 7:48 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
You're disagreeing with something that I didn't write. Comments are not all of equal value. What gives them value is the ideas they express; not all ideas are equal nor are all expressions equal. What gives them value is not how many favorites they have.
posted by klangklangston at 7:48 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Okay, I tried to read the whole thread, but koeselitz is FAR too invested in Convincing Other People for the thread to be actually a useful barometer of the opinions about this matter. One of the BEST uses for people with strong opinions in MetaFilter, if you ask me, is to express your opinion once very well, and then let others talk about and around that opinion. It's a shame that I couldn't do what I was doing last week with threads which were being dominated by an individual and start scanning for highly-favorited comments to get an overview of what others are saying who aren't the dominant voice...
I know I'm new(ish) around here, at least as a member. I've been reading and lurking since a long time ago, probably 2003, 2004. And as a non-member, I didn't pay any attention to favorites at all.
As a member, I use favorites in all the ways people talk about -- to mark something to find later, to register agreement with the comment, to vote for a funny like that REALLY made me laugh, sometimes just to help people who skim the threads know that something might be worth stopping and reading. I don't think ANY of those uses are wrong or incorrect or dilute MetaFilter at ALL for anyone.
I wish there were a solution for Safari. Maybe I missed it in the noise and sturm and drang of the thread that I found completely unreadable because someone can't stand that people don't agree with him... I'll search for it later.
Oh, and once I do find a Safari fix, I will be implementing it, and at that point, any data gleaned from my actions about this should be discounted from the final data set. Take that as a vociferous NO vote for this change.
posted by hippybear at 7:49 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I know I'm new(ish) around here, at least as a member. I've been reading and lurking since a long time ago, probably 2003, 2004. And as a non-member, I didn't pay any attention to favorites at all.
As a member, I use favorites in all the ways people talk about -- to mark something to find later, to register agreement with the comment, to vote for a funny like that REALLY made me laugh, sometimes just to help people who skim the threads know that something might be worth stopping and reading. I don't think ANY of those uses are wrong or incorrect or dilute MetaFilter at ALL for anyone.
I wish there were a solution for Safari. Maybe I missed it in the noise and sturm and drang of the thread that I found completely unreadable because someone can't stand that people don't agree with him... I'll search for it later.
Oh, and once I do find a Safari fix, I will be implementing it, and at that point, any data gleaned from my actions about this should be discounted from the final data set. Take that as a vociferous NO vote for this change.
posted by hippybear at 7:49 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I liked faved better than "has favorites." But I guess I'm in the minority?
posted by whimsicalnymph at 7:51 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by whimsicalnymph at 7:51 PM on November 2, 2009
OMG THE TSA TOOK HER BABY
posted by klangklangston at 7:51 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by klangklangston at 7:51 PM on November 2, 2009
Captain Cardanthian!: "The lack of visible favorite counts hasn't much changed the way I peruse monster threads:
<9>
"
Oh Captain, my captain! I do the same thing. Yay for the chaos crawlers!
posted by dejah420 at 7:54 PM on November 2, 2009
<9>
"
Oh Captain, my captain! I do the same thing. Yay for the chaos crawlers!
posted by dejah420 at 7:54 PM on November 2, 2009
Before today I would have said I liked the favorites system, but after reading a few comments from users who said they felt more valued when they got favorites, I changed my mind. I wish everyone felt liked valued members of the site regardless of whether they got favorites or not.
I had the opposite reaction. I don't like sites, like reddit, that value comments and users through voting systems. I've always thought that the metafilter wall of text aesthetic was great because it encouraged readers to read through most of the thread like a conversation and value each piece of text on it's own. If favorites are encouraging members to use the site in a different way, that is a bad thing to me. This thread has convinced me that this is true and that favorites should go.
posted by afu at 7:58 PM on November 2, 2009
I had the opposite reaction. I don't like sites, like reddit, that value comments and users through voting systems. I've always thought that the metafilter wall of text aesthetic was great because it encouraged readers to read through most of the thread like a conversation and value each piece of text on it's own. If favorites are encouraging members to use the site in a different way, that is a bad thing to me. This thread has convinced me that this is true and that favorites should go.
posted by afu at 7:58 PM on November 2, 2009
The more valid question of how homogeneous a thread looks when it's not being fucked with intentionally
Isn't every comment an attempt to communicate and inflence others intentionally? If there's a problem, mod it out. This is sort of an attempt, (I hate to say it), to abdicate the moderation that we pay for. I want you stopping people from fucking with a thread. And although I might be mad if I was ever found to have fucked with a thread, I'd be disappointed, but I have to acknowledge that I agreed to this system and the judgment of the mods.
But the idea that we need to protect people from other people saying that they like someone else's opinion better just makes no sense to me. Just give people the ability to completely disable favorites completely. They never have to see them, they never have to participate at all, and they never have to see what other people think of their or anyone else's comments (execpt that people are still going to make comments that sometimes they aren't going to like), is fine with me.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:58 PM on November 2, 2009
Isn't every comment an attempt to communicate and inflence others intentionally? If there's a problem, mod it out. This is sort of an attempt, (I hate to say it), to abdicate the moderation that we pay for. I want you stopping people from fucking with a thread. And although I might be mad if I was ever found to have fucked with a thread, I'd be disappointed, but I have to acknowledge that I agreed to this system and the judgment of the mods.
But the idea that we need to protect people from other people saying that they like someone else's opinion better just makes no sense to me. Just give people the ability to completely disable favorites completely. They never have to see them, they never have to participate at all, and they never have to see what other people think of their or anyone else's comments (execpt that people are still going to make comments that sometimes they aren't going to like), is fine with me.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:58 PM on November 2, 2009
For latecomers to the thread:
You can toggle comment number display on/off in your preferences now.
posted by julen at 8:02 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
You can toggle comment number display on/off in your preferences now.
posted by julen at 8:02 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
When I favorite something it sticks.
posted by humannaire at 8:03 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by humannaire at 8:03 PM on November 2, 2009
The whole argument about only "good" content receiving favorites is really strained.
posted by P.o.B. at 8:04 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by P.o.B. at 8:04 PM on November 2, 2009
rokusan: It was Cortex's offended rephrasing that included bad faith language and accusations. (Also, I'm not sure how to read it, but apparently I'm some sort of moron for not remembering five names and how to simul-search for all of them with Control-F in order to stitch together contradictory answers.) But as I mentioned earlier, Cortex was probably having a bad day over this, so I can understand the touchiness. Yours, I'm less sure about. Can you discuss the features and benefits without attacking the people?
Okay, I have to confess that, this being a huge thread, I'd missed the rokusan-cortex-klangklangston strain of it until this bit caught my eye. However, now that I've gone back and caught up on it, I just wanted to say:
Wow.
I set aside the argument about favorites for the moment, because really in the grand scheme of things favorites don't really matter all that much and if we went back to a default-favorite-count system this very moment it wouldn't bother me remotely as much as this does:
I know I'm the last person who has a bunch of leeway to call people out for off-the-cuff remarks, but I have to say, rokusan, that in particular this comment of yours was one of the rudest, most hurtful mod-directed comments I've ever read here in Metatalk – maybe the cruelest. I mean that in all seriousness.
And it's a sign of the insane amount of patience, restraint, decency, respect, and overall quality of character that cortex, jessamyn, mathowie, pb, and vacapinta carry that their general response to this cruelty – which I notice has not only continued but even increased over the next few comments of yours – has been to step back and allow the conversation to continue without (as I'm sure they see it) wallowing into the thick of it defend themselves. And finally cortex even admitted, I think as a pacifying gesture to you, that he was a bit frazzled, and apologized generally if he'd been haughty, as though that were even remotely the case. I understand why he did that – because he is tired, and because his instinct now is to cede to you at his own expense in the interest of allowing the conversation to continue. In short, because he's damned good at his job, and when faced with a crude jag at his expense he tends to set aside his pride and let it be. All five of them are damned good at their jobs.
Seriously, just please go back and look at that comment you made:
rokusan: Cortex, I did read the whole thread, and just now on your advice I re-read every comment you made. I'm afraid I don't know the names of all the mods offhand so that's not a great suggestion (red user names, please).
Really, reread this bit a few times, and notice that you're saying (a) that the site is designed badly ("red user names, please") and (b) that he gave you a crap suggestion. It didn't occur to you – still doesn't seem to occur to you – that, quite apart from some sort of social status game, it might just be the polite thing to do to discover the names of the developers of a site before you spend a dozen comments talking about how inept they are.
And then you went on; in particular the part where you caricature cortex as "backing away due to a mix of corporate embarrassment at the disaster and some kind of self-preservation instinct" is as biting and mean-spirited a characterization as they come. It's wrong because that's the last thing cortex has done; the reality is worlds away. cortex has actually backed away out of a sense of corporate responsibility, out of a sense of duty to the site, and because he's a better goddamned man than I am when it comes to this stuff and is willing to sacrifice his own pride and sense of achievement in the interest of furthering discussion. And it's mean-spirited because it actively takes advantage of cortex & co's sense of responsibility by throwing rocks at them knowing full well that they're too decent to throw rocks back. You've said things like: "I don't think you're out to deliberately break MetaFilter, here, that's just how these things work." Is it really so difficult to see what a colossal jerk you're being when you say things like that? You've said, in essence: I don't think you're intelligent enough to be truly evil, so I'm sure that you're just a bumbling idiot. And what's more, you've either come close to saying this or heavily implied it in at least half a dozen comments before and since then, saying for example that this is a "head-slappingly bad idea" that's "so flawed that I'm shocked the idea even got this far."
And then you have the gall to act as though you're merely asking whether they really thought about this before they did it – as if "did you actually think about this decision before you made it?" itself isn't an insulting question coming from someone like you who, for almost three years, has full well experienced the care, professionalism, and person investment those mods have each put into this site. Yes, friend, of course they thought about it – don't we all know that they considered it, debated it for weeks on end, formed opinions based on thousands upon thousands of threads, had lively debates, and generally discussed this as much as they could amongst each other? We're aware that they're in constant contact, and you clearly know that; so why are you hurling barbed questions like that at them? Even if they had made a mistake – it's only human – our response ought to be a discussion about solutions, not petty attacks and outrageous allegations of incompetence like this.
Sorry, but I feel pretty strongly about this. I like this site, and there are five people who've been responsible for making it fantastic and preserving its incredibly quality for years now. And I can't stand your constant implications that they're apparently some sort of buffoons. Please leave those generalizations behind and move on; cortex & co have done nothing wrong here.
posted by koeselitz at 8:07 PM on November 2, 2009 [19 favorites]
Okay, I have to confess that, this being a huge thread, I'd missed the rokusan-cortex-klangklangston strain of it until this bit caught my eye. However, now that I've gone back and caught up on it, I just wanted to say:
Wow.
I set aside the argument about favorites for the moment, because really in the grand scheme of things favorites don't really matter all that much and if we went back to a default-favorite-count system this very moment it wouldn't bother me remotely as much as this does:
I know I'm the last person who has a bunch of leeway to call people out for off-the-cuff remarks, but I have to say, rokusan, that in particular this comment of yours was one of the rudest, most hurtful mod-directed comments I've ever read here in Metatalk – maybe the cruelest. I mean that in all seriousness.
And it's a sign of the insane amount of patience, restraint, decency, respect, and overall quality of character that cortex, jessamyn, mathowie, pb, and vacapinta carry that their general response to this cruelty – which I notice has not only continued but even increased over the next few comments of yours – has been to step back and allow the conversation to continue without (as I'm sure they see it) wallowing into the thick of it defend themselves. And finally cortex even admitted, I think as a pacifying gesture to you, that he was a bit frazzled, and apologized generally if he'd been haughty, as though that were even remotely the case. I understand why he did that – because he is tired, and because his instinct now is to cede to you at his own expense in the interest of allowing the conversation to continue. In short, because he's damned good at his job, and when faced with a crude jag at his expense he tends to set aside his pride and let it be. All five of them are damned good at their jobs.
Seriously, just please go back and look at that comment you made:
rokusan: Cortex, I did read the whole thread, and just now on your advice I re-read every comment you made. I'm afraid I don't know the names of all the mods offhand so that's not a great suggestion (red user names, please).
Really, reread this bit a few times, and notice that you're saying (a) that the site is designed badly ("red user names, please") and (b) that he gave you a crap suggestion. It didn't occur to you – still doesn't seem to occur to you – that, quite apart from some sort of social status game, it might just be the polite thing to do to discover the names of the developers of a site before you spend a dozen comments talking about how inept they are.
And then you went on; in particular the part where you caricature cortex as "backing away due to a mix of corporate embarrassment at the disaster and some kind of self-preservation instinct" is as biting and mean-spirited a characterization as they come. It's wrong because that's the last thing cortex has done; the reality is worlds away. cortex has actually backed away out of a sense of corporate responsibility, out of a sense of duty to the site, and because he's a better goddamned man than I am when it comes to this stuff and is willing to sacrifice his own pride and sense of achievement in the interest of furthering discussion. And it's mean-spirited because it actively takes advantage of cortex & co's sense of responsibility by throwing rocks at them knowing full well that they're too decent to throw rocks back. You've said things like: "I don't think you're out to deliberately break MetaFilter, here, that's just how these things work." Is it really so difficult to see what a colossal jerk you're being when you say things like that? You've said, in essence: I don't think you're intelligent enough to be truly evil, so I'm sure that you're just a bumbling idiot. And what's more, you've either come close to saying this or heavily implied it in at least half a dozen comments before and since then, saying for example that this is a "head-slappingly bad idea" that's "so flawed that I'm shocked the idea even got this far."
And then you have the gall to act as though you're merely asking whether they really thought about this before they did it – as if "did you actually think about this decision before you made it?" itself isn't an insulting question coming from someone like you who, for almost three years, has full well experienced the care, professionalism, and person investment those mods have each put into this site. Yes, friend, of course they thought about it – don't we all know that they considered it, debated it for weeks on end, formed opinions based on thousands upon thousands of threads, had lively debates, and generally discussed this as much as they could amongst each other? We're aware that they're in constant contact, and you clearly know that; so why are you hurling barbed questions like that at them? Even if they had made a mistake – it's only human – our response ought to be a discussion about solutions, not petty attacks and outrageous allegations of incompetence like this.
Sorry, but I feel pretty strongly about this. I like this site, and there are five people who've been responsible for making it fantastic and preserving its incredibly quality for years now. And I can't stand your constant implications that they're apparently some sort of buffoons. Please leave those generalizations behind and move on; cortex & co have done nothing wrong here.
posted by koeselitz at 8:07 PM on November 2, 2009 [19 favorites]
humannaire: When I favorite something it sticks.
I don't know about favorites, but with spaghetti that means dinner's ready.
posted by koeselitz at 8:12 PM on November 2, 2009
I don't know about favorites, but with spaghetti that means dinner's ready.
posted by koeselitz at 8:12 PM on November 2, 2009
If I could, I'd give jessamyn, cortex, mathowie vacapinta and pb, a big hug to let them know the overwhelming majority of us respect, admire and care about them in ways that don't often come across. Lord know, this thing ain't worth getting as worked about as some people are. The mods, who no doubt love this site immensely, are trying to make it better, respond to our demands and do a great job. Could they have done better? I am not qualified judge as I have never been in their shoes. Nor have most of us. So, let's chill out, give each other a hug, and as jessamyn said up-thread, do something nice for someone.
posted by vac2003 at 8:16 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by vac2003 at 8:16 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
You know what? I misread you and apologize. I don't think the distincction was as clear as you intented, but it's silly to try to force you to defend something you didn't intend.
Thanks, klangklang, and you're right: after 1600 comments that I assume everyone has read, I thought it was clear I wasn't slagging content, just its presentation/contextualization... but it was a lot to expect anyone to keep all the clattering voices straight in a thread this convoluted, and I should have taken more care to be clear.
posted by rokusan at 8:16 PM on November 2, 2009
Thanks, klangklang, and you're right: after 1600 comments that I assume everyone has read, I thought it was clear I wasn't slagging content, just its presentation/contextualization... but it was a lot to expect anyone to keep all the clattering voices straight in a thread this convoluted, and I should have taken more care to be clear.
posted by rokusan at 8:16 PM on November 2, 2009
rokusan: ... I thought it was clear I wasn't slagging content, just its presentation/contextualization...
Given that us users are generally responsible for content here, and the mods are responsible for the 'presentation/contextualization,' this reads pretty clearly as: "I wasn't slagging the users, just the mods."
posted by koeselitz at 8:23 PM on November 2, 2009
Given that us users are generally responsible for content here, and the mods are responsible for the 'presentation/contextualization,' this reads pretty clearly as: "I wasn't slagging the users, just the mods."
posted by koeselitz at 8:23 PM on November 2, 2009
I've always thought that the metafilter wall of text aesthetic was great because it encouraged readers to read through most of the thread like a conversation and value each piece of text on it's own. If favorites are encouraging members to use the site in a different way, that is a bad thing to me.
I guess I see this and I wonder why one person's way of interacting with the site is better. The site is fine when everyone gets to use it like they want to. If some people don't want to see favoriting, then let them shut it off entirely. Those who do, can.
Having said that, I also see a lot about people complaining about how the site has changed. Of course it has. I don't see how a dynamic community of tens of thousands, spread on every continent of the Earth is going to always stay in a steady state.
I also think that the case that favorites have anything to do with it hasn't been proven. It is easy to think the reason for any change is the most superficially obvious thing on the site. I don't think that case has been made because I'd bet we don't agree with what is good or bad.
I'd suggest, however, that the issue isn't the favorites, but the sheer numbers of people. Close registrations again. That would send us back to where we were years ago.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:23 PM on November 2, 2009
I guess I see this and I wonder why one person's way of interacting with the site is better. The site is fine when everyone gets to use it like they want to. If some people don't want to see favoriting, then let them shut it off entirely. Those who do, can.
Having said that, I also see a lot about people complaining about how the site has changed. Of course it has. I don't see how a dynamic community of tens of thousands, spread on every continent of the Earth is going to always stay in a steady state.
I also think that the case that favorites have anything to do with it hasn't been proven. It is easy to think the reason for any change is the most superficially obvious thing on the site. I don't think that case has been made because I'd bet we don't agree with what is good or bad.
I'd suggest, however, that the issue isn't the favorites, but the sheer numbers of people. Close registrations again. That would send us back to where we were years ago.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:23 PM on November 2, 2009
If everything is going to go back to the way it was on December 1st, what good is the experiment? It's an experiment whose conclusion is already decided, so why bother?
What good it is: we can give those mefites who don't choose not to participate a chance to get a feel for how the temporary change affects their perception of the effect of favorite counts on their personal site interactions; we can potentially get some rough quantitative information about how, if at all, such a change affects emergent/systemic activity on the site; and we can have the grounds for hopefully some really good post-experiment discussion about what people see as being useful about the system as it exists under normal circumstances.
There's not really a foregone conclusion so much as no real expectation specifically that something specific will need to change in the long run. It could be that there's some significant feeling in the community that something is worth tweaking or looking at differently, but we're not expecting it per se and we won't really know unless it gets there.
> The more valid question of how homogeneous a thread looks when it's not being fucked with intentionally
Isn't every comment an attempt to communicate and inflence others intentionally?
Sure, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the distinction between typical patterns of site behavior and outlier griefing behavior. Both calm conversation and blasting hardcore music are also attempts to communicate and influence others intentionally, but I wouldn't equate the two as discursive modes.
My comment was that looking at exceptional, intentionally abnormally disruptive behavior isn't as useful as looking at baseline normal behavior if the question is "how does this work in practice" (as opposed to "how does this work when people are intentionally trying to break it").
If there's a problem, mod it out. This is sort of an attempt, (I hate to say it), to abdicate the moderation that we pay for. I want you stopping people from fucking with a thread.
I don't really know what you're getting at here. Can you elaborate? This certainly isn't some scheme to weasel out of mod work, but I don't know that that's what you meant and I'm not sure what the actual thrust of that's supposed to be.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:23 PM on November 2, 2009
What good it is: we can give those mefites who don't choose not to participate a chance to get a feel for how the temporary change affects their perception of the effect of favorite counts on their personal site interactions; we can potentially get some rough quantitative information about how, if at all, such a change affects emergent/systemic activity on the site; and we can have the grounds for hopefully some really good post-experiment discussion about what people see as being useful about the system as it exists under normal circumstances.
There's not really a foregone conclusion so much as no real expectation specifically that something specific will need to change in the long run. It could be that there's some significant feeling in the community that something is worth tweaking or looking at differently, but we're not expecting it per se and we won't really know unless it gets there.
> The more valid question of how homogeneous a thread looks when it's not being fucked with intentionally
Isn't every comment an attempt to communicate and inflence others intentionally?
Sure, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the distinction between typical patterns of site behavior and outlier griefing behavior. Both calm conversation and blasting hardcore music are also attempts to communicate and influence others intentionally, but I wouldn't equate the two as discursive modes.
My comment was that looking at exceptional, intentionally abnormally disruptive behavior isn't as useful as looking at baseline normal behavior if the question is "how does this work in practice" (as opposed to "how does this work when people are intentionally trying to break it").
If there's a problem, mod it out. This is sort of an attempt, (I hate to say it), to abdicate the moderation that we pay for. I want you stopping people from fucking with a thread.
I don't really know what you're getting at here. Can you elaborate? This certainly isn't some scheme to weasel out of mod work, but I don't know that that's what you meant and I'm not sure what the actual thrust of that's supposed to be.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:23 PM on November 2, 2009
this is a really really long thread.
posted by Sassyfras at 8:28 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by Sassyfras at 8:28 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
One nice compromise that could fix some of the damage this does to usability while still reducing the visual impact of numbers of favorites: provide the number of favorites as a tooltip on mouseover of 'has favorites.'
If this had been in place at the outset I'm guessing it would probably have reduced the number of gripes by at least a factor of 2.
posted by mullingitover at 8:29 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
If this had been in place at the outset I'm guessing it would probably have reduced the number of gripes by at least a factor of 2.
posted by mullingitover at 8:29 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
koeselitz, I did reread on your suggestion. Sure, I can see how Cortex was offended, if I choose to read it that way, but it's also quite possible to read it the way I intended: charged with nothing nastier than a little frustration at what a bungly mess the disabling of an important (to some) feature has become (or was bound to become). I expect Cortex to have pretty thick skin, and only made the "red names" remark, for example, after being told to scan back for any comments by "any of the mods", which isn't a very easy thing to do.
I already clarified later, but you didn't quote those comments, so I'll say it again: I'm sure Cortex, Jessamyn et al had nothing but the best in mind when they did this, and any harm to MeFi is accidental of course, but Cortex's responses (at least) certainly read as a mix of contradictory and/or backpedaling to me, on things like why the "faves" word choice (to save width? get serious), what happens in December and why, what is being measured in this test and how, and so on... but, again, I also think that the defensiveness or snittiness he showed back is understandable given the overall, overwhelming and early responses to the "experiment" here.
I'd be defensive if I had what I thought was a great new idea and it was shelled with 1600 pieces of artillery immediately upon rollout, too.
In fact, I was defensive when insulted 'back': Rereading the thread while looking for the handles of the five mods is awkward, to say the least, unless you know how to use Firefox to find five logical ORs. I don't. So I was responding, defensively in my own turn, for what sounded a lot like a lecture at how-could-I-be-so-stupid myself. You may read it otherwise, especially if you set out to do so.
I don't know the moderators, so I can only judge them by their words and actions. And on that, I'm still where I started on this particular one: this all seems well-intentioned but way off the mark in terms of what users want or need, and likely harmful to the site long-term. I'm saying that and defending that, nothing more.
That's what fueled every response I made on it. The mods can take abuse, I am sure, or they would have other jobs by now. I didn't give 'abuse', or didn't intend to, and I suspect they know that and don't need the callout and defense from others. That is, if Cortex or Jessamyn or whoever is angry with me, they have no shortage of ways to let me know!
(Apologies if this comment is posted twice: I'm having a hard time clicking "Post Comment" with this dancing animated banhammer graphic that seems to have appeared all over my MeFi screens.)
posted by rokusan at 8:32 PM on November 2, 2009
I already clarified later, but you didn't quote those comments, so I'll say it again: I'm sure Cortex, Jessamyn et al had nothing but the best in mind when they did this, and any harm to MeFi is accidental of course, but Cortex's responses (at least) certainly read as a mix of contradictory and/or backpedaling to me, on things like why the "faves" word choice (to save width? get serious), what happens in December and why, what is being measured in this test and how, and so on... but, again, I also think that the defensiveness or snittiness he showed back is understandable given the overall, overwhelming and early responses to the "experiment" here.
I'd be defensive if I had what I thought was a great new idea and it was shelled with 1600 pieces of artillery immediately upon rollout, too.
In fact, I was defensive when insulted 'back': Rereading the thread while looking for the handles of the five mods is awkward, to say the least, unless you know how to use Firefox to find five logical ORs. I don't. So I was responding, defensively in my own turn, for what sounded a lot like a lecture at how-could-I-be-so-stupid myself. You may read it otherwise, especially if you set out to do so.
I don't know the moderators, so I can only judge them by their words and actions. And on that, I'm still where I started on this particular one: this all seems well-intentioned but way off the mark in terms of what users want or need, and likely harmful to the site long-term. I'm saying that and defending that, nothing more.
That's what fueled every response I made on it. The mods can take abuse, I am sure, or they would have other jobs by now. I didn't give 'abuse', or didn't intend to, and I suspect they know that and don't need the callout and defense from others. That is, if Cortex or Jessamyn or whoever is angry with me, they have no shortage of ways to let me know!
(Apologies if this comment is posted twice: I'm having a hard time clicking "Post Comment" with this dancing animated banhammer graphic that seems to have appeared all over my MeFi screens.)
posted by rokusan at 8:32 PM on November 2, 2009
And it's a sign of the insane amount of patience, restraint, decency, respect, and overall quality of character that cortex, jessamyn, mathowie, pb, and vacapinta carry that their general response to this cruelty – which I notice has not only continued but even increased over the next few comments of yours – has been to step back and allow the conversation to continue without (as I'm sure they see it) wallowing into the thick of it defend themselves.
I would like to second this. Well-said, koeselitz.
Somewhere upthread, I said something (I intended it jokingly, but I am afraid it didn't come off that way) to the effect of, "I want Metafilter back the way I like it, and I want it now." That sounded pretty rude, but within minutes I got a very nice MeFi-Mail message from pb offering a way for me to fix the problem.
Now that was classy. I made an off-the-cuff, rude-as-hell sounding demand to have my Metafilter exactly how I want it, and pb writes me a polite message helping me out.
Koeselitz is right. The moderators have been the epitome of class in this situation.
posted by jayder at 8:38 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I would like to second this. Well-said, koeselitz.
Somewhere upthread, I said something (I intended it jokingly, but I am afraid it didn't come off that way) to the effect of, "I want Metafilter back the way I like it, and I want it now." That sounded pretty rude, but within minutes I got a very nice MeFi-Mail message from pb offering a way for me to fix the problem.
Now that was classy. I made an off-the-cuff, rude-as-hell sounding demand to have my Metafilter exactly how I want it, and pb writes me a polite message helping me out.
Koeselitz is right. The moderators have been the epitome of class in this situation.
posted by jayder at 8:38 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Has anyone made this argument?
The whole argument about "bad" content rarely receiving favorites is really strained.
Does that help?
posted by P.o.B. at 8:38 PM on November 2, 2009
The whole argument about "bad" content rarely receiving favorites is really strained.
Does that help?
posted by P.o.B. at 8:38 PM on November 2, 2009
Ugh, it's late. I'd say something about the thought of closing registrations and how it's a really a metaphor and some-such but...
[INSERT LOU DOBS IMPRESSION HERE]
posted by mccarty.tim at 8:38 PM on November 2, 2009
[INSERT LOU DOBS IMPRESSION HERE]
posted by mccarty.tim at 8:38 PM on November 2, 2009
rokusan: it was shelled with 1600 pieces of artillery immediately upon rollout, too.
Your problem in a nutshell: you apparently read this thread with the conviction that every one of the 1600+ comment supports your position and attacks the mods, which is pretty far from the case. Yes, the loudest and most obnoxious voices have attacked the mods and no doubt you have favourited every one of those. But to characterize the the thread that way is simply disingenuous and downright bad faith. I'm with Koeselitz here: you were a dick and should just change your preferences to whatever you wantm, STFU, and go enjoy the rest of the site.
posted by Rumple at 8:38 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Your problem in a nutshell: you apparently read this thread with the conviction that every one of the 1600+ comment supports your position and attacks the mods, which is pretty far from the case. Yes, the loudest and most obnoxious voices have attacked the mods and no doubt you have favourited every one of those. But to characterize the the thread that way is simply disingenuous and downright bad faith. I'm with Koeselitz here: you were a dick and should just change your preferences to whatever you wantm, STFU, and go enjoy the rest of the site.
posted by Rumple at 8:38 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
I know I spent over an hour reading this thread alone.
You're kidding, NoraCharles, I started reading this monster yesterday (Nov. 1) afternoon! Every time I thought I was close to finishing, I would hit refresh and discover I was 12 hours behind. It has been a long, somewhat depressing experience, requiring lots of breaks.
I think it would quickly become unusable, and the perceived signal to noise rate would drop tremendously, probably to the point of unusability. Good info would just be too deeply buried and invisible.
What I have gleaned from the the strong pro-favorite crowd is unless your comment gets 5 or more favorites, it is basically just noise. That sums up about 95% of my contributions. Hell, I'm being too generous to myself, it is probably more like 98%. Essentially I've been wasting your time and my time. I have always valued MetaFilter as a great place to exchange information, ideas, opinions, and humor. Now I am wondering if maybe people would prefer that only...say...the top 100 commenters (ranked by favorites) would be allowed to comment?
I was on a one year sabbatical from MetaFilter when favorites were implemented and when I returned I found them jarring. They have turned the site into a popularity contest, but judging by the outrage voiced today, I am convinced they are with us for the duration.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:39 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
You're kidding, NoraCharles, I started reading this monster yesterday (Nov. 1) afternoon! Every time I thought I was close to finishing, I would hit refresh and discover I was 12 hours behind. It has been a long, somewhat depressing experience, requiring lots of breaks.
I think it would quickly become unusable, and the perceived signal to noise rate would drop tremendously, probably to the point of unusability. Good info would just be too deeply buried and invisible.
What I have gleaned from the the strong pro-favorite crowd is unless your comment gets 5 or more favorites, it is basically just noise. That sums up about 95% of my contributions. Hell, I'm being too generous to myself, it is probably more like 98%. Essentially I've been wasting your time and my time. I have always valued MetaFilter as a great place to exchange information, ideas, opinions, and humor. Now I am wondering if maybe people would prefer that only...say...the top 100 commenters (ranked by favorites) would be allowed to comment?
I was on a one year sabbatical from MetaFilter when favorites were implemented and when I returned I found them jarring. They have turned the site into a popularity contest, but judging by the outrage voiced today, I am convinced they are with us for the duration.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:39 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
"Has favorites" looks broken, to me. It seems to me that if I mark a comment as a favorite, then "a favorite" is something the comment is, not something it has.
What are the chances of "has bookmarks"?
posted by flabdablet at 8:39 PM on November 2, 2009
What are the chances of "has bookmarks"?
posted by flabdablet at 8:39 PM on November 2, 2009
"The whole argument about only "good" content receiving favorites is really strained."
Has anyone made this argument?
With slight modification, yes.
desjardins - "Usually, comments with lots of favorites actually ARE worth reading, because they're funny, informative, or otherwise interesting."
Rhaomi - "Even without knowing what it says, you know it's going to be worth reading. Any comment that could get 65 different people to click that [+] is going to be notable in some way, regardless of the favoriters' individual reasons for doing so."
idiopath - "read a comment I had skipped or only skimmed (often a big tl;dr wall of text) because it had a buttload of favorites, and I am rarely disappointed by what I find"
posted by BigSky at 8:40 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Has anyone made this argument?
With slight modification, yes.
desjardins - "Usually, comments with lots of favorites actually ARE worth reading, because they're funny, informative, or otherwise interesting."
Rhaomi - "Even without knowing what it says, you know it's going to be worth reading. Any comment that could get 65 different people to click that [+] is going to be notable in some way, regardless of the favoriters' individual reasons for doing so."
idiopath - "read a comment I had skipped or only skimmed (often a big tl;dr wall of text) because it had a buttload of favorites, and I am rarely disappointed by what I find"
posted by BigSky at 8:40 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: a stupid mob that needs to be shouted down.
posted by stinkycheese at 8:43 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by stinkycheese at 8:43 PM on November 2, 2009
What are the chances of "has bookmarks"?
Zero. The chances are exactly zero.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:43 PM on November 2, 2009 [8 favorites]
Zero. The chances are exactly zero.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:43 PM on November 2, 2009 [8 favorites]
If everything is going to go back to the way it was on December 1st, what good is the experiment? It's an experiment whose conclusion is already decided, so why bother?
I like the notion that something positive might come of this that nobody can predict. That is, sure we'll get back to HAS-FAVES being ON as a default and, as such, Fave-whoring (if indeed it exists) can again have its way with things ... but who knows what weird ideas/permutations may occur to us as we explore Metafilter and its many exotic locales in ways we never really have before ...?
Who knows? Perhaps we'll even stumble upon a cure for Conservatism, or at least a vaccine.
posted by philip-random at 8:48 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I like the notion that something positive might come of this that nobody can predict. That is, sure we'll get back to HAS-FAVES being ON as a default and, as such, Fave-whoring (if indeed it exists) can again have its way with things ... but who knows what weird ideas/permutations may occur to us as we explore Metafilter and its many exotic locales in ways we never really have before ...?
Who knows? Perhaps we'll even stumble upon a cure for Conservatism, or at least a vaccine.
posted by philip-random at 8:48 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
BigSky - come now, none of those statements you've copy-pasted say that "only good content gets a lot of favorites" - Each of those sentences is qualified in some way, and instead says "good content tends to get a lot of favorites" and, on the whole, that tends to be true. So, the "slight modification" you're referring to would seem to be a pretty significant alteration.
posted by EatTheWeek at 8:48 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by EatTheWeek at 8:48 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
But if it only has one favorite, it doesn't really have favorites, right?
posted by klangklangston at 8:49 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 8:49 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
But if it only has one favorite, it doesn't really have favorites, right?
Do not make me diagram out the elliptical, buddy.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:51 PM on November 2, 2009
Do not make me diagram out the elliptical, buddy.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:51 PM on November 2, 2009
Really ironic: today is the first time I've ever hit the favorite limit.
Yeah, me too. I had no idea that even existed.
(Someone can now be shocked, shocked that I didn't know this, etc.)
posted by rokusan at 8:52 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, me too. I had no idea that even existed.
(Someone can now be shocked, shocked that I didn't know this, etc.)
posted by rokusan at 8:52 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Is there any data on favorites, such as a correlation between giving and getting? 80-20 rule? Contacts and receiving favorites? Just curious.
posted by Brian B. at 8:53 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by Brian B. at 8:53 PM on November 2, 2009
This is sort of an attempt, (I hate to say it), to abdicate the moderation that we pay for. I want you stopping people from fucking with a thread.
We pay for stuff? What is it we pay for? Because I assumed my one-time $5 fee had been spent a long time ago on simple site upkeep or the like. Yeah, we contribute to the site and community in various ways, but isn't the payback for that the pleasure of being involved in an awesome site and community?
Anyway putting out fires is only part of a mod's job. There's a lot more stuff to do behind the scenes, building things as well as keeping them from falling apart. Sometimes I wish there was a feasible way for some people to be Mod for a Day just to see that it's not about sitting around and zapping the remarks of people you don't like. Not in successful communities, anyway.
Metafilter relies very heavily on the community to maintain peace and order. This test is not about suppressing anyone's opinion, or protecting users from each other; it's just see whether a display change has any positive effect on the tone of the site in a month's time. The better the tone, the fewer fires there are to put out, the more people can focus on community building instead of damage control. There are no complicated agendas here.
I don't know the moderators, so I can only judge them by their words and actions. And on that, I'm still where I started on this particular one: this all seems well-intentioned but way off the mark in terms of what users want or need, and likely harmful to the site long-term. I'm saying that and defending that, nothing more.
That's what fueled every response I made on it. The mods can take abuse, I am sure, or they would have other jobs by now. I didn't give 'abuse', or didn't intend to, and I suspect they know that and don't need the callout and defense from others. That is, if Cortex or Jessamyn or whoever is angry with me, they have no shortage of ways to let me know!
rokusan, I know this is not what you were going for, but you're really doing an admirable job of reminding me why modding was bad for my health.
posted by zennie at 8:54 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
We pay for stuff? What is it we pay for? Because I assumed my one-time $5 fee had been spent a long time ago on simple site upkeep or the like. Yeah, we contribute to the site and community in various ways, but isn't the payback for that the pleasure of being involved in an awesome site and community?
Anyway putting out fires is only part of a mod's job. There's a lot more stuff to do behind the scenes, building things as well as keeping them from falling apart. Sometimes I wish there was a feasible way for some people to be Mod for a Day just to see that it's not about sitting around and zapping the remarks of people you don't like. Not in successful communities, anyway.
Metafilter relies very heavily on the community to maintain peace and order. This test is not about suppressing anyone's opinion, or protecting users from each other; it's just see whether a display change has any positive effect on the tone of the site in a month's time. The better the tone, the fewer fires there are to put out, the more people can focus on community building instead of damage control. There are no complicated agendas here.
I don't know the moderators, so I can only judge them by their words and actions. And on that, I'm still where I started on this particular one: this all seems well-intentioned but way off the mark in terms of what users want or need, and likely harmful to the site long-term. I'm saying that and defending that, nothing more.
That's what fueled every response I made on it. The mods can take abuse, I am sure, or they would have other jobs by now. I didn't give 'abuse', or didn't intend to, and I suspect they know that and don't need the callout and defense from others. That is, if Cortex or Jessamyn or whoever is angry with me, they have no shortage of ways to let me know!
rokusan, I know this is not what you were going for, but you're really doing an admirable job of reminding me why modding was bad for my health.
posted by zennie at 8:54 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
Someone can now be shocked, shocked that I didn't know this, etc.
Dude, how about dropping this attitude?
posted by EatTheWeek at 8:55 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Dude, how about dropping this attitude?
posted by EatTheWeek at 8:55 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
desjardins - "Usually, comments with lots of favorites actually ARE worth reading, because they're funny, informative, or otherwise interesting."
Rhaomi - "Even without knowing what it says, you know it's going to be worth reading. Any comment that could get 65 different people to click that [+] is going to be notable in some way, regardless of the favoriters' individual reasons for doing so."
idiopath - "read a comment I had skipped or only skimmed (often a big tl;dr wall of text) because it had a buttload of favorites, and I am rarely disappointed by what I find"
*sigh*
Fine. You want to know what # favourites gets us? It gets us this and this.
I mean, it's open to interpretation. Maybe 171 individual people came along and read emperor.seamus' comment in the worst possible light, all on their own. I got his meaning, but I'm a well-known mind reader. (I was also reading the thread in order and not skimming by favourites, so I read ep's comment before I read the reaction to it) So either all these people came along and thought, yeah, you tell this douchebag, wanting this guy "to be at home with his parents or his girlfriend, far away from all the bullets" because a caring soul does not an effective soldier make, and nobody thought the comment had anything to do with thinking that, on the contrary, this is the best kind of behaviour human beings can exemplify on or off the battlefield (so he'd rather he was tucked away safe somewhere), and that had nothing to do with a snowball of favourites leading to the reaction being read before what was being reacted to, with an independent, unprejudiced mind. Maybe.
That's what tends to come to mind when I think of "the effect of favourites" now.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:57 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Rhaomi - "Even without knowing what it says, you know it's going to be worth reading. Any comment that could get 65 different people to click that [+] is going to be notable in some way, regardless of the favoriters' individual reasons for doing so."
idiopath - "read a comment I had skipped or only skimmed (often a big tl;dr wall of text) because it had a buttload of favorites, and I am rarely disappointed by what I find"
*sigh*
Fine. You want to know what # favourites gets us? It gets us this and this.
I mean, it's open to interpretation. Maybe 171 individual people came along and read emperor.seamus' comment in the worst possible light, all on their own. I got his meaning, but I'm a well-known mind reader. (I was also reading the thread in order and not skimming by favourites, so I read ep's comment before I read the reaction to it) So either all these people came along and thought, yeah, you tell this douchebag, wanting this guy "to be at home with his parents or his girlfriend, far away from all the bullets" because a caring soul does not an effective soldier make, and nobody thought the comment had anything to do with thinking that, on the contrary, this is the best kind of behaviour human beings can exemplify on or off the battlefield (so he'd rather he was tucked away safe somewhere), and that had nothing to do with a snowball of favourites leading to the reaction being read before what was being reacted to, with an independent, unprejudiced mind. Maybe.
That's what tends to come to mind when I think of "the effect of favourites" now.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:57 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
A couple of my friends and I were talking about the favorites system and comparing it to reddit's. One of my friends and I took the position that reddit's upvote system tends to encourage one-liners/meme replication and prioritizes flair over substantive communication. And favorite counts, a lot of times, serve the same function, if not as efficiently. (Thank god no one put downvoting in MeFi!)
So, after initially just turning the favorite counts back on in my knee-jerk "I hate change" response, I think I'll try participating in the experiment.
I found this greasemonkey script handy too. I find that "has favorites" or "faved" is actually worse for me than having a favorite count, because then I just go to see how many favorites a given comment has. I get distracted by the ambiguous link. I want to see what it's like not paying attention to favorites at *all*, and this script removes everything but the plus sign for marking my own favorites. Hopefully someone else will find it handy too.
posted by JDHarper at 8:57 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
So, after initially just turning the favorite counts back on in my knee-jerk "I hate change" response, I think I'll try participating in the experiment.
I found this greasemonkey script handy too. I find that "has favorites" or "faved" is actually worse for me than having a favorite count, because then I just go to see how many favorites a given comment has. I get distracted by the ambiguous link. I want to see what it's like not paying attention to favorites at *all*, and this script removes everything but the plus sign for marking my own favorites. Hopefully someone else will find it handy too.
posted by JDHarper at 8:57 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
"The whole argument about only "good" content receiving favorites is really strained."
I'd just like to point out that I once received 27 favorites (a hell of a lot for me) for the comment: "and he's fat".
No, I will not offer context.
posted by philip-random at 8:58 PM on November 2, 2009
I'd just like to point out that I once received 27 favorites (a hell of a lot for me) for the comment: "and he's fat".
No, I will not offer context.
posted by philip-random at 8:58 PM on November 2, 2009
Is there any data on favorites, such as a correlation between giving and getting? 80-20 rule? Contacts and receiving favorites? Just curious.
There's been a whole bunch of one-off analyses of mefi site data in the last few years, most of them powered by the Infodump which is available for crunching to anyone with such an inclination. I know there's been a number of favorites-related analyses among all those. I don't want to put in the time to pick through it all carefully right now, but I'm sure I'll be coming back to it as the month goes on.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:04 PM on November 2, 2009
There's been a whole bunch of one-off analyses of mefi site data in the last few years, most of them powered by the Infodump which is available for crunching to anyone with such an inclination. I know there's been a number of favorites-related analyses among all those. I don't want to put in the time to pick through it all carefully right now, but I'm sure I'll be coming back to it as the month goes on.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:04 PM on November 2, 2009
rokusan, I know this is not what you were going for, but you're really doing an admirable job of reminding me why modding was bad for my health.
he's making me reconsider my entire position, if for no other reason than to spite him. God, talk about not wanting to be a member of any club that will have me as a member.
posted by scody at 9:05 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
he's making me reconsider my entire position, if for no other reason than to spite him. God, talk about not wanting to be a member of any club that will have me as a member.
posted by scody at 9:05 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
That's what tends to come to mind when I think of "the effect of favourites" now.
You want to take a wild guess at how many favorites cortex received for banning sixcolors? More than 171, and as witty as he may be at times, I don't think it was for the wit.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:12 PM on November 2, 2009
You want to take a wild guess at how many favorites cortex received for banning sixcolors? More than 171, and as witty as he may be at times, I don't think it was for the wit.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:12 PM on November 2, 2009
Can we experiment with pagination next month? Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease?
posted by mullingitover at 9:13 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by mullingitover at 9:13 PM on November 2, 2009
At last we will reveal our favorites to the Jedi,
At last we will have our revenge.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:13 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
At last we will have our revenge.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:13 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
You want to take a wild guess at how many favorites cortex received for banning sixcolors?
Hmm... search yields a sky worth of fireworks, but I don't recognize any of it.
You want to cut me in on who sixcolors is and what it has to do with my little observation?
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:16 PM on November 2, 2009
Hmm... search yields a sky worth of fireworks, but I don't recognize any of it.
You want to cut me in on who sixcolors is and what it has to do with my little observation?
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:16 PM on November 2, 2009
rokusan: I already clarified later, but you didn't quote those comments, so I'll say it again: I'm sure Cortex, Jessamyn et al had nothing but the best in mind when they did this, and any harm to MeFi is accidental of course, but Cortex's responses (at least) certainly read as a mix of contradictory and/or backpedaling to me, on things like why the "faves" word choice (to save width? get serious), what happens in December and why, what is being measured in this test and how, and so on... but, again, I also think that the defensiveness or snittiness he showed back is understandable given the overall, overwhelming and early responses to the "experiment" here.
You're still doing it – you're still talking down about people – and I really don't want to spend hours sorting this out, so I'll say it short and sweet:
When people have been moderating a web site which they clearly care deeply about for years on end, and do so as a full-time job and long-term career, it's a given that they think pretty hard about what they're doing. So when you say, for example, that they "had nothing but the best in mind, and any harm to MeFi is accidental of course," the direct implication is: they either didn't think about this or they simply don't know how to do their jobs. You can protest that you didn't mean this as any kind of professional slight at all, but please remember that it was you who claimed to be an expert at UI shocked that they would make this decision; it's clear that the implication that they're bad at their jobs was conscious on your part. What's more, you're either (a) lying or (b) not really reading cortex's comments at all if you still think they show any hint of ambiguity, backpedaling, or contradiction; and your constant insistence that they do, couched though it may be in 'clarification' and palliative respect, demonstrates a disregard for his steadfast attempts to go out of his way to be helpful in this thread. Finally, you refer again in this last comment to "the defensiveness or snittiness he showed back;" you say this in the context of forgiving him for it, and I don't doubt you think that's quite appropriate. However, cortex doesn't need your forgiveness, as he never showed any defensiveness or snittiness in the first place; and while I'm trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, this damning-someone-by-way-of-forgiving-them thing seems so goddamned underhanded that I find it a bit difficult.
posted by koeselitz at 9:17 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
You're still doing it – you're still talking down about people – and I really don't want to spend hours sorting this out, so I'll say it short and sweet:
When people have been moderating a web site which they clearly care deeply about for years on end, and do so as a full-time job and long-term career, it's a given that they think pretty hard about what they're doing. So when you say, for example, that they "had nothing but the best in mind, and any harm to MeFi is accidental of course," the direct implication is: they either didn't think about this or they simply don't know how to do their jobs. You can protest that you didn't mean this as any kind of professional slight at all, but please remember that it was you who claimed to be an expert at UI shocked that they would make this decision; it's clear that the implication that they're bad at their jobs was conscious on your part. What's more, you're either (a) lying or (b) not really reading cortex's comments at all if you still think they show any hint of ambiguity, backpedaling, or contradiction; and your constant insistence that they do, couched though it may be in 'clarification' and palliative respect, demonstrates a disregard for his steadfast attempts to go out of his way to be helpful in this thread. Finally, you refer again in this last comment to "the defensiveness or snittiness he showed back;" you say this in the context of forgiving him for it, and I don't doubt you think that's quite appropriate. However, cortex doesn't need your forgiveness, as he never showed any defensiveness or snittiness in the first place; and while I'm trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, this damning-someone-by-way-of-forgiving-them thing seems so goddamned underhanded that I find it a bit difficult.
posted by koeselitz at 9:17 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
Someone can now be shocked, shocked that I didn't know this, etc.
Shocking - $9.90 and certainly not a favourite.
posted by tellurian at 9:17 PM on November 2, 2009
Shocking - $9.90 and certainly not a favourite.
posted by tellurian at 9:17 PM on November 2, 2009
Someone can now be shocked, shocked that I didn't know this, etc.
Dude, how about dropping this attitude?
Sorry, I thought I was done, but koeselitz dragging me out annoyed me a bit too much.
I meant well, sorry if anyone was offended. Please tell me so yourself, okay?
posted by rokusan at 9:18 PM on November 2, 2009
Dude, how about dropping this attitude?
Sorry, I thought I was done, but koeselitz dragging me out annoyed me a bit too much.
I meant well, sorry if anyone was offended. Please tell me so yourself, okay?
posted by rokusan at 9:18 PM on November 2, 2009
Oh, and:
rokusan: I expect Cortex to have pretty thick skin, and only made the "red names" remark, for example, after being told to scan back for any comments by "any of the mods", which isn't a very easy thing to do... I didn't give 'abuse', or didn't intend to, and I suspect they know that and don't need the callout and defense from others. That is, if Cortex or Jessamyn or whoever is angry with me, they have no shortage of ways to let me know!
I know you probably mean by this that you really hope you didn't cause the offense or hurt I'm saying you did, and I know you're not Hitler or anything: of course you wouldn't want to be outrightly cruel, especially to people you don't really know at all. But this is a good opportunity for me to say: yeah, the mods are thick-skinned. Yeah, they can take a real beating. So can my washing machine. That doesn't mean I'm gonna start mixing concrete in there, does it?
posted by koeselitz at 9:22 PM on November 2, 2009
rokusan: I expect Cortex to have pretty thick skin, and only made the "red names" remark, for example, after being told to scan back for any comments by "any of the mods", which isn't a very easy thing to do... I didn't give 'abuse', or didn't intend to, and I suspect they know that and don't need the callout and defense from others. That is, if Cortex or Jessamyn or whoever is angry with me, they have no shortage of ways to let me know!
I know you probably mean by this that you really hope you didn't cause the offense or hurt I'm saying you did, and I know you're not Hitler or anything: of course you wouldn't want to be outrightly cruel, especially to people you don't really know at all. But this is a good opportunity for me to say: yeah, the mods are thick-skinned. Yeah, they can take a real beating. So can my washing machine. That doesn't mean I'm gonna start mixing concrete in there, does it?
posted by koeselitz at 9:22 PM on November 2, 2009
Fine. You want to know what # favourites gets us? It gets us this and this.
I mean, it's open to interpretation. Maybe 171 individual people came along and read emperor.seamus' comment in the worst possible light, all on their own. I got his meaning, but I'm a well-known mind reader. (I was also reading the thread in order and not skimming by favourites, so I read ep's comment before I read the reaction to it) So either all these people came along and thought, yeah, you tell this douchebag, wanting this guy "to be at home with his parents or his girlfriend, far away from all the bullets" because a caring soul does not an effective soldier make, and nobody thought the comment had anything to do with thinking that, on the contrary, this is the best kind of behaviour human beings can exemplify on or off the battlefield (so he'd rather he was tucked away safe somewhere), and that had nothing to do with a snowball of favourites leading to the reaction being read before what was being reacted to, with an independent, unprejudiced mind. Maybe.
That's what tends to come to mind when I think of "the effect of favourites" now.
Wow. Excellent find. What a damning example.
-----
@EatTheWeak
I don't think I've misrepresented anything. First, Rhaomi's statement needs very little modification if any, to match. But even setting that one aside, I took lalex's question as concerning whether or not other MeFites had used favorites as a mark of quality, and all of those statements see favorites as a fairly reliable indicator of quality. If lalex only meant the extreme case then yes, two of those comments do take a more moderate stance.
posted by BigSky at 9:23 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I mean, it's open to interpretation. Maybe 171 individual people came along and read emperor.seamus' comment in the worst possible light, all on their own. I got his meaning, but I'm a well-known mind reader. (I was also reading the thread in order and not skimming by favourites, so I read ep's comment before I read the reaction to it) So either all these people came along and thought, yeah, you tell this douchebag, wanting this guy "to be at home with his parents or his girlfriend, far away from all the bullets" because a caring soul does not an effective soldier make, and nobody thought the comment had anything to do with thinking that, on the contrary, this is the best kind of behaviour human beings can exemplify on or off the battlefield (so he'd rather he was tucked away safe somewhere), and that had nothing to do with a snowball of favourites leading to the reaction being read before what was being reacted to, with an independent, unprejudiced mind. Maybe.
That's what tends to come to mind when I think of "the effect of favourites" now.
Wow. Excellent find. What a damning example.
-----
@EatTheWeak
I don't think I've misrepresented anything. First, Rhaomi's statement needs very little modification if any, to match. But even setting that one aside, I took lalex's question as concerning whether or not other MeFites had used favorites as a mark of quality, and all of those statements see favorites as a fairly reliable indicator of quality. If lalex only meant the extreme case then yes, two of those comments do take a more moderate stance.
posted by BigSky at 9:23 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
rokusan: I meant well, sorry if anyone was offended. Please tell me so yourself, okay?
Fair enough. That's all I can ask for, anyway. I'll drop it now.
posted by koeselitz at 9:24 PM on November 2, 2009
Fair enough. That's all I can ask for, anyway. I'll drop it now.
posted by koeselitz at 9:24 PM on November 2, 2009
When people have been moderating a web site which they clearly care deeply about for years on end, and do so as a full-time job and long-term career, it's a given that they think pretty hard about what they're doing. So when you say, for example, that they "had nothing but the best in mind, and any harm to MeFi is accidental of course," the direct implication is: they either didn't think about this or they simply don't know how to do their jobs.
Not the implication I intended.
The implication I intended was that even capable, well-intentioned people can make bad decisions (and here's what I mean by that, and here's why), not unlike what I'm doing by responding to this tangent of a tangent, which isn't helping anything.
Mods are fine. Favorite counts are useful. Hiding information is bad. Criticism of something the mods decided or the way it was implemented should not be construed as a cruel attack on the mods themselves. Void where prohibited by law.
I'll guess go get drunk with ArtW now for awhile since all I'm doing is pissing people off.
I meant well. Bad implementation.
posted by rokusan at 9:24 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Not the implication I intended.
The implication I intended was that even capable, well-intentioned people can make bad decisions (and here's what I mean by that, and here's why), not unlike what I'm doing by responding to this tangent of a tangent, which isn't helping anything.
Mods are fine. Favorite counts are useful. Hiding information is bad. Criticism of something the mods decided or the way it was implemented should not be construed as a cruel attack on the mods themselves. Void where prohibited by law.
I'll guess go get drunk with ArtW now for awhile since all I'm doing is pissing people off.
I meant well. Bad implementation.
posted by rokusan at 9:24 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
What a damning example.
Sarcasm? *shrug* Whatever, dude. I noted it at the time, because it seemed that the derail that followed was all about the consequences of aggressive misreading in a system that rewards loudness and bluster (which is pretty much everywhere, but generally not in a visible way).
Also, has this thread morphed into some kind of bash-the-mods fest? Not cool.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:27 PM on November 2, 2009
Sarcasm? *shrug* Whatever, dude. I noted it at the time, because it seemed that the derail that followed was all about the consequences of aggressive misreading in a system that rewards loudness and bluster (which is pretty much everywhere, but generally not in a visible way).
Also, has this thread morphed into some kind of bash-the-mods fest? Not cool.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:27 PM on November 2, 2009
Okay, not that anyone cares at this point - but I had switched off the experiment and I've now put it back on to give it a fair chance, though I am still skeptical of many of the arguments presented by the anti-favorites users.
The change to "has favorites" makes the whole thing more appealing to use, as does the option for an official opt-out. So thanks for that, Jess + cortex + pb + matt + the whole funtime gang (not clear on who is responsible for what.) I think this whole thing was a little misconceived but level-headiness you've all demonstrated in this thread is inspiring, as always.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:27 PM on November 2, 2009
The change to "has favorites" makes the whole thing more appealing to use, as does the option for an official opt-out. So thanks for that, Jess + cortex + pb + matt + the whole funtime gang (not clear on who is responsible for what.) I think this whole thing was a little misconceived but level-headiness you've all demonstrated in this thread is inspiring, as always.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:27 PM on November 2, 2009
Durn, it looks like I may have gotten bit jaded at this point, and my comment really wasn't counter to what you said but what someoe else wrote. Gah, if I can't parse whether someone is in agreement with me, I should take a break.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:31 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by P.o.B. at 9:31 PM on November 2, 2009
koeselitz: "... as Kattullus pointed out more eloquently above, it's impossible to know even remotely what proportion of users like or dislike favorites"
If the will of the community is unknown, it will remain so after the favesperiment is over.
If the will of the community is irrelevant, there wasn't much point to the mods inviting our feedback here.
I submit that the pro vs con numbers we've seen in this thread, however imperfect, are more indicative than no numbers at all. And I also submit that those numbers say loud and clear that this change sucks balls.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:32 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
If the will of the community is unknown, it will remain so after the favesperiment is over.
If the will of the community is irrelevant, there wasn't much point to the mods inviting our feedback here.
I submit that the pro vs con numbers we've seen in this thread, however imperfect, are more indicative than no numbers at all. And I also submit that those numbers say loud and clear that this change sucks balls.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:32 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
BigSky: Wow. Excellent find. What a damning example.
Durn Bronzefist: Sarcasm?
Nah, I'm pretty sure BigSky was serious there. His comments here haven't been ambiguous so far, and besides he doesn't strike me as a particularly sarcastic person in general.
posted by koeselitz at 9:33 PM on November 2, 2009
Durn Bronzefist: Sarcasm?
Nah, I'm pretty sure BigSky was serious there. His comments here haven't been ambiguous so far, and besides he doesn't strike me as a particularly sarcastic person in general.
posted by koeselitz at 9:33 PM on November 2, 2009
@Durn Bronzefist
No. I didn't mean it as sarcasm. My phrasing was rather overdone, but I really meant 'great example' of exactly what you're talking about.
posted by BigSky at 9:36 PM on November 2, 2009
No. I didn't mean it as sarcasm. My phrasing was rather overdone, but I really meant 'great example' of exactly what you're talking about.
posted by BigSky at 9:36 PM on November 2, 2009
Contacts and receiving favorites?
I read about this earlier, about favoriting being amplified by contacts and it came as news to me-- something like you make a comment that gets favorited, it shows up on your contacts' pages, they favorite it as well and...hey presto! you are on the popular page. Have I got that right? I guess this is something I would have to have contacts to know about.
you crazy kids and your social networking
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:38 PM on November 2, 2009
I read about this earlier, about favoriting being amplified by contacts and it came as news to me-- something like you make a comment that gets favorited, it shows up on your contacts' pages, they favorite it as well and...hey presto! you are on the popular page. Have I got that right? I guess this is something I would have to have contacts to know about.
you crazy kids and your social networking
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:38 PM on November 2, 2009
Ah, no harm no foul P.o.B.. As much as I hate the thought of navigating MeFi with a scorecard, it gets difficult to parse where people are at sometimes, as evidenced by my read of BigSky.
Cheers, BigSky.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:41 PM on November 2, 2009
Cheers, BigSky.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:41 PM on November 2, 2009
[Joe Beese] If the will of the community is unknown, it will remain so after the favesperiment is over. If the will of the community is irrelevant, there wasn't much point to the mods inviting our feedback here.
But isn't there a point in community feedback beyond simple head-counts? I mean, several people have mentioned dialogue here; and dialogue certainly isn't predicated on just tallying up sides.
posted by koeselitz at 9:43 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
But isn't there a point in community feedback beyond simple head-counts? I mean, several people have mentioned dialogue here; and dialogue certainly isn't predicated on just tallying up sides.
posted by koeselitz at 9:43 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Also, has this thread morphed into some kind of bash-the-mods fest? Not cool.
I don't think there's that much bashing going on given the overall length of the thread. rokusan appears to have done some (without really intending to) and has self-exiled himself to an alcohol establishment. Apparently ArtW did something earlier and is also pursuing imbibing. Every now and then someone pops up and says, I'M NOT HAPPY. I threw in this little nugget, which honestly was not intended as a slag of the mods at all, more an overall comment on the kind of DUMBNESS that really smart people can stumble into when they slip into ready-FIRE-aim mode ...
Which gets me thinking. I wonder how much of the perceived negativity in this thread is being caused by the fact that it's so darned huge that people aren't PREVIEWING anymore? just pounding the keys and ...
posted by philip-random at 9:46 PM on November 2, 2009
I don't think there's that much bashing going on given the overall length of the thread. rokusan appears to have done some (without really intending to) and has self-exiled himself to an alcohol establishment. Apparently ArtW did something earlier and is also pursuing imbibing. Every now and then someone pops up and says, I'M NOT HAPPY. I threw in this little nugget, which honestly was not intended as a slag of the mods at all, more an overall comment on the kind of DUMBNESS that really smart people can stumble into when they slip into ready-FIRE-aim mode ...
Which gets me thinking. I wonder how much of the perceived negativity in this thread is being caused by the fact that it's so darned huge that people aren't PREVIEWING anymore? just pounding the keys and ...
posted by philip-random at 9:46 PM on November 2, 2009
BigSky: "Wow. Excellent find. What a damning example."
It's nothing of the sort. Only 3% of EmpressCallipygos's comment was a "reaction" to emperor.seamus. The other 97% was a poignant and eloquent tribute to the moral fortitude of a soldier who cares for his brother in arms and honors his promises even in grief, even when they are personally embarrassing. I am 97% sure that 97% of the people who favorited it were doing so for that 97% of the comment, rather than to add an ill-considered vote to the "fuck you" at emperor.seamus.
I look at that particular exchange and see the favorites system working as intended, to be quite honest. Not least because the number of favorites received does not seem to have been a direct factor in any of the comments in question... which weakens any claim that the favorite system is lowering the level of discourse around here.
posted by Riki tiki at 9:54 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
It's nothing of the sort. Only 3% of EmpressCallipygos's comment was a "reaction" to emperor.seamus. The other 97% was a poignant and eloquent tribute to the moral fortitude of a soldier who cares for his brother in arms and honors his promises even in grief, even when they are personally embarrassing. I am 97% sure that 97% of the people who favorited it were doing so for that 97% of the comment, rather than to add an ill-considered vote to the "fuck you" at emperor.seamus.
I look at that particular exchange and see the favorites system working as intended, to be quite honest. Not least because the number of favorites received does not seem to have been a direct factor in any of the comments in question... which weakens any claim that the favorite system is lowering the level of discourse around here.
posted by Riki tiki at 9:54 PM on November 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
rokusan: it was shelled with 1600 pieces of artillery immediately upon rollout, too.
Your problem in a nutshell: you apparently read this thread with the conviction that every one of the 1600+ comment supports your position and attacks the mods, which is pretty far from the case.
Actually, no. I didn't even think that I "attacked" the mods, myself, wouldn't do that on purpose, and even apologized if I came across that way. So I certainly wouldn't support/approve of attacks on them or anyone. I didn't get defensive myself until being told what I purportedly thought and told that I was "attacking the mods".
Passion for or against a feature isn't passion for or against the moderators, and shouldn't we be able to criticize or comment negatively on site features or un-features? But these late-thread tangents about "what YOU think is..." and "here's YOUR problem" seem needlessly personal, off-topic and unhelpful to me. If they were "here's what is GREAT about this idea" or "here's why this idea sucks so badly", then I'd understand them. I never get offended when someone says "Hey rokusan your idea is bad and here's why" in any thread, and if it was a thread I created specifically for criticism and feedback? Well I'd expect it, right?
Yes, the loudest and most obnoxious voices have attacked the mods and no doubt you have favourited every one of those
Again, I think you have me a bit wrong there. I did favorite many early comments that said "this is a very bad idea" to support those comments, as well as some of those later ones that said why, as well as a few comments that liked the new idea if they explained it in a thoughtful way. I did this to support those commenters or the arguments they were putting forth... which is how I've always used favorites, myself. (I don't think I favorite comments for being "loud" or "obnoxious", though.)
And then, because I was agreeing so strongly with so many people here... I ran out of favorites in the daily favorite bucket for the first time ever.
posted by rokusan at 9:58 PM on November 2, 2009
Your problem in a nutshell: you apparently read this thread with the conviction that every one of the 1600+ comment supports your position and attacks the mods, which is pretty far from the case.
Actually, no. I didn't even think that I "attacked" the mods, myself, wouldn't do that on purpose, and even apologized if I came across that way. So I certainly wouldn't support/approve of attacks on them or anyone. I didn't get defensive myself until being told what I purportedly thought and told that I was "attacking the mods".
Passion for or against a feature isn't passion for or against the moderators, and shouldn't we be able to criticize or comment negatively on site features or un-features? But these late-thread tangents about "what YOU think is..." and "here's YOUR problem" seem needlessly personal, off-topic and unhelpful to me. If they were "here's what is GREAT about this idea" or "here's why this idea sucks so badly", then I'd understand them. I never get offended when someone says "Hey rokusan your idea is bad and here's why" in any thread, and if it was a thread I created specifically for criticism and feedback? Well I'd expect it, right?
Yes, the loudest and most obnoxious voices have attacked the mods and no doubt you have favourited every one of those
Again, I think you have me a bit wrong there. I did favorite many early comments that said "this is a very bad idea" to support those comments, as well as some of those later ones that said why, as well as a few comments that liked the new idea if they explained it in a thoughtful way. I did this to support those commenters or the arguments they were putting forth... which is how I've always used favorites, myself. (I don't think I favorite comments for being "loud" or "obnoxious", though.)
And then, because I was agreeing so strongly with so many people here... I ran out of favorites in the daily favorite bucket for the first time ever.
posted by rokusan at 9:58 PM on November 2, 2009
Rokusan appears to have done some (without really intending to) and has self-exiled himself to an alcohol establishment.
I'm only half drunk so far. It's hard to stay off this wagon, dammit.
I need to get better at offending people when I intend to. Strong drink should assist me with that, if the prevailing literature is of any merit.
posted by rokusan at 10:01 PM on November 2, 2009
I'm only half drunk so far. It's hard to stay off this wagon, dammit.
I need to get better at offending people when I intend to. Strong drink should assist me with that, if the prevailing literature is of any merit.
posted by rokusan at 10:01 PM on November 2, 2009
(For my part, I said my piece to rokusan, and I'm happy to leave it at that; I guess there's no fantastical amount of damage done. And being someone who's the world's greatest expert at offending without intending to be offensive, I really, really don't want to pummel him into submission here. I think it's fair to let it go, then, and wish him a happy drunk. Also, beer.)
posted by koeselitz at 10:06 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by koeselitz at 10:06 PM on November 2, 2009
Zero. The chances are exactly zero.
Not even as a preference?
(ducks)
(slinks off to learn about GreaseMonkey)
posted by flabdablet at 10:07 PM on November 2, 2009
Not even as a preference?
(ducks)
(slinks off to learn about GreaseMonkey)
posted by flabdablet at 10:07 PM on November 2, 2009
Responding to klangklangston...
...I'd argue that it's pretty much definitional that most casual users are going to make casual comments that don't add all that much by themselves.
Again, I'm just not sure what you're not getting about this, as it seems pretty much straightforward to me, and honestly it feels like this is more about placating the egos of casual members, and I wish I knew how to say that in a way that didn't seem somehow insulting.
I'm getting all of 'this' and, I had thought, explicitly agreed with you. I may not have made it clear enough, but seeing as it wasn't my main concern I didn't see the need to repeat it a third time.
I'll try to address your other concern, that all casual users are being lumped together as a bunch of yahoos and louts...
And it sounds as if we're essentially on the same page here, as well.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 10:08 PM on November 2, 2009
...I'd argue that it's pretty much definitional that most casual users are going to make casual comments that don't add all that much by themselves.
Again, I'm just not sure what you're not getting about this, as it seems pretty much straightforward to me, and honestly it feels like this is more about placating the egos of casual members, and I wish I knew how to say that in a way that didn't seem somehow insulting.
I'm getting all of 'this' and, I had thought, explicitly agreed with you. I may not have made it clear enough, but seeing as it wasn't my main concern I didn't see the need to repeat it a third time.
I'll try to address your other concern, that all casual users are being lumped together as a bunch of yahoos and louts...
And it sounds as if we're essentially on the same page here, as well.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 10:08 PM on November 2, 2009
The other 97% was a poignant and eloquent tribute to the moral fortitude of a soldier who cares for his brother in arms and honors his promises even in grief
They favorited a diatribe in response to a comment that meant exactly that. Not very convincing that, if not a response to seamus, resulted in the same misread and consequent lack of comparative favorites for the person who had just expressed the same sentiment. The difference? Outrage.
If that's what you want to fuel on the blue, fill your boots. Favorites are the way to go. Don't tell me it doesn't happen.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:09 PM on November 2, 2009
They favorited a diatribe in response to a comment that meant exactly that. Not very convincing that, if not a response to seamus, resulted in the same misread and consequent lack of comparative favorites for the person who had just expressed the same sentiment. The difference? Outrage.
If that's what you want to fuel on the blue, fill your boots. Favorites are the way to go. Don't tell me it doesn't happen.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:09 PM on November 2, 2009
koeselitz, I have read the whole thread and appreciate your contributions. But I have a question. Why should we trust the metafilter population to bring us the "best of the web," and not trust the same population to evaluate (more or less reasonably) comments on the same?
Is it that the populations are actually different? That there's a metafilter "first-string" that makes FPPs, and others who might favorite comments but don't usually post or comment themselves, and whose "vote" is therefore less worthy?
Is it that posting a link is different from expressing an opinion on the linked content?
If the whole point of MetaFilter is to cull the best from what's out there on the internet, then who better than the cullers to further sift the content?
To take your argument to the logical extreme, wouldn't we be better with no comments at all? Just let the truth, or lack thereof, of the linked content speak for itself?
posted by torticat at 10:09 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Is it that the populations are actually different? That there's a metafilter "first-string" that makes FPPs, and others who might favorite comments but don't usually post or comment themselves, and whose "vote" is therefore less worthy?
Is it that posting a link is different from expressing an opinion on the linked content?
If the whole point of MetaFilter is to cull the best from what's out there on the internet, then who better than the cullers to further sift the content?
To take your argument to the logical extreme, wouldn't we be better with no comments at all? Just let the truth, or lack thereof, of the linked content speak for itself?
posted by torticat at 10:09 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Upon reflection, I would sum up my objection to this dizzy affair thus:
1. If there was no possibility of a permanent change resulting from the favesperiment, a lot of confusion and irritation was created for no better reason than intellectual curiosity.
2. If there was a possibility of permanent change, such change could only be predicated on the mods concluding that default visible favorite counts were something that the community should have taken away from it for its own good. And that the possibility of their concluding that is something that they were less than fully frank in acknowledging.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:14 PM on November 2, 2009
1. If there was no possibility of a permanent change resulting from the favesperiment, a lot of confusion and irritation was created for no better reason than intellectual curiosity.
2. If there was a possibility of permanent change, such change could only be predicated on the mods concluding that default visible favorite counts were something that the community should have taken away from it for its own good. And that the possibility of their concluding that is something that they were less than fully frank in acknowledging.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:14 PM on November 2, 2009
Durn Bronzefist: "...lack of comparative favorites for the person who had just expressed the same sentiment. The difference? Outrage. "
Eloquence.
posted by Riki tiki at 10:14 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Eloquence.
posted by Riki tiki at 10:14 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
The other 97% was a poignant and eloquent tribute to the moral fortitude of a soldier who cares for his brother in arms and honors his promises even in grief, even when they are personally embarrassing.
Give me a break. The whole thing is steeped in an attitude of "No, you're wrong. This is the way it is.".
"That sounds a damn sight better than someone who doesn't give a shit about people (be they other soldiers or civilians), is too hung up on looking tough (who knows what he'd do to try to "prove he was tough," you know?) and tries to get out of things that he thinks beneath him (in the military, sometimes someone has to do the tough crap work)."
In this portion of the "poignant and eloquent tribute", who is the soldier being compared to? And why? Is that something that would be said at a funeral? No, not really. This is building a case, and trying to win the crowd (and that's 'win' the crowd, not 'move' the crowd as one might when giving, say, a 'poignant and eloquent tribute').
posted by BigSky at 10:16 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Give me a break. The whole thing is steeped in an attitude of "No, you're wrong. This is the way it is.".
"That sounds a damn sight better than someone who doesn't give a shit about people (be they other soldiers or civilians), is too hung up on looking tough (who knows what he'd do to try to "prove he was tough," you know?) and tries to get out of things that he thinks beneath him (in the military, sometimes someone has to do the tough crap work)."
In this portion of the "poignant and eloquent tribute", who is the soldier being compared to? And why? Is that something that would be said at a funeral? No, not really. This is building a case, and trying to win the crowd (and that's 'win' the crowd, not 'move' the crowd as one might when giving, say, a 'poignant and eloquent tribute').
posted by BigSky at 10:16 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Riki tiki: if your interpretation is that 171 people favorited a comment knowing full well that it wrongfully berated an earlier poster because it expressed the same sentiment in a more eloquent way, then we'll have to agree to disagree. If you want to design a system that rewards aggressive grandstanding, well, favorites are a good way to go.
Anyway, add me to the list of people who don't have a strong preference either way but think it's silly to conceal the number while still revealing that it has >0 favorites, and making the total just a click away. Take em or leave em. This is a strange, unwieldy "compromise".
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:21 PM on November 2, 2009
Anyway, add me to the list of people who don't have a strong preference either way but think it's silly to conceal the number while still revealing that it has >0 favorites, and making the total just a click away. Take em or leave em. This is a strange, unwieldy "compromise".
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:21 PM on November 2, 2009
if you guys get this up to 10,000 comments i'll wear a damned dress
posted by pyramid termite at 10:30 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 10:30 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
If you want to design a system that rewards aggressive grandstanding, well, favorites are a good way to go.
I don't imagine there's anyone arguing in favor of favorites here who thinks they're a flawless feature that could never in anyway cause confusion and/or misrepresentation. I do think there's a fairly high majority of contributors to this thread who believe that having favorites exactly as we did three days ago (flawed as that system is) is preferable to the Trial "has-faves" version we're currently experimenting with.
Bringing up this seamus-vs-empress anomaly reminds me, if anything, of the kind of anti-drug crap that the culture's been throwing at me for my entire adult life (and my childhood as well). That is, oh, some guy who's had all kinds of complex emotional issues his entire life kills somebody (and it turns out, upon being arrested, he's got a 3 gram bag of marijuana in his pocket). Make damned sure that the headline reads: MARIJUANA FIEND MURDERS FATHER OF FOUR (or whatever).
My point being: it's not arguing in good faith, it's trolling, or worse, politicking.
posted by philip-random at 10:30 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
I don't imagine there's anyone arguing in favor of favorites here who thinks they're a flawless feature that could never in anyway cause confusion and/or misrepresentation. I do think there's a fairly high majority of contributors to this thread who believe that having favorites exactly as we did three days ago (flawed as that system is) is preferable to the Trial "has-faves" version we're currently experimenting with.
Bringing up this seamus-vs-empress anomaly reminds me, if anything, of the kind of anti-drug crap that the culture's been throwing at me for my entire adult life (and my childhood as well). That is, oh, some guy who's had all kinds of complex emotional issues his entire life kills somebody (and it turns out, upon being arrested, he's got a 3 gram bag of marijuana in his pocket). Make damned sure that the headline reads: MARIJUANA FIEND MURDERS FATHER OF FOUR (or whatever).
My point being: it's not arguing in good faith, it's trolling, or worse, politicking.
posted by philip-random at 10:30 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
BigSky: "In this portion of the "poignant and eloquent tribute", who is the soldier being compared to? And why?"
I couldn't tell you, BigSky. You'd have to ask EmpressCallipygos. But since it's not referencing any points made in emperor.seamus's comment, I think you're going a bit overboard making bald assertions that it's part of an favorite-baiting angry retort.
At the very least, it's a questionable hill to die on as part of the larger "favorites are harmful" platform.
posted by Riki tiki at 10:31 PM on November 2, 2009
I couldn't tell you, BigSky. You'd have to ask EmpressCallipygos. But since it's not referencing any points made in emperor.seamus's comment, I think you're going a bit overboard making bald assertions that it's part of an favorite-baiting angry retort.
At the very least, it's a questionable hill to die on as part of the larger "favorites are harmful" platform.
posted by Riki tiki at 10:31 PM on November 2, 2009
JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE WHAT THE FUCK?!
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:40 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:40 PM on November 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Can we modify the new "has favorites" language to "CAN HAZ FAVORITES!?!"
posted by killdevil at 10:44 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by killdevil at 10:44 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I do think there's a fairly high majority of contributors to this thread who believe that having favorites exactly as we did three days ago (flawed as that system is) is preferable to the Trial "has-faves" version we're currently experimenting with.
Myeah. Count me in this number. Fortunately those are not the only two choices.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:44 PM on November 2, 2009
Myeah. Count me in this number. Fortunately those are not the only two choices.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:44 PM on November 2, 2009
At some point several hundred comments up, I fear we went recursive. The argument is officially on a loop (and has been since 2006, some would say).
Look what's happening with the Empress's heavily favorited comment regarding that soldier in a dress at a funeral. We're just looking at a block of text and divining from it whatever findings support our position. The anti-favorites crowd reads it and hollers "Groupthink!" the pro-favorites crowd reads it and hollers, "poignant and eloquent tribute!"
That's my read of the comment and my explanation for its high count of favorites, but then, I don't think the former favorites system needs any changing whatsoever. And I guess I don't have any objection to the groupthought notion that poignant and eloquent tributes are a good thing. But I'm sure we're just seeing this and other examples through whatever biased lenses we're pointing at them. It's the whole MeTa Rashomon thing again.
I have no doubt that this thread will continue to roil until December 1st, I have no doubt. By then, the plate and the beans will have been so abused that they shall both have been ground into a fine paste of smashed legume and shards of ceramic. Is there a chance that we can do this without the accusations of bad faith and any more flameouts?
posted by EatTheWeek at 10:44 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Look what's happening with the Empress's heavily favorited comment regarding that soldier in a dress at a funeral. We're just looking at a block of text and divining from it whatever findings support our position. The anti-favorites crowd reads it and hollers "Groupthink!" the pro-favorites crowd reads it and hollers, "poignant and eloquent tribute!"
That's my read of the comment and my explanation for its high count of favorites, but then, I don't think the former favorites system needs any changing whatsoever. And I guess I don't have any objection to the groupthought notion that poignant and eloquent tributes are a good thing. But I'm sure we're just seeing this and other examples through whatever biased lenses we're pointing at them. It's the whole MeTa Rashomon thing again.
I have no doubt that this thread will continue to roil until December 1st, I have no doubt. By then, the plate and the beans will have been so abused that they shall both have been ground into a fine paste of smashed legume and shards of ceramic. Is there a chance that we can do this without the accusations of bad faith and any more flameouts?
posted by EatTheWeek at 10:44 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
BitterOldPunk: I know, seriously, right? These serious emotional reactions that some people are having to having one of their widgets briefly and experimentally altered? This is an indication of a powerful need to diversify your interests. Jeeze what a bunch of babies.
posted by nanojath at 10:46 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by nanojath at 10:46 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I couldn't tell you, BigSky. You'd have to ask EmpressCallipygos. But since it's not referencing any points made in emperor.seamus's comment, I think you're going a bit overboard making bald assertions that it's part of an favorite-baiting angry retort.
It seems pretty clear that the comparison is to some hypothetical macho soldier stereotype that she imagines emperor.seamus would prefer. That's why I called it 'case building', although now I think 'grandstanding' is the more fitting term.
-----
My question was whether anyone had made the argument that only "good" content receives favorites.
OK. Does Rhaomi's comment, "Even without knowing what it says, you know it's going to be worth reading. Any comment that could get 65 different people to click that [+] is going to be notable in some way, regardless of the favoriters' individual reasons for doing so." make that a yes?
-----
@pyramid termite
You say you'll wear a dress. Where? Work? Church? Family Reunion? For how long?
posted by BigSky at 10:52 PM on November 2, 2009
It seems pretty clear that the comparison is to some hypothetical macho soldier stereotype that she imagines emperor.seamus would prefer. That's why I called it 'case building', although now I think 'grandstanding' is the more fitting term.
-----
My question was whether anyone had made the argument that only "good" content receives favorites.
OK. Does Rhaomi's comment, "Even without knowing what it says, you know it's going to be worth reading. Any comment that could get 65 different people to click that [+] is going to be notable in some way, regardless of the favoriters' individual reasons for doing so." make that a yes?
-----
@pyramid termite
You say you'll wear a dress. Where? Work? Church? Family Reunion? For how long?
posted by BigSky at 10:52 PM on November 2, 2009
> I started reading this monster yesterday (Nov. 1) afternoon! Every time I thought I was close to finishing, I would hit refresh and discover I was 12 hours behind. It has been a long, somewhat depressing experience, requiring lots of breaks.
Exactly my experience. rokusan and koselitz: both of you are far too invested in this and should just walk away. Please. Please take this in the friendliest way possible. You're both clearly intelligent people and you both clearly get a lot out of this site. You care about this site; great. Now please go ride bikes or something.
Reading this thread, especially with the reminder of this misunderstanding, has convinced me that at a system level, visible favorite counts might actually be a bad thing. That said, mad props and hugs to Deathalicious for the greasemonkey script. I will definitely be using that. Also thanks to pb and the other staff for giving us the tick box to bring visible favorites back.
> much the same way that I use the data from my bicycle computer to become a better cyclist.
Bikes! Yaaay! Basically this bike analogy is hilarious to me because it depends on the prevailing American conception of cycling as sport/exercise. This is a conception I shared as recently as May of this year. I now have a minivan of a bicycle and consider myself a much better cyclist. I also get chatted up by way more ladies than I did wearing lycra on my Trek. So yeah. What did this have to do with metafilter again? Oh yeah: you purists who are insisting people read whole threads (and yes, I did let you guilt trip me into reading this whole thread) are like people trying to advocate cycling through helmet promotion campaigns. I wear a helmet and read threads all the way through, but telling other people to do so actually makes things shittier for me by discouraging wider participation. I'm aware that possibly the public favorite numbers may in fact discourage some kinds of participation, but what I'm getting at specifically is the several-times-restated argument that those who were skimming based on favorites should just read whole threads or not participate at all, which translates to: those of you who don't own carbon bikes, lycra, and know how to ride in a pace line should just do the Friday critical mass ride only, okay? You don't really belong on the road. We can't (yet) really know whether public favorite numbers are more damaging than that kind of discouragement yet, which is why I say best of luck to the mods on thisexperiment venture. Hugs all around. Also mods: be glad I'm too cheap to mail you each a copy of this, because the part of me that had to suffer through a research methods course is a bit grar-ful at the (understandable) lack of SCIENCE!
More hugs!
Psssst lewistate! Another thread that made me rethink my positions!
posted by tarheelcoxn at 10:59 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Exactly my experience. rokusan and koselitz: both of you are far too invested in this and should just walk away. Please. Please take this in the friendliest way possible. You're both clearly intelligent people and you both clearly get a lot out of this site. You care about this site; great. Now please go ride bikes or something.
Reading this thread, especially with the reminder of this misunderstanding, has convinced me that at a system level, visible favorite counts might actually be a bad thing. That said, mad props and hugs to Deathalicious for the greasemonkey script. I will definitely be using that. Also thanks to pb and the other staff for giving us the tick box to bring visible favorites back.
> much the same way that I use the data from my bicycle computer to become a better cyclist.
Bikes! Yaaay! Basically this bike analogy is hilarious to me because it depends on the prevailing American conception of cycling as sport/exercise. This is a conception I shared as recently as May of this year. I now have a minivan of a bicycle and consider myself a much better cyclist. I also get chatted up by way more ladies than I did wearing lycra on my Trek. So yeah. What did this have to do with metafilter again? Oh yeah: you purists who are insisting people read whole threads (and yes, I did let you guilt trip me into reading this whole thread) are like people trying to advocate cycling through helmet promotion campaigns. I wear a helmet and read threads all the way through, but telling other people to do so actually makes things shittier for me by discouraging wider participation. I'm aware that possibly the public favorite numbers may in fact discourage some kinds of participation, but what I'm getting at specifically is the several-times-restated argument that those who were skimming based on favorites should just read whole threads or not participate at all, which translates to: those of you who don't own carbon bikes, lycra, and know how to ride in a pace line should just do the Friday critical mass ride only, okay? You don't really belong on the road. We can't (yet) really know whether public favorite numbers are more damaging than that kind of discouragement yet, which is why I say best of luck to the mods on this
More hugs!
Psssst lewistate! Another thread that made me rethink my positions!
posted by tarheelcoxn at 10:59 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
I am about 500 comments late, but I thank the mods for answering my question about why we have "faved" (now "has favorites") instead of nothing at all.
I am amazed you responded to my tiny question in the middle of this 1789-headed hydra, as it was one of the tinier heads.
posted by thisperon at 11:05 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I am amazed you responded to my tiny question in the middle of this 1789-headed hydra, as it was one of the tinier heads.
posted by thisperon at 11:05 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
[torticat:] "koeselitz, I have read the whole thread and appreciate your contributions. But I have a question. Why should we trust the metafilter population to bring us the "best of the web," and not trust the same population to evaluate (more or less reasonably) comments on the same?
Is it that the populations are actually different? That there's a metafilter "first-string" that makes FPPs, and others who might favorite comments but don't usually post or comment themselves, and whose "vote" is therefore less worthy?
Is it that posting a link is different from expressing an opinion on the linked content?
If the whole point of MetaFilter is to cull the best from what's out there on the internet, then who better than the cullers to further sift the content?
To take your argument to the logical extreme, wouldn't we be better with no comments at all? Just let the truth, or lack thereof, of the linked content speak for itself?"
Thanks, and that's a good question.
I worry about the social system favorites create not because I want to remove a form of evaluation, but because I don't think they actually constitute evaluation of comments at all in anything but a very simple and politicized sense. That's fine as far as it goes; and that's why mathowie introduced them – it's handy to see what stuff you thought was worth coming back to, and it's interesting to see what other people thought about that, too. But when it comes down to it favorites are a single very simple signifier which has only two possible values: "{blank}" and "APPROVE;" – maybe favorites were originally intended to be a catch-all, but this is what they've effictively become for all of us, I think.
Some people have seemed to think that some of us just want to remove a particular feature or take away some information; but putting a count of favorites at the end of every single comment had a dramatic and significant effect on this site, and it seems simplistic to assume that that effect was nothing but good. In my view, though I'm sure nobody could have forseen this at the time, placing a count of favorites at the end of every comment-footer effectively placed user approval at the center of every discussion. At the heart of every thread is now the question: do people agree? Because it's so very easy to favorite, and because comments that are favorited get noticed and thereby get more favorites, the "APPROVAL" marks increase exponentially, and the community adapts itself and strives to accumulate much-valued approval as communities tend to.
A few people above mentioned that they were a little frustrated that they actually had to respond to me now, and that they would have preferred it if they could have registered their disagreement with me and allegiance to those who were 'against me' by favoriting one of the their comments. The interesting thing to notice in that is that it's clear that the community has gotten around the lack of a down-switch; if you dislike a comment, you can anti-favorite that comment by favoriting somebody else. I'm not just idly accusing people of this: I really believe we all do it. I was looking through my user-page earlier, and I've favorited at least 76 different comments in this thread without thinking too much about it, all clearly because I agreed with them and I disagreed with whoever they were arguing against. I think it's instinctive now, wholly inadvertant, for us to read threads this way, favoriting this comment and not-favoriting that. Think about what we're doing when we read that way: we're seeking out the people we agree with, and disapproving of the people we don't. When we read that way, favorites instantly politicize conversations, reducing them to two sides and lining all readers up in the column of their choice. I actually think that's destructive to democratic discourse, because it taints the discussion and encourages people to form opinions of commenters before actually hearing them out.
posted by koeselitz at 11:08 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Is it that the populations are actually different? That there's a metafilter "first-string" that makes FPPs, and others who might favorite comments but don't usually post or comment themselves, and whose "vote" is therefore less worthy?
Is it that posting a link is different from expressing an opinion on the linked content?
If the whole point of MetaFilter is to cull the best from what's out there on the internet, then who better than the cullers to further sift the content?
To take your argument to the logical extreme, wouldn't we be better with no comments at all? Just let the truth, or lack thereof, of the linked content speak for itself?"
Thanks, and that's a good question.
I worry about the social system favorites create not because I want to remove a form of evaluation, but because I don't think they actually constitute evaluation of comments at all in anything but a very simple and politicized sense. That's fine as far as it goes; and that's why mathowie introduced them – it's handy to see what stuff you thought was worth coming back to, and it's interesting to see what other people thought about that, too. But when it comes down to it favorites are a single very simple signifier which has only two possible values: "{blank}" and "APPROVE;" – maybe favorites were originally intended to be a catch-all, but this is what they've effictively become for all of us, I think.
Some people have seemed to think that some of us just want to remove a particular feature or take away some information; but putting a count of favorites at the end of every single comment had a dramatic and significant effect on this site, and it seems simplistic to assume that that effect was nothing but good. In my view, though I'm sure nobody could have forseen this at the time, placing a count of favorites at the end of every comment-footer effectively placed user approval at the center of every discussion. At the heart of every thread is now the question: do people agree? Because it's so very easy to favorite, and because comments that are favorited get noticed and thereby get more favorites, the "APPROVAL" marks increase exponentially, and the community adapts itself and strives to accumulate much-valued approval as communities tend to.
A few people above mentioned that they were a little frustrated that they actually had to respond to me now, and that they would have preferred it if they could have registered their disagreement with me and allegiance to those who were 'against me' by favoriting one of the their comments. The interesting thing to notice in that is that it's clear that the community has gotten around the lack of a down-switch; if you dislike a comment, you can anti-favorite that comment by favoriting somebody else. I'm not just idly accusing people of this: I really believe we all do it. I was looking through my user-page earlier, and I've favorited at least 76 different comments in this thread without thinking too much about it, all clearly because I agreed with them and I disagreed with whoever they were arguing against. I think it's instinctive now, wholly inadvertant, for us to read threads this way, favoriting this comment and not-favoriting that. Think about what we're doing when we read that way: we're seeking out the people we agree with, and disapproving of the people we don't. When we read that way, favorites instantly politicize conversations, reducing them to two sides and lining all readers up in the column of their choice. I actually think that's destructive to democratic discourse, because it taints the discussion and encourages people to form opinions of commenters before actually hearing them out.
posted by koeselitz at 11:08 PM on November 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
[Thanks, tarheelcoxn. That's actually a great suggestion. Done and done.]
posted by koeselitz at 11:09 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by koeselitz at 11:09 PM on November 2, 2009
So has anyone tried to opt back in?
I strongly disliked the new system on first blush and turned the faves count back on in the preferences. This thread has swayed me into trying the new system for a while so I went back and disabled the fave count (preference unchecked and saved).
Looking at threads, I'm still getting the favourite count displayed.
Bug?
posted by mazola at 11:11 PM on November 2, 2009
I strongly disliked the new system on first blush and turned the faves count back on in the preferences. This thread has swayed me into trying the new system for a while so I went back and disabled the fave count (preference unchecked and saved).
Looking at threads, I'm still getting the favourite count displayed.
Bug?
posted by mazola at 11:11 PM on November 2, 2009
which translates to: those of you who don't own carbon bikes, lycra, and know how to ride in a pace line should just do the Friday critical mass ride only, okay?
Well, since it's a time-based argument (I can only read so many threads!), it's more like saying I can drive (or ride) like a bat out of hell whenever I find myself running late, contributing to more overheated traffic exchanges and unpleasantness all around, or I can hit the road when I'm not in such a rush. As the cyclist or driver, I know which is better for me (screw you people; don't tell me how to use the road), but it may not be better for the community.
And to revisit another comparison, you'll be able to visit far more threads if you skip the linked content while you're at it. Hell, I bet you can hit ten times as many threads, stopping by to drop off your pre-determined position on whatever issue the fpp seems to be about. That's rather convenient, too. Not so great for discussion, mind.
Obviously, this isn't about strong-arming people into interacting with the site via the One True Way, but site design is obviously about influencing trends in behaviour, so I don't see why every possible behaviour should be seen as equal or equally good for the site.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:11 PM on November 2, 2009
Well, since it's a time-based argument (I can only read so many threads!), it's more like saying I can drive (or ride) like a bat out of hell whenever I find myself running late, contributing to more overheated traffic exchanges and unpleasantness all around, or I can hit the road when I'm not in such a rush. As the cyclist or driver, I know which is better for me (screw you people; don't tell me how to use the road), but it may not be better for the community.
And to revisit another comparison, you'll be able to visit far more threads if you skip the linked content while you're at it. Hell, I bet you can hit ten times as many threads, stopping by to drop off your pre-determined position on whatever issue the fpp seems to be about. That's rather convenient, too. Not so great for discussion, mind.
Obviously, this isn't about strong-arming people into interacting with the site via the One True Way, but site design is obviously about influencing trends in behaviour, so I don't see why every possible behaviour should be seen as equal or equally good for the site.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:11 PM on November 2, 2009
mazola, the preference is stored in a cookie which is set at login or on saving preferences and it's specific to a browser. So if you change settings in one browser and switch to another, you'll need to either save preferences in that new browser or log in/out. So try saving your preferences again, things are testing ok for me here.
posted by pb (staff) at 11:18 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by pb (staff) at 11:18 PM on November 2, 2009
By the way, that's not a shot at you cortex
None taken. I feel very weird about that sixcolors-banning comment being such a goddam landmark in my history of contributions, as far as favorites are concerned. And not because of any perceived bad intentions on the part of any particular person who clicked the +, because I can understand both why it was kind of a notable occasion and why some of the surrounding logistics of that moment led to more favoriting than might otherwise have happened in slightly different circumstances.
But in any case, the emergent result of all those not-individually-very-troubling factors was a great big pile of favorites for something I was neither proud nor happy about. A bunch of favorites on a song I put a bunch of effort into and want to share feels a lot better than a bunch of favorites on me kicking someone out of the community.
If there was no possibility of a permanent change resulting from the favesperiment, a lot of confusion and irritation was created for no better reason than intellectual curiosity.
There's not "no possibility", we just aren't heading into this with the intent to make anything permanent. For all we know, December will roll around and people will have actually come to the conclusion collectively that there's some merit in what was going on, I don't know.
This is where that damning "likely" came in, way up thread: I can't see the future and can't swear that there won't be a popular argument for re-evaluating aspects of the way favorites work on the site once this whole thing has run its course and the community has chewed on it and talked about it for a while. I'd be an idiot to declare firmly that there was no chance of anything like that happening, period, but then I'm getting painted (however inadvertently, I guess) as a dissembler for not declaring firmly as much, so it's kind of a hard position to manage.
Anyway, what we see this as is a lot of hopefully-only-initial confusion and irritation being created for the sake of potentially learning some useful things (as mods and more broadly as users) about how the community uses and perceives the favorites system. If we get to the end of this month and no one has learned a damned thing and everyone thinks it's been a total waste of time, so be it, but in the first couple of days even there's been a lot of good conversation mixed up in here and several people providing nuanced feedback on how their perception/opinion has shifted already, so I'm hopeful that this'll have some usefulness after all.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:21 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
None taken. I feel very weird about that sixcolors-banning comment being such a goddam landmark in my history of contributions, as far as favorites are concerned. And not because of any perceived bad intentions on the part of any particular person who clicked the +, because I can understand both why it was kind of a notable occasion and why some of the surrounding logistics of that moment led to more favoriting than might otherwise have happened in slightly different circumstances.
But in any case, the emergent result of all those not-individually-very-troubling factors was a great big pile of favorites for something I was neither proud nor happy about. A bunch of favorites on a song I put a bunch of effort into and want to share feels a lot better than a bunch of favorites on me kicking someone out of the community.
If there was no possibility of a permanent change resulting from the favesperiment, a lot of confusion and irritation was created for no better reason than intellectual curiosity.
There's not "no possibility", we just aren't heading into this with the intent to make anything permanent. For all we know, December will roll around and people will have actually come to the conclusion collectively that there's some merit in what was going on, I don't know.
This is where that damning "likely" came in, way up thread: I can't see the future and can't swear that there won't be a popular argument for re-evaluating aspects of the way favorites work on the site once this whole thing has run its course and the community has chewed on it and talked about it for a while. I'd be an idiot to declare firmly that there was no chance of anything like that happening, period, but then I'm getting painted (however inadvertently, I guess) as a dissembler for not declaring firmly as much, so it's kind of a hard position to manage.
Anyway, what we see this as is a lot of hopefully-only-initial confusion and irritation being created for the sake of potentially learning some useful things (as mods and more broadly as users) about how the community uses and perceives the favorites system. If we get to the end of this month and no one has learned a damned thing and everyone thinks it's been a total waste of time, so be it, but in the first couple of days even there's been a lot of good conversation mixed up in here and several people providing nuanced feedback on how their perception/opinion has shifted already, so I'm hopeful that this'll have some usefulness after all.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:21 PM on November 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
It's not bad, but could we try "Favorino!" tomorrow?
posted by davejay at 11:33 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by davejay at 11:33 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I has favorites.
posted by krinklyfig at 11:38 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by krinklyfig at 11:38 PM on November 2, 2009
Thursday could be "Has the small yellow repeated text with no corresponding value given you an aneurysm yet?" day.
posted by clearly at 11:40 PM on November 2, 2009
posted by clearly at 11:40 PM on November 2, 2009
As the cyclist or driver, I know which is better for me (screw you people; don't tell me how to use the road), but it may not be better for the community.
As a mefite or commenter, I know I'm rather hurt by your incredibly ungenerous reading of what I wrote. I said up front that this thread has already made me rethink the systemic impact of favorites. Are you really accusing me of damaging metafilter by using it the way I generally do? Because I think you'll find that I make quite an effort ot be courteous both here and while on the road. Oh, and in case I wasn't clear earlier: I don't have a car anymore. It is definitely NOT okay for me to use the road just any old way I damn please with multi-ton metal cages hurtling towards me. I am very, very aware of this. Still, the car has been fully replaced by a bike. I want more people to have the luxury of making that switch. I also want more people to have a great time using mefi, and I recognize that in both cases there's a right and wrong way to go about that advocacy.
contributing to more overheated traffic exchanges and unpleasantness all around
The flaw in your thinking here is assuming that I do this. That is, that I ride like a cowboy or that I chime in without having read threads. The people lamenting the lack of skimability were often saying that they used favorites precisely to avoid posting a me too comment. You're not going to change my mind about the utility of favorites for skimming threads, and there's no need to change my mind about posting to threads without doing due diligence, because I promise I already take that seriously, and I think you're being uncharitable to other skimmers by assuming they (as a class) post without regard for conversation quality. Can you really know that?
Again, I'm not saying that I think visible favorite counts should be the default. I'm saying that I use favorites information to skim threads, and I think I'm on solid ground when I argue that being able to do that does not hurt the quality of discussion. Having read this thread, I'm open to the possibility that visible favorites do have a net negative impact on discussion quality, and am therefor cool with November's"favrd" "has favorites" assay.
posted by tarheelcoxn at 11:52 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
As a mefite or commenter, I know I'm rather hurt by your incredibly ungenerous reading of what I wrote. I said up front that this thread has already made me rethink the systemic impact of favorites. Are you really accusing me of damaging metafilter by using it the way I generally do? Because I think you'll find that I make quite an effort ot be courteous both here and while on the road. Oh, and in case I wasn't clear earlier: I don't have a car anymore. It is definitely NOT okay for me to use the road just any old way I damn please with multi-ton metal cages hurtling towards me. I am very, very aware of this. Still, the car has been fully replaced by a bike. I want more people to have the luxury of making that switch. I also want more people to have a great time using mefi, and I recognize that in both cases there's a right and wrong way to go about that advocacy.
contributing to more overheated traffic exchanges and unpleasantness all around
The flaw in your thinking here is assuming that I do this. That is, that I ride like a cowboy or that I chime in without having read threads. The people lamenting the lack of skimability were often saying that they used favorites precisely to avoid posting a me too comment. You're not going to change my mind about the utility of favorites for skimming threads, and there's no need to change my mind about posting to threads without doing due diligence, because I promise I already take that seriously, and I think you're being uncharitable to other skimmers by assuming they (as a class) post without regard for conversation quality. Can you really know that?
Again, I'm not saying that I think visible favorite counts should be the default. I'm saying that I use favorites information to skim threads, and I think I'm on solid ground when I argue that being able to do that does not hurt the quality of discussion. Having read this thread, I'm open to the possibility that visible favorites do have a net negative impact on discussion quality, and am therefor cool with November's
posted by tarheelcoxn at 11:52 PM on November 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
"OMG how can you usually-smart people not have thought this through?"
Just because you don't like something, or said something winds up not being a good idea, doesn't mean the designers or implementors didn't think it through. In my line of work, you often have no idea how well or poorly something will work until you've prototyped it and given it to people. That appears to be what the mods are doing here.
So has anyone tried to opt back in?
I might give it a shot later. I wasn't a fan, disabled it, might go back to it for another try. Perhaps I need to think about what I attempt to solve by looking at favorite counts, and go from there. Maybe I don't need the count, maybe I won't be able to disable it.
posted by secret about box at 12:03 AM on November 3, 2009
Just because you don't like something, or said something winds up not being a good idea, doesn't mean the designers or implementors didn't think it through. In my line of work, you often have no idea how well or poorly something will work until you've prototyped it and given it to people. That appears to be what the mods are doing here.
So has anyone tried to opt back in?
I might give it a shot later. I wasn't a fan, disabled it, might go back to it for another try. Perhaps I need to think about what I attempt to solve by looking at favorite counts, and go from there. Maybe I don't need the count, maybe I won't be able to disable it.
posted by secret about box at 12:03 AM on November 3, 2009
So has anyone tried to opt back in?
With the exception of about half an hour yesterday (which is suddenly two days ago I just realized) I've been "opted-in" the entire time; not because I'm in immediately favor of the change at all, but in the spirit of going along with the Trial and seeing what happens. So far, I'm functioning but like I said a long time ago ...
the negative opposite of an echo chamber is a vacuum, which sadly, is what I feel (so far) with this new change ... like wandering into my favourite pub and all the regular faces are there, but something's wrong, I'm not reading the nonverbal cues the way I used to ... those subtle glances of encouragement or discouragement, winks, threatening looks, sudden outbursts of laughter; I'm not completely blind, mind you, or deaf; but things are muted in a way they weren't before, and it's frustrating.
posted by philip-random at 12:15 AM on November 3, 2009
With the exception of about half an hour yesterday (which is suddenly two days ago I just realized) I've been "opted-in" the entire time; not because I'm in immediately favor of the change at all, but in the spirit of going along with the Trial and seeing what happens. So far, I'm functioning but like I said a long time ago ...
the negative opposite of an echo chamber is a vacuum, which sadly, is what I feel (so far) with this new change ... like wandering into my favourite pub and all the regular faces are there, but something's wrong, I'm not reading the nonverbal cues the way I used to ... those subtle glances of encouragement or discouragement, winks, threatening looks, sudden outbursts of laughter; I'm not completely blind, mind you, or deaf; but things are muted in a way they weren't before, and it's frustrating.
posted by philip-random at 12:15 AM on November 3, 2009
tarheelcoxn: I was neither suggesting you're a bad cyclist/driver nor a bad Metafilter user. Simply that "read the thread" is not some analogue to elite cycling gear. It's something everyone can do, and I think it stands to reason that discussions would be better for it. I have no irrefutable evidence of this (nor is there evidence of the opposite). It's just my take on the subject. Similarly, I wasn't accusing you of not reading linked content. The question, though, isn't whether someone can contribute positively despite thread skimming, or not reading links, but whether these practices tend to better or worse practice for the site. Again, reasonable people disagree on this point, but I'm not saying something about you particularly, nor does the point rise or fall according to how well you have contributed to the site (or the road).
I'm not sure why you think the assumption/conclusion that skimming doesn't hurt discussion is on "solid ground" (but you'll entertain the opposing view) rather than the other way round. Because decent conversations have been had? You're free to prefer any site model you like, but if the experiment is framed in terms of requiring evidence to overturn this "solid" assumption that visible favorites do not degrade discussion then, well, that's an experiment that's set up to fail.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 12:32 AM on November 3, 2009
I'm not sure why you think the assumption/conclusion that skimming doesn't hurt discussion is on "solid ground" (but you'll entertain the opposing view) rather than the other way round. Because decent conversations have been had? You're free to prefer any site model you like, but if the experiment is framed in terms of requiring evidence to overturn this "solid" assumption that visible favorites do not degrade discussion then, well, that's an experiment that's set up to fail.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 12:32 AM on November 3, 2009
Chuckles: "The anti favorite folks don't use favorites to vote the way the pro favorite folks do. Hence, the fact that anti favorite statements don't get very many favorites has absolutely no meaning whatsoever."
That's a good point. On the other hand, it seems to me that the majority of people dropping in to opine dislike the change, some vehemently. Even assuming the anti-favorite folks are not accurately represented in favorite counts, I'd expect their presence in terms of comments would be much more strongly felt if their numbers were comparable to the people who liked the system as it was.
koeselitz: "I truly believe that as this process continues – in fact, even now, even long before now – we're in danger of filtering out all the opinions that don't square neatly with the majority, that we're in danger of rounding off all the corners. I don't think favorites reward evil, but they do reward mediocrity."
This is hardly true in my experience. If favorited comments were mediocre pap I wouldn't derive enjoyment or value from reading them. And I'm not making that judgment in a vacuum, because I do read full threads in context when I have the time and the inclination. More often than not, the most favorited comments are the sharpest, wittiest, most insightful, and most helpful stuff in the thread in comparison to the rest. That isn't saying that "the rest" is useless noise. I do get something out of reading non-favorited stuff when I have a lot of free time or interest and can read completely. But the highly-favorited stuff has something special most of the time. I know this from looking at my own favorites -- my linking to a YouTube video or making an observation about an article isn't useless, but doesn't have the same je ne sais quoi as a creative comment fable or a long and considered political argument.
Secret Life of Gravy: "What I have gleaned from the the strong pro-favorite crowd is unless your comment gets 5 or more favorites, it is basically just noise. That sums up about 95% of my contributions. Hell, I'm being too generous to myself, it is probably more like 98%. Essentially I've been wasting your time and my time."
This simply isn't true. I think I and others have made it quite clear that favorite count is not some ironclad gatekeeper of our attention, and that any mechanism that took the informal way we use favorites and filtered threads that way automatically would be harmful to the site.
The core issue, for me at least, is that Mefi has a crapton of excellent commentary, but there's just too much of it to read completely on a daily basis. I know that the best content I've read here has stuck with me and made me happier, from the jokes to the personal stories to the explanations of complex issues. I don't like the idea of missing out on stuff like that because I was too busy doing other things. I would not be able to stand flitting around the site randomly, with that nagging feeling that something worthwhile is being posted that I'm never going to see.
Favorites offer a convenient solution. They let me read every thread quickly, with the confidence that I will see the most notable content, because other Mefites who read more thoroughly have been kind enough to register their collective interest in an easily accessible way. I don't have to read every single comment to feel satisfied, because the odds of a really funny/touching/eloquent comment getting no favorites from anybody is very low.
If this generally reliable method of skimming were unavailable or hidden so I had to click a button or hover my mouse on every comment to replicate it, it would severely detract from my enjoyment of and participation in the site. Instead of being free to read how I'd like, knowing that even if I skimmed through a 100 comment thread in five minutes I still probably saw the stuff I wouldn't want to miss, I'd be faced with an imposing wall of text. Without being able to manage this massive amount of information in a way that left me feeling in touch with the best of the site, I'd have two options:
1. Devote my life to reading everything on Metafilter, so I know I haven't missed anything, or
2. Make arbitrary and disheartening decisions about what to read and what to skip, with the constant nag that my drunkard's walk is leading me to read more lame one-liners and generally mellow comments while missing out on the really funny and cool stuff going on in threads I didn't have time to go through.
Obviously the first choice isn't a choice at all, so I'd be stuck with choice 2. And choice 2 significantly detracts from the intrinsic enjoyment I'd get out of reading Mefi and leaves me with an ever-present feeling of frustration and disappointment. Even if through sheer chance I happened to read the exact same comments I would have with favorites-skimming, it wouldn't eliminate that nagging discouraging feeling. Add to that the reduction and concealment of any positive feedback for thoughtful commentary, and the net result would be me reading and commenting less. And that makes me sad.
(And to answer BigSky's concern, no, of course favorites aren't a perfect guide, and highly favorited stuff isn't always the best. But it is a good guide most of the time, good enough that relying on it in a rush leaves me feeling satisfied that I'm taking in most of the interesting content -- a feeling that holds true even when I read threads completely.)
posted by Rhaomi at 1:11 AM on November 3, 2009 [14 favorites]
That's a good point. On the other hand, it seems to me that the majority of people dropping in to opine dislike the change, some vehemently. Even assuming the anti-favorite folks are not accurately represented in favorite counts, I'd expect their presence in terms of comments would be much more strongly felt if their numbers were comparable to the people who liked the system as it was.
koeselitz: "I truly believe that as this process continues – in fact, even now, even long before now – we're in danger of filtering out all the opinions that don't square neatly with the majority, that we're in danger of rounding off all the corners. I don't think favorites reward evil, but they do reward mediocrity."
This is hardly true in my experience. If favorited comments were mediocre pap I wouldn't derive enjoyment or value from reading them. And I'm not making that judgment in a vacuum, because I do read full threads in context when I have the time and the inclination. More often than not, the most favorited comments are the sharpest, wittiest, most insightful, and most helpful stuff in the thread in comparison to the rest. That isn't saying that "the rest" is useless noise. I do get something out of reading non-favorited stuff when I have a lot of free time or interest and can read completely. But the highly-favorited stuff has something special most of the time. I know this from looking at my own favorites -- my linking to a YouTube video or making an observation about an article isn't useless, but doesn't have the same je ne sais quoi as a creative comment fable or a long and considered political argument.
Secret Life of Gravy: "What I have gleaned from the the strong pro-favorite crowd is unless your comment gets 5 or more favorites, it is basically just noise. That sums up about 95% of my contributions. Hell, I'm being too generous to myself, it is probably more like 98%. Essentially I've been wasting your time and my time."
This simply isn't true. I think I and others have made it quite clear that favorite count is not some ironclad gatekeeper of our attention, and that any mechanism that took the informal way we use favorites and filtered threads that way automatically would be harmful to the site.
The core issue, for me at least, is that Mefi has a crapton of excellent commentary, but there's just too much of it to read completely on a daily basis. I know that the best content I've read here has stuck with me and made me happier, from the jokes to the personal stories to the explanations of complex issues. I don't like the idea of missing out on stuff like that because I was too busy doing other things. I would not be able to stand flitting around the site randomly, with that nagging feeling that something worthwhile is being posted that I'm never going to see.
Favorites offer a convenient solution. They let me read every thread quickly, with the confidence that I will see the most notable content, because other Mefites who read more thoroughly have been kind enough to register their collective interest in an easily accessible way. I don't have to read every single comment to feel satisfied, because the odds of a really funny/touching/eloquent comment getting no favorites from anybody is very low.
If this generally reliable method of skimming were unavailable or hidden so I had to click a button or hover my mouse on every comment to replicate it, it would severely detract from my enjoyment of and participation in the site. Instead of being free to read how I'd like, knowing that even if I skimmed through a 100 comment thread in five minutes I still probably saw the stuff I wouldn't want to miss, I'd be faced with an imposing wall of text. Without being able to manage this massive amount of information in a way that left me feeling in touch with the best of the site, I'd have two options:
1. Devote my life to reading everything on Metafilter, so I know I haven't missed anything, or
2. Make arbitrary and disheartening decisions about what to read and what to skip, with the constant nag that my drunkard's walk is leading me to read more lame one-liners and generally mellow comments while missing out on the really funny and cool stuff going on in threads I didn't have time to go through.
Obviously the first choice isn't a choice at all, so I'd be stuck with choice 2. And choice 2 significantly detracts from the intrinsic enjoyment I'd get out of reading Mefi and leaves me with an ever-present feeling of frustration and disappointment. Even if through sheer chance I happened to read the exact same comments I would have with favorites-skimming, it wouldn't eliminate that nagging discouraging feeling. Add to that the reduction and concealment of any positive feedback for thoughtful commentary, and the net result would be me reading and commenting less. And that makes me sad.
(And to answer BigSky's concern, no, of course favorites aren't a perfect guide, and highly favorited stuff isn't always the best. But it is a good guide most of the time, good enough that relying on it in a rush leaves me feeling satisfied that I'm taking in most of the interesting content -- a feeling that holds true even when I read threads completely.)
posted by Rhaomi at 1:11 AM on November 3, 2009 [14 favorites]
What about sponsoring the "has favorites" line? So for December it could read "has Pepsi", for January "has KFC Double Down Sandwich". If the pro-favoriters really are destroying the site they could at least make mathowie some extra money while they're at it.
posted by minifigs at 2:15 AM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by minifigs at 2:15 AM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
Day 3 - I am still alive and reading
Reading threads, skimming comments randomly (data point: taking away favorites is not making me read this thread any closer)
I don't think I'll favorite anymore. I did for a while in this thread, but now I think "What's the point?" I now realize I did use them as a social communication tool to signify to others, or join others, in positively acknowledging a comment. I don't see why this is bad. I know, not everyone uses it this way, but that's how I use them and the current implementation is useless for this. One factor of sidebarring has been comments that got outrageous amounts of faves. We won't get 100+ faves for any comment, or even 50 for that matter. I'm thinking 20. It's an interesting stat to see at the end of the month, with a sort of game theory at play here.
I always thought they were a weird way to bookmark things so I don't benefit that way, particularly when they clearly are called "favoriting" and jessamyn has been very firm about the term never being about bookmarking. (I believe the words were something like "exactly zero chance")
I'm kinda over my semi-outrage. If faves come back to the way they were YAYYY!!! If not, I'd say just get rid of them altogether because now it's just distracting with no benefit. I'll get as much utility out of Mefi as I did before favorites were ever introduced and it was still a good site. To be perfectly honest though, if that happens I think I'd actually read less of it because I'd feel like I had to dedicate huge amounts of time to, ironically, the most interesting threads. With old favorites, I had no fear of diving into 150+ comment discussions.
I'm still participating because I want my changed behavior to count as some sort of data point in this experiment.
posted by like_neon at 2:23 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Reading threads, skimming comments randomly (data point: taking away favorites is not making me read this thread any closer)
I don't think I'll favorite anymore. I did for a while in this thread, but now I think "What's the point?" I now realize I did use them as a social communication tool to signify to others, or join others, in positively acknowledging a comment. I don't see why this is bad. I know, not everyone uses it this way, but that's how I use them and the current implementation is useless for this. One factor of sidebarring has been comments that got outrageous amounts of faves. We won't get 100+ faves for any comment, or even 50 for that matter. I'm thinking 20. It's an interesting stat to see at the end of the month, with a sort of game theory at play here.
I always thought they were a weird way to bookmark things so I don't benefit that way, particularly when they clearly are called "favoriting" and jessamyn has been very firm about the term never being about bookmarking. (I believe the words were something like "exactly zero chance")
I'm kinda over my semi-outrage. If faves come back to the way they were YAYYY!!! If not, I'd say just get rid of them altogether because now it's just distracting with no benefit. I'll get as much utility out of Mefi as I did before favorites were ever introduced and it was still a good site. To be perfectly honest though, if that happens I think I'd actually read less of it because I'd feel like I had to dedicate huge amounts of time to, ironically, the most interesting threads. With old favorites, I had no fear of diving into 150+ comment discussions.
I'm still participating because I want my changed behavior to count as some sort of data point in this experiment.
posted by like_neon at 2:23 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Alright, so, we've moved on to "has favorites", could we maybe elaborate on this to perhaps say, "has quite a few favorites", to "Is favorited really, like, a lot", to "Wow, this was favorited a ton of times now", and/or finally "Hey, wanna get in on this band-wagon?"
posted by From Bklyn at 2:57 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by From Bklyn at 2:57 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
"has favorites" seems to be a step backwards than "faved." I mean it is a word, so that's cool and all, but it looks like German or something--hasfavorites--or maybe just lolcats: "i can haz favorite." Plus it's now 2 characters longer than the old system (for <10 favorites). My vote, not that this is a democracy, would be to go back to "faved" or give "saved" a try as suggested somewhere in the last 1,800 comments (yeouch!)
posted by zachlipton at 3:18 AM on November 3, 2009
posted by zachlipton at 3:18 AM on November 3, 2009
... this feature was included in the package that I paid $5 for. Adding features is great, but removing them from a paid service is not so cool.
Well ...
Ummm ...
Ahhh ...
Sorry, can't comprehend this. Just can't.
posted by dg at 3:27 AM on November 3, 2009
Well ...
Ummm ...
Ahhh ...
Sorry, can't comprehend this. Just can't.
posted by dg at 3:27 AM on November 3, 2009
this feature was included in the package that I paid $5 for. Adding features is great, but removing them from a paid service is not so cool.
MeFi isn't really a paid service in the traditional sense of the concept. The $5 is a buy-in, something we all have agreed to (except for the ancient users anyway) in order to slightly increase the barrier to entry to the site as a part of a continued effort to suck less than YouTube comments. The fee doesn't imply any sort of continued service. Sure, it might if it cost $5/month, but that's not how it works; it's $5/life (or per sockpuppet anyway).
As far as I'm concerned, paying your $5 is like anteing into a hand in poker. If you paid up and the dealer took your ante and ran, you would rightly be pissed. But if you paid your ante three years ago, it would be unreasonable to expect to be still playing the exact same hand today. Ok that analogy is a little forced, but the point remains: you paid to get into the game, and you got that. Three years later, we're going to try making duces wild for a bit, and perhaps the cocktail waitress isn't as cute anymore, but you're still playing the same frickin' game for your $5 and you don't get to demand satisfaction or your money back.
Getting a good series of responses from a single Ask post is worth way, way more than $5 in any number of circumstances.
posted by zachlipton at 3:41 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
MeFi isn't really a paid service in the traditional sense of the concept. The $5 is a buy-in, something we all have agreed to (except for the ancient users anyway) in order to slightly increase the barrier to entry to the site as a part of a continued effort to suck less than YouTube comments. The fee doesn't imply any sort of continued service. Sure, it might if it cost $5/month, but that's not how it works; it's $5/life (or per sockpuppet anyway).
As far as I'm concerned, paying your $5 is like anteing into a hand in poker. If you paid up and the dealer took your ante and ran, you would rightly be pissed. But if you paid your ante three years ago, it would be unreasonable to expect to be still playing the exact same hand today. Ok that analogy is a little forced, but the point remains: you paid to get into the game, and you got that. Three years later, we're going to try making duces wild for a bit, and perhaps the cocktail waitress isn't as cute anymore, but you're still playing the same frickin' game for your $5 and you don't get to demand satisfaction or your money back.
Getting a good series of responses from a single Ask post is worth way, way more than $5 in any number of circumstances.
posted by zachlipton at 3:41 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
chortly writes "What you need is a baseline measurement: change something that is a clear (but relatively minor) detriment to the vast majority of users, and then look at how the complaints and polling changes over the course of the month. When you've established what the baseline decline is, you can then measure more ambiguous changes against that baseline, so that the threshold is not 'have complaints gone down or poll approval gone up,' but 'have complaints gone down more than you would expect through the attrition of time alone'."
Maybe this is the baseline measurement phase. The really outrage comes next month.
hippybear writes "I wish there were a solution for Safari. Maybe I missed it in the noise and sturm and drang of the thread that I found completely unreadable because someone can't stand that people don't agree with him... I'll search for it later."
Instructions for an in house profile setting to revert are also bannered at the top of the Meta Front page.
rokusan writes "Cortex's responses (at least) certainly read as a mix of contradictory and/or backpedaling to me, on things like why the 'faves' word choice (to save width? get serious),"
Width of the byline is a serious concern. It's been debated both on it's own merits and as a side discussion whenever the byline changes. It would have been discussed at length here if the original faved had been the current has favourites. On preview, thanks zachlipton.
torticat writes "Why should we trust the metafilter population to bring us the 'best of the web,' and not trust the same population to evaluate (more or less reasonably) comments on the same? "Is it that the populations are actually different? That there's a metafilter 'first-string' that makes FPPs, and others who might favorite comments but don't usually post or comment themselves, and whose 'vote' is therefore less worthy? "Is it that posting a link is different from expressing an opinion on the linked content? "If the whole point of MetaFilter is to cull the best from what's out there on the internet, then who better than the cullers to further sift the content?"
Not that I think this is a trust issue but one obvious difference is there is a much higher bar for posts. A bar that is guarded by the deletion system.
like_neon writes "I don't think I'll favorite anymore. I did for a while in this thread, but now I think 'What's the point?' I now realize I did use them as a social communication tool to signify to others, or join others, in positively acknowledging a comment. I don't see why this is bad. I know, not everyone uses it this way, but that's how I use them and the current implementation is useless for this. One factor of sidebarring has been comments that got outrageous amounts of faves. We won't get 100+ faves for any comment, or even 50 for that matter. I'm thinking 20. It's an interesting stat to see at the end of the month, with a sort of game theory at play here."
The flip side is some people are reporting running out of favourites for the first time. Should be interesting to seewhich way is dominate and how much uptake each side has if the trend continues.
posted by Mitheral at 3:51 AM on November 3, 2009
Maybe this is the baseline measurement phase. The really outrage comes next month.
hippybear writes "I wish there were a solution for Safari. Maybe I missed it in the noise and sturm and drang of the thread that I found completely unreadable because someone can't stand that people don't agree with him... I'll search for it later."
Instructions for an in house profile setting to revert are also bannered at the top of the Meta Front page.
rokusan writes "Cortex's responses (at least) certainly read as a mix of contradictory and/or backpedaling to me, on things like why the 'faves' word choice (to save width? get serious),"
Width of the byline is a serious concern. It's been debated both on it's own merits and as a side discussion whenever the byline changes. It would have been discussed at length here if the original faved had been the current has favourites. On preview, thanks zachlipton.
torticat writes "Why should we trust the metafilter population to bring us the 'best of the web,' and not trust the same population to evaluate (more or less reasonably) comments on the same? "Is it that the populations are actually different? That there's a metafilter 'first-string' that makes FPPs, and others who might favorite comments but don't usually post or comment themselves, and whose 'vote' is therefore less worthy? "Is it that posting a link is different from expressing an opinion on the linked content? "If the whole point of MetaFilter is to cull the best from what's out there on the internet, then who better than the cullers to further sift the content?"
Not that I think this is a trust issue but one obvious difference is there is a much higher bar for posts. A bar that is guarded by the deletion system.
like_neon writes "I don't think I'll favorite anymore. I did for a while in this thread, but now I think 'What's the point?' I now realize I did use them as a social communication tool to signify to others, or join others, in positively acknowledging a comment. I don't see why this is bad. I know, not everyone uses it this way, but that's how I use them and the current implementation is useless for this. One factor of sidebarring has been comments that got outrageous amounts of faves. We won't get 100+ faves for any comment, or even 50 for that matter. I'm thinking 20. It's an interesting stat to see at the end of the month, with a sort of game theory at play here."
The flip side is some people are reporting running out of favourites for the first time. Should be interesting to seewhich way is dominate and how much uptake each side has if the trend continues.
posted by Mitheral at 3:51 AM on November 3, 2009
I'm missing a huge paralinguistic channel of conversation. And I already find the site as a whole a bit less stimulating and challenging.
It does seem a bit subdued to me, but maybe it needs time. I'm not sure how I feel about the change so far.
I'm a bit surprised at some of the strong negativity expressed by those who feel this experiment was sprung onto us unfairly.
As for changes in how I use the site, I can only say I have now noticed that when I start to read a comment my eyes will often flash down to where the favorite totals would normally be...
posted by lmm at 3:58 AM on November 3, 2009
It does seem a bit subdued to me, but maybe it needs time. I'm not sure how I feel about the change so far.
I'm a bit surprised at some of the strong negativity expressed by those who feel this experiment was sprung onto us unfairly.
As for changes in how I use the site, I can only say I have now noticed that when I start to read a comment my eyes will often flash down to where the favorite totals would normally be...
posted by lmm at 3:58 AM on November 3, 2009
[me:] "I truly believe that as this process continues – in fact, even now, even long before now – we're in danger of filtering out all the opinions that don't square neatly with the majority, that we're in danger of rounding off all the corners. I don't think favorites reward evil, but they do reward mediocrity."
[Rhaomi:] "This is hardly true in my experience. If favorited comments were mediocre pap I wouldn't derive enjoyment or value from reading them. And I'm not making that judgment in a vacuum, because I do read full threads in context when I have the time and the inclination. More often than not, the most favorited comments are the sharpest, wittiest, most insightful, and most helpful stuff in the thread in comparison to the rest. That isn't saying that "the rest" is useless noise. I do get something out of reading non-favorited stuff when I have a lot of free time or interest and can read completely. But the highly-favorited stuff has something special most of the time. I know this from looking at my own favorites -- my linking to a YouTube video or making an observation about an article isn't useless, but doesn't have the same je ne sais quoi as a creative comment fable or a long and considered political argument."
When did I say anything about highly-favorited comments?
posted by koeselitz at 4:06 AM on November 3, 2009
[Rhaomi:] "This is hardly true in my experience. If favorited comments were mediocre pap I wouldn't derive enjoyment or value from reading them. And I'm not making that judgment in a vacuum, because I do read full threads in context when I have the time and the inclination. More often than not, the most favorited comments are the sharpest, wittiest, most insightful, and most helpful stuff in the thread in comparison to the rest. That isn't saying that "the rest" is useless noise. I do get something out of reading non-favorited stuff when I have a lot of free time or interest and can read completely. But the highly-favorited stuff has something special most of the time. I know this from looking at my own favorites -- my linking to a YouTube video or making an observation about an article isn't useless, but doesn't have the same je ne sais quoi as a creative comment fable or a long and considered political argument."
When did I say anything about highly-favorited comments?
posted by koeselitz at 4:06 AM on November 3, 2009
Holy shit take a look at this. Best of the Web.
posted by at the crossroads at 4:14 AM on November 3, 2009
posted by at the crossroads at 4:14 AM on November 3, 2009
Wow, not only is the background color slowly changing on me, but have y'all noticed how the language in the byline keeps shifting?
As another data point, I'm a constant reader and an inconstant contributor (just did my first FPP last week), and I don't use favorites as a reader, except in a "whoa, a number just caught my eye" way. I use favorites fairly sparingly as a faver. I'm not noticing much different yet in my use of the site, except that the binary indicator (the has and the has-nots) is in some ways more noticible to me than the numbers were (which seems counterintuitive, I know--it's probably that I'm paying closer attention.
As a data point for lewistate, while I can't seem to find time to write up the askme's in my head, I checked back in on this thread almost first thing on this very early morning. I wonder how widespread is this kind of interest in how the meta community is conducting its meta business? It's not just gawking at flameouts (though that's surely part of it); it's also a real interest in watching folks negotiate both logical (sometimes!) argument, and the social norms (norms?) of the site.
Remember when old-school Spock would listen to the human crew go on about something, and then cock an eyebrow and say "fascinating."?
posted by Mngo at 4:24 AM on November 3, 2009
As another data point, I'm a constant reader and an inconstant contributor (just did my first FPP last week), and I don't use favorites as a reader, except in a "whoa, a number just caught my eye" way. I use favorites fairly sparingly as a faver. I'm not noticing much different yet in my use of the site, except that the binary indicator (the has and the has-nots) is in some ways more noticible to me than the numbers were (which seems counterintuitive, I know--it's probably that I'm paying closer attention.
As a data point for lewistate, while I can't seem to find time to write up the askme's in my head, I checked back in on this thread almost first thing on this very early morning. I wonder how widespread is this kind of interest in how the meta community is conducting its meta business? It's not just gawking at flameouts (though that's surely part of it); it's also a real interest in watching folks negotiate both logical (sometimes!) argument, and the social norms (norms?) of the site.
Remember when old-school Spock would listen to the human crew go on about something, and then cock an eyebrow and say "fascinating."?
posted by Mngo at 4:24 AM on November 3, 2009
Say, what about this "has favorites" with a number of favorites in the rollover alt text? Then at least one wouldn't have to reload the browser to see how many favorites a comment has, but the count wouldn't be pushed on the reader either. Yes, I suspect this has probably been proposed already somewhere in the last 1800 comments but I'm too lazy to search for it.
posted by telstar at 4:29 AM on November 3, 2009
posted by telstar at 4:29 AM on November 3, 2009
Hey telster, I actually suggested something along those lines up thread (except the default would be that no favorites are shown until you favorite something)--I even did a mock-up of the idea.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:45 AM on November 3, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:45 AM on November 3, 2009
Whoops, telstar. Sorry.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:45 AM on November 3, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:45 AM on November 3, 2009
I'm not noticing much different yet in my use of the site, except that the binary indicator (the has and the has-nots) is in some ways more noticible to me than the numbers were
Definitely seeing that too - perhaps it's because "has" is more obvious after the number of the date than another number would be?
posted by patricio at 4:57 AM on November 3, 2009
Definitely seeing that too - perhaps it's because "has" is more obvious after the number of the date than another number would be?
posted by patricio at 4:57 AM on November 3, 2009
A bunch of favorites on a song I put a bunch of effort into and want to share feels a lot better than a bunch of favorites on me kicking someone out of the community. - cortex
This!
Favorites can serve as a positive reward or encouragement for positive contributions to the site: A song, an awesome post, a nice anecdote, or a useful bit of advice.
They can also be a reward for snark, piling on, and being on the 'correct team' in an argument.
I think the benefit of the former outweighs the harm of the latter. I suspect the snark, piling on, and so forth would still occur without favorites - it's part , part a desire to 'win' a thread. Those urges would still exist as they come down to the poster, not the [+] box. I try to avoid arguments, but am not perfect: sometimes the flesh is weak and the snark is strong.
Would "bunch of effort into and want to share" contributions still exist in a world sans-favorites? I can only speak for myself, but I am less inclined to put effort into contributions. I admit I watch my favorites count pretty regularly. Maybe I'm just insecure or whatever, but I like receiving them for something I put effort in to. I'll also cop to feeling a bit miffed when a contribution I put some time in to does not garner a bunch of favorites and will use that as feedback to help shape future contributions.
One saying that I picked up from Metafilter is "The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good". Favorites are a good way to encourage positive contributions to the site. They are not a perfect way, but I don't think there is one. There is no system that could stop people from rewarding bad behavior with the good. That change starts with the reader, not the [+] box.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:22 AM on November 3, 2009
This!
Favorites can serve as a positive reward or encouragement for positive contributions to the site: A song, an awesome post, a nice anecdote, or a useful bit of advice.
They can also be a reward for snark, piling on, and being on the 'correct team' in an argument.
I think the benefit of the former outweighs the harm of the latter. I suspect the snark, piling on, and so forth would still occur without favorites - it's part , part a desire to 'win' a thread. Those urges would still exist as they come down to the poster, not the [+] box. I try to avoid arguments, but am not perfect: sometimes the flesh is weak and the snark is strong.
Would "bunch of effort into and want to share" contributions still exist in a world sans-favorites? I can only speak for myself, but I am less inclined to put effort into contributions. I admit I watch my favorites count pretty regularly. Maybe I'm just insecure or whatever, but I like receiving them for something I put effort in to. I'll also cop to feeling a bit miffed when a contribution I put some time in to does not garner a bunch of favorites and will use that as feedback to help shape future contributions.
One saying that I picked up from Metafilter is "The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good". Favorites are a good way to encourage positive contributions to the site. They are not a perfect way, but I don't think there is one. There is no system that could stop people from rewarding bad behavior with the good. That change starts with the reader, not the [+] box.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:22 AM on November 3, 2009
People are suggesting, implicitly or not, that because they paid $5, they're entitled to use the site exactly the way it has been for eternity?
Some people take themselves way too seriously. Those attacking the mods or freaking out over a display option on a website need some perspective. This is not a big deal. It isn't. And if it is, then you need to reconsider your priorities in life.
I've been reading this site for at least 7 years. I don't even remember anymore (anyone else remember Seth?). This thread, more than any other, makes me want to never again read what many, many people on have to say. Probably most of those people have a ton of favorites.
posted by smorange at 5:43 AM on November 3, 2009
Some people take themselves way too seriously. Those attacking the mods or freaking out over a display option on a website need some perspective. This is not a big deal. It isn't. And if it is, then you need to reconsider your priorities in life.
I've been reading this site for at least 7 years. I don't even remember anymore (anyone else remember Seth?). This thread, more than any other, makes me want to never again read what many, many people on have to say. Probably most of those people have a ton of favorites.
posted by smorange at 5:43 AM on November 3, 2009
This thread, more than any other, makes me want to never again read what many, many people on have to say.
Honestly, I would also consider this taking things too seriously.
posted by smackfu at 5:57 AM on November 3, 2009 [6 favorites]
Honestly, I would also consider this taking things too seriously.
posted by smackfu at 5:57 AM on November 3, 2009 [6 favorites]
People are suggesting, implicitly or not, that because they paid $5, they're entitled to use the site exactly the way it has been for eternity?
Person, smorange, not people. Exactly one person in this 1800+ comment thread has made an "I paid $5" argument.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:17 AM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
Person, smorange, not people. Exactly one person in this 1800+ comment thread has made an "I paid $5" argument.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:17 AM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
[Foo misinterprets Bab's comment and attacks what Foo thinks Bab is saying. Foo's comment garners a lot of favorites, even after it is pointed out in the thread that what Foo thought Bab was saying was not what Bab was saying.]
Here's something that really bothers me. Even Foo's comment has been shown to be groundless and wrongheaded it keeps getting favorites.
Without actually seeing the comments, it's hard to say, but it may be taking it too far to say that Foo's comment was "groundless and wrongheaded." The part of the comment in which Foo erroneously attributes the position to Bab may is groundless and wrongheaded, but isn't it also possible that the position Foo believed Bab to hold is one which is actually held by a good number of people (either MeFites, or in the general population)? And that people may have favorited the comment as a eloquent refutation of that position in general, even if Foo was in error that it was a position held by Bab?
If I come across a seven-paragraph comment which has six paragraphs I strongly agree with and one I disagree with, I'll sometimes ponder for a few seconds whether I ought to favorite or not. I usually don't, but I can see that other people might decide differently.
Again, it's hard to say without seeing the actual comments, but from what's been described here, this is not as clearly a case of "bad favoriting" as you make it out to be.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:32 AM on November 3, 2009
Here's something that really bothers me. Even Foo's comment has been shown to be groundless and wrongheaded it keeps getting favorites.
Without actually seeing the comments, it's hard to say, but it may be taking it too far to say that Foo's comment was "groundless and wrongheaded." The part of the comment in which Foo erroneously attributes the position to Bab may is groundless and wrongheaded, but isn't it also possible that the position Foo believed Bab to hold is one which is actually held by a good number of people (either MeFites, or in the general population)? And that people may have favorited the comment as a eloquent refutation of that position in general, even if Foo was in error that it was a position held by Bab?
If I come across a seven-paragraph comment which has six paragraphs I strongly agree with and one I disagree with, I'll sometimes ponder for a few seconds whether I ought to favorite or not. I usually don't, but I can see that other people might decide differently.
Again, it's hard to say without seeing the actual comments, but from what's been described here, this is not as clearly a case of "bad favoriting" as you make it out to be.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:32 AM on November 3, 2009
The nice thing about favorites is you can take them back. In that same situation without favorites, Foo's comment would get a lot of "me too" comments which would last forever.
posted by smackfu at 6:36 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by smackfu at 6:36 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
jessamyn has been very firm about the term never being about bookmarking.
You may have misunderstood. At this juncture there is no way we're changing the word we use in the favorites-hidden byline again this month. Personally, I use favorites for bookmarking stuff for the podcast [and then I unfave later, omg!] and also to say some sort of "thanks for sharing" thing to people who have very eloquent or touching comments. And the occasional "just so you know, I got the subtle joke and it was very very funny" mention.
This was not our intention, clearly, but one of the secondary effects of this fave-hiding scenario is that I think we've looked more deeply into not just how people use favorites but also how they see other people using them and which aspects of that use are more and less important. I'm surprised how much de-emphasizing favorites changes my use of the site subtly [we mods don't have any different view of favorites than you guys do and I haven't opted out of the hide-fave setting]; I now see it more as sending a private message to a user than making a statement in front of the community. That's interesting to me.
Not that everyone else should share my navel-gazing love of this, but I feel that we're getting deeper into thinking about how favorites affect the site and the users more than our usual "It's a book mark! It's a thumbs up!" back and forth.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:40 AM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
You may have misunderstood. At this juncture there is no way we're changing the word we use in the favorites-hidden byline again this month. Personally, I use favorites for bookmarking stuff for the podcast [and then I unfave later, omg!] and also to say some sort of "thanks for sharing" thing to people who have very eloquent or touching comments. And the occasional "just so you know, I got the subtle joke and it was very very funny" mention.
This was not our intention, clearly, but one of the secondary effects of this fave-hiding scenario is that I think we've looked more deeply into not just how people use favorites but also how they see other people using them and which aspects of that use are more and less important. I'm surprised how much de-emphasizing favorites changes my use of the site subtly [we mods don't have any different view of favorites than you guys do and I haven't opted out of the hide-fave setting]; I now see it more as sending a private message to a user than making a statement in front of the community. That's interesting to me.
Not that everyone else should share my navel-gazing love of this, but I feel that we're getting deeper into thinking about how favorites affect the site and the users more than our usual "It's a book mark! It's a thumbs up!" back and forth.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:40 AM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
Everyone here needs cheese sandwiches
posted by WalterMitty at 6:42 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by WalterMitty at 6:42 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've left the # of favorites thingy turned off because I don't think the mods are trying to hurt me in any way and I want to participate in this experiment.
In reading this monster of a thread, I've learned a few uncomfortable truths:
-I like getting favorites. I like the little ego-boost it gives. I thought I was in the "favorites don't matter to me" camp, but that turned out to be a lie. They do matter to me.
-I pay attention to how many favorites others have gotten. I remember user names because certain users get a lot of favorites.
-I "reward" snark with favorites. This one is the worst. In real life, I am a nice person. Really. But I have this other, darker, side that loves snark. I follow Lovely Listing and Regretsy and Cake Wrecks and I revel in the snark. I'm one of those people who favorited Cortex's banning of Sixcolors. She was a bit of a train wreck, but she never did anything to hurt me or even really upset me all that much. But I felt this mean glee when she got banned, and used my favorite as sort of a pile-on.
So even though I didn't understand how favorites might change site behaviour, I can see it now. I'm sure that most of you aren't overthinking this the way I am, but for me, it's probably better if I leave my preferences off for the month and see if it changes me for the better.
posted by dogmom at 6:46 AM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
In reading this monster of a thread, I've learned a few uncomfortable truths:
-I like getting favorites. I like the little ego-boost it gives. I thought I was in the "favorites don't matter to me" camp, but that turned out to be a lie. They do matter to me.
-I pay attention to how many favorites others have gotten. I remember user names because certain users get a lot of favorites.
-I "reward" snark with favorites. This one is the worst. In real life, I am a nice person. Really. But I have this other, darker, side that loves snark. I follow Lovely Listing and Regretsy and Cake Wrecks and I revel in the snark. I'm one of those people who favorited Cortex's banning of Sixcolors. She was a bit of a train wreck, but she never did anything to hurt me or even really upset me all that much. But I felt this mean glee when she got banned, and used my favorite as sort of a pile-on.
So even though I didn't understand how favorites might change site behaviour, I can see it now. I'm sure that most of you aren't overthinking this the way I am, but for me, it's probably better if I leave my preferences off for the month and see if it changes me for the better.
posted by dogmom at 6:46 AM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
This thread and the experiment as a whole has gotten me thinking a lot about the many different ways people approach MetaFilter. Up til now I've always seen the big divide between the (mainly) Greenies and the (mainly) Blueites, with the sub-set of those who read the gray. There is definitely a divide between the 9:00 am to 5:00 pm PST readers and the rest of us, which is why I usually find I am commenting at the bottom of a post rather then at the beginning (which makes a difference in your favorite count.) I never realized there was such a big divide between the skimmers and the non-skimmers.
There is what-- approx. 20 FPPs a day? I read 2 or 3, maybe, from top to bottom including all links. I am not saying this is the only way or the best way! I just didn't realize how many members read the comments of more (or most?) of the FPPs by skimming the top favorites.
So the members who love favorites are:
People who skim
People who receive lots of favorites
People who like knowing how the community feels about each comment
People who use them as bookmarks
People who would rather click a + button than comment
The members who don't love favorites are:
People who find them distracting
People who feel they are harmful to the community by rewarding snark/mediocrity
People who don't receive lots of favorites
People who feel they add too much weight to one side of an argument
Other than members who really just don't care, am I forgetting anyone?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:53 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
There is what-- approx. 20 FPPs a day? I read 2 or 3, maybe, from top to bottom including all links. I am not saying this is the only way or the best way! I just didn't realize how many members read the comments of more (or most?) of the FPPs by skimming the top favorites.
So the members who love favorites are:
People who skim
People who receive lots of favorites
People who like knowing how the community feels about each comment
People who use them as bookmarks
People who would rather click a + button than comment
The members who don't love favorites are:
People who find them distracting
People who feel they are harmful to the community by rewarding snark/mediocrity
People who don't receive lots of favorites
People who feel they add too much weight to one side of an argument
Other than members who really just don't care, am I forgetting anyone?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:53 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
you didn't mention the creepy wall of cortex photos or the shrine to the one waits dreaming.
In his house at Met'lk dead Chrthex waits dreaming.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:55 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
In his house at Met'lk dead Chrthex waits dreaming.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:55 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'll also cop to feeling a bit miffed when a contribution I put some time in to does not garner a bunch of favorites and will use that as feedback to help shape future contributions
That assumes how many people favorite a comment is a good measure of how worthwhile it was to post (or for readers, how worthwhile reading it is).
I'd be curious how many of the people who are keen to be able to judge comments by their favorite counts think there's a good correspondence between the number of favorites and the quality of the comment?
posted by cillit bang at 6:55 AM on November 3, 2009
That assumes how many people favorite a comment is a good measure of how worthwhile it was to post (or for readers, how worthwhile reading it is).
I'd be curious how many of the people who are keen to be able to judge comments by their favorite counts think there's a good correspondence between the number of favorites and the quality of the comment?
posted by cillit bang at 6:55 AM on November 3, 2009
cortex: "For all we know, December will roll around and people will have actually come to the conclusion collectively that there's some merit in what was going on, I don't know."
If what I have been told in this thread about the unrepresentativeness of MetaTalk comments is correct, then I don't see any way the mods could decide that such a collective conclusion was reached. The opt-out numbers certainly wouldn't help.
If the will of the community matters in deciding whether change should occur - and again, I am not here expressing an opinion on whether it should matter or not - it seems to me that the least imperfect way of determining that will would be to put a poll on the front page on December 1 and then be done with it.
Are the mods even prepared to affirm a collective conclusion - such as they may ascertain it to be - as the basis for whatever decision they reach? Because if it's also possible, for all we know, that the mods may decide to thwart the majority will for what they perceive to be some Higher Good, I feel it would have been more respectful to the community to make that explicit when inviting feedback.
Otherwise, it seems to me that what we're really left with is: Let us know your opinions in case we have to ignore them.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:01 AM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
If what I have been told in this thread about the unrepresentativeness of MetaTalk comments is correct, then I don't see any way the mods could decide that such a collective conclusion was reached. The opt-out numbers certainly wouldn't help.
If the will of the community matters in deciding whether change should occur - and again, I am not here expressing an opinion on whether it should matter or not - it seems to me that the least imperfect way of determining that will would be to put a poll on the front page on December 1 and then be done with it.
Are the mods even prepared to affirm a collective conclusion - such as they may ascertain it to be - as the basis for whatever decision they reach? Because if it's also possible, for all we know, that the mods may decide to thwart the majority will for what they perceive to be some Higher Good, I feel it would have been more respectful to the community to make that explicit when inviting feedback.
Otherwise, it seems to me that what we're really left with is: Let us know your opinions in case we have to ignore them.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:01 AM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'd be curious how many of the people who are keen to be able to judge comments by their favorite counts think there's a good correspondence between the number of favorites and the quality of the comment?
I don't think this.
In fact, I doubt anyone on here would agree that the more favorites a comment has, the better the comment is. Surely any active Metafilter commenter has probably had the experience of feeling sure they were posting a fantastic comment but not receiving any favorites. I doubt that many people experience this as a crushing rejection of their comment.
What I do think is that if a comment has 10 or 20 favorites, it's likely to be worth a particularly close look. Does that mean I'll necessarily agree with the comment or even expect to? Nope. It doesn't even mean that those comments were more popular than non-favorited comments -- after all, people don't always add a favorite every time they like a comment.
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:06 AM on November 3, 2009
I don't think this.
In fact, I doubt anyone on here would agree that the more favorites a comment has, the better the comment is. Surely any active Metafilter commenter has probably had the experience of feeling sure they were posting a fantastic comment but not receiving any favorites. I doubt that many people experience this as a crushing rejection of their comment.
What I do think is that if a comment has 10 or 20 favorites, it's likely to be worth a particularly close look. Does that mean I'll necessarily agree with the comment or even expect to? Nope. It doesn't even mean that those comments were more popular than non-favorited comments -- after all, people don't always add a favorite every time they like a comment.
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:06 AM on November 3, 2009
I only look at the number of favorites for long comments. Like page-long ones. Because I like to know in advance if someone is being wordy because they have something to say, or just because they're being windy.
posted by smackfu at 7:11 AM on November 3, 2009
posted by smackfu at 7:11 AM on November 3, 2009
So the members who love favorites are:
People who skim
People who receive lots of favorites
People who like knowing how the community feels about each comment
People who use them as bookmarks
People who would rather click a + button than comment
I'd add also "People who like to communicate encouragement to or solidarity with the commenter."
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:14 AM on November 3, 2009 [8 favorites]
People who skim
People who receive lots of favorites
People who like knowing how the community feels about each comment
People who use them as bookmarks
People who would rather click a + button than comment
I'd add also "People who like to communicate encouragement to or solidarity with the commenter."
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:14 AM on November 3, 2009 [8 favorites]
Are the mods even prepared to affirm a collective conclusion - such as they may ascertain it to be - as the basis for whatever decision they reach? Because if it's also possible, for all we know, that the mods may decide to thwart the majority will for what they perceive to be some Higher Good, I feel it would have been more respectful to the community to make that explicit when inviting feedback.
You're being way too dialectic with this, man. It's reasonable to assume (and everything they have said so far supports this) that they are asking for feedback because feedback contains ideas. The opinion of the majority would be a component of whatever decision they made, but so would the individual perceived merit of ideas presented in feedback.
They have said that the status quo is the preferred path. What they are looking for is anything that might be indicative of changes that could be made that would improve the site, where "anything" could be a change in user behavior, some statistical difference, or user feedback.
They're asking for user feedback because it's part of what they're trying to get a read on.
posted by anifinder at 7:14 AM on November 3, 2009
You're being way too dialectic with this, man. It's reasonable to assume (and everything they have said so far supports this) that they are asking for feedback because feedback contains ideas. The opinion of the majority would be a component of whatever decision they made, but so would the individual perceived merit of ideas presented in feedback.
They have said that the status quo is the preferred path. What they are looking for is anything that might be indicative of changes that could be made that would improve the site, where "anything" could be a change in user behavior, some statistical difference, or user feedback.
They're asking for user feedback because it's part of what they're trying to get a read on.
posted by anifinder at 7:14 AM on November 3, 2009
"Has favorites," while still inelegant, is a vast improvement to "faved." I have put away my razor blade (which only exists on an etheric plane - it's not the one I shave with).
I was never a big fan of publicly displayed favorites, though over time I found them to be a handy way of judging MetaFilters sitegeist. I have been a little disappointed to find that my throwaway snarky comments tend to receive more favorites than my longer, heartfelt and thought-out comments, but I don't think that has changed my behavior on the site. I may not comment often, but I'll still say whatever it is I want to say (unless someone else has already said it first).
I've marked a few comments in this thread as favorites, but it has been a little disappointing not to see the counter uptick. On the other hand, watching a comment suddenly move from ignoble obscurity to the lofty status of "has favorites" makes me feel like a benevolent deity. (Yes, I am a simple man in many ways.)
I'm not at all certain that this is a good thing, but there you have it.
posted by malocchio at 7:15 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I was never a big fan of publicly displayed favorites, though over time I found them to be a handy way of judging MetaFilters sitegeist. I have been a little disappointed to find that my throwaway snarky comments tend to receive more favorites than my longer, heartfelt and thought-out comments, but I don't think that has changed my behavior on the site. I may not comment often, but I'll still say whatever it is I want to say (unless someone else has already said it first).
I've marked a few comments in this thread as favorites, but it has been a little disappointing not to see the counter uptick. On the other hand, watching a comment suddenly move from ignoble obscurity to the lofty status of "has favorites" makes me feel like a benevolent deity. (Yes, I am a simple man in many ways.)
I'm not at all certain that this is a good thing, but there you have it.
posted by malocchio at 7:15 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
> BUT I HATE that casual users and first-time MeFi readers will get the impression that this community equally values inane snark that one or two people found mildly amusing and Nattie's horizon-expanding contribution that 514 have found meaningful.
This. This a thousand times.
I don't know if removing favorites from comments will be a net benefit or loss. There are good arguments above in both directions. Perhaps we'll know more on December 1st.
But, without question, this half-measure of equating one favorite with hundreds of favorites does tremendous harm to our community for exactly the reason marsha56 articulated.
posted by FfejL at 7:15 AM on November 3, 2009 [6 favorites]
This. This a thousand times.
I don't know if removing favorites from comments will be a net benefit or loss. There are good arguments above in both directions. Perhaps we'll know more on December 1st.
But, without question, this half-measure of equating one favorite with hundreds of favorites does tremendous harm to our community for exactly the reason marsha56 articulated.
posted by FfejL at 7:15 AM on November 3, 2009 [6 favorites]
I'd be curious how many of the people who are keen to be able to judge comments by their favorite counts think there's a good correspondence between the number of favorites and the quality of the comment?
I have mixed feelings about this. (Background: short threads—maybe 40 comments or less—I generally read in their entirety, if I read them at all. Longer threads that I have a strong interest in I also read in their entirety. But for longer threads that I have only a passing interest in, yes, I sometimes "filter by number of favorites.")
Looking at the comments I've made which have gotten favorites certainly challenges my notion that that's a great way to do things. I've made what I feel are carefully thought-out, informative comments which have gotten 2 or 3 favorites, and I've made cheap pot-shots I'm not particularly proud of that have gotten 20+ favorites (usually the sort of argument that's emotionally satisfying in the moment, but when examined critically is not an intellectually sound argument).
Even with that caveat, though, I think there's some correlation between favorite count and quality. Not great, but not none either. I'd still rather have favorite counts as a means to pick out a handful of comments to read in a thread in which I have low-to-moderate interest, rather than be forced into a choice of "read the whole thread or don't read it at all" (even if I'm not going to comment in the thread) or alternately just picking some comments at random to read. Accordingly, I've turned favorite counts on for myself, although I appreciate the mods' willingness to try out alternate methods of interaction in general and bear them no ill will for this trial. (But then, I didn't see the new format until the in-site preference to turn favorite counts back on was available. I might have been more GRAR if I had seen it before that was in place.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:21 AM on November 3, 2009
I have mixed feelings about this. (Background: short threads—maybe 40 comments or less—I generally read in their entirety, if I read them at all. Longer threads that I have a strong interest in I also read in their entirety. But for longer threads that I have only a passing interest in, yes, I sometimes "filter by number of favorites.")
Looking at the comments I've made which have gotten favorites certainly challenges my notion that that's a great way to do things. I've made what I feel are carefully thought-out, informative comments which have gotten 2 or 3 favorites, and I've made cheap pot-shots I'm not particularly proud of that have gotten 20+ favorites (usually the sort of argument that's emotionally satisfying in the moment, but when examined critically is not an intellectually sound argument).
Even with that caveat, though, I think there's some correlation between favorite count and quality. Not great, but not none either. I'd still rather have favorite counts as a means to pick out a handful of comments to read in a thread in which I have low-to-moderate interest, rather than be forced into a choice of "read the whole thread or don't read it at all" (even if I'm not going to comment in the thread) or alternately just picking some comments at random to read. Accordingly, I've turned favorite counts on for myself, although I appreciate the mods' willingness to try out alternate methods of interaction in general and bear them no ill will for this trial. (But then, I didn't see the new format until the in-site preference to turn favorite counts back on was available. I might have been more GRAR if I had seen it before that was in place.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:21 AM on November 3, 2009
I like the idea that using favorites encourages thoughtful, amusing, interesting, etc comments. I think that there is a good chance that many people use them that way, but I think that they also have a darker side.
I think that there are people who use them as feedback that encourages what I would consider to be behavior that is detrimental to the site. I see a lot of comments right at the top of threads that denigrate the post and the poster in an amusing way, and they always seem to get a few favorites. I think that the people who post these comments take this as a sign that they are on the right track and tend to do more of this kind of thing. In some ways, I think that "I did it for the Favs" was becoming the Mefi version of "I did it for the lulz."
If you post something that ends in amirite and someone gives you a favorite, it is easy to interpret this as someone saying that you are right even if this is not what was intended. Looking back on my commenting history with an eye towards whether I am really making a contribution to the site, I see quite a few comments that I am not terribly proud of that have some favorites.
posted by jefeweiss at 7:33 AM on November 3, 2009
I think that there are people who use them as feedback that encourages what I would consider to be behavior that is detrimental to the site. I see a lot of comments right at the top of threads that denigrate the post and the poster in an amusing way, and they always seem to get a few favorites. I think that the people who post these comments take this as a sign that they are on the right track and tend to do more of this kind of thing. In some ways, I think that "I did it for the Favs" was becoming the Mefi version of "I did it for the lulz."
If you post something that ends in amirite and someone gives you a favorite, it is easy to interpret this as someone saying that you are right even if this is not what was intended. Looking back on my commenting history with an eye towards whether I am really making a contribution to the site, I see quite a few comments that I am not terribly proud of that have some favorites.
posted by jefeweiss at 7:33 AM on November 3, 2009
And... another stunt favoriter. Isn't that adorable utterly predictable.
I expect it's intended as evidence that the experimental system is broken (which is arguable), as opposed to evidence that people will use favorites abusively to the detriment of the system (which is demonstrably the case -- thanks for making the point).
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 7:40 AM on November 3, 2009
I expect it's intended as evidence that the experimental system is broken (which is arguable), as opposed to evidence that people will use favorites abusively to the detriment of the system (which is demonstrably the case -- thanks for making the point).
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 7:40 AM on November 3, 2009
Joe Beese: "cortex: "For all we know, December will roll around and people will have actually come to the conclusion collectively that there's some merit in what was going on, I don't know."
Are the mods even prepared to affirm a collective conclusion - such as they may ascertain it to be - as the basis for whatever decision they reach? Because if it's also possible, for all we know, that the mods may decide to thwart the majority will for what they perceive to be some Higher Good, I feel it would have been more respectful to the community to make that explicit when inviting feedback.
Otherwise, it seems to me that what we're really left with is: Let us know your opinions in case we have to ignore them."
It seems to me that this is taking a pretty dim view of the mods motivation and ability to come to a conclusion. I think that they have made it pretty clear in this thread that they aren't sure what they are looking for in this experiment. I don't think that they can come up with some type of scientific measurement for what they are looking at. They have been pretty good about listening to the community in the past and I trust them to make decisions about what needs to be done going forward.
posted by jefeweiss at 7:42 AM on November 3, 2009
Are the mods even prepared to affirm a collective conclusion - such as they may ascertain it to be - as the basis for whatever decision they reach? Because if it's also possible, for all we know, that the mods may decide to thwart the majority will for what they perceive to be some Higher Good, I feel it would have been more respectful to the community to make that explicit when inviting feedback.
Otherwise, it seems to me that what we're really left with is: Let us know your opinions in case we have to ignore them."
It seems to me that this is taking a pretty dim view of the mods motivation and ability to come to a conclusion. I think that they have made it pretty clear in this thread that they aren't sure what they are looking for in this experiment. I don't think that they can come up with some type of scientific measurement for what they are looking at. They have been pretty good about listening to the community in the past and I trust them to make decisions about what needs to be done going forward.
posted by jefeweiss at 7:42 AM on November 3, 2009
anifinder: "They're asking for user feedback because it's part of what they're trying to get a read on."
Fair enough.
Can we agree that, so far at least, that feedback has been: We HATE HATE HATE this?
posted by Joe Beese at 7:42 AM on November 3, 2009
Fair enough.
Can we agree that, so far at least, that feedback has been: We HATE HATE HATE this?
posted by Joe Beese at 7:42 AM on November 3, 2009
Can we agree that, so far at least, that feedback has been: We HATE HATE HATE this?
For a lot of people, sure. For others, not so much. And yeah the haters probably outweight the "eh I don't mind" who in turn outweigh the "I like this" crowd.
That said if the question was just "would you like this?" there would be no reason to do any of this. You've made your points fairly clearly, and I think we have as well.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:47 AM on November 3, 2009
For a lot of people, sure. For others, not so much. And yeah the haters probably outweight the "eh I don't mind" who in turn outweigh the "I like this" crowd.
That said if the question was just "would you like this?" there would be no reason to do any of this. You've made your points fairly clearly, and I think we have as well.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:47 AM on November 3, 2009
There has been undeniably a whole lot of negative feedback, yeah.
I feel to some extent like you've been angling, under the guise of concern for a better understanding of our verdict-making process at the end of month, for an early mod verdict now, which feels both unnecessary (we can read this thread and have been very attentive and responsive to what folks are saying) and kind of manipulative, frankly, but that may be a reading you don't intend.
I think the repeating and reframing of the "what's going to happen" question when we've been trying to be very clear about our default assumptions and intentions for what's going to happen (read: nothing, back to how things were) is what's driving that reading for me, for what it's worth. I can't think of a clearer way to communicate the idea that we don't expect to make any permanent changes at the end of this than to, y'know, say that a bunch of times flatly, which is why I've said that a bunch of times flatly. Again with the damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't aspect of daring to take a realistic stance on my ability to prognosticate.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:49 AM on November 3, 2009
I feel to some extent like you've been angling, under the guise of concern for a better understanding of our verdict-making process at the end of month, for an early mod verdict now, which feels both unnecessary (we can read this thread and have been very attentive and responsive to what folks are saying) and kind of manipulative, frankly, but that may be a reading you don't intend.
I think the repeating and reframing of the "what's going to happen" question when we've been trying to be very clear about our default assumptions and intentions for what's going to happen (read: nothing, back to how things were) is what's driving that reading for me, for what it's worth. I can't think of a clearer way to communicate the idea that we don't expect to make any permanent changes at the end of this than to, y'know, say that a bunch of times flatly, which is why I've said that a bunch of times flatly. Again with the damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't aspect of daring to take a realistic stance on my ability to prognosticate.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:49 AM on November 3, 2009
And... another stunt favoriter.
Eh, ignore it. A few stunt favoriters can make sure every comment in this thread gets at least one favorite. It's not practical for them to do that site-wide, especially given the 100 favorite per day limit. And I don't think any thoughtful person on either side of the debate would attempt to draw conclusions about which option is better for the site based on this thread alone; favoriting activity in this thread is obviously anomalous and not suitable for drawing conclusions from.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:49 AM on November 3, 2009
Eh, ignore it. A few stunt favoriters can make sure every comment in this thread gets at least one favorite. It's not practical for them to do that site-wide, especially given the 100 favorite per day limit. And I don't think any thoughtful person on either side of the debate would attempt to draw conclusions about which option is better for the site based on this thread alone; favoriting activity in this thread is obviously anomalous and not suitable for drawing conclusions from.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:49 AM on November 3, 2009
a handy way of judging MetaFilters sitegeist.
For the record, I consider the word “sitegeist” as much of a textual sin as “faved”
posted by Think_Long at 7:51 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
For the record, I consider the word “sitegeist” as much of a textual sin as “faved”
posted by Think_Long at 7:51 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I can't think of a clearer way to communicate the idea that we don't expect to make any permanent changes at the end of this than to, y'know, say that a bunch of times flatly, which is why I've said that a bunch of times flatly.
I think what might be tripping people up with this is it implies even if the experiment is a huge success, everything will go back to the way it was and it will stay that way. I know that isn't what you said, but it's easy to read it that way.
Let me see if I've got it right, though:
posted by FishBike at 8:02 AM on November 3, 2009
I think what might be tripping people up with this is it implies even if the experiment is a huge success, everything will go back to the way it was and it will stay that way. I know that isn't what you said, but it's easy to read it that way.
Let me see if I've got it right, though:
- If hiding favorite counts doesn't noticeably improve the site, everything goes back the way it was. The end.
- If hiding favorite counts does noticeably improve the site, everything still goes back the way it was, and there will be further discussions about what to do next, given the results.
posted by FishBike at 8:02 AM on November 3, 2009
> Let's not get all starry eyed here about the role of favorites and community...it's more just making people cross-eyed.
It's not favorites themselves I'm talking about. It's the equating 1 favorite with 500 favorites. It a reduction in information and it creates false equivalences.
To use your example, if you make that fart joke and one person laughs, I know I'm at one kind of dinner party. If everyone laughs, I'm at a different (and much better) kind of party. But knowing how many people laugh is really really important to my understanding.
Metafilter would be better served by either putting things back the way they were, or eliminating comments on favorites altogether.
To be clear, I don't mean we should switch back this instant. The experiment is only a month, and worthwhile.
posted by FfejL at 8:02 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's not favorites themselves I'm talking about. It's the equating 1 favorite with 500 favorites. It a reduction in information and it creates false equivalences.
To use your example, if you make that fart joke and one person laughs, I know I'm at one kind of dinner party. If everyone laughs, I'm at a different (and much better) kind of party. But knowing how many people laugh is really really important to my understanding.
Metafilter would be better served by either putting things back the way they were, or eliminating comments on favorites altogether.
To be clear, I don't mean we should switch back this instant. The experiment is only a month, and worthwhile.
posted by FfejL at 8:02 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
cortex: " I can't think of a clearer way to communicate the idea that we don't expect to make any permanent changes at the end of this than to, y'know, say that a bunch of times flatly, which is why I've said that a bunch of times flatly."
Then that settles it as far as I'm concerned.
2010 sign-ups can hold their registrations cheap while any speaks that survived the favesperiment.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:02 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Then that settles it as far as I'm concerned.
2010 sign-ups can hold their registrations cheap while any speaks that survived the favesperiment.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:02 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
* If hiding favorite counts doesn't noticeably improve the site, everything goes back the way it was. The end.
* If hiding favorite counts does noticeably improve the site, everything still goes back the way it was, and there will be further discussions about what to do next, given the results.
Yep. Experiment runs; experiment ends; we all talk about it. If talking about it means talking about changes that have a big groundswell of community support/demand, okay, but we're not going in planning on anything like that happening.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:06 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
* If hiding favorite counts does noticeably improve the site, everything still goes back the way it was, and there will be further discussions about what to do next, given the results.
Yep. Experiment runs; experiment ends; we all talk about it. If talking about it means talking about changes that have a big groundswell of community support/demand, okay, but we're not going in planning on anything like that happening.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:06 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
2010 sign-ups can hold their registrations cheap while any speaks that survived the favesperiment.
This doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you meant to say "Hey, I HATE HATE HATE this. A LOT! I HATE it! It's really bad. And I'm in the majority! Hey, folks? People who hate this, a list: 1. ME, Joe Beese! It's really awful. You agree with me, right? Everyone agrees with me."
posted by fightorflight at 8:11 AM on November 3, 2009
This doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you meant to say "Hey, I HATE HATE HATE this. A LOT! I HATE it! It's really bad. And I'm in the majority! Hey, folks? People who hate this, a list: 1. ME, Joe Beese! It's really awful. You agree with me, right? Everyone agrees with me."
posted by fightorflight at 8:11 AM on November 3, 2009
"Person, smorange, not people. Exactly one person in this 1800+ comment thread has made an "I paid $5" argument."
Two people, but still.
"Otherwise, it seems to me that what we're really left with is: Let us know your opinions in case we have to ignore them."
What paranoid nonsense. The mods here to an amazing job of reading, sifting through, and considering all of our collective whining, bitching and kvetching here and responding to it dutifully. Even though I sometimes disagree with their decisions, I always respect them and always know that a lot of care and thought has gone into them. What childish, petulant hogwash to even imply that they'd be insincere in their call for feedback, or that just because you don't necessarily get your way that they're ignoring you.
posted by klangklangston at 8:12 AM on November 3, 2009
Two people, but still.
"Otherwise, it seems to me that what we're really left with is: Let us know your opinions in case we have to ignore them."
What paranoid nonsense. The mods here to an amazing job of reading, sifting through, and considering all of our collective whining, bitching and kvetching here and responding to it dutifully. Even though I sometimes disagree with their decisions, I always respect them and always know that a lot of care and thought has gone into them. What childish, petulant hogwash to even imply that they'd be insincere in their call for feedback, or that just because you don't necessarily get your way that they're ignoring you.
posted by klangklangston at 8:12 AM on November 3, 2009
I've read the whole thread, and would like to put in my two bits.
I use favorites to support opinions that I like, less often as bookmarks (but I do). If I do skim, I skim for the contribution of specific users (I won't name them so they don't get the big head) and not how many "votes" a comment gets from the group as a whole. I will notice a particularly large favorite number but isn't the community built upon the opinions and constructive contributions of it's members and not just how many 'votes' a comment gets? If somebody says something really disgusting, and it DOESN'T get favorites, do all you favorite skimmers miss that? How do you get to know the community if you only look for the popular kids? I want to know what people think, not just what may get 'kudos'.
I see both sides of the experiment argument but the bottom line is that our Mods have proven themselves over and over, 24/7 and I think they deserve to be trusted. You may not always agree with them but I've never seen them NOT explain their reasons for a decision fully, politely and carefully. Including this topic and to me, they have been more than accommodating in their explanations and more than patient with some members. The good stuff about Metafilter is largely because of them and to me, that's enough. If they want to experiment, fine by me.
And, bottom line, it's Matt's call to make. If you REALLY have that much of a problem with it then
GYOFB!
posted by pearlybob at 8:14 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
I use favorites to support opinions that I like, less often as bookmarks (but I do). If I do skim, I skim for the contribution of specific users (I won't name them so they don't get the big head) and not how many "votes" a comment gets from the group as a whole. I will notice a particularly large favorite number but isn't the community built upon the opinions and constructive contributions of it's members and not just how many 'votes' a comment gets? If somebody says something really disgusting, and it DOESN'T get favorites, do all you favorite skimmers miss that? How do you get to know the community if you only look for the popular kids? I want to know what people think, not just what may get 'kudos'.
I see both sides of the experiment argument but the bottom line is that our Mods have proven themselves over and over, 24/7 and I think they deserve to be trusted. You may not always agree with them but I've never seen them NOT explain their reasons for a decision fully, politely and carefully. Including this topic and to me, they have been more than accommodating in their explanations and more than patient with some members. The good stuff about Metafilter is largely because of them and to me, that's enough. If they want to experiment, fine by me.
And, bottom line, it's Matt's call to make. If you REALLY have that much of a problem with it then
GYOFB!
posted by pearlybob at 8:14 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Wow...
I never knew that favorites were such a... political/economic tool.
I mean, I like getting favorited, and maybe snark helps, maybe it doesn't. But honestly, I just write what I feel. I thought everyone did the same. I didn't know we were such karma whores. I also just "like" what I like -- sometimes as a bookmark, others to just give kudos to either a witty retort or to a personal anecdote or insightful comment...
I like the old system, I admit.
I forgot which site has it, but doesn't one have a "category" for favorites like "mark as insightful" or "mark as funny" -- would a sort of sub-favorites system work?
I could see something like that...
posted by symbioid at 8:16 AM on November 3, 2009
I never knew that favorites were such a... political/economic tool.
I mean, I like getting favorited, and maybe snark helps, maybe it doesn't. But honestly, I just write what I feel. I thought everyone did the same. I didn't know we were such karma whores. I also just "like" what I like -- sometimes as a bookmark, others to just give kudos to either a witty retort or to a personal anecdote or insightful comment...
I like the old system, I admit.
I forgot which site has it, but doesn't one have a "category" for favorites like "mark as insightful" or "mark as funny" -- would a sort of sub-favorites system work?
I could see something like that...
posted by symbioid at 8:16 AM on November 3, 2009
This doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you meant to say "Hey, I HATE HATE HATE this. A LOT! I HATE it! It's really bad. And I'm in the majority! Hey, folks? People who hate this, a list: 1. ME, Joe Beese! It's really awful. You agree with me, right? Everyone agrees with me."
Please don't do this.
posted by anifinder at 8:16 AM on November 3, 2009 [6 favorites]
Please don't do this.
posted by anifinder at 8:16 AM on November 3, 2009 [6 favorites]
* If hiding favorite counts doesn't noticeably improve the site, everything goes back the way it was. The end.
* If hiding favorite counts does noticeably improve the site, everything still goes back the way it was, and there will be further discussions about what to do next, given the results.
* If hiding favorite counts for a month (insofar as it takes a whole click to see one), results in a metric tonne of entitlement whinging, the site will, come December 1st, be used exclusively to flog t-shirts and novelty coffee mugs, the profits going to the Ex-Mods-In-Tahiti Fund.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:22 AM on November 3, 2009
* If hiding favorite counts does noticeably improve the site, everything still goes back the way it was, and there will be further discussions about what to do next, given the results.
* If hiding favorite counts for a month (insofar as it takes a whole click to see one), results in a metric tonne of entitlement whinging, the site will, come December 1st, be used exclusively to flog t-shirts and novelty coffee mugs, the profits going to the Ex-Mods-In-Tahiti Fund.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:22 AM on November 3, 2009
fightorflight: " Perhaps you meant to say "Hey, I HATE HATE HATE this. A LOT! I HATE it! It's really bad. And I'm in the majority! Hey, folks? People who hate this, a list: 1. ME, Joe Beese! It's really awful. You agree with me, right? Everyone agrees with me.""
By an odd coincidence, what I meant to say was exactly what I said.
I take it that your version is how you interpreted it. "Duly noted", as they say.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:22 AM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
By an odd coincidence, what I meant to say was exactly what I said.
I take it that your version is how you interpreted it. "Duly noted", as they say.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:22 AM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
Please don't do this.
I really don't think it was that inaccurate a picture of Beese. Less sneering, perhaps. But he's been telling us time and again that everybody hates it; that the majority is right; that it's all broken. It's no longer reading like he's posting in good faith, and yet another po-faced reply to him calling him on it is just going to continue the spiral, until he sums up his position yet again ("we all hate it, btw").
posted by fightorflight at 8:24 AM on November 3, 2009
I really don't think it was that inaccurate a picture of Beese. Less sneering, perhaps. But he's been telling us time and again that everybody hates it; that the majority is right; that it's all broken. It's no longer reading like he's posting in good faith, and yet another po-faced reply to him calling him on it is just going to continue the spiral, until he sums up his position yet again ("we all hate it, btw").
posted by fightorflight at 8:24 AM on November 3, 2009
I like to think of myself as someone who (a) rolls with the feature punches, and (b) tries not to judge things without a modicum of patience, but this whole "has favorites" business has reduced the quality of my thread reading experience more quickly and dramatically than anything.
I appreciate the intention of reducing the importance of high favorite counts, but the site now looks like one of those "everyone gets a prize" kids' contests. It also disproportionately calls out those comments that don't have any favorites, as if there's something inherently wrong with your writing until someone else gives you a pat on the pack.
posted by mkultra at 8:25 AM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
I appreciate the intention of reducing the importance of high favorite counts, but the site now looks like one of those "everyone gets a prize" kids' contests. It also disproportionately calls out those comments that don't have any favorites, as if there's something inherently wrong with your writing until someone else gives you a pat on the pack.
posted by mkultra at 8:25 AM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
cortex: we all talk about it.
Who is involved in we?
From your earlier comment I gathered that the 4 of you discussed this change with great care and good intentions, but never asked anyone else. The moderators are not a representation of the users. You hold the ban hammer, full edit rights, the ability to search flagged posts and why they are flagged. Your metafilter experience is different from ours.
When I look at this thread including the outrage, hurt feelings and flameouts I can't see how this experiment has possibly improved metafilter. Looking at the people who are the most outraged, they are some of the longstanding members of the community who's opinions I respect.
posted by 26.2 at 8:29 AM on November 3, 2009 [8 favorites]
Who is involved in we?
From your earlier comment I gathered that the 4 of you discussed this change with great care and good intentions, but never asked anyone else. The moderators are not a representation of the users. You hold the ban hammer, full edit rights, the ability to search flagged posts and why they are flagged. Your metafilter experience is different from ours.
When I look at this thread including the outrage, hurt feelings and flameouts I can't see how this experiment has possibly improved metafilter. Looking at the people who are the most outraged, they are some of the longstanding members of the community who's opinions I respect.
posted by 26.2 at 8:29 AM on November 3, 2009 [8 favorites]
> The mods can take abuse, I am sure, or they would have other jobs by now. I didn't give 'abuse', or didn't intend to, and I suspect they know that and don't need the callout and defense from others.
Yeah, the mods can "take" abuse. That doesn't mean you need to give it to them. And yes, you did, whatever you intended, and if I were in your shoes I would have apologized and shut up a long time ago. As someone else said, I'm on your side in this argument, but you make me wish I weren't. Stop shooting yourself and your argument in the foot.
posted by languagehat at 8:29 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, the mods can "take" abuse. That doesn't mean you need to give it to them. And yes, you did, whatever you intended, and if I were in your shoes I would have apologized and shut up a long time ago. As someone else said, I'm on your side in this argument, but you make me wish I weren't. Stop shooting yourself and your argument in the foot.
posted by languagehat at 8:29 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry to say that I'm not enjoying this, either. It seems to be a solution that doesn't solve any of the original problems it was intended to solve, and in addition, creates some odd new problems. I'm finding it hard to perceive any gains here, and definitely perceive some losses, and certainly unnecessary confusions.
posted by Miko at 8:32 AM on November 3, 2009 [9 favorites]
posted by Miko at 8:32 AM on November 3, 2009 [9 favorites]
> cortex: we all talk about it.
Who is involved in we?
Anybody in the community who wants to be involved. Metatalk thread with a sidebarring seems like the probable venue on December 1.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:35 AM on November 3, 2009
Who is involved in we?
Anybody in the community who wants to be involved. Metatalk thread with a sidebarring seems like the probable venue on December 1.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:35 AM on November 3, 2009
If somebody says something really disgusting, and it DOESN'T get favorites, do all you favorite skimmers miss that?
I wish. Sadly, I don't. If someone posts something truly disgusting (and it doesn't get immediately deleted), there will inevitably be one or more responses to the disgusting thing which will be highly favorited, so if it's in a thread that I'm favorite-skimming, I see the disgusting thing quoted in the response. (And if I fear the responder has taken the quote out of context, I can always scroll up and see it in context.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:36 AM on November 3, 2009
I wish. Sadly, I don't. If someone posts something truly disgusting (and it doesn't get immediately deleted), there will inevitably be one or more responses to the disgusting thing which will be highly favorited, so if it's in a thread that I'm favorite-skimming, I see the disgusting thing quoted in the response. (And if I fear the responder has taken the quote out of context, I can always scroll up and see it in context.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:36 AM on November 3, 2009
2010 sign-ups can hold their registrations cheap while any speaks that survived the favesperiment.
I don't even know what this means. What does this mean?
posted by rtha at 8:42 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't even know what this means. What does this mean?
posted by rtha at 8:42 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's an abuse of Henry V:
And gentlemen in England now a-bedposted by fightorflight at 8:45 AM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Shakespeare can take abuse, I am sure, or he would have found another job by now.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:50 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe Beese at 8:50 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Noted favourites whore Joe Beese has his validation numbers obscured; hissy fit ensues. News at eleven.
posted by Rumple at 8:56 AM on November 3, 2009
posted by Rumple at 8:56 AM on November 3, 2009
I think that Metafilterologists will be arguing for centuries over the meaning of that comment.
posted by jefeweiss at 8:58 AM on November 3, 2009
posted by jefeweiss at 8:58 AM on November 3, 2009
Why are people acting like this is a permanent thing? I'm guessing people would have the same reaction if it was decided that the front page needed to be orange for a month. It's a month! And there's an opt out option. I just don't get the vitriol.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:02 AM on November 3, 2009
posted by cjorgensen at 9:02 AM on November 3, 2009
Noted favourites whore Joe Beese has his validation numbers obscured; hissy fit ensues. News at eleven.
posted by Rumple at 8:56 AM on November 3 [+] [!]
Maybe I'm naive, but I thought that this whole experiment was rolled out in the hopes of reducing unproductive snark and name-calling.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:02 AM on November 3, 2009 [12 favorites]
posted by Rumple at 8:56 AM on November 3 [+] [!]
Maybe I'm naive, but I thought that this whole experiment was rolled out in the hopes of reducing unproductive snark and name-calling.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:02 AM on November 3, 2009 [12 favorites]
Ah, thanks, fightorflight. It was ringing a faint bell but I couldn't figure out why.
Still doesn't make a lick of sense.
posted by rtha at 9:04 AM on November 3, 2009
Still doesn't make a lick of sense.
posted by rtha at 9:04 AM on November 3, 2009
As a matter of personal interest, I went back and looked at the earliest page of comments I made, way before favorites, $5, and all that.
6 comments were long enough to trigger the [more] clipping feature. Then I grabbed a recent page, and lo and behold, the same number, 6, were long enough to trigger clipping.
But, back on page 14, I could only fit 22 comments onto a page, because all the comments are longer, on average. By page 6 days, I can fit 50 comments on a single page, because so many of them are one liners.
posted by nomisxid at 9:17 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
6 comments were long enough to trigger the [more] clipping feature. Then I grabbed a recent page, and lo and behold, the same number, 6, were long enough to trigger clipping.
But, back on page 14, I could only fit 22 comments onto a page, because all the comments are longer, on average. By page 6 days, I can fit 50 comments on a single page, because so many of them are one liners.
posted by nomisxid at 9:17 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I haven't read the entire discussion, and probably won't: pasted into a word processor, it's currently 520 pages long. So far I like the obscured-but-accessible counts. I see above a floated and rejected idea for counting logarithmically.
Here is a thought about distinguishing between "a few" and "many" favorites without introducing any magic numbers. When a page is loaded, store the favorite counts for all the comments somewhere (a Javascript vector, I guess) and compute the mean and standard deviation. If the favorites were normally distributed, only one in comment in a thousand would have more than mean + 3σ; comments above this threshold are marked "many favorites" instead of just "has favorites." This makes favorites useful for skimming long threads but keeps things qualitative.
A similar (but faster) rule would be to use a label like "many favorites" on a comment with, say three times the median number.
This could probably be done in Greasemonkey, which I don't know how to do, but if anyone whips it up let me know.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 9:22 AM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
Here is a thought about distinguishing between "a few" and "many" favorites without introducing any magic numbers. When a page is loaded, store the favorite counts for all the comments somewhere (a Javascript vector, I guess) and compute the mean and standard deviation. If the favorites were normally distributed, only one in comment in a thousand would have more than mean + 3σ; comments above this threshold are marked "many favorites" instead of just "has favorites." This makes favorites useful for skimming long threads but keeps things qualitative.
A similar (but faster) rule would be to use a label like "many favorites" on a comment with, say three times the median number.
This could probably be done in Greasemonkey, which I don't know how to do, but if anyone whips it up let me know.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 9:22 AM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
nomisxid: "As a matter of personal interest, I went back and looked at the earliest page of comments I made, way before favorites, $5, and all that.
6 comments were long enough to trigger the [more] clipping feature. Then I grabbed a recent page, and lo and behold, the same number, 6, were long enough to trigger clipping.
But, back on page 14, I could only fit 22 comments onto a page, because all the comments are longer, on average. By page 6 days, I can fit 50 comments on a single page, because so many of them are one liners."
That is interesting. But I'm not sure what to make of it.
For one thing, it's not clear to me that shorter comments are necessarily less desirable than longer ones - especially with more people around who might want to say something. Note how often people in this thread have cited the difficulty/impossibilty of keeping up with everything.
For another thing, people have observed that unusually long comments tend to get favorited a lot. So that incentive system seems to work both ways.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:33 AM on November 3, 2009
6 comments were long enough to trigger the [more] clipping feature. Then I grabbed a recent page, and lo and behold, the same number, 6, were long enough to trigger clipping.
But, back on page 14, I could only fit 22 comments onto a page, because all the comments are longer, on average. By page 6 days, I can fit 50 comments on a single page, because so many of them are one liners."
That is interesting. But I'm not sure what to make of it.
For one thing, it's not clear to me that shorter comments are necessarily less desirable than longer ones - especially with more people around who might want to say something. Note how often people in this thread have cited the difficulty/impossibilty of keeping up with everything.
For another thing, people have observed that unusually long comments tend to get favorited a lot. So that incentive system seems to work both ways.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:33 AM on November 3, 2009
By page 6 days, I can fit 50 comments on a single page, because so many of them are one liners.
substantial opinions and comments are a lot more likely to get fighty responses and pile-ons than one liners and people adjust their commenting accordingly
i don't think it's the positive feedback of favorites that's really affecting the style of comments here, it's the negative feedback
posted by pyramid termite at 9:34 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
substantial opinions and comments are a lot more likely to get fighty responses and pile-ons than one liners and people adjust their commenting accordingly
i don't think it's the positive feedback of favorites that's really affecting the style of comments here, it's the negative feedback
posted by pyramid termite at 9:34 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
More than one comment in this thread has compared visible favorite counts to the non-verbal cues which support and drive face-to-face conversation. I find this to be an apt comparison, as now when I click into the threads, they feel less like a discussion and more like blocks of text piled upon blocks of text. Sure, I can see that some "have favorites" and some do not, but it's tedious to click these notices to find out how many - only slightly more tedious than it would be to have to mouse over them to get the numbers. There's no way to get a sense of the momentum of a thread and skimming is straight up broken now.
Here's how I generally read a long thread - skim first, beginning with the comments with high favorite numbers, continuing to any comments that these are in response to, continuing from there back up to the top of the thread, then back to the bottom from where ever I started reading in detail. Skimming wasn't usually my way of avoiding a close read of a thread, but rather the first stage in sort of a "zoom-in" process which would eventually lead me to see every letter in the thread. Coming into a long thread was like finding a kind of crystallized, long-running conversation, frozen in time so that I might examine it forward and back, following discussion strands back to their origins then down to their current unspooled state. This is still possible, I suppose, but I'm missing the first, crucial step that provided me with clear places to begin. Up until today, I hadn't thought to articulate this reading method, as visible favorites made it so easy and organic that I didn't really have to think about it at all.
The net result then, thus far? At first, I would read the first dozen or so comments, in a linear, top-to-bottom fashion before wandering away. This morning, I've been treating Metafilter like I did when someone first recommended it to me as a place to find good links. Back then, I lurked and just read the articles and websites which were shared on the front page. I guess I was aware back then that there were conversations going on in the threads linked under each post, but I rarely looked in on them. I don't comment unless I've read all or most of a thread, doing that is a bit more tedious now, so I haven't been commenting.
So, Day 2 findings from this MeFite's wing of the experiment: visible favorites becoming invisifavorites have shorn away a bit of the fun and utility of the site. My participation is reduced to that of a lurker (no doubt, some would consider this last a feature, not a bug {HAMBURGER}). I will probably adjust, but at this point: blerg.
posted by EatTheWeek at 9:37 AM on November 3, 2009 [6 favorites]
Here's how I generally read a long thread - skim first, beginning with the comments with high favorite numbers, continuing to any comments that these are in response to, continuing from there back up to the top of the thread, then back to the bottom from where ever I started reading in detail. Skimming wasn't usually my way of avoiding a close read of a thread, but rather the first stage in sort of a "zoom-in" process which would eventually lead me to see every letter in the thread. Coming into a long thread was like finding a kind of crystallized, long-running conversation, frozen in time so that I might examine it forward and back, following discussion strands back to their origins then down to their current unspooled state. This is still possible, I suppose, but I'm missing the first, crucial step that provided me with clear places to begin. Up until today, I hadn't thought to articulate this reading method, as visible favorites made it so easy and organic that I didn't really have to think about it at all.
The net result then, thus far? At first, I would read the first dozen or so comments, in a linear, top-to-bottom fashion before wandering away. This morning, I've been treating Metafilter like I did when someone first recommended it to me as a place to find good links. Back then, I lurked and just read the articles and websites which were shared on the front page. I guess I was aware back then that there were conversations going on in the threads linked under each post, but I rarely looked in on them. I don't comment unless I've read all or most of a thread, doing that is a bit more tedious now, so I haven't been commenting.
So, Day 2 findings from this MeFite's wing of the experiment: visible favorites becoming invisifavorites have shorn away a bit of the fun and utility of the site. My participation is reduced to that of a lurker (no doubt, some would consider this last a feature, not a bug {HAMBURGER}). I will probably adjust, but at this point: blerg.
posted by EatTheWeek at 9:37 AM on November 3, 2009 [6 favorites]
The neat thing about favourites, from my perspective, was always how many different kinds of reaction they were capable of signifying at once. It's not as simple as favourite = approval, or favourite = laughter. It all depends on the context of the thread.
In a way, they were incredibly subtle things. Depending on the ratio of favourites to the size of the thread (which gives an idea of how many people are reading it, or the size of the room you're in) you could infer all kinds of different reactions, from a lone head bobbing in agreement in a massive crowd, to a chortle from 16 people gathered around a dinner table.
It's laudable to desire responses that take the form of well-considered prose, but it's just as laudable to write for the purpose of eliciting a guffaw, or a snort, or a rumble of assent, or a thoughtful humm from some of the assembled. The SNARKY LOLZ FAVOURITED! reflex is a drop in the bucket of reactions people seek by posting.
It's true - I love getting favourites. And I don't think there should be any stigma attached to the idea that people like provoking reactions, or that favourites are a way of providing those reactions. All of our communications are designed to poke someone into responding, and many of the responses we look for in life are non-verbal. Favourites were a deft - if accidental - way of expressing that dynamic.
This is a neat experiment and a fantastic conversation (the kind that MeFi has fostered with or without favourites). So far, you can put me in the nay camp, but I look forward to reconvening in December.
posted by bicyclefish at 9:38 AM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
In a way, they were incredibly subtle things. Depending on the ratio of favourites to the size of the thread (which gives an idea of how many people are reading it, or the size of the room you're in) you could infer all kinds of different reactions, from a lone head bobbing in agreement in a massive crowd, to a chortle from 16 people gathered around a dinner table.
It's laudable to desire responses that take the form of well-considered prose, but it's just as laudable to write for the purpose of eliciting a guffaw, or a snort, or a rumble of assent, or a thoughtful humm from some of the assembled. The SNARKY LOLZ FAVOURITED! reflex is a drop in the bucket of reactions people seek by posting.
It's true - I love getting favourites. And I don't think there should be any stigma attached to the idea that people like provoking reactions, or that favourites are a way of providing those reactions. All of our communications are designed to poke someone into responding, and many of the responses we look for in life are non-verbal. Favourites were a deft - if accidental - way of expressing that dynamic.
This is a neat experiment and a fantastic conversation (the kind that MeFi has fostered with or without favourites). So far, you can put me in the nay camp, but I look forward to reconvening in December.
posted by bicyclefish at 9:38 AM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
Also, I'm sorely tempted to spend $5 on an account named 'has favorites'.
posted by bicyclefish at 9:39 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by bicyclefish at 9:39 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
PhoBWanKenobi: "Maybe I'm naive, but I thought that this whole experiment was rolled out in the hopes of reducing unproductive snark and name-calling."
I would bet at least ten quatloos that, as currently implemented, the mildly-obscured-favorites will have no positive effect on the general prevalence of snark. I'd seriously consider betting on just the opposite, actually--that over periods longer than a mere 30 days that it'd have quite the opposite--it'd increase it.
Here's why: flattening the superficial numbers feedback of the numbers only does so on that superficial level. Say that one effect is that favorite counts per comment tend to decline overall, because it takes away posited snowball effects of something with a couple dozen favorites catching the skimming eye, getting another chuckle and favorite, thus feeding an individual comment's favorites lifecycle.
But the posited "favorite whores" that some are concerned about still like that attention. They can still see the number of favorites they're getting through their own profile. Say their numbers are declining. Is it a likely outcome they say "well, that's that, then. Time to move on to something else"? Or is it more likely that they start getting louder in a sense, more prolific in the kinds of snark-faving bait comments that are posited to be a net harm to the community, in order to keep the numbers flowing in?
My quatloos are on the latter. Time will tell, of course.
posted by Drastic at 9:40 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I would bet at least ten quatloos that, as currently implemented, the mildly-obscured-favorites will have no positive effect on the general prevalence of snark. I'd seriously consider betting on just the opposite, actually--that over periods longer than a mere 30 days that it'd have quite the opposite--it'd increase it.
Here's why: flattening the superficial numbers feedback of the numbers only does so on that superficial level. Say that one effect is that favorite counts per comment tend to decline overall, because it takes away posited snowball effects of something with a couple dozen favorites catching the skimming eye, getting another chuckle and favorite, thus feeding an individual comment's favorites lifecycle.
But the posited "favorite whores" that some are concerned about still like that attention. They can still see the number of favorites they're getting through their own profile. Say their numbers are declining. Is it a likely outcome they say "well, that's that, then. Time to move on to something else"? Or is it more likely that they start getting louder in a sense, more prolific in the kinds of snark-faving bait comments that are posited to be a net harm to the community, in order to keep the numbers flowing in?
My quatloos are on the latter. Time will tell, of course.
posted by Drastic at 9:40 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Why are people acting like this is a permanent thing? I'm guessing people would have the same reaction if it was decided that the front page needed to be orange for a month.
Because the existence of a trial means there is thought to making it permanent. And it's silly to think people will wait to debate whether to make it permanent until after the trial is over.
To use your analogy, if the front page was orange for a month because they were thinking of changing it, do you really think people wouldn't be arguing it should stay blue?
posted by smackfu at 9:44 AM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
Because the existence of a trial means there is thought to making it permanent. And it's silly to think people will wait to debate whether to make it permanent until after the trial is over.
To use your analogy, if the front page was orange for a month because they were thinking of changing it, do you really think people wouldn't be arguing it should stay blue?
posted by smackfu at 9:44 AM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
If there's a problem, mod it out. This is sort of an attempt, (I hate to say it), to abdicate the moderation that we pay for. I want you stopping people from fucking with a thread.
I don't really know what you're getting at here. Can you elaborate? This certainly isn't some scheme to weasel out of mod work, but I don't know that that's what you meant and I'm not sure what the actual thrust of that's supposed to be.
Of course I don't mean deliberately. I mean that the idea that cutting out favorites will cut down on "fucking with a thread" seems like the wrong way of going about cutting down on people fucking with threads. The best way to do it is cutting out comments that actually fuck with threads, rather than cutting out a section of the site that some people apparently like a lot.
As for cutting down on snark, I always thought that was a feature, not a bug.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:49 AM on November 3, 2009
I don't really know what you're getting at here. Can you elaborate? This certainly isn't some scheme to weasel out of mod work, but I don't know that that's what you meant and I'm not sure what the actual thrust of that's supposed to be.
Of course I don't mean deliberately. I mean that the idea that cutting out favorites will cut down on "fucking with a thread" seems like the wrong way of going about cutting down on people fucking with threads. The best way to do it is cutting out comments that actually fuck with threads, rather than cutting out a section of the site that some people apparently like a lot.
As for cutting down on snark, I always thought that was a feature, not a bug.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:49 AM on November 3, 2009
This doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you meant to say "Hey, I HATE HATE HATE this. A LOT! I HATE it! It's really bad. And I'm in the majority! Hey, folks? People who hate this, a list: 1. ME, Joe Beese! It's really awful. You agree with me, right? Everyone agrees with me."
Your shrillness is, again, noted.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:50 AM on November 3, 2009
Your shrillness is, again, noted.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:50 AM on November 3, 2009
DevilsAdvocate: Again, it's hard to say without seeing the actual comments, but from what's been described here, this is not as clearly a case of "bad favoriting" as you make it out to be.
Durn Bronzefist has brought up the same example independently and some have made the connection and some haven't so I feel that I should make the link explicit. The exchange I mentioned earlier (Foo & Bab, comments 1, 2, 3) is the same as exchange between EmpressCallipygos and emperor.seamus mentioned by Durn Bronzefist. Here are the comments I discussed: Original comment by emperor.seamus, reply by EmpressCallipygos, emperor.seamus' clarification and apology for being unclear and EmpressCallipygos' comment saying he shouldn't worry about it.
In my Foo & Bab comments I tried to retell the exchange to the best of my abilities while keeping it as unfindable as possible. I'm glad that it's in the open now so that it can be read by everyone and not just through my personal filter.
You'll note that almost all of the 177 favorites this comment has were made after the exchange was over. I'm assuming that many of the MeFites who initially favorited it removed their favorites once it was clear that EmpressCallipygos had wildly misread emperor.seamus' comment but by then it had made it into the "most favorites sphere" of contacts activity sidebars and popular favorites pages. Therefore it accrued more and more favorites and, I'm assuming, most people who did favorite it only read that one comment and not the further exchange which demonstrated that emperor.seamus had not meant what EmpressCallipygos accused him of meaning.
Lastly I want to make clear that this isn't a callout of EmpressCallipygos. I'm sure that she honestly misread the comment that way (which I didn't, I don't know about others… if anything the full stop of sorrow in emperor.seamus' comment makes it clear that he's speaking in sorrow) but that this wildly incorrect comment received so many favorites is, to me, really, really weird and makes me uncomfortable with the system.
posted by Kattullus at 9:51 AM on November 3, 2009
Durn Bronzefist has brought up the same example independently and some have made the connection and some haven't so I feel that I should make the link explicit. The exchange I mentioned earlier (Foo & Bab, comments 1, 2, 3) is the same as exchange between EmpressCallipygos and emperor.seamus mentioned by Durn Bronzefist. Here are the comments I discussed: Original comment by emperor.seamus, reply by EmpressCallipygos, emperor.seamus' clarification and apology for being unclear and EmpressCallipygos' comment saying he shouldn't worry about it.
In my Foo & Bab comments I tried to retell the exchange to the best of my abilities while keeping it as unfindable as possible. I'm glad that it's in the open now so that it can be read by everyone and not just through my personal filter.
You'll note that almost all of the 177 favorites this comment has were made after the exchange was over. I'm assuming that many of the MeFites who initially favorited it removed their favorites once it was clear that EmpressCallipygos had wildly misread emperor.seamus' comment but by then it had made it into the "most favorites sphere" of contacts activity sidebars and popular favorites pages. Therefore it accrued more and more favorites and, I'm assuming, most people who did favorite it only read that one comment and not the further exchange which demonstrated that emperor.seamus had not meant what EmpressCallipygos accused him of meaning.
Lastly I want to make clear that this isn't a callout of EmpressCallipygos. I'm sure that she honestly misread the comment that way (which I didn't, I don't know about others… if anything the full stop of sorrow in emperor.seamus' comment makes it clear that he's speaking in sorrow) but that this wildly incorrect comment received so many favorites is, to me, really, really weird and makes me uncomfortable with the system.
posted by Kattullus at 9:51 AM on November 3, 2009
Kattullus: "but that this wildly incorrect comment received so many favorites is, to me, really, really weird and makes me uncomfortable with the system."
and you don't feel like you're cherry picking here?
posted by shmegegge at 10:00 AM on November 3, 2009
and you don't feel like you're cherry picking here?
posted by shmegegge at 10:00 AM on November 3, 2009
You'll note that almost all of the 177 favorites this comment has were made after the exchange was over.
IMHO, this could simply be because people read down the page, and add favorites as they go. The fact that there is a correction later in the page doesn't matter unless people go back and unfavorite things. And contrary to your assumption, I doubt most people revisit their favorites, even if they change their opinion just a minute later. It's not like people read the whole post and comments, and then dole out their favorites to the most worthy of the comments.
posted by smackfu at 10:01 AM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
IMHO, this could simply be because people read down the page, and add favorites as they go. The fact that there is a correction later in the page doesn't matter unless people go back and unfavorite things. And contrary to your assumption, I doubt most people revisit their favorites, even if they change their opinion just a minute later. It's not like people read the whole post and comments, and then dole out their favorites to the most worthy of the comments.
posted by smackfu at 10:01 AM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
I mean that the idea that cutting out favorites will cut down on "fucking with a thread" seems like the wrong way of going about cutting down on people fucking with threads. The best way to do it is cutting out comments that actually fuck with threads, rather than cutting out a section of the site that some people apparently like a lot.
Ah, I guess I see what you mean. I was confused because I think you're criticizing a notional strategy that we're not actually even trying to pursue. We're not floating this as an attempt to eliminate the need for direct intervention with thread-fuckery or whatever; it's a given that that will always be a necessary part of our jobs, and even if something this did have the effect of systemically reducing that sort of thing it would only be by degrees.
So it sounded to me kind of like you were saying something equivalent to "you can't replace the babysitter with a television", and from my end I was wondering where you'd get the idea that we'd even consider doing that in the first place.
As far as finding effective ways to mitigate bad behavior in threads, it's something we're certainly interested in an abstract resource-management kind of way—less time minding one aspect of the site means more time we can spend working on other parts of it—but it's not something we go chasing after so much (I think it comes up more in discussions about whether some proposed new feature/method/rule would introduce a new cost on that front than anything else), and beyond that we're more interested in things that directly affect the health and behavior of the site for what it means for the welfare of the community itself than what it means for us in terms of time spent doing cleanup. If that makes sense.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:01 AM on November 3, 2009
Ah, I guess I see what you mean. I was confused because I think you're criticizing a notional strategy that we're not actually even trying to pursue. We're not floating this as an attempt to eliminate the need for direct intervention with thread-fuckery or whatever; it's a given that that will always be a necessary part of our jobs, and even if something this did have the effect of systemically reducing that sort of thing it would only be by degrees.
So it sounded to me kind of like you were saying something equivalent to "you can't replace the babysitter with a television", and from my end I was wondering where you'd get the idea that we'd even consider doing that in the first place.
As far as finding effective ways to mitigate bad behavior in threads, it's something we're certainly interested in an abstract resource-management kind of way—less time minding one aspect of the site means more time we can spend working on other parts of it—but it's not something we go chasing after so much (I think it comes up more in discussions about whether some proposed new feature/method/rule would introduce a new cost on that front than anything else), and beyond that we're more interested in things that directly affect the health and behavior of the site for what it means for the welfare of the community itself than what it means for us in terms of time spent doing cleanup. If that makes sense.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:01 AM on November 3, 2009
Kattullus: "that this wildly incorrect comment received so many favorites is, to me, really, really weird and makes me uncomfortable with the system."
Your discomfort is noted, Kattullus, but I still can't help but feel that these sorts of unfortunate misunderstandings and misdirected pile-ons are a very rare thing. As I said before, public favorites highlight the niftiest content in every thread on a daily basis. To illustrate this, I just checked my Google Reader stats page -- as of now, the Popular Favorites RSS feed clocks in at 28.7 entries per week. That's 4.1 popular comments per day, with "popular" in this context usually being around 50-60 favorites at minimum to make the feed.
If these kinds of ugly, damaging side effects of favorites were happening multiple times per day on a consistent basis, then we would have some justification for removing the system. But everything I've seen in my years of reading Metafilter indicate that these flare-ups only happen once in a blue moon. The fact that they're so out of the norm, and the fact that the good stuff is encouraged far more often, suggests to me that shutting down the system entirely is not the answer.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:11 AM on November 3, 2009
Your discomfort is noted, Kattullus, but I still can't help but feel that these sorts of unfortunate misunderstandings and misdirected pile-ons are a very rare thing. As I said before, public favorites highlight the niftiest content in every thread on a daily basis. To illustrate this, I just checked my Google Reader stats page -- as of now, the Popular Favorites RSS feed clocks in at 28.7 entries per week. That's 4.1 popular comments per day, with "popular" in this context usually being around 50-60 favorites at minimum to make the feed.
If these kinds of ugly, damaging side effects of favorites were happening multiple times per day on a consistent basis, then we would have some justification for removing the system. But everything I've seen in my years of reading Metafilter indicate that these flare-ups only happen once in a blue moon. The fact that they're so out of the norm, and the fact that the good stuff is encouraged far more often, suggests to me that shutting down the system entirely is not the answer.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:11 AM on November 3, 2009
fightorflight: "I really don't think it was that inaccurate a picture of Beese. Less sneering, perhaps. But he's been telling us time and again that everybody hates it; that the majority is right; that it's all broken. It's no longer reading like he's posting in good faith, and yet another po-faced reply to him calling him on it is just going to continue the spiral, until he sums up his position yet again ("we all hate it, btw")."
yeah, it was an inaccurate picture. also, plenty of people DO hate this, myself included. further, the mods themselves have noted that, for now, the general reaction seems to be decidedly negative (though they've said, and they're right, that it's worthwhile to continue the month long experiment and then see how people feel). if you think it's only joe beese who dislikes the experiment so far, you're wrong. if you think the majority likes it so far, you're wrong. if you think the reaction hasn't been mostly negative so far, you're wrong. joe beese has been speaking in good faith. that so many people agree with him doesn't necessarily mean that favorite numbers are unequivocally a good thing. but if you're going to pull out some canard about him being the vocal minority, then understand that you're wrong. more people agree with him than you.
posted by shmegegge at 10:12 AM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
yeah, it was an inaccurate picture. also, plenty of people DO hate this, myself included. further, the mods themselves have noted that, for now, the general reaction seems to be decidedly negative (though they've said, and they're right, that it's worthwhile to continue the month long experiment and then see how people feel). if you think it's only joe beese who dislikes the experiment so far, you're wrong. if you think the majority likes it so far, you're wrong. if you think the reaction hasn't been mostly negative so far, you're wrong. joe beese has been speaking in good faith. that so many people agree with him doesn't necessarily mean that favorite numbers are unequivocally a good thing. but if you're going to pull out some canard about him being the vocal minority, then understand that you're wrong. more people agree with him than you.
posted by shmegegge at 10:12 AM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
tarheelcoxn: I now have a minivan of a bicycle and consider myself a much better cyclist.
For what it's worth, I'm also the proud owner of an Xtracycle, have been car-free since, well, forever, actually, and do occasional work at the local community bike repair shop. I do value being able to travel far and fast, though, because it's fun and a great way to travel. I understand that not everyone gets joy out of pounding oneself to a pulp on a hundred mile ride, but I happen to. I also enjoy using my bike to get groceries.
The point I was making is that data allows optimization. I think with the right set of constraints (personal dignity chief among them) the availability of favourites data can make people better commenters.
posted by kaibutsu at 10:13 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
For what it's worth, I'm also the proud owner of an Xtracycle, have been car-free since, well, forever, actually, and do occasional work at the local community bike repair shop. I do value being able to travel far and fast, though, because it's fun and a great way to travel. I understand that not everyone gets joy out of pounding oneself to a pulp on a hundred mile ride, but I happen to. I also enjoy using my bike to get groceries.
The point I was making is that data allows optimization. I think with the right set of constraints (personal dignity chief among them) the availability of favourites data can make people better commenters.
posted by kaibutsu at 10:13 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm coming to this a little late in the game. I didn't notice the change until after the "has favorites" copy edit had already be implemented, but my immediate impression was that the language reminded me of Lolcats. As in "I can has favorites?" It took a few moments to parse what you were trying to do, and I debated whether it was simply a database bug.
For what it's worth it seems like you're trying to communicate "one or more favorites," which isn't a terrible alternative as word choice. It takes up more room on the byline but it doesn't leave the impression of English as a second language.
posted by Jeff Howard at 10:13 AM on November 3, 2009
For what it's worth it seems like you're trying to communicate "one or more favorites," which isn't a terrible alternative as word choice. It takes up more room on the byline but it doesn't leave the impression of English as a second language.
posted by Jeff Howard at 10:13 AM on November 3, 2009
Jessamyn:I'm surprised how much de-emphasizing favorites changes my use of the site subtly [we mods don't have any different view of favorites than you guys do and I haven't opted out of the hide-fave setting]; I now see it more as sending a private message to a user than making a statement in front of the community. That's interesting to me.
It's interesting to me too, but not "good interesting". For me it circles back to the usability thing. Here is one scenario in the new "unnumbered" mode:
posted by jeremias at 10:13 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
It's interesting to me too, but not "good interesting". For me it circles back to the usability thing. Here is one scenario in the new "unnumbered" mode:
- I make a comment in a new and developing thread.
- You favorite my comment.
- An hour later, I return to the thread and notice that my comment has been favorited. I click on the "has favorites" and see your name. Oh cool, Jessamyn favorited this.
- Fast-forward another hour, the thread is still developing, I go back. Now do I click on the has favorites link to see if more people have added on? Maybe, maybe not. In many ways it pulls me away from the thread. At some point I'm going to stop clicking on this link and these "private messages" will essentially go unnoticed until some point in the future.
- I would echo Rhaomi's sentiment that it is valuable to encourage these public favorites.
posted by jeremias at 10:13 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
(also, tarheelcoxn, it sounds like we should be friends!)
posted by kaibutsu at 10:18 AM on November 3, 2009
posted by kaibutsu at 10:18 AM on November 3, 2009
I think it's also worth noting that when challenged to come up with examples of how favorites can bring out the worst in members, two people cited the same situation independently. If favorites encouraging bad behavior were really that big of a problem, I'd think there would be many more examples to point to. The fact that two people reached for the same flare-up only further convinces me that this is a relatively rare problem with just a handful of egregious occurrences.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:22 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Rhaomi at 10:22 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
I haven't read the last 367 new comments, but thanks for the "has favorites" change. It is much better than "faved." I appreciate you all making changes in response to comments.
posted by salvia at 10:25 AM on November 3, 2009
posted by salvia at 10:25 AM on November 3, 2009
Kattullus: "but that this wildly incorrect comment received so many favorites is, to me, really, really weird and makes me uncomfortable with the system."
shmegegge: and you don't feel like you're cherry picking here?
I noted this earlier, though chose words that were less charitable than "cherry picking" (ie: trolling, politicking), which was perhaps a little reactionary. But I still stand by my position that it's sloppy to use this one particularly negative aberration of "favoriting"to condemn the entire system.
Again, it's like saying because one murderer was a little high on marijuana when he committed the act, all marijuana smokers are likely murderers. It's not logical. It doesn't stand up. It has no statistical basis. It feels like an argument raised to score a point, rather than to soberly address the "reality" of the situation.
posted by philip-random at 10:25 AM on November 3, 2009
shmegegge: and you don't feel like you're cherry picking here?
I noted this earlier, though chose words that were less charitable than "cherry picking" (ie: trolling, politicking), which was perhaps a little reactionary. But I still stand by my position that it's sloppy to use this one particularly negative aberration of "favoriting"to condemn the entire system.
Again, it's like saying because one murderer was a little high on marijuana when he committed the act, all marijuana smokers are likely murderers. It's not logical. It doesn't stand up. It has no statistical basis. It feels like an argument raised to score a point, rather than to soberly address the "reality" of the situation.
posted by philip-random at 10:25 AM on November 3, 2009
The fact that two people reached for the same flare-up only further convinces me that this is a relatively rare problem with just a handful of egregious occurrences.
What about the time I got like 8 million favorites for nothing more than quoting the title of a Wire song. That was pretty lame, especialy since most people seemed to think I was quoting the title of a Minor Threat song.
posted by dersins at 10:26 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
What about the time I got like 8 million favorites for nothing more than quoting the title of a Wire song. That was pretty lame, especialy since most people seemed to think I was quoting the title of a Minor Threat song.
posted by dersins at 10:26 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
1900 total comments. 927 since your most recent comment, last 10 shown below...
Ok, what'd I miss?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:27 AM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
Ok, what'd I miss?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:27 AM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
these sorts of unfortunate misunderstandings and misdirected pile-ons are a very rare thing.
I'm going to totally disagree.
If you've ever talked to me in person, you probably know that a) I talk A LOT, b) I'm pretty animated and c) I use a very slang-y short hand kind of vocabulary. And I type just like I talk.
I didn't use to have problems with this, but over the past month on MetaFilter Every. Single. Day. I have had to defend one of my comments that I was totally, totally kidding or someone read me entirely the wrong way. Sometimes multiple times per day. Over the weirdest stuff, too. Someone takes one word and spins it out of context or mis-judges the tone and BLAMMO! Total misunderstanding.
So, yeah, it happens all the time. I'm usually quick to clarify and I haven't been subject to any wild over-the-top misunderstandings of epic caliber, but it also makes me wonder how many other people are being misread and makes me sensitive to times when I feel like maybe I'm just not getting what someone else is actually meaning.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:27 AM on November 3, 2009
I'm going to totally disagree.
If you've ever talked to me in person, you probably know that a) I talk A LOT, b) I'm pretty animated and c) I use a very slang-y short hand kind of vocabulary. And I type just like I talk.
I didn't use to have problems with this, but over the past month on MetaFilter Every. Single. Day. I have had to defend one of my comments that I was totally, totally kidding or someone read me entirely the wrong way. Sometimes multiple times per day. Over the weirdest stuff, too. Someone takes one word and spins it out of context or mis-judges the tone and BLAMMO! Total misunderstanding.
So, yeah, it happens all the time. I'm usually quick to clarify and I haven't been subject to any wild over-the-top misunderstandings of epic caliber, but it also makes me wonder how many other people are being misread and makes me sensitive to times when I feel like maybe I'm just not getting what someone else is actually meaning.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:27 AM on November 3, 2009
(Not that my interactions have had anything to do with favorites, I'm just saying that the misunderstandings happen independently on their own and it's pretty easy to see how when people get heated, favorites can pile up because impassioned comments trigger passionate responses.)
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:28 AM on November 3, 2009
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:28 AM on November 3, 2009
shmegegge: and you don't feel like you're cherry picking here?
Oh, it's definitely but one example, but I feel like that it's a telling one. This exchange was mentioned by cashman over a month ago which is where I'd seen it before (I had forgotten about it, or else I think I would've understood the reason for the experiment better than I did at first). Coming across it again was a bit of a shock to me.
Rhaomi: Your discomfort is noted, Kattullus, but I still can't help but feel that these sorts of unfortunate misunderstandings and misdirected pile-ons are a very rare thing.
Are you sure? I really don't want to bring up more old incidents but there are certainly pileons where it seems to me that participants are egged on by favorites, much like bullies being egged on by the laughs they get. The reason it's been brought up twice independently is that it's a very stark example of this and one that is fairly recent.
I understand that the desire to get more examples but I'm really uncomfortable because the ones I can think of are still raw wounds.
posted by Kattullus at 10:34 AM on November 3, 2009
Oh, it's definitely but one example, but I feel like that it's a telling one. This exchange was mentioned by cashman over a month ago which is where I'd seen it before (I had forgotten about it, or else I think I would've understood the reason for the experiment better than I did at first). Coming across it again was a bit of a shock to me.
Rhaomi: Your discomfort is noted, Kattullus, but I still can't help but feel that these sorts of unfortunate misunderstandings and misdirected pile-ons are a very rare thing.
Are you sure? I really don't want to bring up more old incidents but there are certainly pileons where it seems to me that participants are egged on by favorites, much like bullies being egged on by the laughs they get. The reason it's been brought up twice independently is that it's a very stark example of this and one that is fairly recent.
I understand that the desire to get more examples but I'm really uncomfortable because the ones I can think of are still raw wounds.
posted by Kattullus at 10:34 AM on November 3, 2009
but if you're going to pull out some canard about him being the vocal minority, then understand that you're wrong. more people agree with him than you.
My point is not that he's wrong when he says that many people disagree with this change, or that reaction has been negative. Of course he's right. My point is that he's just thumping that tub, eternally. There are plenty of people in this thread who've been making many posts, but for the main they've all been arguing different aspects of this.
Joe, having come out of the gates straight away with a flat refusal to engage in the test in any form, gets about half way into the thread before virtually all his comments are about or related to the size of his support and the diminutive size of the objection. (Well, plus a few fave-beggers thrown in for good measure.)
Still, it's time for me to retire from this thread, as I'm getting pointlessly personal -- had to self-censor two rounds of snark already. Just wanted to clear up that there's no doubt in my mind about the large numbers of people who are upset by this test and all it stands for. I'm disappointed that more of them wouldn't give it a fair chance, however, because the suggestion that favourites are altering user's behaviour really doesn't seem that outrageous to me, nor does the idea that it's worth investigating.
posted by fightorflight at 10:34 AM on November 3, 2009
My point is not that he's wrong when he says that many people disagree with this change, or that reaction has been negative. Of course he's right. My point is that he's just thumping that tub, eternally. There are plenty of people in this thread who've been making many posts, but for the main they've all been arguing different aspects of this.
Joe, having come out of the gates straight away with a flat refusal to engage in the test in any form, gets about half way into the thread before virtually all his comments are about or related to the size of his support and the diminutive size of the objection. (Well, plus a few fave-beggers thrown in for good measure.)
Still, it's time for me to retire from this thread, as I'm getting pointlessly personal -- had to self-censor two rounds of snark already. Just wanted to clear up that there's no doubt in my mind about the large numbers of people who are upset by this test and all it stands for. I'm disappointed that more of them wouldn't give it a fair chance, however, because the suggestion that favourites are altering user's behaviour really doesn't seem that outrageous to me, nor does the idea that it's worth investigating.
posted by fightorflight at 10:34 AM on November 3, 2009
flight it is.
posted by gman at 10:40 AM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by gman at 10:40 AM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
Fast-forward another hour, the thread is still developing, I go back. Now do I click on the has favorites link to see if more people have added on? Maybe, maybe not. In many ways it pulls me away from the thread. At some point I'm going to stop clicking on this link and these "private messages" will essentially go unnoticed until some point in the future.
If you're that concerned about how many people favorite your comment, you know you can hit "favorited by others" on your user page and get a breakdown, including who favorited what and when. But then if it matters to you this much, I'm guessing you'd have an eye on your favorite count and notice any changes anyway. Remember all those people who noted the one user who started removing all his previous favorites, even though it probably only affected any one person's count in the single digits?
But at that point, it's starting to sound less like an argument for "functionality" than some kind of self-gratifying OCD. No offence.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:40 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
If you're that concerned about how many people favorite your comment, you know you can hit "favorited by others" on your user page and get a breakdown, including who favorited what and when. But then if it matters to you this much, I'm guessing you'd have an eye on your favorite count and notice any changes anyway. Remember all those people who noted the one user who started removing all his previous favorites, even though it probably only affected any one person's count in the single digits?
But at that point, it's starting to sound less like an argument for "functionality" than some kind of self-gratifying OCD. No offence.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:40 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
gman: "flight it is."
weak, dude. he's trying to be civil and reasonable, after a contentious thread. that's a good thing.
posted by shmegegge at 10:44 AM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
weak, dude. he's trying to be civil and reasonable, after a contentious thread. that's a good thing.
posted by shmegegge at 10:44 AM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
The exchange I mentioned earlier... is the same as exchange between EmpressCallipygos and emperor.seamus mentioned by Durn Bronzefist.
OK, based on seeing the actual comments, I'm going to stick with my original answer: not an example of bad favoriting.
Here's how I see it:
* emperor.seamus posts a comment in which he intends to express how awful it is that wonderful people such as the post's subject are placed in harm's way.
* EmpressCallipygos misreads the comment as e.s saying he wouldn't want cowards like that in the military. No foul there on either side, just a misunderstanding. Re-reading the comments, I took it the way e.s meant it, but can also see how a reasonable person might interpret it the way EC did.
* EC posts a comment which briefly—for one sentence—makes a personal attack on e.s, then writes several moving paragraphs about why the subject of the post is exactly the sort of person you want in the military.
* e.s. re-reads his post, sees that it might be taken either way, clarifies and apologizes.
* EC says no apology is necessary.
* Schmoopy ensues.
I think it's not unreasonable that people would favorite it for the "why you would want this person in the military" bulk of the post, as if it were a general comment and not in response to any particular previous comment, in spite of the ill-considered first sentence. I'm not seeing the gross abuse of favorites that you allege here. The majority of EC's comment stands as a good comment in defense of the soldier regardless of her misunderstanding of e.s's intent.
Therefore it accrued more and more favorites and, I'm assuming, most people who did favorite it only read that one comment and not the further exchange which demonstrated that emperor.seamus had not meant what EmpressCallipygos accused him of meaning.
I do not share your assumption. I suppose the only way to know for sure is if some of the 177 favoriters of that comment choose to tell us (anybody here?), but I posit that many if not most of them did see the further exchange and favorited EC's comment anyway, or at the very least, favorited EC's comment, then saw the further exchange and still chose not to unfavorite it in spite of one short part of the comment being inappropriate, especially in light of the further exchange.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:45 AM on November 3, 2009
OK, based on seeing the actual comments, I'm going to stick with my original answer: not an example of bad favoriting.
Here's how I see it:
* emperor.seamus posts a comment in which he intends to express how awful it is that wonderful people such as the post's subject are placed in harm's way.
* EmpressCallipygos misreads the comment as e.s saying he wouldn't want cowards like that in the military. No foul there on either side, just a misunderstanding. Re-reading the comments, I took it the way e.s meant it, but can also see how a reasonable person might interpret it the way EC did.
* EC posts a comment which briefly—for one sentence—makes a personal attack on e.s, then writes several moving paragraphs about why the subject of the post is exactly the sort of person you want in the military.
* e.s. re-reads his post, sees that it might be taken either way, clarifies and apologizes.
* EC says no apology is necessary.
* Schmoopy ensues.
I think it's not unreasonable that people would favorite it for the "why you would want this person in the military" bulk of the post, as if it were a general comment and not in response to any particular previous comment, in spite of the ill-considered first sentence. I'm not seeing the gross abuse of favorites that you allege here. The majority of EC's comment stands as a good comment in defense of the soldier regardless of her misunderstanding of e.s's intent.
Therefore it accrued more and more favorites and, I'm assuming, most people who did favorite it only read that one comment and not the further exchange which demonstrated that emperor.seamus had not meant what EmpressCallipygos accused him of meaning.
I do not share your assumption. I suppose the only way to know for sure is if some of the 177 favoriters of that comment choose to tell us (anybody here?), but I posit that many if not most of them did see the further exchange and favorited EC's comment anyway, or at the very least, favorited EC's comment, then saw the further exchange and still chose not to unfavorite it in spite of one short part of the comment being inappropriate, especially in light of the further exchange.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:45 AM on November 3, 2009
Oh, hey, I am one of those 177 favorites. You'd think I would notice something like that before I wrote my previous response. So, personally, to answer my own question, I honestly don't recall whether or not I had seen the further exchange when I favorited that comment. But I will note that in general I do, not infrequently, unfavorite comments I favorited in light of further discussion in a thread, and since a) my favorite came well after the further exchange, b) skimming by favorites is something I do fairly infrequently, and c) I have the contact activity sidebar turned off (and always have, since its introduction), it's likely that I favorited it (and/or allowed it to remain favorited) with full knowledge of the further exchange.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:55 AM on November 3, 2009
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:55 AM on November 3, 2009
DevilsAdvocate: I think you'd done about enough slamming of the mods in this thread.
They do a damned fine job and I daresay receive little enough recognition when they make popular decisions, that they deserve a little patience when they try something out with benefits that are not as readily obvious. Why the hours they put in alone...! ...etc, etc, etc.
ie: that the first sentence only improperly targets another user does not change the nature of the feel-good diatribe that follows. It's all high dudgeon.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:07 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
They do a damned fine job and I daresay receive little enough recognition when they make popular decisions, that they deserve a little patience when they try something out with benefits that are not as readily obvious. Why the hours they put in alone...! ...etc, etc, etc.
ie: that the first sentence only improperly targets another user does not change the nature of the feel-good diatribe that follows. It's all high dudgeon.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:07 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
You're entitled to your opinion that one bad sentence irreparably tarnishes an entire comment, no matter how wonderful the rest of the comment may be, but I see no reason that should be considered a universal truth rather than merely a personal opinion. And I'm favoriting your comment because I think the mods do a damned fine job too.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:16 AM on November 3, 2009
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:16 AM on November 3, 2009
It's all high dudgeon.
Why are you so prejudiced, Durn Bronzefist? Low dudgeon really gets short shrift on Metafilter, and I, for one, am fed up with it.
LONG SHRIFT FOR LOW DUDGEON!
posted by dersins at 11:17 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Why are you so prejudiced, Durn Bronzefist? Low dudgeon really gets short shrift on Metafilter, and I, for one, am fed up with it.
LONG SHRIFT FOR LOW DUDGEON!
posted by dersins at 11:17 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
This whole thread was one long dudgeon crawl.
posted by The Whelk at 11:23 AM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 11:23 AM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
November will not be my favourite month.
posted by mazola at 11:27 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by mazola at 11:27 AM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
You enter the dudgeon. It is pitch black. You are likely to be faved by a grue.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:34 AM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:34 AM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
The Whelk: This whole thread was one long dudgeon crawl.
I don't know how it was for others who weren't me but did you have the experience, yesterday, of reading through the entire thing and finally reaching the and then the comment box scrolls into view at the bottom of the screen and it was like the sun rising after a long night's walk and I had a burst of happiness.
posted by Kattullus at 11:37 AM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
I don't know how it was for others who weren't me but did you have the experience, yesterday, of reading through the entire thing and finally reaching the and then the comment box scrolls into view at the bottom of the screen and it was like the sun rising after a long night's walk and I had a burst of happiness.
posted by Kattullus at 11:37 AM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
And I'm favoriting your comment because I think the mods do a damned fine job too.
But geez, doing stuff like this experiment is just making more work for themselves. Cortex alone has 50+ posts in this thread so far. Not to mention the other MetaTalk threads. Not to mention the MeMails.
And it's still only November 3rd.
posted by smackfu at 11:38 AM on November 3, 2009
But geez, doing stuff like this experiment is just making more work for themselves. Cortex alone has 50+ posts in this thread so far. Not to mention the other MetaTalk threads. Not to mention the MeMails.
And it's still only November 3rd.
posted by smackfu at 11:38 AM on November 3, 2009
"Your shrillness is, again, noted."
Can you even read a comment without projeccting yourself onto it?
posted by klangklangston at 11:41 AM on November 3, 2009
Can you even read a comment without projeccting yourself onto it?
posted by klangklangston at 11:41 AM on November 3, 2009
I don't know how it was for others who weren't me but did you have the experience, yesterday, of reading through the entire thing and finally reaching the and then the comment box scrolls into view at the bottom of the screen and it was like the sun rising after a long night's walk and I had a burst of happiness.
And then you hit preview and you see that the scrollbar is actually only 2/3rds the way down the page, and you collapse in on yourself in despair because it was just a dream and you're laying awake in the cold frightening dark of 3am.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:43 AM on November 3, 2009 [10 favorites]
And then you hit preview and you see that the scrollbar is actually only 2/3rds the way down the page, and you collapse in on yourself in despair because it was just a dream and you're laying awake in the cold frightening dark of 3am.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:43 AM on November 3, 2009 [10 favorites]
and then the comment box scrolls into view at the bottom of the screen and it was like the sun rising after a long night's walk and I had a burst of happiness.
and then I refreshed my browser and there were 59 more fucking comments to read.
posted by philip-random at 11:44 AM on November 3, 2009
and then I refreshed my browser and there were 59 more fucking comments to read.
posted by philip-random at 11:44 AM on November 3, 2009
dang, shoulda previewed ...
posted by philip-random at 11:44 AM on November 3, 2009
posted by philip-random at 11:44 AM on November 3, 2009
Count me as one more user who vastly prefers the old system of showing favorites. Crowdsourcing is pretty cool and people who are so insecure that seeing how many favorites a post gets need to step back a bit and reexamine their priorities.
posted by clockworkjoe at 11:47 AM on November 3, 2009
posted by clockworkjoe at 11:47 AM on November 3, 2009
Can you even read a comment without projeccting yourself onto it?
It's ok. It's just a fave he's going through.
Help me.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:52 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
It's ok. It's just a fave he's going through.
Help me.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:52 AM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
cortex: And then you hit preview and you see that the scrollbar is actually only 2/3rds the way down the page, and you collapse in on yourself in despair because it was just a dream and you're laying awake in the cold frightening dark of 3am.
Ah, but see, that's what happened to me at 3 am on Monday morning so on Monday I was careful to periodically refresh so that I always had a vague idea how far down I was. I was still stunned to see the comment box, though.
posted by Kattullus at 11:53 AM on November 3, 2009
Ah, but see, that's what happened to me at 3 am on Monday morning so on Monday I was careful to periodically refresh so that I always had a vague idea how far down I was. I was still stunned to see the comment box, though.
posted by Kattullus at 11:53 AM on November 3, 2009
That's an interesting point, Greg Nog.
I will disagree with you about the forensics tournament, though. That sounds awesome.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:55 AM on November 3, 2009
I will disagree with you about the forensics tournament, though. That sounds awesome.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:55 AM on November 3, 2009
Can you even read a comment without projeccting yourself onto it?
Honestly, I'm curious if you can respond to one without insulting people, which has seemed exceptionally difficult for you here. Your personal opinion about me notwithstanding, fightorflight was again being shrill and that hurt whatever was reasonable that could be gleaned from his snarky comments.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:02 PM on November 3, 2009
Honestly, I'm curious if you can respond to one without insulting people, which has seemed exceptionally difficult for you here. Your personal opinion about me notwithstanding, fightorflight was again being shrill and that hurt whatever was reasonable that could be gleaned from his snarky comments.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:02 PM on November 3, 2009
There's nothing I can say that hasn't already been said, probably.
In fact, I'm probably not even the only one that wanted to comment in this thread just so I could say I did, one day, to my grandkids when they ask what Metatalk was like in the Wild West days before the law came, and then in the even Wilder and Westerly days when the law first did come and we had to make peace with it. I'm probably like the third guy to have this impulse to grab a paddle and jump into the longboat from a bridge overpass like some kind of Jackie Chan movie.
So yeah, probably this is just a repeat of something somebody said up above and I'm sorry for that. Sorry to you, plagiarized poster: feel free to drop me a line and collect your royalties. I'm not about to read this monster on a beautiful Tuesday afternoon, so this is the best I can do....
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:03 PM on November 3, 2009
In fact, I'm probably not even the only one that wanted to comment in this thread just so I could say I did, one day, to my grandkids when they ask what Metatalk was like in the Wild West days before the law came, and then in the even Wilder and Westerly days when the law first did come and we had to make peace with it. I'm probably like the third guy to have this impulse to grab a paddle and jump into the longboat from a bridge overpass like some kind of Jackie Chan movie.
So yeah, probably this is just a repeat of something somebody said up above and I'm sorry for that. Sorry to you, plagiarized poster: feel free to drop me a line and collect your royalties. I'm not about to read this monster on a beautiful Tuesday afternoon, so this is the best I can do....
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:03 PM on November 3, 2009
I agree with Greg Nog about mayonnaise. God, I love it so.
I do, however, have a small problem with egg nog. But let's not go there for now.
posted by scody at 12:10 PM on November 3, 2009
I do, however, have a small problem with egg nog. But let's not go there for now.
posted by scody at 12:10 PM on November 3, 2009
I agree with Greg Nog about mayonnaise. God, I love it so.
Me too. Because I have favorites enabled, I know that saying so is not necessary. But for the benefit of those who have yet to opt-in: damn, I love me some mayo.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:12 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
Me too. Because I have favorites enabled, I know that saying so is not necessary. But for the benefit of those who have yet to opt-in: damn, I love me some mayo.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:12 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
"Honestly, I'm curious if you can respond to one without insulting people, which has seemed exceptionally difficult for you here. Your personal opinion about me notwithstanding, fightorflight was again being shrill and that hurt whatever was reasonable that could be gleaned from his snarky comments."
You have dismissed every argument and comment from anyone who does not like favorites as "shrill" and "whiny." You have repeatedly, and wrongly, claimed this is "ironic." That I find this obnoxious has nothing to do with what I think of you as a person.
posted by klangklangston at 12:18 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
You have dismissed every argument and comment from anyone who does not like favorites as "shrill" and "whiny." You have repeatedly, and wrongly, claimed this is "ironic." That I find this obnoxious has nothing to do with what I think of you as a person.
posted by klangklangston at 12:18 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
that the first sentence only improperly targets another user does not change the nature of the feel-good diatribe that follows. It's all high dudgeon.
I think there are two completely separate arguments being conflated here (and in all the above discussion of this example) about how favorites might hurt a discussion. Let's try to separate them rather than running them together. We might be concerned that favorites lead to:
1. Partisanship, choosing sides, voting behavior. Bad consequences for discussion: ad-hominem rancor, uncharitable readings of presumed "opponents," reduction of compex issues to simple "with us or against us."
2. High dudgeon, demagoguery, playing to the crowd. Bad consequences for discussion: obviousness, superficiality, self-congratulation.
My own opinion is that (1) is sometimes, sadly, inevitable – and that partisan rancor is probably largely not a consequence of favorites' visibility (or existence). But (2), rhetorical playing to the peanut gallery, seems to me a real and growing concern for Metafilter, and largely a creation of the reward system established by visible favorites.
posted by RogerB at 12:19 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think there are two completely separate arguments being conflated here (and in all the above discussion of this example) about how favorites might hurt a discussion. Let's try to separate them rather than running them together. We might be concerned that favorites lead to:
1. Partisanship, choosing sides, voting behavior. Bad consequences for discussion: ad-hominem rancor, uncharitable readings of presumed "opponents," reduction of compex issues to simple "with us or against us."
2. High dudgeon, demagoguery, playing to the crowd. Bad consequences for discussion: obviousness, superficiality, self-congratulation.
My own opinion is that (1) is sometimes, sadly, inevitable – and that partisan rancor is probably largely not a consequence of favorites' visibility (or existence). But (2), rhetorical playing to the peanut gallery, seems to me a real and growing concern for Metafilter, and largely a creation of the reward system established by visible favorites.
posted by RogerB at 12:19 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Now, all I keep thinking when on here is "I can has favorites?"
posted by cmgonzalez at 12:24 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by cmgonzalez at 12:24 PM on November 3, 2009
RogerB: "But (2), rhetorical playing to the peanut gallery, seems to me a real and growing concern for Metafilter, and largely a creation of the reward system established by visible favorites."
fwiw, which may be nothing, I feel like playing to the peanut gallery has always been a problem for certain people (on any side of a given debate) on metafilter since well before favorites were instituted, and that the carrot for that behavior was simply me-tooism in the form of comments in the thread instead of a favorite. in point of fact, I believe that carrot still exists, even though we have favorites as a way to say me too. I really don't believe that favorites are the problem with that kind of behavior.
posted by shmegegge at 12:27 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
fwiw, which may be nothing, I feel like playing to the peanut gallery has always been a problem for certain people (on any side of a given debate) on metafilter since well before favorites were instituted, and that the carrot for that behavior was simply me-tooism in the form of comments in the thread instead of a favorite. in point of fact, I believe that carrot still exists, even though we have favorites as a way to say me too. I really don't believe that favorites are the problem with that kind of behavior.
posted by shmegegge at 12:27 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
There seem to be much more destructive behaviors built off of favorites than just showing the count. For instance, showing your high favorited counts to your contacts is probably supposed to highlight good comments, but it often amounts to calling in the calvary.
posted by smackfu at 12:36 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by smackfu at 12:36 PM on November 3, 2009
me, too
posted by philip-random at 12:36 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by philip-random at 12:36 PM on November 3, 2009
re: Mayonnaise -
I really like it on french fries. Damn, good mayo on fries - I had some the other day that was sprinkled with curry powder and grilled onions. Damn fine.
posted by From Bklyn at 12:37 PM on November 3, 2009
I really like it on french fries. Damn, good mayo on fries - I had some the other day that was sprinkled with curry powder and grilled onions. Damn fine.
posted by From Bklyn at 12:37 PM on November 3, 2009
RogerB: 1. Partisanship, choosing sides, voting behavior. Bad consequences for discussion: ad-hominem rancor, uncharitable readings of presumed "opponents," reduction of compex issues to simple "with us or against us."
[...]
My own opinion is that (1) is sometimes, sadly, inevitable – and that partisan rancor is probably largely not a consequence of favorites' visibility (or existence).
One thing that happens is that in some cases this ad hominem rancor turns into following people around and picking on them (in effect bullying them). Sometimes (often?) these haranguing comments have been validated with favorites leading to the behavior continuing. That is a not-good-thing.
posted by Kattullus at 12:39 PM on November 3, 2009
[...]
My own opinion is that (1) is sometimes, sadly, inevitable – and that partisan rancor is probably largely not a consequence of favorites' visibility (or existence).
One thing that happens is that in some cases this ad hominem rancor turns into following people around and picking on them (in effect bullying them). Sometimes (often?) these haranguing comments have been validated with favorites leading to the behavior continuing. That is a not-good-thing.
posted by Kattullus at 12:39 PM on November 3, 2009
I don't much like mayo, but I do love the tangy zip of Miracle Whip. The current ads are hilarious too, where they're all like, you're a young, urban professional, enjoyin' cool times and rockin' out with your brahs to some Modest Mouse sound-alikes while you enjoy a tasty [MAYONAISE-LIKE PRODUCT]. Good times.
posted by klangklangston at 12:44 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by klangklangston at 12:44 PM on November 3, 2009
You have dismissed every argument and comment from anyone who does not like favorites as "shrill" and "whiny."
Not every argument. My initial concerns in this thread have been reasonably presented. For example, if there's an experiment to be done, a better one would probably be more informative. As for those who have been on a soapbox in other Metatalk threads, railing against the evils of favorites and those who use them, I'm just pointing out that the irony of their behavior in this thread is hurting their point, substantially. The experiment is in play, there's no need to be a jerk about it, by rewriting comments from people who don't like the new setup in hyperbolic, dishonest and -- yes -- shrill ways.
That I find this obnoxious has nothing to do with what I think of you as a person.
That's fine. It's one thing to strongly hold and argue for an opinion, and I think those kinds of fireworks, when done properly, lead to some of the best discussion this site offers. However, I think your tendency in this and other threads to insult people is also obnoxious and hurts whatever point you're trying to make. From personal experience here, I suggest that once you rein that in, you'll get a lot further.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:45 PM on November 3, 2009
Not every argument. My initial concerns in this thread have been reasonably presented. For example, if there's an experiment to be done, a better one would probably be more informative. As for those who have been on a soapbox in other Metatalk threads, railing against the evils of favorites and those who use them, I'm just pointing out that the irony of their behavior in this thread is hurting their point, substantially. The experiment is in play, there's no need to be a jerk about it, by rewriting comments from people who don't like the new setup in hyperbolic, dishonest and -- yes -- shrill ways.
That I find this obnoxious has nothing to do with what I think of you as a person.
That's fine. It's one thing to strongly hold and argue for an opinion, and I think those kinds of fireworks, when done properly, lead to some of the best discussion this site offers. However, I think your tendency in this and other threads to insult people is also obnoxious and hurts whatever point you're trying to make. From personal experience here, I suggest that once you rein that in, you'll get a lot further.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:45 PM on November 3, 2009
From Bklyn: I really like it on french fries. Damn, good mayo on fries - I had some the other day that was sprinkled with curry powder and grilled onions.
If you like that try Icelandic cocktail sauce. I recommend spicing it up with tabasco and paprika.
posted by Kattullus at 12:46 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
If you like that try Icelandic cocktail sauce. I recommend spicing it up with tabasco and paprika.
posted by Kattullus at 12:46 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
2010 sign-ups can hold their registrations cheap while any speaks that survived the favesperiment.
I can't stop trying to parse this.
posted by diogenes at 12:52 PM on November 3, 2009
I can't stop trying to parse this.
posted by diogenes at 12:52 PM on November 3, 2009
2010 sign-ups can hold their registrations cheap while any speaks that survived the favesperiment.
I won't presume to read Joe Beese's mind.
But when I read this, I read it as a humorous way to acknowledge the angst that EVERYONE is going thru. The pro-favoriters, the anti-favoriters, the meh's, the suggesters of a third better way, and a thousand times over, the mods.
I thought it was clever and it made me smile. God knows anyone who's spent the time to read thru this thread could use a few smiles.
posted by marsha56 at 12:53 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I won't presume to read Joe Beese's mind.
But when I read this, I read it as a humorous way to acknowledge the angst that EVERYONE is going thru. The pro-favoriters, the anti-favoriters, the meh's, the suggesters of a third better way, and a thousand times over, the mods.
I thought it was clever and it made me smile. God knows anyone who's spent the time to read thru this thread could use a few smiles.
posted by marsha56 at 12:53 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yes for mayo, preferably without Soy oil PLEEZE
No for Miracle Whip
Regardless, I always end my meals with some Favespearmint. It makes my breath fresh and minty.
posted by P.o.B. at 12:56 PM on November 3, 2009
No for Miracle Whip
Regardless, I always end my meals with some Favespearmint. It makes my breath fresh and minty.
posted by P.o.B. at 12:56 PM on November 3, 2009
Icelandic cocktail sauce? Pfft. What about Mustardayonnaise?
posted by scody at 12:58 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by scody at 12:58 PM on November 3, 2009
Joe Beese: 2010 sign-ups can hold their registrations cheap while any speaks that survived the favesperiment.
diogenes: I can't stop trying to parse this.
The idea is that going through this experiment is some sort of terrible trial of the spirit that we, who are current MeFites, will be able to wear it as a badge that we were here, which future signups won't be able to.
Incidentally, I think that Joe Beese is laying it on a bit thick to invoke the Battle of Agincourt (this is a reference to Henry's speech in Henry V) and any attempts to parse that as some sort of analogy for this thread make my head hurt, so I'm assuming that it was just a reference to Shakespeare and that he wasn't likening this thread to a medieval battle.
posted by Kattullus at 1:01 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
diogenes: I can't stop trying to parse this.
The idea is that going through this experiment is some sort of terrible trial of the spirit that we, who are current MeFites, will be able to wear it as a badge that we were here, which future signups won't be able to.
Incidentally, I think that Joe Beese is laying it on a bit thick to invoke the Battle of Agincourt (this is a reference to Henry's speech in Henry V) and any attempts to parse that as some sort of analogy for this thread make my head hurt, so I'm assuming that it was just a reference to Shakespeare and that he wasn't likening this thread to a medieval battle.
posted by Kattullus at 1:01 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
First they took away our img tag. Then they took away our favorites. Next: giving the trick-or-treaters carrots and coloring books instead of candy. Somebody here has a bad case of the dead serious.
posted by jfuller at 1:12 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by jfuller at 1:12 PM on November 3, 2009
I read it as a humorous way to acknowledge the angst that EVERYONE is going thru.
FWIW, I'm feeling no angst at all.
posted by shelleycat at 1:14 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
FWIW, I'm feeling no angst at all.
posted by shelleycat at 1:14 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Incidentally, I think that Joe Beese is laying it on a bit thick
When is he not? He's like the guys at Jack In The Box who put an entire jar of mayo on my chicken sandwich. I have no idea why the hell JITB thinks more mayo = better sandwich, but I swear last time I got a sandwich I scraped off enough mayonnaise for a dozen BLTs.
PS on Icelandic cocktail sauce -- out here in the West we call it fry sauce. It's not a Seattle thing (tartar sauce with your fries is the Seattle thing) but at burger places that have an eastern Washington contingent (e.g. Zak's) you can ask for it.
posted by dw at 1:16 PM on November 3, 2009
When is he not? He's like the guys at Jack In The Box who put an entire jar of mayo on my chicken sandwich. I have no idea why the hell JITB thinks more mayo = better sandwich, but I swear last time I got a sandwich I scraped off enough mayonnaise for a dozen BLTs.
PS on Icelandic cocktail sauce -- out here in the West we call it fry sauce. It's not a Seattle thing (tartar sauce with your fries is the Seattle thing) but at burger places that have an eastern Washington contingent (e.g. Zak's) you can ask for it.
posted by dw at 1:16 PM on November 3, 2009
1945 comments before the first recipe. This is good. Maybe now we can talk about pie until 12/1? I like pie.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 1:17 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by kuujjuarapik at 1:17 PM on November 3, 2009
he wasn't likening this thread to a medieval battle.
Again, I ask you, what am I going to do with all these torches and pitchforks?
posted by The Whelk at 1:25 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Again, I ask you, what am I going to do with all these torches and pitchforks?
posted by The Whelk at 1:25 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Kattullus: "The idea is that going through this experiment is some sort of terrible trial of the spirit that we, who are current MeFites, will be able to wear it as a badge that we were here, which future signups won't be able to."
Yes, that. Honestly, it didn't strike me as a particularly cryptic joke.
If by "laying it on a bit thick" you mean that the angst produced in the wake of the favesperiment isn't actually comparable to the Battle of Agincourt, I think it's time to push the plate of beans away from you.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:26 PM on November 3, 2009
Yes, that. Honestly, it didn't strike me as a particularly cryptic joke.
If by "laying it on a bit thick" you mean that the angst produced in the wake of the favesperiment isn't actually comparable to the Battle of Agincourt, I think it's time to push the plate of beans away from you.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:26 PM on November 3, 2009
I just wanted to say that I enjoy this new feature.
At first I was little peeved at the sudden change. Then I happy that I was able to toggle it off with the preferences, so I did that. But then I thought, what the hell? I might as well try it out.
And it's great! It does not privilege any opinions, which makes for a less mob-like popularity contest read of MeFi. I hope it stays and that it becomes the norm around here.
I have no time to see if these have been suggested already, but here are some suggestions:
(1) Why not just "Favorited"?
(2) What about a mouse-over on the [has favorites] revealing the number of has-favorites?
(3) Perhaps there could be some external markers when the number of favorites reaches a certain threshold, say 20 or 25? It need not be a Best Answer highlight or anything, but maybe Favorited+ or something along those lines.
Glad to see this move happen... it might be what saves good, critical, and open discussion on Metafilter.
posted by ageispolis at 1:28 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
At first I was little peeved at the sudden change. Then I happy that I was able to toggle it off with the preferences, so I did that. But then I thought, what the hell? I might as well try it out.
And it's great! It does not privilege any opinions, which makes for a less mob-like popularity contest read of MeFi. I hope it stays and that it becomes the norm around here.
I have no time to see if these have been suggested already, but here are some suggestions:
(1) Why not just "Favorited"?
(2) What about a mouse-over on the [has favorites] revealing the number of has-favorites?
(3) Perhaps there could be some external markers when the number of favorites reaches a certain threshold, say 20 or 25? It need not be a Best Answer highlight or anything, but maybe Favorited+ or something along those lines.
Glad to see this move happen... it might be what saves good, critical, and open discussion on Metafilter.
posted by ageispolis at 1:28 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm going to stand up for the minority opinion here and go on the record as saying mayonnaise is fucking disgusting. I'd like a 30 day experiment of it not existing because just the thought of people eating it makes me gag.
posted by cj_ at 1:29 PM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by cj_ at 1:29 PM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
This is the battle of Agincourt now? Cool. As a man of Welsh descent, I believe my path is clear.
*strings longbow, knocks arrow, looks downhill for French nobles to pincushion*
posted by EatTheWeek at 1:31 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
*strings longbow, knocks arrow, looks downhill for French nobles to pincushion*
posted by EatTheWeek at 1:31 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
I hope it stays and that it becomes the norm around here.
TWANNGG!
posted by EatTheWeek at 1:32 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
TWANNGG!
posted by EatTheWeek at 1:32 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
"Thinking back now, I suppose you were just stating your views. What was it all for? For the weather, or the Battle of Agincourt?"
posted by scody at 1:32 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by scody at 1:32 PM on November 3, 2009
I have opinions:
1) I was going to reserve judgment on this change until I'd lived with it for a while, but initial impressions are not good. I really like the favorite count as the sort of paralinguistic channel that has been mentioned above, and I feel like the missing count removes some texture from the conversations on the site, a texture that I didn't fully appreciate until it was gone.
That said, I will continue with no count for as long as I can stand it, in the interests of experimentation, and I look forward to seeing how this affects site discourse in general.
2) I am sad that Artw has disabled his account, and I hope he comes back a soon as possible. His comics FPPs are some of my favorites on the site, because I a a big comics dork.
3) Mayonnaise is fucking gross, and so is egg nog.
posted by maqsarian at 1:42 PM on November 3, 2009
1) I was going to reserve judgment on this change until I'd lived with it for a while, but initial impressions are not good. I really like the favorite count as the sort of paralinguistic channel that has been mentioned above, and I feel like the missing count removes some texture from the conversations on the site, a texture that I didn't fully appreciate until it was gone.
That said, I will continue with no count for as long as I can stand it, in the interests of experimentation, and I look forward to seeing how this affects site discourse in general.
2) I am sad that Artw has disabled his account, and I hope he comes back a soon as possible. His comics FPPs are some of my favorites on the site, because I a a big comics dork.
3) Mayonnaise is fucking gross, and so is egg nog.
posted by maqsarian at 1:42 PM on November 3, 2009
Wow, this thread has more comments than the number of years between the birth of Jesus and the birth of my parents.
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:43 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:43 PM on November 3, 2009
God knows anyone who's spent the time to read thru this thread could use a few smiles.
Or, The Happiness Hat!
posted by netbros at 1:48 PM on November 3, 2009
Or, The Happiness Hat!
posted by netbros at 1:48 PM on November 3, 2009
Call me crazy, but I like to read comments on Metafilter without having someone else tell me which ones to read. I also like to decide for myself which opinions I agree with, and I don't need a comforting blanket of favourites to validate this. There's been many a comment favourited a gabillion times that I totally disagree with, just as there's been lonely comments with no favourites at all that I think are fabulous. It sounds a whole lot like people in here are trying to say that they'll only pay attention to something that everyone else already likes, which seems a bit crazy to me.
So bring on the experiment. And mods, you're wonderful. And damn you all with your talk of delectable fries with mayonnaise, as the dinner I'm now cooking seems totally blah. All I can think about is lovely golden frites, double-fried to perfection, with a side of creamy homemade mayo. Yum!!!!!
posted by Go Banana at 1:50 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
So bring on the experiment. And mods, you're wonderful. And damn you all with your talk of delectable fries with mayonnaise, as the dinner I'm now cooking seems totally blah. All I can think about is lovely golden frites, double-fried to perfection, with a side of creamy homemade mayo. Yum!!!!!
posted by Go Banana at 1:50 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
cj_ writes "I'm going to stand up for the minority opinion here and go on the record as saying mayonnaise is fucking disgusting."
Miracle Whip 4 lyfe.
posted by mullingitover at 1:50 PM on November 3, 2009
Miracle Whip 4 lyfe.
posted by mullingitover at 1:50 PM on November 3, 2009
Wow, this thread has more comments than the number of years between the birth of Jesus and the birth of my parents.
It's just ...so much more important then either of those things.
posted by The Whelk at 1:50 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's just ...so much more important then either of those things.
posted by The Whelk at 1:50 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Ok, what'd I miss?
Since last episode... I insulted the mods by talking about the 'experiment' plan with Chewbacca-on-Endor incredulity, got insulted and yelled at for it, got drunk, came back. ArtW's still passed out under the table but makes an excellent footrest. Sassyfras is twitching. 'x favorites' was too wide but 'November' and 'has favorites' are just fine. Pyramid termite's out shopping for a sexy new dress. Everyone received an unknown number of fave-a-beans. Everyone now hates everyone. Everyone needs a hug.
I think that's about it.
posted by rokusan at 1:54 PM on November 3, 2009
Since last episode... I insulted the mods by talking about the 'experiment' plan with Chewbacca-on-Endor incredulity, got insulted and yelled at for it, got drunk, came back. ArtW's still passed out under the table but makes an excellent footrest. Sassyfras is twitching. 'x favorites' was too wide but 'November' and 'has favorites' are just fine. Pyramid termite's out shopping for a sexy new dress. Everyone received an unknown number of fave-a-beans. Everyone now hates everyone. Everyone needs a hug.
I think that's about it.
posted by rokusan at 1:54 PM on November 3, 2009
Well rokusan thinks favouriting is going to precipitously decline because of no immediate positive feed back. -- Mitheral
There are almost exactly a quarter million words in this thread now, but I can't find any of them that say that. Can you show me where I said that? Perhaps I was inebriated.
posted by rokusan at 1:56 PM on November 3, 2009
There are almost exactly a quarter million words in this thread now, but I can't find any of them that say that. Can you show me where I said that? Perhaps I was inebriated.
posted by rokusan at 1:56 PM on November 3, 2009
I think that's about it.
Wait! Someone in this very thread .... is a murderer!
BUM! BUM! BAAAAAH!
*we'll be right back*
posted by The Whelk at 1:57 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
Wait! Someone in this very thread .... is a murderer!
BUM! BUM! BAAAAAH!
*we'll be right back*
posted by The Whelk at 1:57 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
> Or, The Happiness Hat!
You leave my cousin alone!
Also, mayonnaise is fucking wonderful.
[has mayonnaise]
posted by languagehat at 1:59 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
You leave my cousin alone!
Also, mayonnaise is fucking wonderful.
[has mayonnaise]
posted by languagehat at 1:59 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Everyone needs a hug.
Look, I'm not that active on any of the mefi sites but that's mainly because I don't have time to participate in a lot of the discussions. As a UK member tho, particularly in terms of US-centric discussions, displayed favourites are very important. Those who are active in the discussion know a hell of a lot more than I do about US welfare, presidential campaigns, banking than I would ever know. And this stuff really interests me. And the favourites help those like me to gauge a conversation. Or more likely, bookmark a discussion that I can come back to later. The classic examples are those that Mutant has a part in.
I turned my favourites back on. This, having installed Stylish/greasemonkey scripts in the meantime, now removed.
Would a course of action be to have something similar to the flagging option: this is a favourite because - lol/bookmarked for later/love &tc, because, as a lot of people here mention, we use the favourites for all kinds of things. It might make interesting data-mining.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 2:01 PM on November 3, 2009
Look, I'm not that active on any of the mefi sites but that's mainly because I don't have time to participate in a lot of the discussions. As a UK member tho, particularly in terms of US-centric discussions, displayed favourites are very important. Those who are active in the discussion know a hell of a lot more than I do about US welfare, presidential campaigns, banking than I would ever know. And this stuff really interests me. And the favourites help those like me to gauge a conversation. Or more likely, bookmark a discussion that I can come back to later. The classic examples are those that Mutant has a part in.
I turned my favourites back on. This, having installed Stylish/greasemonkey scripts in the meantime, now removed.
Would a course of action be to have something similar to the flagging option: this is a favourite because - lol/bookmarked for later/love &tc, because, as a lot of people here mention, we use the favourites for all kinds of things. It might make interesting data-mining.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 2:01 PM on November 3, 2009
"Cockteil Sauce" is the one thing I miss most about Iceland, now that they've started importing skyr. I've yet to try making my own, but I think tonight might just be the night. I even have the SEKRIT INGREDIENT, purchased solely for this purpose.
Also: mayonnaise is proof that G-d loves us and wants us to be happy.
Also also: In New England, French Fries are often eaten with vinegar. Discuss.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 2:02 PM on November 3, 2009
Also: mayonnaise is proof that G-d loves us and wants us to be happy.
Also also: In New England, French Fries are often eaten with vinegar. Discuss.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 2:02 PM on November 3, 2009
Miracle Whip is just mayonnaise with sugar added. That's your "tangy zip," rubes. Homemade mayo is to it what chocolate porn is to a marathoner's taint.
posted by middleclasstool at 2:06 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by middleclasstool at 2:06 PM on November 3, 2009
Also also: In New England, French Fries are often eaten with vinegar. Discuss.
Also in old England. I smell a conspiracy.
A tasty, tasty conspiracy.
posted by rokusan at 2:08 PM on November 3, 2009
Also in old England. I smell a conspiracy.
A tasty, tasty conspiracy.
posted by rokusan at 2:08 PM on November 3, 2009
Comment 1976 and the thread goes muted earth tones.
posted by The Whelk at 2:09 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by The Whelk at 2:09 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Go Banana writes "Call me crazy, but I like to read comments on Metafilter without having someone else tell me which ones to read. I also like to decide for myself which opinions I agree with, and I don't need a comforting blanket of favourites to validate this."
This is a great argument for reversing the current scheme, and making a 'hide favorites' option. Heck, come December when the dust settles I hope that's what happens and everyone has a group hug.
Just curious, when was the favorites system ever truly contentious? I saw cortex mention "One of the recurring discussions about favorites is whether or not it's a good idea to display favorite counts on comments." Was this just among the mods? There is only one thread where someone explicitly asks for favorites to go away, and the proposal was about as popular as farting in an elevator. The rest of the posts on MeTa about favorites tend to center on their usage and the features that filter posts based on favorite numbers.
One experiment I'd like to see is a voting system for features and changes that allows more community feedback and transparency around changes to the site. The current model, benign dictatorship, has not been a failure so far but that doesn't mean it's necessarily the best way to do things. Things I'd vote for:
- Pagination (or some other scheme that negates the need to load a 2,000 comment page when I only need to read the five new posts at the end)
Things I'd vote against:
- Hiding favorites from all everyone
posted by mullingitover at 2:13 PM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
This is a great argument for reversing the current scheme, and making a 'hide favorites' option. Heck, come December when the dust settles I hope that's what happens and everyone has a group hug.
Just curious, when was the favorites system ever truly contentious? I saw cortex mention "One of the recurring discussions about favorites is whether or not it's a good idea to display favorite counts on comments." Was this just among the mods? There is only one thread where someone explicitly asks for favorites to go away, and the proposal was about as popular as farting in an elevator. The rest of the posts on MeTa about favorites tend to center on their usage and the features that filter posts based on favorite numbers.
One experiment I'd like to see is a voting system for features and changes that allows more community feedback and transparency around changes to the site. The current model, benign dictatorship, has not been a failure so far but that doesn't mean it's necessarily the best way to do things. Things I'd vote for:
- Pagination (or some other scheme that negates the need to load a 2,000 comment page when I only need to read the five new posts at the end)
Things I'd vote against:
- Hiding favorites from all everyone
posted by mullingitover at 2:13 PM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
I thought this was fascinating. Mayonnaise hair treatment.
posted by From Bklyn at 2:15 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by From Bklyn at 2:15 PM on November 3, 2009
You know, after all the nifty nitpickery on word choices and verb tense re 'has fave/favorite', I notice that the message we receive when we run out of favorites in the bucket is also sorta screwy.
Shouldn't it be 'You have hit your favorite limit?'
Because right now, it's hard not to read it as:
MeFi: You hit your favorite limit.
Me: Hit limit.
MeFi: You hit your favorite limit.
Me: Hit limit.
MeFi: You hit your favorite limit.
Me: I put on my robe and wizard hat.
posted by rokusan at 2:16 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Shouldn't it be 'You have hit your favorite limit?'
Because right now, it's hard not to read it as:
MeFi: You hit your favorite limit.
Me: Hit limit.
MeFi: You hit your favorite limit.
Me: Hit limit.
MeFi: You hit your favorite limit.
Me: I put on my robe and wizard hat.
posted by rokusan at 2:16 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Things I'd vote against:
- Mayonnaise martinis
posted by found missing at 2:18 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
- Mayonnaise martinis
posted by found missing at 2:18 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I'm with mullingitover here. The next time there's going to be a controversial change pushed out to all users that triggers thousands of comments, can it be pagination?
Because that would be meta-helpful.
posted by rokusan at 2:19 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Because that would be meta-helpful.
posted by rokusan at 2:19 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Honestly, I'm curious if you can respond to one without insulting people, which has seemed exceptionally difficult for you here.
While obviously klang is more than capable of standing up for himself... Dear god Blazecock, do you understand the concept of cognitive dissonance? Hell, klang has been one of the more reasonable people in this thread. He's one of the few pro-favorites people who has come across as reasonable in this whole thread. (It's strange how he's been lumped into the whole anti-faves crowd when early on he flat out said that he was pro-favorites but also pro-experiment.)
posted by aspo at 2:35 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
While obviously klang is more than capable of standing up for himself... Dear god Blazecock, do you understand the concept of cognitive dissonance? Hell, klang has been one of the more reasonable people in this thread. He's one of the few pro-favorites people who has come across as reasonable in this whole thread. (It's strange how he's been lumped into the whole anti-faves crowd when early on he flat out said that he was pro-favorites but also pro-experiment.)
posted by aspo at 2:35 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
"has favourites" - I like this!
Please NOT pagination - but some way of loading only the part of a thread I haven't already read would be great. Like Recent Activity but instead of "120 since your last comment, last 10 shown below" just "120 since your last comment, shown below". Even better if it doesn't force you to make a pointless bookmarking comment to benefit, although I guess that would be a major change.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 2:35 PM on November 3, 2009
Please NOT pagination - but some way of loading only the part of a thread I haven't already read would be great. Like Recent Activity but instead of "120 since your last comment, last 10 shown below" just "120 since your last comment, shown below". Even better if it doesn't force you to make a pointless bookmarking comment to benefit, although I guess that would be a major change.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 2:35 PM on November 3, 2009
I really, really love mayonnaise. Like I'd maaaarrrrry it. (Less sold on the 'has favorites' trial.) Especially Japanese mayonnaise. If someone could explain to me what the deal is with Japanese mayonnaise, I'd be eternally grateful. It's squeezable kewpie crack.
posted by *s at 2:36 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by *s at 2:36 PM on November 3, 2009
Pagination in reverse would be nice. Entire thread or only last 500. The best part of japanese mayonnaise is the bottle instructions that say it's good food for people age 0 to 100.
posted by rokusan at 2:44 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by rokusan at 2:44 PM on November 3, 2009
Call me crazy, but I like to read comments on Metafilter without having someone else tell me which ones to read. I also like to decide for myself which opinions I agree with, and I don't need a comforting blanket of favourites to validate this. There's been many a comment favourited a gabillion times that I totally disagree with, just as there's been lonely comments with no favourites at all that I think are fabulous. It sounds a whole lot like people in here are trying to say that they'll only pay attention to something that everyone else already likes, which seems a bit crazy to me.
This is the sort of language that bothers me, because it's completely disingenuous.
- No one is telling anyone which comments to read with the favorites system. You can read whatever the heck you want. Basically calling the pro-favorites folks sheep? Not so nice.
- People who pay attention to the favorites numbers are not turning off of their minds and letting everyone else decide their opinions. I absolutely hate, hate, hate this characterization, and am surprised how often it's been tossed up in this thread. It's flipping ridiculous.
- If I need to go on, many people do not just favorite comments they agree with; people favorite skillful comments they disagree with, also.
- Of course there are comments that are fabulous that don't have favorites. If you think they're super-fabulous, you could go ahead and favorite them. Because that's what it's there for.
Maybe I've missed the parts where everyone is telling the anti-favorite crowd what to think or do. Is the issue that you have to see the favorites at all? I am seriously trying to understand this, because I simply don't right now. If that is the issue, mullingitover had a great suggestion.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 2:47 PM on November 3, 2009 [13 favorites]
This is the sort of language that bothers me, because it's completely disingenuous.
- No one is telling anyone which comments to read with the favorites system. You can read whatever the heck you want. Basically calling the pro-favorites folks sheep? Not so nice.
- People who pay attention to the favorites numbers are not turning off of their minds and letting everyone else decide their opinions. I absolutely hate, hate, hate this characterization, and am surprised how often it's been tossed up in this thread. It's flipping ridiculous.
- If I need to go on, many people do not just favorite comments they agree with; people favorite skillful comments they disagree with, also.
- Of course there are comments that are fabulous that don't have favorites. If you think they're super-fabulous, you could go ahead and favorite them. Because that's what it's there for.
Maybe I've missed the parts where everyone is telling the anti-favorite crowd what to think or do. Is the issue that you have to see the favorites at all? I am seriously trying to understand this, because I simply don't right now. If that is the issue, mullingitover had a great suggestion.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 2:47 PM on November 3, 2009 [13 favorites]
No pagination either, please. No professional white background, no invisifavorites, no favorites in forty flavors, no building up a backlog of unused AskMes - honestly, I really do think Mefi is as perfect as a web forum's gonna get just the way it is.
Somehow, Matt and the Gang have brewed up a perfect blend of old and new school web community functionality and kept it running clean through vigorous moderation. I realize that not all of my favorite ponies were in the stable from the outset and the will to improve and experiment is how they forged this wonderful website - furthermore, I realize that the Great Unfavening is part of this process. However, I believe it represents a change we don't need. I feel the same way about pagination. Most of the time, after all these years of development, I feel like Team Mod at last deserves a chance to rest a bit on their laurels. We've got a really good thing going here, and I don't think it needs much more tinkering.
Maybe a month to fiddle with an Edit Window would be okay, though ....
*notices exposed bias, covers up*
posted by EatTheWeek at 2:48 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
Somehow, Matt and the Gang have brewed up a perfect blend of old and new school web community functionality and kept it running clean through vigorous moderation. I realize that not all of my favorite ponies were in the stable from the outset and the will to improve and experiment is how they forged this wonderful website - furthermore, I realize that the Great Unfavening is part of this process. However, I believe it represents a change we don't need. I feel the same way about pagination. Most of the time, after all these years of development, I feel like Team Mod at last deserves a chance to rest a bit on their laurels. We've got a really good thing going here, and I don't think it needs much more tinkering.
Maybe a month to fiddle with an Edit Window would be okay, though ....
*notices exposed bias, covers up*
posted by EatTheWeek at 2:48 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
Me:Fast-forward another hour, the thread is still developing, I go back. Now do I click on the has favorites link to see if more people have added on? Maybe, maybe not. In many ways it pulls me away from the thread. At some point I'm going to stop clicking on this link and these "private messages" will essentially go unnoticed until some point in the future.
Durn Bronzefist: If you're that concerned about how many people favorite your comment, you know you can hit "favorited by others" on your user page and get a breakdown, including who favorited what and when. But then if it matters to you this much, I'm guessing you'd have an eye on your favorite count and notice any changes anyway. Remember all those people who noted the one user who started removing all his previous favorites, even though it probably only affected any one person's count in the single digits?
But at that point, it's starting to sound less like an argument for "functionality" than some kind of self-gratifying OCD. No offence.
I think you're misjudging how much I care about favorites, I don't really care if I get them or not, although I certainly get the famous warm fuzzy feeling when I do. But the scenario I listed was in response to Jessamyn's note that the experimental system felt more like a private message rather than a public comment.
I basically agree with that. So my scenario was a way to point out that with the new experimental system I have two choices: 1.) Be forced into this weird OCD behavior in order to duplicate what now happens transparently or 2.) Adapt to the new system and if I'm curious dive into the favorite section every now and then.
In sum, both of these scenarios diminish the usefulness of the entire system in my opinion. It seems to shift the intent of favorites closer to bookmarks or mefi mail. It also happens to significantly alter the way I use the site, the number of favorites *I* get is not why the public numbers are useful. The number of favorites other comments get are.
posted by jeremias at 2:51 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Durn Bronzefist: If you're that concerned about how many people favorite your comment, you know you can hit "favorited by others" on your user page and get a breakdown, including who favorited what and when. But then if it matters to you this much, I'm guessing you'd have an eye on your favorite count and notice any changes anyway. Remember all those people who noted the one user who started removing all his previous favorites, even though it probably only affected any one person's count in the single digits?
But at that point, it's starting to sound less like an argument for "functionality" than some kind of self-gratifying OCD. No offence.
I think you're misjudging how much I care about favorites, I don't really care if I get them or not, although I certainly get the famous warm fuzzy feeling when I do. But the scenario I listed was in response to Jessamyn's note that the experimental system felt more like a private message rather than a public comment.
I basically agree with that. So my scenario was a way to point out that with the new experimental system I have two choices: 1.) Be forced into this weird OCD behavior in order to duplicate what now happens transparently or 2.) Adapt to the new system and if I'm curious dive into the favorite section every now and then.
In sum, both of these scenarios diminish the usefulness of the entire system in my opinion. It seems to shift the intent of favorites closer to bookmarks or mefi mail. It also happens to significantly alter the way I use the site, the number of favorites *I* get is not why the public numbers are useful. The number of favorites other comments get are.
posted by jeremias at 2:51 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Also also: In New England, French Fries are often eaten with vinegar. Discuss.
Ok, I'm sorry, the only thing that should go on fries if you have to put something on them beside salt is ketchup and cheese sauce. No vinegar, no mild sauce, no poutine (whatever the hell that is) no mayo, no chili, no seasoning or spices (Popeye's can take their Cajun fries and stuff em), none of the stuff listed here.
On the shape of french fries:
Not a big fan of wedge or steak fries. Curly fries and shoe string fries are an abomination. Thin cut is best, except when they just slice a potato really thin and throw it the grease. Awesome.
Mayo is fine, but I prefer Miracle Whip. I also don't understand putting why McDonalds put mayo on its chicken sandwiches. It's weird.
Also, since I'm being all elitist, it's pop, sweet and sour sauce, and fried rice should not have peas and carrots in it. WTF?
And since I'm here: I could not care less about the favorites. Have em or don't. Show the count or don't. Either way I'm good.
posted by nooneyouknow at 2:59 PM on November 3, 2009
Ok, I'm sorry, the only thing that should go on fries if you have to put something on them beside salt is ketchup and cheese sauce. No vinegar, no mild sauce, no poutine (whatever the hell that is) no mayo, no chili, no seasoning or spices (Popeye's can take their Cajun fries and stuff em), none of the stuff listed here.
On the shape of french fries:
Not a big fan of wedge or steak fries. Curly fries and shoe string fries are an abomination. Thin cut is best, except when they just slice a potato really thin and throw it the grease. Awesome.
Mayo is fine, but I prefer Miracle Whip. I also don't understand putting why McDonalds put mayo on its chicken sandwiches. It's weird.
Also, since I'm being all elitist, it's pop, sweet and sour sauce, and fried rice should not have peas and carrots in it. WTF?
And since I'm here: I could not care less about the favorites. Have em or don't. Show the count or don't. Either way I'm good.
posted by nooneyouknow at 2:59 PM on November 3, 2009
Fried rice can and should have peas, carrots, and whatever damn well else the cook and/or diner pleases.
I'm making roast duck with long-grained and wild rice, dried cranberry Caesar salad, and figs over here
posted by The Whelk at 3:16 PM on November 3, 2009
I'm making roast duck with long-grained and wild rice, dried cranberry Caesar salad, and figs over here
posted by The Whelk at 3:16 PM on November 3, 2009
no poutine (whatever the hell that is)
It's gravy and cheese and you're fucking insane if you don't think it's like the best thing ever to put on fries.
posted by dersins at 3:16 PM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
It's gravy and cheese and you're fucking insane if you don't think it's like the best thing ever to put on fries.
posted by dersins at 3:16 PM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
26.2 writes "Looking at the people who are the most outraged, they are some of the longstanding members of the community who's opinions I respect."
We've had outraged people here from the very early years; be glad quonsar not still around. Still you also have people like languagehat and deborah say things like: "I'm glad this is just a trial balloon; I expect to dislike it, but I also expect the results to support the moderators' (and my) belief that favorites don't negatively affect the site, so I'm guessing after November it will go away and we can go back to complaining about memes and demanding ponies." and "I'm looking forward to seeing how the experiment works out." Eideteker wrote "If you're going to make favorites a private thing (which they should be, like flags), they should be fully private." There was quite a lot of that in the first couple of hours before the rumble started. Go back and check the comments from say sub20K users. Most of them were willing to try the experiment even if they personally thought it was useless or bad.
dw writes "PS on Icelandic cocktail sauce -- out here in the West we call it fry sauce. It's not a Seattle thing (tartar sauce with your fries is the Seattle thing) but at burger places that have an eastern Washington contingent (e.g. Zak's) you can ask for it."
My wife came back from school in California additicted to this stuff and I can't taste why.
rokusan writes "Well rokusan thinks favouriting is going to precipitously decline because of no immediate positive feed back. -- Mitheral"
There are almost exactly a quarter million words in this thread now, but I can't find any of them that say that. Can you show me where I said that? Perhaps I was inebriated."
Sorry I can't find it either which means it was probably somebody else. I'd like to apologize for putting words in your mouth by misatribuation.
posted by Mitheral at 3:19 PM on November 3, 2009
We've had outraged people here from the very early years; be glad quonsar not still around. Still you also have people like languagehat and deborah say things like: "I'm glad this is just a trial balloon; I expect to dislike it, but I also expect the results to support the moderators' (and my) belief that favorites don't negatively affect the site, so I'm guessing after November it will go away and we can go back to complaining about memes and demanding ponies." and "I'm looking forward to seeing how the experiment works out." Eideteker wrote "If you're going to make favorites a private thing (which they should be, like flags), they should be fully private." There was quite a lot of that in the first couple of hours before the rumble started. Go back and check the comments from say sub20K users. Most of them were willing to try the experiment even if they personally thought it was useless or bad.
dw writes "PS on Icelandic cocktail sauce -- out here in the West we call it fry sauce. It's not a Seattle thing (tartar sauce with your fries is the Seattle thing) but at burger places that have an eastern Washington contingent (e.g. Zak's) you can ask for it."
My wife came back from school in California additicted to this stuff and I can't taste why.
rokusan writes "Well rokusan thinks favouriting is going to precipitously decline because of no immediate positive feed back. -- Mitheral"
There are almost exactly a quarter million words in this thread now, but I can't find any of them that say that. Can you show me where I said that? Perhaps I was inebriated."
Sorry I can't find it either which means it was probably somebody else. I'd like to apologize for putting words in your mouth by misatribuation.
posted by Mitheral at 3:19 PM on November 3, 2009
Also also: In New England, French Fries are often eaten with vinegar. Discuss.
Nawt any o' ya mawlt vinnega, neetha. Plain ol' white vinnega, same as what goes on ya clam cakes. Da Row Dyelan way! Anytin else is fo' savages oah Nu Yawkahs (same ting). You knows ya in Row Dyelan when you gotch you a red, yellow an' cleah squeeze-bottle at da table, fa ya ketchup, mustid an vinnega.
Don' even get me stahted on what's a propah gravy fa ya parstar.
posted by Slap*Happy at 3:20 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
Nawt any o' ya mawlt vinnega, neetha. Plain ol' white vinnega, same as what goes on ya clam cakes. Da Row Dyelan way! Anytin else is fo' savages oah Nu Yawkahs (same ting). You knows ya in Row Dyelan when you gotch you a red, yellow an' cleah squeeze-bottle at da table, fa ya ketchup, mustid an vinnega.
Don' even get me stahted on what's a propah gravy fa ya parstar.
posted by Slap*Happy at 3:20 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
Thin cut is best, except when they just slice a potato really thin and throw it the grease.
Does this mean you are for or against the potato chip? Because this favorites nonsense aside, a man who stands against the potato chip cannot be kin to me.
posted by 26.2 at 3:21 PM on November 3, 2009
Does this mean you are for or against the potato chip? Because this favorites nonsense aside, a man who stands against the potato chip cannot be kin to me.
posted by 26.2 at 3:21 PM on November 3, 2009
mullingitover writes "One experiment I'd like to see is a voting system for features and changes that allows more community feedback and transparency around changes to the site. The current model, benign dictatorship, has not been a failure so far but that doesn't mean it's necessarily the best way to do things. Things I'd vote for:
"- Pagination "
Odin's holy hand grenade! If the first thing the tyranny of the majority is going to impose if frackin' pagination then please oh thunderous one save us from direct democracy"
posted by Mitheral at 3:27 PM on November 3, 2009
"- Pagination "
Odin's holy hand grenade! If the first thing the tyranny of the majority is going to impose if frackin' pagination then please oh thunderous one save us from direct democracy"
posted by Mitheral at 3:27 PM on November 3, 2009
Actually it's less important what technical bits go in or out, but please don't make everything an option.
And chippy chips, salt, vinegar and a pickled onion. I have no idea how you would even begin to get the site to deliver that, but please hurry.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 3:27 PM on November 3, 2009
And chippy chips, salt, vinegar and a pickled onion. I have no idea how you would even begin to get the site to deliver that, but please hurry.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 3:27 PM on November 3, 2009
OK, I have disabled my Greasemonkey and Stylish scripts, and changed my Metafilter preferences to show "has favorites" instead of the count. I don't like it, but it's more that I prefer the other way than that I particularly hate this way, so I'm definitely willing to try it for a month if it might help.
posted by Flunkie at 3:29 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by Flunkie at 3:29 PM on November 3, 2009
Mitheral Go back and check the comments from say sub20K users. Most of them were willing to try the experiment even if they personally thought it was useless or bad.
Has that been validated? Because it seems everyone thinks the "cool kids" are on their side, but I'm thinking it's probably confirmation bias. Considering the amount of people who've responded negatively, it seem that there would need to be an overwhelming difference in the opinion of early Mefites.
(Also, I find the sub20K to be sort of a silly cut-off. Unless you've been here a decade you're not a longstanding user?)
posted by 26.2 at 3:30 PM on November 3, 2009
Has that been validated? Because it seems everyone thinks the "cool kids" are on their side, but I'm thinking it's probably confirmation bias. Considering the amount of people who've responded negatively, it seem that there would need to be an overwhelming difference in the opinion of early Mefites.
(Also, I find the sub20K to be sort of a silly cut-off. Unless you've been here a decade you're not a longstanding user?)
posted by 26.2 at 3:30 PM on November 3, 2009
Thank you for the option.
posted by streetdreams at 3:31 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by streetdreams at 3:31 PM on November 3, 2009
Mitheral writes "Odin's holy hand grenade! If the first thing the tyranny of the majority is going to impose if frackin' pagination then please oh thunderous one save us from direct democracy""
Who said anything about imposing? I'd prefer that significant changes to the site be offered as account options and not by edict. See also: Professional white background.
posted by mullingitover at 3:33 PM on November 3, 2009
Who said anything about imposing? I'd prefer that significant changes to the site be offered as account options and not by edict. See also: Professional white background.
posted by mullingitover at 3:33 PM on November 3, 2009
Call me crazy, but I like to read comments on Metafilter without having someone else tell me which ones to read.Has anything ever prevented you from doing this?
posted by Flunkie at 3:35 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
For the record, I will take either mayonnaise or Miracle Whip, although I prefer mayonnaise. When I was a child, though, I strongly preferred Miracle Whip, which I thought was great, whereas mayonnaise totally skeeved me out.
posted by Flunkie at 3:36 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by Flunkie at 3:36 PM on November 3, 2009
(Also, I find the sub20K to be sort of a silly cut-off. Unless you've been here a decade you're not a longstanding user?)
The low user number people tend to be biased in favor of people with low user numbers, being that they have low user numbers. Shouts of "YOU'RE DRUNK AGAIN, DAD, DAMMIT" sometimes bring them back to their senses; conversely, Daft Punk albums or an old VHS tape of The Matrix turned to a low hum often lull them back to a gentle place that reminds them of their halcyon days in a simpler world. They're sweet souls, with much to teach us.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:41 PM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
The low user number people tend to be biased in favor of people with low user numbers, being that they have low user numbers. Shouts of "YOU'RE DRUNK AGAIN, DAD, DAMMIT" sometimes bring them back to their senses; conversely, Daft Punk albums or an old VHS tape of The Matrix turned to a low hum often lull them back to a gentle place that reminds them of their halcyon days in a simpler world. They're sweet souls, with much to teach us.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:41 PM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
jeremias: ah, that makes sense.
Also: I notice you has favorites. Would you like to trade some for a nice warm brie?
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:47 PM on November 3, 2009
Also: I notice you has favorites. Would you like to trade some for a nice warm brie?
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:47 PM on November 3, 2009
I honestly did not realize there were people who prefer Miracle Whip to real mayonnaise. This thread has been very educational.
posted by languagehat at 3:48 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by languagehat at 3:48 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
WAIT, I'm in the pagination thread? I would have noticed but I'm on page 473 and I can't. scroll. fuck.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:49 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:49 PM on November 3, 2009
^comment 2009!^
posted by languagehat at 3:49 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by languagehat at 3:49 PM on November 3, 2009
Dammit, my comment was #2009. Stop trying to steal my year-comment, Durn Bronzefist.
posted by languagehat at 3:50 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by languagehat at 3:50 PM on November 3, 2009
I notice you has year-comment, languagehat. Would you like to trade for a nice warm brie?
I love Costco, but man, the portions.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:51 PM on November 3, 2009
I love Costco, but man, the portions.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:51 PM on November 3, 2009
This thread is getting to the point where it could train a completely naïve neural network to overthink a plate of beans.
posted by killdevil at 3:52 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by killdevil at 3:52 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Are we talking about pie yet?
posted by desjardins at 3:56 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by desjardins at 3:56 PM on November 3, 2009
Sub-20 reporting in. I'm doing the 'speriment. And now I am thinking about mayonnaise. Yummy, yummy mayonnaise. Have you tried the new olive oil mayo (er...pepsi goo)? Yum. I was raised on Miracle Whip but at some point weaned myself off the sugar. Sadly, though, I'm in a mixed marriage: He no likey mayo. No deviled eggs. No potato salad. No sangwich slathered in creamy, creamy fat...
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:59 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:59 PM on November 3, 2009
Daft Punk albums or an old VHS tape of The Matrix turned to a low hum
though my user number is in the high 70,000s, I can remember with full cognition a world that both precedes home VHS-decks (and TRON for that matter, one of the first movies I ever saw on VHS) and so-called techno music (Kraftwerk for sake of argument; I was a teenager when Autobahn hit the AM radio waves).
My point being ... ?
Ummm ...? a good raspberry pie is better than mayonnaise! This much is clear and a fact that precedes even the splitting the atom.
I need a nap.
posted by philip-random at 4:00 PM on November 3, 2009
though my user number is in the high 70,000s, I can remember with full cognition a world that both precedes home VHS-decks (and TRON for that matter, one of the first movies I ever saw on VHS) and so-called techno music (Kraftwerk for sake of argument; I was a teenager when Autobahn hit the AM radio waves).
My point being ... ?
Ummm ...? a good raspberry pie is better than mayonnaise! This much is clear and a fact that precedes even the splitting the atom.
I need a nap.
posted by philip-random at 4:00 PM on November 3, 2009
I'm in a mixed marriage: He no likey mayo. No deviled eggs.DTMFA
posted by Flunkie at 4:00 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
Were the mods bored?
posted by found missing at 4:05 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by found missing at 4:05 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
desjardins: "Are we talking about pie yet?"
Here's an example of how the favoriting mechanism influences the comments that get written. I was going to write:
1: well, except that now I did. But just as an example, not a real attempt to be funny.
posted by FishBike at 4:08 PM on November 3, 2009
Here's an example of how the favoriting mechanism influences the comments that get written. I was going to write:
What's your favorite type of pie?But nearly every time I've written something like that, it doesn't get many favorites, leading me to conclude I'm not funny. So I didn't write that, after all.1
1: well, except that now I did. But just as an example, not a real attempt to be funny.
posted by FishBike at 4:08 PM on November 3, 2009
I'm barely sub-20k, but I've seen The Matrix enough times to be able to point out a Mt. Dew bottle in the rain gutter on one of the roof shots.
I had a very boring adolescence.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 4:18 PM on November 3, 2009
I had a very boring adolescence.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 4:18 PM on November 3, 2009
Morse -> Barnaby -> Frost -> Foyle -> Allen -> Lynley -> Hill
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:22 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:22 PM on November 3, 2009
It is not possible to have an incorrectly cut fry, that's just silly. A potato is great from it's solid form (baked) to its obliterated form (mashed) and stays great everywhere in between. Except when you make potato salad out of it, of course.
posted by cj_ at 4:23 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by cj_ at 4:23 PM on November 3, 2009
Dear gods please never experiment with pagination. It is the most annoying thing on the internet.
posted by winna at 4:24 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by winna at 4:24 PM on November 3, 2009
Can we experiment with pagination next month?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
No.
posted by maqsarian at 4:33 PM on November 3, 2009
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
No.
posted by maqsarian at 4:33 PM on November 3, 2009
Great. You made America cry. Good job, dersins.
posted by Atreides at 4:43 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Atreides at 4:43 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Then my work here is done.
posted by dersins at 4:46 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by dersins at 4:46 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
America: Don't thread on me.
posted by contrariwise at 4:47 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by contrariwise at 4:47 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Don't thread on me.
*inhales and puffs chest out*
PS: *through tears*
posted by America at 4:49 PM on November 3, 2009
*inhales and puffs chest out*
PS: *through tears*
posted by America at 4:49 PM on November 3, 2009
Dear gods please never experiment with pagination. It is the most annoying thing on the internet.
My comment was at least half-joking at how this thread has itself become so huge that pagination might actually help here. A debate on pagination hitting 3000 comments would be just too cute for words.
But what the heck, no joking now.... I agree that splitting a NYT article over four pages is annoying. Splitting yet another "Top Ten" list into ten separate ad-generating pages is very annoying.
But some kinds of pagination do make sense from a kind-to-users perspective. For example, this here Palin-like thread is 3.5Mb of text on a big single page that is reloading every time I look at it to read just a few more comments at the end, which is really inefficient on a lot of levels. Unless I'm deliberately checking or re-reading something from early on, 95% of that reload is unnecessary, and "most recent comments only" would be better. Heck, even "most recent 1000 comments" would be a massive increase in performance and reduction in load on these beast-threads. One could do this without literal pages by just including a simple ajax'd show/hide for the older comments. Enter and all but the most recent 1000 are suppressed with a note on top. Click "show all" and they load in situ.
I doubt that 1000 comments per "page" would be obtrusive. Most threads would never even trigger the cutoff, after all, so it would be no change to most threads. But these monsters would sure be easier to tame.
I think that sort of thing would be reasonable, quiet, low-impact, and pretty elegant. I don't think it has any real downsides. It's even technically easy to implement.
But I won't argue about it. :)
posted by rokusan at 5:04 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
My comment was at least half-joking at how this thread has itself become so huge that pagination might actually help here. A debate on pagination hitting 3000 comments would be just too cute for words.
But what the heck, no joking now.... I agree that splitting a NYT article over four pages is annoying. Splitting yet another "Top Ten" list into ten separate ad-generating pages is very annoying.
But some kinds of pagination do make sense from a kind-to-users perspective. For example, this here Palin-like thread is 3.5Mb of text on a big single page that is reloading every time I look at it to read just a few more comments at the end, which is really inefficient on a lot of levels. Unless I'm deliberately checking or re-reading something from early on, 95% of that reload is unnecessary, and "most recent comments only" would be better. Heck, even "most recent 1000 comments" would be a massive increase in performance and reduction in load on these beast-threads. One could do this without literal pages by just including a simple ajax'd show/hide for the older comments. Enter and all but the most recent 1000 are suppressed with a note on top. Click "show all" and they load in situ.
I doubt that 1000 comments per "page" would be obtrusive. Most threads would never even trigger the cutoff, after all, so it would be no change to most threads. But these monsters would sure be easier to tame.
I think that sort of thing would be reasonable, quiet, low-impact, and pretty elegant. I don't think it has any real downsides. It's even technically easy to implement.
But I won't argue about it. :)
posted by rokusan at 5:04 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Long usernames are the new low user numbers.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 5:14 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 5:14 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Now I'm hungry for pickled onions and you just can't get good pickled onions here in Florida, unless one's relatives sneak a jar of Sainsbury's best over in checked luggage, which they won't do because they don't visit us though I suppose if we finally had our wedding reception that would be a good reason for them to visit and I could request pickled onions in lieu of wedding gifts, right?
Also I turned "has favourites" on on my iPhone and found that browsing AskMe was confusing because I had to keep stopping to see just how many people agreed with someone. The favesperiment has definitely taught me that I use faves as a signpost mechanism in Ask.
P.S. I had some thoughts on information-seeking behavior and the use of favorites in information seeking, mainly as navigational aids to browsing but I can't be arsed to run a literature search right now. Maybe if I have a couple of spare hours tomorrow I'll write something up for the info needs/LIS contingent (Librarians holla).
posted by subbes at 5:17 PM on November 3, 2009
Also I turned "has favourites" on on my iPhone and found that browsing AskMe was confusing because I had to keep stopping to see just how many people agreed with someone. The favesperiment has definitely taught me that I use faves as a signpost mechanism in Ask.
P.S. I had some thoughts on information-seeking behavior and the use of favorites in information seeking, mainly as navigational aids to browsing but I can't be arsed to run a literature search right now. Maybe if I have a couple of spare hours tomorrow I'll write something up for the info needs/LIS contingent (Librarians holla).
posted by subbes at 5:17 PM on November 3, 2009
ffs, people, keep your pants on. I'm not even asking for pagination to be foisted on everyone from out of the blue, just an account prefs box I can check off. If there were some way I could do this effectively from the client side I would've already done it. These monster threads are a decadent waste of bandwidth when all you really need are the bits at the end.
posted by mullingitover at 5:18 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by mullingitover at 5:18 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't think it has any real downsides
Except all the people that'll never bother reading the first half of the thread. Probably leading to those people repeating stuff that's already been said (even more than currently happens) or asking the same questions that have already been answered or just generally keeping stuff going that was already settled in the hidden part, thus leading to even longer threads. This kind of thing is already a problem, why make it any easier to do?
I guess you could argue that those people won't read the thread anyway. I've certainly only skimmed large parts of this one (not using favourites, I can't be bothered trying to pick out stuff based on tiny yellow text). But right now the huge loading time might at least put off those who're behind and stop them commenting, whereas pagination will make it easy for anyone to jump in half arsed.
I'm still not feeling particularly angsty but that's only because I'm skipping all the talk of mayonnaise and thus not thinking about the awful soggy sandwiches it leads to.
posted by shelleycat at 5:21 PM on November 3, 2009
Except all the people that'll never bother reading the first half of the thread. Probably leading to those people repeating stuff that's already been said (even more than currently happens) or asking the same questions that have already been answered or just generally keeping stuff going that was already settled in the hidden part, thus leading to even longer threads. This kind of thing is already a problem, why make it any easier to do?
I guess you could argue that those people won't read the thread anyway. I've certainly only skimmed large parts of this one (not using favourites, I can't be bothered trying to pick out stuff based on tiny yellow text). But right now the huge loading time might at least put off those who're behind and stop them commenting, whereas pagination will make it easy for anyone to jump in half arsed.
I'm still not feeling particularly angsty but that's only because I'm skipping all the talk of mayonnaise and thus not thinking about the awful soggy sandwiches it leads to.
posted by shelleycat at 5:21 PM on November 3, 2009
cortex and jessamyn, I would love for you folks to put together a questionnaire that discusses the favorites system, this test, and users' feeling toward what the purpose of this system is. Really do something comprehensive, which could be a good way to gauge interest (or lack thereof) in the current implementation of the system. Maybe ask for alternatives (if they disagree with the current implementation). If they like the system, how to make it better, etc. I get the sense we'll never really know if there's a silent majority, or not, on this issue, unless people can vote in anonymity.
I think what we often see in heated threads like these is people with strong opinions who grab the megaphones and shout out anyone who disagrees. A real turning point in the MetaFilter experience, to me, was a long time ago when, in disgust, I said something like, "I can't believe more people aren't agreeing with me here; this is so blatantly obvious." Someone responded: "Just because there isn't an outspoken agreement, it doesn't mean that there aren't a thousand people reading this thread and nodding vociferously." It really made me think, and frankly, this thread, and the sheer anger/hatred/bile spewed in various directions would make anyone with an opinion, but not looking for a fight, to keep their mouth shut and just nod silently.
So give these people, who are nodding silently, a chance to vote without fear of being yelled at. It occurs to me that there's a comment upthread that completely disagrees with this experiment, and has a couple hundred favorites. But, if I remember correctly, you've (you mods) mentioned that at any given time, there are 3000-4000 active users on the site. So while a couple hundred looks good, it might be just a vocal minority. We'll never know, unless people can vote.
On a side note, I don't think mob rule is a good way to run anything. Brown v. Board ended segregation, but it went against public opinion. I think Matt has always been a very good host to this party, but often I've wished that the mods would take a heavier hand (without relying upon flagging), and just do what's right (or what they think is right). Being able to see flaws in the system, and sometimes doing what's unpopular, is what makes a strong leader, and a more robust site.
So my opinion is to continue this experiment, which is interesting and worthwhile, at the end of which allow users to vote on the system, and in the end, do what's right for the site, with all the evidence in front of you.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:26 PM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
I think what we often see in heated threads like these is people with strong opinions who grab the megaphones and shout out anyone who disagrees. A real turning point in the MetaFilter experience, to me, was a long time ago when, in disgust, I said something like, "I can't believe more people aren't agreeing with me here; this is so blatantly obvious." Someone responded: "Just because there isn't an outspoken agreement, it doesn't mean that there aren't a thousand people reading this thread and nodding vociferously." It really made me think, and frankly, this thread, and the sheer anger/hatred/bile spewed in various directions would make anyone with an opinion, but not looking for a fight, to keep their mouth shut and just nod silently.
So give these people, who are nodding silently, a chance to vote without fear of being yelled at. It occurs to me that there's a comment upthread that completely disagrees with this experiment, and has a couple hundred favorites. But, if I remember correctly, you've (you mods) mentioned that at any given time, there are 3000-4000 active users on the site. So while a couple hundred looks good, it might be just a vocal minority. We'll never know, unless people can vote.
On a side note, I don't think mob rule is a good way to run anything. Brown v. Board ended segregation, but it went against public opinion. I think Matt has always been a very good host to this party, but often I've wished that the mods would take a heavier hand (without relying upon flagging), and just do what's right (or what they think is right). Being able to see flaws in the system, and sometimes doing what's unpopular, is what makes a strong leader, and a more robust site.
So my opinion is to continue this experiment, which is interesting and worthwhile, at the end of which allow users to vote on the system, and in the end, do what's right for the site, with all the evidence in front of you.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:26 PM on November 3, 2009 [5 favorites]
Joe Beese: If by "laying it on a bit thick" you mean that the angst produced in the wake of the favesperiment isn't actually comparable to the Battle of Agincourt, I think it's time to push the plate of beans away from you.
Well, I guess the analogy crystalized something in my head that had been bothering me for a long time but I had never really been able to articulate: Namely, conceptualizing MetaTalk threads as battles. This is where the community comes to debate* and work out differences and figure out what's the best course of action. I really don't like to think of this as a battlefield, with the conceptual framework that brings: victory, defeat, death, soldiers etc.
Part of what bothers me is that I had started to think of it that way. I don't know when that changed for me. I used to think of MetaTalk as consensus builder but at some point, years ago, I stopped thinking that.
No, that's not quite right. I still think of MetaTalk as a place for building consensus but the idea that MetaTalk is a battle, a game even, at some point took over and became dominant in my head.
That bothers me.
That's why thinking of this thread as the Battle of Agincourt troubled me so much. Putting it in such direct terms forced me to really think about how I thought about MetaTalk. And how I think about MetaTalk is wrongheaded. This isn't a battle. I don't want to win anything, I just want to help MetaFilter become better. And I believe that everyone here wants that too and that arguing our case helps MetaFilter become a better community.
* And share recipes. Delicious, delicious recipes for yummy wondrousness.
posted by Kattullus at 5:33 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Well, I guess the analogy crystalized something in my head that had been bothering me for a long time but I had never really been able to articulate: Namely, conceptualizing MetaTalk threads as battles. This is where the community comes to debate* and work out differences and figure out what's the best course of action. I really don't like to think of this as a battlefield, with the conceptual framework that brings: victory, defeat, death, soldiers etc.
Part of what bothers me is that I had started to think of it that way. I don't know when that changed for me. I used to think of MetaTalk as consensus builder but at some point, years ago, I stopped thinking that.
No, that's not quite right. I still think of MetaTalk as a place for building consensus but the idea that MetaTalk is a battle, a game even, at some point took over and became dominant in my head.
That bothers me.
That's why thinking of this thread as the Battle of Agincourt troubled me so much. Putting it in such direct terms forced me to really think about how I thought about MetaTalk. And how I think about MetaTalk is wrongheaded. This isn't a battle. I don't want to win anything, I just want to help MetaFilter become better. And I believe that everyone here wants that too and that arguing our case helps MetaFilter become a better community.
* And share recipes. Delicious, delicious recipes for yummy wondrousness.
posted by Kattullus at 5:33 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
T average thread is around 40 comments. There's a few that break 100, some that get almost nothing. None of these really need pagination. It would be nice for this thread, no doubt, but this is a serious outlier. Why go through the hassle? For the most part I prefer everything on one page: I can use the find key effectively, as well as have a visual marker of my progress (the scrollbar).
I would like something that would effectively keep track of my place, but using plutor's MetaFilter Scroll Tag script solves that issue for me.
posted by cj_ at 5:43 PM on November 3, 2009
I would like something that would effectively keep track of my place, but using plutor's MetaFilter Scroll Tag script solves that issue for me.
posted by cj_ at 5:43 PM on November 3, 2009
Do non-Americans really see "has favourites" as opposed to "has favorites"? If so, I'm impressed with the attention to detail.
I turned favorite counts back on, btw. I'll be curious to know how many people make that change.
posted by desjardins at 5:47 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I turned favorite counts back on, btw. I'll be curious to know how many people make that change.
posted by desjardins at 5:47 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
My roast duck liveblogging means nothing to you people. NOTHING!
posted by The Whelk at 5:48 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by The Whelk at 5:48 PM on November 3, 2009
I don't understand how anyone can be following this thread and keeping up with Real Life at the same time. So, apologies in advance for a sincere comment when the discussion has moved on to mayonnaise and pies...
koeselitz, your comment helps. In fact, I think that post might be the most concise explanation in the thread of why favorites may have a deleterious effect.
To respond:
1) I think people respond to favorites in a more sophisticated way than what you describe. That is to say, even though favorites are on the surface a "catch-all," that is not how users read them. I, for one, can generally tell the difference between a bookmark (a recipe favorited on Ask does not indicate that the favoriter has tried the recipe and concurs that it is good; it's likely he or she just wants to save the comment), a "thanks for sharing that" (likely on the more personal contributions), an "I agree" (probable in politics threads), and a high-five for a one-off snark. You use Metafilter for awhile, you get a feel for this stuff. It's not going to be 100%, but, you know, it's considerably more nuanced than the on/off switch that you're describing favorites to be.
2) My views on political and social matters are often different from those that dominate Metafilter. I'm in the minority here (being what would be considered in the U.S. a moderate, not a lefty). And that's okay! I know that score, with or without favorites. But when I see a comment that I consider to be especially lazy, knee-jerkish, echo-chambery--I'd just as soon know whether it's been favorited once or dozens of times. If it's been favorited once, I'll just move on; who cares? Dozens of times--well, I might give it a reread to see if I missed something or could learn something; failing that threshold, I might click to see who favorited it, as that will color my opinion in the future of the judgment of the favoriters. (This is a negative example, but it applies in the positive as well.) In other words, I think a lot more goes on in the minds of those who use favorites than just scanning a thread with a binary AGREE/DISAGREE? switch in our heads. I don't feel more excluded, with my more-or-less minority opinions, because of favorites; I just feel better educated about who on Metafilter thinks what.
3) I suspect that the reason a lot of seldom-heard-from Mefites jumped into this thread to express disapproval may be that "favorite-whoring" doesn't mean a whole lot to us. We don't do it, and as far as reading other comments goes, it's not too hard to tell which ones fit into that category and which don't. The noise is just not a big deal, considering that most of it would be there anyway. It strikes me that few lurkers have popped in here to say they like this experiment. Some (most, according to the numbers?) of us use Metafilter more as a resource than as a venue for expressing our own opinions. So, you know, whether we "skim" by favorites or not doesn't affect the site one way or the other, whereas not being able to do that would affect the utility of the site for us, in terms of the information/entertainment we get out of it. We're not looking to mouth off without reading the whole conversation; we're not looking to mouth off at all, just to check out the best of the web and some generally good commentary on it.
I normally read threads top-to-bottom, fwiw. I'm usually halfway through a comment before my eye drops down to see the favorites (I wasn't aware of this, either way, until the "faved" thing went into effect), and it's usually something IN the comment that makes me check. I think a lot of readers probably use favorites this way, not (again) as an on/off switch to determine whether to read a comment, but as extra information to help determine how much weight to give it--regardless of whether that weight falls, for the reader, in a positive or a negative way.
Much of this has already been expressed in comments above this one. I just wanted to throw in the opinion of one (most-of-the-time) lurker, in case it's useful.
posted by torticat at 5:53 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
koeselitz, your comment helps. In fact, I think that post might be the most concise explanation in the thread of why favorites may have a deleterious effect.
To respond:
1) I think people respond to favorites in a more sophisticated way than what you describe. That is to say, even though favorites are on the surface a "catch-all," that is not how users read them. I, for one, can generally tell the difference between a bookmark (a recipe favorited on Ask does not indicate that the favoriter has tried the recipe and concurs that it is good; it's likely he or she just wants to save the comment), a "thanks for sharing that" (likely on the more personal contributions), an "I agree" (probable in politics threads), and a high-five for a one-off snark. You use Metafilter for awhile, you get a feel for this stuff. It's not going to be 100%, but, you know, it's considerably more nuanced than the on/off switch that you're describing favorites to be.
2) My views on political and social matters are often different from those that dominate Metafilter. I'm in the minority here (being what would be considered in the U.S. a moderate, not a lefty). And that's okay! I know that score, with or without favorites. But when I see a comment that I consider to be especially lazy, knee-jerkish, echo-chambery--I'd just as soon know whether it's been favorited once or dozens of times. If it's been favorited once, I'll just move on; who cares? Dozens of times--well, I might give it a reread to see if I missed something or could learn something; failing that threshold, I might click to see who favorited it, as that will color my opinion in the future of the judgment of the favoriters. (This is a negative example, but it applies in the positive as well.) In other words, I think a lot more goes on in the minds of those who use favorites than just scanning a thread with a binary AGREE/DISAGREE? switch in our heads. I don't feel more excluded, with my more-or-less minority opinions, because of favorites; I just feel better educated about who on Metafilter thinks what.
3) I suspect that the reason a lot of seldom-heard-from Mefites jumped into this thread to express disapproval may be that "favorite-whoring" doesn't mean a whole lot to us. We don't do it, and as far as reading other comments goes, it's not too hard to tell which ones fit into that category and which don't. The noise is just not a big deal, considering that most of it would be there anyway. It strikes me that few lurkers have popped in here to say they like this experiment. Some (most, according to the numbers?) of us use Metafilter more as a resource than as a venue for expressing our own opinions. So, you know, whether we "skim" by favorites or not doesn't affect the site one way or the other, whereas not being able to do that would affect the utility of the site for us, in terms of the information/entertainment we get out of it. We're not looking to mouth off without reading the whole conversation; we're not looking to mouth off at all, just to check out the best of the web and some generally good commentary on it.
I normally read threads top-to-bottom, fwiw. I'm usually halfway through a comment before my eye drops down to see the favorites (I wasn't aware of this, either way, until the "faved" thing went into effect), and it's usually something IN the comment that makes me check. I think a lot of readers probably use favorites this way, not (again) as an on/off switch to determine whether to read a comment, but as extra information to help determine how much weight to give it--regardless of whether that weight falls, for the reader, in a positive or a negative way.
Much of this has already been expressed in comments above this one. I just wanted to throw in the opinion of one (most-of-the-time) lurker, in case it's useful.
posted by torticat at 5:53 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
26.2 writes "Has that been validated? Because it seems everyone thinks the 'cool kids' are on their side, but I'm thinking it's probably confirmation bias."
I did before posting the comment. In the first 3-4 hours, before things went to 11, there were a dozen or so comments by people in the sub 20K group (chosen cause that's the first 20%, give or take) A couple were out of the box negative, a a few like Editaker felt it was a good start if we couldn't ditch favourites all together, and the rest were either postive or negative but were willing to give it a shot.
posted by Mitheral at 5:58 PM on November 3, 2009
I did before posting the comment. In the first 3-4 hours, before things went to 11, there were a dozen or so comments by people in the sub 20K group (chosen cause that's the first 20%, give or take) A couple were out of the box negative, a a few like Editaker felt it was a good start if we couldn't ditch favourites all together, and the rest were either postive or negative but were willing to give it a shot.
posted by Mitheral at 5:58 PM on November 3, 2009
desjardins i writes "Do non-Americans really see 'has favourites' as opposed to 'has favorites'? If so, I'm impressed with the attention to detail."
It's part of the regionalization pack that also replaces neighbor on the contacts page with neighbour and adds American political news filtering. See Regionalization on the wiki.
posted by Mitheral at 6:09 PM on November 3, 2009
It's part of the regionalization pack that also replaces neighbor on the contacts page with neighbour and adds American political news filtering. See Regionalization on the wiki.
posted by Mitheral at 6:09 PM on November 3, 2009
I said something like, "I can't believe more people aren't agreeing with me here; this is so blatantly obvious." Someone responded: "Just because there isn't an outspoken agreement, it doesn't mean that there aren't a thousand people reading this thread and nodding vociferously."
Yeah. A lot of them nod in agreement by favoriting, too. That's how I've always used it.
I noticed that this thread itself reads very differently with favorite-counts showing than it does with favorite counts hidden, especially the early part. Try it; you can get a real different sense of "the room" each way, and where the silent nodders are.
As I said somewhere six miles upthread, if the favorite counts had been in my face the old way at the time, I probably would have realized that half of the points I was making were redundant, since they'd already been silently nodded at hundreds and hundreds of times, and didn't really need any more repeating. And then I woulda shut up sooner and not hurt anyone's feelings.
posted by rokusan at 6:10 PM on November 3, 2009
Yeah. A lot of them nod in agreement by favoriting, too. That's how I've always used it.
I noticed that this thread itself reads very differently with favorite-counts showing than it does with favorite counts hidden, especially the early part. Try it; you can get a real different sense of "the room" each way, and where the silent nodders are.
As I said somewhere six miles upthread, if the favorite counts had been in my face the old way at the time, I probably would have realized that half of the points I was making were redundant, since they'd already been silently nodded at hundreds and hundreds of times, and didn't really need any more repeating. And then I woulda shut up sooner and not hurt anyone's feelings.
posted by rokusan at 6:10 PM on November 3, 2009
"Do non-Americans really see 'has favourites' as opposed to 'has favorites'? If so, I'm impressed with the attention to detail."
No, but they otter.
posted by rokusan at 6:11 PM on November 3, 2009
No, but they otter.
posted by rokusan at 6:11 PM on November 3, 2009
I don't think it has any real downsides
Except all the people that'll never bother reading the first half of the thread.
Maybe, yeah, but we're talking about 2000+ comment threads at that point, and I don't think there's any way to force people to read those before commenting anyway. All you can do is force loading it or not.
MeFi loves cookies*, so set a cookie to the message number of the last comment I posted or favorited, and load the page back from that point next time, with the same "show earlier" link above it? I mean, if I posted a comment or favorited a comment, you know that I've already read to that point... or at least that I'm acting as if I have.
* and pie.
posted by rokusan at 6:14 PM on November 3, 2009
Except all the people that'll never bother reading the first half of the thread.
Maybe, yeah, but we're talking about 2000+ comment threads at that point, and I don't think there's any way to force people to read those before commenting anyway. All you can do is force loading it or not.
MeFi loves cookies*, so set a cookie to the message number of the last comment I posted or favorited, and load the page back from that point next time, with the same "show earlier" link above it? I mean, if I posted a comment or favorited a comment, you know that I've already read to that point... or at least that I'm acting as if I have.
* and pie.
posted by rokusan at 6:14 PM on November 3, 2009
Forget pagination. Can we have a vote on changing the Metafilter logo font?
posted by 8dot3 at 6:21 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by 8dot3 at 6:21 PM on November 3, 2009
cj_ writes "Why go through the hassle?"
"It would be nice for this thread"
...and the Sarah Palin thread. And the Katrina thread. And every other thread with large numbers of people engaging in discussion. If we don't want to have lots of discussion here and keep the threads in the 40-comment territory, I guess that's a long-term vision thing, but if we want to have a lot of discussion it would make sense to have the structures in place to support it. Right now this thread is clocking in at over 3MB, and I'm occasionally refreshing to grab maybe 5 kB worth of data. That just strikes me as being broken.
I guess that's what struck me about this change. I've always figured that the cabal was too busy moderating to improve the site, or they had other things going on. I was taken aback when this change to the favorites came up, because of all the things that could be improved, they instead went and messed with something that really wasn't broken.
posted by mullingitover at 6:24 PM on November 3, 2009
"It would be nice for this thread"
...and the Sarah Palin thread. And the Katrina thread. And every other thread with large numbers of people engaging in discussion. If we don't want to have lots of discussion here and keep the threads in the 40-comment territory, I guess that's a long-term vision thing, but if we want to have a lot of discussion it would make sense to have the structures in place to support it. Right now this thread is clocking in at over 3MB, and I'm occasionally refreshing to grab maybe 5 kB worth of data. That just strikes me as being broken.
I guess that's what struck me about this change. I've always figured that the cabal was too busy moderating to improve the site, or they had other things going on. I was taken aback when this change to the favorites came up, because of all the things that could be improved, they instead went and messed with something that really wasn't broken.
posted by mullingitover at 6:24 PM on November 3, 2009
changing the Metafilter logo font
To Comic Sans, right?
posted by maqsarian at 6:25 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
To Comic Sans, right?
posted by maqsarian at 6:25 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I noticed that this thread itself reads very differently with favorite-counts showing than it does with favorite counts hidden, especially the early part. Try it; you can get a real different sense of "the room" each way, and where the silent nodders are.
So what you're saying is that people who like to favorite are favoriting what they like and people who don't really favorite or just bookmark are not favoriting what they agree with? That doesn't tell you the silent nodders, it tells you who likes to favotie, and unsurprisingly it's peoplew who like to favorite all the time. Really, you just proved how favorites imbalance an argument in peoples heads by way of of an improper voting system.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:32 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
So what you're saying is that people who like to favorite are favoriting what they like and people who don't really favorite or just bookmark are not favoriting what they agree with? That doesn't tell you the silent nodders, it tells you who likes to favotie, and unsurprisingly it's peoplew who like to favorite all the time. Really, you just proved how favorites imbalance an argument in peoples heads by way of of an improper voting system.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:32 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Unless I'm deliberately checking or re-reading something from early on, 95% of that reload is unnecessary, and "most recent comments only" would be better
So why not use the "recent comments" button? I know it only gives the last 10 comments but if you are keeping up that should be enough.
Long usernames are the new low user numbers.
You would have had a low number if you hadn't decided to reincarnate yourself.
Now I'm hungry for pickled onions and you just can't get good pickled onions here in Florida
Have you tried the Asian Markets? The Japanese make a very yummy pickled onion which I require when eating curry.
The low user number people tend to be biased in favor of people with low user numbers, being that they have low user numbers.
This is funny to me because for many years a low number meant 30 or 900 or 1100 and 14460 was just a ridiculously high number. Then around about the time 14000 was starting to seem lowish, favorites were born. Now low numbers mean bubkis; it's all about the faves, baby.
I don't understand how anyone can be following this thread and keeping up with Real Life at the same time.
Between my last comment at 6:59pm and this comment, I went to the gym and worked out. I haven't had a shower yet, so I'm kind of stinky. Sorry. Think I better go pop into the shower.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:36 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
So why not use the "recent comments" button? I know it only gives the last 10 comments but if you are keeping up that should be enough.
Long usernames are the new low user numbers.
You would have had a low number if you hadn't decided to reincarnate yourself.
Now I'm hungry for pickled onions and you just can't get good pickled onions here in Florida
Have you tried the Asian Markets? The Japanese make a very yummy pickled onion which I require when eating curry.
The low user number people tend to be biased in favor of people with low user numbers, being that they have low user numbers.
This is funny to me because for many years a low number meant 30 or 900 or 1100 and 14460 was just a ridiculously high number. Then around about the time 14000 was starting to seem lowish, favorites were born. Now low numbers mean bubkis; it's all about the faves, baby.
I don't understand how anyone can be following this thread and keeping up with Real Life at the same time.
Between my last comment at 6:59pm and this comment, I went to the gym and worked out. I haven't had a shower yet, so I'm kind of stinky. Sorry. Think I better go pop into the shower.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:36 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
desjardins: "Do non-Americans really see "has favourites" as opposed to "has favorites"?"
No, the mental memory of delicious pickled onions brought back historical spellings.
seriously they're delicious, nothing better than biting into a pickled onion and your entire mouth goes "ffffffth" and you look like you've just sucked on a lemon
posted by subbes at 6:39 PM on November 3, 2009
No, the mental memory of delicious pickled onions brought back historical spellings.
seriously they're delicious, nothing better than biting into a pickled onion and your entire mouth goes "ffffffth" and you look like you've just sucked on a lemon
posted by subbes at 6:39 PM on November 3, 2009
Secret Life of Gravy: "Have you tried the Asian Markets? The Japanese make a very yummy pickled onion which I require when eating curry."
I had not, and there's one just down the road. I shall check them out tomorrow. I could always make my own pickled onions, but I'm lazy.
posted by subbes at 6:43 PM on November 3, 2009
I had not, and there's one just down the road. I shall check them out tomorrow. I could always make my own pickled onions, but I'm lazy.
posted by subbes at 6:43 PM on November 3, 2009
mullingitover writes "and the Sarah Palin thread. And the Katrina thread. And every other thread with large numbers of people engaging in discussion."
Seems like a lot of work (*2 once for the front page and once for here, hard to imagine an Ask getting to a 1000 comments) for pb for what amounts to an edge case every 6-12 months. And then something he'd have to test during the roll out of every subsequent change to displaying those pages.
Especially since, at least in the case of Meta unlike the front page, the mods can fork the discussion at any time.
I do wish there was a solution for people whose browsers are being crashed besides refreshing recent activity like a crack addicted monkey.
posted by Mitheral at 6:45 PM on November 3, 2009
Seems like a lot of work (*2 once for the front page and once for here, hard to imagine an Ask getting to a 1000 comments) for pb for what amounts to an edge case every 6-12 months. And then something he'd have to test during the roll out of every subsequent change to displaying those pages.
Especially since, at least in the case of Meta unlike the front page, the mods can fork the discussion at any time.
I do wish there was a solution for people whose browsers are being crashed besides refreshing recent activity like a crack addicted monkey.
posted by Mitheral at 6:45 PM on November 3, 2009
Except all the people that'll never bother reading the first half of the thread.
I just want to be able to load all the comments since my last comment, and not the 1500 before that. Is that so crazy? The site already provides a way for me to see the last 10 comments after my comment, which gives way less context and causes gaps, and the world hasn't ended.
posted by smackfu at 6:47 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I just want to be able to load all the comments since my last comment, and not the 1500 before that. Is that so crazy? The site already provides a way for me to see the last 10 comments after my comment, which gives way less context and causes gaps, and the world hasn't ended.
posted by smackfu at 6:47 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Google's "format for mobile browsers" used to auto-paginate long pages, but they changed it recently so now it no longer plain texts everything (and therefore ruined the whole point I was using it (i.e. to avoid ads, images, and comment threads on Jezebel and the Consumerist)) and that may have removed the pagination, too.
If I didn't have the MeFi Scroll Tag GM script I think I would mark my place in threads by favouriting the last comment I read, so I could return to it later.
posted by subbes at 6:53 PM on November 3, 2009
If I didn't have the MeFi Scroll Tag GM script I think I would mark my place in threads by favouriting the last comment I read, so I could return to it later.
posted by subbes at 6:53 PM on November 3, 2009
I think I would mark my place in threads by favouriting the last comment I read, so I could return to it later.
As so many experts have already pointed out, this new TRIAL version of favoriting has undermined the favorites ability to function as a visible "Me, too" gesture. In recognition of this, may I humbly suggest that if you're forced to leave the thread for a while that you place a simple "Me, too" comment as a place marker. Not only does this make it very easy to rejoin where you left off (without missing a single mention of mayonnaise), you are also registering a subtle (yet meaningful) anti-anti-favorite protest.
I've tried this once already and it worked wonderfully.
posted by philip-random at 7:11 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
As so many experts have already pointed out, this new TRIAL version of favoriting has undermined the favorites ability to function as a visible "Me, too" gesture. In recognition of this, may I humbly suggest that if you're forced to leave the thread for a while that you place a simple "Me, too" comment as a place marker. Not only does this make it very easy to rejoin where you left off (without missing a single mention of mayonnaise), you are also registering a subtle (yet meaningful) anti-anti-favorite protest.
I've tried this once already and it worked wonderfully.
posted by philip-random at 7:11 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I just want to be able to load all the comments since my last comment, and not the 1500 before that. Is that so crazy?
Nope, not crazy at all. And I didn't say I disagree with any of the upsides, but you can't say there are no downsides when there are clearly downsides. Whether they balance out the good I don't know, possibly with a thread this big (which happens, what, once a year?). The negatives should still be taken into account.
posted by shelleycat at 7:11 PM on November 3, 2009
Nope, not crazy at all. And I didn't say I disagree with any of the upsides, but you can't say there are no downsides when there are clearly downsides. Whether they balance out the good I don't know, possibly with a thread this big (which happens, what, once a year?). The negatives should still be taken into account.
posted by shelleycat at 7:11 PM on November 3, 2009
Me, too.
posted by philip-random at 7:16 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by philip-random at 7:16 PM on November 3, 2009
philip-random writes "Not only does this make it very easy to rejoin where you left off (without missing a single mention of mayonnaise), you are also registering a subtle (yet meaningful) anti-anti-favorite protest."
You'd also be thread shitting in a way that has been officially frowned upon in the past.
posted by Mitheral at 7:16 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
You'd also be thread shitting in a way that has been officially frowned upon in the past.
posted by Mitheral at 7:16 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
(and I know the person I'm replying to just there isn't the one that said there were no downsides but god, the scrolling to try to find the username)
posted by shelleycat at 7:18 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by shelleycat at 7:18 PM on November 3, 2009
I'm kind of stinky. Sorry. Think I better go pop into the shower.
Is that a Kevin Spacey reference?
posted by rokusan at 7:19 PM on November 3, 2009
Is that a Kevin Spacey reference?
posted by rokusan at 7:19 PM on November 3, 2009
Christ, 2000+ comments and I have no idea which ones are worth reading.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 7:20 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by The Hamms Bear at 7:20 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
I noticed that this thread itself reads very differently with favorite-counts showing than it does with favorite counts hidden, especially the early part. Try it; you can get a real different sense of "the room" each way, and where the silent nodders are.
So what you're saying is that people who like to favorite are favoriting what they like and people who don't really favorite or just bookmark are not favoriting what they agree with? That doesn't tell you the silent nodders, it tells you who likes to favotie, and unsurprisingly it's peoplew who like to favorite all the time. Really, you just proved how favorites imbalance an argument in peoples heads by way of of an improper voting system.
That thing where you change what someone said to mean something else? You're doing it again.
posted by Big_B at 7:22 PM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
So what you're saying is that people who like to favorite are favoriting what they like and people who don't really favorite or just bookmark are not favoriting what they agree with? That doesn't tell you the silent nodders, it tells you who likes to favotie, and unsurprisingly it's peoplew who like to favorite all the time. Really, you just proved how favorites imbalance an argument in peoples heads by way of of an improper voting system.
That thing where you change what someone said to mean something else? You're doing it again.
posted by Big_B at 7:22 PM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
Secret Life of Gravy: "This is funny to me because for many years a low number meant 30 or 900 or 1100 and 14460 was just a ridiculously high number. Then around about the time 14000 was starting to seem lowish, favorites were born. Now low numbers mean bubkis; it's all about the faves, baby."
Actually, I don't think I've never seen anyone dickwave over favorites. On the other hand, it happens all the time with user numbers (although frequently in jest). There's quite a bit of it in this thread, including this "let's look at what 20k-ers have to say".
Seniority doesn't matter. No one cares if you got into the site for free or paid five dollars.
posted by graventy at 7:27 PM on November 3, 2009
Actually, I don't think I've never seen anyone dickwave over favorites. On the other hand, it happens all the time with user numbers (although frequently in jest). There's quite a bit of it in this thread, including this "let's look at what 20k-ers have to say".
Seniority doesn't matter. No one cares if you got into the site for free or paid five dollars.
posted by graventy at 7:27 PM on November 3, 2009
As so many experts have already pointed out, this new TRIAL version of favoriting has undermined the favorites ability to function as a visible "Me, too" gesture. In recognition of this, may I humbly suggest that if you're forced to leave the thread for a while that you place a simple "Me, too" comment as a place marker
Uhm...no it doesn't, you can still bookmark things just fine. Besides that the front page should tell you something like 64 comments 3 new. Or 2309 comments 867 new...
That thing where you change what someone said to mean something else? You're doing it again.
Not really.
posted by P.o.B. at 7:28 PM on November 3, 2009
Uhm...no it doesn't, you can still bookmark things just fine. Besides that the front page should tell you something like 64 comments 3 new. Or 2309 comments 867 new...
That thing where you change what someone said to mean something else? You're doing it again.
Not really.
posted by P.o.B. at 7:28 PM on November 3, 2009
I wonder if this is the only forum that a bunch of people who are complaining about the lack of favorites use.
I read a couple others, including ILX, which has approached the pagination issue, at least. What they do is to hide the middle comments in threads over a certain length—something like 200 comments or so.
And their favorites are explicitly bookmarks (even called that), so they're only visible to the person giving them. The way you know what comments to read? Well, nearly everyone quotes what they're replying to. But they have more users, more threads, and more mods (and also the Suggest Ban, which'd be gamed in a second here—after getting 51 "sb" votes, the user's banned for a month.)
posted by klangklangston at 7:32 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I read a couple others, including ILX, which has approached the pagination issue, at least. What they do is to hide the middle comments in threads over a certain length—something like 200 comments or so.
And their favorites are explicitly bookmarks (even called that), so they're only visible to the person giving them. The way you know what comments to read? Well, nearly everyone quotes what they're replying to. But they have more users, more threads, and more mods (and also the Suggest Ban, which'd be gamed in a second here—after getting 51 "sb" votes, the user's banned for a month.)
posted by klangklangston at 7:32 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've read every comment in this thread, and many of them made me sad. I thought we were better than Flickr groups.
MeFi has been part of my day, every day, for the last 9 years. I love and trust Matt more than any other person I've never met, with Jessamyn and cortex tied for a close second. (Meant in as non-creepy a way as possible.) Anyone who even intimates that they don't have the best interests of the community at heart — or are stupid; or have ulterior motives; or don't listen and care; or don't treat each of us with more respect and love than we deserve sometimes — doesn't know them, and doesn't know MetaFilter.
I recognize that favorites have become a big part of the site. They've become a big part of how I use the site too. In fact, I admit that as I've been typing this I had a quick little fantasy of how nice it would be if one of the three mods favorited this comment where I said nice things about them. I made a front-page post* earlier today, and I'm a little bummed that it's only gotten two favorites so far.
Those feelings are warning signs. Why am I so invested in tick-marks on my comments and posts? Why don't I look forward to people's responses, their verbal jousts, their complaints and compliments, instead of their quick, zero-responsibility clicks? Why don't I focus on the several comments in my front-page post that said it was nice?
So I wholeheartedly support any experimenting, however qualitative and however compromised, with the effect that favorites have had, and continue to have, on MetaFilter. Me personally, I would have preferred a month-long vanishing of favorites, just to see what would happen. but then people would have seriously lost their shit and cut off their hands or something.
* According to my records, it's been nearly two years since I've said the following, so I'm due: the abbreviation FPP is lazy, insular, inaccurately applied, anti-community, anti-newcomer, and pointless. Thank you for your attention.
posted by gleuschk at 8:06 PM on November 3, 2009 [20 favorites]
MeFi has been part of my day, every day, for the last 9 years. I love and trust Matt more than any other person I've never met, with Jessamyn and cortex tied for a close second. (Meant in as non-creepy a way as possible.) Anyone who even intimates that they don't have the best interests of the community at heart — or are stupid; or have ulterior motives; or don't listen and care; or don't treat each of us with more respect and love than we deserve sometimes — doesn't know them, and doesn't know MetaFilter.
I recognize that favorites have become a big part of the site. They've become a big part of how I use the site too. In fact, I admit that as I've been typing this I had a quick little fantasy of how nice it would be if one of the three mods favorited this comment where I said nice things about them. I made a front-page post* earlier today, and I'm a little bummed that it's only gotten two favorites so far.
Those feelings are warning signs. Why am I so invested in tick-marks on my comments and posts? Why don't I look forward to people's responses, their verbal jousts, their complaints and compliments, instead of their quick, zero-responsibility clicks? Why don't I focus on the several comments in my front-page post that said it was nice?
So I wholeheartedly support any experimenting, however qualitative and however compromised, with the effect that favorites have had, and continue to have, on MetaFilter. Me personally, I would have preferred a month-long vanishing of favorites, just to see what would happen. but then people would have seriously lost their shit and cut off their hands or something.
* According to my records, it's been nearly two years since I've said the following, so I'm due: the abbreviation FPP is lazy, insular, inaccurately applied, anti-community, anti-newcomer, and pointless. Thank you for your attention.
posted by gleuschk at 8:06 PM on November 3, 2009 [20 favorites]
God, V was lame.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:12 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:12 PM on November 3, 2009
Nuh-uh!
Uh-huh!
I figure it's appropriate to respond with as much enthusiasm as was put forth in the rebuttal.
Also, is it weird I just flagged my last comment since it in turn would be self defined? Rhetorical, not weird.
posted by P.o.B. at 8:19 PM on November 3, 2009
Uh-huh!
I figure it's appropriate to respond with as much enthusiasm as was put forth in the rebuttal.
Also, is it weird I just flagged my last comment since it in turn would be self defined? Rhetorical, not weird.
posted by P.o.B. at 8:19 PM on November 3, 2009
Seniority doesn't matter. No one cares if you got into the site for free or paid five dollars
Actually, I think I paid $15.00. I joined at a weird time when Matt had turned off the membership page and only turned it back on at random times. It was like a lottery. Then at one point he said something like "If you pay me X number of dollars, I'll let you in." But you had to guess how much the membership was worth. I paid $15.00 or $25.00-- I don't remember exactly-- because I had been trying to get for months without success.
I agree with you that on the blue seniority is meaningless because we are discussing the posts, and on the green seniority is meaningless because we are answering the question, but the grey is about the community and it stands to reason that people who have been with the community for longer should be given (dare I say it?) some respect. Yeah I know, that's tough to swallow. I only say this because a someone who has been a member for 6 months just does not have the same memories or experience. I assumed that Mitheral was discussing the response by sub 20Ks not because we are so special and everyone else should kiss our ass, but because we share the experience of posting for years without favorites.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:48 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
Actually, I think I paid $15.00. I joined at a weird time when Matt had turned off the membership page and only turned it back on at random times. It was like a lottery. Then at one point he said something like "If you pay me X number of dollars, I'll let you in." But you had to guess how much the membership was worth. I paid $15.00 or $25.00-- I don't remember exactly-- because I had been trying to get for months without success.
I agree with you that on the blue seniority is meaningless because we are discussing the posts, and on the green seniority is meaningless because we are answering the question, but the grey is about the community and it stands to reason that people who have been with the community for longer should be given (dare I say it?) some respect. Yeah I know, that's tough to swallow. I only say this because a someone who has been a member for 6 months just does not have the same memories or experience. I assumed that Mitheral was discussing the response by sub 20Ks not because we are so special and everyone else should kiss our ass, but because we share the experience of posting for years without favorites.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:48 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
Well said, gleuschk. And for the record, I'm not saying I think pro-favourite folks are sheep, I'm just saying I find it odd that many people seem to choose which comments to read based only on the number of favourites attached. It kind of makes things seem like a popularity contest rather than a discussion. I'd certainly agree that favourites are useful in AskMe, however, but I read an AskMe favourite as "I agree with this advice".
posted by Go Banana at 8:55 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by Go Banana at 8:55 PM on November 3, 2009
> ...and the Sarah Palin thread. And the Katrina thread.
Oh I'm not saying it wouldn't be useful on these few threads, just seems like a lot of work for such edge cases. I wouldn't mind it when browsing from my phone though, not that I do this very often or expect a great user experience.
posted by cj_ at 8:58 PM on November 3, 2009
Oh I'm not saying it wouldn't be useful on these few threads, just seems like a lot of work for such edge cases. I wouldn't mind it when browsing from my phone though, not that I do this very often or expect a great user experience.
posted by cj_ at 8:58 PM on November 3, 2009
I'm just saying I find it odd that many people seem to choose which comments to read based only on the number of favourites attached.
That really isn't what's happening. IF someone is already skimming a thread, then sure, maybe they look more closely at highly-favorited posts. But I HIGHLY doubt that anyone is actively choosing not to read any unfavorited posts. (In fact I love finding a comment with no favorites that I think is good. Because then I favorite it.)
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:01 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
That really isn't what's happening. IF someone is already skimming a thread, then sure, maybe they look more closely at highly-favorited posts. But I HIGHLY doubt that anyone is actively choosing not to read any unfavorited posts. (In fact I love finding a comment with no favorites that I think is good. Because then I favorite it.)
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:01 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
we share the experience of posting for years without favorites.
When did favorites appear on the scene? I ask because I'm a $5 noob from November 04, and yet I also feel I posted for years without favorites. I lurked since 2001, so that might be why. And when favorites arrived, I decided they were going to ruin the site. But then things happened which demonstrated their value.
I say this because I think it's too easy to characterize this as an old school vs. noob debate. It's not that simple. A lot of us have a participation history that predates favorites. This isn't as simple as saying that people who have always known favorites can't imagine the site without them, and that's what's causing the resistance. I can see a lot of people in this thread who have grown to like favorite counts for their effects on the discourse, and many of them predate the introduction of favorites as well.
posted by Miko at 9:05 PM on November 3, 2009
When did favorites appear on the scene? I ask because I'm a $5 noob from November 04, and yet I also feel I posted for years without favorites. I lurked since 2001, so that might be why. And when favorites arrived, I decided they were going to ruin the site. But then things happened which demonstrated their value.
I say this because I think it's too easy to characterize this as an old school vs. noob debate. It's not that simple. A lot of us have a participation history that predates favorites. This isn't as simple as saying that people who have always known favorites can't imagine the site without them, and that's what's causing the resistance. I can see a lot of people in this thread who have grown to like favorite counts for their effects on the discourse, and many of them predate the introduction of favorites as well.
posted by Miko at 9:05 PM on November 3, 2009
I! Am! Your singing telegram!
*BANG!*
2080.
posted by The Whelk at 9:06 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
*BANG!*
2080.
posted by The Whelk at 9:06 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
Miko: When did favorites appear on the scene?
May 10th, 2006.
posted by Kattullus at 9:12 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
May 10th, 2006.
posted by Kattullus at 9:12 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
Can you tell us yet how much the server is getting cycled by serving up the "has favorites" click through? Not that it's a lot of data or anything. Just curious.
posted by ctmf at 9:15 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by ctmf at 9:15 PM on November 3, 2009
Okay. So really, a majority of the site's users, by user number alone, have experienced the site both with and without the favoriting system.
posted by Miko at 9:29 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by Miko at 9:29 PM on November 3, 2009
Not only does this make it very easy to rejoin where you left off (without missing a single mention of mayonnaise), you are also registering a subtle (yet meaningful) anti-anti-favorite protest.
I've tried this once already and it worked wonderfully.
Please don't do this. It's intentional noise. There are a number of less intrusive ways to accomplish the same thing, and Matt has made a point in the past of removing flat-out "this is a placeholder" type comments on principle.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:35 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
I've tried this once already and it worked wonderfully.
Please don't do this. It's intentional noise. There are a number of less intrusive ways to accomplish the same thing, and Matt has made a point in the past of removing flat-out "this is a placeholder" type comments on principle.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:35 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Can you tell us yet how much the server is getting cycled by serving up the "has favorites" click through?
Just took a look, and pageviews on favorited detail views are significantly higher compared with a week ago. We only have a couple days of data to work with but views of those pages are roughly 7.5x higher than last week.
posted by pb (staff) at 9:35 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Just took a look, and pageviews on favorited detail views are significantly higher compared with a week ago. We only have a couple days of data to work with but views of those pages are roughly 7.5x higher than last week.
posted by pb (staff) at 9:35 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Heh. I was about to say, "Joe Beese, stop trying to make 'favesperiment' happen." But then someone other than yourself used it. So, kudos.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:40 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:40 PM on November 3, 2009
> but the grey is about the community and it stands to reason that people who have been with the community for longer should be given (dare I say it?) some respect
Speaking as someone with a low user number, I have to say that I don't deserve any more respect that someone who signed up last month and is a productive member of the community. Lots of people in this thread who joined later than me have a higher profile, richer participation history, and a stronger position in the social life of this community. Others are more like me, usually an relatively anonymous, non-meetup-going, seldom-posting Townsperson #4. I think we deserve just the same amount of respect.
We all may use the site differently or the same, we may have a high profile and be the toast of the site, or we may not have that cachet of familiarity, but we are all invested in this community. It always makes me cringe when someone tries to use seniority as some sort of marker of extra-specialness; my low user number just makes me old. I feel the same way about number of overall favorites, spouses, and status as a Metafilter Star, fwiw. When it comes down to it, I think we're equal partners in the success and failures of the community.
posted by julen at 9:41 PM on November 3, 2009 [8 favorites]
Speaking as someone with a low user number, I have to say that I don't deserve any more respect that someone who signed up last month and is a productive member of the community. Lots of people in this thread who joined later than me have a higher profile, richer participation history, and a stronger position in the social life of this community. Others are more like me, usually an relatively anonymous, non-meetup-going, seldom-posting Townsperson #4. I think we deserve just the same amount of respect.
We all may use the site differently or the same, we may have a high profile and be the toast of the site, or we may not have that cachet of familiarity, but we are all invested in this community. It always makes me cringe when someone tries to use seniority as some sort of marker of extra-specialness; my low user number just makes me old. I feel the same way about number of overall favorites, spouses, and status as a Metafilter Star, fwiw. When it comes down to it, I think we're equal partners in the success and failures of the community.
posted by julen at 9:41 PM on November 3, 2009 [8 favorites]
Miko: Okay. So really, a majority of the site's users, by user number alone, have experienced the site both with and without the favoriting system.
For those who find these kind of meaningless factoids as interesting as myself, 37183 is the first post-favorites user. Interestingly (for a given value of interesting) the last user before 37183 was ostranenie. The word ostranenie is sometimes paraphrased in English as "make it new." So, ostranenie joined and lo, it was made new.
posted by Kattullus at 9:42 PM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
For those who find these kind of meaningless factoids as interesting as myself, 37183 is the first post-favorites user. Interestingly (for a given value of interesting) the last user before 37183 was ostranenie. The word ostranenie is sometimes paraphrased in English as "make it new." So, ostranenie joined and lo, it was made new.
posted by Kattullus at 9:42 PM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
Is it possible to see how many users have set their preferences to show favorite counts?
posted by Miko at 9:43 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by Miko at 9:43 PM on November 3, 2009
Thanks for adding the pref.
This page is bringing Firefox on my netbook to its knees.
posted by intermod at 9:56 PM on November 3, 2009
This page is bringing Firefox on my netbook to its knees.
posted by intermod at 9:56 PM on November 3, 2009
Is it possible to see how many users have set their preferences to show favorite counts?
We don't want to influence the count one way or the other by sharing the number at this early stage. But we're not against sharing it as we go once the dust has settled a bit.
posted by pb (staff) at 9:59 PM on November 3, 2009
We don't want to influence the count one way or the other by sharing the number at this early stage. But we're not against sharing it as we go once the dust has settled a bit.
posted by pb (staff) at 9:59 PM on November 3, 2009
"Just because there isn't an outspoken agreement, it doesn't mean that there aren't a thousand people reading this thread and nodding vociferously."
It also doesn't mean there are.
If there are, though, visible favorites give them a way for their vociferous nods to be heard.
posted by dersins at 10:01 PM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
It also doesn't mean there are.
If there are, though, visible favorites give them a way for their vociferous nods to be heard.
posted by dersins at 10:01 PM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
I'm really exhausted from this but I wanted to share this with everyone.
I took infodump data from the blue from 2008 to the present and put together some interesting correlations with the data pertaining to favorites.
Highlights:
Thread comment count and favorites are highly positively correlated up to about 200 comments, weakly thereafter
The average number of favorites received by the most highly favorited comment in a thread, normalized by the number of comments in that thread, is roughly constant (for number of comments less than 200)
Note to would-be analysts: The comment database contains 2.7 million records. Excel will not play. I had to use PostgreSQL with some custom queries to simplify the data before it was usable in Excel.
Here are the results (pdf)
The original data in Excel format (xlsx, 6 megs, includes Results tab from above with all calculations)
Note: I have no idea how long those files will remain up. I apologize for the size of the graphs, they wouldn't render right as pdfs unless I squished them.
...I'm off to bed now.
posted by anifinder at 10:07 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I took infodump data from the blue from 2008 to the present and put together some interesting correlations with the data pertaining to favorites.
Highlights:
Thread comment count and favorites are highly positively correlated up to about 200 comments, weakly thereafter
The average number of favorites received by the most highly favorited comment in a thread, normalized by the number of comments in that thread, is roughly constant (for number of comments less than 200)
Note to would-be analysts: The comment database contains 2.7 million records. Excel will not play. I had to use PostgreSQL with some custom queries to simplify the data before it was usable in Excel.
Here are the results (pdf)
The original data in Excel format (xlsx, 6 megs, includes Results tab from above with all calculations)
Note: I have no idea how long those files will remain up. I apologize for the size of the graphs, they wouldn't render right as pdfs unless I squished them.
...I'm off to bed now.
posted by anifinder at 10:07 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
We don't want to influence the count one way or the other by sharing the number at this early stage.
I guess I'm wondering what the thinking here is? Those of us who have set the preference to show favorite counts as usual are, essentially, not participating in the experiment. The site looks as it always has. Thus on the day the final determination is made, we will still be advocating for our opinion that favorite counts are good, but with little to no experience of the site as it appears when changed.
If this option is retained after the trial, no real gains would be made in terms of improving the community discourse. Some people will choose to see favorite counts, and some won't, so there would be no way to say whether favorite counts were an overall good or an overall ill. It will be customizable, but it would lose any value as a shaper of discussion, since people will do what they want and not be subject to the same system.
If you were to tell us now "10% of users have chosen to revert to favorite counts," or "80% of users have chosen to revert to favorite counts," in what way do you imagine that would change the behavior of people who are well-disposed to the idea of hidden counts? Wouldn't they still want to see what the site is like without counts, and argue for that option based on their experience? If it would be possible to sway people by sharing this number, then how deeply seated is the desire to forego counts?
I understand this is meant to be a positive development. But it seems like an experiment that was initially intended in an experimental spirit, but now has an opt-out experimental design that is going to yield weird and probably difficult-to-use data, since not every subject is participating in the experiment.
posted by Miko at 10:12 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I guess I'm wondering what the thinking here is? Those of us who have set the preference to show favorite counts as usual are, essentially, not participating in the experiment. The site looks as it always has. Thus on the day the final determination is made, we will still be advocating for our opinion that favorite counts are good, but with little to no experience of the site as it appears when changed.
If this option is retained after the trial, no real gains would be made in terms of improving the community discourse. Some people will choose to see favorite counts, and some won't, so there would be no way to say whether favorite counts were an overall good or an overall ill. It will be customizable, but it would lose any value as a shaper of discussion, since people will do what they want and not be subject to the same system.
If you were to tell us now "10% of users have chosen to revert to favorite counts," or "80% of users have chosen to revert to favorite counts," in what way do you imagine that would change the behavior of people who are well-disposed to the idea of hidden counts? Wouldn't they still want to see what the site is like without counts, and argue for that option based on their experience? If it would be possible to sway people by sharing this number, then how deeply seated is the desire to forego counts?
I understand this is meant to be a positive development. But it seems like an experiment that was initially intended in an experimental spirit, but now has an opt-out experimental design that is going to yield weird and probably difficult-to-use data, since not every subject is participating in the experiment.
posted by Miko at 10:12 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
As to whether this is an oldies vs. newbies debate... well... not really. Especially since most people taking part in the debate are fairly old in MeFi years and know the site pretty damn well. I think characterizing it as any kind of X vs. Y debate is reducing a fairly complex process down to binary. There are a lot of people in here arguing a lot of different things. Even at the most pertinent level of pro- and anti-visible favorites, people have wildly different views.
This is a conversation about how we want our community to function. We've had many of these in the past (the boyzone threads, for example) and hopefully we'll keep having these conversations. In the past things have changed as a result of these discussions (though sometimes they have not) but I can't think of one which was not worth having.
My views of favorites have changed dramatically since this started and others have mentioned the same. I had a fairly simplistic view of them that was based solely on how I used them but now I understand much better how other MeFites utilize them and how that plays out on a community-wide scale.
Before this experiment I saw favorites as a fairly neutral site feature with mostly good effects. Now I understand that they function like laughter or headnodding, that they are skimming aids, that they are used as filters, that they can rip a comment out of its context and distribute it to people who don't read the thread, that they confer power to comments that have a lot of them, that they reward effort, that they signal quality, that they signal agreement in AskMe, that they tell you how a conversation is going and so on. They are simple things, really, in terms of their mechanical function, but have a complicated effect on this community.
This is definitely a conversation we should be having. Overthinking is an oft-derided feature of this site but sometimes a lot of thought is necessary. Former MeFite jennydiski once described MetaTalk as the talking cure of MetaFilter. We should analyze ourselves as a community and figure out how to make us better. I don't know what my position is. I've been thinking about whether different subsites should have different functions (MetaFilter could have the old-style favorites, for example, while AskMe would have an "agree" button while MetaTalk would have no favoriting at all) but I have no idea whether that would be good. But it's something I'm thinking about.
Goddamn it, people, we're MeFites! If there's anything we're good at it's overthinking! Let's overthink our way to a better MetaFilter :)
posted by Kattullus at 10:12 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
This is a conversation about how we want our community to function. We've had many of these in the past (the boyzone threads, for example) and hopefully we'll keep having these conversations. In the past things have changed as a result of these discussions (though sometimes they have not) but I can't think of one which was not worth having.
My views of favorites have changed dramatically since this started and others have mentioned the same. I had a fairly simplistic view of them that was based solely on how I used them but now I understand much better how other MeFites utilize them and how that plays out on a community-wide scale.
Before this experiment I saw favorites as a fairly neutral site feature with mostly good effects. Now I understand that they function like laughter or headnodding, that they are skimming aids, that they are used as filters, that they can rip a comment out of its context and distribute it to people who don't read the thread, that they confer power to comments that have a lot of them, that they reward effort, that they signal quality, that they signal agreement in AskMe, that they tell you how a conversation is going and so on. They are simple things, really, in terms of their mechanical function, but have a complicated effect on this community.
This is definitely a conversation we should be having. Overthinking is an oft-derided feature of this site but sometimes a lot of thought is necessary. Former MeFite jennydiski once described MetaTalk as the talking cure of MetaFilter. We should analyze ourselves as a community and figure out how to make us better. I don't know what my position is. I've been thinking about whether different subsites should have different functions (MetaFilter could have the old-style favorites, for example, while AskMe would have an "agree" button while MetaTalk would have no favoriting at all) but I have no idea whether that would be good. But it's something I'm thinking about.
Goddamn it, people, we're MeFites! If there's anything we're good at it's overthinking! Let's overthink our way to a better MetaFilter :)
posted by Kattullus at 10:12 PM on November 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
"But I HIGHLY doubt that anyone is actively choosing not to read any unfavorited posts."
If time is limited, therefore someone can't read all the comments in a thread;
and
If they read from most favorited to least;
then they are passively choosing to not read unfavorited posts.
Passive choices accumulate.
posted by klangklangston at 10:23 PM on November 3, 2009
If time is limited, therefore someone can't read all the comments in a thread;
and
If they read from most favorited to least;
then they are passively choosing to not read unfavorited posts.
Passive choices accumulate.
posted by klangklangston at 10:23 PM on November 3, 2009
I guess I'm wondering what the thinking here is?
For my part, it's not even a big concern about the information somehow feeding back on itself as it is a mild feeling that it might be nice to get a few more days of data on it and see what the curve of activity looks like at that point. We just did a quick headcheck over email and came away with a shrugging "eh, let's sit on it for the moment" feeling, but that's about as far as it goes I think.
We hadn't discussed specifically the as-it-comes-in visibility of the opt-out numbers before it came up just now—my main intent for capturing them was for datawankery once the whole thing had run its course, basically—so our thinking on it isn't all that deeply developed yet. If it's something that folks feel like they really need to see right now, we can dig that and can dump the numbers sooner, that just wasn't our inclination at first blush.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:23 PM on November 3, 2009
For my part, it's not even a big concern about the information somehow feeding back on itself as it is a mild feeling that it might be nice to get a few more days of data on it and see what the curve of activity looks like at that point. We just did a quick headcheck over email and came away with a shrugging "eh, let's sit on it for the moment" feeling, but that's about as far as it goes I think.
We hadn't discussed specifically the as-it-comes-in visibility of the opt-out numbers before it came up just now—my main intent for capturing them was for datawankery once the whole thing had run its course, basically—so our thinking on it isn't all that deeply developed yet. If it's something that folks feel like they really need to see right now, we can dig that and can dump the numbers sooner, that just wasn't our inclination at first blush.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:23 PM on November 3, 2009
Let's overthink our way to a better MetaFilter :)
I'm all for a better MetaFilter, but I don't think we had a bad MetaFilter. And, more importantly, I'm not sure that eliminating favorite counts is a solution to the problem that has been defined. Jessamyn's comment early on about whether the site would adapt to change as well as it grows was interesting, but it seemed to grow out of a concern that the site would become unable to change. I think that's an interesting concern, but the more basic question is: does the site need to change? Is it broke? How would we know if it were broken? When is change warranted? What are the signs of that?
Of course, there's the old adage that anything that doesn't change is dead. But the site has also reached a level of vitality at which it has a small handful of mostly-fulltime-ish staff. Certainly they are busy. But one thing that happens when you create new staff positions in new organizations is that those staff members who have time above and beyond the time needed to respond to direct needs find projects for themselves to take on, in order to fill and justify their time and their organizational role. This is not a bad thing, but a thing that happens. Mathowie on his own did not have time to tinker with the site as much. Now there is a structure for tinkering, and a group of people able to meet and toss around ideas, and an amount of time available for dealing with project-based work like this experiment. Are we sure that this particular experiment is driven by need or demand? Or is it driven by curiosity and the availability of extra time to tinker with the site?
Change can be good, but change for change's sake, just because we can, isn't an inherent good. There needs to be some logic model in play. There needs to be a recognition of a problem situation, a defined outcome that is desired which will solve that problem, and then the activities done to the site need to be designed to promote that outcome. That's the only way it's testable. If the desired outcome is 'the site will become more civil and discourse will improve because people become less concerned with favorite count,' then this current logic model, in which the activities designed to test the outcomes allow some possibly-large amount of people to opt out, will not demonstrate much about the impact on discourse. It will just demonstrate that people will choose to splinter out and further customize the use of the site, meaning that there is less shared understanding of the rules of discourse.
posted by Miko at 10:24 PM on November 3, 2009 [11 favorites]
I'm all for a better MetaFilter, but I don't think we had a bad MetaFilter. And, more importantly, I'm not sure that eliminating favorite counts is a solution to the problem that has been defined. Jessamyn's comment early on about whether the site would adapt to change as well as it grows was interesting, but it seemed to grow out of a concern that the site would become unable to change. I think that's an interesting concern, but the more basic question is: does the site need to change? Is it broke? How would we know if it were broken? When is change warranted? What are the signs of that?
Of course, there's the old adage that anything that doesn't change is dead. But the site has also reached a level of vitality at which it has a small handful of mostly-fulltime-ish staff. Certainly they are busy. But one thing that happens when you create new staff positions in new organizations is that those staff members who have time above and beyond the time needed to respond to direct needs find projects for themselves to take on, in order to fill and justify their time and their organizational role. This is not a bad thing, but a thing that happens. Mathowie on his own did not have time to tinker with the site as much. Now there is a structure for tinkering, and a group of people able to meet and toss around ideas, and an amount of time available for dealing with project-based work like this experiment. Are we sure that this particular experiment is driven by need or demand? Or is it driven by curiosity and the availability of extra time to tinker with the site?
Change can be good, but change for change's sake, just because we can, isn't an inherent good. There needs to be some logic model in play. There needs to be a recognition of a problem situation, a defined outcome that is desired which will solve that problem, and then the activities done to the site need to be designed to promote that outcome. That's the only way it's testable. If the desired outcome is 'the site will become more civil and discourse will improve because people become less concerned with favorite count,' then this current logic model, in which the activities designed to test the outcomes allow some possibly-large amount of people to opt out, will not demonstrate much about the impact on discourse. It will just demonstrate that people will choose to splinter out and further customize the use of the site, meaning that there is less shared understanding of the rules of discourse.
posted by Miko at 10:24 PM on November 3, 2009 [11 favorites]
pb or cortex, I think it may have been mentioned but are the people who are logging in and out multiple times going to be factored into the data (counted at specific times and then not counted, etc.)? Or is it just going to be a lump sum at the end?
posted by P.o.B. at 10:36 PM on November 3, 2009
posted by P.o.B. at 10:36 PM on November 3, 2009
I guess I'm wondering what the thinking here is?
Honestly? The thinking is that we are tired and that we'd like people to settle in to what they feel like doing for a little while before we start adding more status updates and whatnot into this.
Thus on the day the final determination is made
We're not planning to make any final determinations and we're not drawing any big conclusions by how many people did or did not choose either option. The point was to have a conversation, to see how changing one aspect of favorites might or might not affect the way people interacted on the site, to try something, to respond to criticism.
I think in our dream world, speaking for myself but with some idea of how the others are feeling, we'd like to wait for this thread to die down, post a new MeTa thread with a status update of sorts later on this week or next, and have a sort of "well how is everyone feeling now?" sort of discussion.
Are we sure that this particular experiment is driven by need or demand?
I think we've been crystal clear that we were responding to many MeTa complaints by many people over a long time that they thought that favorites were adversely affecting discourse on MetaFilter. We didn't see it; we wanted to see if we could possibly isolate the issue. Others have said they thought it was a non-issue, okay.
Trust us, we never fuck around with something just because we have free time to tinker with stuff because, frankly, we don't. This thread has taken up most of our available time for the past several days. There has been a comment, on average, every two minutes for three solid days. I'm not whining so much as pointing out that if we didn't think this was a useful thing to try, we would have bailed earlier.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:38 PM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
Honestly? The thinking is that we are tired and that we'd like people to settle in to what they feel like doing for a little while before we start adding more status updates and whatnot into this.
Thus on the day the final determination is made
We're not planning to make any final determinations and we're not drawing any big conclusions by how many people did or did not choose either option. The point was to have a conversation, to see how changing one aspect of favorites might or might not affect the way people interacted on the site, to try something, to respond to criticism.
I think in our dream world, speaking for myself but with some idea of how the others are feeling, we'd like to wait for this thread to die down, post a new MeTa thread with a status update of sorts later on this week or next, and have a sort of "well how is everyone feeling now?" sort of discussion.
Are we sure that this particular experiment is driven by need or demand?
I think we've been crystal clear that we were responding to many MeTa complaints by many people over a long time that they thought that favorites were adversely affecting discourse on MetaFilter. We didn't see it; we wanted to see if we could possibly isolate the issue. Others have said they thought it was a non-issue, okay.
Trust us, we never fuck around with something just because we have free time to tinker with stuff because, frankly, we don't. This thread has taken up most of our available time for the past several days. There has been a comment, on average, every two minutes for three solid days. I'm not whining so much as pointing out that if we didn't think this was a useful thing to try, we would have bailed earlier.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:38 PM on November 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
Me personally, I would have preferred a month-long vanishing of favorites, just to see what would happen. but then people would have seriously lost their shit and cut off their hands or something.
Maybe, but then they couldn't type so how would we know.
A month long vanishing would have been much better, because then there'd be a pure sample to study. Much more like an experiment. It's the half-measureness of this that makes any results pretty meaningless, I'm afraid.
posted by rokusan at 10:41 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Maybe, but then they couldn't type so how would we know.
A month long vanishing would have been much better, because then there'd be a pure sample to study. Much more like an experiment. It's the half-measureness of this that makes any results pretty meaningless, I'm afraid.
posted by rokusan at 10:41 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Is it possible to see how many users have set their preferences to show favorite counts?
We don't want to influence the count one way or the other...
It's too late to be worried about "influencing the count".
This was discussed above, but it sounds like some folks are still acting on the theory that a month from now, the number (or percentage) of users with a given pref will mean something. But it will mean almost nil, since you've defaulted the pref to one setting, and the 'change' choice at that.
The vast majority of users of any system won't change a default, whatever that default is. That means by creating a default, you're already influencing "the count" with the heaviest possible thumb.
If you'd wanted a true/honest count of what people preferred, you could have forced a choice (no default). But as it is, the result at the end of a month will be that the vast majority of users will still have the prefs set to the defaulted "hide comment counts" and a small percentage will have known about, found, and changed the setting back to the old behavior. This is really easy to predict, and has nothing to do with the feature itself: it's the result you get by adding a new setting to a system or app and defaulting it to "on" for a large group of users. Most will leave it on, whatever it is.
So that'll be the result, and as long as we're all expecting that, cool. But if anyone tries to use that as meaningful data or "evidence" that most users prefer it that way, they'll be way, way off base.
posted by rokusan at 10:50 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
We don't want to influence the count one way or the other...
It's too late to be worried about "influencing the count".
This was discussed above, but it sounds like some folks are still acting on the theory that a month from now, the number (or percentage) of users with a given pref will mean something. But it will mean almost nil, since you've defaulted the pref to one setting, and the 'change' choice at that.
The vast majority of users of any system won't change a default, whatever that default is. That means by creating a default, you're already influencing "the count" with the heaviest possible thumb.
If you'd wanted a true/honest count of what people preferred, you could have forced a choice (no default). But as it is, the result at the end of a month will be that the vast majority of users will still have the prefs set to the defaulted "hide comment counts" and a small percentage will have known about, found, and changed the setting back to the old behavior. This is really easy to predict, and has nothing to do with the feature itself: it's the result you get by adding a new setting to a system or app and defaulting it to "on" for a large group of users. Most will leave it on, whatever it is.
So that'll be the result, and as long as we're all expecting that, cool. But if anyone tries to use that as meaningful data or "evidence" that most users prefer it that way, they'll be way, way off base.
posted by rokusan at 10:50 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
pb or cortex, I think it may have been mentioned but are the people who are logging in and out multiple times going to be factored into the data (counted at specific times and then not counted, etc.)? Or is it just going to be a lump sum at the end?
We're taking nightly snapshots of the opt status for all users, so we can see the general trend from day to day. It doesn't capture up-to-the-minute state, so someone who hops back and forth throughout the day won't be tracked as having done so, but it'll at least give us a picture of who was opt-ing out at a daily resolution, rather than being just a snapshot of the the opt state at the end of the month.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:50 PM on November 3, 2009
We're taking nightly snapshots of the opt status for all users, so we can see the general trend from day to day. It doesn't capture up-to-the-minute state, so someone who hops back and forth throughout the day won't be tracked as having done so, but it'll at least give us a picture of who was opt-ing out at a daily resolution, rather than being just a snapshot of the the opt state at the end of the month.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:50 PM on November 3, 2009
I think we've been crystal clear that we were responding to many MeTa complaints by many people over a long time that they thought that favorites were adversely affecting discourse on MetaFilter.
What was the total number of complaints about the old method of displaying counts, and how does that compare to the number of complaints in this thread alone about the change?
Seriously. Some numbers would really help, because with only this thread to judge, it seems to be about 35:1 against.
posted by rokusan at 10:53 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
What was the total number of complaints about the old method of displaying counts, and how does that compare to the number of complaints in this thread alone about the change?
Seriously. Some numbers would really help, because with only this thread to judge, it seems to be about 35:1 against.
posted by rokusan at 10:53 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Hold on rokusan! I'm tabulating...this may take a while.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:17 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by P.o.B. at 11:17 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Rokusan - the moderators have been pretty clear that this experiment is to be a launching point for a discussion - a discussion that also includes people's reported experiences with favorites during this month; it's not going to be a numbers-driven decision foisted on us regardless of how many people want what. They have specifically said it isn't going to be scientific and they've implied that it isn't going to be tightly controlled. The numbers will have some impact on the discussion, but they won't be the cornerstone of it.
It's comforting to have numbers and statistics to use as a foundation, I realize, and you want to make this experiment work in ways you believe make sense, but this issue (does the favorites system hurt or help MeFi?) can't be answered solely with numbers and statistics. It's one of those things that needs all sorts of input from people - particularly individual experiential reports. Pushing them to go collate all of their individual discussions and mails with users, publicly posted opinions, expressed concerns and questions from over the past few years isn't going to happen when they have to be constantly monitoring this thread in addition to all of their normal time-consuming modly duties. In addition, they're trying to set up a situation where people try something (for 10 minutes, a week, a month) and then reconvene to talk about their experiences using/seeing/not seeing favorites.
I guess what I am asking is that you have some faith that the mods understand the parameters and the limits of what this experiment is, and to accept that the outcome at the end of the month is a (hopefully) more informed discussion about favorites and the role they have on the site. They aren't going to swoop in and say, "Hey, 80% of folks did X, so we're going to do Y." They're more likely going to say something like, "This is something of what leaned doing this experiment, now let's talk about what you guys noticed/experienced."
Then in classic MeFi style, we'll share our experiences, favorite-related pain (whether it be pro- or anti-), what we learned about our individual use of favorites, and beans it to death. Once the discussion has been discussed ad nauseam, the Mods will take their cues from the community at large.
posted by julen at 11:22 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
It's comforting to have numbers and statistics to use as a foundation, I realize, and you want to make this experiment work in ways you believe make sense, but this issue (does the favorites system hurt or help MeFi?) can't be answered solely with numbers and statistics. It's one of those things that needs all sorts of input from people - particularly individual experiential reports. Pushing them to go collate all of their individual discussions and mails with users, publicly posted opinions, expressed concerns and questions from over the past few years isn't going to happen when they have to be constantly monitoring this thread in addition to all of their normal time-consuming modly duties. In addition, they're trying to set up a situation where people try something (for 10 minutes, a week, a month) and then reconvene to talk about their experiences using/seeing/not seeing favorites.
I guess what I am asking is that you have some faith that the mods understand the parameters and the limits of what this experiment is, and to accept that the outcome at the end of the month is a (hopefully) more informed discussion about favorites and the role they have on the site. They aren't going to swoop in and say, "Hey, 80% of folks did X, so we're going to do Y." They're more likely going to say something like, "This is something of what leaned doing this experiment, now let's talk about what you guys noticed/experienced."
Then in classic MeFi style, we'll share our experiences, favorite-related pain (whether it be pro- or anti-), what we learned about our individual use of favorites, and beans it to death. Once the discussion has been discussed ad nauseam, the Mods will take their cues from the community at large.
posted by julen at 11:22 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Hey, rokusan? Could you lay off a bit, ya think? The mods have admitted to being exhausted by the ordeal, and want to wait for things to cool off before doing any kind of analysis. Not the time to start back at hammering on the methodology.
posted by team lowkey at 11:25 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by team lowkey at 11:25 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
We're taking nightly snapshots of the opt status for all users, so we can see the general trend from day to day.
I like this idea. I opted out to start with because I did a marathon on (my) November 1st and was rather drained. Having metafilter change on me was too much to stand on top of that so I changed it back. When I've finally caught up on some sleep I'll change it back and see how long that lasts, it's nice to know that kind of activity will show up somehow.
And really I just wanted to work the marathon thing in there somewhere. A whole marathon!
Also waiting a while then seeing what people think makes sense. By now this thread is going round in circles with the same arguments coming out and the same people saying the same stuff and it's all too unwieldy and feeling rather echo-chambery to me. Give it a couple of weeks, we can all start fresh. You'll get a different snapshot of users, we'll have some real experience of the change, hopefully those who don't care enough to wade through a thread this size can chime in something (because I really think that most people just aren't that het up despite what people down here are saying), we can see where the community really lies on this whole mess. This thread is a good indicator of some stuff but it's only one thread, not enough to make long term decisions on.
In the meantime I'm going to let this one rest and get back to my usualmetafilter life. We're into dead horse territory just here in my opinion, no point flogging.
posted by shelleycat at 11:29 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I like this idea. I opted out to start with because I did a marathon on (my) November 1st and was rather drained. Having metafilter change on me was too much to stand on top of that so I changed it back. When I've finally caught up on some sleep I'll change it back and see how long that lasts, it's nice to know that kind of activity will show up somehow.
And really I just wanted to work the marathon thing in there somewhere. A whole marathon!
Also waiting a while then seeing what people think makes sense. By now this thread is going round in circles with the same arguments coming out and the same people saying the same stuff and it's all too unwieldy and feeling rather echo-chambery to me. Give it a couple of weeks, we can all start fresh. You'll get a different snapshot of users, we'll have some real experience of the change, hopefully those who don't care enough to wade through a thread this size can chime in something (because I really think that most people just aren't that het up despite what people down here are saying), we can see where the community really lies on this whole mess. This thread is a good indicator of some stuff but it's only one thread, not enough to make long term decisions on.
In the meantime I'm going to let this one rest and get back to my usual
posted by shelleycat at 11:29 PM on November 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Ketchup and mayonnaise and vinegar are not the proper fry accompaniments.
What you really need is a milkshake, which you then dip the fries into. Very tasty.
posted by nat at 11:32 PM on November 3, 2009
What you really need is a milkshake, which you then dip the fries into. Very tasty.
posted by nat at 11:32 PM on November 3, 2009
Speaking as someone with a low user number, I have to say that I don't deserve any more respect that someone who signed up last month and is a productive member of the community. Lots of people in this thread who joined later than me have a higher profile, richer participation history, and a stronger position in the social life of this community. Others are more like me, usually an relatively anonymous, non-meetup-going, seldom-posting Townsperson #4. I think we deserve just the same amount of respect."
This is interesting to me, because it describes a couple different metrics that I think are interesting to contrast against favorites.
The first is an argument that the comments that should be respected, or (and let me clarify that this isn't what julen is saying, nor what she's arguing against, as far as I can tell, but rather what I think is a simplification of a political view) noted and read, are those of lower users; that comments made by lower users deserve deference, in a similar way to how comments with a lot of favorites deserve deference. A lot of the same back and forth could be applied—that of course, no one is arguing that all 'early users' comments' should automatically be privileged, just that it's a good place to start a discussion on policy, or whatever. The user number can serve as a filter. A modified version of this is what koeselitz says he feels prevailed earlier, where user names were the filter. (He does not, notably, say it was necessarily better.)
The second one is that it's involvement and participation that determine social capital. I think this is closer to what julen is saying (but I'm still shifting the argument for what I think is rhetorical clarity—don't start calling julen names because of this). In this, lower users could still deserve deference, in that it's likely that a lot of long-time users have stuck with the site for a long time because they have a lot invested in it. In this scheme, having a visible user number, as in the scheme above, could be a proxy for the level of deference, similar to favorites as our current proxy.
But if the problem with the first system is that early adoption is a pretty noisy predictor of the ultimately subjective quality of comments. Even when combined with something as basic as current activity (it's impossible to give someone deference if they aren't participating) to eliminate a huge part of the cohort, it's easy to see that demographic of longtime users as sharing roughly the same distribution of quality that any group of members do*: Many mediocre or unremarkable, plenty good to great, and very few total assholes. The barrier to entry to this group has nothing to do with quality, and if we used it to rule, it would be too high a barrier for some great new users and not high enough for plenty other old users.
The criticisms of the second scheme are similar to some complaints against favorites, namely that if valued purely on participation, it would lead to demagoguery, Sophistry and the ridiculed excesses of public declaimers. Just involvement doesn't preclude bad involvement, and while obviously we're all the good and just citizens of Rome, not some Farkish Gauls, the folks who are most involved will have the same faults of the rest of us, just multiplied by comment count. While the barrier to being one of the most involved isn't really any sort of magnificent skill, but mostly the inclination to hammer away at the refresh button and the ability not to get banned, that makes it too high for some folks who would be great additions if they didn't have so much else in their lives (likely, because they have so much else in their lives), and too low for, well, plenty of people with too much time on their hands and any number of axes to grind.
Which returns me to favorites, which I think of less as a coherent metric, and more a combination of several, including both the idea of rewarding prominence and personality as well as participation. And bookmarks. And whatever. While tied to why people give them, as a measure, it's more important what people read them as, and since no one gives them for the same reason (nor reads them the same way) apparently, it's a lot more fuzzy and fluid. The barrier to entry is incredibly low to get or give them, though to get a lot of them isn't easy, though getting a few of them is incredibly easy. A fair thing to say might be that they're amoral. Though they're not really fungible (they can't be exchanged), like money they have no inherent value, economically or morally.
This is where, and I apologize, my inner anti-captialist comes out. In my rational mind that governs everyday life, y'know, I don't really want to give up capitalism. I think that it's a pretty decent way of allocating resources, and that it's not on the whole bad (this is easy to say, I live in America). But capitalism is inherently distorting in a lot of arenas, and it's not suited to everything. By assuming a couple of individualist and material maxims, capitalism can be inherently opposed to things like the public good, even though it doesn't have to be. It's a moral and political distortion that has a large amount of utility. While I participate in it willingly, it's good to be aware and critical of the ways in which it shifts discourse and alters things that are important to me.
I know that capitalism is different than favoritism (ugh, I'm sorry) in many important ways. But one of the reasons that I went along with this experiment, and why I'd encourage others to, is because I think it's important to regard the systems that shape my behavior critically, and I'm not sure that I can do that entirely while still immersed in them. I know that electronics are full of heavy metals and made in factories that are close to slave labor, but still, that iPhone looks pretty sweet, y'know?
I realize that not everyone else is interested in the subjective experience of examining their usage patterns, etc., and if I had less time, I'd likely be more concerned with maximizing my utility and less interested in this abstraction. That's not a bad thing, that's not using Metafilter poorly, though I'd argue that it's using Metafilter less mindfully even while realizing that the mindful use of Metafilter is a luxury. But to maximize the amount of change I'm likely to see, it makes sense to encourage others to participate in the experiment too. And I think that the likely results are going to be me thinking about how I use favorites a little bit more and using them a little less reflexively.
posted by klangklangston at 11:33 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
This is interesting to me, because it describes a couple different metrics that I think are interesting to contrast against favorites.
The first is an argument that the comments that should be respected, or (and let me clarify that this isn't what julen is saying, nor what she's arguing against, as far as I can tell, but rather what I think is a simplification of a political view) noted and read, are those of lower users; that comments made by lower users deserve deference, in a similar way to how comments with a lot of favorites deserve deference. A lot of the same back and forth could be applied—that of course, no one is arguing that all 'early users' comments' should automatically be privileged, just that it's a good place to start a discussion on policy, or whatever. The user number can serve as a filter. A modified version of this is what koeselitz says he feels prevailed earlier, where user names were the filter. (He does not, notably, say it was necessarily better.)
The second one is that it's involvement and participation that determine social capital. I think this is closer to what julen is saying (but I'm still shifting the argument for what I think is rhetorical clarity—don't start calling julen names because of this). In this, lower users could still deserve deference, in that it's likely that a lot of long-time users have stuck with the site for a long time because they have a lot invested in it. In this scheme, having a visible user number, as in the scheme above, could be a proxy for the level of deference, similar to favorites as our current proxy.
But if the problem with the first system is that early adoption is a pretty noisy predictor of the ultimately subjective quality of comments. Even when combined with something as basic as current activity (it's impossible to give someone deference if they aren't participating) to eliminate a huge part of the cohort, it's easy to see that demographic of longtime users as sharing roughly the same distribution of quality that any group of members do*: Many mediocre or unremarkable, plenty good to great, and very few total assholes. The barrier to entry to this group has nothing to do with quality, and if we used it to rule, it would be too high a barrier for some great new users and not high enough for plenty other old users.
The criticisms of the second scheme are similar to some complaints against favorites, namely that if valued purely on participation, it would lead to demagoguery, Sophistry and the ridiculed excesses of public declaimers. Just involvement doesn't preclude bad involvement, and while obviously we're all the good and just citizens of Rome, not some Farkish Gauls, the folks who are most involved will have the same faults of the rest of us, just multiplied by comment count. While the barrier to being one of the most involved isn't really any sort of magnificent skill, but mostly the inclination to hammer away at the refresh button and the ability not to get banned, that makes it too high for some folks who would be great additions if they didn't have so much else in their lives (likely, because they have so much else in their lives), and too low for, well, plenty of people with too much time on their hands and any number of axes to grind.
Which returns me to favorites, which I think of less as a coherent metric, and more a combination of several, including both the idea of rewarding prominence and personality as well as participation. And bookmarks. And whatever. While tied to why people give them, as a measure, it's more important what people read them as, and since no one gives them for the same reason (nor reads them the same way) apparently, it's a lot more fuzzy and fluid. The barrier to entry is incredibly low to get or give them, though to get a lot of them isn't easy, though getting a few of them is incredibly easy. A fair thing to say might be that they're amoral. Though they're not really fungible (they can't be exchanged), like money they have no inherent value, economically or morally.
This is where, and I apologize, my inner anti-captialist comes out. In my rational mind that governs everyday life, y'know, I don't really want to give up capitalism. I think that it's a pretty decent way of allocating resources, and that it's not on the whole bad (this is easy to say, I live in America). But capitalism is inherently distorting in a lot of arenas, and it's not suited to everything. By assuming a couple of individualist and material maxims, capitalism can be inherently opposed to things like the public good, even though it doesn't have to be. It's a moral and political distortion that has a large amount of utility. While I participate in it willingly, it's good to be aware and critical of the ways in which it shifts discourse and alters things that are important to me.
I know that capitalism is different than favoritism (ugh, I'm sorry) in many important ways. But one of the reasons that I went along with this experiment, and why I'd encourage others to, is because I think it's important to regard the systems that shape my behavior critically, and I'm not sure that I can do that entirely while still immersed in them. I know that electronics are full of heavy metals and made in factories that are close to slave labor, but still, that iPhone looks pretty sweet, y'know?
I realize that not everyone else is interested in the subjective experience of examining their usage patterns, etc., and if I had less time, I'd likely be more concerned with maximizing my utility and less interested in this abstraction. That's not a bad thing, that's not using Metafilter poorly, though I'd argue that it's using Metafilter less mindfully even while realizing that the mindful use of Metafilter is a luxury. But to maximize the amount of change I'm likely to see, it makes sense to encourage others to participate in the experiment too. And I think that the likely results are going to be me thinking about how I use favorites a little bit more and using them a little less reflexively.
posted by klangklangston at 11:33 PM on November 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Wait. There are places where they don't give you vinegar with your fries?
Some people will never get it.
This experiment is proof of one thing: cortex may like his datageekery, and the mods may have all sorts of metrics, but they actually read comments before acting. Good luck y'all.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 11:35 PM on November 3, 2009
Some people will never get it.
This experiment is proof of one thing: cortex may like his datageekery, and the mods may have all sorts of metrics, but they actually read comments before acting. Good luck y'all.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 11:35 PM on November 3, 2009
There were also comments above (skimmer skimmer) where people remarked that using favorites to skim may be an adaptation to mefi growth, much like browsing at +2 on slashdot or kuro5hin. And that other ways may bring other adaptations, such as the fractioning seen on reddit (I hope it was not in some other thread).
If I look at my own usage, I have already chosen fractioning: the mefi I read is the mefi of my contacts and those I may discover through the popular page or accident.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 11:45 PM on November 3, 2009
If I look at my own usage, I have already chosen fractioning: the mefi I read is the mefi of my contacts and those I may discover through the popular page or accident.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 11:45 PM on November 3, 2009
My filtering is first and foremost the initial post itself (be it question, front page or Meta). If something about it doesn't grab me, I just move on to something else ... off site altogether if nothing grabs.
Maybe it's because I am pretty new here as a paid up member (15 months and counting) but I'm often surprised to find myself commenting in some thread or other for a few hours before I realize, oh hey, ArtW posted this thing (or whoever; I just mention him because I'm concerned about his alleged drinking after last night's chaosity) ...
My point being: content is king here as far as I'm concerned (sorry for the 10 year old cliche), whereas personalities in and of themselves are over-rated, and ultimately, the worst offenders in terms of NOISE.
posted by philip-random at 11:58 PM on November 3, 2009
Maybe it's because I am pretty new here as a paid up member (15 months and counting) but I'm often surprised to find myself commenting in some thread or other for a few hours before I realize, oh hey, ArtW posted this thing (or whoever; I just mention him because I'm concerned about his alleged drinking after last night's chaosity) ...
My point being: content is king here as far as I'm concerned (sorry for the 10 year old cliche), whereas personalities in and of themselves are over-rated, and ultimately, the worst offenders in terms of NOISE.
posted by philip-random at 11:58 PM on November 3, 2009
I think it should be up to the individual to decide for themselves whether or not to have any accompaniment with their fries.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:00 AM on November 4, 2009
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:00 AM on November 4, 2009
On preview, I hope this isn't too floggy, and jeeeze did you have to just post that, klang?
So...I put my undershirt on backwards earlier today. I was going to take it off and turn it around but then I thought “f*ck it, I'm going to wear it backwards”. With the feeling that it felt odd, I figured it would be only be for a short time during my workout. As I was thinking this through some more things kind of cascaded into my brain along with an idea of what I thought this was about yesterday.
When I initially found Metafilter, I thought it was really cool for the links. It took me a little while to start checking out the conversations. I started looking around more and thought “Wow this place really is cool there are soe really smart people here. I could learn a lot from this.” I still lurked around for four or five years before I joined. I'm not sure why I finally joined but it was probably for a myriad of reasons. I think the easiest way to say it is I wanted to be a better person. I wanted to learn about all kinds of stuff. I wanted to see intelligent arguments. I wanted to be challenged I think there was a Metatalk not to long ago about how Metafilter has changed your writing style. I slinked off because it looked like most people didn't think it had changed it for them and I didn't want to stick out and say how different my writing (and I) had become because of this here site. That's not to say I always measure up to my own expectations, but I do try and I am persistently (naggingly) self-aware of a what I do and say.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is I like to try to question my perceptions and beliefs, and I believe that's what this is about. At least the spirit (sitegeist?) of the experiment is a simple question. “If we make the favorite counts invisible for a month, will that effect certain behavior?” There seems to be an obvious lack of clarity surrounding this idea. For something to budge in the slightest, there has to be some kind of “physicality”, “movement”, or a “doing.” To focus on the question of whether it is broke is missing the boat. You saw something break, not the mods, and you immediately sought the fix (a fix?). With a culture that is malleable and dynamic there should be a bit of dynamic in the system to accommodate. Where does that come from?
Although I perfectly understood why, I was a little disappointed to see the opt out option. Those who opted out have essentially opted out of any possible perceptual shift. You've ended your part of the experiment, and a possible way for the community at large to grow. Finito. You sure are welcome to express your opinions, but I think you miss on seeing what's behind the curtains (maybe nothing?).
On another note there has been a couple of comments saying that favoriting bad behavior is rare, and even a call for examples. I think it's rather crude to ask people to get muddy and dig for dirt, and I also think it's a rather disingenuous statement to make if you've been around here at for any length of time. But it also brings up a the question of what is bad behavior, because as Durn pointed out above sometimes it isn't apparent. When I initially thought about some instance of favoriting negative happenings (and really it wasn't that hard) I thought of a couple of people. I ended up on sixcolors as a rather contentious point of interest. But again i didn't want to lay blame and immediately thought about her being banned. cortex' reply to my statement was pretty much what I figured. I don't think it's necessarily a high point for him to have to do that and his wording was matter of factly about it. Yet it received about 180 favorites. I think it may have sparked one or two other comments, dogmom being one of them (and it looks like is fully engaged in the “spirit” of this experiment). I think it is rather an interesting point to look at for favoriting. It's content is neither good or bad. I suppose it could be an interesting point in the timeline of Metafilter, but then a proper place for the favorite would be the actual post. I believe it points to an instance of bad usage for favorites, and that it does indeed exist at an unacceptable level.
I was thinking of other comments I've seen. Maybe something like “Those people are jerks!” The next comment may be a rather huffy “Eff you, jerko!” Both of those may accrue favorites, and probably the second more so. Good or bad intent aside, neither of those are acceptable content. They both produce “bad” behavior, and if we are to accept the “me too” idea behind favorites then the bad signal is increased.
But “wait” you say, “favorites don't have a strict definition.” I agree. Therefore some of the previous assertions fall flat in the face of that. “Well, go screw. I can use them any way I want.” I agree again. That's the way the system is setup. But which again brings up the idea that favorites don't have a normative value to them. So why are the favorite counts valued then? As a behaviorist, I kind of see it in simple terms. I think those terms are valid in most instances in Music and AskMe, but don't bear fruit in the same way on the Blue. I don't know. There have been plenty of discussion about the use of favorites, the hows and whys. Some are really funny. But, again, I think we are missing the (long)boat when we don't try to specifically see the hows or whys.
posted by P.o.B. at 12:16 AM on November 4, 2009
So...I put my undershirt on backwards earlier today. I was going to take it off and turn it around but then I thought “f*ck it, I'm going to wear it backwards”. With the feeling that it felt odd, I figured it would be only be for a short time during my workout. As I was thinking this through some more things kind of cascaded into my brain along with an idea of what I thought this was about yesterday.
When I initially found Metafilter, I thought it was really cool for the links. It took me a little while to start checking out the conversations. I started looking around more and thought “Wow this place really is cool there are soe really smart people here. I could learn a lot from this.” I still lurked around for four or five years before I joined. I'm not sure why I finally joined but it was probably for a myriad of reasons. I think the easiest way to say it is I wanted to be a better person. I wanted to learn about all kinds of stuff. I wanted to see intelligent arguments. I wanted to be challenged I think there was a Metatalk not to long ago about how Metafilter has changed your writing style. I slinked off because it looked like most people didn't think it had changed it for them and I didn't want to stick out and say how different my writing (and I) had become because of this here site. That's not to say I always measure up to my own expectations, but I do try and I am persistently (naggingly) self-aware of a what I do and say.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is I like to try to question my perceptions and beliefs, and I believe that's what this is about. At least the spirit (sitegeist?) of the experiment is a simple question. “If we make the favorite counts invisible for a month, will that effect certain behavior?” There seems to be an obvious lack of clarity surrounding this idea. For something to budge in the slightest, there has to be some kind of “physicality”, “movement”, or a “doing.” To focus on the question of whether it is broke is missing the boat. You saw something break, not the mods, and you immediately sought the fix (a fix?). With a culture that is malleable and dynamic there should be a bit of dynamic in the system to accommodate. Where does that come from?
Although I perfectly understood why, I was a little disappointed to see the opt out option. Those who opted out have essentially opted out of any possible perceptual shift. You've ended your part of the experiment, and a possible way for the community at large to grow. Finito. You sure are welcome to express your opinions, but I think you miss on seeing what's behind the curtains (maybe nothing?).
On another note there has been a couple of comments saying that favoriting bad behavior is rare, and even a call for examples. I think it's rather crude to ask people to get muddy and dig for dirt, and I also think it's a rather disingenuous statement to make if you've been around here at for any length of time. But it also brings up a the question of what is bad behavior, because as Durn pointed out above sometimes it isn't apparent. When I initially thought about some instance of favoriting negative happenings (and really it wasn't that hard) I thought of a couple of people. I ended up on sixcolors as a rather contentious point of interest. But again i didn't want to lay blame and immediately thought about her being banned. cortex' reply to my statement was pretty much what I figured. I don't think it's necessarily a high point for him to have to do that and his wording was matter of factly about it. Yet it received about 180 favorites. I think it may have sparked one or two other comments, dogmom being one of them (and it looks like is fully engaged in the “spirit” of this experiment). I think it is rather an interesting point to look at for favoriting. It's content is neither good or bad. I suppose it could be an interesting point in the timeline of Metafilter, but then a proper place for the favorite would be the actual post. I believe it points to an instance of bad usage for favorites, and that it does indeed exist at an unacceptable level.
I was thinking of other comments I've seen. Maybe something like “Those people are jerks!” The next comment may be a rather huffy “Eff you, jerko!” Both of those may accrue favorites, and probably the second more so. Good or bad intent aside, neither of those are acceptable content. They both produce “bad” behavior, and if we are to accept the “me too” idea behind favorites then the bad signal is increased.
But “wait” you say, “favorites don't have a strict definition.” I agree. Therefore some of the previous assertions fall flat in the face of that. “Well, go screw. I can use them any way I want.” I agree again. That's the way the system is setup. But which again brings up the idea that favorites don't have a normative value to them. So why are the favorite counts valued then? As a behaviorist, I kind of see it in simple terms. I think those terms are valid in most instances in Music and AskMe, but don't bear fruit in the same way on the Blue. I don't know. There have been plenty of discussion about the use of favorites, the hows and whys. Some are really funny. But, again, I think we are missing the (long)boat when we don't try to specifically see the hows or whys.
posted by P.o.B. at 12:16 AM on November 4, 2009
For some reason that came out a lot different (worse) than I wanted it to. *disappointedly kicks rocks*
posted by P.o.B. at 12:23 AM on November 4, 2009
posted by P.o.B. at 12:23 AM on November 4, 2009
P.o.B., I'd just like to pop in here again and point out that, as someone who currently has the favorite counts displayed, I definitely feel a distinct "perceptual shift".
Now, I'm part of a super elite special MetaTalk-reading club who have chosen to deliberately change our user experience from that of the majority of members, and that unspoken mass of MeFi readers who aren't members. Now, much more than ever before, I feel like the favorites (or beans, as I like to call them, wink wink nudge nudge) that I give to people are like small, private messages sent to the commenter. It wasn't like this before.
Who has their favorite counts displayed? Are they the same people who would be likely to notice receiving one from me, and would they then see and "get" my little private message? I like to think so, but I'm never going to be sure!
In the end, I don't care much either way, because if something really needs to be explicitly said, I'll pipe up and either comment in-thread or send a MeMail. But to me it really feels like an insular, special crowd of favorite-viewers.
I've noticed favorite rates in threads I frequent seem to be less than before, and I wonder, is it because there's not much here of interest or note, or are people not giving favorites because they can't see them? I know that, when I have that switch flipped off and have the count obscured, I still give favorites at my normal rate, which is not very often and for a variety of subtle reasons that can be generally determined in-context.
But yeah, I just wanted to share my thoughts so far and point out that even people who have "opted out" are still being affected and are affecting this whole shebang. (Or, as I like to call it, the Favening Brouhaha, or the Faverdammerung.) It's not like it's possible for any user of this site to go back to previous behaviors when the majority of users are acting differently, unless said user doesn't interact whatsoever with anybody else.
posted by Mizu at 12:46 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Now, I'm part of a super elite special MetaTalk-reading club who have chosen to deliberately change our user experience from that of the majority of members, and that unspoken mass of MeFi readers who aren't members. Now, much more than ever before, I feel like the favorites (or beans, as I like to call them, wink wink nudge nudge) that I give to people are like small, private messages sent to the commenter. It wasn't like this before.
Who has their favorite counts displayed? Are they the same people who would be likely to notice receiving one from me, and would they then see and "get" my little private message? I like to think so, but I'm never going to be sure!
In the end, I don't care much either way, because if something really needs to be explicitly said, I'll pipe up and either comment in-thread or send a MeMail. But to me it really feels like an insular, special crowd of favorite-viewers.
I've noticed favorite rates in threads I frequent seem to be less than before, and I wonder, is it because there's not much here of interest or note, or are people not giving favorites because they can't see them? I know that, when I have that switch flipped off and have the count obscured, I still give favorites at my normal rate, which is not very often and for a variety of subtle reasons that can be generally determined in-context.
But yeah, I just wanted to share my thoughts so far and point out that even people who have "opted out" are still being affected and are affecting this whole shebang. (Or, as I like to call it, the Favening Brouhaha, or the Faverdammerung.) It's not like it's possible for any user of this site to go back to previous behaviors when the majority of users are acting differently, unless said user doesn't interact whatsoever with anybody else.
posted by Mizu at 12:46 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Hey, rokusan? Could you lay off a bit, ya think? The mods have admitted to being exhausted by the ordeal, and want to wait for things to cool off before doing any kind of analysis. Not the time to start back at hammering on the methodology.
I was responding to pb's latest comment, only an hour old, and in particular the bit about not wanting to "influencing the count", after (with best intentions etc.) setting up a measuring device that's inherently skewed to begin with. Jessamyn also mentioned that there had been "many" complaints that triggered this, and I thought it would be useful to know how many, especially in comparison to the after-the-fact complaints to date.
I'm not forcing discussion of anything old from upthread, just following up on two most-recent comments. If pb or jessamyn didn't want to talk about those things, then why say them now?
I don't think responding to two recent points is "hammering". When someone says things here, aren't they implicitly opening yourself to discussion of those things?
posted by rokusan at 12:47 AM on November 4, 2009
I was responding to pb's latest comment, only an hour old, and in particular the bit about not wanting to "influencing the count", after (with best intentions etc.) setting up a measuring device that's inherently skewed to begin with. Jessamyn also mentioned that there had been "many" complaints that triggered this, and I thought it would be useful to know how many, especially in comparison to the after-the-fact complaints to date.
I'm not forcing discussion of anything old from upthread, just following up on two most-recent comments. If pb or jessamyn didn't want to talk about those things, then why say them now?
I don't think responding to two recent points is "hammering". When someone says things here, aren't they implicitly opening yourself to discussion of those things?
posted by rokusan at 12:47 AM on November 4, 2009
I am surprised that nobody's mentioned You Got A Favorite For Being Dumb (or whatever that name was). Funny AND dickish.
posted by klangklangston at 12:48 AM on November 4, 2009
posted by klangklangston at 12:48 AM on November 4, 2009
the littlest brussels sprout: The only thing is, I had just found this lovely Greasemonkey script by pronoiac which let me change "faved" to "butts lol." And I was kind of looking forward to having that for a month. Oh well.
I updated the script - see the new screenshot. I've posted this on Projects, pending approval.
This is unnerving. How did you know the test phrase I used as I built this?
posted by Pronoiac at 12:49 AM on November 4, 2009
I updated the script - see the new screenshot. I've posted this on Projects, pending approval.
This is unnerving. How did you know the test phrase I used as I built this?
posted by Pronoiac at 12:49 AM on November 4, 2009
Jessamyn also mentioned that there had been "many" complaints that triggered this
I assume that this has been mentioned before in this monster thread, but...
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the ulterior motive of this experiment is to shut up those kinds of complaints for good?
"Yeah we tried that, most users hated it or noticed no difference at the end of the month. See here for details. I'm closing this up now, because it's already been done & rejected"
« Older Ubu arrested for crimes against donuts... | Pony Request: I can haz baconfilter?... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:56 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
I assume that this has been mentioned before in this monster thread, but...
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the ulterior motive of this experiment is to shut up those kinds of complaints for good?
"Yeah we tried that, most users hated it or noticed no difference at the end of the month. See here for details. I'm closing this up now, because it's already been done & rejected"
« Older Ubu arrested for crimes against donuts... | Pony Request: I can haz baconfilter?... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:56 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's comforting to have numbers and statistics to use as a foundation, I realize, and you want to make this experiment work in ways you believe make sense, but this issue (does the favorites system hurt or help MeFi?) can't be answered solely with numbers and statistics.
Oh, I agree such a broad thing can't be measured that way, and in fact even this narrower thing (do people prefer counts on or off?) cannot be measured that way now: it's too late for that here, now. And that's why I'm uncomfortable when people start referring to "the count" or "looking at the numbers" later, or when Cortex accidentally slips into statistics talk. Because of the way the "experiment" ended up being done, the numbers are baked beyond usefulness already... which is fine, as long as that's noted up front.
As a conversation-starter, if that's what it was, I would have preferred all favorites being disabled and invisible (and non-circumventable) for a month. Then we would all have been on the same field, playing by the same rules, and in a month we could discuss with the same informed experiences.
What I said I feared now, though, is the same thing that seems to happen in all media with all issues once any weak "statistics" enter the conversation: the conversation gets even less informative. I worry that after these not-really-useful numbers are out, people (not mods, who probably know better, but many people here) may start tossing them around as if they mean something, as if 80% of users having hide-counts turned on (a likely end state) will somehow "prove" that 80% of users prefer it that way.
It won't mean that, of course, but it'll sure seem that way if one doesn't consider how those people expressed (or failed to express) their choice.
Sorry if this is hammering. It seems salient, and I thought it was on-point.
posted by rokusan at 1:02 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Oh, I agree such a broad thing can't be measured that way, and in fact even this narrower thing (do people prefer counts on or off?) cannot be measured that way now: it's too late for that here, now. And that's why I'm uncomfortable when people start referring to "the count" or "looking at the numbers" later, or when Cortex accidentally slips into statistics talk. Because of the way the "experiment" ended up being done, the numbers are baked beyond usefulness already... which is fine, as long as that's noted up front.
As a conversation-starter, if that's what it was, I would have preferred all favorites being disabled and invisible (and non-circumventable) for a month. Then we would all have been on the same field, playing by the same rules, and in a month we could discuss with the same informed experiences.
What I said I feared now, though, is the same thing that seems to happen in all media with all issues once any weak "statistics" enter the conversation: the conversation gets even less informative. I worry that after these not-really-useful numbers are out, people (not mods, who probably know better, but many people here) may start tossing them around as if they mean something, as if 80% of users having hide-counts turned on (a likely end state) will somehow "prove" that 80% of users prefer it that way.
It won't mean that, of course, but it'll sure seem that way if one doesn't consider how those people expressed (or failed to express) their choice.
Sorry if this is hammering. It seems salient, and I thought it was on-point.
posted by rokusan at 1:02 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the ulterior motive of this experiment is to shut up those kinds of complaints for good?
I believe what the mods say, that there is no ulterior motive here beyond what's been stated.
posted by rokusan at 1:03 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
I believe what the mods say, that there is no ulterior motive here beyond what's been stated.
posted by rokusan at 1:03 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
I believe what the mods say, that there is no ulterior motive here beyond what's been stated.
Fair enough. Perhaps I should restate it less conspiratorially: "hey, people keep asking for this; let's run it up the flagpole & see if the cat wants to lick it"
Being able to say later that it didn't achieve its expected benefits (if that is the result) is a predictable colleteral benefit from such an experiment.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:08 AM on November 4, 2009
Fair enough. Perhaps I should restate it less conspiratorially: "hey, people keep asking for this; let's run it up the flagpole & see if the cat wants to lick it"
Being able to say later that it didn't achieve its expected benefits (if that is the result) is a predictable colleteral benefit from such an experiment.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:08 AM on November 4, 2009
rokusan: I'm not forcing discussion of anything old from upthread, just following up on two most-recent comments. If pb or jessamyn didn't want to talk about those things, then why say them now?
Because they're trying to continue to be responsive to community concerns.
What they said was they wanted to wait a bit to talk about those things. And what you did was start talking again about how their methods are flawed. I'm not saying so much that you did anything wrong, just that may not realize that you're coming off as slightly hostile and demanding when the mods are trying to be as responsive as they can, while admitting they are dealing with an unanticipated amount of harshness and fatigue.
Just asking for a little compassion. The argumentation can happen later. They've said as much a number of times.
posted by team lowkey at 1:19 AM on November 4, 2009
Because they're trying to continue to be responsive to community concerns.
What they said was they wanted to wait a bit to talk about those things. And what you did was start talking again about how their methods are flawed. I'm not saying so much that you did anything wrong, just that may not realize that you're coming off as slightly hostile and demanding when the mods are trying to be as responsive as they can, while admitting they are dealing with an unanticipated amount of harshness and fatigue.
Just asking for a little compassion. The argumentation can happen later. They've said as much a number of times.
posted by team lowkey at 1:19 AM on November 4, 2009
Anyway, I want to go on record as saying I don't like this change.
Same here. Not all favourites are equal. Glad it's something we can switch off.
posted by dearsina at 1:38 AM on November 4, 2009
Same here. Not all favourites are equal. Glad it's something we can switch off.
posted by dearsina at 1:38 AM on November 4, 2009
I wasn't trying to argue or draw out any rehash. Apologies if I sounded that way. And I don't doubt for a moment that the mods are frustrated and working hard and want the best for the site. I'm pretty sure that applies to most of the rest of us, too.
I was addressing the recent points only. I don't think talking about whatever results amass themselves in terms of "data" or talking about "influencing the numbers" is a good move, that's all.
If it's an issue best addressed with numbers (and I don't think it can be, not now) then show them and talk about them, sure. If a certain number of complaints about favorite-counting was a tipping point that started this, then dang, what was that number? If it was a number-of-complaints-driven thing, it would be interesting to compare the number of complaints pre- and post-change.
But if the whole deal is not an experiment in the real sense, but rather a discussion-provoking exercise (as Cortex explained awhile ago) then I think everyone, including the mods, should stick to that model, and not try to stretch it into something else. That is, abandon the idea that there will be some kind of neutral or quantifiable metrics and statistics in a month... because due to the way the info was collected, and due to a fragmented test base, any numbers on user preference will be near-zero-value data that can only muddy the issues, not clarify or enlighten.
A discussion-provoking exercise, that's cool. A quantified of preference could also be cool. But I think that a half one / half the other sort of approach is less cool and less useful than either alone.
posted by rokusan at 1:44 AM on November 4, 2009 [6 favorites]
I was addressing the recent points only. I don't think talking about whatever results amass themselves in terms of "data" or talking about "influencing the numbers" is a good move, that's all.
If it's an issue best addressed with numbers (and I don't think it can be, not now) then show them and talk about them, sure. If a certain number of complaints about favorite-counting was a tipping point that started this, then dang, what was that number? If it was a number-of-complaints-driven thing, it would be interesting to compare the number of complaints pre- and post-change.
But if the whole deal is not an experiment in the real sense, but rather a discussion-provoking exercise (as Cortex explained awhile ago) then I think everyone, including the mods, should stick to that model, and not try to stretch it into something else. That is, abandon the idea that there will be some kind of neutral or quantifiable metrics and statistics in a month... because due to the way the info was collected, and due to a fragmented test base, any numbers on user preference will be near-zero-value data that can only muddy the issues, not clarify or enlighten.
A discussion-provoking exercise, that's cool. A quantified of preference could also be cool. But I think that a half one / half the other sort of approach is less cool and less useful than either alone.
posted by rokusan at 1:44 AM on November 4, 2009 [6 favorites]
Mizu, I don't expect any community behavior to happen in a vacuum. As an analogy, Let's say you were in a monastery where a large proportion of the population took a vow of silence, but you still had a group of people to talk with about being silent and you've read all the books about it. That does not engender the same experience. Like I said, (in my rather dense diatribe) I believe you actually have to "do" in order to gain a relation with the "doing".
The other part you touched on was the idea that there is a kind of communication that happens with favorites, which I believe sprung up earlier i the thread. There could be a wide variance in how you are defining this and you're certainly welcome to use the favorites as you please, but as has been said (more than) a few times there is no agreed upon definition of favorites. I would find it hard to believe that there is a presupposition of other people to accept it as your definition, and it makes these types of reasoning hard to buy into. There are quite a few posts to Talk seeking clarification on what they are without a unanimous decision and actually quite the opposite being an ambiguous one. I'm only speaking in the confines of the Grey or the Blue rather than AskMe or Music
posted by P.o.B. at 1:55 AM on November 4, 2009
The other part you touched on was the idea that there is a kind of communication that happens with favorites, which I believe sprung up earlier i the thread. There could be a wide variance in how you are defining this and you're certainly welcome to use the favorites as you please, but as has been said (more than) a few times there is no agreed upon definition of favorites. I would find it hard to believe that there is a presupposition of other people to accept it as your definition, and it makes these types of reasoning hard to buy into. There are quite a few posts to Talk seeking clarification on what they are without a unanimous decision and actually quite the opposite being an ambiguous one. I'm only speaking in the confines of the Grey or the Blue rather than AskMe or Music
posted by P.o.B. at 1:55 AM on November 4, 2009
P.o.B., frankly, your metaphor confuses me, but that's okay! I was just sharing my experience so far, not trying to argue a point or place value statements on my thought processes, or even project my own experiences onto imaginary others. I was just reacting to your statement because it made me think about my own actions.
Basically, sure, I don't think that everyone is going to perceive my communication in the way I want them to. But if I don't function under the assumption that some of them will get it, some of the time, then my behavior is rendered irrelevant, or worse, confusing to outsiders. Similarly, if you're making a sarcastic statement, you operate with the idea that at least some of the readers of your statement are going to understand your sarcasm. It's a bit of a gamble, but often, worth it, if only in the statement-maker or favorite-giver's eyes.
Maybe it's true, and when Ifling a bean favorite someone for one of my myriad reasons, they never see it the way I intend, and I should stop it all together and use them only as poorly-organized bookmarks. But I'm still doing it, and still thinking about it, and how it affects the experiences of others, and how thinking about it changes my experience as well.
I never meant to say that those who have opted out are having the same experience as those who are staying on the default. Just that they're still a part of the Great Favening, and it seemed like you were stating that they weren't even part of it, existing in some sort of alternate-MeFi where this thread and endeavor never occurred. And since everyone seems to hold different definitions of Favorites and different uses for them, can you say that everyone who stays opted-in has the same experience too?
Ah well, I'm pretty sure that you will continue to disagree with me. That's fine, of course, and I don't mind. And again, I'd like to reiterate that I'm not casting value judgments on any of this.
Okay, I've gone over my self-imposed comments in this thread a day limit now, so off I go! (Two comments in a 24 hour period, I dare you all. Double-dog dare.)
posted by Mizu at 2:31 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Basically, sure, I don't think that everyone is going to perceive my communication in the way I want them to. But if I don't function under the assumption that some of them will get it, some of the time, then my behavior is rendered irrelevant, or worse, confusing to outsiders. Similarly, if you're making a sarcastic statement, you operate with the idea that at least some of the readers of your statement are going to understand your sarcasm. It's a bit of a gamble, but often, worth it, if only in the statement-maker or favorite-giver's eyes.
Maybe it's true, and when I
I never meant to say that those who have opted out are having the same experience as those who are staying on the default. Just that they're still a part of the Great Favening, and it seemed like you were stating that they weren't even part of it, existing in some sort of alternate-MeFi where this thread and endeavor never occurred. And since everyone seems to hold different definitions of Favorites and different uses for them, can you say that everyone who stays opted-in has the same experience too?
Ah well, I'm pretty sure that you will continue to disagree with me. That's fine, of course, and I don't mind. And again, I'd like to reiterate that I'm not casting value judgments on any of this.
Okay, I've gone over my self-imposed comments in this thread a day limit now, so off I go! (Two comments in a 24 hour period, I dare you all. Double-dog dare.)
posted by Mizu at 2:31 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
and it seemed like you were stating that they weren't even part of it, existing in some sort of alternate-MeFi where this thread and endeavor never occurred. And since everyone seems to hold different definitions of Favorites and different uses for them, can you say that everyone who stays opted-in has the same experience too?
I'll admit that was one of the parts I fumbled up. Funny I wrote that thing in a word processor and copy+pasted. Of course everybody is subjected to FavExp, but I would submit that by opting-out from it you are willfully ignoring it. You are going back to what you have become accustomed. I also believe the experience between these two settings is huge, obviously huge enough to drive a large number of people to gnash teeth and opt-out. To answer your question, no, I don't believe everybody will have the same experiences in participating, but the general nature of an experience will allow for generalities to occur across experiences.
Also, I don't know if I'd really buy into the idea that an uptick in a favorite count can convey the same amount of info words/sentences/paragraphs do, sarcasm or not.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:07 AM on November 4, 2009
I'll admit that was one of the parts I fumbled up. Funny I wrote that thing in a word processor and copy+pasted. Of course everybody is subjected to FavExp, but I would submit that by opting-out from it you are willfully ignoring it. You are going back to what you have become accustomed. I also believe the experience between these two settings is huge, obviously huge enough to drive a large number of people to gnash teeth and opt-out. To answer your question, no, I don't believe everybody will have the same experiences in participating, but the general nature of an experience will allow for generalities to occur across experiences.
Also, I don't know if I'd really buy into the idea that an uptick in a favorite count can convey the same amount of info words/sentences/paragraphs do, sarcasm or not.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:07 AM on November 4, 2009
I used to be casually pro-favorite, but this thread has made me an extremest. I vow to oppose the evil anti-favorite faction until the day I die!
posted by diogenes at 4:06 AM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by diogenes at 4:06 AM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
Mizu: "And again, I'd like to reiterate that I'm not casting value judgments on any of this."
But isn't that what favorites are for? I'm absolutely serious - I was staring at this sentence of yours and it occurred to me that that's the best expression I've seen so far of why I don't like favorites: because, while they mean lots of things to lots of people, the only meaning I think every one of us recognizes in them is a pure, abstract value judgement.
posted by koeselitz at 4:18 AM on November 4, 2009
But isn't that what favorites are for? I'm absolutely serious - I was staring at this sentence of yours and it occurred to me that that's the best expression I've seen so far of why I don't like favorites: because, while they mean lots of things to lots of people, the only meaning I think every one of us recognizes in them is a pure, abstract value judgement.
posted by koeselitz at 4:18 AM on November 4, 2009
(Sorry, I forgot about the possibility that you never really wanted to hear from me ever again, Mizu. Which was pretty much how you put it.
Carry on without me, then. I've got other things to do.)
posted by koeselitz at 4:20 AM on November 4, 2009
Carry on without me, then. I've got other things to do.)
posted by koeselitz at 4:20 AM on November 4, 2009
As an anecdote: I've read maybe three or four total comment threads besides this one over all the subsites over the past three days, compared to probably 6-8 per day before. I'm mostly a lurker, and usually by the time I get to a thread, somebody's already made whatever point I would've, so favoriting things I like (and taking note of which things have got a lot of favorites and from whom) is my way of feeling like I'm participating in the discussion in some small way. I know that's not how everyone uses them, but I do, and invisible favorite counts break that aspect of the site for me and leave me with little to no desire to venture in further than the FPP.
(Yes, I know I can turn them back on, and have done, but if to most people they're still invisible, it feels like there's little point in giving anything a favorite. (Though I have so far continued to do so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.))
I'm not saying this to say "wah, put everything back the way it was immediately." Just registering my reaction three days in: that it has directly and greatly reduced my participation and enjoyment of the site.
posted by shammack at 5:26 AM on November 4, 2009
(Yes, I know I can turn them back on, and have done, but if to most people they're still invisible, it feels like there's little point in giving anything a favorite. (Though I have so far continued to do so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.))
I'm not saying this to say "wah, put everything back the way it was immediately." Just registering my reaction three days in: that it has directly and greatly reduced my participation and enjoyment of the site.
posted by shammack at 5:26 AM on November 4, 2009
rokusan: "Not that anyone asked, but put me in the "this is a really bad idea" camp. […] Not wanting them to be treated as some kind of "vote" is a sort of silly concern, when that is in fact how they are used today. Whether that was the original intent isn't relevant anymore, because it's the users who should be deciding this sort of thing. That's what usability is all about."
That's true, if MeFi was a word processor or something, and Matt et al's overarching goal was to move units. In a situation like that, you don't care what your users are doing with your product, as long as they're buying it, and it make sense to tailor it to them even if their use isn't what you originally envisioned.
However, that isn't the situation. If the goal of Metafilter was just increased participation uber alles, the way forward would be obvious: become more like 4chan. Get rid of all the impediments — and there are a lot — to unfettered participation that are tossed in the way of potential users.
Of course, that would be stupid. The goal isn't just to encourage participation for its own sake, the goal is to encourage a very specific kind of participation. I.e., not spamming, not trolling, not rudeness, not me-tooism, etc. Whatever those goals are, they come first, and trump usability concerns.
It's entirely possible that the kind of participation encouraged by a visible favorites "score" isn't what's considered desirable for the site, and that it could be harmful in the net even though it's popular. Removing it isn't violating some sort of natural law of software or anything.
posted by Kadin2048 at 6:01 AM on November 4, 2009 [7 favorites]
That's true, if MeFi was a word processor or something, and Matt et al's overarching goal was to move units. In a situation like that, you don't care what your users are doing with your product, as long as they're buying it, and it make sense to tailor it to them even if their use isn't what you originally envisioned.
However, that isn't the situation. If the goal of Metafilter was just increased participation uber alles, the way forward would be obvious: become more like 4chan. Get rid of all the impediments — and there are a lot — to unfettered participation that are tossed in the way of potential users.
Of course, that would be stupid. The goal isn't just to encourage participation for its own sake, the goal is to encourage a very specific kind of participation. I.e., not spamming, not trolling, not rudeness, not me-tooism, etc. Whatever those goals are, they come first, and trump usability concerns.
It's entirely possible that the kind of participation encouraged by a visible favorites "score" isn't what's considered desirable for the site, and that it could be harmful in the net even though it's popular. Removing it isn't violating some sort of natural law of software or anything.
posted by Kadin2048 at 6:01 AM on November 4, 2009 [7 favorites]
Miko writes "Okay. So really, a majority of the site's users, by user number alone, have experienced the site both with and without the favoriting system."
Then Kattullus brings the numbers:
Kattullus i writes "For those who find these kind of meaningless factoids as interesting as myself, 37183 is the first post-favorites user. Interestingly (for a given value of interesting) the last user before 37183 was ostranenie. The word ostranenie is sometimes paraphrased in English as 'make it new.' So, ostranenie joined and lo, it was made new."
So at 90K users give or take we've already broke over the 50% of users never having used the site san favourites and are right on the balance point between being closer to a 1/3 than a 1/2. I didn't realize it was such a large percentage.
On the userID thing. The only reason I brought it up is some said that several "long time users" had such and such a reaction to the change which didn't jive with what I'd remembered. Probably because long time user is in the eye of the beholder. To challenge the statement I quantified what long time user means to me; though having seen Kattullus's number I probably should have started a bit higher. Hard to say though as on this issue the people who have operated on metafilter sans favourites are going to have a different point of view (even if they reach the same conclusion) than those who have always or almost always had favourites.
I do believe, at least when it comes to how the site operates, that a bit of weight should be given to people who have been here a long time. Their participation after all is what made the people who came after want to pony up their $5. That's not to say that every decision should come down to a "Whose got the lower number?" measuring contest or most of us would have spent much of this decade with a fish in our pants. Site direction is the only place where it matters though; on the vast majority of the site how long you've been here means nothing.
posted by Mitheral at 6:03 AM on November 4, 2009
Then Kattullus brings the numbers:
Kattullus i writes "For those who find these kind of meaningless factoids as interesting as myself, 37183 is the first post-favorites user. Interestingly (for a given value of interesting) the last user before 37183 was ostranenie. The word ostranenie is sometimes paraphrased in English as 'make it new.' So, ostranenie joined and lo, it was made new."
So at 90K users give or take we've already broke over the 50% of users never having used the site san favourites and are right on the balance point between being closer to a 1/3 than a 1/2. I didn't realize it was such a large percentage.
On the userID thing. The only reason I brought it up is some said that several "long time users" had such and such a reaction to the change which didn't jive with what I'd remembered. Probably because long time user is in the eye of the beholder. To challenge the statement I quantified what long time user means to me; though having seen Kattullus's number I probably should have started a bit higher. Hard to say though as on this issue the people who have operated on metafilter sans favourites are going to have a different point of view (even if they reach the same conclusion) than those who have always or almost always had favourites.
I do believe, at least when it comes to how the site operates, that a bit of weight should be given to people who have been here a long time. Their participation after all is what made the people who came after want to pony up their $5. That's not to say that every decision should come down to a "Whose got the lower number?" measuring contest or most of us would have spent much of this decade with a fish in our pants. Site direction is the only place where it matters though; on the vast majority of the site how long you've been here means nothing.
posted by Mitheral at 6:03 AM on November 4, 2009
"a bit of weight should be given to people who have been here a long time."
As someone who (a) also fits into that category, and (b) is advancing a somewhat reactionary view that would benefit from being afforded some kind of special elder status, I'd like to say for the record: No, thank you. The longevity of my account should only be a factor in that I actually remember MetaFilter before scoreboards, so I'm actually entitled to have an opinion about what the lack of them is like.
If anything, I'd think that since the majority of users have known no other way than scoreboards, any decision-making should be especially considerate of their desires and preferences. Serve the greater good. In my opinion, a lack of scoreboards is for the greater good but I certainly have been made to understand why some people actually like the scoreboard / positive feedback game. Those people deserve due consideration as much as I deserve due consideration for suggesting that perhaps just this once things were in fact better in the olden days, and for a particular reason.
posted by majick at 6:20 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
As someone who (a) also fits into that category, and (b) is advancing a somewhat reactionary view that would benefit from being afforded some kind of special elder status, I'd like to say for the record: No, thank you. The longevity of my account should only be a factor in that I actually remember MetaFilter before scoreboards, so I'm actually entitled to have an opinion about what the lack of them is like.
If anything, I'd think that since the majority of users have known no other way than scoreboards, any decision-making should be especially considerate of their desires and preferences. Serve the greater good. In my opinion, a lack of scoreboards is for the greater good but I certainly have been made to understand why some people actually like the scoreboard / positive feedback game. Those people deserve due consideration as much as I deserve due consideration for suggesting that perhaps just this once things were in fact better in the olden days, and for a particular reason.
posted by majick at 6:20 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
My views of favorites have changed dramatically since this started and others have mentioned the same.
Not only have my views changed, but I have changed my behavior.
When this Focus on Favorites started I was forced to acknowledge that I was seriously out of synch with the rest of the community. I truly had no idea about the role that contacts played and I had no idea that people memorized their favorites count and I had no idea that people skimmed by reading the most heavily favorited comments. For about 24 hours I debated with myself about leaving all together. (This is not meant as a "threat" or a pity me moment, it is just information.)
I decided I was still too attached to the community. So I've begun adding contacts (Oh! So that is what the contact sidebar looks like!) and I've become much, much more liberal in my favoriting. I realize that it won't mean as much with the experiment in place, but it will have some impact on those comments which have not yet been favorited, and the numbers do show up on the favorites page.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:28 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Not only have my views changed, but I have changed my behavior.
When this Focus on Favorites started I was forced to acknowledge that I was seriously out of synch with the rest of the community. I truly had no idea about the role that contacts played and I had no idea that people memorized their favorites count and I had no idea that people skimmed by reading the most heavily favorited comments. For about 24 hours I debated with myself about leaving all together. (This is not meant as a "threat" or a pity me moment, it is just information.)
I decided I was still too attached to the community. So I've begun adding contacts (Oh! So that is what the contact sidebar looks like!) and I've become much, much more liberal in my favoriting. I realize that it won't mean as much with the experiment in place, but it will have some impact on those comments which have not yet been favorited, and the numbers do show up on the favorites page.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:28 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
I just saved the "show favorites count" preference and I just feel better. Phew.
posted by anniecat at 6:28 AM on November 4, 2009
posted by anniecat at 6:28 AM on November 4, 2009
I forgot to add that I also had no idea that members were checking to see who had favorited comments so that they could get a feeling for those who had the same opinions.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:55 AM on November 4, 2009
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:55 AM on November 4, 2009
Mitheral - Are you saying that "new" members are inherently less worthy to comment on the functioning of the site? After years on the site, I'm still a second class citizen due to my higher user number. I find the "we got first" attitude a bit silly. There are plenty of attributes that make for good community members, I'd put active, constructive participation far above a low user number.
This is the first thread where I've of heard that we shut down a members ideas based on the "you're too new here at MeFi." I didn't know this dynamic existed in the community. Also, if this is a community based on seniority, then user number should be added to the person's name. Or perhaps a tag that says "I sailed on the Meta-Mayflower."
posted by 26.2 at 7:04 AM on November 4, 2009
This is the first thread where I've of heard that we shut down a members ideas based on the "you're too new here at MeFi." I didn't know this dynamic existed in the community. Also, if this is a community based on seniority, then user number should be added to the person's name. Or perhaps a tag that says "I sailed on the Meta-Mayflower."
posted by 26.2 at 7:04 AM on November 4, 2009
Someone upthread (I don't remember who, sorry) mentioned the idea of privileging participation. This is, in a weird way, what skimming for favorites does. Early favorites are awarded by people who read threads in their entirety, or at least do so when they're short. They're the awarders of early favorites, which skimmers will then read as they skim the thread later, with possible snowballing, etc.
If I favorited mostly for "me too", I'd be one of these people when I catch a thread early. But my "me toos" are lost because I don't favorite that way. So not only does favorite-skimming privilege early participation, it privileges a particular kind of participation, which isn't necessarily commenting.
posted by immlass at 7:05 AM on November 4, 2009
If I favorited mostly for "me too", I'd be one of these people when I catch a thread early. But my "me toos" are lost because I don't favorite that way. So not only does favorite-skimming privilege early participation, it privileges a particular kind of participation, which isn't necessarily commenting.
posted by immlass at 7:05 AM on November 4, 2009
I was wondering when we'd finally get a Thunderdome installed.
posted by The Whelk at 7:06 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 7:06 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Here's why I hate favorites:
I joined the site after favorites were already in existence, and I as I recall they were used much more sparingly then. But at some point, it seemed like everything shifted towards being about favorites instead of them just being an incidental visible add-on. When I read the site with favorites, my eyes shift immediately and unconsciously to the number of favorites practically before I even read the comment and I HATE that. And I realize that it is no one else's problem but mine that I am so influenced but still- I can't control it and I hate that I am biased by the favorites before the words that are supposed to be so popular. UGH.
I am a total curmudgeon/popularity contest hater and apparently I use the site wrong.
I hope the option remains possible to disable visible favorites when December rolls around. If it does, I hope that "has favorites" would be invisible too.
A big thank you to the mods for trying something different. Please don't be discouraged by how difficult this is, we need you, you all rock and deserve lots of hugs.
Love, your humble Mefite.
posted by bobobox at 7:15 AM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
I joined the site after favorites were already in existence, and I as I recall they were used much more sparingly then. But at some point, it seemed like everything shifted towards being about favorites instead of them just being an incidental visible add-on. When I read the site with favorites, my eyes shift immediately and unconsciously to the number of favorites practically before I even read the comment and I HATE that. And I realize that it is no one else's problem but mine that I am so influenced but still- I can't control it and I hate that I am biased by the favorites before the words that are supposed to be so popular. UGH.
I am a total curmudgeon/popularity contest hater and apparently I use the site wrong.
I hope the option remains possible to disable visible favorites when December rolls around. If it does, I hope that "has favorites" would be invisible too.
A big thank you to the mods for trying something different. Please don't be discouraged by how difficult this is, we need you, you all rock and deserve lots of hugs.
Love, your humble Mefite.
posted by bobobox at 7:15 AM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
> The word ostranenie is sometimes paraphrased in English as "make it new."
{{citation needed}}
posted by languagehat at 7:21 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
{{citation needed}}
posted by languagehat at 7:21 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think everyone, including the mods, should stick to that model, and not try to stretch it into something else.
Using words like "more" and "less" and "a lot" are normal parts of speaking vocabulary and are going to be part of how we talk about our impressions of how the site works, has worked and is working. We're not going to go back through MetaTalk tabulating. MetaFilter is inexact at best and putting a microscope onto who said what why had a tendency to bring out the worst in community navel gazing. I'd like to think people could trust us to be attentive to how we feel the community is going and try to adjust for a more optimal site for everyone. What I'm hearing a lot of people say is that they basically don't. It's an awkward feeling.
All of us on Team Mod felt that MeTa over the past maybe year or three had had many discussions about favorites where there were a not-insignificant number of people [even if it's, as you say 35:1 against that's still a possible 100-200 regular users who might have felt this way] who said they thought they were hurting the site. We said we didn't see it and at the same time we thought we should look into that. These threads ended with some vague "yeah we should look into this" promise from us that, for me personally, made me feel uneasy. I've been feeling like we've been making promises we didn't keep. Having another talk about "well I use favorites this way" "Well *I* use them this way." in the community wasn't addressing those things.
I'm aware that words like experiment and data and variable mean very specific things to scientists. I'm a little surprised that people are hammering so hard on our methodology, specific data, and so forth. cortex likes crunching numbers to look at them, that doesn't mean that this is some sort of data-based analysis we're doing where we say "Here is the outcome! The numbers say it's the best one!" Though messing about with the numbers will be interesting to us in just a general "oh look, who would have thought you'd see that sort of thing happening" way and that's all stuff we'll share outward like we always do.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:39 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Using words like "more" and "less" and "a lot" are normal parts of speaking vocabulary and are going to be part of how we talk about our impressions of how the site works, has worked and is working. We're not going to go back through MetaTalk tabulating. MetaFilter is inexact at best and putting a microscope onto who said what why had a tendency to bring out the worst in community navel gazing. I'd like to think people could trust us to be attentive to how we feel the community is going and try to adjust for a more optimal site for everyone. What I'm hearing a lot of people say is that they basically don't. It's an awkward feeling.
All of us on Team Mod felt that MeTa over the past maybe year or three had had many discussions about favorites where there were a not-insignificant number of people [even if it's, as you say 35:1 against that's still a possible 100-200 regular users who might have felt this way] who said they thought they were hurting the site. We said we didn't see it and at the same time we thought we should look into that. These threads ended with some vague "yeah we should look into this" promise from us that, for me personally, made me feel uneasy. I've been feeling like we've been making promises we didn't keep. Having another talk about "well I use favorites this way" "Well *I* use them this way." in the community wasn't addressing those things.
I'm aware that words like experiment and data and variable mean very specific things to scientists. I'm a little surprised that people are hammering so hard on our methodology, specific data, and so forth. cortex likes crunching numbers to look at them, that doesn't mean that this is some sort of data-based analysis we're doing where we say "Here is the outcome! The numbers say it's the best one!" Though messing about with the numbers will be interesting to us in just a general "oh look, who would have thought you'd see that sort of thing happening" way and that's all stuff we'll share outward like we always do.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:39 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
But if the whole deal is not an experiment in the real sense, but rather a discussion-provoking exercise (as Cortex explained awhile ago) then I think everyone, including the mods, should stick to that model, and not try to stretch it into something else.
In defense of the mods, the initial response to the imposed change inherent in the Trial was so reactionary/toxic that, in the interests of pure peacekeeping, I think they did exactly the right thing in allowing us the off/on option. Yes, this no doubt will have an effect on the purity of the metrics but who's to say that this trial is about purity or metrics (certainly none of the mods).
In a weird way, I liken what's going on to a bunch of high school kids experimenting with booze for the first time via a spiked punch. Some are aware of the spiking and have chosen not to imbibe. Others are aware and are digging right in. Many are not immediately aware but probably starting to notice something. Regardless of which, a whole bunch of people are suddenly experiencing their NORMAL community with new eyes ... which cannot be an altogether to bad thing.
posted by philip-random at 7:46 AM on November 4, 2009
In defense of the mods, the initial response to the imposed change inherent in the Trial was so reactionary/toxic that, in the interests of pure peacekeeping, I think they did exactly the right thing in allowing us the off/on option. Yes, this no doubt will have an effect on the purity of the metrics but who's to say that this trial is about purity or metrics (certainly none of the mods).
In a weird way, I liken what's going on to a bunch of high school kids experimenting with booze for the first time via a spiked punch. Some are aware of the spiking and have chosen not to imbibe. Others are aware and are digging right in. Many are not immediately aware but probably starting to notice something. Regardless of which, a whole bunch of people are suddenly experiencing their NORMAL community with new eyes ... which cannot be an altogether to bad thing.
posted by philip-random at 7:46 AM on November 4, 2009
"Most of these poetries are set up to avoid at all costs that which the Russian Formalists called ostranenie & Brecht later characterized as the alienation- or A-effect, the admonition to make it new, make it strange." - Ron Silliman
posted by Kattullus at 7:47 AM on November 4, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 7:47 AM on November 4, 2009 [4 favorites]
I'm a little surprised that people are hammering so hard on our methodology, specific data, and so forth.
Really? I think it's just coming from the common academic viewpoint that there are only two kinds of data, valid and invalid, and that publishing invalid data is misleading at best. Because people inevitably end up arguing using numbers that aren't even necessarily true.
I just don't see how your numbers are going to be any better than putting a poll on the front page of Meta asking whether people approve the change or not.
posted by smackfu at 7:52 AM on November 4, 2009 [6 favorites]
Really? I think it's just coming from the common academic viewpoint that there are only two kinds of data, valid and invalid, and that publishing invalid data is misleading at best. Because people inevitably end up arguing using numbers that aren't even necessarily true.
I just don't see how your numbers are going to be any better than putting a poll on the front page of Meta asking whether people approve the change or not.
posted by smackfu at 7:52 AM on November 4, 2009 [6 favorites]
I'd like to think people could trust us to be attentive to how we feel the community is going and try to adjust for a more optimal site for everyone.
I trust everyone except that vacapinta guy. He seems shifty. Someone should look into him.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:56 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
I trust everyone except that vacapinta guy. He seems shifty. Someone should look into him.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:56 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've read many of these comments over the last few days, but not all of them, so I apologize if I've missed something.
I'm a MeFi oldie, but I haven't been a very hardcore visitor for quite a while. I spend most of my time on the green, not the blue. When I do visit the blue, I tend to do more lurking than talking.
My instinct is to oppose this change, just because I instinctually hate change, but on the other hand, I've learned that change is inevitable, that the addition of favorites was itself a change at one point, and that we human beings adapt to new situations more easily than we think we will. So I'm kind of open to it.
On the other hand, I do like seeing favorite counts, particularly on the green. AskMe is a very practical-oriented site, as opposed to the blue, where discussions can get mental-masturbationy. When you ask a question on the green, or when you read a question that you can relate to, you have a concrete problem that you need an answer to, and crowdsourcing can be very helpful in figuring out what the best advice is. And I just like being able to quantify things. So I've opted out of the experiment.
Finally, if this change is going to become permanent, "has favorites" sounds and looks really awkward. (And yes, I know the mods are up to their ears in all of this right now.) I would prefer "recommended," although that might drive the feature toward a particular use that some members don't like. I tend to use favorites as bookmarks (heck, even IE calls bookmarks "favorites"), and I don't know if I'd do the same if I knew that favorites were only supposed to be used as recommendations. But "has favorites" is very LOLcats, as someone said upthread.
posted by Tin Man at 8:00 AM on November 4, 2009
I'm a MeFi oldie, but I haven't been a very hardcore visitor for quite a while. I spend most of my time on the green, not the blue. When I do visit the blue, I tend to do more lurking than talking.
My instinct is to oppose this change, just because I instinctually hate change, but on the other hand, I've learned that change is inevitable, that the addition of favorites was itself a change at one point, and that we human beings adapt to new situations more easily than we think we will. So I'm kind of open to it.
On the other hand, I do like seeing favorite counts, particularly on the green. AskMe is a very practical-oriented site, as opposed to the blue, where discussions can get mental-masturbationy. When you ask a question on the green, or when you read a question that you can relate to, you have a concrete problem that you need an answer to, and crowdsourcing can be very helpful in figuring out what the best advice is. And I just like being able to quantify things. So I've opted out of the experiment.
Finally, if this change is going to become permanent, "has favorites" sounds and looks really awkward. (And yes, I know the mods are up to their ears in all of this right now.) I would prefer "recommended," although that might drive the feature toward a particular use that some members don't like. I tend to use favorites as bookmarks (heck, even IE calls bookmarks "favorites"), and I don't know if I'd do the same if I knew that favorites were only supposed to be used as recommendations. But "has favorites" is very LOLcats, as someone said upthread.
posted by Tin Man at 8:00 AM on November 4, 2009
I just don't see how your numbers are going to be any better than putting a poll on the front page of Meta asking whether people approve the change or not.
Why not give them a chance and in December let them crunch the numbers and only then launch into whatever attack you feel necessary?
I strongly support this experiment, though 99% of the useful outcome will be talking about if and how people experienced the site in November with number crunching being 1% (and potentially misleading if Cortex falls into every possible trap that commenters have explained he is about to).
Interestingly I think that giving the opt-out has increased the available perspectives. For example (as mentioned by a few people above) it will be interesting to see whether it affects how a user who has the count enabled favourites comments knowing that although they can see the increment, others may not do so.
posted by patricio at 8:15 AM on November 4, 2009
Why not give them a chance and in December let them crunch the numbers and only then launch into whatever attack you feel necessary?
I strongly support this experiment, though 99% of the useful outcome will be talking about if and how people experienced the site in November with number crunching being 1% (and potentially misleading if Cortex falls into every possible trap that commenters have explained he is about to).
Interestingly I think that giving the opt-out has increased the available perspectives. For example (as mentioned by a few people above) it will be interesting to see whether it affects how a user who has the count enabled favourites comments knowing that although they can see the increment, others may not do so.
posted by patricio at 8:15 AM on November 4, 2009
> For those who find these kind of meaningless factoids as interesting as myself, 37183 is the first post-favorites user.
So at 90K users give or take we've already broke over the 50% of users never having used the site san favourites and are right on the balance point between being closer to a 1/3 than a 1/2. I didn't realize it was such a large percentage.
On the trivia front, this needs to account for a couple combatting issues:
1. userid count is inflated after about 17K, because signups prior to that point were sure things whereas only a fraction (somewhere in the range of 1/2 to 1/3) of userids after that point are actual completed signups. So the density of true signups between 1 and 37183 is considerably higher than that between 37183 and 99,000.
Doing napkin math with the more generous 1/2-of-all-$5-userids-are-real-signups figure, that puts the number of users in the pre-favorites group at about 27,000, post-favorites group at about 31,000. Give or take, this could be done more carefully with info available from the infodump. In any case, it keeps the numbers at post-favorites-as-majority, but the ratio much closer to 1:1 than it is to 2:3.
2. The chance of reduction and cessation in activity for any given account can reasonably be presumed to increase over time. To put it another way, the longer ago you signed up, the better chance that you've left by now. Which would shift the weight of the active-today userbase back toward the post-favorites side of the scale.
Again, that could be done more thoroughly with available information by studying activity patterns by usernumber (and in fact I think someone did that at one point). There are a whole lot of additional factors that could play into the durability of an account based on things directly and indirectly tied to when a user signed up (e.g. sense of pride/loyalty/stability that comes with having been here for a long time, which might galvanize any user who has been around for at least a certain amount of time and seriously reduce the attrition rate after that point, etc).
Trivia, but interesting trivia to me.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:27 AM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
So at 90K users give or take we've already broke over the 50% of users never having used the site san favourites and are right on the balance point between being closer to a 1/3 than a 1/2. I didn't realize it was such a large percentage.
On the trivia front, this needs to account for a couple combatting issues:
1. userid count is inflated after about 17K, because signups prior to that point were sure things whereas only a fraction (somewhere in the range of 1/2 to 1/3) of userids after that point are actual completed signups. So the density of true signups between 1 and 37183 is considerably higher than that between 37183 and 99,000.
Doing napkin math with the more generous 1/2-of-all-$5-userids-are-real-signups figure, that puts the number of users in the pre-favorites group at about 27,000, post-favorites group at about 31,000. Give or take, this could be done more carefully with info available from the infodump. In any case, it keeps the numbers at post-favorites-as-majority, but the ratio much closer to 1:1 than it is to 2:3.
2. The chance of reduction and cessation in activity for any given account can reasonably be presumed to increase over time. To put it another way, the longer ago you signed up, the better chance that you've left by now. Which would shift the weight of the active-today userbase back toward the post-favorites side of the scale.
Again, that could be done more thoroughly with available information by studying activity patterns by usernumber (and in fact I think someone did that at one point). There are a whole lot of additional factors that could play into the durability of an account based on things directly and indirectly tied to when a user signed up (e.g. sense of pride/loyalty/stability that comes with having been here for a long time, which might galvanize any user who has been around for at least a certain amount of time and seriously reduce the attrition rate after that point, etc).
Trivia, but interesting trivia to me.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:27 AM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
I read MeTa a lot, it's my "favorite" (sorry, bad choice of word) and the favorite / no-favorite discussion does come up quite a bit. It may just be a few comments one way or another but I totally concur with Jess that the subject is mentioned often. Not that my agreement means a hill of over-thunk beans. I'm not going to take the time to look up any data, not going to track down specific comments, I just wanted to jump in and back her up. Take it as you will. Now, I'm going to take my son outside to play. I would like to invite the mods to come join us on the playground for a while. They need a break and I need help chasing him around.
posted by pearlybob at 8:28 AM on November 4, 2009
posted by pearlybob at 8:28 AM on November 4, 2009
I've noticed favorite rates in threads I frequent seem to be less than before, and I wonder, is it because there's not much here of interest or note, or are people not giving favorites because they can't see them?
I'm in on the "experiment" so I don't have the ability to view threads in this way, but I'm certainly not favoriting less. If anything, slightly more. I no longer say "That's funny, but not 10 favorites funny" (or insightful, or eloquent). If I approve of it, I hit that +, with no consideration as to whether or not anyone else did. I like operating without a laugh (insight/eloquence) track.
If people really are favoriting less because of this, that would mean that some proportion of their favorites are "to be seen" -- part of whatever club the comment signifies membership in. This is part of the side-taking I think is one of the worst aspects of MeFi.
Of course, "favoriting less" isn't a problem except for the ego-stroke aspect, so again, I'm not sure there's much to be concerned about here.
I tell you where I do question my actions, and basically throw up my hands and sometimes follow through, sometimes not, is flagging comments as fantastic. There is a very particular kind of comment that gets sidebarred. The vast majority of comments I want to flag as excellent will never be suitable for the sidebar, and that seems to be the flag's only purpose, so hitting that exclamation mark feels like wanking. Would that change if we could see how many people flagged something as "fantastic"? Probably. Would that be an improvement? I don't think so.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:32 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm in on the "experiment" so I don't have the ability to view threads in this way, but I'm certainly not favoriting less. If anything, slightly more. I no longer say "That's funny, but not 10 favorites funny" (or insightful, or eloquent). If I approve of it, I hit that +, with no consideration as to whether or not anyone else did. I like operating without a laugh (insight/eloquence) track.
If people really are favoriting less because of this, that would mean that some proportion of their favorites are "to be seen" -- part of whatever club the comment signifies membership in. This is part of the side-taking I think is one of the worst aspects of MeFi.
Of course, "favoriting less" isn't a problem except for the ego-stroke aspect, so again, I'm not sure there's much to be concerned about here.
I tell you where I do question my actions, and basically throw up my hands and sometimes follow through, sometimes not, is flagging comments as fantastic. There is a very particular kind of comment that gets sidebarred. The vast majority of comments I want to flag as excellent will never be suitable for the sidebar, and that seems to be the flag's only purpose, so hitting that exclamation mark feels like wanking. Would that change if we could see how many people flagged something as "fantastic"? Probably. Would that be an improvement? I don't think so.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:32 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
I would add: I completely agree with others that have said that this isn't a good thing site-wide. AskMe really, really benefits from favorites, and the heavy modding reduces or eliminates most of the negative effects of favorites some of us see elsewhere.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:35 AM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:35 AM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
Okay, here's another idea for December - have it be the polar opposite experiment: maxed-out favoriting functionality. Individual comments are taggable and each tag has its own counter, perhaps with Google-Analytics-like reporting and graphing capabilities and user-customizable tailored stats for browsing and selecting comments to read. I'm sure that pb could whip that up in no time flat.
posted by XMLicious at 8:39 AM on November 4, 2009
posted by XMLicious at 8:39 AM on November 4, 2009
26.2: Mitheral - Are you saying that "new" members are inherently less worthy to comment on the functioning of the site? After years on the site, I'm still a second class citizen due to my higher user number. I find the "we got first" attitude a bit silly. There are plenty of attributes that make for good community members, I'd put active, constructive participation far above a low user number.
That's a rather harsh interpretation of what Mitheral said. He's saying that people who've been reading and participating in this site for a long time have a different perspective on how the site works from those who have been here for only a short while.
I don't necessarily agree with that, though I don't really know how to argue against it, but interpreting that as treating newer users as second-class citizens is rather harsh.
posted by Kattullus at 8:41 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
That's a rather harsh interpretation of what Mitheral said. He's saying that people who've been reading and participating in this site for a long time have a different perspective on how the site works from those who have been here for only a short while.
I don't necessarily agree with that, though I don't really know how to argue against it, but interpreting that as treating newer users as second-class citizens is rather harsh.
posted by Kattullus at 8:41 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
I just don't see how your numbers are going to be any better than putting a poll on the front page of Meta asking whether people approve the change or not.
I would agree if our objective here was specifically and only to ask a yes/no question about whether people approve of the change or not. That's not what we're doing, though. I think the most valuable thing that will come out of this is the experiential angle, both in terms of the chance it gives those folks inclined to participate to disrupt and examine their own habits re: favorites use and in terms of the collective community reporting and discussion that will come out of it as we all discuss it during and after.
The numbers we get will be all kinds of fuzzy, I have no doubt. We don't intend to make any declarations about their soundness, or to make any decisions predicated on that soundness; it's not why I'm interested in trying to quantify stuff at all. What we will do (and what I expect others to do via the Infodump and anything additional we end up making available) is play around with it and look for interesting things as fodder for the discussion.
Certainly I'm far more interested in doing a bit of crunching and then sharing that ("I took this data and did this with it and got this output, here's some things I think are interesting about it and some caveat I think are important re: the data and methodology, what y'all think?") than I am in saying "hey, we're doing x because the numbers back me up, trust me on this".
Again, apologies to anyone who thinks that working with fuzzy or messy data is not worth doing; this isn't an attempt to elevate flawed or messy quantitative work to some sort of standard of scientific purity, so there's no real answer to objections on that front other than "that's not what we're doing". I promise not to feed this information to credulous journalists from the BBC Science bureau.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:42 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
I would agree if our objective here was specifically and only to ask a yes/no question about whether people approve of the change or not. That's not what we're doing, though. I think the most valuable thing that will come out of this is the experiential angle, both in terms of the chance it gives those folks inclined to participate to disrupt and examine their own habits re: favorites use and in terms of the collective community reporting and discussion that will come out of it as we all discuss it during and after.
The numbers we get will be all kinds of fuzzy, I have no doubt. We don't intend to make any declarations about their soundness, or to make any decisions predicated on that soundness; it's not why I'm interested in trying to quantify stuff at all. What we will do (and what I expect others to do via the Infodump and anything additional we end up making available) is play around with it and look for interesting things as fodder for the discussion.
Certainly I'm far more interested in doing a bit of crunching and then sharing that ("I took this data and did this with it and got this output, here's some things I think are interesting about it and some caveat I think are important re: the data and methodology, what y'all think?") than I am in saying "hey, we're doing x because the numbers back me up, trust me on this".
Again, apologies to anyone who thinks that working with fuzzy or messy data is not worth doing; this isn't an attempt to elevate flawed or messy quantitative work to some sort of standard of scientific purity, so there's no real answer to objections on that front other than "that's not what we're doing". I promise not to feed this information to credulous journalists from the BBC Science bureau.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:42 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
datapoint - the Rand thread has caused me to revert to the old system. I've found I like the qualitative nature of the count. It gives me a feel for the mood/mindset of the hive, or parts of it, especially regarding subjects I'm not familiar with.
I tend to be sparing with my favorites, because there's no way to organize them.
posted by lysdexic at 8:48 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
I tend to be sparing with my favorites, because there's no way to organize them.
posted by lysdexic at 8:48 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
and what I expect others to do via the Infodump and anything additional we end up making available
And I hope it's clear, but just to be explicit, I mean this in the "what I bet some of my nerds up in the house are gonna do" way and not in an "I expect this on my desk by Friday" way. Knowing mefites, I'd put money I couldn't afford to lose on at least a couple people other than me taking a crack at some of this in the next couple months.
Though it'd be lovely to be able to actually point at minions and say "calculate!" on a whim. I really need to work on a formal Minion program, maybe get some federal funding.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:50 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
And I hope it's clear, but just to be explicit, I mean this in the "what I bet some of my nerds up in the house are gonna do" way and not in an "I expect this on my desk by Friday" way. Knowing mefites, I'd put money I couldn't afford to lose on at least a couple people other than me taking a crack at some of this in the next couple months.
Though it'd be lovely to be able to actually point at minions and say "calculate!" on a whim. I really need to work on a formal Minion program, maybe get some federal funding.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:50 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
jessamyn: I'd like to think people could trust us to be attentive to how we feel the community is going and try to adjust for a more optimal site for everyone. What I'm hearing a lot of people say is that they basically don't. It's an awkward feeling.
It's been shocking to me to see quite a few MeFites put forth the assumption that mathowie, jessamyn, pb, cortex and vacapinta are just fucking with us or making the change to create work for themselves. This discussion is worth having, whatever the outcome will be, but it's awful hard to keep a conversation going if the motives of some participants are always questioned. The mods have given us no grounds for thinking that they're doing anything besides what they say they're doing and have, in fact, given us plenty of reason to believe them to take them at their words.
The favorites system has been debated since its inception and this is a part of that. I'll admit that I was fairly tired of that debate and was fairly set against the idea that favorites had any kind of bad effect on the community. My views have changed and become more nuanced. When this discussion starts up again in a week or two I will have much more to add to the discussion than I had when this particular test started.
posted by Kattullus at 8:58 AM on November 4, 2009
It's been shocking to me to see quite a few MeFites put forth the assumption that mathowie, jessamyn, pb, cortex and vacapinta are just fucking with us or making the change to create work for themselves. This discussion is worth having, whatever the outcome will be, but it's awful hard to keep a conversation going if the motives of some participants are always questioned. The mods have given us no grounds for thinking that they're doing anything besides what they say they're doing and have, in fact, given us plenty of reason to believe them to take them at their words.
The favorites system has been debated since its inception and this is a part of that. I'll admit that I was fairly tired of that debate and was fairly set against the idea that favorites had any kind of bad effect on the community. My views have changed and become more nuanced. When this discussion starts up again in a week or two I will have much more to add to the discussion than I had when this particular test started.
posted by Kattullus at 8:58 AM on November 4, 2009
re: Mayonnaise -
I really like it on french fries. Damn, good mayo on fries
Oh, yes, that's excellent. But until I moved to this part of the country, I had never experienced fry sauce. Now THAT is some excellent goo to dip one's fries into. I don't know exactly what is in the fry sauce at my local burger joint, but nomnomnomnom.
posted by hippybear at 9:02 AM on November 4, 2009
I really like it on french fries. Damn, good mayo on fries
Oh, yes, that's excellent. But until I moved to this part of the country, I had never experienced fry sauce. Now THAT is some excellent goo to dip one's fries into. I don't know exactly what is in the fry sauce at my local burger joint, but nomnomnomnom.
posted by hippybear at 9:02 AM on November 4, 2009
> "Most of these poetries are set up to avoid at all costs that which the Russian Formalists called ostranenie & Brecht later characterized as the alienation- or A-effect, the admonition to make it new, make it strange."
Thanks!
> I think it's just coming from the common academic viewpoint that there are only two kinds of data, valid and invalid
Yes, and that viewpoint is inhuman and repellent to anyone who doesn't share it.
posted by languagehat at 9:02 AM on November 4, 2009
Thanks!
> I think it's just coming from the common academic viewpoint that there are only two kinds of data, valid and invalid
Yes, and that viewpoint is inhuman and repellent to anyone who doesn't share it.
posted by languagehat at 9:02 AM on November 4, 2009
All the member number measuring, I had to look.
Pb = 191
Wendell = 206
Jessamyn = 292
me = 660
...
Cortex = 7418
so, my opinion is worth 11.239 cortex's, but only .4424 jessamyn's.
Surprising to me that only 1 (non mod) sub 1000er is in my mental "most active poster list".
posted by nomisxid at 9:11 AM on November 4, 2009
Pb = 191
Wendell = 206
Jessamyn = 292
me = 660
...
Cortex = 7418
so, my opinion is worth 11.239 cortex's, but only .4424 jessamyn's.
Surprising to me that only 1 (non mod) sub 1000er is in my mental "most active poster list".
posted by nomisxid at 9:11 AM on November 4, 2009
I am a total curmudgeon/popularity contest hater and apparently I use the site wrong.
Use or use not. There is no wrong.
posted by dersins at 9:12 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Use or use not. There is no wrong.
posted by dersins at 9:12 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Isn't that fry sauce just Thousand Island dressing minus the relish?
posted by Big_B at 9:29 AM on November 4, 2009
posted by Big_B at 9:29 AM on November 4, 2009
26.2 writes "- Are you saying that 'new' members are inherently less worthy to comment on the functioning of the site? After years on the site, I'm still a second class citizen due to my higher user number. I find the 'we got first' attitude a bit silly. There are plenty of attributes that make for good community members, I'd put active, constructive participation far above a low user number. "
I don't think that experience counts when it comes to weighting of opinion is a radical idea. Nor is it bad to do so. Basically there are two kinds of experience: breadth and depth. Breadth in Metafilter's case is easy to quantify with measures like number of comments, number of posts, where those posts and comments are, number of favourites (because like it or not as this thread so amply demonstrates a large portion of the user base uses favourites to vote and show agreement) IE: your active, constructive participation.
Depth on the other hand is tough. We don't track click throughs or number of comments read. The only thing we have to judge silent participation is length of tenure. When someone like julen pops in and offers an opinion after nearly a decade of slow steady participation I think we should listen. And yes I think we should value their opinion on the fundamental operation of Metafilter over someone with 300 comments in the past month. That doesn't make 300 comments in a month guy a second class citizen.
Of course these two attributes are mutually exclusive. Users like Wendell and jonmc are both and their are of course thousands who are neither even if we just count the incomplete signups.
I'll make a strained analogy: Your town has three mechanics. The old guy has been doing a brake job a week for the last thirty five years. The girl across the street has only been in business 5 years but has been doing a brake job every day the entire time. The new guy on the edge of town has a ASE diploma so new you think it's still drying but spent two years apprenticing at the biggest porche dealership in the nation during which time we helped or assisted in a vague dozen or two brake jobs on porches.
It comes time to get the brakes done on you car. Who do you take it too? For me that would depend. Any of technicians could probably do a great job on any late model car though I'd lean toward the people with experience. If I happened to be driving a 66 Chrysler Windsor featuring drum brakes all the way around and left and right handed lug nuts (yes, really) I'd probably take it to the old guy. If I've got a 968 the new guy wins. None of those choices makes any of them second class citizens but merely reflects their experience level.
Thanks to cortex for enumerating the fuzzyness of any talk of percentage of users. Two other factors that I thought of while writing the percentage comment and that I'll add now is there also the unmeasureable effect of users who lurked before signing up (a real feat back in the day whose difficulty actually spawned it's own website). Also while the guy who signed up the day before favourites were implemented may have technically experienced Metafilter without favourites that experience is shallow at best so that's a factor too.
Durn Bronzefist writes "If people really are favoriting less because of this, that would mean that some proportion of their favorites are 'to be seen' -- part of whatever club the comment signifies membership in. This is part of the side-taking I think is one of the worst aspects of MeFi."
It's a little disturbing. I don't remember avoiding a favourite in this way myself though I've thought on a few occasions "Why the hell does this comment have 5 favourites and this one saying essentially the same thing 10 comments down have 150". Partially explained by the contacts ring that was revealed to me in this thread. I don't know if has favourites is going to equalize that but I won't be able to notice anymore which is probably a good thing.
posted by Mitheral at 9:32 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't think that experience counts when it comes to weighting of opinion is a radical idea. Nor is it bad to do so. Basically there are two kinds of experience: breadth and depth. Breadth in Metafilter's case is easy to quantify with measures like number of comments, number of posts, where those posts and comments are, number of favourites (because like it or not as this thread so amply demonstrates a large portion of the user base uses favourites to vote and show agreement) IE: your active, constructive participation.
Depth on the other hand is tough. We don't track click throughs or number of comments read. The only thing we have to judge silent participation is length of tenure. When someone like julen pops in and offers an opinion after nearly a decade of slow steady participation I think we should listen. And yes I think we should value their opinion on the fundamental operation of Metafilter over someone with 300 comments in the past month. That doesn't make 300 comments in a month guy a second class citizen.
Of course these two attributes are mutually exclusive. Users like Wendell and jonmc are both and their are of course thousands who are neither even if we just count the incomplete signups.
I'll make a strained analogy: Your town has three mechanics. The old guy has been doing a brake job a week for the last thirty five years. The girl across the street has only been in business 5 years but has been doing a brake job every day the entire time. The new guy on the edge of town has a ASE diploma so new you think it's still drying but spent two years apprenticing at the biggest porche dealership in the nation during which time we helped or assisted in a vague dozen or two brake jobs on porches.
It comes time to get the brakes done on you car. Who do you take it too? For me that would depend. Any of technicians could probably do a great job on any late model car though I'd lean toward the people with experience. If I happened to be driving a 66 Chrysler Windsor featuring drum brakes all the way around and left and right handed lug nuts (yes, really) I'd probably take it to the old guy. If I've got a 968 the new guy wins. None of those choices makes any of them second class citizens but merely reflects their experience level.
Thanks to cortex for enumerating the fuzzyness of any talk of percentage of users. Two other factors that I thought of while writing the percentage comment and that I'll add now is there also the unmeasureable effect of users who lurked before signing up (a real feat back in the day whose difficulty actually spawned it's own website). Also while the guy who signed up the day before favourites were implemented may have technically experienced Metafilter without favourites that experience is shallow at best so that's a factor too.
Durn Bronzefist writes "If people really are favoriting less because of this, that would mean that some proportion of their favorites are 'to be seen' -- part of whatever club the comment signifies membership in. This is part of the side-taking I think is one of the worst aspects of MeFi."
It's a little disturbing. I don't remember avoiding a favourite in this way myself though I've thought on a few occasions "Why the hell does this comment have 5 favourites and this one saying essentially the same thing 10 comments down have 150". Partially explained by the contacts ring that was revealed to me in this thread. I don't know if has favourites is going to equalize that but I won't be able to notice anymore which is probably a good thing.
posted by Mitheral at 9:32 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
making the change to create work for themselves.
If that's directed at my statement, I want to clarifty: I'm not making a judgment, I'm speaking from an organizational-theory perspective. The experiment wouldn't even be able to happen if the entire available time bandwidth of staffing were maxed out by more dire needs. Increased capacity creates increased time available for project work. I'd classify this as a 'project.' I'm disappointed it is low on structure, and because of that, I think the possible useful learnings are really limited.
At some level I admire the spirit of experimentation, which is healthy in an organization, but experimentation can also stress the community, and that's what we're seeing here. The narrative surrounding the experimentation is always vital in order to help people accept the experiment.
I really think this is more interesting as a study of organizational change than as a study in how favorites impact the community.
On the user-number question: very interesting; I had missed the fact that so many new users had registered, and thought it was still around 60K - my failure of observation. Anyway, I've always strongly felt that we don't have a perfect idea of what a 'user' is. If we define it as someone who has completed the registration process, that's a start, but within that pool we also have people who read but never comment, occasionally read, or went away altogether. So without having a picture of usage habits, it's hard to generalize about the majority of what we're calling "users." I liked cortex's breakdown and the point that it's possible the largest current pool of frequent users are quite used to favorites, having signed up after they were instituted.
posted by Miko at 9:46 AM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
If that's directed at my statement, I want to clarifty: I'm not making a judgment, I'm speaking from an organizational-theory perspective. The experiment wouldn't even be able to happen if the entire available time bandwidth of staffing were maxed out by more dire needs. Increased capacity creates increased time available for project work. I'd classify this as a 'project.' I'm disappointed it is low on structure, and because of that, I think the possible useful learnings are really limited.
At some level I admire the spirit of experimentation, which is healthy in an organization, but experimentation can also stress the community, and that's what we're seeing here. The narrative surrounding the experimentation is always vital in order to help people accept the experiment.
I really think this is more interesting as a study of organizational change than as a study in how favorites impact the community.
On the user-number question: very interesting; I had missed the fact that so many new users had registered, and thought it was still around 60K - my failure of observation. Anyway, I've always strongly felt that we don't have a perfect idea of what a 'user' is. If we define it as someone who has completed the registration process, that's a start, but within that pool we also have people who read but never comment, occasionally read, or went away altogether. So without having a picture of usage habits, it's hard to generalize about the majority of what we're calling "users." I liked cortex's breakdown and the point that it's possible the largest current pool of frequent users are quite used to favorites, having signed up after they were instituted.
posted by Miko at 9:46 AM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
cortex: Knowing mefites, I'd put money I couldn't afford to lose on at least a couple people other than me taking a crack at some of this in the next couple months.
You are correct, sir.
I'm already compiling a list of statistics and charts that I think might be interesting to look at. And if I'm doing that, I'm pretty sure some of the other usual suspects from the Infodump analysis threads are too.
posted by FishBike at 9:49 AM on November 4, 2009
You are correct, sir.
I'm already compiling a list of statistics and charts that I think might be interesting to look at. And if I'm doing that, I'm pretty sure some of the other usual suspects from the Infodump analysis threads are too.
posted by FishBike at 9:49 AM on November 4, 2009
Durn Bronzefist writes "If people really are favoriting less because of this, that would mean that some proportion of their favorites are 'to be seen' -- part of whatever club the comment signifies membership in. This is part of the side-taking I think is one of the worst aspects of MeFi."
It's a little disturbing.
I don't find it disturbing at all. I'm proud to publicly state my support or agreement with another poster--and, after all, there's nothing stopping people on another side of a discussion from favoriting people in opposition, or from making their own comment in opposition, either. I really fail to see how wanting to communicate your feelings or your opinions to other members of the community is disturbing behavior.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:50 AM on November 4, 2009 [9 favorites]
It's a little disturbing.
I don't find it disturbing at all. I'm proud to publicly state my support or agreement with another poster--and, after all, there's nothing stopping people on another side of a discussion from favoriting people in opposition, or from making their own comment in opposition, either. I really fail to see how wanting to communicate your feelings or your opinions to other members of the community is disturbing behavior.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:50 AM on November 4, 2009 [9 favorites]
I do think it's kind of hilarious how folks are getting all het up about the user numbers (is that just my nostalgia acting up? "Oh, I remember these quaint arguments of yore…").
I mean, think about MeFi as a hobby. It's not far-fetched to think that someone who has been collecting stamps for years has some helpful insights that someone who has just started doesn't. (In fact, a new member might simply purchase every stamp that an older member does, as imitation is the sincerest form of philately.)
This is especially true in a forum that, much to Jessamyn's chagrin, is argumentative. The same arguments recur seemingly eternally here (including whether lower user numbers should be privileged), and by experiencing them a couple times, y'know, you do get better at anticipating contrary arguments and at understanding what has and hasn't worked. To read that as calling newer members second-class citizens seems silly, like a teenager declaring that parents don't understand that this high school romance will be forever.
posted by klangklangston at 10:00 AM on November 4, 2009 [4 favorites]
I mean, think about MeFi as a hobby. It's not far-fetched to think that someone who has been collecting stamps for years has some helpful insights that someone who has just started doesn't. (In fact, a new member might simply purchase every stamp that an older member does, as imitation is the sincerest form of philately.)
This is especially true in a forum that, much to Jessamyn's chagrin, is argumentative. The same arguments recur seemingly eternally here (including whether lower user numbers should be privileged), and by experiencing them a couple times, y'know, you do get better at anticipating contrary arguments and at understanding what has and hasn't worked. To read that as calling newer members second-class citizens seems silly, like a teenager declaring that parents don't understand that this high school romance will be forever.
posted by klangklangston at 10:00 AM on November 4, 2009 [4 favorites]
To read that as calling newer members second-class citizens seems silly, like a teenager declaring that parents don't understand that this high school romance will be forever.
Well, maybe, but we're not just asking the old stamp collectors for advice on stamp collecting, so to speak. Giving more weight to the opinion of older members on this issue would be, to me, more like giving more weight to the opinion of someone born in the 1940s as to whether electronic correspondence should be allowed. They might have a unique perspective on both the world with email and without it, but some of the strongest arguments on both side are routed in habit. Once a large population becomes accustomed to certain technology it can be hard, if not impossible, to remove that technology from the landscape without upsetting people, because it disrupts established habits. This would be true even if all the old timers were in agreement on this, and could all somehow objectively prove that life was better without it, which I'm not sure, in the case of visible favorites, we can.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:12 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Well, maybe, but we're not just asking the old stamp collectors for advice on stamp collecting, so to speak. Giving more weight to the opinion of older members on this issue would be, to me, more like giving more weight to the opinion of someone born in the 1940s as to whether electronic correspondence should be allowed. They might have a unique perspective on both the world with email and without it, but some of the strongest arguments on both side are routed in habit. Once a large population becomes accustomed to certain technology it can be hard, if not impossible, to remove that technology from the landscape without upsetting people, because it disrupts established habits. This would be true even if all the old timers were in agreement on this, and could all somehow objectively prove that life was better without it, which I'm not sure, in the case of visible favorites, we can.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:12 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
User number doesn't equal experience with the community. I started reading Metafilter in 2003, but didn't get an account until 2006. I'm sure a lot of others were read-only users for sometime before joining as well.
posted by spaltavian at 10:20 AM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by spaltavian at 10:20 AM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'm already compiling a list of statistics and charts that I think might be interesting to look at. And if I'm doing that, I'm pretty sure some of the other usual suspects from the Infodump analysis threads are too.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
If you are thinking "let's start up a page on the wiki so that we can avoid duplication of effort and publicly share and discuss and refine some of these ideas in a more focused venue than a 2000+ comment metatalk", then the answers is yes.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:22 AM on November 4, 2009 [5 favorites]
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
If you are thinking "let's start up a page on the wiki so that we can avoid duplication of effort and publicly share and discuss and refine some of these ideas in a more focused venue than a 2000+ comment metatalk", then the answers is yes.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:22 AM on November 4, 2009 [5 favorites]
I really fail to see how wanting to communicate your feelings or your opinions to other members of the community is disturbing behavior.
Well, I didn't use the term disturbing, but nobody is preventing you from expressing your feelings and opinions. And the thing about expressing them is that it forces you to articulate them, which opens your particular point up to debate. What I find favorites tend to do is select for the loudest, brashest expression on any emotional issue and act as a voting card on the issue if not the particular argument. Oh, anti-censorship rant HELLS YEAH. Pro-pornography WHERE DO I SIGN UP. Granted, this may only be for the most contentious, emotional threads, but I find it tends to kill nuanced discussion and, as stated many times in this thread, promote grandstanding.
And since my comment was about a reported *reduction* in favorites, I fail to see how a willingness to show support for a proposition, that is not intended as self-conscious badge-wearing, is in play. You can still favorite. You can still communicate your feelings and opinions. What's the problem?
When someone like julen pops in and offers an opinion after nearly a decade of slow steady participation I think we should listen.
Ok. His opinion is that we shouldn't give any additional weight due to seniority. Ah... do I listen to him or not? (CHEESEBURGER)
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:25 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Well, I didn't use the term disturbing, but nobody is preventing you from expressing your feelings and opinions. And the thing about expressing them is that it forces you to articulate them, which opens your particular point up to debate. What I find favorites tend to do is select for the loudest, brashest expression on any emotional issue and act as a voting card on the issue if not the particular argument. Oh, anti-censorship rant HELLS YEAH. Pro-pornography WHERE DO I SIGN UP. Granted, this may only be for the most contentious, emotional threads, but I find it tends to kill nuanced discussion and, as stated many times in this thread, promote grandstanding.
And since my comment was about a reported *reduction* in favorites, I fail to see how a willingness to show support for a proposition, that is not intended as self-conscious badge-wearing, is in play. You can still favorite. You can still communicate your feelings and opinions. What's the problem?
When someone like julen pops in and offers an opinion after nearly a decade of slow steady participation I think we should listen.
Ok. His opinion is that we shouldn't give any additional weight due to seniority. Ah... do I listen to him or not? (CHEESEBURGER)
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:25 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
cortex:Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
If you are thinking "let's start up a page on the wiki so that we can avoid duplication of effort and publicly share and discuss and refine some of these ideas in a more focused venue than a 2000+ comment metatalk", then the answers is yes.
I was thinking that since the last datawankery exercise managed to exceed 500 comments all by itself, that this thread would not be a good place to do that, yes. A separate thread, to be opened once the experiment is over, is actually what I was thinking. But a page on the wiki would probably be better, yeah. But not until the experiment is over, I would suggest.
Also I am at work, so in addition to the thoughts outlined above, I am thinking "give me back my fucking soul, you bastards!" So I hope I'm not thinking what you're thinking.
posted by FishBike at 10:30 AM on November 4, 2009
If you are thinking "let's start up a page on the wiki so that we can avoid duplication of effort and publicly share and discuss and refine some of these ideas in a more focused venue than a 2000+ comment metatalk", then the answers is yes.
I was thinking that since the last datawankery exercise managed to exceed 500 comments all by itself, that this thread would not be a good place to do that, yes. A separate thread, to be opened once the experiment is over, is actually what I was thinking. But a page on the wiki would probably be better, yeah. But not until the experiment is over, I would suggest.
Also I am at work, so in addition to the thoughts outlined above, I am thinking "give me back my fucking soul, you bastards!" So I hope I'm not thinking what you're thinking.
posted by FishBike at 10:30 AM on November 4, 2009
Well, I didn't use the term disturbing
No, you didn't; Mitheral did.
And since my comment was about a reported *reduction* in favorites, I fail to see how a willingness to show support for a proposition, that is not intended as self-conscious badge-wearing, is in play. You can still favorite. You can still communicate your feelings and opinions. What's the problem?
I am doing those things, and, in fact, I'm using favorites exactly as I did before--but I can understand how, given the now reduced visibility in favorites, people would be less inclined to share their opinions, and I don't think we can assign sinister motives to everyone who sees the public presence of favorites as one of the reasons for using them. Then again, I don't think that they reduce nuanced discussion at all. Even with visible favorites in place, you can still communicate your feelings and opinions. What's the problem?
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:34 AM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
No, you didn't; Mitheral did.
And since my comment was about a reported *reduction* in favorites, I fail to see how a willingness to show support for a proposition, that is not intended as self-conscious badge-wearing, is in play. You can still favorite. You can still communicate your feelings and opinions. What's the problem?
I am doing those things, and, in fact, I'm using favorites exactly as I did before--but I can understand how, given the now reduced visibility in favorites, people would be less inclined to share their opinions, and I don't think we can assign sinister motives to everyone who sees the public presence of favorites as one of the reasons for using them. Then again, I don't think that they reduce nuanced discussion at all. Even with visible favorites in place, you can still communicate your feelings and opinions. What's the problem?
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:34 AM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
My parents moved to a relatively isolated island community roughly a decade ago. I remember shortly after their arrival having a talk with a local "character" where he revealed a certain "Islanders" secret:
NOBODY TAKES YOUR OPINION SERIOUSLY AROUND HERE UNTIL YOU'VE ENDURED AT LEAST THREE WINTERS.
Years later (at least five), over drinks with the same guy, talking about something or other reasonably relevant, I brought this notion up again. He just gave me a blank stare and said:
"What a pile of shit! I don't care if you were born yesterday, if you're a f***ing genius, I'm all ears."
Paradox, man.
posted by philip-random at 10:36 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
NOBODY TAKES YOUR OPINION SERIOUSLY AROUND HERE UNTIL YOU'VE ENDURED AT LEAST THREE WINTERS.
Years later (at least five), over drinks with the same guy, talking about something or other reasonably relevant, I brought this notion up again. He just gave me a blank stare and said:
"What a pile of shit! I don't care if you were born yesterday, if you're a f***ing genius, I'm all ears."
Paradox, man.
posted by philip-random at 10:36 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Then again, I don't think that they reduce nuanced discussion at all. Even with visible favorites in place, you can still communicate your feelings and opinions. What's the problem?
Sorry, Durn Bronzefist, that was overly snide of me. I understand the criticisms of the favoriting policy. I just don't think that everyone who finds public sharing of favorites to be a motivation for favoriting is trying to encourage bad behavior, or submitting to a herd mentality. But anyway, sorry again.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:46 AM on November 4, 2009
Sorry, Durn Bronzefist, that was overly snide of me. I understand the criticisms of the favoriting policy. I just don't think that everyone who finds public sharing of favorites to be a motivation for favoriting is trying to encourage bad behavior, or submitting to a herd mentality. But anyway, sorry again.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:46 AM on November 4, 2009
Hehe. That's fine, PhoBWanKenobi. I was preparing some counter-snark, but fortunately, the thread length prevents quick load in transitioning from the recent comments page. Functionality of 2000-comment threads FTW!
No sinister motives implied. I'm operating on a few assumptions about a subset of the userbase I'm not used to considering (because prior to this thread, I didn't know they existed): favorite-skim-thread readers, and contact-chain readers. It would seem to me that someone who argues (as some have done) that they do not have time to read threads but jump in to read, and perhaps add their vote if not voice to, already favorited comments, then yes, this would be encouraging votes in lieu of voices. In the now oft-referenced misunderstanding upthread, pro-fave commenters were arguing, in fact, that people would favorite a comment for eloquence or the rightness of one part of the comment, despite these people (it was argued) correctly identifying the other part of the post as mistaken and perhaps aggressively so. How does that argue for nuance over votes? If you agreed with only part of a post, and had the time and inclination to do so, I would think you would take a moment to separate what you agree with from what you do not. That's what I mean by encouraging taking a side rather than expressing a view. (my own argument was that some proportion of these people were misled rather than that they correctly identified the error in interpretation, but the alternate view supports this argument)
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:59 AM on November 4, 2009
No sinister motives implied. I'm operating on a few assumptions about a subset of the userbase I'm not used to considering (because prior to this thread, I didn't know they existed): favorite-skim-thread readers, and contact-chain readers. It would seem to me that someone who argues (as some have done) that they do not have time to read threads but jump in to read, and perhaps add their vote if not voice to, already favorited comments, then yes, this would be encouraging votes in lieu of voices. In the now oft-referenced misunderstanding upthread, pro-fave commenters were arguing, in fact, that people would favorite a comment for eloquence or the rightness of one part of the comment, despite these people (it was argued) correctly identifying the other part of the post as mistaken and perhaps aggressively so. How does that argue for nuance over votes? If you agreed with only part of a post, and had the time and inclination to do so, I would think you would take a moment to separate what you agree with from what you do not. That's what I mean by encouraging taking a side rather than expressing a view. (my own argument was that some proportion of these people were misled rather than that they correctly identified the error in interpretation, but the alternate view supports this argument)
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:59 AM on November 4, 2009
I think early read-only users should get a number in parenthesis next to their sign-up number. I was number seven. Hook me up mods!
posted by diogenes at 10:59 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by diogenes at 10:59 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
As I just caught myself doing this, here's something in the way of experiential anecdote:
One thing that this experiment has made me more self-aware about as far as favorites-use is how faving interacts with my re-reading and elaboration of my own comments made in a moderator capacity.
Specifically, if I pop into this tab on the Recent Activity page (which I do probably a few times a day if it's a fairly busy day, an old habit from before I was a mod that I've never shaken) and see that something I've said seems to be getting some favorites, I'll sometimes go back and re-read it and make sure that
1. what I've written effectively captures what I wanted it to, and
2. whether there's something shiny-but-distracting about it that's pulling in favorites for reasons other than the usefulness of what I was trying to convey.
On point 1, as a habit, I don't know if this is a net win or not. I'd say certainly that examining my own words and trying to elaborate or clarify or even contradict if necessary what I'd written before if it doesn't accurately convey my or the team's position on something is a good thing, but does the favorites-monitoring process mean that I do more of that than I would otherwise, or does it make me slightly sloppier about my original drafting because in the back of my mind I know I can come back to any given comment if it seems to be getting extra attention?
On point 2, it's probably a good thing in general (accepting shades of the same dilemma as in 1 as granted) insofar as I worry about lapsing into bad habits while also speaking in an official capacity, and having something to remind me that the visibility of an ill-considered comment can be very significant is a good check on my worse instincts.
The banning-sixcolors comment I talked about upthread kind of falls in that territory; I returned to it a lot because of the favorite count, and I still haven't satisfied myself that it wasn't a problematic comment in some ways even if the necessity of conveying the central message ("we've had enough of trying to deal with this, your account is now disabled") isn't really something I struggled with.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:00 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
One thing that this experiment has made me more self-aware about as far as favorites-use is how faving interacts with my re-reading and elaboration of my own comments made in a moderator capacity.
Specifically, if I pop into this tab on the Recent Activity page (which I do probably a few times a day if it's a fairly busy day, an old habit from before I was a mod that I've never shaken) and see that something I've said seems to be getting some favorites, I'll sometimes go back and re-read it and make sure that
1. what I've written effectively captures what I wanted it to, and
2. whether there's something shiny-but-distracting about it that's pulling in favorites for reasons other than the usefulness of what I was trying to convey.
On point 1, as a habit, I don't know if this is a net win or not. I'd say certainly that examining my own words and trying to elaborate or clarify or even contradict if necessary what I'd written before if it doesn't accurately convey my or the team's position on something is a good thing, but does the favorites-monitoring process mean that I do more of that than I would otherwise, or does it make me slightly sloppier about my original drafting because in the back of my mind I know I can come back to any given comment if it seems to be getting extra attention?
On point 2, it's probably a good thing in general (accepting shades of the same dilemma as in 1 as granted) insofar as I worry about lapsing into bad habits while also speaking in an official capacity, and having something to remind me that the visibility of an ill-considered comment can be very significant is a good check on my worse instincts.
The banning-sixcolors comment I talked about upthread kind of falls in that territory; I returned to it a lot because of the favorite count, and I still haven't satisfied myself that it wasn't a problematic comment in some ways even if the necessity of conveying the central message ("we've had enough of trying to deal with this, your account is now disabled") isn't really something I struggled with.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:00 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
"but I can understand how, given the now reduced visibility in favorites, people would be less inclined to share their opinions, "
That's not much of an argument. It's just as easy to say that in the face of hundred-favorite comments, people would be less inclined to share their opinions that contradict those comments. Or less inclined to offer a complimentary opinion that adds more nuance to the issue, instead just adding a ME TOO.
posted by klangklangston at 11:06 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
That's not much of an argument. It's just as easy to say that in the face of hundred-favorite comments, people would be less inclined to share their opinions that contradict those comments. Or less inclined to offer a complimentary opinion that adds more nuance to the issue, instead just adding a ME TOO.
posted by klangklangston at 11:06 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Miko: If that's directed at my statement
Not yours alone, yours was one restatement of a criticism that's been present from early on. But let me actually reply to your statement.
I'm all for a better MetaFilter, but I don't think we had a bad MetaFilter. And, more importantly, I'm not sure that eliminating favorite counts is a solution to the problem that has been defined. Jessamyn's comment early on about whether the site would adapt to change as well as it grows was interesting, but it seemed to grow out of a concern that the site would become unable to change. I think that's an interesting concern, but the more basic question is: does the site need to change? Is it broke? How would we know if it were broken? When is change warranted? What are the signs of that?
No one here is arguing that MetaFilter is not good. I make the assumption that anyone who's participating in this discussion loves MetaFilter. That does not mean that talking about how MetaFilter could be better is counterproductive. It is healthy for individuals to think about themselves and examine their faults and strengths and change based on this self-examination. The same goes for a community. No society can function well without self-examination. Some very valid concerns have been brought up about the effects of visible favorites on this community in the past and in this thread and they should be examined. This is what mathowie and the other admins are responding to. God knows that I didn't really understand the arguments against the favorites system as it has been from the beginning before this test happened. I don't know whether that was from a lack of engagement with the critiques or from having gotten so used to the old system that I couldn't conceive of any other way of operating, but this test certainly made me see things more clearly. Understanding a problem better is, I feel, a pretty stellar result of an experiment. So for me (and I speak only for me) this has been a very successful effort by the admins.
Of course, there's the old adage that anything that doesn't change is dead. But the site has also reached a level of vitality at which it has a small handful of mostly-fulltime-ish staff. Certainly they are busy. But one thing that happens when you create new staff positions in new organizations is that those staff members who have time above and beyond the time needed to respond to direct needs find projects for themselves to take on, in order to fill and justify their time and their organizational role. This is not a bad thing, but a thing that happens. Mathowie on his own did not have time to tinker with the site as much. Now there is a structure for tinkering, and a group of people able to meet and toss around ideas, and an amount of time available for dealing with project-based work like this experiment. Are we sure that this particular experiment is driven by need or demand? Or is it driven by curiosity and the availability of extra time to tinker with the site?
Tinkering has always been a facet of MetaFilter, from the very beginning. Change is the only constant in all things and so it has been on MetaFilter. The user interface has changed dramatically since I first logged on (2004, incidentally, I'm one of those account late-activators) and I've never thought of it as set in stone. Back when he was the only person running MetaFilter mathowie changed a lot of things and floated ideas in MetaTalk all the time. Now that role is split between him, pb, jessamyn and cortex. The issue of favorites and their effect on site discussion is an old one and it makes sense, given the tinkering culture at MetaFilter that exists (user written Greasemonkey scripts, an unofficial wiki, pony requests in MetaTalk, etc.) it is natural that the problem be addressed by changing aspects of the site and then figure out what this teaches us. I don't think any other explanation is needed for why the test happened other than that this is a proposed solution to a long-running issue.
Change can be good, but change for change's sake, just because we can, isn't an inherent good. There needs to be some logic model in play. There needs to be a recognition of a problem situation, a defined outcome that is desired which will solve that problem, and then the activities done to the site need to be designed to promote that outcome. That's the only way it's testable. If the desired outcome is 'the site will become more civil and discourse will improve because people become less concerned with favorite count,' then this current logic model, in which the activities designed to test the outcomes allow some possibly-large amount of people to opt out, will not demonstrate much about the impact on discourse. It will just demonstrate that people will choose to splinter out and further customize the use of the site, meaning that there is less shared understanding of the rules of discourse.
One thing that I've learned from not having visible favorite counts is that I don't miss them at all. It was strange at first but now it's nice. Whether that makes visible favorite counts a bad thing or a good thing is a different matter, which is what's up for debate.
Internet communities are a new thing and not very well understood. Everyone here agrees that MetaFilter is one that functions better than almost all other internet communities of a similar size. The only model most of us have for a good internet community is MetaFilter. That does not mean that things are perfect here. Most every MeFite can probably list a number of things they wish were different. Community evaluation of such matters is how we've always done things and, based on that evaluation, mathowie and the admins have made changes. MetaTalk is not a focus group, it's a forum for discussion. Conversation and self-examination is the desired outcome.
posted by Kattullus at 11:06 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Not yours alone, yours was one restatement of a criticism that's been present from early on. But let me actually reply to your statement.
I'm all for a better MetaFilter, but I don't think we had a bad MetaFilter. And, more importantly, I'm not sure that eliminating favorite counts is a solution to the problem that has been defined. Jessamyn's comment early on about whether the site would adapt to change as well as it grows was interesting, but it seemed to grow out of a concern that the site would become unable to change. I think that's an interesting concern, but the more basic question is: does the site need to change? Is it broke? How would we know if it were broken? When is change warranted? What are the signs of that?
No one here is arguing that MetaFilter is not good. I make the assumption that anyone who's participating in this discussion loves MetaFilter. That does not mean that talking about how MetaFilter could be better is counterproductive. It is healthy for individuals to think about themselves and examine their faults and strengths and change based on this self-examination. The same goes for a community. No society can function well without self-examination. Some very valid concerns have been brought up about the effects of visible favorites on this community in the past and in this thread and they should be examined. This is what mathowie and the other admins are responding to. God knows that I didn't really understand the arguments against the favorites system as it has been from the beginning before this test happened. I don't know whether that was from a lack of engagement with the critiques or from having gotten so used to the old system that I couldn't conceive of any other way of operating, but this test certainly made me see things more clearly. Understanding a problem better is, I feel, a pretty stellar result of an experiment. So for me (and I speak only for me) this has been a very successful effort by the admins.
Of course, there's the old adage that anything that doesn't change is dead. But the site has also reached a level of vitality at which it has a small handful of mostly-fulltime-ish staff. Certainly they are busy. But one thing that happens when you create new staff positions in new organizations is that those staff members who have time above and beyond the time needed to respond to direct needs find projects for themselves to take on, in order to fill and justify their time and their organizational role. This is not a bad thing, but a thing that happens. Mathowie on his own did not have time to tinker with the site as much. Now there is a structure for tinkering, and a group of people able to meet and toss around ideas, and an amount of time available for dealing with project-based work like this experiment. Are we sure that this particular experiment is driven by need or demand? Or is it driven by curiosity and the availability of extra time to tinker with the site?
Tinkering has always been a facet of MetaFilter, from the very beginning. Change is the only constant in all things and so it has been on MetaFilter. The user interface has changed dramatically since I first logged on (2004, incidentally, I'm one of those account late-activators) and I've never thought of it as set in stone. Back when he was the only person running MetaFilter mathowie changed a lot of things and floated ideas in MetaTalk all the time. Now that role is split between him, pb, jessamyn and cortex. The issue of favorites and their effect on site discussion is an old one and it makes sense, given the tinkering culture at MetaFilter that exists (user written Greasemonkey scripts, an unofficial wiki, pony requests in MetaTalk, etc.) it is natural that the problem be addressed by changing aspects of the site and then figure out what this teaches us. I don't think any other explanation is needed for why the test happened other than that this is a proposed solution to a long-running issue.
Change can be good, but change for change's sake, just because we can, isn't an inherent good. There needs to be some logic model in play. There needs to be a recognition of a problem situation, a defined outcome that is desired which will solve that problem, and then the activities done to the site need to be designed to promote that outcome. That's the only way it's testable. If the desired outcome is 'the site will become more civil and discourse will improve because people become less concerned with favorite count,' then this current logic model, in which the activities designed to test the outcomes allow some possibly-large amount of people to opt out, will not demonstrate much about the impact on discourse. It will just demonstrate that people will choose to splinter out and further customize the use of the site, meaning that there is less shared understanding of the rules of discourse.
One thing that I've learned from not having visible favorite counts is that I don't miss them at all. It was strange at first but now it's nice. Whether that makes visible favorite counts a bad thing or a good thing is a different matter, which is what's up for debate.
Internet communities are a new thing and not very well understood. Everyone here agrees that MetaFilter is one that functions better than almost all other internet communities of a similar size. The only model most of us have for a good internet community is MetaFilter. That does not mean that things are perfect here. Most every MeFite can probably list a number of things they wish were different. Community evaluation of such matters is how we've always done things and, based on that evaluation, mathowie and the admins have made changes. MetaTalk is not a focus group, it's a forum for discussion. Conversation and self-examination is the desired outcome.
posted by Kattullus at 11:06 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
cortex: Specifically, if I pop into this tab on the Recent Activity page
Wow, I'd completely forgotten that's how the "recent favorites" tab works. Man, I keep learning more things about how favorites function on this site.
posted by Kattullus at 11:12 AM on November 4, 2009
Wow, I'd completely forgotten that's how the "recent favorites" tab works. Man, I keep learning more things about how favorites function on this site.
posted by Kattullus at 11:12 AM on November 4, 2009
This is the first thread where I've of heard that we shut down a members ideas based on the "you're too new here at MeFi.
It happens. Someone shows up and starts signing their comments ToddLokken and we laugh and point out that we don't do that here. Or they make an odd post in which there is a lot of editorializing accompanied by a single picture of a mushroom and members have to explain to her that that is not the way it is done here.
There are a whole lot of additional factors that could play into the durability of an account based on things directly and indirectly tied to when a user signed up (e.g. sense of pride/loyalty/stability that comes with having been here for a long time, which might galvanize any user who has been around for at least a certain amount of time and seriously reduce the attrition rate after that point, etc).
Thank you, Cortex, for phrasing it better than I could. I knew this would be a v. unpopular idea, because we all want to believe we are complete equals. However, I will just come out and admit I do sense that I am less equal than others because of the whole favoriting numbers issue. It is a reminder that I am not as active, as prolific, as witty, or as smart as others on the website, but it's OK; I can live with that.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:12 AM on November 4, 2009
It happens. Someone shows up and starts signing their comments ToddLokken and we laugh and point out that we don't do that here. Or they make an odd post in which there is a lot of editorializing accompanied by a single picture of a mushroom and members have to explain to her that that is not the way it is done here.
There are a whole lot of additional factors that could play into the durability of an account based on things directly and indirectly tied to when a user signed up (e.g. sense of pride/loyalty/stability that comes with having been here for a long time, which might galvanize any user who has been around for at least a certain amount of time and seriously reduce the attrition rate after that point, etc).
Thank you, Cortex, for phrasing it better than I could. I knew this would be a v. unpopular idea, because we all want to believe we are complete equals. However, I will just come out and admit I do sense that I am less equal than others because of the whole favoriting numbers issue. It is a reminder that I am not as active, as prolific, as witty, or as smart as others on the website, but it's OK; I can live with that.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:12 AM on November 4, 2009
I don't find it disturbing at all. I'm proud to publicly state my support or agreement with another poster--and, after all, there's nothing stopping people on another side of a discussion from favoriting people in opposition, or from making their own comment in opposition, either. I really fail to see how wanting to communicate your feelings or your opinions to other members of the community is disturbing behavior.
I do wonder, without favorites to catch some amount of the "I agree" traffic, whether the threads will begin to contain long strings of "I agree" or "me too" posts, instead of just clicking on a favorite and waiting to post until you have something real to contribute.
One thing I do like about the favorites system is that it isn't a "vote up, vote down" kind of mindset which is prevalent on other sites. I find that kind of offputting, myself, and entirely different from the concept of favorites as executed on MeFi.
posted by hippybear at 11:16 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
I do wonder, without favorites to catch some amount of the "I agree" traffic, whether the threads will begin to contain long strings of "I agree" or "me too" posts, instead of just clicking on a favorite and waiting to post until you have something real to contribute.
One thing I do like about the favorites system is that it isn't a "vote up, vote down" kind of mindset which is prevalent on other sites. I find that kind of offputting, myself, and entirely different from the concept of favorites as executed on MeFi.
posted by hippybear at 11:16 AM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
QUICK THOUGHT as a I book off for the day (and hardly original, I'm sure):
Big threads, lots of of "HAS FAVORITES" -- I definitely miss the old system as a means to focus my skimming and thus, my ability to comprehend what's really going on without having to spend HOURS picking through the details (a forest for the trees scenario). This thread is an obvious example. So is the aforementioned Ayn Rand one.
Shorter threads; it's not near as big a deal.
posted by philip-random at 11:17 AM on November 4, 2009
Big threads, lots of of "HAS FAVORITES" -- I definitely miss the old system as a means to focus my skimming and thus, my ability to comprehend what's really going on without having to spend HOURS picking through the details (a forest for the trees scenario). This thread is an obvious example. So is the aforementioned Ayn Rand one.
Shorter threads; it's not near as big a deal.
posted by philip-random at 11:17 AM on November 4, 2009
I do wonder, without favorites to catch some amount of the "I agree" traffic, whether the threads will begin to contain long strings of "I agree" or "me too" posts, instead of just clicking on a favorite and waiting to post until you have something real to contribute.
One thing I do like about the favorites system is that it isn't a "vote up, vote down" kind of mindset which is prevalent on other sites. I find that kind of offputting, myself, and entirely different from the concept of favorites as executed on MeFi.
I agree.
posted by shammack at 11:21 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
One thing I do like about the favorites system is that it isn't a "vote up, vote down" kind of mindset which is prevalent on other sites. I find that kind of offputting, myself, and entirely different from the concept of favorites as executed on MeFi.
I agree.
posted by shammack at 11:21 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
In the now oft-referenced misunderstanding upthread, pro-fave commenters were arguing, in fact, that people would favorite a comment for eloquence or the rightness of one part of the comment, despite these people (it was argued) correctly identifying the other part of the post as mistaken and perhaps aggressively so. How does that argue for nuance over votes? If you agreed with only part of a post, and had the time and inclination to do so, I would think you would take a moment to separate what you agree with from what you do not.
This is a tangent to your comment, but I'm recalling and failing to track down a discussion in Metatalk at some point about the specific question of how mixed-bag comments with (let's get tautological because I'm failing to think of a better neutral phrasing) "strongly favoriteable" portions as well as neutral or even contentious portions might be treated in terms of favoriting behavior. I don't know what thread that was, and can't recall the scope of the conversation, but I know I had an interesting time trying to enumerate some of the possibilities and if anyone else remembers this and can track it down you just might save me my sanity.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:22 AM on November 4, 2009
This is a tangent to your comment, but I'm recalling and failing to track down a discussion in Metatalk at some point about the specific question of how mixed-bag comments with (let's get tautological because I'm failing to think of a better neutral phrasing) "strongly favoriteable" portions as well as neutral or even contentious portions might be treated in terms of favoriting behavior. I don't know what thread that was, and can't recall the scope of the conversation, but I know I had an interesting time trying to enumerate some of the possibilities and if anyone else remembers this and can track it down you just might save me my sanity.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:22 AM on November 4, 2009
Mitheral: When someone like julen pops in and offers an opinion after nearly a decade of slow steady participation I think we should listen.
Durn Bronzefest: Ok. His opinion is that we shouldn't give any additional weight due to seniority. Ah... do I listen to him or not? (CHEESEBURGER)
My point was that as productive individuals in the community (i.e. readers, posters, commenters, favoriters, lurkers, non-spammers, non-trolls), no single person's viewpoint is more important than anyone else's, regardless of whatever criteria being used to elevate that individual. We should be listening to everyone, whether they are part of an "insignificant minority" or someone who is in a long line of folks saying "Me too!" (who when you look at them come in many flavors of Me Too; the people missing the comment counts fall in many shades on the pro-favorites spectrum, and it is important to understand the permutations) The fact that I've been lurking since the beginning and have a low user number doesn't imbue my opinions (experiment good! looking forward to seeing if I'm still ambivalent about favorites at the end of the month!) with special sauce. If I hadn't revealed my secret decoder ring, I would like to think my input into this thread had the same amount of value even if I'm not in the Top 300 most visible posters.
So I vote you listen to me and to the next person and the next person and the next person. Also, I'm a her.
posted by julen at 11:31 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Durn Bronzefest: Ok. His opinion is that we shouldn't give any additional weight due to seniority. Ah... do I listen to him or not? (CHEESEBURGER)
My point was that as productive individuals in the community (i.e. readers, posters, commenters, favoriters, lurkers, non-spammers, non-trolls), no single person's viewpoint is more important than anyone else's, regardless of whatever criteria being used to elevate that individual. We should be listening to everyone, whether they are part of an "insignificant minority" or someone who is in a long line of folks saying "Me too!" (who when you look at them come in many flavors of Me Too; the people missing the comment counts fall in many shades on the pro-favorites spectrum, and it is important to understand the permutations) The fact that I've been lurking since the beginning and have a low user number doesn't imbue my opinions (experiment good! looking forward to seeing if I'm still ambivalent about favorites at the end of the month!) with special sauce. If I hadn't revealed my secret decoder ring, I would like to think my input into this thread had the same amount of value even if I'm not in the Top 300 most visible posters.
So I vote you listen to me and to the next person and the next person and the next person. Also, I'm a her.
posted by julen at 11:31 AM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Cortex, this thread came to mind.
Yeah, that was my first thought too, but looks like no dice. Not in the Infodump 2.0 chatterfast a few months back either. I'm having trouble thinking of keywords to do a general search on, so I'm boggled.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:37 AM on November 4, 2009
Yeah, that was my first thought too, but looks like no dice. Not in the Infodump 2.0 chatterfast a few months back either. I'm having trouble thinking of keywords to do a general search on, so I'm boggled.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:37 AM on November 4, 2009
empath writes "i'm pretty likely to just stop using favorites entirely, because I never use them to save posts I want to find later (that's what Google is for)."
FYI google does not index all of metafilter, all of the time. Besides all the no follow, on index stuff some pages just don't appear in the index for whatever reason.
posted by Mitheral at 11:40 AM on November 4, 2009
FYI google does not index all of metafilter, all of the time. Besides all the no follow, on index stuff some pages just don't appear in the index for whatever reason.
posted by Mitheral at 11:40 AM on November 4, 2009
Just teasing, julen. I got ya.
Sorry, I'm no help there, cortex. I wasn't aware of the thread you mention.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:42 AM on November 4, 2009
Sorry, I'm no help there, cortex. I wasn't aware of the thread you mention.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:42 AM on November 4, 2009
In my hunt for that MeTa thread that cortex mentioned I came across this hair-raising MetaTalk post by mathowie from July of 2000:
posted by Kattullus at 11:52 AM on November 4, 2009
Just to let you know, in response to a lot of requests, I'm working on a personalized version of metafilter. No two members will see the same entries because it's going to start catering to your needs. If you like member A's links and comments, they'll get floated up. If you don't care for member B's argumentitive tone, they'll disappear from sight, and their comments will be hidden from view.Talk about a road not taken. Incidentally, in true MetaTalk fashion, the first comment was a vociferous "hell no!" (by y6y6y6):
Once it's done, it's going to rock.
I just want to say for the record that I don't think it will rock. I think it will suck. With everyone seeing something different, everyone will be participating in a different discussion. I thought the whole point was discussion. Now the point will be erasing people you don't agree with? I think it will suck.y6y6y6 is still active, by the by, I wonder if he's reading this.
I am pouting. I don't like this.
posted by Kattullus at 11:52 AM on November 4, 2009
Is either of these the thread you were looking for, cortex? Neither is a perfect match, but given the vagaries of hazy memories, these might be right.
posted by Kattullus at 11:56 AM on November 4, 2009
posted by Kattullus at 11:56 AM on November 4, 2009
Talk about a road not taken.
A read through the first year or two of Metatalk is, yeah, a deeply harrowing adventure through the Temple Of What Might Have Been. Threading came up a couple times early on as well.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:08 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
A read through the first year or two of Metatalk is, yeah, a deeply harrowing adventure through the Temple Of What Might Have Been. Threading came up a couple times early on as well.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:08 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
That's not much of an argument. It's just as easy to say that in the face of hundred-favorite comments, people would be less inclined to share their opinions that contradict those comments. Or less inclined to offer a complimentary opinion that adds more nuance to the issue, instead just adding a ME TOO.
In the original comment, I was using "opinions" as a shorthand for "opinions via favoriting", which I thought was clear from the context. Sorry if it wasn't.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:09 PM on November 4, 2009
In the original comment, I was using "opinions" as a shorthand for "opinions via favoriting", which I thought was clear from the context. Sorry if it wasn't.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:09 PM on November 4, 2009
And yeah, no dice on any of those but some interesting fave-related discussion in 'em in any case.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:13 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:13 PM on November 4, 2009
I can't believe this discussion is still happening. I can't believe I've obsessively followed this discussion for the past three days and I can't believe I'm adding to the noise with this comment.
Listen up! This does not have to be such a big deal. Step away from your computer. Change your preferences if necessary. The bottom line is that there are people in charge here and they've decided to try something new for a bit and see how it goes. Call it an experiment if you want but it's not SCIENCE! It's a "let's watch and see" trial. And That. Is. Okay. I know we're really used to being mostly user managed because the mods are very good at letting us take care of our own problems and in some ways, having them make any changes for which we haven't provided input feels awkward and in some ways insulting. But let's try not to question thier motives. They've always done a good job of incorporating user input in the past (favosperiment is actually an example of them doing just this) and there's no reason for us to assume they'll stop doing so. I don't think Matt would allow a culture change like that even if Cortex and Jess suddenly had personality transplants anyway.
By hashing and rehashing these arguements here, we're only taking valuable time from them and causing a big headache. Can we please, give them a little teeny, tiny break? I bet they're tired.
posted by dchrssyr at 12:20 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Listen up! This does not have to be such a big deal. Step away from your computer. Change your preferences if necessary. The bottom line is that there are people in charge here and they've decided to try something new for a bit and see how it goes. Call it an experiment if you want but it's not SCIENCE! It's a "let's watch and see" trial. And That. Is. Okay. I know we're really used to being mostly user managed because the mods are very good at letting us take care of our own problems and in some ways, having them make any changes for which we haven't provided input feels awkward and in some ways insulting. But let's try not to question thier motives. They've always done a good job of incorporating user input in the past (favosperiment is actually an example of them doing just this) and there's no reason for us to assume they'll stop doing so. I don't think Matt would allow a culture change like that even if Cortex and Jess suddenly had personality transplants anyway.
By hashing and rehashing these arguements here, we're only taking valuable time from them and causing a big headache. Can we please, give them a little teeny, tiny break? I bet they're tired.
posted by dchrssyr at 12:20 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
OK, maybe I'm too cranky. I'm going to participate in the experiment so I can make an informed judgement about how it impacts my experience as a user.
I still don't think the design of the experiment is going to get at anything other than an aggregate of those experiences, though. My concerns are not about change in and of itself, or about self-examination - let me be clear about that. I suppose that rather than describing this experience as an experiment, maybe this is better described as an experience forcing discussion on the utility of favorites.
But also, a note about change. I certainly agree with the generalities about the health of change as a concept. But change is stressful - and I mean that not at the emotional, but at the cognitive, level. It feels uncomfortable because it blocks the brain from using the efficiencies it has developed for engaging in repeated tasks. That can lead to new and positive developments, but because it's rough on people - even those who like the change itself - it's wise to implement change thoughtfully. Katullus said that the site's user interface has "changed dramatically" since 2004. I disagree - MetaFilter has never changed permanently in a way you could call dramatic. It's an insanely consistent site, especially when compared with other sites that are ten years old.
Cortex used the word "tweak" in describing changes to the UI, and that's more accurate. It's been enhanced, it's been complexified, and it's been tweaked, but it hasn't dramatically changed. Fonts and colors and design elements have gently morphed, but not strayed far. Users have a profile with embedded navigation and small degrees of personalization. Subsites have been added, but have followed the model of the front page. Some have failed to gain traction. Sorting and searching features have been added. Favoriting, of course, was added. But the experience design of MetaFilter is relatively unchaged from its inception - That's important to note, because it may be one of the reasons for MetaFilter's success as a site in building an engaged and invested user community - one can expect small changes aimed at improvement, but not overhauls, revolutions, or dramatic changes. That tacit understanding between site and user, as expressed in the user interface, is something to respect, something other communities may envy. That awareness doesn't have to prevent change being made - it would be stupid to take that to mean 'fossilize' - but it is something to keep in mind as a pretty big chunk of the engine that makes the site run like it does.
By observing the examples provided by other forms of media, it's easy to see how important experience design is in building a sense of trust and cohesion and identity for the outlet and for its user community - those factors are why the New Yorker looks like the New Yorker after 80-some years, and why the New York Times took so damn long to start publishing color photos, and still won't run the funnies. It's why magazines hire big teams to help them get through redesigns, and commit themselves to vociferous response and plummeting readership as they switch markets.
I don't say these things to build an argument that sums up as "oppose all change." I love the way MetaFilter has developed over the last several years. It's much more fun and builds community connection better. I'm simply advocating for deeply mindful change. Perhaps this is it.
posted by Miko at 12:21 PM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
I still don't think the design of the experiment is going to get at anything other than an aggregate of those experiences, though. My concerns are not about change in and of itself, or about self-examination - let me be clear about that. I suppose that rather than describing this experience as an experiment, maybe this is better described as an experience forcing discussion on the utility of favorites.
But also, a note about change. I certainly agree with the generalities about the health of change as a concept. But change is stressful - and I mean that not at the emotional, but at the cognitive, level. It feels uncomfortable because it blocks the brain from using the efficiencies it has developed for engaging in repeated tasks. That can lead to new and positive developments, but because it's rough on people - even those who like the change itself - it's wise to implement change thoughtfully. Katullus said that the site's user interface has "changed dramatically" since 2004. I disagree - MetaFilter has never changed permanently in a way you could call dramatic. It's an insanely consistent site, especially when compared with other sites that are ten years old.
Cortex used the word "tweak" in describing changes to the UI, and that's more accurate. It's been enhanced, it's been complexified, and it's been tweaked, but it hasn't dramatically changed. Fonts and colors and design elements have gently morphed, but not strayed far. Users have a profile with embedded navigation and small degrees of personalization. Subsites have been added, but have followed the model of the front page. Some have failed to gain traction. Sorting and searching features have been added. Favoriting, of course, was added. But the experience design of MetaFilter is relatively unchaged from its inception - That's important to note, because it may be one of the reasons for MetaFilter's success as a site in building an engaged and invested user community - one can expect small changes aimed at improvement, but not overhauls, revolutions, or dramatic changes. That tacit understanding between site and user, as expressed in the user interface, is something to respect, something other communities may envy. That awareness doesn't have to prevent change being made - it would be stupid to take that to mean 'fossilize' - but it is something to keep in mind as a pretty big chunk of the engine that makes the site run like it does.
By observing the examples provided by other forms of media, it's easy to see how important experience design is in building a sense of trust and cohesion and identity for the outlet and for its user community - those factors are why the New Yorker looks like the New Yorker after 80-some years, and why the New York Times took so damn long to start publishing color photos, and still won't run the funnies. It's why magazines hire big teams to help them get through redesigns, and commit themselves to vociferous response and plummeting readership as they switch markets.
I don't say these things to build an argument that sums up as "oppose all change." I love the way MetaFilter has developed over the last several years. It's much more fun and builds community connection better. I'm simply advocating for deeply mindful change. Perhaps this is it.
posted by Miko at 12:21 PM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
read through the first year or two of Metatalk is, yeah, a deeply harrowing adventure through the Temple Of What Might Have Been. Threading came up a couple times early on as well.
Not to mention that Matt was always attempting to focus people on the links and NOT the comments (it's all about the links.) Too much chatter-- in particular joking around-- was frowned upon.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:23 PM on November 4, 2009
Not to mention that Matt was always attempting to focus people on the links and NOT the comments (it's all about the links.) Too much chatter-- in particular joking around-- was frowned upon.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:23 PM on November 4, 2009
I know it's never going to happen, but what would be better than "favorites" would be a drop menu just like flagging. This way there would be no discussion on how people used it. Options would include: fantastic comment, I hate this comment, I agree, bookmarked, and you're and asshat and this is an asshat thing to say, amongst others. Then the discussion could revolve around questions like, "Can we get 'You paid $5 to make comments like this?' added to the favorites drop down menu?
posted by cjorgensen at 12:24 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by cjorgensen at 12:24 PM on November 4, 2009
A read through the first year or two of Metatalk is, yeah, a deeply harrowing adventure through the Temple Of What Might Have Been. Threading came up a couple times early on as well.
As did a somewhat more drastic solution.
posted by dersins at 12:25 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
As did a somewhat more drastic solution.
posted by dersins at 12:25 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Oh, and in the spirit of being open-minded, I'm giving "has favorites" another chance as of this morning.
Not liking it any more than I did when it was "faved," but I'll try to stick with it for a few days and see how I feel.
posted by dersins at 12:32 PM on November 4, 2009
Not liking it any more than I did when it was "faved," but I'll try to stick with it for a few days and see how I feel.
posted by dersins at 12:32 PM on November 4, 2009
Jeez, this thread makes me think if you're going to get a fair test done here, you need to make it go away completely for people opting in. "Has favorites" on every single byline is just noise, visually jarring, and distracting. Opting out for now, I would maybe participate if opt-in meant favorites were just eradicated.
posted by cj_ at 12:38 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by cj_ at 12:38 PM on November 4, 2009
Another blast from the past which is deeply amusing:
any way to get threaded comments going using this interface? some of the metachat may get kinda lengthy.posted by smackfu at 12:41 PM on November 4, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by jessamyn to MetaFilter-related
Then again, I don't think that they reduce nuanced discussion at all. Even with visible favorites in place, you can still communicate your feelings and opinions. What's the problem?
I never understood how the argument that favoriting somehow deters communication can be rationalized, when:
1. It's just a number, it places no intrinsic restriction on anyone's participation
2. There is no consensus on what favorites represent in the first place
It's a strange objection and one akin to saying colorblind people couldn't reliably participate on either the travel subsite (if it still existed) or AskMe because the sites' background colors are red and green, respectively.
At the end of the day, there's nothing strictly functional about favorites such that it mandates any specific behaviors. It is completely illogical to suggest otherwise.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:46 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
I never understood how the argument that favoriting somehow deters communication can be rationalized, when:
1. It's just a number, it places no intrinsic restriction on anyone's participation
2. There is no consensus on what favorites represent in the first place
It's a strange objection and one akin to saying colorblind people couldn't reliably participate on either the travel subsite (if it still existed) or AskMe because the sites' background colors are red and green, respectively.
At the end of the day, there's nothing strictly functional about favorites such that it mandates any specific behaviors. It is completely illogical to suggest otherwise.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:46 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
any way to get threaded comments going using this interface? some of the metachat may get kinda lengthy.
posted by jessamyn to MetaFilter-related
Heh.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:47 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by jessamyn to MetaFilter-related
Heh.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:47 PM on November 4, 2009
Jeez, this thread makes me think if you're going to get a fair test done here, you need to make it go away completely for people opting in.
That looks like a case of someone specifically, again, favoriting everything in site (or at least everything not-yet-favorited, which from a griefing perspective is a smart strategy since it doesn't waste ammo) just to be a pain. I've written to them already to ask them to cut it out.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:48 PM on November 4, 2009
That looks like a case of someone specifically, again, favoriting everything in site (or at least everything not-yet-favorited, which from a griefing perspective is a smart strategy since it doesn't waste ammo) just to be a pain. I've written to them already to ask them to cut it out.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:48 PM on November 4, 2009
Thanks for linking the gypsy thread above. Comments like these are why I feel uncomfortable using favourites as anything other than "I agree."
posted by ODiV at 12:51 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by ODiV at 12:51 PM on November 4, 2009
That looks like a case of someone specifically, again, favoriting everything in site (or at least everything not-yet-favorited, which from a griefing perspective is a smart strategy since it doesn't waste ammo) just to be a pain. I've written to them already to ask them to cut it out.
Yeah I see that now. Man that is irritating. It's just as jarring with favorite counts turned on, so I'm not sure what it's meant to prove.
posted by cj_ at 12:57 PM on November 4, 2009
Yeah I see that now. Man that is irritating. It's just as jarring with favorite counts turned on, so I'm not sure what it's meant to prove.
posted by cj_ at 12:57 PM on November 4, 2009
At the end of the day, there's nothing strictly functional about favorites such that it mandates any specific behaviors. It is completely illogical to suggest otherwise.
Mandates behaviours? Thank goodness no one is suggesting it.
Also: there was a travel site?!
Harp interlude as clouds clear to reveal tropical MeTa Island, where all your fantasies -- and sometimes your nightmares -- can come true.
CORTEX: THE PLANE! THE PLANE!
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 12:59 PM on November 4, 2009
Mandates behaviours? Thank goodness no one is suggesting it.
Also: there was a travel site?!
Harp interlude as clouds clear to reveal tropical MeTa Island, where all your fantasies -- and sometimes your nightmares -- can come true.
CORTEX: THE PLANE! THE PLANE!
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 12:59 PM on November 4, 2009
I'm not sure when I started reading MetaFilter, but it was LONG damn time ago, and I read for a long damn time before I got a membership. I remember walking out of a bar with a friend of mine, saying something about MetaFilter and how great it was, and that it was a bummer that you had to try at just the right moment to be able to sign up because I read it every day but never got a membership, and that he should check it out and try and get an account, and he looked at me, laughing, and said, "Chris, I have an account." Bastard. He's still an active member.
When was this? When was that mystery, limited sign-up time epoch?
But, regardless, I'd been reading the site for a long time at that point.
Anyway, my (somewhat diffuse, unwieldy) point is that user numbers don't really tell the story of the duration of person's investment in MetaFilter. Sure, I wasn't commenting in those days, but I spent a lot of time here.
On preview, Spaltavian said this a few hours ago. WELL I'M SAYING IT TOO.
posted by dirtdirt at 1:03 PM on November 4, 2009
When was this? When was that mystery, limited sign-up time epoch?
But, regardless, I'd been reading the site for a long time at that point.
Anyway, my (somewhat diffuse, unwieldy) point is that user numbers don't really tell the story of the duration of person's investment in MetaFilter. Sure, I wasn't commenting in those days, but I spent a lot of time here.
On preview, Spaltavian said this a few hours ago. WELL I'M SAYING IT TOO.
posted by dirtdirt at 1:03 PM on November 4, 2009
Oh, I found the comment! Bam!
Successful search strategy:
1. Go to my profile page.
2. Type "favorite" and "because" into the "search activity" field to search only contributions by the given user.
3. Skip the first page of results because it's basically all this thread.
4. Blam! Find it on a skim through page two.
It occurred to me that I would certainly have used the word "favorite" or some variation, and that since I recalled burbling on about potential causality there's a good chance that the word "because" would have made an appearance. I wish it'd had occurred to me to go that route sooner.
And, of course, false memory was working against me: this was a thread on the blue, it turns out. The search activity feature intervened helpfully since it doesn't discriminate by subsite.
Further, the comment really only briefly touches on the faving-a-portion-of-a-comment thing as one bullet out of many; I thought it had been a bit more thorough about that.
And as the topicality whammy on the whole thing, it was a thread about reddit that became in part a thread about reddit talking about a mefi thread about reddit, and today we've got a metatalk thread talking about a reddit thread talking about a classic askme comment.
Anyway, I'm relieved to have solved this little search problem for myself, and I appreciate the hunting around other folks did to help me out. I recall that reddit thread my comment is in being a doozy in general, and there's some discussion of favoriting in there esp. in contrast to the more formal up/downvoting systems of reddit, digg, et al.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:10 PM on November 4, 2009
Successful search strategy:
1. Go to my profile page.
2. Type "favorite" and "because" into the "search activity" field to search only contributions by the given user.
3. Skip the first page of results because it's basically all this thread.
4. Blam! Find it on a skim through page two.
It occurred to me that I would certainly have used the word "favorite" or some variation, and that since I recalled burbling on about potential causality there's a good chance that the word "because" would have made an appearance. I wish it'd had occurred to me to go that route sooner.
And, of course, false memory was working against me: this was a thread on the blue, it turns out. The search activity feature intervened helpfully since it doesn't discriminate by subsite.
Further, the comment really only briefly touches on the faving-a-portion-of-a-comment thing as one bullet out of many; I thought it had been a bit more thorough about that.
And as the topicality whammy on the whole thing, it was a thread about reddit that became in part a thread about reddit talking about a mefi thread about reddit, and today we've got a metatalk thread talking about a reddit thread talking about a classic askme comment.
Anyway, I'm relieved to have solved this little search problem for myself, and I appreciate the hunting around other folks did to help me out. I recall that reddit thread my comment is in being a doozy in general, and there's some discussion of favoriting in there esp. in contrast to the more formal up/downvoting systems of reddit, digg, et al.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:10 PM on November 4, 2009
Creepy/confused addendum -- the word "because" doesn't even appear in that comment. I wonder if it's common enough to be on the search's stoplist, in which case I was really just searching for the word "favorite"? A quick re-run of the search with the "because" token suggests so.
One thing we don't currently do with searches is report stoplist words omitted. I should ask pb if that's something that's easy to fix or not.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:13 PM on November 4, 2009
One thing we don't currently do with searches is report stoplist words omitted. I should ask pb if that's something that's easy to fix or not.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:13 PM on November 4, 2009
cortex, do you need to stand on my head?
posted by cjorgensen at 1:15 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by cjorgensen at 1:15 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Or rather, we don't apparently report stoplist words when there are two or more tokens in the search. If any of the search terms are non-stoplist words for which matches are available, it produces a result set for the matched non-stoplist wordset; otherwise (i.e. if the list is just plural stoplist words or the list is a combination of stoplist words and non-stoplist words for which there is no match) it just produces a generic "no matches for x y z" message.
So I guess the fix would be to correctly report the existence of specific stoplist tokens in the case of successful searches, as well as to correctly parse out and report stoplist words in failed searches for more than one token where at least one token is a stoplist word. Which is starting to sound like a pretty esoteric search issue that will possibly never affect anyone but me, so maybe I'll just stuff it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:22 PM on November 4, 2009
So I guess the fix would be to correctly report the existence of specific stoplist tokens in the case of successful searches, as well as to correctly parse out and report stoplist words in failed searches for more than one token where at least one token is a stoplist word. Which is starting to sound like a pretty esoteric search issue that will possibly never affect anyone but me, so maybe I'll just stuff it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:22 PM on November 4, 2009
Okay, I thought I'd come back and register my opinion along with so many others here (I probably haven't read that last 125 comments, I admit).
I was unsure at first, but I like the change.
It has made me aware of my previous favoriting behavior. Before, if I favorited something or not would be influenced by how many favorites were already there. "Will I look stupid for favoriting this?" "This seems like a big deal, maybe I should save it for later." I never realized it until this experiment.
Now I only favorite what I want to. I favorite less, but it feels more like I'm following my own will than before. I like it. If it is good for everyone is a different question, but I find that it is good for me. If the old favorites return, I would love an option to opt out and keep the display the way it is now come December.
posted by cimbrog at 1:32 PM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
I was unsure at first, but I like the change.
It has made me aware of my previous favoriting behavior. Before, if I favorited something or not would be influenced by how many favorites were already there. "Will I look stupid for favoriting this?" "This seems like a big deal, maybe I should save it for later." I never realized it until this experiment.
Now I only favorite what I want to. I favorite less, but it feels more like I'm following my own will than before. I like it. If it is good for everyone is a different question, but I find that it is good for me. If the old favorites return, I would love an option to opt out and keep the display the way it is now come December.
posted by cimbrog at 1:32 PM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm on the road, and don't have time to catch up on the great bulk of new comments (Suckahz!) but I did want to point out that the upgrade of "faved" to "has favorites" has actually caused me to leave it alone without turning on numbers or using a script. I still feel that a comment is either noteworthy or it is not, so the amount of community "worth" is really the only useful display of this field. In plainer non consultant speak language -- either we have a count, or we don't need to publically state that a comment has favorites.
That said, I will roll with the experiment as intended now.
posted by cavalier at 1:50 PM on November 4, 2009
That said, I will roll with the experiment as intended now.
posted by cavalier at 1:50 PM on November 4, 2009
Sorry, I haven't had time to read the thread, but for the record, I really, really don't like this at all.
It had never really occurred to me that people try to rack up favourites, and I don't really see why that's a problem if they do, certainly means nothing to me.
For me the favourites are an important means for me of taking the temperature of the community. People might be favouriting comments for different reasons, but I still find it useful to know which are the most-noticed, most likely to come up again in debate, most likely to become an in-joke, etc. It gives me a sense of the kind of people I'm dealing with, dammit! It's a major part of the way I read the site and participate in this community, and without it, I feel kind of lost.
But thanks for taking the time to keep trying to make this awesome place better, even if this one's not for me.
posted by penguin pie at 1:58 PM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
It had never really occurred to me that people try to rack up favourites, and I don't really see why that's a problem if they do, certainly means nothing to me.
For me the favourites are an important means for me of taking the temperature of the community. People might be favouriting comments for different reasons, but I still find it useful to know which are the most-noticed, most likely to come up again in debate, most likely to become an in-joke, etc. It gives me a sense of the kind of people I'm dealing with, dammit! It's a major part of the way I read the site and participate in this community, and without it, I feel kind of lost.
But thanks for taking the time to keep trying to make this awesome place better, even if this one's not for me.
posted by penguin pie at 1:58 PM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Don't know if it's been brought up yet, but I notice that in AskMe, a marked 'best answer' used to have a lot more social/pragmatic info conveyed with it, that is now lacking. For example, previously, favorite counts generally showed where the community was leaning (or 'agreeing') on a particular issue. Posters who marked those answers as best often also served to let the community know that they were 'listening' or somehow wants to corroborate that there is indeed a correlation between high-favorite count and high-quality of the answer (regardless of which came first, or whether or not this was consciously motivated). Conversely, posters who go against the tide and mark best answers that are 'unpopular' convey a different message to the community (sometimes it's that the 'best answer' is one that echoes what the poster was hoping to hear, despite it being a less-than-optimal course of action, as deemed by the majority of the community that is participating in that thread).
The point here is, unless one goes clicking on every 'has favorites' it's really hard to tell where the poster's response lies, relative to the participating community consensus. Which is really important when you're coming to AskMe to learn about something, or find out what the general perspective is on an issue. I don't always want or trust the OP to mark what *I* think is the best answer, but I do like to know what the popular answers are, ESPECIALLY when there are TWO popular answers that are contradictory in nature.
Another side-point...I also notice a shift in my perspective already. I used to be very aware of the 'one-ness' of my 'vote' or flag on a comment or post. My click was but one little bean, adding to a pile. But now I notice that I am rethinking what that click means. Now it is more analogous to flipping a switch and walking away. If it has already been flipped, I add my bean, but it's a mystery how big the pile is, almost as if I've thrown it over my shoulder and walked away. The difference between these two conceptualizations, for me, is one of focus, with the old conceptualization akin to incremental, progressive growth (a collection of beans to a pile), and the other of attuning to a binary proposition, where I can either activate the set, or covertly add to an already activated set. I don't know what this adds to the discussion, other than the notion that these subtle framings will have social effects down the line, and I think we're already seeing some implications of that.
posted by iamkimiam at 2:03 PM on November 4, 2009 [6 favorites]
The point here is, unless one goes clicking on every 'has favorites' it's really hard to tell where the poster's response lies, relative to the participating community consensus. Which is really important when you're coming to AskMe to learn about something, or find out what the general perspective is on an issue. I don't always want or trust the OP to mark what *I* think is the best answer, but I do like to know what the popular answers are, ESPECIALLY when there are TWO popular answers that are contradictory in nature.
Another side-point...I also notice a shift in my perspective already. I used to be very aware of the 'one-ness' of my 'vote' or flag on a comment or post. My click was but one little bean, adding to a pile. But now I notice that I am rethinking what that click means. Now it is more analogous to flipping a switch and walking away. If it has already been flipped, I add my bean, but it's a mystery how big the pile is, almost as if I've thrown it over my shoulder and walked away. The difference between these two conceptualizations, for me, is one of focus, with the old conceptualization akin to incremental, progressive growth (a collection of beans to a pile), and the other of attuning to a binary proposition, where I can either activate the set, or covertly add to an already activated set. I don't know what this adds to the discussion, other than the notion that these subtle framings will have social effects down the line, and I think we're already seeing some implications of that.
posted by iamkimiam at 2:03 PM on November 4, 2009 [6 favorites]
PhoBWanKenobi: I don't find it disturbing at all. I'm proud to publicly state my support or agreement with another poster--and, after all, there's nothing stopping people on another side of a discussion from favoriting people in opposition, or from making their own comment in opposition, either. I really fail to see how wanting to communicate your feelings or your opinions to other members of the community is disturbing behavior.
Isn't that obvious? Because Durn Bronzefist's observation was that people appear to be favoriting merely to take sides in a discussion. And it's taking sides that leads to discussions being so contentious and argumentative in the first place. Is that what we really want to encourage?
posted by koeselitz at 2:09 PM on November 4, 2009
Isn't that obvious? Because Durn Bronzefist's observation was that people appear to be favoriting merely to take sides in a discussion. And it's taking sides that leads to discussions being so contentious and argumentative in the first place. Is that what we really want to encourage?
posted by koeselitz at 2:09 PM on November 4, 2009
Well, hell, I meant 'quantitative' earlier, but I think you knew that.
posted by lysdexic at 2:20 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by lysdexic at 2:20 PM on November 4, 2009
people appear to be favoriting merely to take sides in a discussion. And it's taking sides that leads to discussions being so contentious and argumentative in the first place. Is that what we really want to encourage?
This is just semantics, though.
"Taking sides" is like the "Death Tax" or "Marriage Penalty" of this discussion. Call it "lending support" instead. Same thing, same result, but suddenly it's something we do want to encourage. Funny how that works.
posted by dersins at 2:25 PM on November 4, 2009 [4 favorites]
This is just semantics, though.
"Taking sides" is like the "Death Tax" or "Marriage Penalty" of this discussion. Call it "lending support" instead. Same thing, same result, but suddenly it's something we do want to encourage. Funny how that works.
posted by dersins at 2:25 PM on November 4, 2009 [4 favorites]
Isn't that obvious? Because Durn Bronzefist's observation was that people appear to be favoriting merely to take sides in a discussion. And it's taking sides that leads to discussions being so contentious and argumentative in the first place. Is that what we really want to encourage?
I'd posit that, as intelligent, well-educated people, mefites seem to be generally passionate and full of opinions, particularly when subjects are generally contentious (are all subjects contentious? Maybe not all, but most seem to be, in some way. This is metafilter. We overthink plates offaves beans). Favoriting behavior is an illustration of this, but it seems like many users, myself included, still aren't convinced yet that it causes it. Obscuring favorites or even disabling them doesn't mean that readers (non-participatory) won't be taking sides or having opinions on the discussions here; it just forces them to be completely or mostly non-participatory. I can't help but wonder what's wrong with people disagreeing, so long as they conduct themselves in a mostly-decent manner and the mods, kudos to them, already do a pretty terrific job of policing people who are being complete jerks.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 2:31 PM on November 4, 2009 [5 favorites]
I'd posit that, as intelligent, well-educated people, mefites seem to be generally passionate and full of opinions, particularly when subjects are generally contentious (are all subjects contentious? Maybe not all, but most seem to be, in some way. This is metafilter. We overthink plates of
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 2:31 PM on November 4, 2009 [5 favorites]
"A read through the first year or two of Metatalk is, yeah, a deeply harrowing adventure through the Temple Of What Might Have Been. Threading came up a couple times early on as well."
A talk page for every post!
posted by klangklangston at 2:31 PM on November 4, 2009
A talk page for every post!
posted by klangklangston at 2:31 PM on November 4, 2009
Agreeing with dersins
posted by found missing at 2:31 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by found missing at 2:31 PM on November 4, 2009
Oh, an Go Phillies!
posted by found missing at 2:35 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by found missing at 2:35 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
"I never understood how the argument that favoriting somehow deters communication can be rationalized, when:
1. It's just a number, it places no intrinsic restriction on anyone's participation
2. There is no consensus on what favorites represent in the first place"
You seriously don't understand the argument?
1. Comments also don't put any intrinsic restriction on anyone's participation. Yet we all concede that comments can make people feel unwanted.
2. This is nonsense. There clearly is a consensus on how favorites are used, with the majority going to indicate agreement or offer positive reinforcement. If you'd like to dispute this, you're welcome to, but given that things like filtering by most favorites only works if there is a de facto consensus on what those favorites represent. Individual variation in usage is not enough to overcome that; if it were, people wouldn't be complaining about them being taken away.
"At the end of the day, there's nothing strictly functional about favorites such that it mandates any specific behaviors. It is completely illogical to suggest otherwise."
First off, no one's arguing that they mandate behavior. Second off, pure functionality is a weird metric to privilege in a discussion of social behavior. I mean, talk about arguing against statements no one is making.
posted by klangklangston at 2:42 PM on November 4, 2009
1. It's just a number, it places no intrinsic restriction on anyone's participation
2. There is no consensus on what favorites represent in the first place"
You seriously don't understand the argument?
1. Comments also don't put any intrinsic restriction on anyone's participation. Yet we all concede that comments can make people feel unwanted.
2. This is nonsense. There clearly is a consensus on how favorites are used, with the majority going to indicate agreement or offer positive reinforcement. If you'd like to dispute this, you're welcome to, but given that things like filtering by most favorites only works if there is a de facto consensus on what those favorites represent. Individual variation in usage is not enough to overcome that; if it were, people wouldn't be complaining about them being taken away.
"At the end of the day, there's nothing strictly functional about favorites such that it mandates any specific behaviors. It is completely illogical to suggest otherwise."
First off, no one's arguing that they mandate behavior. Second off, pure functionality is a weird metric to privilege in a discussion of social behavior. I mean, talk about arguing against statements no one is making.
posted by klangklangston at 2:42 PM on November 4, 2009
Or, to use an example: There's nothing purely functional about question order that influences survey responses, yet question order is a well-known source of bias in polling.
posted by klangklangston at 2:43 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by klangklangston at 2:43 PM on November 4, 2009
1. Comments also don't put any intrinsic restriction on anyone's participation. Yet we all concede that comments can make people feel unwanted.
Comments are not favorites, and vice versa. More to the point, comments are not being experimented with and therefore are not related to what is being discussed here.
2. This is nonsense. There clearly is a consensus on how favorites are used, with the majority going to indicate agreement or offer positive reinforcement.
I'm not going to argue the use of the word "clearly" here, but as far as the whole nature of favoriting goes on Metafilter, Metatalk, and AskMetafilter (at least, I don't know how favorites are used on Music) there are several uses for favoriting and no one agrees on the universal applicability of all of those uses. They do mean different things to different people, are used differently based on context, and evidentially speaking that's just been a plain fact of the matter since day one.
In the sense that "people feel unwanted" and that, therefore, "people feel discouraged from commenting", several have, in fact, therefore, made the argument that favorites are mandating the writing and submission of specific types of comments. I would argue that, in light of having no one accepted usage for favorites, it doesn't mean anything to derive this conclusion from how people use favorites.
It's just a number, and no assumptions can always be reasonably made about why one comment derived that number of favorites, compared with another comment. It just doesn't compute.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:56 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Comments are not favorites, and vice versa. More to the point, comments are not being experimented with and therefore are not related to what is being discussed here.
2. This is nonsense. There clearly is a consensus on how favorites are used, with the majority going to indicate agreement or offer positive reinforcement.
I'm not going to argue the use of the word "clearly" here, but as far as the whole nature of favoriting goes on Metafilter, Metatalk, and AskMetafilter (at least, I don't know how favorites are used on Music) there are several uses for favoriting and no one agrees on the universal applicability of all of those uses. They do mean different things to different people, are used differently based on context, and evidentially speaking that's just been a plain fact of the matter since day one.
In the sense that "people feel unwanted" and that, therefore, "people feel discouraged from commenting", several have, in fact, therefore, made the argument that favorites are mandating the writing and submission of specific types of comments. I would argue that, in light of having no one accepted usage for favorites, it doesn't mean anything to derive this conclusion from how people use favorites.
It's just a number, and no assumptions can always be reasonably made about why one comment derived that number of favorites, compared with another comment. It just doesn't compute.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:56 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm kind of curious to see how favorite behavior changes in the months after this experiment is over, now that we're having this ginormous indexed awareness about it. Maybe we'll even find that some of the exclusionary behavior will be naturally diminished, which was kind of the problem we were trying to solve in the first place, right?
posted by iamkimiam at 3:06 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by iamkimiam at 3:06 PM on November 4, 2009
I don't like this. (A popularity contest? Wtf??)
True, I do not use it for it's intended purpose. Nope usually it's because I've come across exactly what I was thinking too - and *tah-da* can now just convey that instantly in one neat little click.
I also think it can be used really effectively a tactful, tidy outlet to 'pile on'. (It's always something short. It's positive and/or genuine and it has like 58 favorites. Nuf said, right? Maybe it gets deleted but I don't see that with snark. People seem to want to serve up their own.)
Anyway, and then other times I just like to shake my head. "Ugh. How could 6 people also think that!" (It's just a passing thing. I don't care enough to click and find out. But "mm 'has favorites'" doesn't have the same kick as thinking "6!". So that was kind of a kill joy.)
I'm not sure how its 'misuse' is either hurting or benefiting anyone though? Some people always gotta bitch about something...
Here - have a favorite and shut up.
posted by mu~ha~ha~ha~har at 3:10 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
True, I do not use it for it's intended purpose. Nope usually it's because I've come across exactly what I was thinking too - and *tah-da* can now just convey that instantly in one neat little click.
I also think it can be used really effectively a tactful, tidy outlet to 'pile on'. (It's always something short. It's positive and/or genuine and it has like 58 favorites. Nuf said, right? Maybe it gets deleted but I don't see that with snark. People seem to want to serve up their own.)
Anyway, and then other times I just like to shake my head. "Ugh. How could 6 people also think that!" (It's just a passing thing. I don't care enough to click and find out. But "mm 'has favorites'" doesn't have the same kick as thinking "6!". So that was kind of a kill joy.)
I'm not sure how its 'misuse' is either hurting or benefiting anyone though? Some people always gotta bitch about something...
Here - have a favorite and shut up.
posted by mu~ha~ha~ha~har at 3:10 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
"Comments are not favorites, and vice versa. More to the point, comments are not being experimented with and therefore are not related to what is being discussed here."
You miss my point. That favorites do not put an intrinsic restriction on other people's comments does not mean that they do not put an extrinsic restriction on other people's comments. As what's largely being argued is the extrinsic, or second order, effects of favorites, arguing that there is no first order determination is irrelevant. And comments were just an example to show that your premise—that because favorites had no first order effects they had no effects on others comments—was false.
"I'm not going to argue the use of the word "clearly" here, but as far as the whole nature of favoriting goes on Metafilter, Metatalk, and AskMetafilter (at least, I don't know how favorites are used on Music) there are several uses for favoriting and no one agrees on the universal applicability of all of those uses. They do mean different things to different people, are used differently based on context, and evidentially speaking that's just been a plain fact of the matter since day one."
That they mean different things to different people does not mean that they do not have a generally accepted, consensus meaning. Arguing that they do not represent people's favorite comments, or even things notable and worth signaling to the greater community flies in the face of what nearly every pro-favorites user has been saying.
In the sense that "people feel unwanted" and that, therefore, "people feel discouraged from commenting", several have, in fact, therefore, made the argument that favorites are mandating the writing and submission of specific types of comments. I would argue that, in light of having no one accepted usage for favorites, it doesn't mean anything to derive this conclusion from how people use favorites."
Again, "mandating" is the wrong word to use, if you're interested in actually engaging with the argument. "Encourage" or "reward" is what people are actually saying. And as there is a generally accepted view of what favorites mean, you're again reasoning from false premises.
It's just a number, and no assumptions can always be reasonably made about why one comment derived that number of favorites, compared with another comment. It just doesn't compute."
Like I said, this is an obviously counterfactual argument. But let's assume that it's true: No assumptions, or, more rightly, no conclusions can be drawn from the number of favorites that a comment receives. In that case, there's no use displaying them at all; they're simply noise.
That's an argument for getting rid of favorites.
posted by klangklangston at 3:20 PM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
You miss my point. That favorites do not put an intrinsic restriction on other people's comments does not mean that they do not put an extrinsic restriction on other people's comments. As what's largely being argued is the extrinsic, or second order, effects of favorites, arguing that there is no first order determination is irrelevant. And comments were just an example to show that your premise—that because favorites had no first order effects they had no effects on others comments—was false.
"I'm not going to argue the use of the word "clearly" here, but as far as the whole nature of favoriting goes on Metafilter, Metatalk, and AskMetafilter (at least, I don't know how favorites are used on Music) there are several uses for favoriting and no one agrees on the universal applicability of all of those uses. They do mean different things to different people, are used differently based on context, and evidentially speaking that's just been a plain fact of the matter since day one."
That they mean different things to different people does not mean that they do not have a generally accepted, consensus meaning. Arguing that they do not represent people's favorite comments, or even things notable and worth signaling to the greater community flies in the face of what nearly every pro-favorites user has been saying.
In the sense that "people feel unwanted" and that, therefore, "people feel discouraged from commenting", several have, in fact, therefore, made the argument that favorites are mandating the writing and submission of specific types of comments. I would argue that, in light of having no one accepted usage for favorites, it doesn't mean anything to derive this conclusion from how people use favorites."
Again, "mandating" is the wrong word to use, if you're interested in actually engaging with the argument. "Encourage" or "reward" is what people are actually saying. And as there is a generally accepted view of what favorites mean, you're again reasoning from false premises.
It's just a number, and no assumptions can always be reasonably made about why one comment derived that number of favorites, compared with another comment. It just doesn't compute."
Like I said, this is an obviously counterfactual argument. But let's assume that it's true: No assumptions, or, more rightly, no conclusions can be drawn from the number of favorites that a comment receives. In that case, there's no use displaying them at all; they're simply noise.
That's an argument for getting rid of favorites.
posted by klangklangston at 3:20 PM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
...there are several uses for favoriting and no one agrees on the universal applicability of all of those uses. They do mean different things to different people, are used differently based on context, and evidentially speaking that's just been a plain fact of the matter since day one.
Why does everyone acknowledge that for the most part favourite = agreement until this thread? I don't want to go digging through comment histories on everyone, but come on.
posted by ODiV at 3:22 PM on November 4, 2009
Why does everyone acknowledge that for the most part favourite = agreement until this thread? I don't want to go digging through comment histories on everyone, but come on.
posted by ODiV at 3:22 PM on November 4, 2009
It's just a number, and no assumptions can always be reasonably made about why one comment derived that number of favorites, compared with another comment.
You know a good way to get away from baseless assumptions? Experiments!
posted by aspo at 3:24 PM on November 4, 2009
You know a good way to get away from baseless assumptions? Experiments!
posted by aspo at 3:24 PM on November 4, 2009
That should be "You know WHAT'S a good way..." Where do all those missing words go anyway?
posted by aspo at 3:25 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by aspo at 3:25 PM on November 4, 2009
me about it
posted by found missing at 3:32 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by found missing at 3:32 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Like I said, this is an obviously counterfactual argument. But let's assume that it's true: No assumptions, or, more rightly, no conclusions can be drawn from the number of favorites that a comment receives. In that case, there's no use displaying them at all; they're simply noise.
You conclude that favorites have no worth if they do not, as a whole, lead the reader to make one single conclusion about why a comment would have all those favorites.
That's false reasoning, because favorites can mean different things to different people. It's not "noise". It's just means you can't say there was a single, homogenous reason why your comment got x favorites, which says nothing about the utility of any given favorite for the person who added it.
One person might add a favorite to mark assent. Another might add a favorite as a bookmark. Neither addition makes the body of favorites "noise" by any known meaning of the word.
That's an argument for getting rid of favorites.
No, it's an argument against bad, illogical thinking, from deriving false impressions about a comment or its favorites, simply based on the number of favorites that comment received.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:38 PM on November 4, 2009
You conclude that favorites have no worth if they do not, as a whole, lead the reader to make one single conclusion about why a comment would have all those favorites.
That's false reasoning, because favorites can mean different things to different people. It's not "noise". It's just means you can't say there was a single, homogenous reason why your comment got x favorites, which says nothing about the utility of any given favorite for the person who added it.
One person might add a favorite to mark assent. Another might add a favorite as a bookmark. Neither addition makes the body of favorites "noise" by any known meaning of the word.
That's an argument for getting rid of favorites.
No, it's an argument against bad, illogical thinking, from deriving false impressions about a comment or its favorites, simply based on the number of favorites that comment received.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:38 PM on November 4, 2009
It's just a number, and no assumptions can always be reasonably made about why one comment derived that number of favorites, compared with another comment.
You know a good way to get away from baseless assumptions? Experiments!
That only works if the experiments are designed in a way that will yield meaningful data. But even if we assume that this one will, it doesn't address that particular question at all, so I don't see how this is relevant other than to be snarky.
posted by shammack at 3:47 PM on November 4, 2009
You know a good way to get away from baseless assumptions? Experiments!
That only works if the experiments are designed in a way that will yield meaningful data. But even if we assume that this one will, it doesn't address that particular question at all, so I don't see how this is relevant other than to be snarky.
posted by shammack at 3:47 PM on November 4, 2009
"You conclude that favorites have no worth if they do not, as a whole, lead the reader to make one single conclusion about why a comment would have all those favorites."
No. I conclude that favorites do in fact have a value, and that this value is generally seen as agreement. Because that's the easiest inference to draw from the fact that a great many people use them to skim threads and give them as encouragement. I conclude that they're pretty much what everyone says they are, because otherwise it turns into an argument from ignorance.
"That's false reasoning, because favorites can mean different things to different people."
That would only be true if every favorite did mean something different to every person giving it and every person receiving it. As they clearly do not, why don't we stop being coy and accept people at their words?
It's not "noise". It's just means you can't say there was a single, homogenous reason why your comment got x favorites, which says nothing about the utility of any given favorite for the person who added it."
You don't have to. You don't have to be able to say that there was a single, homogenous reason why everyone voted for Obama to be able to say that most people voted for Obama because they liked him more than McCain.
One person might add a favorite to mark assent. Another might add a favorite as a bookmark. Neither addition makes the body of favorites "noise" by any known meaning of the word."
Right. So why are you arguing that favorites shouldn't be seen as marks of assent? That people use favorites for many reasons does not mean that there is not a primary reason, or even that there aren't pretty significant reasons which can largely be sussed out from context? If a comment is favorited by a lot of people because they agree with it, why should that be apparent only to people who agree with the comment and not those who disagree?
That's an argument for getting rid of favorites.
No, it's an argument against bad, illogical thinking, from deriving false impressions about a comment or its favorites, simply based on the number of favorites that comment received."
Pish tosh. Could you stop trying to portray arguments you disagree with as illogical simply because you're either not grasping them or are unhappy with the conclusions they require?
I feel like I'm arguing with a Creationist who's trying to say that there's no way we can know that God didn't just create the world 6000 years ago with all the fossils there to fool us. If we grant that the people in this thread talking about how they read conversations based on favorites aren't liars, we're forced to conclude that favorites are substantially a way to endorse comments or to improve their importance. If that is true, and it is, then it follows that people who do not agree with the endorsed comments will be aware of their unpopularity just as people who do endorse them are aware of their popularity.
I mean, Christ, you think everyone would have been mentioning how many favorites Rhaomi's comment got way upthread if that wasn't a tacit endorsement of support?
posted by klangklangston at 4:14 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
No. I conclude that favorites do in fact have a value, and that this value is generally seen as agreement. Because that's the easiest inference to draw from the fact that a great many people use them to skim threads and give them as encouragement. I conclude that they're pretty much what everyone says they are, because otherwise it turns into an argument from ignorance.
"That's false reasoning, because favorites can mean different things to different people."
That would only be true if every favorite did mean something different to every person giving it and every person receiving it. As they clearly do not, why don't we stop being coy and accept people at their words?
It's not "noise". It's just means you can't say there was a single, homogenous reason why your comment got x favorites, which says nothing about the utility of any given favorite for the person who added it."
You don't have to. You don't have to be able to say that there was a single, homogenous reason why everyone voted for Obama to be able to say that most people voted for Obama because they liked him more than McCain.
One person might add a favorite to mark assent. Another might add a favorite as a bookmark. Neither addition makes the body of favorites "noise" by any known meaning of the word."
Right. So why are you arguing that favorites shouldn't be seen as marks of assent? That people use favorites for many reasons does not mean that there is not a primary reason, or even that there aren't pretty significant reasons which can largely be sussed out from context? If a comment is favorited by a lot of people because they agree with it, why should that be apparent only to people who agree with the comment and not those who disagree?
That's an argument for getting rid of favorites.
No, it's an argument against bad, illogical thinking, from deriving false impressions about a comment or its favorites, simply based on the number of favorites that comment received."
Pish tosh. Could you stop trying to portray arguments you disagree with as illogical simply because you're either not grasping them or are unhappy with the conclusions they require?
I feel like I'm arguing with a Creationist who's trying to say that there's no way we can know that God didn't just create the world 6000 years ago with all the fossils there to fool us. If we grant that the people in this thread talking about how they read conversations based on favorites aren't liars, we're forced to conclude that favorites are substantially a way to endorse comments or to improve their importance. If that is true, and it is, then it follows that people who do not agree with the endorsed comments will be aware of their unpopularity just as people who do endorse them are aware of their popularity.
I mean, Christ, you think everyone would have been mentioning how many favorites Rhaomi's comment got way upthread if that wasn't a tacit endorsement of support?
posted by klangklangston at 4:14 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Whups. Forgot to italicize the "argument against favorites" bit, which was me quoting you quoting me, which sounds like the nerdiest forum ballad I can imagine right now.
posted by klangklangston at 4:17 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by klangklangston at 4:17 PM on November 4, 2009
I don't see how quantitative data is going to reveal any qualitative differences in posting over the next month.
I'm one of the people intending to dig into that quantitative data, and I don't see how it's going to reveal any qualitative differences either. I'm hoping statistics about comments and favorites will sort of point to places we might look for those qualitative differences.
The easy part will be figuring out that some statistic looks significantly different during this experiment. The hard part will be figuring out why it's different. Stats are just one more starting point for that harder discussion, among many possible starting points.
posted by FishBike at 4:41 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm one of the people intending to dig into that quantitative data, and I don't see how it's going to reveal any qualitative differences either. I'm hoping statistics about comments and favorites will sort of point to places we might look for those qualitative differences.
The easy part will be figuring out that some statistic looks significantly different during this experiment. The hard part will be figuring out why it's different. Stats are just one more starting point for that harder discussion, among many possible starting points.
posted by FishBike at 4:41 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
For cryin' out loud. Of course having a ton of favorites on a comment probably means either, "I like this" or "this is significant."
That's really not in question. And I don't even use favorites that way.
Nor is the issue whether you like the fact that comment favorite totals are obscured.
The issues in question are:
A. Some people throw spitballs of trifling snark, ad hominems, and other contentious tidbits, and then feel good about it if they get favorites, in accordance with GIFT. This may be making it difficult for the grown-ups to talk. Or not.
B. When lots of people motor down a thread on the favorites freeway, that could potentially highlight and promote the brash and contentious aspects of a discussion, making the overall tone more brash and contentious. This may be making it difficult for the grownups to talk without clubbing each other over the head. Or not.
Y'all who insist that this should be a scientifical experment, here are your alternative hypotheses:
A. Obscuring favorite counts on comments reduces the incidence of spitballs.
B. Obscuring favorite counts on comments reduces the incidence people clubbing each other over the head.
The scientifical evaluation of these hypotheses will be an exit survey conducted on scraps of paper with the determinant being the answer to, 'Do you like me? Circle YES or NO.'
posted by zennie at 5:17 PM on November 4, 2009
That's really not in question. And I don't even use favorites that way.
Nor is the issue whether you like the fact that comment favorite totals are obscured.
The issues in question are:
A. Some people throw spitballs of trifling snark, ad hominems, and other contentious tidbits, and then feel good about it if they get favorites, in accordance with GIFT. This may be making it difficult for the grown-ups to talk. Or not.
B. When lots of people motor down a thread on the favorites freeway, that could potentially highlight and promote the brash and contentious aspects of a discussion, making the overall tone more brash and contentious. This may be making it difficult for the grownups to talk without clubbing each other over the head. Or not.
Y'all who insist that this should be a scientifical experment, here are your alternative hypotheses:
A. Obscuring favorite counts on comments reduces the incidence of spitballs.
B. Obscuring favorite counts on comments reduces the incidence people clubbing each other over the head.
The scientifical evaluation of these hypotheses will be an exit survey conducted on scraps of paper with the determinant being the answer to, 'Do you like me? Circle YES or NO.'
posted by zennie at 5:17 PM on November 4, 2009
So why are you arguing that favorites shouldn't be seen as marks of assent?
I haven't made that argument anywhere in this thread. I don't even agree with it. Favorites are de facto whatever people use them for. I cannot possibly imagine how you reached your conclusion, but it is false.
Could you stop trying to portray arguments you disagree with as illogical simply because you're either not grasping them or are unhappy with the conclusions they require?
You're not being rational, either because you put disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreement above good faith discussion of whether favorites are "noise" or not (and they are not, and I have not argued that they are), or because you do not understand the meanings of your own words.
I feel like I'm arguing with a Creationist
There you go yet again. I didn't rise to your bait earlier and I'm not going to now. Either grow up and discuss the matter like an adult, or take your ball somewhere else.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:18 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
I haven't made that argument anywhere in this thread. I don't even agree with it. Favorites are de facto whatever people use them for. I cannot possibly imagine how you reached your conclusion, but it is false.
Could you stop trying to portray arguments you disagree with as illogical simply because you're either not grasping them or are unhappy with the conclusions they require?
You're not being rational, either because you put disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreement above good faith discussion of whether favorites are "noise" or not (and they are not, and I have not argued that they are), or because you do not understand the meanings of your own words.
I feel like I'm arguing with a Creationist
There you go yet again. I didn't rise to your bait earlier and I'm not going to now. Either grow up and discuss the matter like an adult, or take your ball somewhere else.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:18 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
i like metafilter it is fun and pretty
posted by The Whelk at 5:24 PM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 5:24 PM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
I do think it's kind of hilarious how folks are getting all het up about the user numbers.
In terms of hatred of popularity contests and high-schoolish cliquism, which seems to be fueling part of the movement against favorites, it seems to me MetaFilter's implicit "ranking" of the experience or oldness of users, which is often confused for the value of their voice. In addition to being really insulting to newer users, this is a bad leap, since it can't account for the five years of lurking or four previous user IDs that someone might have had in the past.
User reg numbers do seem to incite a few superiority complexes now and again, and I've seen the highness/lowness of a user's number be a more frequent and bigger source of braggadocio and angst than the number of favorites given or received.
We have enforced-unique user ID strings. Why do we need visible numbers at all? They seem to serve only as ego-boosting leverage in "I'm a long-time user" arguments.
You want all voices treated equally on MeFi? Forget favorites: hide the user numbers.
posted by rokusan at 5:29 PM on November 4, 2009 [4 favorites]
In terms of hatred of popularity contests and high-schoolish cliquism, which seems to be fueling part of the movement against favorites, it seems to me MetaFilter's implicit "ranking" of the experience or oldness of users, which is often confused for the value of their voice. In addition to being really insulting to newer users, this is a bad leap, since it can't account for the five years of lurking or four previous user IDs that someone might have had in the past.
User reg numbers do seem to incite a few superiority complexes now and again, and I've seen the highness/lowness of a user's number be a more frequent and bigger source of braggadocio and angst than the number of favorites given or received.
We have enforced-unique user ID strings. Why do we need visible numbers at all? They seem to serve only as ego-boosting leverage in "I'm a long-time user" arguments.
You want all voices treated equally on MeFi? Forget favorites: hide the user numbers.
posted by rokusan at 5:29 PM on November 4, 2009 [4 favorites]
I haven't made that argument anywhere in this thread. I don't even agree with it. Favorites are de facto whatever people use them for.
AND MOST PEOPLE USE THEM TO SHOW SUPPORT OR ASSENT.
You're not being rational, either because you put disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreement above good faith discussion of whether favorites are "noise" or not (and they are not, and I have not argued that they are), or because you do not understand the meanings of your own words.
Please. You're making a fallacious argument from ignorance. Arguing that an accumulation of favorites can't reasonable be concluded as a community endorsement of that comment is idiotic.
There you go yet again. I didn't rise to your bait earlier and I'm not going to now. Either grow up and discuss the matter like an adult, or take your ball somewhere else.
Hey, stop making stupid arguments from ignorance and I'll stop telling you that you're making stupid arguments from ignorance.
You took the rhetorical pose of not being able to understand the argument that favorites could discourage commenting, couched in a lot of question-begging verbiage ("mandatory", etc.)
I'll put it forth again:
There is nothing illogical here, nothing unreasonable. Flatly, your objections are wrong. Your attempts to portray me as unreasonable or irrational are wrong. Your attempts to paint yourself as a victim are wrong.
posted by klangklangston at 5:42 PM on November 4, 2009
AND MOST PEOPLE USE THEM TO SHOW SUPPORT OR ASSENT.
You're not being rational, either because you put disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreement above good faith discussion of whether favorites are "noise" or not (and they are not, and I have not argued that they are), or because you do not understand the meanings of your own words.
Please. You're making a fallacious argument from ignorance. Arguing that an accumulation of favorites can't reasonable be concluded as a community endorsement of that comment is idiotic.
There you go yet again. I didn't rise to your bait earlier and I'm not going to now. Either grow up and discuss the matter like an adult, or take your ball somewhere else.
Hey, stop making stupid arguments from ignorance and I'll stop telling you that you're making stupid arguments from ignorance.
You took the rhetorical pose of not being able to understand the argument that favorites could discourage commenting, couched in a lot of question-begging verbiage ("mandatory", etc.)
I'll put it forth again:
—It is not unreasonable to see a comment that has many favorites as being one that is endorsed by the community. This is a function of their most common use, to highlight or approve a comment. This view has been presented many, many times in this thread already.You have quibbled with the first point, but have not refuted it. That people favorite for many reasons does not preclude there being reasons that are more common than others, nor the view that favorites are votes for positions.
—If you disagree with that comment, it is not unreasonable to feel that the community is tacitly against you.
—If the community is tacitly against you, it is unwelcoming. A person is less likely to post to an unwelcoming community.
There is nothing illogical here, nothing unreasonable. Flatly, your objections are wrong. Your attempts to portray me as unreasonable or irrational are wrong. Your attempts to paint yourself as a victim are wrong.
posted by klangklangston at 5:42 PM on November 4, 2009
Can't you two argue with each other in MeMail?
posted by smackfu at 5:44 PM on November 4, 2009 [7 favorites]
posted by smackfu at 5:44 PM on November 4, 2009 [7 favorites]
You're making a fallacious argument from ignorance.
I would say the same thing about you, except that you're doing it deliberately, which I cannot understand, since you seem smart enough not to have to pull that shit.
Hey, stop making stupid arguments from ignorance and I'll stop telling you that you're making stupid arguments from ignorance.
And there you go once again!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:50 PM on November 4, 2009
I would say the same thing about you, except that you're doing it deliberately, which I cannot understand, since you seem smart enough not to have to pull that shit.
Hey, stop making stupid arguments from ignorance and I'll stop telling you that you're making stupid arguments from ignorance.
And there you go once again!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:50 PM on November 4, 2009
If you get rid of the user numbers we will just find a new way to establish and promote a social hierarchy. Same with favorites. Or profile pages. Or use of memes. Or quality of answers. This isn't even specific to MetaFilter, it's just what we DO.
If the problem is bad behavior in a certain environment, limiting access to that environment will move the fight scene elsewhere. That's not to say that things can't change through reasoned discussion...as we've seen on this site with regards to sexism, racism, politics, and generally dealing with our less socially-capable brethren. It is very possible that, in similar fashion to the topics just mentioned, we have served to cultivate a sense of awareness and sensitivity towards bad-favoriting-behavior with both this thread and experiment. It should be interesting to see how that pans out in the future. But let's get through this month.
Mods, thanks for putting up with all of this. Just keeping up with this thread is an ordeal, not to mention digesting all its content. You all are truly awesome and let me just say that I'll love MetaFilter favorites or no favorites. Hell, I'll still love MetaFilter even if it were black and white and we were only allowed to post once a year. (but please don't)
By the end of the month, I bet you all will wish the Make It Stop button did something different.
posted by iamkimiam at 5:51 PM on November 4, 2009 [5 favorites]
If the problem is bad behavior in a certain environment, limiting access to that environment will move the fight scene elsewhere. That's not to say that things can't change through reasoned discussion...as we've seen on this site with regards to sexism, racism, politics, and generally dealing with our less socially-capable brethren. It is very possible that, in similar fashion to the topics just mentioned, we have served to cultivate a sense of awareness and sensitivity towards bad-favoriting-behavior with both this thread and experiment. It should be interesting to see how that pans out in the future. But let's get through this month.
Mods, thanks for putting up with all of this. Just keeping up with this thread is an ordeal, not to mention digesting all its content. You all are truly awesome and let me just say that I'll love MetaFilter favorites or no favorites. Hell, I'll still love MetaFilter even if it were black and white and we were only allowed to post once a year. (but please don't)
By the end of the month, I bet you all will wish the Make It Stop button did something different.
posted by iamkimiam at 5:51 PM on November 4, 2009 [5 favorites]
rokusan writes "You want all voices treated equally on MeFi? Forget favorites: hide the user numbers."
The enforced-unique user strings aren't limited in any meaniful way. I'd much rather type a number than anyone of these:
ND¢,
c:\awesome,
Julia F***ing Sugarbaker,
[@I][:+:][@I],
jhjhgjkjjhgfhgfhgfhhgfhgfhgfhghghgfhgfh,
Zippity Bop™,
ôÒÕÈÉÎå×ÇÅÎÉÊïÌÅÇÏ×ÉÞ,
¨€,
•,
º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ºº¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º, or
김치 into a web browser address bar.
posted by Mitheral at 6:13 PM on November 4, 2009
The enforced-unique user strings aren't limited in any meaniful way. I'd much rather type a number than anyone of these:
ND¢,
c:\awesome,
Julia F***ing Sugarbaker,
[@I][:+:][@I],
jhjhgjkjjhgfhgfhgfhhgfhgfhgfhghghgfhgfh,
Zippity Bop™,
ôÒÕÈÉÎå×ÇÅÎÉÊïÌÅÇÏ×ÉÞ,
¨€,
•,
º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ºº¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º, or
김치 into a web browser address bar.
posted by Mitheral at 6:13 PM on November 4, 2009
"I would say the same thing about you, except that you're doing it deliberately, which I cannot understand, since you seem smart enough not to have to pull that shit."
No. Your argument is that because we can't know why a user has added something as a favorite, no conclusions can be drawn from a the mass of favorites on a comment. That's an argument from ignorance (the ignorance being our ignorance of favoriter intention), and it's a fallacy. Not an insult.
posted by klangklangston at 6:24 PM on November 4, 2009
No. Your argument is that because we can't know why a user has added something as a favorite, no conclusions can be drawn from a the mass of favorites on a comment. That's an argument from ignorance (the ignorance being our ignorance of favoriter intention), and it's a fallacy. Not an insult.
posted by klangklangston at 6:24 PM on November 4, 2009
smackfu: Can't you two argue with each other in MeMail?
I don't know, man... watching blazecock pileon and klangklangston argue makes me feel at home. I've read their debates so many times I can appreciate their rhythms. It's like watching a couple of jazz musicians swing at each other syncopatedly. It must be similar to what Americans feel when they walk into a baseball stadium and get hit in the face with an apple pie or how a Canadian feels when he's tied to a maple tree by a moose with a mountie hat.
posted by Kattullus at 7:41 PM on November 4, 2009 [10 favorites]
I don't know, man... watching blazecock pileon and klangklangston argue makes me feel at home. I've read their debates so many times I can appreciate their rhythms. It's like watching a couple of jazz musicians swing at each other syncopatedly. It must be similar to what Americans feel when they walk into a baseball stadium and get hit in the face with an apple pie or how a Canadian feels when he's tied to a maple tree by a moose with a mountie hat.
posted by Kattullus at 7:41 PM on November 4, 2009 [10 favorites]
Do do do do do dha duh dum dum Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaze COCK (pileon) oh oh oh do do de do bum bah ooooooooooo KLANG! KLANG! KLANG! klangklangston! BUH DUH DA DUH DAH DUM DA DUM DUM DAH!
And then handjobs.
posted by The Whelk at 7:46 PM on November 4, 2009 [9 favorites]
And then handjobs.
posted by The Whelk at 7:46 PM on November 4, 2009 [9 favorites]
klangklangston put it forth again:
- It is not unreasonable to see a comment that has many concurring comments as being one that is endorsed by the community.
- If you disagree with that comment, it is not unreasonable to feel that the community is tacitly against you.
- If the community is tacitly against you, it is unwelcoming. A person is less likely to post to an unwelcoming community.
- Therefore, no one should be able to make any comment that agrees or disagrees or echos or conflicts with another comment, because that would imply the expression of opinions, which would be degrading and unwelcoming to those who have different opinions, which would be bad for the community.
- Therefore, the community would be healthiest if discussion were completely disallowed.
posted by alms at 7:51 PM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
—It is not unreasonable to see a comment that has many favorites as being one that is endorsed by the community. This is a function of their most common use, to highlight or approve a comment. This view has been presented many, many times in this thread already.How are favorites in this scenario different from subsequent comments that echo or agree with a previous comment? Let's see...
—If you disagree with that comment, it is not unreasonable to feel that the community is tacitly against you.
—If the community is tacitly against you, it is unwelcoming. A person is less likely to post to an unwelcoming community.
- It is not unreasonable to see a comment that has many concurring comments as being one that is endorsed by the community.
- If you disagree with that comment, it is not unreasonable to feel that the community is tacitly against you.
- If the community is tacitly against you, it is unwelcoming. A person is less likely to post to an unwelcoming community.
- Therefore, no one should be able to make any comment that agrees or disagrees or echos or conflicts with another comment, because that would imply the expression of opinions, which would be degrading and unwelcoming to those who have different opinions, which would be bad for the community.
- Therefore, the community would be healthiest if discussion were completely disallowed.
posted by alms at 7:51 PM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
how a Canadian feels when he's tied to a maple tree by a moose with a mountie hat.
Confused, but also a little aroused?
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 7:57 PM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Confused, but also a little aroused?
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 7:57 PM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
The Whelk: And then handjobs.
Y'know, I've loved jazz music for years, but it's amazing how even after years of knowing and loving something you can still discover aspects of it that still surprise and inspire you.
posted by koeselitz at 8:09 PM on November 4, 2009
Y'know, I've loved jazz music for years, but it's amazing how even after years of knowing and loving something you can still discover aspects of it that still surprise and inspire you.
posted by koeselitz at 8:09 PM on November 4, 2009
- Therefore, the community would be healthiest if discussion were completely disallowed.
IT'S ABOUT THE LINKS
posted by Miko at 8:09 PM on November 4, 2009
IT'S ABOUT THE LINKS
posted by Miko at 8:09 PM on November 4, 2009
has klangklangston been revealed to be a koeselitz sockpuppet all of a sudden?
'cause it's seeming so based on commitment to Being Right in this thread!
posted by hippybear at 8:09 PM on November 4, 2009
'cause it's seeming so based on commitment to Being Right in this thread!
posted by hippybear at 8:09 PM on November 4, 2009
hippybear: “has klangklangston been revealed to be a koeselitz sockpuppet all of a sudden?”
Well, only in a sort of vulgar metaphorical way that most people would find mildly offensive.
posted by koeselitz at 8:15 PM on November 4, 2009
Well, only in a sort of vulgar metaphorical way that most people would find mildly offensive.
posted by koeselitz at 8:15 PM on November 4, 2009
EVERYBODY NEEDS A HUG!
SOMTIMES A TIGHT ONE A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN
posted by The Whelk at 8:17 PM on November 4, 2009 [6 favorites]
SOMTIMES A TIGHT ONE A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN
posted by The Whelk at 8:17 PM on November 4, 2009 [6 favorites]
I am currently trying to decide between the Door's People Are Strange And the Echo And Bunneymen cover, cause on one hand the Door's has a better feel, but the cover has the Lost Boys thing and I like the vocal better but the werdio feeling is better in the orginal but everyone knows the original, so, yep.l
posted by The Whelk at 8:20 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by The Whelk at 8:20 PM on November 4, 2009
Besides, hippybear, what the hell has klang done that Blazecock and a billion other people haven't in this thread? He hasn't skinned your knuckles with a cheese grater. Indulge in a bit of self-examination and you may find that, like so many people in this thread, you're acting as though another person is inferior to you purely because you disagree with their opinion. That's your right, but you'll find it robs you of some pleasure, methinks.
posted by koeselitz at 8:21 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by koeselitz at 8:21 PM on November 4, 2009
"Can't you two argue with each other in MeMail?"
No. Blazecock and I have a firm agreement that MeMail is purely for cybersex.
posted by klangklangston at 8:21 PM on November 4, 2009
No. Blazecock and I have a firm agreement that MeMail is purely for cybersex.
posted by klangklangston at 8:21 PM on November 4, 2009
Oh, and Whelk: cut your losses and just bring on the dancing horses.
posted by koeselitz at 8:23 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by koeselitz at 8:23 PM on November 4, 2009
WiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILD HORSES! COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOULD TEAR ME FROM YOU!
Wait what?
posted by The Whelk at 8:26 PM on November 4, 2009
Wait what?
posted by The Whelk at 8:26 PM on November 4, 2009
Burhanistan: “100 favorites says that the Yankees end it tonight.”
Nah, I won't take that bet. I thought they might, but I've heard the managers had the same concern and had all the razor blades and aspirin removed from the hotel rooms.
posted by koeselitz at 8:28 PM on November 4, 2009
Nah, I won't take that bet. I thought they might, but I've heard the managers had the same concern and had all the razor blades and aspirin removed from the hotel rooms.
posted by koeselitz at 8:28 PM on November 4, 2009
Is this where I mention I saw a brilliant strip tease to Goodbye Horses? Complete with a little dog, just OWNING the stage the audience,putting on makeup and doing dances in front of a mirror (and holding a bottle of lotion) and the big reveal being a public-hair bikini that made it look like she was tucking? Yah, that was kinda awesome.
posted by The Whelk at 8:31 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by The Whelk at 8:31 PM on November 4, 2009
And the *exact same pattern* kimono. It was a real stunner.
posted by The Whelk at 8:32 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by The Whelk at 8:32 PM on November 4, 2009
"- Therefore, no one should be able to make any comment that agrees or disagrees or echos or conflicts with another comment, because that would imply the expression of opinions, which would be degrading and unwelcoming to those who have different opinions, which would be bad for the community.
- Therefore, the community would be healthiest if discussion were completely disallowed."
Wrong. Blazecock asked how favorites could discourage discussion. This is not (purely) an argument for eliminating favorites—the amount of damage done to discussion should be weighed against the amount of good that it does, e.g. encouraging underrepresented voices.
However, the analogue with comments is readily available in the Boyzone discussions—The repeated and casual andronormativism was discouraging women from commenting. That was seen as a detriment to the community, and pilloried.
Finally, the barrier to a pile on with favorites is much lower than the barrier to a pile on with comments; favorites are fairly obviously easier to give than comments are to make. As a supplemental point, each favorite is given the same weight, regardless of the amount of the comment they agree with (or even if they agree with it).
Given the choice between a favorite and a comment, it's hard to argue that a comment doesn't have more information, even if it's just a "Me Too," which lets you know that they agree completely. The only way that they don't give more information is if that information isn't received, i.e. read.
posted by klangklangston at 8:32 PM on November 4, 2009
- Therefore, the community would be healthiest if discussion were completely disallowed."
Wrong. Blazecock asked how favorites could discourage discussion. This is not (purely) an argument for eliminating favorites—the amount of damage done to discussion should be weighed against the amount of good that it does, e.g. encouraging underrepresented voices.
However, the analogue with comments is readily available in the Boyzone discussions—The repeated and casual andronormativism was discouraging women from commenting. That was seen as a detriment to the community, and pilloried.
Finally, the barrier to a pile on with favorites is much lower than the barrier to a pile on with comments; favorites are fairly obviously easier to give than comments are to make. As a supplemental point, each favorite is given the same weight, regardless of the amount of the comment they agree with (or even if they agree with it).
Given the choice between a favorite and a comment, it's hard to argue that a comment doesn't have more information, even if it's just a "Me Too," which lets you know that they agree completely. The only way that they don't give more information is if that information isn't received, i.e. read.
posted by klangklangston at 8:32 PM on November 4, 2009
Shiver and now be spurned
By every fave you've earned
First I'm gonna make it
Then I'm gonna break it
Till it falls apart
Hating all the faving
And snarking while I'm slaving
At our metafark
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:35 PM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
By every fave you've earned
First I'm gonna make it
Then I'm gonna break it
Till it falls apart
Hating all the faving
And snarking while I'm slaving
At our metafark
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:35 PM on November 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
100 favorites says that the Yankees end it tonight.
Not even the Yankees can put a stop to this thread.
posted by milarepa at 8:36 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Not even the Yankees can put a stop to this thread.
posted by milarepa at 8:36 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Is this where I mention I saw a brilliant strip tease to Goodbye Horses? Complete with a little dog, just OWNING the stage the audience,putting on makeup and doing dances in front of a mirror (and holding a bottle of lotion) and the big reveal being a public-hair bikini that made it look like she was tucking? Yah, that was kinda awesome."
I've long held that there is a song, particular to each person, that will allow them to do a perfect strip tease.
(Mine is the Handclappin' Song by the Meters)
posted by klangklangston at 8:40 PM on November 4, 2009
I've long held that there is a song, particular to each person, that will allow them to do a perfect strip tease.
(Mine is the Handclappin' Song by the Meters)
posted by klangklangston at 8:40 PM on November 4, 2009
God, I hope I post it.
I hope I post it.
How many favotires does it need?
God, I hope I get it.
I hope I get it.
How many Posts, how many comments?
Look at all the posts!
At all the people.
How many people does this site need?
How many posts, how many favorties?
How many comments does he...?
I really need this site.
Please God, I need this question.
I've got to make this post.
God, I really blew it!
Self-linked and flamed!
How could I expect it to be the same?
posted by The Whelk at 8:41 PM on November 4, 2009
I hope I post it.
How many favotires does it need?
God, I hope I get it.
I hope I get it.
How many Posts, how many comments?
Look at all the posts!
At all the people.
How many people does this site need?
How many posts, how many favorties?
How many comments does he...?
I really need this site.
Please God, I need this question.
I've got to make this post.
God, I really blew it!
Self-linked and flamed!
How could I expect it to be the same?
posted by The Whelk at 8:41 PM on November 4, 2009
Can I get some of what The Whelk has? I think he's into something better than markers.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:45 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by cjorgensen at 8:45 PM on November 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Whelk, darling, I LOVE YOU, YOU AND YOUR CHORUS LINE PARODIES.
wuv,
okie-poo
posted by ocherdraco at 8:49 PM on November 4, 2009
wuv,
okie-poo
posted by ocherdraco at 8:49 PM on November 4, 2009
Miko: Katullus said that the site's user interface has "changed dramatically" since 2004. I disagree - MetaFilter has never changed permanently in a way you could call dramatic. It's an insanely consistent site, especially when compared with other sites that are ten years old.
Cortex used the word "tweak" in describing changes to the UI, and that's more accurate. It's been enhanced, it's been complexified, and it's been tweaked, but it hasn't dramatically changed.
Since it turns out that we're basically on the same page (it is important to establish common ground so that we may dig up from it the fossilized bones of contention :) ) I will limit myself to this tiny point, the changes in the MetaFilter user interface since 2004. We both agree that favorites and flags are a big change. I want to talk about the other big change that I can think of and how it can be troublesome.
Incidentally, 2004 is when contacts were introduced. At first they were something of an afterthought, with little direct impact on the day to day of a MeFite. Then, in 2007, the contacts activity sidebar was added to the front page. Suddenly a whole new portal into the site was added and one which, crucially, was partly governed by favorites. I don't know how other MeFites use it but I will click through to posts made by my contacts to Music, AskMe, Jobs, etc. Otherwise I don't visit these sites daily. I will also sometimes click on the comments by contacts that show up on the bar to read them. That makes me land smackdab in a thread I may know nothing about where I read a comment that has a context unknown to me. The contacts activity sidebar is a big change to the user interface, I feel.
I think so far we're on pretty solidly common ground, now I'm gonna get a little bit more contentious in my argument. One aspect, that I discussed above in my comments about the exchange between EmpressCallipygos and emperor.seamus, is that comments can be wrested from their contexts and sent flying through a popular-favorites-sphere. First landing on contacts activity sidebars after garnering 12 favorites and then, if more successful, landing on the popular favorites page (incidentally, the popular favorites page is another portal into MetaFilter, and comments were not part of it until 2006) where many search for gems, either on the page itself or by subscribing to the popular favorites rss feed (which was created in 2008). Once a comment or post has more than 12 favorites it starts attracting more favorites through these other portals, which can lead to weird pileons (again, the aforementioned exchange).
My contention is that this leads to a power imbalance where people can feel like the weight of the community is set against them even though it's just a function of contacts activity sidebars and the popular favorites page. This distorts debate on a paralinguistic level. To draw a simile, it is like being in an argument in a pub about, say, healthcare, and suddenly many angry faces appear behind one person, scowling at another. The simile, like all similes, is inexact, but I believe my point stands, that various features of favorites can confer power to comments that is not necessarily a function of their inherent worth (as, again, in the example of when EmpressCallipygos wrongly accused emperor.seamus of being a chauvinist).
posted by Kattullus at 8:56 PM on November 4, 2009 [6 favorites]
Cortex used the word "tweak" in describing changes to the UI, and that's more accurate. It's been enhanced, it's been complexified, and it's been tweaked, but it hasn't dramatically changed.
Since it turns out that we're basically on the same page (it is important to establish common ground so that we may dig up from it the fossilized bones of contention :) ) I will limit myself to this tiny point, the changes in the MetaFilter user interface since 2004. We both agree that favorites and flags are a big change. I want to talk about the other big change that I can think of and how it can be troublesome.
Incidentally, 2004 is when contacts were introduced. At first they were something of an afterthought, with little direct impact on the day to day of a MeFite. Then, in 2007, the contacts activity sidebar was added to the front page. Suddenly a whole new portal into the site was added and one which, crucially, was partly governed by favorites. I don't know how other MeFites use it but I will click through to posts made by my contacts to Music, AskMe, Jobs, etc. Otherwise I don't visit these sites daily. I will also sometimes click on the comments by contacts that show up on the bar to read them. That makes me land smackdab in a thread I may know nothing about where I read a comment that has a context unknown to me. The contacts activity sidebar is a big change to the user interface, I feel.
I think so far we're on pretty solidly common ground, now I'm gonna get a little bit more contentious in my argument. One aspect, that I discussed above in my comments about the exchange between EmpressCallipygos and emperor.seamus, is that comments can be wrested from their contexts and sent flying through a popular-favorites-sphere. First landing on contacts activity sidebars after garnering 12 favorites and then, if more successful, landing on the popular favorites page (incidentally, the popular favorites page is another portal into MetaFilter, and comments were not part of it until 2006) where many search for gems, either on the page itself or by subscribing to the popular favorites rss feed (which was created in 2008). Once a comment or post has more than 12 favorites it starts attracting more favorites through these other portals, which can lead to weird pileons (again, the aforementioned exchange).
My contention is that this leads to a power imbalance where people can feel like the weight of the community is set against them even though it's just a function of contacts activity sidebars and the popular favorites page. This distorts debate on a paralinguistic level. To draw a simile, it is like being in an argument in a pub about, say, healthcare, and suddenly many angry faces appear behind one person, scowling at another. The simile, like all similes, is inexact, but I believe my point stands, that various features of favorites can confer power to comments that is not necessarily a function of their inherent worth (as, again, in the example of when EmpressCallipygos wrongly accused emperor.seamus of being a chauvinist).
posted by Kattullus at 8:56 PM on November 4, 2009 [6 favorites]
alms: “How are favorites in this scenario different from subsequent comments that echo or agree with a previous comment?”
They're not different; they're exactly the same as comments that say only "me too!" or "I agree!" without adding any other new information whatsoever. Comments like that are pointless noise that add nothing to the conversation. Everybody knows it – everybody would, anyway, if they just tried posting nothing but "me too!" in response to comments they like a few times – and the fact that it feels silly to post "me too!" seems sort of interesting, doesn't it?
But if people really want to see more information, and are worried about losing this vital favorites information, wouldn't it be better if we just stuck each user's total number of favorites or how long they've been a member next to their usernames after comments?
posted by koeselitz at 9:03 PM on November 4, 2009
They're not different; they're exactly the same as comments that say only "me too!" or "I agree!" without adding any other new information whatsoever. Comments like that are pointless noise that add nothing to the conversation. Everybody knows it – everybody would, anyway, if they just tried posting nothing but "me too!" in response to comments they like a few times – and the fact that it feels silly to post "me too!" seems sort of interesting, doesn't it?
But if people really want to see more information, and are worried about losing this vital favorites information, wouldn't it be better if we just stuck each user's total number of favorites or how long they've been a member next to their usernames after comments?
posted by koeselitz at 9:03 PM on November 4, 2009
You can access somebody's metafilter page via http://www.metafilter.com/username/mathowie— no user numbers required! Dunno if it solves any problems, but it's nifty.
iamkimiam's posts have been pretty spot-on. There's the old adage, "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." I'm glad the mods are concerned about people posting worthless quips, but I don't think it's a usability problem. Metafilter's got a delicate usability balance. If we become too usable, the site turns into Digg and everybody's making fart jokes. If we become too unusable (totally no frills, think usenet), then we lose a lot of non-technical people.
For example, I was going to introduce my girlfriend to the site but I think I'll hold off until the experiment is over.
posted by yaymukund at 10:12 PM on November 4, 2009
iamkimiam's posts have been pretty spot-on. There's the old adage, "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." I'm glad the mods are concerned about people posting worthless quips, but I don't think it's a usability problem. Metafilter's got a delicate usability balance. If we become too usable, the site turns into Digg and everybody's making fart jokes. If we become too unusable (totally no frills, think usenet), then we lose a lot of non-technical people.
For example, I was going to introduce my girlfriend to the site but I think I'll hold off until the experiment is over.
posted by yaymukund at 10:12 PM on November 4, 2009
You can access somebody's metafilter page via...
The caveat is that
posted by pb (staff) at 10:23 PM on November 4, 2009
The caveat is that
/username/ doesn't work for every username. If the username is simple alphanumeric characters it works, but any high-ascii or certain symbols in the name and it won't. We don't use that URL anywhere on the site, but we also haven't removed it.posted by pb (staff) at 10:23 PM on November 4, 2009
No comments for a half an hour!
posted by cjorgensen at 10:53 PM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 10:53 PM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
I feel so alone. It's almost like having metafilter all to myself.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:55 PM on November 4, 2009
posted by cjorgensen at 11:55 PM on November 4, 2009
sssssh! Don't wake them!
posted by Mizu at 12:18 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Mizu at 12:18 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
*************************** P L E A S A N T D R E A M S . . . a M I G O S !
posted by koeselitz at 1:05 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by koeselitz at 1:05 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Thank you for changing "faved" to "has favorites". I didn't say anything, but I thought it, by God. I thought it.
posted by nthdegx at 1:08 AM on November 5, 2009
posted by nthdegx at 1:08 AM on November 5, 2009
If you stay up as late as I do, you can go two whole hours without a new comment in this thread.
posted by cj_ at 3:16 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by cj_ at 3:16 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
If you live down under as I do, you can wreak havoc whilst the Americans are all asleep.
Now...um, stuck for ideas here...little help?
Damn.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:41 AM on November 5, 2009
Now...um, stuck for ideas here...little help?
Damn.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:41 AM on November 5, 2009
UbuRoivas: Now...um, stuck for ideas here...little help?
Uh... an analysis of favorites drawing analogies to Australian law and legal practices?
yeah... I've got nothing
posted by Kattullus at 5:00 AM on November 5, 2009
Uh... an analysis of favorites drawing analogies to Australian law and legal practices?
yeah... I've got nothing
posted by Kattullus at 5:00 AM on November 5, 2009
Kattullus, you make some really interesting points about the contacts activity feedback. Contacts activity is not a big part of my MeFi experience; I tend to keep that menu minimized, partly because it simply doesn't fit my preferences, but mostly because it makes me scroll down to see the sideblog. I only open up that menu when I'm really procrastinating bored. It does change the way I find find things; I can easily see a significant (if difficult to quantify) change in MeFi occurring if most people have it open most of the time, which I believe was the default.
posted by zennie at 5:12 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by zennie at 5:12 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Count me as another one for whom the whole contacts culture was a complete mystery. I never bothered having contacts before because I never really got the point. Now that I've added some and see the contacts side menu, I get it! It's like have a little sub-committee. Metafilter has become so big that we cannot read every link and every comment but now I have my snug little sub-MeFi that I can monitor.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:53 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:53 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
We don't use that URL anywhere on the site, but we also haven't removed it.
Once upon a time ago it was used on the comment preview page for some reason.
posted by smackfu at 5:54 AM on November 5, 2009
Once upon a time ago it was used on the comment preview page for some reason.
posted by smackfu at 5:54 AM on November 5, 2009
this being just one more vote for letting fav counts remain visible. not much harm there.
posted by krautland at 6:37 AM on November 5, 2009
posted by krautland at 6:37 AM on November 5, 2009
I dislike this change intensely and viscerally.
Full disclosure -- I love being favorited. I specifically write posts in order to advance my position on the favorites lists (e.g. the all time popular favorites list, where I'm currently #6). After I write a post that I'm proud of, I obsessively refresh my post to find out how many people have favorited me, and who. In a more just world, where writers earned a living wage and the last capitalist had been strangled to death with the entrails of the last politician, I would devote my energy to writing.
I don't see how this kind of scorekeeping and rank-seeking is wrong. Does it create lower quality posts? I don't think so -- the posts 'above me' either described something brilliant or amazing, or had a really intriguing story to tell. In fact, of the entire top 20, about the worst that could be said would be that the Obama election post was merely cathartic. Any of those posts clearly stand out.
Now -- I think the story may be a little different for comments. There's certainly an element of snarky me-tooism in comments that must be kinda tiring. The problem, though, is that by flattening the favorites on those, you're also flattening the favorites on the sort of hilarious, interesting, insightful, etc., comments which generally populate the right hand side of the Popular page.
I know people are still getting rewarded with favorites, and the lists will be updated, and I will be able to see my 'score'. But I write for renown and plaudits rather than money and I hate to see changes that reduce my visibility and reduce the degree to which my ego's rewarded for the work I do.
posted by felix at 7:14 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Full disclosure -- I love being favorited. I specifically write posts in order to advance my position on the favorites lists (e.g. the all time popular favorites list, where I'm currently #6). After I write a post that I'm proud of, I obsessively refresh my post to find out how many people have favorited me, and who. In a more just world, where writers earned a living wage and the last capitalist had been strangled to death with the entrails of the last politician, I would devote my energy to writing.
I don't see how this kind of scorekeeping and rank-seeking is wrong. Does it create lower quality posts? I don't think so -- the posts 'above me' either described something brilliant or amazing, or had a really intriguing story to tell. In fact, of the entire top 20, about the worst that could be said would be that the Obama election post was merely cathartic. Any of those posts clearly stand out.
Now -- I think the story may be a little different for comments. There's certainly an element of snarky me-tooism in comments that must be kinda tiring. The problem, though, is that by flattening the favorites on those, you're also flattening the favorites on the sort of hilarious, interesting, insightful, etc., comments which generally populate the right hand side of the Popular page.
I know people are still getting rewarded with favorites, and the lists will be updated, and I will be able to see my 'score'. But I write for renown and plaudits rather than money and I hate to see changes that reduce my visibility and reduce the degree to which my ego's rewarded for the work I do.
posted by felix at 7:14 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's interesting then that we're obsessing over favorites, and not over the far more substantial change, which was the addition of contacts.
For me, contacts became a real positive for the site. Essentially, it represented the difference between living in a building with many people whom I knew only from their names on the mailboxes, and living in a building in which I could begin to recognize floormates, fellow dog walkers, people who get the same newspaper I do, and so on. It humanized and personalized the site for me, and I believe that, in addition to the growth of meetup culture, it actually enhanced the civility here. I can remember MeFi when I was a lurker and in my first days without contacts, and rudeness was a much more accepted and much more rarely called-out aspect of discourse. Contacts began to create a real feeling of the internet being made of PEOPLE, and that was a positive.
The contacts features may be a different matter. I don't use the contact activity sidebar and, for some reason, I don't really read the "worthy comments" sidebar. I really read MeFi by thread topic only. I'm in a thread, or I'm not. I use Recent Activity to stay involved in threads I'm in. I don't use popular favorites or recent favorites.
But I recognize that all this is idiosyncratic. The site has a lot of customizable read features and highlighting features now. As we've seen in this thread, there are probably no two people using the exact same settings in the exact same way. So while you could argue, Katullus, that contact activity draws favorites disproportionately, and it might, it isn't doing that for everyone. For instance, if that's changing the discourse on the site, it's not changing it much for me, since I'm still only seeing comments in threads I'm actually in. So how widespread is the effect of any such tweak - including the hiding or showing of favorites? It just becomes one more customizability.
suddenly many angry faces appear behind one person, scowling at another.
This is a neat analogy (and a little spooky!) but I would modify it. This "appearing face" is one of the most powerful impacts favoriting has had: the many angry faces were always there. They were simply hidden, silent, lurking - for a variety of reasons. Favorites made the faces visible. Instead of the faces having "appeared," we could think of someone suddenly lighting a candle and the faces being revealed, instead. Favorites have helped the site to change by revealing a lot of formerly silent support or agreement for some formerly rather unpopular or risky views; I believe they really helped defeat the vestiges of the boyzone culture, for instance.
Can they have negative effects? I certainly think they can at times. But they replicate the same kinds of effects that visible agreement and alignment have in meatspace society. It's true, that, perhaps, the format we're in also amplifies those effects - but they're not foreign to human interchange. I believe that we, as social human beings, already have the skills in place to deal with agreement and alignment in discourse. If our format amplifies them, then perhaps our skills for dealing with them need to be similarly amplified. I think that skill-amplification is exactly what lies behind simple mechanisms like "everybody needs a hug" and "stop the asshattery." Perhaps more such amplification mechanisms will emerge from this thread, or from the personal experiences of people who live without favorites for a while.
posted by Miko at 8:29 AM on November 5, 2009 [5 favorites]
For me, contacts became a real positive for the site. Essentially, it represented the difference between living in a building with many people whom I knew only from their names on the mailboxes, and living in a building in which I could begin to recognize floormates, fellow dog walkers, people who get the same newspaper I do, and so on. It humanized and personalized the site for me, and I believe that, in addition to the growth of meetup culture, it actually enhanced the civility here. I can remember MeFi when I was a lurker and in my first days without contacts, and rudeness was a much more accepted and much more rarely called-out aspect of discourse. Contacts began to create a real feeling of the internet being made of PEOPLE, and that was a positive.
The contacts features may be a different matter. I don't use the contact activity sidebar and, for some reason, I don't really read the "worthy comments" sidebar. I really read MeFi by thread topic only. I'm in a thread, or I'm not. I use Recent Activity to stay involved in threads I'm in. I don't use popular favorites or recent favorites.
But I recognize that all this is idiosyncratic. The site has a lot of customizable read features and highlighting features now. As we've seen in this thread, there are probably no two people using the exact same settings in the exact same way. So while you could argue, Katullus, that contact activity draws favorites disproportionately, and it might, it isn't doing that for everyone. For instance, if that's changing the discourse on the site, it's not changing it much for me, since I'm still only seeing comments in threads I'm actually in. So how widespread is the effect of any such tweak - including the hiding or showing of favorites? It just becomes one more customizability.
suddenly many angry faces appear behind one person, scowling at another.
This is a neat analogy (and a little spooky!) but I would modify it. This "appearing face" is one of the most powerful impacts favoriting has had: the many angry faces were always there. They were simply hidden, silent, lurking - for a variety of reasons. Favorites made the faces visible. Instead of the faces having "appeared," we could think of someone suddenly lighting a candle and the faces being revealed, instead. Favorites have helped the site to change by revealing a lot of formerly silent support or agreement for some formerly rather unpopular or risky views; I believe they really helped defeat the vestiges of the boyzone culture, for instance.
Can they have negative effects? I certainly think they can at times. But they replicate the same kinds of effects that visible agreement and alignment have in meatspace society. It's true, that, perhaps, the format we're in also amplifies those effects - but they're not foreign to human interchange. I believe that we, as social human beings, already have the skills in place to deal with agreement and alignment in discourse. If our format amplifies them, then perhaps our skills for dealing with them need to be similarly amplified. I think that skill-amplification is exactly what lies behind simple mechanisms like "everybody needs a hug" and "stop the asshattery." Perhaps more such amplification mechanisms will emerge from this thread, or from the personal experiences of people who live without favorites for a while.
posted by Miko at 8:29 AM on November 5, 2009 [5 favorites]
I like the change. Discussions already seem more considered, less one-side-versus-the-other, to me at least. I would like it even more if there was no reference at all to whether anyone else had favorited* a comment.
I'd point out that putting favorite count on mouseover is bad for screenreader users (blind people) who find this information hard to access.
* No, in the UK we get "favorite" not "favourite". I try to use US spellings since this is a US site.
posted by alasdair at 8:43 AM on November 5, 2009
I'd point out that putting favorite count on mouseover is bad for screenreader users (blind people) who find this information hard to access.
* No, in the UK we get "favorite" not "favourite". I try to use US spellings since this is a US site.
posted by alasdair at 8:43 AM on November 5, 2009
what the hell has klang done that Blazecock and a billion other people haven't in this thread? He hasn't skinned your knuckles with a cheese grater. Indulge in a bit of self-examination and you may find that, like so many people in this thread, you're acting as though another person is inferior to you purely because you disagree with their opinion.
Wait, seriously?
The behavior I was questioning, specifically, was when a discussion was becoming obviously intractable, and one person (in this case Blazecock) was trying to back out by saying "I'm not going to play your game any more. This isn't working. Let's just drop it." And then the other person kept on ranting and picking apart the arguments which were being made and just NOT FUCKING DROPPING IT.
It's that NEED to be RIGHT, that inability to recognize when a discussion has turned into an argument, that basic social ineptitude in the face of repeated suggestion that perhaps this is leading nowhere... THAT is what was going on with more than one person in this thread.
I don't give a fuck what their views are, and I certainly don't look down on anyone as being "inferior". (And we'll leave the discussion of how these people were spending the majority of their arguments telling others What They Think And Feel about a situation -- something you exhibit with great aplomb in this comment, actually -- for another time.) But I do find it a bit ridiculous when person X is saying repeatedly "this is not working, I'm bowing out" and person Y simply cannot let it go.
If you can't see how that is an obsession with Being Right on behalf of person Y, then it is not I who require the self-examination, and not I who am regarding others as inferior.
posted by hippybear at 9:06 AM on November 5, 2009
Wait, seriously?
The behavior I was questioning, specifically, was when a discussion was becoming obviously intractable, and one person (in this case Blazecock) was trying to back out by saying "I'm not going to play your game any more. This isn't working. Let's just drop it." And then the other person kept on ranting and picking apart the arguments which were being made and just NOT FUCKING DROPPING IT.
It's that NEED to be RIGHT, that inability to recognize when a discussion has turned into an argument, that basic social ineptitude in the face of repeated suggestion that perhaps this is leading nowhere... THAT is what was going on with more than one person in this thread.
I don't give a fuck what their views are, and I certainly don't look down on anyone as being "inferior". (And we'll leave the discussion of how these people were spending the majority of their arguments telling others What They Think And Feel about a situation -- something you exhibit with great aplomb in this comment, actually -- for another time.) But I do find it a bit ridiculous when person X is saying repeatedly "this is not working, I'm bowing out" and person Y simply cannot let it go.
If you can't see how that is an obsession with Being Right on behalf of person Y, then it is not I who require the self-examination, and not I who am regarding others as inferior.
posted by hippybear at 9:06 AM on November 5, 2009
Pointless fighting is the glue which holds the bonds which binds the pages of our filters together.
posted by The Whelk at 9:17 AM on November 5, 2009
posted by The Whelk at 9:17 AM on November 5, 2009
"this is not working, I'm bowing out"
I had a different read on that, but I also thought it was an interesting conversation.
By the way, in reply to fry sauce; you can try half & half of ketchup and ranch dressing.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:18 AM on November 5, 2009
I had a different read on that, but I also thought it was an interesting conversation.
By the way, in reply to fry sauce; you can try half & half of ketchup and ranch dressing.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:18 AM on November 5, 2009
It has all kinds of uses! I'm using my favorite count to keep track of Rhode Islanders following this thread, as we have a compulsion to acknowledge the awesomeness of the local cuisine. I bet I could rack up at least another two faves by mentioning strip pizza. (Served at room temp, natchually! Can't stand wahm strip pizzar... and don't put no cheese on my Portogee pie!)
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:21 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:21 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Pointless fighting is the glue which holds the bonds which binds the pages of our filters together.
I disagree. I believe it's the snark. If you look where the breaks happen, you'll often find the the snark. It goes on smoothly and fills in the rough grooves. You could dissect Metafilter and look in the trans-finite spaces and still find snark. Snark is the glue that binds the filters together, except the filters are lego blocks and glue makes it tough to reuse them.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:32 AM on November 5, 2009
I disagree. I believe it's the snark. If you look where the breaks happen, you'll often find the the snark. It goes on smoothly and fills in the rough grooves. You could dissect Metafilter and look in the trans-finite spaces and still find snark. Snark is the glue that binds the filters together, except the filters are lego blocks and glue makes it tough to reuse them.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:32 AM on November 5, 2009
Hemingway once said something along the lines of there only being three true sports: motor racing, mountain climbing and bullfighting. The rest were all just games. That is, for something to classify as a sport, your life had to be in genuine danger.
Enter argument. A noble pursuit that is often taken on with the enthusiasm of game play. A little on the immature side perhaps, but no great evil as long as no one gets hurt. But when it goes too far (ie: becomes SPORT), we truly are entering the realm of the absurd.
posted by philip-random at 9:44 AM on November 5, 2009
Enter argument. A noble pursuit that is often taken on with the enthusiasm of game play. A little on the immature side perhaps, but no great evil as long as no one gets hurt. But when it goes too far (ie: becomes SPORT), we truly are entering the realm of the absurd.
posted by philip-random at 9:44 AM on November 5, 2009
I like turtles.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:53 AM on November 5, 2009
posted by cjorgensen at 9:53 AM on November 5, 2009
The Whelk: “Pointless fighting is the glue which holds the bonds which binds the pages of our filters together.”
Yeah, er, that's exactly what it is. That's pointless fighting sticking the pages together. On account of I didn't have an tissues or a rag to wipe up the... uh, "pointless fighting"... when I, uh, finished.
posted by koeselitz at 10:10 AM on November 5, 2009
Yeah, er, that's exactly what it is. That's pointless fighting sticking the pages together. On account of I didn't have an tissues or a rag to wipe up the... uh, "pointless fighting"... when I, uh, finished.
posted by koeselitz at 10:10 AM on November 5, 2009
Oh, how nice - a happy ending!
posted by EvaDestruction at 10:26 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by EvaDestruction at 10:26 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Seriously, Damn That Television, can you cut that out?
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:28 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:28 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
...except for those who were dead, and those predisposed to unhappiness or suffering from PTSD, and those who started a whole other story later. The As-Much-An-Ending-As-You-Get-In-Life.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:32 AM on November 5, 2009
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:32 AM on November 5, 2009
I have never, ever understood how Rhode Islanders got "Por-ta-gee" from "Portuguese."
Also incomprehensible: the local pronunciation of the word "Arctic."
But hey, whatever. Pass the coffee milk.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:32 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Also incomprehensible: the local pronunciation of the word "Arctic."
But hey, whatever. Pass the coffee milk.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:32 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Pumpkin. Raspberry. Sherbet.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:53 AM on November 5, 2009
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:53 AM on November 5, 2009
Pass the coffee milk.
Coffee cabinet for me, thanks.
posted by dirtdirt at 11:03 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
Coffee cabinet for me, thanks.
posted by dirtdirt at 11:03 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
Awful Awfuls are awfully big and awfully good!
posted by diogenes at 11:37 AM on November 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by diogenes at 11:37 AM on November 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
Only 25 more days to go. Any heads up on December's experiment?
posted by cjorgensen at 11:55 AM on November 5, 2009
posted by cjorgensen at 11:55 AM on November 5, 2009
Any heads up on December's experiment?
I heard that favorite counts will be assigned randomly to each comment.
posted by found missing at 12:02 PM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
I heard that favorite counts will be assigned randomly to each comment.
posted by found missing at 12:02 PM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
Mechanical walking exoskeletons for snakes.
posted by carsonb at 12:02 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by carsonb at 12:02 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
In December they're making usernames invisible.
posted by cimbrog at 12:12 PM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by cimbrog at 12:12 PM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
Close. The usernames will be visible, but the comments will be invisible. Apparently the comments are leading to divisiveness, snark, and acrimony.
posted by found missing at 12:22 PM on November 5, 2009 [13 favorites]
posted by found missing at 12:22 PM on November 5, 2009 [13 favorites]
My vote has always been to have one day "off" per month where the site is totally inaccessible and everyone has to go do something else for a day. One of these days....
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:40 PM on November 5, 2009 [7 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:40 PM on November 5, 2009 [7 favorites]
Oh man, then we'd be forced to huff digg or ingest farkodone. Which, I suppose, would make that sweet hit of blue all that more powerful the day after.
posted by Kattullus at 12:48 PM on November 5, 2009
posted by Kattullus at 12:48 PM on November 5, 2009
where the site is totally inaccessible and everyone has to go do something else
They used to call this jrun
posted by found missing at 12:51 PM on November 5, 2009 [7 favorites]
They used to call this jrun
posted by found missing at 12:51 PM on November 5, 2009 [7 favorites]
Catfry: Wow, this thread measures 3-4 Mb in size.
It's also nearly three hundred thousand words. At some point this weekend I realized that the thread was longer than the novel I am reading (Iron Council by China Miéville). I have had to steal away to cafés this week to read because anytime I'm near a computer I'm sucked back into this monstrosity.
posted by Kattullus at 12:52 PM on November 5, 2009
It's also nearly three hundred thousand words. At some point this weekend I realized that the thread was longer than the novel I am reading (Iron Council by China Miéville). I have had to steal away to cafés this week to read because anytime I'm near a computer I'm sucked back into this monstrosity.
posted by Kattullus at 12:52 PM on November 5, 2009
My vote has always been to have one day "off" per month
Hey, we could do that on November 31st
posted by netbros at 12:55 PM on November 5, 2009
Hey, we could do that on November 31st
posted by netbros at 12:55 PM on November 5, 2009
My vote has always been to have one day "off" per month where the site is totally inaccessible and everyone has to go do something else for a day. One of these days....
I maintain that the internet should be inaccessible every April 4th.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:13 PM on November 5, 2009
I maintain that the internet should be inaccessible every April 4th.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:13 PM on November 5, 2009
I maintain that the internet should be inaccessible every April 4th.
Fuck that shit. June 7th.
posted by philip-random at 1:22 PM on November 5, 2009
Fuck that shit. June 7th.
posted by philip-random at 1:22 PM on November 5, 2009
Oh, and ... this is something I mentioned a long, long time ago whilst things were hot+heavy in this thread.
I realize there have been longer threads in MeFi's history ... but has there ever been a thread with comments from more individual members? I actually occasionally have to work for a living ... but if someone out there is looking for something to do ... ?
posted by philip-random at 1:25 PM on November 5, 2009
I realize there have been longer threads in MeFi's history ... but has there ever been a thread with comments from more individual members? I actually occasionally have to work for a living ... but if someone out there is looking for something to do ... ?
posted by philip-random at 1:25 PM on November 5, 2009
Can't we just submit this whole thread for NaNoWriMo?
posted by misha at 1:25 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by misha at 1:25 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Why June 7? I was going for 404.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:27 PM on November 5, 2009
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:27 PM on November 5, 2009
It's in my name. I was being random.
posted by philip-random at 2:19 PM on November 5, 2009
posted by philip-random at 2:19 PM on November 5, 2009
philip-random: "... but has there ever been a thread with comments from more individual members?"
I was going to try to answer that, but unfortunately the Infodump was last updated on Sunday, so data for this thread as it looks today wouldn't be in there yet. I'll try to come back to this question after the next update.
posted by FishBike at 3:12 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
I was going to try to answer that, but unfortunately the Infodump was last updated on Sunday, so data for this thread as it looks today wouldn't be in there yet. I'll try to come back to this question after the next update.
posted by FishBike at 3:12 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Man, I love those SQL scripts to load up the infodump. It makes it SO MUCH EASIER to run stats.
MeFi:
666 different posters in the Obama election night thread.
663 different posters in the Obama wins thread.
AskMe:
215 different posters in the recommend a book in your field question.
199 different posters in that cold war town question from last week.
Meta:
333 different posters in the post announcing new user signups were enabled.
318 different posters in how do you pronounce your username.
posted by smackfu at 5:22 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
MeFi:
666 different posters in the Obama election night thread.
663 different posters in the Obama wins thread.
AskMe:
215 different posters in the recommend a book in your field question.
199 different posters in that cold war town question from last week.
Meta:
333 different posters in the post announcing new user signups were enabled.
318 different posters in how do you pronounce your username.
posted by smackfu at 5:22 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
666 different posters in the Obama election night thread.
half-breed muslin more like full-breed demon amirite
posted by dersins at 5:41 PM on November 5, 2009
half-breed muslin more like full-breed demon amirite
posted by dersins at 5:41 PM on November 5, 2009
666 different posters in the Obama election night thread.
And they were all delmoi!
Wait, I don't think I told that joke right.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:45 PM on November 5, 2009
And they were all delmoi!
Wait, I don't think I told that joke right.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:45 PM on November 5, 2009
$ ./fffuuu.py -t 18396 Post: November is National Let's Try Obscuring Favorite Counts Month | MetaTalk Total Comments: 2356 Unique Authors: 531 Top 10 Commenters: 99 koeselitz 75 cortex 64 rokusan 61 P.o.B. 52 klangklangston 40 The Whelk 38 Kattullus 34 Joe Beese 34 PhoBWanKenobi 33 kittens for breakfastposted by cj_ at 6:47 PM on November 5, 2009
This thread brought to you by the letter K.
posted by Kattullus at 7:07 PM on November 5, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 7:07 PM on November 5, 2009 [5 favorites]
Awful Awfuls are awfully big and awfully good!
Ok, now I know where I am headed for dinner. Anyone want me to pick up a burger to go?
9 out of 10 vegetarians don't eat here
posted by clearly at 7:08 PM on November 5, 2009
Ok, now I know where I am headed for dinner. Anyone want me to pick up a burger to go?
9 out of 10 vegetarians don't eat here
posted by clearly at 7:08 PM on November 5, 2009
This thread brought to you by the letter K
....and the number: ... err, nevermind.
posted by clearly at 7:11 PM on November 5, 2009
....and the number: ... err, nevermind.
posted by clearly at 7:11 PM on November 5, 2009
Since the start of this experiment, I've learned something interesting. For their sins, favourites also function as a feedback mechanism. Posting on Ask has felt like communicating into a black hole for the past five days. Very rarely does an OP or any other commenter acknowledge individual contributions on a thread; favourites are a nice way for the community to acknowledge a sound response.
It seems to me that the number of favourites given has gone way down since this started. That may well be the point of the exercise, and I can understand why that would be a perfectly valid goal on the part of the moderators. But so far, this does not feel like a successful experiment to me. I don't enjoy getting less feedback about my comments, and I also do not enjoy the fact that when I mark someone else's comment as a favourite, my interaction feels like it doesn't count because it literally isn't be counted any more.
I understand there are all kinds of issues with favourite whoring, MeFi celeb papping, different ways people use the site, etc, but I just wanted to say that the net result of this particular approach to addressing those issues is that MeFi is a much flatter experience for me.
So I'm just curious whether something that could broadly be expressed as:
No favourites count shown = fewer favourites given = less interaction = meh
...has been anyone else's experience to date.
posted by DarlingBri at 9:15 PM on November 5, 2009 [7 favorites]
It seems to me that the number of favourites given has gone way down since this started. That may well be the point of the exercise, and I can understand why that would be a perfectly valid goal on the part of the moderators. But so far, this does not feel like a successful experiment to me. I don't enjoy getting less feedback about my comments, and I also do not enjoy the fact that when I mark someone else's comment as a favourite, my interaction feels like it doesn't count because it literally isn't be counted any more.
I understand there are all kinds of issues with favourite whoring, MeFi celeb papping, different ways people use the site, etc, but I just wanted to say that the net result of this particular approach to addressing those issues is that MeFi is a much flatter experience for me.
So I'm just curious whether something that could broadly be expressed as:
No favourites count shown = fewer favourites given = less interaction = meh
...has been anyone else's experience to date.
posted by DarlingBri at 9:15 PM on November 5, 2009 [7 favorites]
Post: November is National Let's Try Obscuring Favorite Counts Month | MetaTalk
Total Comments: 2356
Unique Authors: 531
Top 10 Commenters:
99 koeselitz
75 cortex
64 rokusan
61 P.o.B.
52 klangklangston
40 The Whelk
jesus christ what is wrong with me
posted by The Whelk at 9:17 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Total Comments: 2356
Unique Authors: 531
Top 10 Commenters:
99 koeselitz
75 cortex
64 rokusan
61 P.o.B.
52 klangklangston
40 The Whelk
jesus christ what is wrong with me
posted by The Whelk at 9:17 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
41
posted by anthill at 9:33 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by anthill at 9:33 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
42.
holy shit. stop this thread now. we have our answer.
posted by philip-random at 9:46 PM on November 5, 2009
holy shit. stop this thread now. we have our answer.
posted by philip-random at 9:46 PM on November 5, 2009
philip-random: we have our answer.
...and don't worry, we'll figure out the question in the December 1st thread.
We just need to dissect cortex's brain.
posted by Riki tiki at 9:52 PM on November 5, 2009 [4 favorites]
...and don't worry, we'll figure out the question in the December 1st thread.
We just need to dissect cortex's brain.
posted by Riki tiki at 9:52 PM on November 5, 2009 [4 favorites]
No favourites count shown = fewer favourites given = less interaction = meh
Yeah, that sounds about right to me, DarlingBri. To paraphrase the lesson we learned from the "rules for waiters" thread: Metafilter without visible favorites is like a man without a mustache.
posted by EatTheWeek at 10:07 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, that sounds about right to me, DarlingBri. To paraphrase the lesson we learned from the "rules for waiters" thread: Metafilter without visible favorites is like a man without a mustache.
posted by EatTheWeek at 10:07 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
No favourites count shown = fewer favourites given = less interaction = meh
Exactly, DarlingBri. People upthread have talked about this as well, how it's like losing some of the interactive texture. The way people have been describing it really reminds me of the way people describe low-level types of autism. If that's good or bad, I couldn't tell you, but there's a definite shift.
posted by Mizu at 10:13 PM on November 5, 2009
Exactly, DarlingBri. People upthread have talked about this as well, how it's like losing some of the interactive texture. The way people have been describing it really reminds me of the way people describe low-level types of autism. If that's good or bad, I couldn't tell you, but there's a definite shift.
posted by Mizu at 10:13 PM on November 5, 2009
Agreed. I'm not keeping up with this thread, but fwiw, I've given maybe 10% as many favorites, and now use favorites as bookmarks or as a private communication with the poster.
posted by salvia at 10:26 PM on November 5, 2009
posted by salvia at 10:26 PM on November 5, 2009
No favourites count shown = fewer favourites given = less interaction = meh.
I'm not sure about the second part, but the other three are dead on and what many have been predicting, yup. Whatever gross number of favorites accumulate (whether more, less, or the same amount), they already seem a lot emptier and less meaningful. I'm still clicking as many as usual, I think, and in the same way (Yes! or Ha! or You Go Girl!, usually) but in most cases, right after I click one, I now feel obliged to also post a "Hey, DarlingBri's point is spot on." comment like this one, since most people will no longer see the now-silent favorite all on its own.
But on to the important part of your comment, DarlingBri. What is "MeFi celeb papping", and does it involve Cool-Whip?
posted by rokusan at 10:36 PM on November 5, 2009
I'm not sure about the second part, but the other three are dead on and what many have been predicting, yup. Whatever gross number of favorites accumulate (whether more, less, or the same amount), they already seem a lot emptier and less meaningful. I'm still clicking as many as usual, I think, and in the same way (Yes! or Ha! or You Go Girl!, usually) but in most cases, right after I click one, I now feel obliged to also post a "Hey, DarlingBri's point is spot on." comment like this one, since most people will no longer see the now-silent favorite all on its own.
But on to the important part of your comment, DarlingBri. What is "MeFi celeb papping", and does it involve Cool-Whip?
posted by rokusan at 10:36 PM on November 5, 2009
"Very rarely does an OP or any other commenter acknowledge individual contributions on a thread; favourites are a nice way for the community to acknowledge a sound response."
I will say that the number of Metatalk conversations about why people don't respond to answers in AskMe questions has gone way down since favorites were introduced. That used to be a recurrent, "It's rude to ask a question and not respond" theme, which was also aided by the Resolved tag and Best Answer marks.
Though thinking about the lack of feedback in Ask is another one of those things—good questions have good answers. I think that bad questions in Ask, especially relationship questions, tend to get bad answers, but accrue favorites not necessarily based on how well those answers meet the needs of the asker, but rather how well they play to the biases of the crowd, with more extreme views often gaining disproportionate weight. The idea that someone asking a question needs to be aggressively dissuaded from their assumptions is one frequent way to play to the crowd.* But it means that bad answers get treated like good ones, especially bad answers to bad questions.
*And that those comments don't uniformly get favorites is for the same reason not every tall athletic guy is a professional basketball player.
On a tangential note, I was thinking about how skimming, favorites and bad answers might all fit together. I think that a lot of what gets noticed or has a lot of favorites are things that are, generally, bold speech. Ideally, bold speech well written. That stands out, gets noticed, gets favorited. Which is OK; encouraging bold speech well written is a hard thing to argue against. But that doesn't mean that the stirring words are apt. That'd connect well with Kattallus's earlier example. But skimming, you wouldn't necessarily know that, though many would. It's just less important that it be true. Favorites optimize Metafilter for browsers, no pun intended.
But I think a central facet of bad answers is a failure to consider all the information, either because it hasn't been provided or it hasn't been read. That's been a recurring problem since forever, and there's no good way to fix it. I can understand objecting to favorites on this metric, on the idea that they make bad answers, which is bad behavior for the community, easier. But if we can't eliminate people not reading what's in front of them, it makes sense to focus on minimizing the harm. I do think that this is something that comes from experience with Metafilter—there are plenty of ideas that sound convincing and well-argued until, well, until the plane takes off from the treadmill. Personal reputation counts. Looking at who favorites something that I'm not familiar with is, at least for me, a decent way of judging its broader credibility. I trust Jessamyn to not get gulled if, well, if a lot of topics come up—I think she does an excellent job in not bullshitting outside her experience.
The hypothetical newest user might not know that. Hell, you might be here years and not know that, though I'd think that if you've made your way to MeTa, you probably have that down at least.
I guess the problem with all that, and I'm just kinda rambling here, is that this really is a community function, and as the community grows, those ties that come from knowing your fellow members do get stretched thinner even as new people make deep connections with others. I mean, think about trying to name off everyone who commented in that Obama Wins thread without looking. Each of us could probably only name a fraction, but pooled, we'd do OK.
Ultimately, the answer to the problem of favorites might be more meetups and a general tendency not to be dicks to each other, much as it pains me (burns like fire) to say it. Establishing a thicker social network.
posted by klangklangston at 11:01 PM on November 5, 2009 [4 favorites]
I will say that the number of Metatalk conversations about why people don't respond to answers in AskMe questions has gone way down since favorites were introduced. That used to be a recurrent, "It's rude to ask a question and not respond" theme, which was also aided by the Resolved tag and Best Answer marks.
Though thinking about the lack of feedback in Ask is another one of those things—good questions have good answers. I think that bad questions in Ask, especially relationship questions, tend to get bad answers, but accrue favorites not necessarily based on how well those answers meet the needs of the asker, but rather how well they play to the biases of the crowd, with more extreme views often gaining disproportionate weight. The idea that someone asking a question needs to be aggressively dissuaded from their assumptions is one frequent way to play to the crowd.* But it means that bad answers get treated like good ones, especially bad answers to bad questions.
*And that those comments don't uniformly get favorites is for the same reason not every tall athletic guy is a professional basketball player.
On a tangential note, I was thinking about how skimming, favorites and bad answers might all fit together. I think that a lot of what gets noticed or has a lot of favorites are things that are, generally, bold speech. Ideally, bold speech well written. That stands out, gets noticed, gets favorited. Which is OK; encouraging bold speech well written is a hard thing to argue against. But that doesn't mean that the stirring words are apt. That'd connect well with Kattallus's earlier example. But skimming, you wouldn't necessarily know that, though many would. It's just less important that it be true. Favorites optimize Metafilter for browsers, no pun intended.
But I think a central facet of bad answers is a failure to consider all the information, either because it hasn't been provided or it hasn't been read. That's been a recurring problem since forever, and there's no good way to fix it. I can understand objecting to favorites on this metric, on the idea that they make bad answers, which is bad behavior for the community, easier. But if we can't eliminate people not reading what's in front of them, it makes sense to focus on minimizing the harm. I do think that this is something that comes from experience with Metafilter—there are plenty of ideas that sound convincing and well-argued until, well, until the plane takes off from the treadmill. Personal reputation counts. Looking at who favorites something that I'm not familiar with is, at least for me, a decent way of judging its broader credibility. I trust Jessamyn to not get gulled if, well, if a lot of topics come up—I think she does an excellent job in not bullshitting outside her experience.
The hypothetical newest user might not know that. Hell, you might be here years and not know that, though I'd think that if you've made your way to MeTa, you probably have that down at least.
I guess the problem with all that, and I'm just kinda rambling here, is that this really is a community function, and as the community grows, those ties that come from knowing your fellow members do get stretched thinner even as new people make deep connections with others. I mean, think about trying to name off everyone who commented in that Obama Wins thread without looking. Each of us could probably only name a fraction, but pooled, we'd do OK.
Ultimately, the answer to the problem of favorites might be more meetups and a general tendency not to be dicks to each other, much as it pains me (burns like fire) to say it. Establishing a thicker social network.
posted by klangklangston at 11:01 PM on November 5, 2009 [4 favorites]
The way people have been describing it really reminds me of the way people describe low-level types of autism. "
We have hit the apex of internet-diagnosed autism.
posted by klangklangston at 11:03 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
We have hit the apex of internet-diagnosed autism.
posted by klangklangston at 11:03 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's kind of funny that people bring up favorites and askmefi, which is the part of the site where favorites can make the most harm. But this is more of an "what is askme good for" philosophical question.
Because, basically, a lot of people writing answers in askme don't know what they're talking about. This is unfortunate, and has been decried before, but I don't think you can avoid it. And then other people who don't know what they're talking about come along and favorite the hell out of wrong answers.
Now some questions (like relationshipfilter) don't really have "right" answers, especially since human situations seem fundamentally unknowable. But I've seen very favorited and wrong answers in technical questions. I don't doubt the same thing happens in legal or medical questions.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 11:05 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Because, basically, a lot of people writing answers in askme don't know what they're talking about. This is unfortunate, and has been decried before, but I don't think you can avoid it. And then other people who don't know what they're talking about come along and favorite the hell out of wrong answers.
Now some questions (like relationshipfilter) don't really have "right" answers, especially since human situations seem fundamentally unknowable. But I've seen very favorited and wrong answers in technical questions. I don't doubt the same thing happens in legal or medical questions.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 11:05 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
jesus christ what is wrong with me
Don't feel bad, when I wrote the script I was still top 10 and didn't paste the results until I fell off the scoreboard. One of those races to the bottom you don't want to be winning, I guess.
If anyone wants the script, it's here. Requires python 2.5+ and BeautifulSoup.
posted by cj_ at 11:10 PM on November 5, 2009
Don't feel bad, when I wrote the script I was still top 10 and didn't paste the results until I fell off the scoreboard. One of those races to the bottom you don't want to be winning, I guess.
If anyone wants the script, it's here. Requires python 2.5+ and BeautifulSoup.
posted by cj_ at 11:10 PM on November 5, 2009
We have hit the apex of internet-diagnosed autism.
I held off on saying it for days, klang. But I figured, this thing was Godwin'd a bajillion comments ago, what's there to lose?
posted by Mizu at 11:11 PM on November 5, 2009
I held off on saying it for days, klang. But I figured, this thing was Godwin'd a bajillion comments ago, what's there to lose?
posted by Mizu at 11:11 PM on November 5, 2009
rokusan: But on to the important part of your comment, DarlingBri. What is "MeFi celeb papping", and does it involve Cool-Whip?
Sadly no. It's an urban slang term related to paparazzi. Basically, it means that a number of very popular Mefites garner favourites for vitually anything they post; they are so beloved that they could post directions on how to exhale and get a dozen favourites.
People here really love the members they love, and thus, they pap them. I actually don't think it's a major problem but I do understand how for people who have an issue with favourites in the first place, that must really grate.
posted by DarlingBri at 11:29 PM on November 5, 2009
Sadly no. It's an urban slang term related to paparazzi. Basically, it means that a number of very popular Mefites garner favourites for vitually anything they post; they are so beloved that they could post directions on how to exhale and get a dozen favourites.
People here really love the members they love, and thus, they pap them. I actually don't think it's a major problem but I do understand how for people who have an issue with favourites in the first place, that must really grate.
posted by DarlingBri at 11:29 PM on November 5, 2009
~****************one hundred c omments!!***********~
posted by koeselitz at 11:38 PM on November 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by koeselitz at 11:38 PM on November 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
Basically, it means that a number of very popular Mefites garner favourites for vitually anything they post; they are so beloved that they could post directions on how to exhale and get a dozen favourites.
FWIW, I don't really see this. Seems to me "popular" mefites are more likely to get into stupid dick-waving matches that no-one cares about over anything else.
posted by cj_ at 12:49 AM on November 6, 2009 [2 favorites]
FWIW, I don't really see this. Seems to me "popular" mefites are more likely to get into stupid dick-waving matches that no-one cares about over anything else.
posted by cj_ at 12:49 AM on November 6, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yeah, you would say that cj_, wouldn't you? Me and my people who will soon be along to back me up will prove that I am right, and that you are a stinky loser nobody compared to me and my huge posse.
posted by Meatbomb at 1:15 AM on November 6, 2009
posted by Meatbomb at 1:15 AM on November 6, 2009
cj_, you are clearly a stinky loser nobody compared to Meatbomb and his huge pussy.
posted by dg at 1:25 AM on November 6, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by dg at 1:25 AM on November 6, 2009 [6 favorites]
I would just like to take this opportunity to say that I didn't read the entirety this thread, or anything close to it. Instead, I skimmed through the posts with the most favorites in order to get the gist of the conversation.
posted by PostOfficeBuddy at 1:37 AM on November 6, 2009
posted by PostOfficeBuddy at 1:37 AM on November 6, 2009
Can we try not to use pop-medical similes when talking about favorites? That goes for arguments against visible favorites that use the term OCD as well as arguments for visible favorites that use the term autism.
Meatbomb, your posse is too busy thinking of things to do with a lobster and a pair of lightly soiled lederhosen to come back you up when you need it. Sorry, dude.
posted by Kattullus at 4:51 AM on November 6, 2009
Meatbomb, your posse is too busy thinking of things to do with a lobster and a pair of lightly soiled lederhosen to come back you up when you need it. Sorry, dude.
posted by Kattullus at 4:51 AM on November 6, 2009
PostOfficeBuddy: I would just like to take this opportunity to say that I didn't read the entirety this thread, or anything close to it. Instead, I skimmed through the posts with the most favorites in order to get the gist of the conversation.
That's interesting. What is your impression of the thread?
posted by Kattullus at 4:52 AM on November 6, 2009
That's interesting. What is your impression of the thread?
posted by Kattullus at 4:52 AM on November 6, 2009
I can't help but feel like people are being unreasonably cranky here. I mean, c'mon, the number of favourites for any given comment (as well as who did the favouriting) is only one click away. I hardly think this justifies a comparison to autism (and find that a bit offensive actually). But I guess my revoltingly high user number means a lot of you might think I'm not really entitled to an opinion here anyway, so never mind I guess.
posted by Go Banana at 5:17 AM on November 6, 2009
posted by Go Banana at 5:17 AM on November 6, 2009
Calling people cranky, getting offended by someone, and whining about user numbers? You seem to have gotten the hang of Meta!
posted by smackfu at 5:44 AM on November 6, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by smackfu at 5:44 AM on November 6, 2009 [3 favorites]
> It seems to me that the number of favourites given has gone way down since this started. That may well be the point of the exercise, and I can understand why that would be a perfectly valid goal on the part of the moderators. But so far, this does not feel like a successful experiment to me.
Once again, the point of the exercise was to try something and see what happened. The mods had no other goal and are not trying to force or encourage any particular result. How many times do they have to repeat this?
posted by languagehat at 5:51 AM on November 6, 2009 [2 favorites]
Once again, the point of the exercise was to try something and see what happened. The mods had no other goal and are not trying to force or encourage any particular result. How many times do they have to repeat this?
posted by languagehat at 5:51 AM on November 6, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think that a lot of what gets noticed or has a lot of favorites are things that are, generally, bold speech. Ideally, bold speech well written.
I've definitely noticed that masculine style writing (strong, forceful language) gets more favorites than feminine style (qualified with "I think," "It seems to me" "Perhaps.")
No favourites count shown = fewer favourites given = less interaction = meh.
That may be your experience because you have been so reliant on favorites in the past, but it isn't my experience. I'm giving more favorites now just because I've realized through this thread how important they are to everybody. And the less interaction part isn't necessarily so. You can still give favorites. You can still reply in-thread. You can still send MeMail.
I'm using my favorite count to keep track of Rhode Islanders
I've never actually met a real life Rhode Islander; they are sort of the Lichtensteiners of America....or the Leprechauns. Do we know for sure that Rhode Islanders actually exist?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:12 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've definitely noticed that masculine style writing (strong, forceful language) gets more favorites than feminine style (qualified with "I think," "It seems to me" "Perhaps.")
No favourites count shown = fewer favourites given = less interaction = meh.
That may be your experience because you have been so reliant on favorites in the past, but it isn't my experience. I'm giving more favorites now just because I've realized through this thread how important they are to everybody. And the less interaction part isn't necessarily so. You can still give favorites. You can still reply in-thread. You can still send MeMail.
I'm using my favorite count to keep track of Rhode Islanders
I've never actually met a real life Rhode Islander; they are sort of the Lichtensteiners of America....or the Leprechauns. Do we know for sure that Rhode Islanders actually exist?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:12 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've definitely noticed that masculine style writing (strong, forceful language) gets more favorites than feminine style (qualified with "I think," "It seems to me" "Perhaps.")
This is exactly why, when teaching, I encouraged my undergraduate students, particularly the female students, to reduce the number of qualifiers in their writing.
So they could win at metafilter.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 6:16 AM on November 6, 2009
This is exactly why, when teaching, I encouraged my undergraduate students, particularly the female students, to reduce the number of qualifiers in their writing.
So they could win at metafilter.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 6:16 AM on November 6, 2009
I've never actually met a real life Rhode Islander; they are sort of the Lichtensteiners of America....or the Leprechauns. Do we know for sure that Rhode Islanders actually exist?
I'm not a native, but I've been here 3 1/2 years and I've caught myself saying "NO SUH!" in all seriousness. I can say that I have definitively met native Rhode Islanders and that they do, in fact, exist.
Unless my life is a very elaborate hallucination, in which case, I'm wondering why my subconscious would give them THAT accent and not something a tad classier.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:32 AM on November 6, 2009
I'm not a native, but I've been here 3 1/2 years and I've caught myself saying "NO SUH!" in all seriousness. I can say that I have definitively met native Rhode Islanders and that they do, in fact, exist.
Unless my life is a very elaborate hallucination, in which case, I'm wondering why my subconscious would give them THAT accent and not something a tad classier.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:32 AM on November 6, 2009
I've definitely noticed that masculine style writing (strong, forceful language) gets more favorites than feminine style (qualified with "I think," "It seems to me" "Perhaps.")
Is this supposed to be taken seriously? Men write strong and forceful, and women are subjective and uncertain? Because I'm a guy and I think that it seems to me to be perhaps bullshit.
I don't know, maybe you meet the wrong kind of women.
posted by Dr Dracator at 7:12 AM on November 6, 2009 [3 favorites]
Is this supposed to be taken seriously? Men write strong and forceful, and women are subjective and uncertain? Because I'm a guy and I think that it seems to me to be perhaps bullshit.
I don't know, maybe you meet the wrong kind of women.
posted by Dr Dracator at 7:12 AM on November 6, 2009 [3 favorites]
Secret Life of Gravy: "
I've definitely noticed that masculine style writing (strong, forceful language) gets more favorites than feminine style (qualified with "I think," "It seems to me" "Perhaps.")"
Oh, I don't know, but I think that perhaps you might be full of male cow poop.
posted by iamkimiam at 7:20 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've definitely noticed that masculine style writing (strong, forceful language) gets more favorites than feminine style (qualified with "I think," "It seems to me" "Perhaps.")"
Oh, I don't know, but I think that perhaps you might be full of male cow poop.
posted by iamkimiam at 7:20 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
Is this supposed to be taken seriously? Men write strong and forceful, and women are subjective and uncertain? Because I'm a guy and I think that it seems to me to be perhaps bullshit
There have actually been studies done on this. I took a class on Gender Development and it was really fascinating that once we discussed an article about how women use more qualifying speech (both spoken and written) to notice that yeah, it's really true, and especially noticing that I personally do it all the time. Women also raise their tone at the end of sentences to make normal statements sound like questions a lot LOT more than men do.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 7:26 AM on November 6, 2009 [2 favorites]
There have actually been studies done on this. I took a class on Gender Development and it was really fascinating that once we discussed an article about how women use more qualifying speech (both spoken and written) to notice that yeah, it's really true, and especially noticing that I personally do it all the time. Women also raise their tone at the end of sentences to make normal statements sound like questions a lot LOT more than men do.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 7:26 AM on November 6, 2009 [2 favorites]
It's an urban slang term related to paparazzi. Basically, it means that a number of very popular Mefites garner favourites for vitually anything they post; they are so beloved that they could post directions on how to exhale and get a dozen favourites.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort amount of that going on, but I do suspect you're overstating the case even before you get to the semicolon. It's an interesting question, though: we've got hard numbers on favoriting behavior available in the Infodump, so measuring that part shouldn't be too hard for someone so inclined, but how do we measure celebrity in order to look for either correlation or contradiction of your assertion?
I'm not just jawing rhetorically, I'm actually interested in how someone could approach the problem. I haven't had any caffeine yet and the ideas aren't jumping out at me.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:26 AM on November 6, 2009
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort amount of that going on, but I do suspect you're overstating the case even before you get to the semicolon. It's an interesting question, though: we've got hard numbers on favoriting behavior available in the Infodump, so measuring that part shouldn't be too hard for someone so inclined, but how do we measure celebrity in order to look for either correlation or contradiction of your assertion?
I'm not just jawing rhetorically, I'm actually interested in how someone could approach the problem. I haven't had any caffeine yet and the ideas aren't jumping out at me.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:26 AM on November 6, 2009
Women also raise their tone at the end of sentences to make normal statements sound like questions a lot LOT more than men do.
This is known as "uptalk" or "upspeak" where I've seen it discussed formally. And I can recall seeing at least a couple abstracts talking about finding a significant difference between male and female usage frequency with larger volume coming from women in the study, but I don't remember if that was significant-as-in-boy-howdy-a-lot or just significant-as-in-statistically-significant.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:31 AM on November 6, 2009
This is known as "uptalk" or "upspeak" where I've seen it discussed formally. And I can recall seeing at least a couple abstracts talking about finding a significant difference between male and female usage frequency with larger volume coming from women in the study, but I don't remember if that was significant-as-in-boy-howdy-a-lot or just significant-as-in-statistically-significant.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:31 AM on November 6, 2009
masculine style writing (strong, forceful language) gets more favorites than feminine style (qualified with "I think," "It seems to me" "Perhaps.")
I took a class on Gender Development and it was really fascinating that once we discussed an article about how women use more qualifying speech (both spoken and written)
Interesting - I started using "I" statements in formal writing as a direct result of my instructors in postgrad gender studies classes encouraging it. They argued that it was a way of strengthening students' writing by encouraging us to own our positions, rather than attempting to project (or hide behind) an abstract aura of authority. Consequently, I tend to see "I think" as a strengthening statement, rather than a weakening one. Actually, out of context, I don't automatically see any of the "qualifiers" above as such - I think of "weakening" qualifiers as being statements like "this is just my opinion, but..."
posted by EvaDestruction at 7:51 AM on November 6, 2009 [2 favorites]
I took a class on Gender Development and it was really fascinating that once we discussed an article about how women use more qualifying speech (both spoken and written)
Interesting - I started using "I" statements in formal writing as a direct result of my instructors in postgrad gender studies classes encouraging it. They argued that it was a way of strengthening students' writing by encouraging us to own our positions, rather than attempting to project (or hide behind) an abstract aura of authority. Consequently, I tend to see "I think" as a strengthening statement, rather than a weakening one. Actually, out of context, I don't automatically see any of the "qualifiers" above as such - I think of "weakening" qualifiers as being statements like "this is just my opinion, but..."
posted by EvaDestruction at 7:51 AM on November 6, 2009 [2 favorites]
Actually, out of context, I don't automatically see any of the "qualifiers" above as such - I think of "weakening" qualifiers as being statements like "this is just my opinion, but..."
Weird that your instructors taught you that. Those phrases are essentially saying nothing more than "this is just my opinion, but . . ."; as I used to tell my undergrad, if it's your writing, we know that it's your own interpretations and opinions that you're presenting, but there's no reason to make it sound like you're uncertain about something by qualifying it with phrases like "I believe. . ."
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:59 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
Weird that your instructors taught you that. Those phrases are essentially saying nothing more than "this is just my opinion, but . . ."; as I used to tell my undergrad, if it's your writing, we know that it's your own interpretations and opinions that you're presenting, but there's no reason to make it sound like you're uncertain about something by qualifying it with phrases like "I believe. . ."
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:59 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's an interesting question, though: we've got hard numbers on favoriting behavior available in the Infodump, so measuring that part shouldn't be too hard for someone so inclined, but how do we measure celebrity in order to look for either correlation or contradiction of your assertion?
Hmm... I know there have been several MeFites who've switched to new accounts for various reasons. One could chart something like average favorites per comment vs. time, across their account transition(s), and see if there's a bump or dip when the transition occurs. The theory there is that, for at least a little while, any celebrity effects are reduced because fewer people recognize the new name.
I know there are other possible explanations for such a bump or dip in the graph, especially given the reasons why people sometimes switch to new accounts. And it's an awfully personal analysis, so the results would have to be anonymous or only given for people who volunteer. But it seems like one way to separate name from content in favoriting stats.
posted by FishBike at 7:59 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
Hmm... I know there have been several MeFites who've switched to new accounts for various reasons. One could chart something like average favorites per comment vs. time, across their account transition(s), and see if there's a bump or dip when the transition occurs. The theory there is that, for at least a little while, any celebrity effects are reduced because fewer people recognize the new name.
I know there are other possible explanations for such a bump or dip in the graph, especially given the reasons why people sometimes switch to new accounts. And it's an awfully personal analysis, so the results would have to be anonymous or only given for people who volunteer. But it seems like one way to separate name from content in favoriting stats.
posted by FishBike at 7:59 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
Gah, no! Not only are these claims inaccurate, but the attributes tied to these claims (qualifiers/uptalk = weak/not-strong = feminist style) are socially constructed and also shown to be misrepresentations. Comments like Secret Life of Gravy's perpetuate false equivalencies and gender stereotypes involving language. Maybe I should have been more explicit about how I felt (re: my quip above), as I am now.
Anyways, yes, there have been MANY articles about how women talk more than men, women use more qualifiers and rising intonation, etc. It's all part of a long ongoing discussion about language and gender, and there have been a lot of new developments since that time, thank goodness. It's not so cut and dry as 'women talk like this, men talk like that'...the fact that in common public discourse, we tie gendered identities to certain non-gendered linguistic features, and then ascribe value judgments (ie. comments with 'masculine' language get more praise) to them, is enough right there to make us say, wait a minute, something weird is going on here. It's just not that simple, and we should really examine what is being re-created and put forth in a comment like the one above.
I wish I had time to find articles/reads to explain this better, and to support my point about how this is socially constructed reinforcement of gender stereotypes, but I have to get to class. Maybe somebody else can jump in and help carry this further?
posted by iamkimiam at 8:08 AM on November 6, 2009 [3 favorites]
Anyways, yes, there have been MANY articles about how women talk more than men, women use more qualifiers and rising intonation, etc. It's all part of a long ongoing discussion about language and gender, and there have been a lot of new developments since that time, thank goodness. It's not so cut and dry as 'women talk like this, men talk like that'...the fact that in common public discourse, we tie gendered identities to certain non-gendered linguistic features, and then ascribe value judgments (ie. comments with 'masculine' language get more praise) to them, is enough right there to make us say, wait a minute, something weird is going on here. It's just not that simple, and we should really examine what is being re-created and put forth in a comment like the one above.
I wish I had time to find articles/reads to explain this better, and to support my point about how this is socially constructed reinforcement of gender stereotypes, but I have to get to class. Maybe somebody else can jump in and help carry this further?
posted by iamkimiam at 8:08 AM on November 6, 2009 [3 favorites]
Men be writin' like this and women be writin' like this
posted by EatTheWeek at 8:19 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by EatTheWeek at 8:19 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
Maybe somebody else can jump in and help carry this further?
It's not really my area so I don't know the definitive links, but uptalk is certainly not gender-linked, but rather, correlated with age/location. Some discussion here.
It's not really my area so I don't know the definitive links, but uptalk is certainly not gender-linked, but rather, correlated with age/location. Some discussion here.
The association of uptalk with insecure women seems exemplify the complex of selective attention and confirmation bias that Arnold Zwicky has called the "out-group illusion": "… people pay attention selectively to members of groups they don't see themselves as belonging to and so locate phenomena as characteristics of these groups."posted by advil at 8:21 AM on November 6, 2009
And also, used by people in positions of authority/power.
posted by advil at 8:23 AM on November 6, 2009
posted by advil at 8:23 AM on November 6, 2009
there's no reason to make it sound like you're uncertain about something by qualifying it with phrases like "I believe. . ."
Well, it's a different paradigm, and it does depend on context. Contextualized carefully, "I believe" and "I think" are powerful because I'm owing whatever comes after. I'm declaring myself definitively. (And it wasn't just "I believe" or "I think" on it's own - those statements had to be reasoned out and backed up thoroughly.) But the same words, especially in combination with other qualifiers can be used to soften an argument (not encouraged), so they do need to be exercised carefully.
The instructors who encouraged this were big on authorial positionality and trying to open up academic paradigms. They encouraged this style in their classes, but did say we should be judicious about applying it elsewhere if we were concerned about our marks, and if we didn't feel comfortable using it even in their assignments, then we shouldn't. I experimented with it, and found the difference it made in my writing interesting, but wrote more frequently in the style you're teaching your undergrads since that's the dominant paradigm in academia, and I did care about my marks.
posted by EvaDestruction at 8:30 AM on November 6, 2009
Well, it's a different paradigm, and it does depend on context. Contextualized carefully, "I believe" and "I think" are powerful because I'm owing whatever comes after. I'm declaring myself definitively. (And it wasn't just "I believe" or "I think" on it's own - those statements had to be reasoned out and backed up thoroughly.) But the same words, especially in combination with other qualifiers can be used to soften an argument (not encouraged), so they do need to be exercised carefully.
The instructors who encouraged this were big on authorial positionality and trying to open up academic paradigms. They encouraged this style in their classes, but did say we should be judicious about applying it elsewhere if we were concerned about our marks, and if we didn't feel comfortable using it even in their assignments, then we shouldn't. I experimented with it, and found the difference it made in my writing interesting, but wrote more frequently in the style you're teaching your undergrads since that's the dominant paradigm in academia, and I did care about my marks.
posted by EvaDestruction at 8:30 AM on November 6, 2009
Yeah, I should clarify that my comment was more intended to be "here's the formal term if you want to look into it, and here's an indication that I don't know that there's anything generally substantial to the gender claim", but I didn't really get that across clearly.
iamkimiam's points aside, even in general the tendency is for within-group variation to be far greater than between-group variation when looking at things at the level of gender divide. Local variation within subgroups tends to be a more interesting and meaningful thing to look at for something like this (since the idea of Men and Women as discrete, internally homogeneous groups for something as fraught with e.g. idiolect variation and local pressures as casual speech is pretty much absurd), and even at that it's important to be careful to not let popular conception drive interpretation.
The common description of uptalk as someone not knowing the difference between a statement and question is a good example of that. Criticism of Black American English as "ungrammatical" is another classic. There's a difference between linguistics as a discipline and just having lay opinions about language, and this is one of those odd situations where (as opposed to mathematics) people in very large numbers don't tend to realize when they're talking out of their ass. Everybody can talk, ergo everybody's an expert on language, etc.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:31 AM on November 6, 2009 [3 favorites]
iamkimiam's points aside, even in general the tendency is for within-group variation to be far greater than between-group variation when looking at things at the level of gender divide. Local variation within subgroups tends to be a more interesting and meaningful thing to look at for something like this (since the idea of Men and Women as discrete, internally homogeneous groups for something as fraught with e.g. idiolect variation and local pressures as casual speech is pretty much absurd), and even at that it's important to be careful to not let popular conception drive interpretation.
The common description of uptalk as someone not knowing the difference between a statement and question is a good example of that. Criticism of Black American English as "ungrammatical" is another classic. There's a difference between linguistics as a discipline and just having lay opinions about language, and this is one of those odd situations where (as opposed to mathematics) people in very large numbers don't tend to realize when they're talking out of their ass. Everybody can talk, ergo everybody's an expert on language, etc.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:31 AM on November 6, 2009 [3 favorites]
I would be interested to know which gender favorites, and which gender receives favorites, more often. It wouldn't add a lot to the discussion, but I'm kinda curious and don't know how to run MySql queries on the infodump.
posted by klangklangston at 9:13 AM on November 6, 2009
posted by klangklangston at 9:13 AM on November 6, 2009
Here's some data I'd like to see.
Take the users who have "opted in" (ie: no favorite numbers shown) and see whether, before favoriting a post, they click first to see how many favorites that thing has already acquired and from whom. That would be a nice indicator of the bandwagon effect that wouldn't have been possible before given that the information had been available at a glance (though I'm imagining you could collect this data; perhaps you can't). It would only apply to posts that already had at least one favorite, and wouldn't capture the behaviour of people who decide post-click not to favorite, but one half of the behaviour set would still be interesting.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:20 AM on November 6, 2009
Take the users who have "opted in" (ie: no favorite numbers shown) and see whether, before favoriting a post, they click first to see how many favorites that thing has already acquired and from whom. That would be a nice indicator of the bandwagon effect that wouldn't have been possible before given that the information had been available at a glance (though I'm imagining you could collect this data; perhaps you can't). It would only apply to posts that already had at least one favorite, and wouldn't capture the behaviour of people who decide post-click not to favorite, but one half of the behaviour set would still be interesting.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:20 AM on November 6, 2009
I would be interested to know which gender favorites, and which gender receives favorites, more often. It wouldn't add a lot to the discussion, but I'm kinda curious and don't know how to run MySql queries on the infodump.
Given that the gender field in the profile is "freeform go nuts," it seems unlikely that a useful analysis of this could be made from infodump data.
posted by dersins at 9:22 AM on November 6, 2009
Given that the gender field in the profile is "freeform go nuts," it seems unlikely that a useful analysis of this could be made from infodump data.
posted by dersins at 9:22 AM on November 6, 2009
> Not only are these claims inaccurate, but the attributes tied to these claims (qualifiers/uptalk = weak/not-strong = feminist style) are socially constructed and also shown to be misrepresentations. Comments like Secret Life of Gravy's perpetuate false equivalencies and gender stereotypes involving language.
There has been a lot of study of this, and although I don't have it at hand my impression is that however socially constructed those attributes are, the gender difference is real, and waving it away as ideologically incorrect will not help anything. I am, of course, willing to change my views if you have solid evidence.
posted by languagehat at 9:23 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
There has been a lot of study of this, and although I don't have it at hand my impression is that however socially constructed those attributes are, the gender difference is real, and waving it away as ideologically incorrect will not help anything. I am, of course, willing to change my views if you have solid evidence.
posted by languagehat at 9:23 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
Given that the gender field in the profile is "freeform go nuts," it seems unlikely that a useful analysis of this could be made from infodump data.
Convex people be favoritin' like this, two-Martini Divas be favoritin' like this
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:24 AM on November 6, 2009
Convex people be favoritin' like this, two-Martini Divas be favoritin' like this
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:24 AM on November 6, 2009
it seems unlikely that a useful analysis of this could be made from infodump data.
Also, there is no real profile info in the infodump. Just userid to usernames mapping.
posted by smackfu at 9:31 AM on November 6, 2009
Also, there is no real profile info in the infodump. Just userid to usernames mapping.
posted by smackfu at 9:31 AM on November 6, 2009
Given that the gender field in the profile is "freeform go nuts," it seems unlikely that a useful analysis of this could be made from infodump data.
I think it would be a fascinating analysis to see how favoriting behavior corresponds with what people choose to put in the gender field. I would also like to know how many unique values exist for that field, because if it's not a huge number it wouldn't be hard to map them to the conventional values. But as has been pointed out already, that field isn't in the Infodump (and justifiably so).
posted by FishBike at 9:48 AM on November 6, 2009
I think it would be a fascinating analysis to see how favoriting behavior corresponds with what people choose to put in the gender field. I would also like to know how many unique values exist for that field, because if it's not a huge number it wouldn't be hard to map them to the conventional values. But as has been pointed out already, that field isn't in the Infodump (and justifiably so).
posted by FishBike at 9:48 AM on November 6, 2009
Given that the gender field in the profile is "freeform go nuts," it seems unlikely that a useful analysis of this could be made from infodump data.
Yeah, the best you could hope for here is manually reviewing the contents of that field where it has been filled in and trying to make male- vs female-identifying judgements where possible, and then I guess look at that data specifically—your "likely-male" and "likely-female" groups partitioned into experimental participants and opt-out "controls".
All of which would require a bit of either scraping of userpages or a custom query by one of the mods, since, as smackfu notes, profile info isn't in the Infodump.
Not to say that that's not a possible thing to futz with, but the amount of extra work required to pull it off may make it not worth the effort.
Take the users who have "opted in" (ie: no favorite numbers shown) and see whether, before favoriting a post, they click first to see how many favorites that thing has already acquired and from whom.
That'd be interesting, but unfortunately we don't have any way to produce that data. We're not tracking clicks on a per-user basis, it only shows up in aggregate in the analytics stuff.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:48 AM on November 6, 2009
Yeah, the best you could hope for here is manually reviewing the contents of that field where it has been filled in and trying to make male- vs female-identifying judgements where possible, and then I guess look at that data specifically—your "likely-male" and "likely-female" groups partitioned into experimental participants and opt-out "controls".
All of which would require a bit of either scraping of userpages or a custom query by one of the mods, since, as smackfu notes, profile info isn't in the Infodump.
Not to say that that's not a possible thing to futz with, but the amount of extra work required to pull it off may make it not worth the effort.
Take the users who have "opted in" (ie: no favorite numbers shown) and see whether, before favoriting a post, they click first to see how many favorites that thing has already acquired and from whom.
That'd be interesting, but unfortunately we don't have any way to produce that data. We're not tracking clicks on a per-user basis, it only shows up in aggregate in the analytics stuff.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:48 AM on November 6, 2009
Because, basically, a lot of people writing answers in askme don't know what they're talking about ... And then other people who don't know what they're talking about come along and favorite the hell out of wrong answers.
ADJUSTED FOR BROADER APPLICATION:
Because, basically, a lot of people CONTRIBUTING TO METAFILTER don't know what they're talking about ... And then other people who don't know what they're talking about come along and favorite the hell out of THEM.
Such is the danger of pretty much all social discourse. There's always going to be some genius who believes in Contrails, and a peanut gallery to back him up. Yet still we persevere.
posted by philip-random at 9:52 AM on November 6, 2009
ADJUSTED FOR BROADER APPLICATION:
Because, basically, a lot of people CONTRIBUTING TO METAFILTER don't know what they're talking about ... And then other people who don't know what they're talking about come along and favorite the hell out of THEM.
Such is the danger of pretty much all social discourse. There's always going to be some genius who believes in Contrails, and a peanut gallery to back him up. Yet still we persevere.
posted by philip-random at 9:52 AM on November 6, 2009
Mark Liberman wrote a fantastic and recent post about this called Uptalk Anxiety. And here's an NPR segment debunking the 'women talk more' myth. Sex differences in language has been covered several times, again and again over at Language Log.
I think that there's an important distinction to be made between something that is inherently gendered and something that is a socially constructed power differential that is reflected in the language choices of a gender, or even in the attitudes about the language choices of a gender. For an example, an inherent difference is vocal frequency/range between the male and female sex, due to physical anatomy. Most women talk in a higher range than men. This is not socially meaningful, UNTIL we start ascribing value judgements. Let's say something like, "I find that women who talk at a lower pitch in the workplace tend to be more respected by their coworkers." This may or may not be true, but regardless, it is socially constructed, because we as a society would be perceiving lower voices as stronger, stronger as good, and good as worthy of respect. Then pointing out that respect correlates with lower voices does not make the gender difference any more or less true. Furthermore, this strong=good or low-pitch=strong low-pitch=good value does not hold for all cultures, languages, speech environments, or other factors. This is also assuming a binary concept of gender/sex, which is not even empirically true for our society, even though culturally we construct it as such.
It is not that women's brain biology is wired in a way that makes females talk more or use more rising intonation or whatever. If that were true, then we would find this tendency across the board, in all cultures where women and men were present and talking (and again, if something in the power/social structure didn't override/suppress it). Even if it were true that women do these things in THIS culture, it wouldn't mean anything UNTIL we attach those judgements. Such as women using more hedges and politeness strategies and therefore not receiving favorites (because uptalk is considered 'weak', which is contrast to not using a hedge or politeness strategy which is considered strong, and therefore associated with masculinity...in this culture). I mean really, why is uptalk or politeness strategy considered weak? Why is it associated with femininity? Why does it matter that one gender/sex would be perceived to use it more than the other? Note, I'm not asking which came first. I'm simply illustrating that to put forth a statement containing these underlying associations perpetuates a construct that A) associates a social variable (uptalk) with a gender, and B) through implicature, makes a negative statement about that gender, with the variable reinforcing it. It's like saying, "See, women are stupid because they drive like this and women drive like this because they are stupid!"
Also, cortex's comment is spot-on here: "even in general the tendency is for within-group variation to be far greater than between-group variation when looking at things at the level of gender divide. Local variation within subgroups tends to be a more interesting and meaningful thing to look at for something like this (since the idea of Men and Women as discrete, internally homogeneous groups for something as fraught with e.g. idiolect variation and local pressures as casual speech is pretty much absurd), and even at that it's important to be careful to not let popular conception drive interpretation."
I'm not going to get into the other problem with 'I think' in internet discourse, other than to say that (I think) it serves an additional hedge/politeness function online, in not starting comments with "There's an..." Starting with "I think that there's an..." is a pragmatic convention in not trying to come across as bossy and authoritative. A quick search of MeFi comments might show that "I think" is way more common than we think! Point is, I think that there's many different 'I think's, playing different social roles, and overlapping in some of them.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:56 AM on November 6, 2009 [6 favorites]
I think that there's an important distinction to be made between something that is inherently gendered and something that is a socially constructed power differential that is reflected in the language choices of a gender, or even in the attitudes about the language choices of a gender. For an example, an inherent difference is vocal frequency/range between the male and female sex, due to physical anatomy. Most women talk in a higher range than men. This is not socially meaningful, UNTIL we start ascribing value judgements. Let's say something like, "I find that women who talk at a lower pitch in the workplace tend to be more respected by their coworkers." This may or may not be true, but regardless, it is socially constructed, because we as a society would be perceiving lower voices as stronger, stronger as good, and good as worthy of respect. Then pointing out that respect correlates with lower voices does not make the gender difference any more or less true. Furthermore, this strong=good or low-pitch=strong low-pitch=good value does not hold for all cultures, languages, speech environments, or other factors. This is also assuming a binary concept of gender/sex, which is not even empirically true for our society, even though culturally we construct it as such.
It is not that women's brain biology is wired in a way that makes females talk more or use more rising intonation or whatever. If that were true, then we would find this tendency across the board, in all cultures where women and men were present and talking (and again, if something in the power/social structure didn't override/suppress it). Even if it were true that women do these things in THIS culture, it wouldn't mean anything UNTIL we attach those judgements. Such as women using more hedges and politeness strategies and therefore not receiving favorites (because uptalk is considered 'weak', which is contrast to not using a hedge or politeness strategy which is considered strong, and therefore associated with masculinity...in this culture). I mean really, why is uptalk or politeness strategy considered weak? Why is it associated with femininity? Why does it matter that one gender/sex would be perceived to use it more than the other? Note, I'm not asking which came first. I'm simply illustrating that to put forth a statement containing these underlying associations perpetuates a construct that A) associates a social variable (uptalk) with a gender, and B) through implicature, makes a negative statement about that gender, with the variable reinforcing it. It's like saying, "See, women are stupid because they drive like this and women drive like this because they are stupid!"
Also, cortex's comment is spot-on here: "even in general the tendency is for within-group variation to be far greater than between-group variation when looking at things at the level of gender divide. Local variation within subgroups tends to be a more interesting and meaningful thing to look at for something like this (since the idea of Men and Women as discrete, internally homogeneous groups for something as fraught with e.g. idiolect variation and local pressures as casual speech is pretty much absurd), and even at that it's important to be careful to not let popular conception drive interpretation."
I'm not going to get into the other problem with 'I think' in internet discourse, other than to say that (I think) it serves an additional hedge/politeness function online, in not starting comments with "There's an..." Starting with "I think that there's an..." is a pragmatic convention in not trying to come across as bossy and authoritative. A quick search of MeFi comments might show that "I think" is way more common than we think! Point is, I think that there's many different 'I think's, playing different social roles, and overlapping in some of them.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:56 AM on November 6, 2009 [6 favorites]
That uptalk anxiety post was not recent, oops! But it is fantastic, I think.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:59 AM on November 6, 2009
posted by iamkimiam at 10:59 AM on November 6, 2009
Comments like Secret Life of Gravy's perpetuate false equivalencies and gender stereotypes involving language Oh, I don't know, but I think that perhaps you might be full of male cow poop.
As I have described myself as a "saucette" in my profile, whatever poop I am filled with is of the female persuasion. Furthermore, I suggest that once you grow up and leave your ivory towers of learning, you will discover that the real world is different than you wish it or imagine it to be. Woman are indoctrinated from a very early age to be compliant and appeasing rather than strong and forceful and this carries over very often into the written word. I, for one, am aware of this tendency in myself and take steps to be less mealy-mouthed.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:03 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
As I have described myself as a "saucette" in my profile, whatever poop I am filled with is of the female persuasion. Furthermore, I suggest that once you grow up and leave your ivory towers of learning, you will discover that the real world is different than you wish it or imagine it to be. Woman are indoctrinated from a very early age to be compliant and appeasing rather than strong and forceful and this carries over very often into the written word. I, for one, am aware of this tendency in myself and take steps to be less mealy-mouthed.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:03 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
My apologies to you Secret Life of Gravy. I'm sorry for the unnecessary potshot snark. I am a work in progress for sure. I appreciate you calling me on it and allowing me the opportunity to publicly state my feelings on this. Additionally, despite the ridiculous amount of words I've written on this topic above, I do not intend to derail this thread into another gender debate, or pile-on, or whatever I might have encouraged it to become. I'll be backing out of it now and off to do something a bit more healthy and constructive for me for a while. Thanks!
posted by iamkimiam at 11:13 AM on November 6, 2009
posted by iamkimiam at 11:13 AM on November 6, 2009
I think the argument is not with the idea that there are serious system gender biases at play in the world so much as that some of the language observations being cited as the product of those biases (a) are not actually responsibly describable as being caused by those systemic issues despite the attractiveness of such a description and/or (b) are not even extent in the form and to the degree that is sometimes cited.
Which is not to say, again, that no such effects exist or that there's not something interesting to look at, but plainly asserting that such and such is clearly so and is clearly caused by x, in this context, can be just as problematic as saying that no such thing could possibly exist. The truth is probably in the space between, and the reasons probably far more complicated and muddled, than either of those positions suggest.
And as easy as it is to slag off academia for being detached from reality, sociolinguists are actually making a careful effort to study these things, which is more than can be said for even the most well-meaning layperson drawing their own conclusions about language use based on personal/anecdotal evidence. Linguistics isn't as pure as math, sure, but they're both careful disciplines, and again the distinction between the two in popular discussion seems mostly to be in how willing people who haven't studied it are to conclude personal expertise.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:15 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
Which is not to say, again, that no such effects exist or that there's not something interesting to look at, but plainly asserting that such and such is clearly so and is clearly caused by x, in this context, can be just as problematic as saying that no such thing could possibly exist. The truth is probably in the space between, and the reasons probably far more complicated and muddled, than either of those positions suggest.
And as easy as it is to slag off academia for being detached from reality, sociolinguists are actually making a careful effort to study these things, which is more than can be said for even the most well-meaning layperson drawing their own conclusions about language use based on personal/anecdotal evidence. Linguistics isn't as pure as math, sure, but they're both careful disciplines, and again the distinction between the two in popular discussion seems mostly to be in how willing people who haven't studied it are to conclude personal expertise.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:15 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
Man, I'm going on about it too. In any case, SLoG, I understand your annoyance at the crying of bullshit and I mostly just think it's a lot more complicated than that but don't really want to perpetuate an argument about something that I think we mostly agree about, so I'll drop it too.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:17 AM on November 6, 2009
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:17 AM on November 6, 2009
People laying off arguments? Oh. My. God.
THE LACK OF VISIBLE FAVORITES HAS RUINED METATALK!!!
posted by Kattullus at 11:27 AM on November 6, 2009
THE LACK OF VISIBLE FAVORITES HAS RUINED METATALK!!!
posted by Kattullus at 11:27 AM on November 6, 2009
2425 total comments. 521 since your most recent comment, last 10 shown below...
YOU TAKE THAT BACK LET'S FIGHT!
posted by The Whelk at 2:32 PM on November 6 [+] [!]
Yay MetaTalk!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:40 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
YOU TAKE THAT BACK LET'S FIGHT!
posted by The Whelk at 2:32 PM on November 6 [+] [!]
Yay MetaTalk!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:40 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
I suggest that once you grow up and leave your ivory towers of learning, you will discover that the real world is different than you wish it or imagine it to be. Woman are indoctrinated from a very early age to be compliant and appeasing rather than strong and forceful and this carries over very often into the written word.
I have no idea how this has turned into a feminism thread, but I question your assumption.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:46 AM on November 6, 2009
I have no idea how this has turned into a feminism thread, but I question your assumption.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:46 AM on November 6, 2009
how do we measure celebrity in order to look for either correlation or contradiction of your assertion?
By favorites. QED.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:52 AM on November 6, 2009
By favorites. QED.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:52 AM on November 6, 2009
We're on pace to wind up #2 Metatalk thread pretty comfortably, but not going to catch #1 unless we get a real good feminism kick, even considering the Inevitable Upcoming Alphabet Thread Borefest.
posted by Kwine at 12:41 PM on November 6, 2009
posted by Kwine at 12:41 PM on November 6, 2009
Given that the gender field in the profile is "freeform go nuts"...
I always thought that this phrasing unduly encouraged the boyzone.
posted by kaibutsu at 12:42 PM on November 6, 2009
I always thought that this phrasing unduly encouraged the boyzone.
posted by kaibutsu at 12:42 PM on November 6, 2009
I just noticed that lewistate favorited this thread. I mean: Duh, right? But still, it amused me.
posted by Kattullus at 12:48 PM on November 6, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 12:48 PM on November 6, 2009 [2 favorites]
Day 2: I notice that I am not being distracted by the number of favorites a comment has, though I am still somewhat distracted by noticing whether a comment has any favorites or none. The existence of the tag is the visual disruptor, rather than a number. It does seem quieter somehow, perhaps just because there's less variance, but it's not the same as it was when there was just no tag there at all.
But I also notice another thing that's worse than the distractions or absence thereof, to me: I feel like I have less information. And I don't like that feeling. Klangklangston said
this really is a community function, and as the community grows, those ties that come from knowing your fellow members do get stretched thinner even as new people make deep connections with others.
..and while I think that's true, that growth in sheer numbers means a greater feeling of anonymity even while deeper interpersonal ties are developing between individuals, favorites have really helped ameliorate that. Visible favorite counts indicate when a multiplicity of people have selected to note a particular comment, and viewing their usernames begins to put those names on the doorplates of my mythical MeFi-as-apartment-building analogy. Where before I might have had a sense that there were some people on the 6th floor, but had no idea who they were or what they cared about, now I can see some names of people on the 6th floor. Over time, there emerges a cumulative effect, when I see that the same names appear over and over favoriting, say, awesome comments about gender issues, or great recipes. At that point I know that that neighbor, metaphorically, is interested in some of the same topics as I am, as if I saw at the mailboxes that we are getting the same magazine. We may never have spoken directly yet; we may never have even passed in the hall; but we come to know people a bit by their traces. In short, I'm learning something about other users through the favoriting process that there's simply no way I could otherwise know. Each favorite is a small point, a single embroidery stitch, and in the aggregate a person's favoriting pattern can create a pattern of interests which is highly descriptive of them as users.
Not using favorites turns off this entire channel of information. The apartment building becomes more sterile, more like a hospital or office, where people don't really live or work or cook or send or get mail; they just come here to do certain specific and temporary activities, but aren't planning on staying and becoming known.
There are some people in my contacts - geez, people I've met, people who are now friends - who I can safely say I'd never have even been aware of were it not for the cumulative awareness of one another and thus the interactions made possibile by favorites.
With regard to qualifying language: whether or not it can definitively be shown to be gendered, there's another question to ask about it: is it effective? When using a persuasive voice rather than an argumentative one, that kind of language can be much more effective and powerful than "My definitive statement is correct" kinds of language. When we're speaking, we're communicating, and communicating the absence of a dictatorial or completely cocksure approach is sometimes exactly what's needed in order to win hearts and minds. When making a forceful argument in an academic paper, that may not belong. It may not belong in some power-broker settings where you're expected to be a player and go in swinging. But there are a lot of social and business settings where language that refers to the personal, allows for potential disagreement, suggests, wonders, speculates, posits, floats, or limits positions taken to the speaker alone can actually be the much more impactful rhetorical strategy.
As a younger and less educated person, I used to make a lot more definitive-sounding statements and use much more direct, blunt language. Which is funny, since I knew a lot less and was wrong a lot more. And bombastic. As I've gotten older and slightly more familiar with the limits of my knowledge, my language has also gotten more careful and more qualified. I've noticed this effect amongst friends, too - and particularly ones in academics, who have elevated careful delineation and hedging and suggesting to a baroque art. After finding myself in years of endless conversations with smarter friends where I was taken to task for generalizations, rhetorical errors, and mischaracterizations, I've learned to much more finely dice my points, and to allow some room for debate when making statements.
I also agree that sometimes the use of "I think" or "I believe" can be very strong because there's nothing like hearing someone speak from personal conviction. The business world too often runs on depersonalization and abstraction - so much so that occasionally, when someone makes an assertion that flows from his or her inner wellspring of confidence, their unique perspective, their individual voice, it can be more attention-getting and persuasive than the drone of distancing "power" speech in which point of view seems to be completely absent.
posted by Miko at 2:06 PM on November 6, 2009 [4 favorites]
But I also notice another thing that's worse than the distractions or absence thereof, to me: I feel like I have less information. And I don't like that feeling. Klangklangston said
this really is a community function, and as the community grows, those ties that come from knowing your fellow members do get stretched thinner even as new people make deep connections with others.
..and while I think that's true, that growth in sheer numbers means a greater feeling of anonymity even while deeper interpersonal ties are developing between individuals, favorites have really helped ameliorate that. Visible favorite counts indicate when a multiplicity of people have selected to note a particular comment, and viewing their usernames begins to put those names on the doorplates of my mythical MeFi-as-apartment-building analogy. Where before I might have had a sense that there were some people on the 6th floor, but had no idea who they were or what they cared about, now I can see some names of people on the 6th floor. Over time, there emerges a cumulative effect, when I see that the same names appear over and over favoriting, say, awesome comments about gender issues, or great recipes. At that point I know that that neighbor, metaphorically, is interested in some of the same topics as I am, as if I saw at the mailboxes that we are getting the same magazine. We may never have spoken directly yet; we may never have even passed in the hall; but we come to know people a bit by their traces. In short, I'm learning something about other users through the favoriting process that there's simply no way I could otherwise know. Each favorite is a small point, a single embroidery stitch, and in the aggregate a person's favoriting pattern can create a pattern of interests which is highly descriptive of them as users.
Not using favorites turns off this entire channel of information. The apartment building becomes more sterile, more like a hospital or office, where people don't really live or work or cook or send or get mail; they just come here to do certain specific and temporary activities, but aren't planning on staying and becoming known.
There are some people in my contacts - geez, people I've met, people who are now friends - who I can safely say I'd never have even been aware of were it not for the cumulative awareness of one another and thus the interactions made possibile by favorites.
With regard to qualifying language: whether or not it can definitively be shown to be gendered, there's another question to ask about it: is it effective? When using a persuasive voice rather than an argumentative one, that kind of language can be much more effective and powerful than "My definitive statement is correct" kinds of language. When we're speaking, we're communicating, and communicating the absence of a dictatorial or completely cocksure approach is sometimes exactly what's needed in order to win hearts and minds. When making a forceful argument in an academic paper, that may not belong. It may not belong in some power-broker settings where you're expected to be a player and go in swinging. But there are a lot of social and business settings where language that refers to the personal, allows for potential disagreement, suggests, wonders, speculates, posits, floats, or limits positions taken to the speaker alone can actually be the much more impactful rhetorical strategy.
As a younger and less educated person, I used to make a lot more definitive-sounding statements and use much more direct, blunt language. Which is funny, since I knew a lot less and was wrong a lot more. And bombastic. As I've gotten older and slightly more familiar with the limits of my knowledge, my language has also gotten more careful and more qualified. I've noticed this effect amongst friends, too - and particularly ones in academics, who have elevated careful delineation and hedging and suggesting to a baroque art. After finding myself in years of endless conversations with smarter friends where I was taken to task for generalizations, rhetorical errors, and mischaracterizations, I've learned to much more finely dice my points, and to allow some room for debate when making statements.
I also agree that sometimes the use of "I think" or "I believe" can be very strong because there's nothing like hearing someone speak from personal conviction. The business world too often runs on depersonalization and abstraction - so much so that occasionally, when someone makes an assertion that flows from his or her inner wellspring of confidence, their unique perspective, their individual voice, it can be more attention-getting and persuasive than the drone of distancing "power" speech in which point of view seems to be completely absent.
posted by Miko at 2:06 PM on November 6, 2009 [4 favorites]
I remember when metafilter didn't have any "favorites," back when it was free and on geocities and the background was black with white text.
It was called "meatfilter" back then.
Good times.
posted by fuq at 5:03 PM on November 6, 2009
It was called "meatfilter" back then.
Good times.
posted by fuq at 5:03 PM on November 6, 2009
now meatfilter is just an amazon redirect to vegetarian cookbooks on Amazon. I wish I'd thought of that! You know how often that site must get loaded?
posted by cjorgensen at 7:23 PM on November 6, 2009
posted by cjorgensen at 7:23 PM on November 6, 2009
Well, after a few days now, I'd just like to weigh in and say that I like the change. It took me a while to stop looking down at the favorites count each time I came to a new comment (something I didn't even realize I was doing), and I still catch myself looking to see if a comment has favorites or not, but it definitely makes things seem like less of a popularity contest.
In retrospect, with it turned off, I think the favorites count felt (and functioned) a lot like a Digg / K5-style "karma" score, and I'm glad to be rid of it, or at least not see it next to every comment.
I support the change and hope it stays. I'd rather judge each comment on its merit or lack thereof; it took not having the score right there to realize how much it was affecting my internal weighting of comments and how I responded to them.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:47 PM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
In retrospect, with it turned off, I think the favorites count felt (and functioned) a lot like a Digg / K5-style "karma" score, and I'm glad to be rid of it, or at least not see it next to every comment.
I support the change and hope it stays. I'd rather judge each comment on its merit or lack thereof; it took not having the score right there to realize how much it was affecting my internal weighting of comments and how I responded to them.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:47 PM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
WHEW. I tried to stick it out for experimentation's sake but LORD I hated it. Got my favorites back, thanks for giving us the option and holy hell do we owe the mods all the beer they can drink.
posted by Space Kitty at 8:56 PM on November 6, 2009
posted by Space Kitty at 8:56 PM on November 6, 2009
Whelp, six days. I made it six days. This change is a bad change and I hope that, when December comes, it is rolled back, discarded and never discussed again. For me, it removed a lot of Metafilter's fun and utility for no real benefit. I've got the counts back on and the site looks right again.
posted by EatTheWeek at 9:43 PM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by EatTheWeek at 9:43 PM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
Like Space Kitty and EatTheWeak, I tried to stick it out to give it a chance.
But after dropping into the waiter's rules thread, I realized that I really needed favorites counts to successfully read it. I wound up reading the whole thing anyway, but only after finding out that there were a number of high-favorite comments in the thread. If it'd been all low-favorite or no-favorite, I probably would have skipped the discussion on the assumption that it was a big ol' METOO fest.
posted by Netzapper at 9:50 PM on November 6, 2009
But after dropping into the waiter's rules thread, I realized that I really needed favorites counts to successfully read it. I wound up reading the whole thing anyway, but only after finding out that there were a number of high-favorite comments in the thread. If it'd been all low-favorite or no-favorite, I probably would have skipped the discussion on the assumption that it was a big ol' METOO fest.
posted by Netzapper at 9:50 PM on November 6, 2009
dersins: "P.S. I hope you moderator-y types are prepared for the inevitable tsunami of "FAVED? WTF? WHERE ARE FAVORITE COUNTS?" metatalk posts, 'cause they're coming. Mark my words."
EatTheWeak: "This change is a bad change and I hope that, when December comes, it is rolled back, discarded and never discussed again."
I'd like to post a corollary:
Starting December 3rd requests will start coming in again on MetaTalk asking for the removal of favorite counts, since no one ever reads the archives.
posted by PontifexPrimus at 2:51 AM on November 7, 2009
EatTheWeak: "This change is a bad change and I hope that, when December comes, it is rolled back, discarded and never discussed again."
I'd like to post a corollary:
Starting December 3rd requests will start coming in again on MetaTalk asking for the removal of favorite counts, since no one ever reads the archives.
posted by PontifexPrimus at 2:51 AM on November 7, 2009
*shrug* I've still got it turned on. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. Won't bother me if it gets reverted.
2400 comments. Good galloping fuckstallions.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:00 AM on November 7, 2009 [3 favorites]
2400 comments. Good galloping fuckstallions.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:00 AM on November 7, 2009 [3 favorites]
I wondered what that was all about.
My two cents: On askmefi there should be a "me too" option, if not a favorites count.
But I miss it everywhere else too as it was a great way to interact with a comments thread.
I also use it as a bookmarking tool to find comments with stuff I want to read again or show people, so I guess that hasn't changed.
Bring back the numbers!
Also...fuckstallions? Thankyou for my new favorite word, starvosthewonderchicken!
posted by smartypantz at 4:39 AM on November 7, 2009
My two cents: On askmefi there should be a "me too" option, if not a favorites count.
But I miss it everywhere else too as it was a great way to interact with a comments thread.
I also use it as a bookmarking tool to find comments with stuff I want to read again or show people, so I guess that hasn't changed.
Bring back the numbers!
Also...fuckstallions? Thankyou for my new favorite word, starvosthewonderchicken!
posted by smartypantz at 4:39 AM on November 7, 2009
We're never going to get to 2,500, are we?
posted by languagehat at 6:11 AM on November 7, 2009
posted by languagehat at 6:11 AM on November 7, 2009
Nah, it'll never happen.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:37 AM on November 7, 2009
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:37 AM on November 7, 2009
Never in a million years.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:38 AM on November 7, 2009
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:38 AM on November 7, 2009
Well.. maybe in the year 2525. If man is still alive.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:39 AM on November 7, 2009
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:39 AM on November 7, 2009
If woman can survive.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:40 AM on November 7, 2009
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:40 AM on November 7, 2009
Okay, I tried not having the favorites count for a while. But then I un-tried it. And it was way better. I like looking at favorites to gauge trends in a conversation.
And I also like having them in AskMe, because a lot of the time people are answering questions on subjects that I know nothing about. So if one person says "X" about an unfamiliar topic, I might have no idea if it's true or not. But if one person says "X" and gets 20 favorites, I'm more likely to believe it.
So... yep.
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 7:13 AM on November 7, 2009
And I also like having them in AskMe, because a lot of the time people are answering questions on subjects that I know nothing about. So if one person says "X" about an unfamiliar topic, I might have no idea if it's true or not. But if one person says "X" and gets 20 favorites, I'm more likely to believe it.
So... yep.
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 7:13 AM on November 7, 2009
I know people say they use favorites for things other than favoriting, but really? Bookmarking is still favoriting in my opinion. Why would you bookmark something unless you thought it was worth returning to? And ok, some people have said they link to people that are asshats, so they can remember that person is an asshat, but really? I generally know who I consider an asshat without a favorite reminding me as such (and honestly when these people say funny/clever/great things I still favorite them). I just don't see someone linking to a comment that you don't agree with out of fear that person would interpret your link as an endorsement. But fine. I'll concede some people may not use it the way I do.
This said....
I'd be curious if I am doing them more lately than I used to. I feel like this isn't the case, since I generally give about as many as I get. No, not trying to stay balanced, it just generally works that way. I am seldom more than 100 above or below, and I am falling behind. So either people aren't being as funny, or I am being funnier. I don't see it.
I am getting a lot more favorites. Granted, there are a couple factors here. I've made a few posts to the blue lately, and some people have been going on a favoriting protest and marking everything for some griefing, bit even if I subtract these people, still feels like I am getting more.
I have a theory on why this would be the case. When someone says something that entertains me, and I think it's a bit humorous, but I see it has 45 favorites, I think, "It's not that damn funny," so I move on. When I see some obscure reference to something that only 1% of people will get and it has no favorites...well, it's going to get one.
I think everyone uses them the way they want to, but I don't think it's really changed my behavior tons. I still look in my profile to see who liked what (I don't care why they actually marked it, that's how I interpret this).
If you really wanted these to be reflective of what people thought of a comment, make it so we can disapprove without having to write, "You're an idiot." Obscure the people doing the marking, and let people mark something as "Um, no."
When you see the idiotic comment that has 357 favorites, who is going to come in with a dissenting opinion even if you passionately disagree?
I think this experiment is firmly putting me in the meh camp. I was excited back when I broke 100, noted 1000, but pretty much don't care either way anymore. I didn't know I didn't care until this all came up. I still check mine, but more so to see if I want to dip back into the fray, or to note, "Wow, someone read that comment I made a year ago!"
"Recent Activity" has taken over much of what I used to use favorites for.
In the end, regardless of what is decided, please consider an option to shut these off like there is now. The problem with this idea is the argument of what the default state should be.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:43 AM on November 7, 2009
This said....
I'd be curious if I am doing them more lately than I used to. I feel like this isn't the case, since I generally give about as many as I get. No, not trying to stay balanced, it just generally works that way. I am seldom more than 100 above or below, and I am falling behind. So either people aren't being as funny, or I am being funnier. I don't see it.
I am getting a lot more favorites. Granted, there are a couple factors here. I've made a few posts to the blue lately, and some people have been going on a favoriting protest and marking everything for some griefing, bit even if I subtract these people, still feels like I am getting more.
I have a theory on why this would be the case. When someone says something that entertains me, and I think it's a bit humorous, but I see it has 45 favorites, I think, "It's not that damn funny," so I move on. When I see some obscure reference to something that only 1% of people will get and it has no favorites...well, it's going to get one.
I think everyone uses them the way they want to, but I don't think it's really changed my behavior tons. I still look in my profile to see who liked what (I don't care why they actually marked it, that's how I interpret this).
If you really wanted these to be reflective of what people thought of a comment, make it so we can disapprove without having to write, "You're an idiot." Obscure the people doing the marking, and let people mark something as "Um, no."
When you see the idiotic comment that has 357 favorites, who is going to come in with a dissenting opinion even if you passionately disagree?
I think this experiment is firmly putting me in the meh camp. I was excited back when I broke 100, noted 1000, but pretty much don't care either way anymore. I didn't know I didn't care until this all came up. I still check mine, but more so to see if I want to dip back into the fray, or to note, "Wow, someone read that comment I made a year ago!"
"Recent Activity" has taken over much of what I used to use favorites for.
In the end, regardless of what is decided, please consider an option to shut these off like there is now. The problem with this idea is the argument of what the default state should be.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:43 AM on November 7, 2009
I know people say they use favorites for things other than favoriting, but really? Bookmarking is still favoriting in my opinion. Why would you bookmark something unless you thought it was worth returning to?
I think you're turning it around a bit: I bookmark (pretty much) only and specifically things that I want to have a good chance of returning to and that I that I think adding a favorite will aid with.
It's got the same angle of overt notation as a favorite given by someone who doesn't intend to ever come back to it, sure. The distinction is more in how what any given person favorites is restricted by the utility they get out of it; if I just favorited things I liked or that made me smile or whatever without any additional thought about whether I'll ever come back to it, I'd probably favorite a lot more (and look a lot less stingy) than I do now.
So the difference is in volume, not perceivable meaning. I think it's fair to say that if everyone used favorites primarily as bookmarks, the overall volume of favorites would be much, much lower.
It's very rare that I'll favorite more than one thing in a thread. Possibly none, even in a thread I expect I'll want to come back to some time, if I think I'll have no trouble remembering to come back to that thread in any case. They function in part as a memory aid—many of the comments I end up favoriting are both laugh-out-loud funny to me for one idiosyncratic reason or another (very specific sorts of metacommentary and meme-twisting and exceedingly dry wit tend to make me laugh, for example) and are things that I don't expect I'll be able to find again easily in the future without some direct form of reference. A gem in an out-of-the-way old thread I was reading through for research reasons, etc.
Not arguing here for the correctness or incorrectness of these things, just trying to be clear on where I'm coming from as someone who is in the "I use them as bookmarks" camp.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:54 AM on November 7, 2009
I think you're turning it around a bit: I bookmark (pretty much) only and specifically things that I want to have a good chance of returning to and that I that I think adding a favorite will aid with.
It's got the same angle of overt notation as a favorite given by someone who doesn't intend to ever come back to it, sure. The distinction is more in how what any given person favorites is restricted by the utility they get out of it; if I just favorited things I liked or that made me smile or whatever without any additional thought about whether I'll ever come back to it, I'd probably favorite a lot more (and look a lot less stingy) than I do now.
So the difference is in volume, not perceivable meaning. I think it's fair to say that if everyone used favorites primarily as bookmarks, the overall volume of favorites would be much, much lower.
It's very rare that I'll favorite more than one thing in a thread. Possibly none, even in a thread I expect I'll want to come back to some time, if I think I'll have no trouble remembering to come back to that thread in any case. They function in part as a memory aid—many of the comments I end up favoriting are both laugh-out-loud funny to me for one idiosyncratic reason or another (very specific sorts of metacommentary and meme-twisting and exceedingly dry wit tend to make me laugh, for example) and are things that I don't expect I'll be able to find again easily in the future without some direct form of reference. A gem in an out-of-the-way old thread I was reading through for research reasons, etc.
Not arguing here for the correctness or incorrectness of these things, just trying to be clear on where I'm coming from as someone who is in the "I use them as bookmarks" camp.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:54 AM on November 7, 2009
> If you really wanted these to be reflective of what people thought of a comment, make it so we can disapprove without having to write, "You're an idiot." Obscure the people doing the marking, and let people mark something as "Um, no." When you see the idiotic comment that has 357 favorites, who is going to come in with a dissenting opinion even if you passionately disagree?
I agree with this: if people are using favourites as a mechanism of quality assessment of consensus-finding, it's pretty broken to rely on a system with only positive and not negative reinforcement. If this is what favourites are for, we also need the anti-matter equivalent (there's no obvious antonym to use: I propose the term "cockbucket"). That way you can tell if the comment with the 357 favourites is universally popular or just a polarising opinion that would have attracted 380 cockbuckets if the site provided as easy way to express disagreement as agreement.
My personal preference is to not keep scores at all, but the positive-feedback-only method is even worse than the digg/slashdot style comment-rating system with both up and down voting.
posted by nowonmai at 8:11 AM on November 7, 2009
I agree with this: if people are using favourites as a mechanism of quality assessment of consensus-finding, it's pretty broken to rely on a system with only positive and not negative reinforcement. If this is what favourites are for, we also need the anti-matter equivalent (there's no obvious antonym to use: I propose the term "cockbucket"). That way you can tell if the comment with the 357 favourites is universally popular or just a polarising opinion that would have attracted 380 cockbuckets if the site provided as easy way to express disagreement as agreement.
My personal preference is to not keep scores at all, but the positive-feedback-only method is even worse than the digg/slashdot style comment-rating system with both up and down voting.
posted by nowonmai at 8:11 AM on November 7, 2009
I think you're turning it around a bit: I bookmark (pretty much) only and specifically things that I want to have a good chance of returning to and that I that I think adding a favorite will aid with.
Ok, checking out your ratio, and knowing how long you've been on the site, I admit I wasn't thinking this through. Or, more accurately, I was thinking it through, but failing to see that use. It didn't make since because in my mind it wouldn't scale very well. I can't see someone doing this and having 1000+ comments (especially if not on here that long). People who bookmark would have to clean these up occasionally
Looking into many people's profiles I see many with a lot of favorites, but this is not an all inclusive group, since I usually get there by looking into who favorited a comment.
But what I meant about a bookmark being the same as a favorite...how often do people bookmark things they think have no merit or value? I've seen the "So I can remember he's an asshat" argument thrown out there, and I just don't see it.
When someone writes, "I love my pedobear," (and means it) are people really going to favorite that to remember that person is creepy? I wouldn't for fear of someone else clicking into it to with the belief that everyone with a favorite is in agreement.
I guess if someone posts that they are in favor of something like mandatory cat declawing and they rack up the favorite that these people are in agreement.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:27 AM on November 7, 2009
Ok, checking out your ratio, and knowing how long you've been on the site, I admit I wasn't thinking this through. Or, more accurately, I was thinking it through, but failing to see that use. It didn't make since because in my mind it wouldn't scale very well. I can't see someone doing this and having 1000+ comments (especially if not on here that long). People who bookmark would have to clean these up occasionally
Looking into many people's profiles I see many with a lot of favorites, but this is not an all inclusive group, since I usually get there by looking into who favorited a comment.
But what I meant about a bookmark being the same as a favorite...how often do people bookmark things they think have no merit or value? I've seen the "So I can remember he's an asshat" argument thrown out there, and I just don't see it.
When someone writes, "I love my pedobear," (and means it) are people really going to favorite that to remember that person is creepy? I wouldn't for fear of someone else clicking into it to with the belief that everyone with a favorite is in agreement.
I guess if someone posts that they are in favor of something like mandatory cat declawing and they rack up the favorite that these people are in agreement.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:27 AM on November 7, 2009
But what I meant about a bookmark being the same as a favorite...how often do people bookmark things they think have no merit or value? I've seen the "So I can remember he's an asshat" argument thrown out there, and I just don't see it.
I think the formal relationship I'm trying to get at is that a bookmark is-a-kind-of favorite but not vice versa. Bookmarking behavior is a specific subclass of favoriting—it shares the same general property of implicitly denoting the notability of a contribution, but there's a further constraint of perceived or realized utility involved when useful bookmarking is the goal of the person adding the favorite.
By definition, something has value to someone making the effort to bookmark it, yeah. It's possible that that value is "this is very funny" or "this is very cogent" or, yes, "this is really awful". The arguments are the same there as they are for more general non-bookmarking behavior. It's just that for people using them as bookmarks, it's a value that's more specifically utile and in some respects more personal: I make bookmarks more for my benefit than just for the benefit of the poster/commenter.
The running up of the favorite count by a crowd of favoriters is an emergent effect of the system. In some cases, it's the intended effect of the person adding their favorite, who specifically wants to see that count go up; in some cases it's an indirect effect, from someone who is not being mindful of the count for the count's sake but wants to share their approval/what-have-you in any case.
For bookmarkers in particular the count-increasing aspect is probably ancillary most of the time, and I think that in terms of emergent behavior, we'd see much smaller total favorite counts in general if everyone was using them in that way just because it's the lowest-volume mode of favorite dispensing going. Again, not good or bad, just a different kind of input to the system that would result in a different kind of output.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:43 AM on November 7, 2009
I think the formal relationship I'm trying to get at is that a bookmark is-a-kind-of favorite but not vice versa. Bookmarking behavior is a specific subclass of favoriting—it shares the same general property of implicitly denoting the notability of a contribution, but there's a further constraint of perceived or realized utility involved when useful bookmarking is the goal of the person adding the favorite.
By definition, something has value to someone making the effort to bookmark it, yeah. It's possible that that value is "this is very funny" or "this is very cogent" or, yes, "this is really awful". The arguments are the same there as they are for more general non-bookmarking behavior. It's just that for people using them as bookmarks, it's a value that's more specifically utile and in some respects more personal: I make bookmarks more for my benefit than just for the benefit of the poster/commenter.
The running up of the favorite count by a crowd of favoriters is an emergent effect of the system. In some cases, it's the intended effect of the person adding their favorite, who specifically wants to see that count go up; in some cases it's an indirect effect, from someone who is not being mindful of the count for the count's sake but wants to share their approval/what-have-you in any case.
For bookmarkers in particular the count-increasing aspect is probably ancillary most of the time, and I think that in terms of emergent behavior, we'd see much smaller total favorite counts in general if everyone was using them in that way just because it's the lowest-volume mode of favorite dispensing going. Again, not good or bad, just a different kind of input to the system that would result in a different kind of output.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:43 AM on November 7, 2009
As a bookmarkist and obscure-post favoriter, I too am going with the theory that favorites inflation is caused by contacts high-fiving each other with a practically unlimited currency. This is a powerful reward system in its own right, because some people really need this validation, while some may see it as a contest to become the king of Metafilter. As a system, it raises the demand for certain types of social behavior, which will require more moderation.
Accordingly, I think it's really the total personal favorites count ("favorited by others") that needs an adjustment to reflect its true value. The personal count should reflect the frequency from those favoriters, presumably by a simple algorithm that divides one favorite by the number of favorites given in the past by any single favoriter. The resulting weighted value of will no longer be a count but more like a batting average. Favorite counts for any single post can remain in the posts for filtering. This is the only "free" as in beer way to reign in the inflation. It also lends value to the concept of favoritebeing the highest personal value, because it's allowed to be cheapened by over usage.
posted by Brian B. at 9:03 AM on November 7, 2009
Accordingly, I think it's really the total personal favorites count ("favorited by others") that needs an adjustment to reflect its true value. The personal count should reflect the frequency from those favoriters, presumably by a simple algorithm that divides one favorite by the number of favorites given in the past by any single favoriter. The resulting weighted value of will no longer be a count but more like a batting average. Favorite counts for any single post can remain in the posts for filtering. This is the only "free" as in beer way to reign in the inflation. It also lends value to the concept of favoritebeing the highest personal value, because it's allowed to be cheapened by over usage.
posted by Brian B. at 9:03 AM on November 7, 2009
Batting average is a terrible stat, tremendously fuzzy. On base percentage, or OBP plus slugging percentage (OPS), is much better. But then we're into value over replacement member territory.
posted by klangklangston at 9:16 AM on November 7, 2009
posted by klangklangston at 9:16 AM on November 7, 2009
As a bookmarkist and obscure-post favoriter, I too am going with the theory that favorites inflation is caused by contacts high-fiving each other with a practically unlimited currency.
I think there may be an interesting/identifiable effect there—that contacts may give or receive favorites at a higher rate than non-contacts, because of the sidebar effect as well as other possible direct or indirect affinity effects—but I think it's overestimating that impact to put the overall high favoriting volume primarily on that. My gut take is that contacting-driven behavior, as interesting as it may be, necessarily represents only a small portion of total favoriting behavior, as the contact system is not used all that heavily compared to the size and activity of the general userbase.
That is, given that the contact network on the site is not particularly dense, I don't think a careful look at it would show that more than a small minority of favorites given are delivered by the favoriter to one of their contacts.
In any case, it'd be interesting to take a look at that via the Infodump.
There was some interesting per-user rather than systemic analysis of mutual favoriting in the Infodump 2.0 thread earlier this year; FishBike was running the analyses, I think it kicked off somewhere about halfway down the page. I don't know that we looked specifically at contacting as a factor in that, but as far as looking at local effects it was pretty interesting.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:21 AM on November 7, 2009
I think there may be an interesting/identifiable effect there—that contacts may give or receive favorites at a higher rate than non-contacts, because of the sidebar effect as well as other possible direct or indirect affinity effects—but I think it's overestimating that impact to put the overall high favoriting volume primarily on that. My gut take is that contacting-driven behavior, as interesting as it may be, necessarily represents only a small portion of total favoriting behavior, as the contact system is not used all that heavily compared to the size and activity of the general userbase.
That is, given that the contact network on the site is not particularly dense, I don't think a careful look at it would show that more than a small minority of favorites given are delivered by the favoriter to one of their contacts.
In any case, it'd be interesting to take a look at that via the Infodump.
There was some interesting per-user rather than systemic analysis of mutual favoriting in the Infodump 2.0 thread earlier this year; FishBike was running the analyses, I think it kicked off somewhere about halfway down the page. I don't know that we looked specifically at contacting as a factor in that, but as far as looking at local effects it was pretty interesting.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:21 AM on November 7, 2009
PontifexPrimus - in my ideal world, after this is over all subsequent threads requesting the removal of the visible counts would get linked to this thread, the December 1st we have yet to beanplate, and then be closed immediately.
posted by EatTheWeek at 9:23 AM on November 7, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by EatTheWeek at 9:23 AM on November 7, 2009 [1 favorite]
i don't know about this egghead VORM stuff, in my day we knew what baseball was and what matters is grit and consitsency, don't matter what billy beane's book said it's all nonsense, that isn't baseball
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:23 AM on November 7, 2009
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:23 AM on November 7, 2009
Batting average is a terrible stat, tremendously fuzzy. On base percentage, or OBP plus slugging percentage (OPS), is much better. But then we're into value over replacement member territory.
Or any average weighted value that shows the favorites skew and can be interpreted easily. I'm sure the stats experts have a solution. I might emphasize that it can just be added on to the rest of the counts, not replacing anything, and I think that it would be a noiseless experiment.
posted by Brian B. at 9:30 AM on November 7, 2009
Or any average weighted value that shows the favorites skew and can be interpreted easily. I'm sure the stats experts have a solution. I might emphasize that it can just be added on to the rest of the counts, not replacing anything, and I think that it would be a noiseless experiment.
posted by Brian B. at 9:30 AM on November 7, 2009
But then we're into value over replacement member territory.
But is the problem is assholery, shouldn't we be looking for a stat that neutralizes it? Perhaps Snark-Neutral Value Added Favoriting?
i don't know about this egghead VORM stuff, in my day we knew what baseball was and what matters is grit and consitsency, don't matter what billy beane's book said it's all nonsense, that isn't baseball
Shut up, Bissinger. Friday Night Lights was great, but this last article underlines the fact that you're a used up blowhard.
Oh, wait, this is cortex? My works still stand, BLOWHARD.
posted by dw at 10:01 AM on November 7, 2009
But is the problem is assholery, shouldn't we be looking for a stat that neutralizes it? Perhaps Snark-Neutral Value Added Favoriting?
i don't know about this egghead VORM stuff, in my day we knew what baseball was and what matters is grit and consitsency, don't matter what billy beane's book said it's all nonsense, that isn't baseball
Shut up, Bissinger. Friday Night Lights was great, but this last article underlines the fact that you're a used up blowhard.
Oh, wait, this is cortex? My works still stand, BLOWHARD.
posted by dw at 10:01 AM on November 7, 2009
My personal preference is to not keep scores at all, but the positive-feedback-only method is even worse than the digg/slashdot style comment-rating system with both up and down voting.
no, we don't want negative ratings here - that's nothing more than an open invitation for people to persecute those they disagree with and for others to whine about it
---
The personal count should reflect the frequency from those favoriters, presumably by a simple algorithm that divides one favorite by the number of favorites given in the past by any single favoriter. The resulting weighted value of will no longer be a count but more like a batting average.
i think it should also be multiplied by the results of the political compass graph, divided by the quadratic function of both the user number and total number of posts posted, and a phd in mathematics can be made available 24/7 to explain it all to us
posted by pyramid termite at 10:03 AM on November 7, 2009
no, we don't want negative ratings here - that's nothing more than an open invitation for people to persecute those they disagree with and for others to whine about it
---
The personal count should reflect the frequency from those favoriters, presumably by a simple algorithm that divides one favorite by the number of favorites given in the past by any single favoriter. The resulting weighted value of will no longer be a count but more like a batting average.
i think it should also be multiplied by the results of the political compass graph, divided by the quadratic function of both the user number and total number of posts posted, and a phd in mathematics can be made available 24/7 to explain it all to us
posted by pyramid termite at 10:03 AM on November 7, 2009
cortex: I don't know that we looked specifically at contacting as a factor in that, but as far as looking at local effects it was pretty interesting.
I don't think we looked at contacts as a factor in the mutual favoriting analyses, but we did look at it in a more general sense. Specifically, are MeFites more likely to favorite a comment made by one of our contacts?
And the answer is that we are. Overall, we're about 13 times more likely to favorite something from one of our contacts compared to posts and comments across the site as a whole.
The increased visibility of contacts contributions via the contact activity sidebar probably has a lot to do with this, and may even be essentially the sole cause, but we haven't tried to gather any data to test that particular hypothesis yet.
posted by FishBike at 10:40 AM on November 7, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don't think we looked at contacts as a factor in the mutual favoriting analyses, but we did look at it in a more general sense. Specifically, are MeFites more likely to favorite a comment made by one of our contacts?
And the answer is that we are. Overall, we're about 13 times more likely to favorite something from one of our contacts compared to posts and comments across the site as a whole.
The increased visibility of contacts contributions via the contact activity sidebar probably has a lot to do with this, and may even be essentially the sole cause, but we haven't tried to gather any data to test that particular hypothesis yet.
posted by FishBike at 10:40 AM on November 7, 2009 [2 favorites]
And the answer is that we are. Overall, we're about 13 times more likely to favorite something from one of our contacts compared to posts and comments across the site as a whole.
Interesting stat. Either:
A. our contacts are thirteen times as astute in their commentary as the rest of the community
B. the quickest path to more favorites is more contacts.
C. who f***ing cares? This isn't a popularity contest. The only value worth measuring is whether contacts/favorites improve one's experience of the site and actually improve the site.
I'm pulling for C.
posted by philip-random at 11:52 AM on November 7, 2009
Interesting stat. Either:
A. our contacts are thirteen times as astute in their commentary as the rest of the community
B. the quickest path to more favorites is more contacts.
C. who f***ing cares? This isn't a popularity contest. The only value worth measuring is whether contacts/favorites improve one's experience of the site and actually improve the site.
I'm pulling for C.
posted by philip-random at 11:52 AM on November 7, 2009
Or D. We add contacts who we already think are funny/astute/generally awesome.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:54 AM on November 7, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:54 AM on November 7, 2009 [3 favorites]
And the answer is that we are. Overall, we're about 13 times more likely to favorite something from one of our contacts compared to posts and comments across the site as a whole.
I agree with the hypothesis that increased visibility of contacts' contributions through the contact sidebar is likely a significant factor in this, but I would also posit that that there may be some reverse causation here as well-- aside from people whom I've actually met in the "real world," most of the folks whom I've marked as contacts are people whose contributions I tend to enjoy (and thus tend to give a "favorite" to. Combine that with the contact sidebar, and I suspect there's something of a feedback loop going on there. No idea how you'd test for that, though.
posted by dersins at 12:02 PM on November 7, 2009 [1 favorite]
I agree with the hypothesis that increased visibility of contacts' contributions through the contact sidebar is likely a significant factor in this, but I would also posit that that there may be some reverse causation here as well-- aside from people whom I've actually met in the "real world," most of the folks whom I've marked as contacts are people whose contributions I tend to enjoy (and thus tend to give a "favorite" to. Combine that with the contact sidebar, and I suspect there's something of a feedback loop going on there. No idea how you'd test for that, though.
posted by dersins at 12:02 PM on November 7, 2009 [1 favorite]
FishBike: Overall, we're about 13 times more likely to favorite something from one of our contacts compared to posts and comments across the site as a whole.
Holy shit! I had completely forgotten that bit of analysis from the infodump thread. If you'd asked me to guess what the likelihood of favoriting a post or a comment from a contact versus a non-contact I would've guessed something around 2-3 times as often. 13 is a very, very high number.
PhoBWanKenobi: Or D. We add contacts who we already think are funny/astute/generally awesome.
I don't have the chops to compute this myself but I imagine that one way to test for that is to see if the amount of favorites given to a user increases when one adds someone as a contact.
posted by Kattullus at 12:07 PM on November 7, 2009
Holy shit! I had completely forgotten that bit of analysis from the infodump thread. If you'd asked me to guess what the likelihood of favoriting a post or a comment from a contact versus a non-contact I would've guessed something around 2-3 times as often. 13 is a very, very high number.
PhoBWanKenobi: Or D. We add contacts who we already think are funny/astute/generally awesome.
I don't have the chops to compute this myself but I imagine that one way to test for that is to see if the amount of favorites given to a user increases when one adds someone as a contact.
posted by Kattullus at 12:07 PM on November 7, 2009
Or D. We add contacts who we already think are funny/astute/generally awesome.
Regardless, the contact favorite is a system bias by a large factor, amplifying one's already favorite posters. It also theoretically reduces the rest of the favorites. It's basically garbage as information goes, especially considering that it is being used as a filter by "the more information is better" crowd, which is yet another pile-on effect. The least that can be done to correct it is to list the number of favorites by contacts in all places where favorites appear.
posted by Brian B. at 12:38 PM on November 7, 2009
Regardless, the contact favorite is a system bias by a large factor, amplifying one's already favorite posters. It also theoretically reduces the rest of the favorites. It's basically garbage as information goes, especially considering that it is being used as a filter by "the more information is better" crowd, which is yet another pile-on effect. The least that can be done to correct it is to list the number of favorites by contacts in all places where favorites appear.
posted by Brian B. at 12:38 PM on November 7, 2009
I imagine that one way to test for that is to see if the amount of favorites given to a user increases when one adds someone as a contact.
The same thing had occurred to me, and it would be interesting to try to analyze this a bit deeper. Unfortunately, the datestamp of contact record creation isn't in the Infodump (or wasn't last time I looked, anyway), so it's hard to do a before/after type of comparison.
My guess is we'd see the same kind of increased favoriting activity on contributions from contacts-to-be vs. non-contacts, but nothing like 13 times as much.
Another thing that would be interesting to look at is whether or not the same effect is apparent for users who have the contacts sidebar displayed vs. those who don't (or even, how it varies depending on what information we choose to display there).
Whether that would be because of increased visibility of our contacts activity, or just selection bias (people who don't care to see activity from contacts might not care as much what contacts have to say, either) would be tough to distinguish.
posted by FishBike at 12:38 PM on November 7, 2009
The same thing had occurred to me, and it would be interesting to try to analyze this a bit deeper. Unfortunately, the datestamp of contact record creation isn't in the Infodump (or wasn't last time I looked, anyway), so it's hard to do a before/after type of comparison.
My guess is we'd see the same kind of increased favoriting activity on contributions from contacts-to-be vs. non-contacts, but nothing like 13 times as much.
Another thing that would be interesting to look at is whether or not the same effect is apparent for users who have the contacts sidebar displayed vs. those who don't (or even, how it varies depending on what information we choose to display there).
Whether that would be because of increased visibility of our contacts activity, or just selection bias (people who don't care to see activity from contacts might not care as much what contacts have to say, either) would be tough to distinguish.
posted by FishBike at 12:38 PM on November 7, 2009
And the answer is that we are.
Oh ho, that's right! I'm not sure how we could easily control for sidebar-boosting very accurately to try and measure how much of the effect, but one possible way to roughly check it would be to split those results into favorites given before vs. after the contact activity sidebar went live.
And to grab some numbers from that comment to bring back my point in a previous comment:
Favorites given: 2,410,574
Favorites given to contacts contributions: 122,111
This is what I mean when I say that I don't think that contact-related favoriting is a significant factor in favoriting volume. Even running with the notion that those 120K favorites were very heavily affected/inflated by contact effects, they still only accounted for 5% of all the favorites given out. Erase every single one of them from the equation and you don't any notable change in favoriting volume, since non-contact faves are more than an order of magnitude more plentiful.
Whether or not there are interesting local effects is another question—per-user inflation because of contacts dynamics could contribute to highly-visible things like high favorite counts, etc—but whether those local effects would have as great a total effect on systemic behavior than broad, casual favoriting behavior strikes me as pretty questionable.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:40 PM on November 7, 2009
Oh ho, that's right! I'm not sure how we could easily control for sidebar-boosting very accurately to try and measure how much of the effect, but one possible way to roughly check it would be to split those results into favorites given before vs. after the contact activity sidebar went live.
And to grab some numbers from that comment to bring back my point in a previous comment:
Favorites given: 2,410,574
Favorites given to contacts contributions: 122,111
This is what I mean when I say that I don't think that contact-related favoriting is a significant factor in favoriting volume. Even running with the notion that those 120K favorites were very heavily affected/inflated by contact effects, they still only accounted for 5% of all the favorites given out. Erase every single one of them from the equation and you don't any notable change in favoriting volume, since non-contact faves are more than an order of magnitude more plentiful.
Whether or not there are interesting local effects is another question—per-user inflation because of contacts dynamics could contribute to highly-visible things like high favorite counts, etc—but whether those local effects would have as great a total effect on systemic behavior than broad, casual favoriting behavior strikes me as pretty questionable.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:40 PM on November 7, 2009
The same thing had occurred to me, and it would be interesting to try to analyze this a bit deeper. Unfortunately, the datestamp of contact record creation isn't in the Infodump (or wasn't last time I looked, anyway), so it's hard to do a before/after type of comparison.
Yeah, adding contact-creation time is another thing on the to-do list for the infodump. There are a few interesting roads we could go down in examining the relationship between the two.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:43 PM on November 7, 2009
Yeah, adding contact-creation time is another thing on the to-do list for the infodump. There are a few interesting roads we could go down in examining the relationship between the two.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:43 PM on November 7, 2009
"i don't know about this egghead VORM stuff, in my day we knew what baseball was and what matters is grit and consitsency, don't matter what billy beane's book said it's all nonsense, that isn't baseball"
That Eckstein doesn't get a lot of favorites for his posts but he posts with heart and that's the kind of guy you want to build a team around nine Ecksteins posting and commenting that's Metafilter grit grit grit.
Hmm. I wonder if a control on contact-favorites could be the "Met" field. I only really add as contacts people who I've met or done off-site work with, which is why I don't think that my contacts necessarily predicts all that well who I'd give favorites to (I wonder if I could figure that out from the infodump—the top users that I've favorited. Ooh, and I kind of wonder who the top ten users are in terms of percentage of any given user's favorites…)
posted by klangklangston at 1:34 PM on November 7, 2009
That Eckstein doesn't get a lot of favorites for his posts but he posts with heart and that's the kind of guy you want to build a team around nine Ecksteins posting and commenting that's Metafilter grit grit grit.
Hmm. I wonder if a control on contact-favorites could be the "Met" field. I only really add as contacts people who I've met or done off-site work with, which is why I don't think that my contacts necessarily predicts all that well who I'd give favorites to (I wonder if I could figure that out from the infodump—the top users that I've favorited. Ooh, and I kind of wonder who the top ten users are in terms of percentage of any given user's favorites…)
posted by klangklangston at 1:34 PM on November 7, 2009
Ooh, and I kind of wonder who the top ten users are in terms of percentage of any given user's favorites…
klangklangston, I did something like that here in the MeFi User Matching thread, is that what you meant?
If you're wondering who you favorited the most, or who favorites you the most (to compare with the names on your contacts list, for instance), I could send you one of my user matching reports, like what's in that thread and a couple of others since. MeFiMail me if you'd like one of those run for your account.
posted by FishBike at 2:01 PM on November 7, 2009
klangklangston, I did something like that here in the MeFi User Matching thread, is that what you meant?
If you're wondering who you favorited the most, or who favorites you the most (to compare with the names on your contacts list, for instance), I could send you one of my user matching reports, like what's in that thread and a couple of others since. MeFiMail me if you'd like one of those run for your account.
posted by FishBike at 2:01 PM on November 7, 2009
I don't have the chops to compute this myself but I imagine that one way to test for that is to see if the amount of favorites given to a user increases when one adds someone as a contact.
By itself that would be much too raw a measure. Things that could confuse the appearance of causation there include cyclical patterns in a contact's posting (such as the academic calendar taking away and giving more free time for internetting) and even things like the growing confidence of a user who begins tentatively, and then as they note their contributions are sometimes favorited and contacts sometimes added, begins commenting and posting more. It's likely that the more one of my contacts comments, the more I'm going to find the opportunity to favorite them, because I made them a contact in the first place because I like their contributions.
The interaction with contacts is pretty murky because there are as many reasons why someone becomes a contact as why people favorite. I list everyone I've met in meatspace as a contact. I also list people who have many many contributions that I've liked. I don't list a contact based on one good contribution. Nor do I list a contact because they listed me. I favorite a lot of people who aren't contacts, and some of my contacts I've never favorited.
I'm also one of those people who uses favorites for all the reasons: great comment, agree, bookmark, chuckle, I want to find this again through favorites search. Given that, there's not an easy way to predict whether I'm going to favorite a contact's comment.
posted by Miko at 2:53 PM on November 7, 2009
By itself that would be much too raw a measure. Things that could confuse the appearance of causation there include cyclical patterns in a contact's posting (such as the academic calendar taking away and giving more free time for internetting) and even things like the growing confidence of a user who begins tentatively, and then as they note their contributions are sometimes favorited and contacts sometimes added, begins commenting and posting more. It's likely that the more one of my contacts comments, the more I'm going to find the opportunity to favorite them, because I made them a contact in the first place because I like their contributions.
The interaction with contacts is pretty murky because there are as many reasons why someone becomes a contact as why people favorite. I list everyone I've met in meatspace as a contact. I also list people who have many many contributions that I've liked. I don't list a contact based on one good contribution. Nor do I list a contact because they listed me. I favorite a lot of people who aren't contacts, and some of my contacts I've never favorited.
I'm also one of those people who uses favorites for all the reasons: great comment, agree, bookmark, chuckle, I want to find this again through favorites search. Given that, there's not an easy way to predict whether I'm going to favorite a contact's comment.
posted by Miko at 2:53 PM on November 7, 2009
By itself that would be much too raw a measure.
It'd absolutely be fuzzy at best, yeah. Still, I think as an aggregate analysis it'd be interesting; a small effect would be nothing to blink at, but if there was some significant change in the mean rate, not just volume, of favoriting by user x of content by their contact user y on either side of the contacting point, that'd be something.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:19 PM on November 7, 2009
It'd absolutely be fuzzy at best, yeah. Still, I think as an aggregate analysis it'd be interesting; a small effect would be nothing to blink at, but if there was some significant change in the mean rate, not just volume, of favoriting by user x of content by their contact user y on either side of the contacting point, that'd be something.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:19 PM on November 7, 2009
It's official. My iPhone hates this thread even over wifi.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:53 PM on November 7, 2009
posted by cjorgensen at 3:53 PM on November 7, 2009
"klangklangston, I did something like that here in the MeFi User Matching thread, is that what you meant?"
Similar, but not exactly. I'm lacking the stats vocab to describe this properly, but what I meant was top favorite-recievers as a function of both total number and number of favorite-givers. Like, if you run the MeFi User Matching like you did, then see who the most frequent favorite-recievers are, then weight it for the total number of favorites received, so that someone who has only, say, 1000 favorites from 1000 different users would rank higher than someone with 2000 favorites from two users.
Am I being clear?
posted by klangklangston at 5:05 PM on November 7, 2009
Similar, but not exactly. I'm lacking the stats vocab to describe this properly, but what I meant was top favorite-recievers as a function of both total number and number of favorite-givers. Like, if you run the MeFi User Matching like you did, then see who the most frequent favorite-recievers are, then weight it for the total number of favorites received, so that someone who has only, say, 1000 favorites from 1000 different users would rank higher than someone with 2000 favorites from two users.
Am I being clear?
posted by klangklangston at 5:05 PM on November 7, 2009
Ah, so you're talking about distinguishing between how many favorites someone has received and how many distinct users have ever given that person at least one favorite?
The hearts-and-minds metric, call it. How big is a given user's tent if you count anyone who ever gave them at least one user as being inside, and is there anything interesting going on in how that changes from user to user. Yeah?
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:11 PM on November 7, 2009
The hearts-and-minds metric, call it. How big is a given user's tent if you count anyone who ever gave them at least one user as being inside, and is there anything interesting going on in how that changes from user to user. Yeah?
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:11 PM on November 7, 2009
Something occurred to me, watching the video linked from the people doing stuff post. The video, when I watched it, had 4 diggs and 16 reddits (or whatever they're called). It made me realize a fundamental difference between MetaFilter on the one hand and Digg and Reddit on the other. Now, I wanna make it clear that neither Digg and Reddit have ever been sites I've gone to very often, so there might be a basic error in what I'm saying. But here goes.
Digg, Reddit and MetaFilter all rely on people finding cool stuff online and linking to them. However, the fundamental difference between the sites is that Digg and Reddit crowdsource their quality control. They rely on the users to vote things up and down with the idea that the best links will find their way to the top of the pile (or piles, in case of subsites). MetaFilter, on the other hand, has no quality control beyond "whatever the mods deem acceptable" (what that standard should be is then debated by the community in MetaTalk). Once you post something to the front page it will scroll down as post new things. It doesn't matter if the post is the greatest thing since sliced bread and garners a gazillion favorites and posts to MetaTalk about how great the post is, it'll be pushed off the front page by newer posts. So while the "people doing stuff" video is right there at the top of the screen on MetaFilter it's barely registered on Digg and Reddit.
Favorites have evolved into a system by which MetaFilter can be approached in a somewhat Diggish, Reddity way. By using the popular favorites page and the contacts activity sidebar you can rely upon the favoriting crowd to find interesting things. Whether that is a better approach than the "everybody gets their turn" way that the front pages of the various MetaFilter subsites operate is something that's debatable but it is definitely different.
In that way favorites to function as a kind of upvoting as they push comments and post into contacts activity sidebars and the popular favorites page thereby garnering them extra attention
posted by Kattullus at 9:48 PM on November 7, 2009 [4 favorites]
Digg, Reddit and MetaFilter all rely on people finding cool stuff online and linking to them. However, the fundamental difference between the sites is that Digg and Reddit crowdsource their quality control. They rely on the users to vote things up and down with the idea that the best links will find their way to the top of the pile (or piles, in case of subsites). MetaFilter, on the other hand, has no quality control beyond "whatever the mods deem acceptable" (what that standard should be is then debated by the community in MetaTalk). Once you post something to the front page it will scroll down as post new things. It doesn't matter if the post is the greatest thing since sliced bread and garners a gazillion favorites and posts to MetaTalk about how great the post is, it'll be pushed off the front page by newer posts. So while the "people doing stuff" video is right there at the top of the screen on MetaFilter it's barely registered on Digg and Reddit.
Favorites have evolved into a system by which MetaFilter can be approached in a somewhat Diggish, Reddity way. By using the popular favorites page and the contacts activity sidebar you can rely upon the favoriting crowd to find interesting things. Whether that is a better approach than the "everybody gets their turn" way that the front pages of the various MetaFilter subsites operate is something that's debatable but it is definitely different.
In that way favorites to function as a kind of upvoting as they push comments and post into contacts activity sidebars and the popular favorites page thereby garnering them extra attention
posted by Kattullus at 9:48 PM on November 7, 2009 [4 favorites]
That's well said Kattullus. That reasoning coupled with the disdain I have for popularity contests would explain the horror I feel when I contemplate people just skipping to the half a dozen popular comments in any particular post.
posted by Mitheral at 1:37 AM on November 8, 2009
posted by Mitheral at 1:37 AM on November 8, 2009
At first I was thinking favorites were now more of a binary system, [+] or [has favorites], but now I realize that it's actually a binary system on top of an overlapping 4-tiered system:
[-] No favorites (you are likely to be eaten by a grue)
------
[+] At least 1 favorite (you have earned 1 point in Speechcraft)
[+] 1 to about 40 favorites (grinding)
[+] About 40 favorites or more (Sidebar or Popular Favorites level)
I'm just bummed that my MultiFavorited Multiwidth Greasemonkey expansion pack no longer works with the new experimental patch.
posted by iamkimiam at 2:02 AM on November 8, 2009
[-] No favorites (you are likely to be eaten by a grue)
------
[+] At least 1 favorite (you have earned 1 point in Speechcraft)
[+] 1 to about 40 favorites (grinding)
[+] About 40 favorites or more (Sidebar or Popular Favorites level)
I'm just bummed that my MultiFavorited Multiwidth Greasemonkey expansion pack no longer works with the new experimental patch.
posted by iamkimiam at 2:02 AM on November 8, 2009
Do we have any stats on the number of active users who have disabled the new favorites scheme thus far? Just curious how many regulars have gone "meh" and switched the thing off.
posted by zachlipton at 6:48 AM on November 8, 2009
posted by zachlipton at 6:48 AM on November 8, 2009
Wow, Kattulus you just put your finger on why I prefer MetaFilter over Digg and Reddit: I'm not in synch with the majority of users. That is to say, I don't like posts/discussions about programming, comics, music, movies, TV, and games. Here on MetaFilter those posts don't dominate the page just because they are hot topics which means I don't have to search for the posts that I do like, Also the funniest, snarkiest, or most interesting comments don't get pushed to the top which means the discussion flows smoother, evolves naturally, and gives unpopular comments or views equal weight.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:52 AM on November 8, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:52 AM on November 8, 2009 [4 favorites]
Here on MetaFilter those posts don't dominate the page just because they are hot topics...the discussion flows smoother, evolves naturally, and gives unpopular comments or views equal weight.
And yet, for those people who are interested in what the hivemind thinks, the favorites system does create a mechanism to reveal the information about what's emerging as interesting to the widest number of users. That allows for a customized approach, and some people do use the sidebar that way. I'm not one of them, and I read categorically and chronologically, but I do think it's kind of nice that even though popularity does not dominate, it's also not invisible for those who find the additional filtering useful.
A side note. Over on MetaChat users are doing a little mirror gazing to figure out what's going on with the site and how it can build a more vital user community. ONe of the frequent problems over there is that new users feel hesitant - they're entering a smallish user group with a lot of history, and it's hard at the beginning to make yourself heard, get noticed, and feel a part of things, which is a big deal since it's a purely social site and not a content-focused site. As a result of participating in that discussion, I've realized how the favorites system can help integrate new users more quickly. I said over there that if you're new, and you make 10 comments in a system with no favorites, and nobody specifically remarks on what you said, you'll maybe feel rejected and withdraw. Whereas in a system with favorites, if you make even one comment which someone favorites, you've received a tiny bit of positive feedback that is likely to encourage more participation. So favorites may also assist with new user rentention. At this moment that's kind of speculation, though I think it makes good sense, and I'm not sure how one would test new user retention pre- and post- favorites institution.
posted by Miko at 8:11 AM on November 8, 2009 [3 favorites]
And yet, for those people who are interested in what the hivemind thinks, the favorites system does create a mechanism to reveal the information about what's emerging as interesting to the widest number of users. That allows for a customized approach, and some people do use the sidebar that way. I'm not one of them, and I read categorically and chronologically, but I do think it's kind of nice that even though popularity does not dominate, it's also not invisible for those who find the additional filtering useful.
A side note. Over on MetaChat users are doing a little mirror gazing to figure out what's going on with the site and how it can build a more vital user community. ONe of the frequent problems over there is that new users feel hesitant - they're entering a smallish user group with a lot of history, and it's hard at the beginning to make yourself heard, get noticed, and feel a part of things, which is a big deal since it's a purely social site and not a content-focused site. As a result of participating in that discussion, I've realized how the favorites system can help integrate new users more quickly. I said over there that if you're new, and you make 10 comments in a system with no favorites, and nobody specifically remarks on what you said, you'll maybe feel rejected and withdraw. Whereas in a system with favorites, if you make even one comment which someone favorites, you've received a tiny bit of positive feedback that is likely to encourage more participation. So favorites may also assist with new user rentention. At this moment that's kind of speculation, though I think it makes good sense, and I'm not sure how one would test new user retention pre- and post- favorites institution.
posted by Miko at 8:11 AM on November 8, 2009 [3 favorites]
And yet, for those people who are interested in what the hivemind thinks, the favorites system does create a mechanism to reveal the information about what's emerging as interesting to the widest number of users.
I think it's been established that a significant proportion of users only bookmark, while others only favorite their favorite people. In the end, the word favorite is not yet close enough to the meaning of "has this post been helpful."
posted by Brian B. at 8:27 AM on November 8, 2009
I think it's been established that a significant proportion of users only bookmark, while others only favorite their favorite people. In the end, the word favorite is not yet close enough to the meaning of "has this post been helpful."
posted by Brian B. at 8:27 AM on November 8, 2009
Whereas in a system with favorites, if you make even one comment which someone favorites, you've received a tiny bit of positive feedback that is likely to encourage more participation.
I'm a relatively new MeFite, and the favorites system has definitely acted as part of a feedback system for me. It acts as a positive feedback system when I make a comment that gets a lot of favorites: that tells me to try to make more comments like that one.
It also acts as a negative feedback system, for example when I make what I think is a hilarious comment and it falls, unfavorited, on the dusty floor, so to speak. That tells me to try to make fewer comments like that one.
Regardless of what people's intent or purpose is when they favorite something, it certainly is a kind of feedback to the poster/commenter. A question that remains is whether or not that feedback is encouraging good contributions here, or whether it encourages too much in the way of snarky comments and bad jokes.
Looking at some top-n lists of people who receive favorites, using various functions of favorite count optionally combined with other statistics, might shed some light on this. By which I mean we could look at the top users on such a list and have a discussion about whether or not those users are what we think of as "good" contributors.
But hopefully it's pretty obvious why such a discussion of specific users would be problematic, and so, I think, would be posting a top-n list of users by that sort of criteria, here in this thread. I agree that MetaFilter isn't supposed to be a popularity contest, and that feels too close to "... but here's who's winning it" in the context of this discussion.
Which is a long-winded way of saying, klangklangston, I think I get the sort of "figure of merit" you were interested in seeing here, but I feel like this thread is not a good place for that, so I'm not going to post it here.
posted by FishBike at 9:46 AM on November 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm a relatively new MeFite, and the favorites system has definitely acted as part of a feedback system for me. It acts as a positive feedback system when I make a comment that gets a lot of favorites: that tells me to try to make more comments like that one.
It also acts as a negative feedback system, for example when I make what I think is a hilarious comment and it falls, unfavorited, on the dusty floor, so to speak. That tells me to try to make fewer comments like that one.
Regardless of what people's intent or purpose is when they favorite something, it certainly is a kind of feedback to the poster/commenter. A question that remains is whether or not that feedback is encouraging good contributions here, or whether it encourages too much in the way of snarky comments and bad jokes.
Looking at some top-n lists of people who receive favorites, using various functions of favorite count optionally combined with other statistics, might shed some light on this. By which I mean we could look at the top users on such a list and have a discussion about whether or not those users are what we think of as "good" contributors.
But hopefully it's pretty obvious why such a discussion of specific users would be problematic, and so, I think, would be posting a top-n list of users by that sort of criteria, here in this thread. I agree that MetaFilter isn't supposed to be a popularity contest, and that feels too close to "... but here's who's winning it" in the context of this discussion.
Which is a long-winded way of saying, klangklangston, I think I get the sort of "figure of merit" you were interested in seeing here, but I feel like this thread is not a good place for that, so I'm not going to post it here.
posted by FishBike at 9:46 AM on November 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think it's important to remember that not everyone uses the favorites at all or much. I rarely favorite as a "me, too!" or a "ha ha" or as a "very well said, kind sir." That doesn't mean I don't think your contribution has value. Most comments on Metafilter have some value for me, both as part of the conversation around a linkset or question and as individual nuggets of information.
I would hate to think that someone would think, "Is it worth posting this - it probably won't get any favorites. Maybe i'm just being selfish, but I've learned a lot of things from comments with few or no favorites.
posted by julen at 10:24 AM on November 8, 2009 [2 favorites]
I would hate to think that someone would think, "Is it worth posting this - it probably won't get any favorites. Maybe i'm just being selfish, but I've learned a lot of things from comments with few or no favorites.
posted by julen at 10:24 AM on November 8, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think it's been established that a significant proportion of users only bookmark, while others only favorite their favorite people. In the end, the word favorite is not yet close enough to the meaning of "has this post been helpful."
sorry, I haven't read the entire thread, but when was this established?
posted by Think_Long at 10:34 AM on November 8, 2009
I think it's been established that a significant proportion of users only bookmark, while others only favorite their favorite people.
I wouldn't say that. It's been established that at least a few people commenting in this thread use favorites primarily for bookmarking, which probably represents a fair number of folks who haven't commented, but we don't really know what that share is like. And nowhere has it been established that people only "favorite their favorite people", just that there's an interesting correlation effect in play between contacts and favorites, for the small fraction of favorites that fall into that group.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:04 AM on November 8, 2009
I wouldn't say that. It's been established that at least a few people commenting in this thread use favorites primarily for bookmarking, which probably represents a fair number of folks who haven't commented, but we don't really know what that share is like. And nowhere has it been established that people only "favorite their favorite people", just that there's an interesting correlation effect in play between contacts and favorites, for the small fraction of favorites that fall into that group.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:04 AM on November 8, 2009
I understand the concerns over vote counts causing a bias in people who read comments, but as a solution isn't this just relegating the vote-count notion into binary categories of "has faves", "does not have faves" in which case there still is a bias nonetheless?
posted by tybeet at 11:54 AM on November 8, 2009
posted by tybeet at 11:54 AM on November 8, 2009
FishBike: Which is a long-winded way of saying, klangklangston, I think I get the sort of "figure of merit" you were interested in seeing here, but I feel like this thread is not a good place for that, so I'm not going to post it here.
Yeah, I agree with that. Especially because once it's been loosed it'll become one of these things that we do and the list'll keep being updated. I really dislike the idea of making any kind of list of people based on the number of favorites they receive or how many people have favorited them or any kind of permutation thereof. MetaFilter isn't a game and we should be conscious of not making it one. Once we go down the ludic path it's awful hard to turn back. That said, it's not something I overly worry about because the admins have adamantly spoken against any ideas that establishes a ranking for MeFites. That said, I've been thinking about what felix said above about the all time popular favorites page (which I had completely forgotten existed, I'm not even sure how it can be navigated to).
I've made hundreds of posts to MetaFilter during my years as a MeFite and slowly I've learned how to present what I think is cool in ways that will make others interested in checking it out (though some subjects I've never been able to do justice) but I think that if I'd ever been worried about where posts would end up on the "all time favorites list" I wouldn't post at all. I do think that favorites are useful as positive feedback but I'm not comfortable about creating rankings. For me, I like getting the little points of "good post" when I post but I cherish the freedom to do posts that I know won't necessarily be of interest to very many (e.g. my recent post about being an elderly immigrant in the US). If I had to worry about keeping my "batting average" up or getting onto top posts lists it would impact my enjoyment of the site, a large part of which is that I get to share the stuff I find interesting online.
So yeah, thanks FishBike, for being conscious of not turning MetaFilter into a game.
posted by Kattullus at 11:57 AM on November 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I agree with that. Especially because once it's been loosed it'll become one of these things that we do and the list'll keep being updated. I really dislike the idea of making any kind of list of people based on the number of favorites they receive or how many people have favorited them or any kind of permutation thereof. MetaFilter isn't a game and we should be conscious of not making it one. Once we go down the ludic path it's awful hard to turn back. That said, it's not something I overly worry about because the admins have adamantly spoken against any ideas that establishes a ranking for MeFites. That said, I've been thinking about what felix said above about the all time popular favorites page (which I had completely forgotten existed, I'm not even sure how it can be navigated to).
I've made hundreds of posts to MetaFilter during my years as a MeFite and slowly I've learned how to present what I think is cool in ways that will make others interested in checking it out (though some subjects I've never been able to do justice) but I think that if I'd ever been worried about where posts would end up on the "all time favorites list" I wouldn't post at all. I do think that favorites are useful as positive feedback but I'm not comfortable about creating rankings. For me, I like getting the little points of "good post" when I post but I cherish the freedom to do posts that I know won't necessarily be of interest to very many (e.g. my recent post about being an elderly immigrant in the US). If I had to worry about keeping my "batting average" up or getting onto top posts lists it would impact my enjoyment of the site, a large part of which is that I get to share the stuff I find interesting online.
So yeah, thanks FishBike, for being conscious of not turning MetaFilter into a game.
posted by Kattullus at 11:57 AM on November 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
And nowhere has it been established that people only "favorite their favorite people"
Well, there was a list in the infodump that showed one person giving another over 6000 favorites, followed by at least nine others with a similar pattern of usage. While we could argue about outliers and special circumstances, we would at some point be ignoring that the list containing all-time high favorites include such people, especially if I was using it "to reveal the information about what's emerging as interesting to the widest number of users." Which is what I was pointing out above.
As for bookmarking, this entire thread has assumed its function generally. I stopped counting after a dozen admitted their bookmarking tendencies, while doing a search. Julen estimated above that it was "85/15" without being challenged. What's more interesting to me is how we're at both ends, writing off significant popularity excesses and significant bookmarking frugality as essentially anti-categories instead of the normal ends of a bell curve. We clearly have at least three separate functions going on here with favorites without any way to make informed sense of it, although plenty of apologists.
posted by Brian B. at 12:13 PM on November 8, 2009
Well, there was a list in the infodump that showed one person giving another over 6000 favorites, followed by at least nine others with a similar pattern of usage. While we could argue about outliers and special circumstances, we would at some point be ignoring that the list containing all-time high favorites include such people, especially if I was using it "to reveal the information about what's emerging as interesting to the widest number of users." Which is what I was pointing out above.
As for bookmarking, this entire thread has assumed its function generally. I stopped counting after a dozen admitted their bookmarking tendencies, while doing a search. Julen estimated above that it was "85/15" without being challenged. What's more interesting to me is how we're at both ends, writing off significant popularity excesses and significant bookmarking frugality as essentially anti-categories instead of the normal ends of a bell curve. We clearly have at least three separate functions going on here with favorites without any way to make informed sense of it, although plenty of apologists.
posted by Brian B. at 12:13 PM on November 8, 2009
pre-favourites, for people without much to add but the need to approve, there used to be the formal little statement:
[this is good]
which you don't see much anymore.
posted by Rumple at 12:39 PM on November 8, 2009
[this is good]
which you don't see much anymore.
posted by Rumple at 12:39 PM on November 8, 2009
Brian B: As for bookmarking, this entire thread has assumed its function generally. I stopped counting after a dozen admitted their bookmarking tendencies, while doing a search. Julen estimated above that it was "85/15" without being challenged.
I estimated that it was 85/15 bookmark/"good comment!" in regards to my own usage. I did not mean to imply it was a sitewide breakdown. I went back and looked at my own meager set of favorites and most were bookmarks - even a few comments that might appear that they were "good job!" type favorites were actually bookmarks that I wanted to reference in offline conversations I was having on topics ranging from pre-war literature to the continuing impact of A Christmas Story. It generally averages out to 85/15 for me (the number has gotten a bit skewed in the past week or so, but will probably settle back into old patterns in about a year.) But I only have favorited 35 things, so I'm an outlier.
posted by julen at 12:55 PM on November 8, 2009
I estimated that it was 85/15 bookmark/"good comment!" in regards to my own usage. I did not mean to imply it was a sitewide breakdown. I went back and looked at my own meager set of favorites and most were bookmarks - even a few comments that might appear that they were "good job!" type favorites were actually bookmarks that I wanted to reference in offline conversations I was having on topics ranging from pre-war literature to the continuing impact of A Christmas Story. It generally averages out to 85/15 for me (the number has gotten a bit skewed in the past week or so, but will probably settle back into old patterns in about a year.) But I only have favorited 35 things, so I'm an outlier.
posted by julen at 12:55 PM on November 8, 2009
pre-favourites, for people without much to add but the need to approve, there used to be the formal little statement:
[this is good]
which you don't see much anymore.
[this is good]
posted by grouse at 12:55 PM on November 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
[this is good]
which you don't see much anymore.
[this is good]
posted by grouse at 12:55 PM on November 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
I estimated that it was 85/15 bookmark/"good comment!" in regards to my own usage. I did not mean to imply it was a sitewide breakdown.
Even better Julen. I should add instead that a comment below yours refers specifically to a controversial comment made about gypsies in another thread where some posters were forced to defend their favorites as bookmarks. The misunderstanding raised there is very telling about how people might expect us to use favorites, and the bandwagon effect.
posted by Brian B. at 1:14 PM on November 8, 2009
Even better Julen. I should add instead that a comment below yours refers specifically to a controversial comment made about gypsies in another thread where some posters were forced to defend their favorites as bookmarks. The misunderstanding raised there is very telling about how people might expect us to use favorites, and the bandwagon effect.
posted by Brian B. at 1:14 PM on November 8, 2009
Well, there was a list in the infodump that showed one person giving another over 6000 favorites, followed by at least nine others with a similar pattern of usage.
Those are unquestionably, undeniably outliers, however. I'm not sure why behavior at the far end of the spectrum comes into a characterization of general behavioral patterns. Certainly they're worth noting and talking about in some contexts, but that tehloki favorites like mad or that davey_darling has made good in on his offer to favorite basically everything ThePinkSuperhero has ever posted or will post are quirks exceptional to, not definitive of, how the system is used in general.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:33 PM on November 8, 2009
Those are unquestionably, undeniably outliers, however. I'm not sure why behavior at the far end of the spectrum comes into a characterization of general behavioral patterns. Certainly they're worth noting and talking about in some contexts, but that tehloki favorites like mad or that davey_darling has made good in on his offer to favorite basically everything ThePinkSuperhero has ever posted or will post are quirks exceptional to, not definitive of, how the system is used in general.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:33 PM on November 8, 2009
pre-favourites, for people without much to add but the need to approve, there used to be the formal little statement:
[this is good]
which you don't see much anymore.
Excellent observation.
posted by Miko at 2:00 PM on November 8, 2009
[this is good]
which you don't see much anymore.
Excellent observation.
posted by Miko at 2:00 PM on November 8, 2009
"A side note. Over on MetaChat users are doing a little mirror gazing to figure out what's going on with the site and how it can build a more vital user community. ONe of the frequent problems over there is that new users feel hesitant - they're entering a smallish user group with a lot of history, and it's hard at the beginning to make yourself heard, get noticed, and feel a part of things, which is a big deal since it's a purely social site and not a content-focused site."
I opened up Monkeyfilter for the first time in a couple years last night (and found, as usual, some great stuff that I'd feel vaguely guilty about stealing to post here), because I was wondering about how their community was doing. I know that open sign-ups here were pretty devastating just in terms the number of folks contributing over here, and things looked kind of dry just in terms of number of posts or comments. I'd like to hear a little more from people who are still active there—Wendell and Mitheral come to mind immediately, though I'm sure there are plenty of others. I know that they had a bit of an identity crisis too, but still seem to have a core of folks who are posting good stuff. (I don't want to be too denigrating, because I think I've been kind of a dick toward them in the past. It's also funny to see how a lot of the folks who are really active here have done what I might think of minor-league stints over there. It's funny to remember that Blazecock and I mixed it up over there at one point too, some several years back under different names for both of us.)
I also wonder about what the community looks like over at SpoFi, since I almost always just do that site in binges, reading everything that's been posted over the last month or so when I get an unexpected weekend afternoon free. But I know that they also use essentially an older model based on MeFi. I'd wonder what challenges they've faced over the years. I'm not sure how much of the difference could be attributed to favorites, but the issues of attracting and integrating new members have to be present in some form or another.
"But hopefully it's pretty obvious why such a discussion of specific users would be problematic, and so, I think, would be posting a top-n list of users by that sort of criteria, here in this thread. I agree that MetaFilter isn't supposed to be a popularity contest, and that feels too close to "... but here's who's winning it" in the context of this discussion.
Which is a long-winded way of saying, klangklangston, I think I get the sort of "figure of merit" you were interested in seeing here, but I feel like this thread is not a good place for that, so I'm not going to post it here."
I get that, I get that. Not everything I'm curious about is good for Metafilter. ;)
posted by klangklangston at 2:43 PM on November 8, 2009
I opened up Monkeyfilter for the first time in a couple years last night (and found, as usual, some great stuff that I'd feel vaguely guilty about stealing to post here), because I was wondering about how their community was doing. I know that open sign-ups here were pretty devastating just in terms the number of folks contributing over here, and things looked kind of dry just in terms of number of posts or comments. I'd like to hear a little more from people who are still active there—Wendell and Mitheral come to mind immediately, though I'm sure there are plenty of others. I know that they had a bit of an identity crisis too, but still seem to have a core of folks who are posting good stuff. (I don't want to be too denigrating, because I think I've been kind of a dick toward them in the past. It's also funny to see how a lot of the folks who are really active here have done what I might think of minor-league stints over there. It's funny to remember that Blazecock and I mixed it up over there at one point too, some several years back under different names for both of us.)
I also wonder about what the community looks like over at SpoFi, since I almost always just do that site in binges, reading everything that's been posted over the last month or so when I get an unexpected weekend afternoon free. But I know that they also use essentially an older model based on MeFi. I'd wonder what challenges they've faced over the years. I'm not sure how much of the difference could be attributed to favorites, but the issues of attracting and integrating new members have to be present in some form or another.
"But hopefully it's pretty obvious why such a discussion of specific users would be problematic, and so, I think, would be posting a top-n list of users by that sort of criteria, here in this thread. I agree that MetaFilter isn't supposed to be a popularity contest, and that feels too close to "... but here's who's winning it" in the context of this discussion.
Which is a long-winded way of saying, klangklangston, I think I get the sort of "figure of merit" you were interested in seeing here, but I feel like this thread is not a good place for that, so I'm not going to post it here."
I get that, I get that. Not everything I'm curious about is good for Metafilter. ;)
posted by klangklangston at 2:43 PM on November 8, 2009
And...
posted by languagehat at 5:14 PM on November 8, 2009
posted by languagehat at 5:14 PM on November 8, 2009
2,500.
posted by languagehat at 5:15 PM on November 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by languagehat at 5:15 PM on November 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't think that we've quite achieved the Bataan Death March of Happiness that was Thread (which, if I remember correctly, was where the alphabet game tradition started, though I might be wrong about that). Conversation is still largely on topic. This may, in fact, be the longest on topic MetaTalk thread ever.
posted by Kattullus at 6:39 PM on November 8, 2009
posted by Kattullus at 6:39 PM on November 8, 2009
Correction: which, if I remember correctly, was where the alphabet game and comment numbering tradition started, though I might be wrong about that
posted by Kattullus at 6:40 PM on November 8, 2009
posted by Kattullus at 6:40 PM on November 8, 2009
Conversation is still largely on topic. This may, in fact, be the longest on topic MetaTalk thread ever.
That's what I alluded to 1,437 comments ago.
posted by grouse at 6:52 PM on November 8, 2009
That's what I alluded to 1,437 comments ago.
posted by grouse at 6:52 PM on November 8, 2009
My gut says that comment-milestone-awareness well predated that thread, though certainly it was an important contribution to the field.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:56 PM on November 8, 2009
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:56 PM on November 8, 2009
Day 4: In an IRC conversation, a few people started to wonder when a certain user began to establish a large presence. It was really only by searching within my favorites that I could determine when I, as a single data point, became aware of that person's contributions. So in the aggregate, there's some interest in being able to do the research that can tell you "Oh yeah, I first noticed [User X] in the [YourThreadHere] thread." -and comparing notes on that.
posted by Miko at 8:28 PM on November 8, 2009
posted by Miko at 8:28 PM on November 8, 2009
Favorites are searchable? Hot damn! I'd completely forgotten that.
posted by Kattullus at 8:34 PM on November 8, 2009
posted by Kattullus at 8:34 PM on November 8, 2009
Yeah! That's exactly why they're so great to use as bookmarks. When I favorite something, it's like voting it into this smaller pool that I know is set aside, and the pool contains things I might want later for any number of reasons that aren't even completely predictable. "Favorite" then equals "I want to keep track of this," and the searchability means that when you realize why you wanted to keep track of it, you can find it a lot more efficiently than through site search or Google.
posted by Miko at 9:06 PM on November 8, 2009
posted by Miko at 9:06 PM on November 8, 2009
Fun fact: this is the third-most commented MeTa thread ever, behind 15931 at 3647 comments and 9622 at 2686 comments. After is 16706 at 2014 comments, 14194 at 1723 comments, and 17517 at 1687 comments.
posted by flatluigi at 12:10 AM on November 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by flatluigi at 12:10 AM on November 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
Let's dig a little deeper. There are 11 MeTa categories.
1 is bugs; the largest is 9723 which asks for a user link list revamp. 621 comments.
2 is feature requests; the largest is the aforementioned 1517 and asks for a larger front page. 1687 comments.
3 is etiquette/policy; this one is 14194 and is about antisemitism. 1723 comments.
4 is uptime; the largest is 17317 which talks about the new server. 208 comments.
5 is Metafilter-related; 15931 is the largest site-wide and is about sansgras. 3647 comments.
6 is general weblog-related, now removed; 2139 is about clusters of weblogs. 113 comments.
7 is ticketstub project, another removed one; 12038 is about google spreadsheet invites. 154 comments.
8 is Metafilter gatherings; 17496 is about the internet game Broken Picture Telephone. 872 comments.
9 is Metafilter music; 15067 is about The Metafilter Orchestra project. 231 comments.
10 is what is now AskMe; 7812 is about Gmail invites. 401 comments.
11 is the MeFi podcast; 15387 is the call-in show. 127 comments.
posted by flatluigi at 12:28 AM on November 9, 2009 [5 favorites]
1 is bugs; the largest is 9723 which asks for a user link list revamp. 621 comments.
2 is feature requests; the largest is the aforementioned 1517 and asks for a larger front page. 1687 comments.
3 is etiquette/policy; this one is 14194 and is about antisemitism. 1723 comments.
4 is uptime; the largest is 17317 which talks about the new server. 208 comments.
5 is Metafilter-related; 15931 is the largest site-wide and is about sansgras. 3647 comments.
6 is general weblog-related, now removed; 2139 is about clusters of weblogs. 113 comments.
7 is ticketstub project, another removed one; 12038 is about google spreadsheet invites. 154 comments.
8 is Metafilter gatherings; 17496 is about the internet game Broken Picture Telephone. 872 comments.
9 is Metafilter music; 15067 is about The Metafilter Orchestra project. 231 comments.
10 is what is now AskMe; 7812 is about Gmail invites. 401 comments.
11 is the MeFi podcast; 15387 is the call-in show. 127 comments.
posted by flatluigi at 12:28 AM on November 9, 2009 [5 favorites]
Well, in fairness, I gather that one of the hopes was a reduction in snark, and at the very least this unequivocably shows that it has not eliminated snark.That only works if the experiments are designed in a way that will yield meaningful data. But even if we assume that this one will, it doesn't address that particular question at all, so I don't see how this is relevant other than to be snarky.It's just a number, and no assumptions can always be reasonably made about why one comment derived that number of favorites, compared with another comment.You know a good way to get away from baseless assumptions? Experiments!
posted by Flunkie at 6:00 AM on November 9, 2009
My vote has always been to have one day "off" per month where the site is totally inaccessible and everyone has to go do something else for a day. One of these days....Metafilter's Down (And So I Hit F5) by cortex
posted by Flunkie at 6:07 AM on November 9, 2009
at the very least this unequivocably shows that it has not eliminated snark.
I'm actually surprised, however, at how much less early-threadshitting snark there seems to be. Let me be very clear -- this is just a gut feeling, I am overtired and even if this is true we're still going back to how things used to be come Dec 1 -- but I feel like there have been fewer early-thread deletions. Numbers will tell if this is real or imagined. No one wants a snark-free MeFi, generally speaking I think we're aiming for a site that values substance over snark but has ample amounts of both.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:47 AM on November 9, 2009
I'm actually surprised, however, at how much less early-threadshitting snark there seems to be. Let me be very clear -- this is just a gut feeling, I am overtired and even if this is true we're still going back to how things used to be come Dec 1 -- but I feel like there have been fewer early-thread deletions. Numbers will tell if this is real or imagined. No one wants a snark-free MeFi, generally speaking I think we're aiming for a site that values substance over snark but has ample amounts of both.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:47 AM on November 9, 2009
Holy hell, I take a week off and MeTa goes all crazy and shit. See, this is why we should never be separated; I obviously bring the sanity to this relationship.
(That and the demonic venomous mind-reading goldfish.)
posted by quin at 8:07 AM on November 9, 2009
(That and the demonic venomous mind-reading goldfish.)
posted by quin at 8:07 AM on November 9, 2009
Snark is kind of like cardamom: You sprinkle a little of it on the rice while it's cooking and it'll taste awesome; eat half a spoonful of the stuff and you'll be trying to scrape the taste off your tongue for a week.
posted by majick at 8:19 AM on November 9, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by majick at 8:19 AM on November 9, 2009 [3 favorites]
My guess is that the reduction in early-thread-shitting will carry on through December and beyond. We've kind of had a big site reset, awareness, and behavior shift. This ripple effect will likely be a positive one. And even the blowback might be more of the "wow, we got through this as a community, learned a lot, and gained a whole new appreciation for what and who makes this thing go" kind of response, rather than a return to snark.
posted by iamkimiam at 9:25 AM on November 9, 2009
posted by iamkimiam at 9:25 AM on November 9, 2009
I've been using the Stylish hack on my home computer (so I see the numbers there) and am browsing unaltered from work. Here's my feedback after a week:
The change does not alter most of the primary ways in which I interact with favorites:
posted by ocherdraco at 9:58 AM on November 9, 2009
The change does not alter most of the primary ways in which I interact with favorites:
- Checking favorites others have given to me. I almost exclusively look at this via my profile.
- Reading comments with many favorites by my contacts, or other users on an individual basis. I either do this via the sidebar (most of the time) or from a user's profile page.
- Looking for comments and posts that have many favorites. Like many people, I think those comments and posts that have lots of favorites often have great value in and of themselves, and I seek them out. However, I don't skim threads using favorites, by and large. When I skim threads, I use usernames. When I'm looking for highly favorited posts and comments, regardless of the user who posted them, I tend to look for them in the sidebar and popular favorites in its various iterations.
- Whether or not I favorite. When I can see the numbers, sometimes a large number of favorites will deter me from adding a favorite that essentially says "Me, too." When I only see "has favorites," I usually jump right in and bang that little plus sign.
- The way in which I read the thread. When I can see the numbers, I am much more likely to stop and think about why a certain comment got so many favorites, or wonder who favorited it, or any number of things that a concrete number of favorites could possibly indicate. With "has favorites," I read threads more smoothly, only investigating further on a more occasional basis. It has, in a certain sense, raised my pique threshold.
posted by ocherdraco at 9:58 AM on November 9, 2009
> (also, tarheelcoxn, it sounds like we should be friends!)
:D ride on!
posted by tarheelcoxn at 3:34 PM on November 10, 2009
:D ride on!
posted by tarheelcoxn at 3:34 PM on November 10, 2009
Let it be known from someone who doesn't really care that this is a terrible idea that destroys the purpose of favoriting/scoring things in the first place.
posted by rob paxon at 1:17 AM on November 11, 2009
posted by rob paxon at 1:17 AM on November 11, 2009
"...destroys the purpose of scoring things in the first place."
*facepalm*
posted by majick at 4:28 AM on November 11, 2009
*facepalm*
posted by majick at 4:28 AM on November 11, 2009
I'm kinda bummed that it's going to be reset at the end of the month. I think it's really cut down on stupid/snarky "amirite"-ish comments and the whole popularity contest aspect of favorites, while still allowing people who want to see the count to turn it back on, and preserving its use as a bookmarking feature.
Given that you can turn it back on right now if you really want to, resetting things back to the way they were seems to only affect people who don't want to see the 'Metafilter coolness score' next to every comment.
At the very least, I think I'd like the option to turn it back off, if we can't leave "off" as the default behavior.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:57 AM on November 11, 2009
Given that you can turn it back on right now if you really want to, resetting things back to the way they were seems to only affect people who don't want to see the 'Metafilter coolness score' next to every comment.
At the very least, I think I'd like the option to turn it back off, if we can't leave "off" as the default behavior.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:57 AM on November 11, 2009
At the very least, I think I'd like the option to turn it back off, if we can't leave "off" as the default behavior.
Yeah, this is my feeling as well. I know the 'favorites' will come back in a couple weeks but I like the sort of quiet of not knowing that userXYZ's kind of funny, kind of facile comment got 30 favorites (whereas my maybe less-funny, slightly more facile comment garnered 2).
I'm curious to see how things stand in a couple weeks, but golly, I like being able to not know what the hive mind of userXYZ's wit/ deep compassion/ generally thoughtful insights. I equally like being able to find out (of course) and would like to be able to toggle between the two views...
posted by From Bklyn at 10:59 AM on November 11, 2009
Yeah, this is my feeling as well. I know the 'favorites' will come back in a couple weeks but I like the sort of quiet of not knowing that userXYZ's kind of funny, kind of facile comment got 30 favorites (whereas my maybe less-funny, slightly more facile comment garnered 2).
I'm curious to see how things stand in a couple weeks, but golly, I like being able to not know what the hive mind of userXYZ's wit/ deep compassion/ generally thoughtful insights. I equally like being able to find out (of course) and would like to be able to toggle between the two views...
posted by From Bklyn at 10:59 AM on November 11, 2009
I like the sort of quiet of not knowing that userXYZ's kind of funny, kind of facile comment got 30 favorites (whereas my maybe less-funny, slightly more facile comment garnered 2).
I'm really surprised how important this turns out to be. Basically.. I think favorites influence the way people use the site, and in particular cause a lot of noise. At the start of this experiment I was convinced that getting rid of the score for everybody was the only way to address that problem. So far though, I notice that just hiding favorites from my personal view makes things seem a lot less noisy.
A personal opt out for favorites is looking like a much more useful feature than I would have thought.
posted by Chuckles at 11:41 AM on November 11, 2009
I'm really surprised how important this turns out to be. Basically.. I think favorites influence the way people use the site, and in particular cause a lot of noise. At the start of this experiment I was convinced that getting rid of the score for everybody was the only way to address that problem. So far though, I notice that just hiding favorites from my personal view makes things seem a lot less noisy.
A personal opt out for favorites is looking like a much more useful feature than I would have thought.
posted by Chuckles at 11:41 AM on November 11, 2009
For folks who are finding the site less noisy without the counts displayed, it might be interesting, once the experiment is over, to go back and re-read some November threads with the count enabled again.
This would help identify if the experiment resulted in a real change in commenting, or if it's just that the noisy comments don't seem as irritating when you can't see that they got e.g. 58 favorites.
(For myself, I think it's that I parse the favorite count as a kind of volume knob on the comment... which means I'm not noticing the inexplicably-favoritedcrappy comments as much, but also not enjoying the justifiably-favorited good comments as much either. Weird.)
posted by FishBike at 12:39 PM on November 11, 2009
This would help identify if the experiment resulted in a real change in commenting, or if it's just that the noisy comments don't seem as irritating when you can't see that they got e.g. 58 favorites.
(For myself, I think it's that I parse the favorite count as a kind of volume knob on the comment... which means I'm not noticing the inexplicably-favoritedcrappy comments as much, but also not enjoying the justifiably-favorited good comments as much either. Weird.)
posted by FishBike at 12:39 PM on November 11, 2009
Ditto.
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:04 PM on November 11, 2009
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:04 PM on November 11, 2009
Same here.
posted by at the crossroads at 2:42 PM on November 12, 2009
posted by at the crossroads at 2:42 PM on November 12, 2009
I don't.
Just, y'know, as a data point.
I don't think there should be two Metafilters.
posted by dersins at 3:00 PM on November 12, 2009 [10 favorites]
Just, y'know, as a data point.
I don't think there should be two Metafilters.
posted by dersins at 3:00 PM on November 12, 2009 [10 favorites]
I favourited dersins post from recent activity earlier, but I thought I should actually comment here as well. It's kind of amusing, given the topic, that the people supporting retaining an option to keep favourite counts turned off were all commenting their support, whilst the 6 (including myself) who don't want there to be two Metafilters were just clicking +.
posted by knapah at 5:06 PM on November 12, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by knapah at 5:06 PM on November 12, 2009 [3 favorites]
Chiming in to say I have decided I really don't like the way this affects favorites on my posts. For most other things, I don't really care how many favorites exactly there are, and I have a pretty good finger on the pulse of the site to know what is or isn't probably a popular comment. But for my own comments, I would love to be able to see while I am in the thread how many favorites my comment received, especially when it wasn't one I expected to get any favorites at all.
posted by Night_owl at 6:31 PM on November 12, 2009
posted by Night_owl at 6:31 PM on November 12, 2009
Well, there's already two metafilters, the white kind and the blue kind, so I guess this would make four metafilters, which is just fine by me.
posted by kaibutsu at 6:50 PM on November 12, 2009
posted by kaibutsu at 6:50 PM on November 12, 2009
I keep reading and reading but that scroll bar just DOES NOT move.
posted by Jaybo at 7:04 PM on November 12, 2009
posted by Jaybo at 7:04 PM on November 12, 2009
And three people have favourited my last comment and not commented themselves!
I just don't know what to think anymore!!
posted by knapah at 5:07 AM on November 13, 2009
I just don't know what to think anymore!!
posted by knapah at 5:07 AM on November 13, 2009
Someone explain to me, please, how two Metafilters are created by having one aspect of favorites display altered. And how this is different from, say, the two Metafilters created by me choosing to underline links and you choosing not to underline links.
posted by zennie at 5:48 AM on November 13, 2009
posted by zennie at 5:48 AM on November 13, 2009
I guess it only matters if it is ascertained that having them on or off fundamentally impacts upon commenting behaviour. If it seems to change the way people post then I think we should only have it one way or the other, not both at the same time.
I'm happy with either outcome (on or off), but would prefer there not to be both at once. I'm not sure why though.
posted by knapah at 6:05 AM on November 13, 2009
I'm happy with either outcome (on or off), but would prefer there not to be both at once. I'm not sure why though.
posted by knapah at 6:05 AM on November 13, 2009
I think the idea is that people who occlude favorites have a different understanding of the tenor of a thread versus those who choose to keep favorites visible. I think that's just fine myself.
posted by Kattullus at 6:09 AM on November 13, 2009
posted by Kattullus at 6:09 AM on November 13, 2009
Of course it is. Not but 1500 comments ago, I was being exhorted to run some kind of script on my user agent to remove my view of the favorites feature UI in some kind of love-it-or-leave-it hissy fit, but now I'm supposed to just choke down the scoreboard for the sake of conversational unity, because not my knowing the scores of whatever game people are playing in thread would create "two MetaFilters?" One where someone wins the thread, and one where people are just talking?
Listen, I know these scoreboard people are rabid for their scoreboards, but at least try to stay consistent and on-message, okay? Us crotchety cane-waving irrational lawn-shouting anti-scoreboard old people are getting confused. Am I allowed to not care about the scoreboard? Or is my not caring about the scoreboard somehow tearing us apart?
posted by majick at 6:57 AM on November 13, 2009
Listen, I know these scoreboard people are rabid for their scoreboards, but at least try to stay consistent and on-message, okay? Us crotchety cane-waving irrational lawn-shouting anti-scoreboard old people are getting confused. Am I allowed to not care about the scoreboard? Or is my not caring about the scoreboard somehow tearing us apart?
posted by majick at 6:57 AM on November 13, 2009
I guess it only matters if it is ascertained that having them on or off fundamentally impacts upon commenting behaviour.
Except that, as I think has been well-established at this point, there isn't even consensus as to how people use favorites. So there are already many, many Metafilters, if you break them up by commenting/favoriting behavior. There are people who use favorites for "right on," others who use them for bookmarks, whatever. People are already using the feature differently; I don't see how letting people turn the feature off would really change anything.
That ship has already well sailed, if it was ever in this particular port anyway.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:52 AM on November 13, 2009
Except that, as I think has been well-established at this point, there isn't even consensus as to how people use favorites. So there are already many, many Metafilters, if you break them up by commenting/favoriting behavior. There are people who use favorites for "right on," others who use them for bookmarks, whatever. People are already using the feature differently; I don't see how letting people turn the feature off would really change anything.
That ship has already well sailed, if it was ever in this particular port anyway.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:52 AM on November 13, 2009
Listen, I know these scoreboard people are rabid for their scoreboards
No matter how pretty you dress that strawman up it still makes a lousy prom date.
Or did you skim the thread quickly enough to miss the point that many people made that "in an all-text medium favorites are a kind of paralinguistic channel that replace the body language and nonverbal cues present in all face-to-face conversations. They add a texture to the discussion and embellish the flat presentation of text with granular measures of appreciation, interest, and/or approval."
Visible favorites are not a fucking scoreboard to a lot of their proponents; they are (or can be), however, an important part of the conversation.
posted by dersins at 9:35 AM on November 13, 2009 [4 favorites]
No matter how pretty you dress that strawman up it still makes a lousy prom date.
Or did you skim the thread quickly enough to miss the point that many people made that "in an all-text medium favorites are a kind of paralinguistic channel that replace the body language and nonverbal cues present in all face-to-face conversations. They add a texture to the discussion and embellish the flat presentation of text with granular measures of appreciation, interest, and/or approval."
Visible favorites are not a fucking scoreboard to a lot of their proponents; they are (or can be), however, an important part of the conversation.
posted by dersins at 9:35 AM on November 13, 2009 [4 favorites]
I suggested an algorithm above for distinguishing between "has favorites" and "many favorites" on a thread-by-thread basis. That might help with the "texture" without reintroducing the scoreboard.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 10:01 AM on November 13, 2009
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 10:01 AM on November 13, 2009
OK, so, how are the non-scoreboard number displays contributing to the conversation? The thing is, the 'paralanguage' aspect doesn't really work unless you view a thread as some kind of breathing representation of the will of the general community. Because other than furious nodding, what exactly is this paralanguage capable of communicating?
There are notable exceptions, of course, but for the most part comment favorite counts seem to function more as a peanut gallery than a paralanguage. Talk about two Metafilters.
posted by zennie at 11:15 AM on November 13, 2009
There are notable exceptions, of course, but for the most part comment favorite counts seem to function more as a peanut gallery than a paralanguage. Talk about two Metafilters.
posted by zennie at 11:15 AM on November 13, 2009
No matter how pretty you dress that strawman up it still makes a lousy prom date.
Yeah, and "two Metafilters" isn't fallacious at all.
"in an all-text medium favorites are a kind of paralinguistic channel that replace the body language -blahblahblahbibittyblah"
IT'S A NUMBER! How you choose to view the number is what gives it a definition. It's obvious there are certain trends (or trends that will be teased out from "the experiment") in conjunction with how people view it, but please chill with the overwrought arguments of "Obviously it's THIS!"
I'm curious as to why some people who would like the choice to not have to look at your precious favorite count has you up in a huff? A real reason would be nice, instead of some Time Cop scenario of two divergent reality Metafilters that can't exist together lest they touch and implode. In which case wouldn't we be having some kind of meltdown right now? Since, ya' know, there's "two" Metafilters.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:57 AM on November 13, 2009
Yeah, and "two Metafilters" isn't fallacious at all.
"in an all-text medium favorites are a kind of paralinguistic channel that replace the body language -blahblahblahbibittyblah"
IT'S A NUMBER! How you choose to view the number is what gives it a definition. It's obvious there are certain trends (or trends that will be teased out from "the experiment") in conjunction with how people view it, but please chill with the overwrought arguments of "Obviously it's THIS!"
I'm curious as to why some people who would like the choice to not have to look at your precious favorite count has you up in a huff? A real reason would be nice, instead of some Time Cop scenario of two divergent reality Metafilters that can't exist together lest they touch and implode. In which case wouldn't we be having some kind of meltdown right now? Since, ya' know, there's "two" Metafilters.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:57 AM on November 13, 2009
I must not favorite.
Favorites are the mind-killer.
Favorites are the little-pat that brings total obsession.
I will face my favorites.
I will permit them to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its count.
Where the favorites are counted will there will be peace.
Only I will remain.
posted by The Whelk at 12:00 PM on November 13, 2009 [3 favorites]
Favorites are the mind-killer.
Favorites are the little-pat that brings total obsession.
I will face my favorites.
I will permit them to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its count.
Where the favorites are counted will there will be peace.
Only I will remain.
posted by The Whelk at 12:00 PM on November 13, 2009 [3 favorites]
The thing is, the 'paralanguage' aspect doesn't really work unless you view a thread as some kind of breathing representation of the will of the general community.
This is ridiculous. Favorites serve as a form of metadata which indicate that people find value in something. That is information which is useful in understanding not only what was said, but how it was recieved. To disregard this information is to hobble your understanding of the thread.
favorite counts seem to function more as a peanut gallery than a paralanguage.
Communication is communication, and valid regardless of your desire.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:02 PM on November 13, 2009
This is ridiculous. Favorites serve as a form of metadata which indicate that people find value in something. That is information which is useful in understanding not only what was said, but how it was recieved. To disregard this information is to hobble your understanding of the thread.
favorite counts seem to function more as a peanut gallery than a paralanguage.
Communication is communication, and valid regardless of your desire.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:02 PM on November 13, 2009
Man, you're all het up about this, aren't you? I think visible favorite counts are valuable, but it won't kill me if they go away. I just think that it should be one or the other-- not both. The thing that makes Metafilter a great site is the fact that it is one of the best ongoing conversations on the entirety of the internet.
I believe that there would be a long-term impact on the dynamic of that conversation if people have significantly differing views of it.
In which case wouldn't we be having some kind of meltdown right now? Since, ya' know, there's "two" Metafilters.
A month-long experiment is not the same as a permanent change.
But you know that-- you just wanted to bloviate.
posted by dersins at 12:04 PM on November 13, 2009
I believe that there would be a long-term impact on the dynamic of that conversation if people have significantly differing views of it.
In which case wouldn't we be having some kind of meltdown right now? Since, ya' know, there's "two" Metafilters.
A month-long experiment is not the same as a permanent change.
But you know that-- you just wanted to bloviate.
posted by dersins at 12:04 PM on November 13, 2009
"No matter how pretty you dress that strawman up it still makes a lousy prom date."
Can we perhaps agree not to overstate our positions to the point where we're talking breathlessly about "two MetaFilters," then? Because I don't know if you want to be talking about my date with that on your arm.
posted by majick at 12:07 PM on November 13, 2009
Can we perhaps agree not to overstate our positions to the point where we're talking breathlessly about "two MetaFilters," then? Because I don't know if you want to be talking about my date with that on your arm.
posted by majick at 12:07 PM on November 13, 2009
I believe that there would be a long-term impact on the dynamic of that conversation if people have significantly differing views of it.
Okay, that makes sense. But I think it's worthy of more discussion.
A month-long experiment is not the same as a permanent change.
I agree, but I believe it was tabled for discussion and that's it.
posted by P.o.B. at 12:18 PM on November 13, 2009
Okay, that makes sense. But I think it's worthy of more discussion.
A month-long experiment is not the same as a permanent change.
I agree, but I believe it was tabled for discussion and that's it.
posted by P.o.B. at 12:18 PM on November 13, 2009
: Favorites serve as a form of metadata which indicate that people find value in something. That is information which is useful in understanding not only what was said, but how it was recieved. To disregard this information is to hobble your understanding of the thread.
wut
Yes, it's metadata. Decidedly one-dimensional metadata. You're basically agreeing with me, except that I don't see how it's vital -- or even helpful-- to the conversation to have a tally of how many people ostensibly agree with which comments.
Communication is communication, and valid regardless of your desire.
I'm not entirely sure what this means. OK, peanut galleries communicate...?
posted by zennie at 1:15 PM on November 13, 2009
wut
Yes, it's metadata. Decidedly one-dimensional metadata. You're basically agreeing with me, except that I don't see how it's vital -- or even helpful-- to the conversation to have a tally of how many people ostensibly agree with which comments.
Communication is communication, and valid regardless of your desire.
I'm not entirely sure what this means. OK, peanut galleries communicate...?
posted by zennie at 1:15 PM on November 13, 2009
There ver zwei peanuts valking down the strasse, und vun was assaulted. Peanut. Ho-ho-ho.
posted by scody at 2:44 PM on November 13, 2009
posted by scody at 2:44 PM on November 13, 2009
"Scoreboarding" isn't purely straw man:
"I know people are still getting rewarded with favorites, and the lists will be updated, and I will be able to see my 'score'. "
Also:
"I think it's cool to have the option of turning favorite counts off, but to have that as the default setting seems extremely problematic."
And I think calling it "extremely problematic" is extremely silly. AskMe wasn't a hellhole prior to favorites. It did not have "extreme problems" that adding favorites remedied. It's mildly problematic for folks who have gotten used to reading and using favorites in lieu of other measures. That's it.
posted by klangklangston at 4:40 PM on November 13, 2009
"I know people are still getting rewarded with favorites, and the lists will be updated, and I will be able to see my 'score'. "
Also:
"I think it's cool to have the option of turning favorite counts off, but to have that as the default setting seems extremely problematic."
And I think calling it "extremely problematic" is extremely silly. AskMe wasn't a hellhole prior to favorites. It did not have "extreme problems" that adding favorites remedied. It's mildly problematic for folks who have gotten used to reading and using favorites in lieu of other measures. That's it.
posted by klangklangston at 4:40 PM on November 13, 2009
I don't see how it's vital -- or even helpful-- to the conversation to have a tally of how many people ostensibly agree with which comments.
It's helpful not just to the conversation at hand, but to the overall culture of the site. As an example I will keep going back to some of the early threads on respect for women on the site (as I did earlier in this thread when people challenged the idea that favorites could be helpful. Big Ben! Parliament!). Before favorites, a female objecting to insulting gender stereotypes aimed at her would engage with others in the thread who didn't agree with her point. At that time, it looked as though one user objected - probably a personal issue - when everybody knew the site culture was to be rough and tumble, and generally thought she should stop whining.
Once favorites were instituted, in the next few threads that arose, it was actually startling to see what formerly was that sole user, or two or three users, suddenly backed up by the growing lists of users clicking 'favorite' to show agreement or support. It not only bolstered those people's will to keep posting, it encouraged others to enter the discussion, since they could now see that there was some agreement out there which was previously invisible.
In other words, favorites make the opinions of others visible, and they give a reader much more information about what the site's users think and/or like, and in roughly what proportions. Since we know that not everyone does (or should!) comment in every thread they read, since we know there are lurkers who are perhaps unwilling to post because writing doesn't come easily, or English doesn't come easily, or they just don't want to for whatever reason, it is well that we have an avenue for people to show their responses without adding yet more verbiage. Favorites reveal more about MeFi's userbase than we can possibly know without them.
I wouldn't say it's vital, since MetaFilter was good before favorites. I would say that it's more than helpful, though; I'd say that its unintended effects have actually vastly improved my experience on the site, and made the community as a whole more functional.
posted by Miko at 4:50 PM on November 13, 2009 [4 favorites]
It's helpful not just to the conversation at hand, but to the overall culture of the site. As an example I will keep going back to some of the early threads on respect for women on the site (as I did earlier in this thread when people challenged the idea that favorites could be helpful. Big Ben! Parliament!). Before favorites, a female objecting to insulting gender stereotypes aimed at her would engage with others in the thread who didn't agree with her point. At that time, it looked as though one user objected - probably a personal issue - when everybody knew the site culture was to be rough and tumble, and generally thought she should stop whining.
Once favorites were instituted, in the next few threads that arose, it was actually startling to see what formerly was that sole user, or two or three users, suddenly backed up by the growing lists of users clicking 'favorite' to show agreement or support. It not only bolstered those people's will to keep posting, it encouraged others to enter the discussion, since they could now see that there was some agreement out there which was previously invisible.
In other words, favorites make the opinions of others visible, and they give a reader much more information about what the site's users think and/or like, and in roughly what proportions. Since we know that not everyone does (or should!) comment in every thread they read, since we know there are lurkers who are perhaps unwilling to post because writing doesn't come easily, or English doesn't come easily, or they just don't want to for whatever reason, it is well that we have an avenue for people to show their responses without adding yet more verbiage. Favorites reveal more about MeFi's userbase than we can possibly know without them.
I wouldn't say it's vital, since MetaFilter was good before favorites. I would say that it's more than helpful, though; I'd say that its unintended effects have actually vastly improved my experience on the site, and made the community as a whole more functional.
posted by Miko at 4:50 PM on November 13, 2009 [4 favorites]
...the thought occurs to me that: to voluntarily turn off favorites is essentially to say "I'm going to engage with one user and one user's point of view, all the time, sequentially, and that's the extent of my interest in the opinions of others. I don't care what other people think about those single points of view offered by the minority of site users who write something." Which seems to me at some level somewhat anti-communitarian.
posted by Miko at 4:55 PM on November 13, 2009
posted by Miko at 4:55 PM on November 13, 2009
...the thought occurs to me that: to voluntarily turn off favorites is essentially to say "I'm going to engage with one user and one user's point of view, all the time, sequentially, and that's the extent of my interest in the opinions of others.
But there are many others, and from interacting with the others, they can get a judgment of the community. While it would increase the number of posts, if folks couldn't favorite in agreement, they are actually forced to interact with the community other than simply clicking their mouse button. It can't be said that one reads a thread and doesn't process all the comments together. Otherwise, it'd be like reading the odd numbered pages of a book only, and while you might get the gist of it, you're not getting the entire story.
posted by Atreides at 5:00 PM on November 13, 2009
But there are many others, and from interacting with the others, they can get a judgment of the community. While it would increase the number of posts, if folks couldn't favorite in agreement, they are actually forced to interact with the community other than simply clicking their mouse button. It can't be said that one reads a thread and doesn't process all the comments together. Otherwise, it'd be like reading the odd numbered pages of a book only, and while you might get the gist of it, you're not getting the entire story.
posted by Atreides at 5:00 PM on November 13, 2009
But there are many others, and from interacting with the others, they can get a judgment of the community.
Only those who are willing to comment, for whatever reasons make someone willing to comment.
if folks couldn't favorite in agreement, they are actually forced to interact with the community
Only if they have the time and interest in composing a comment. This isn't everyone - as I said, we know that the user community is much larger than the number of people who write on the site. And even I read many more threads than I comment in. If someone has already said something I might have said, I don't comment again (why clutter the page?) Instead, I favorite - which gives users the information that another person had some interest in noting that comment made, without wasting their time being repetitive.
It can't be said that one reads a thread and doesn't process all the comments together.
But it's a subset of people who are making comments. Besides, we know this can be said because of the long and interesting recent MeTa about people who don't read complete threads (there are tons of 'em).
posted by Miko at 5:06 PM on November 13, 2009
Only those who are willing to comment, for whatever reasons make someone willing to comment.
if folks couldn't favorite in agreement, they are actually forced to interact with the community
Only if they have the time and interest in composing a comment. This isn't everyone - as I said, we know that the user community is much larger than the number of people who write on the site. And even I read many more threads than I comment in. If someone has already said something I might have said, I don't comment again (why clutter the page?) Instead, I favorite - which gives users the information that another person had some interest in noting that comment made, without wasting their time being repetitive.
It can't be said that one reads a thread and doesn't process all the comments together.
But it's a subset of people who are making comments. Besides, we know this can be said because of the long and interesting recent MeTa about people who don't read complete threads (there are tons of 'em).
posted by Miko at 5:06 PM on November 13, 2009
Then isn't it better to say that people who don't use favorites are simply interacting with a smaller subset of the community, than being entirely anti-communal?
posted by Atreides at 5:24 PM on November 13, 2009
posted by Atreides at 5:24 PM on November 13, 2009
Once favorites were instituted, in the next few threads that arose, it was actually startling to see what formerly was that sole user, or two or three users, suddenly backed up by the growing lists of users clicking 'favorite' to show agreement or support. It not only bolstered those people's will to keep posting, it encouraged others to enter the discussion, since they could now see that there was some agreement out there which was previously invisible.
-Miko
I think this is a good point in favor of having visible favorite count as the default.
But I have really been enjoying having them invisible. I find myself focusing more on the words. I've been very surprised, as I said above, by how distracted I had become by subconsciously registering the numbers. It's been really nice to have them invisible but accessible. So, for purely selfish reasons, I would love to keep the option to turn the numbers invisible.
posted by LobsterMitten at 5:40 PM on November 13, 2009 [2 favorites]
-Miko
I think this is a good point in favor of having visible favorite count as the default.
But I have really been enjoying having them invisible. I find myself focusing more on the words. I've been very surprised, as I said above, by how distracted I had become by subconsciously registering the numbers. It's been really nice to have them invisible but accessible. So, for purely selfish reasons, I would love to keep the option to turn the numbers invisible.
posted by LobsterMitten at 5:40 PM on November 13, 2009 [2 favorites]
Any way you want to cut it, somebody who doesn't post and only uses favorites is definitely anti-communicative. Somebody who only lurks is definitely anti-communicative. I find it hard to believe that somebody who doesn't give credence to some numbers as much as some other people do, but still asks, still posts and still interacts is considered anti-communicative.
But again we're steering away from what the point of this thing is about. We all know (or should) that a favorite is in the most basic terms a reinforcer, a me too, a high five, etc.. We all know that reinforcement is great and the world would be a lot better if hugs were freely given for things deemed great, but if I start randomly giving out hugs for bad or wrong things then there's a problem. So the questions were are people getting high-fived for bad or wrong things? Is that perpetuating bad behavior to the larger audience? And so on. We can talk about how great favorites are, but that's still missing the original issue.
Beyond all that, there is something that hasn't been tapped here and it's the fact that favorites at a glance are a number and not a list of names. To actually find out who favorited what you have to dig an extra level, and at that point there is a break or fracture in the flow or conversation.
I don't know...I'm kind of tuckered out in light of the fact the one of the main people who is involved with this is not a 100% lately.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:59 PM on November 13, 2009
But again we're steering away from what the point of this thing is about. We all know (or should) that a favorite is in the most basic terms a reinforcer, a me too, a high five, etc.. We all know that reinforcement is great and the world would be a lot better if hugs were freely given for things deemed great, but if I start randomly giving out hugs for bad or wrong things then there's a problem. So the questions were are people getting high-fived for bad or wrong things? Is that perpetuating bad behavior to the larger audience? And so on. We can talk about how great favorites are, but that's still missing the original issue.
Beyond all that, there is something that hasn't been tapped here and it's the fact that favorites at a glance are a number and not a list of names. To actually find out who favorited what you have to dig an extra level, and at that point there is a break or fracture in the flow or conversation.
I don't know...I'm kind of tuckered out in light of the fact the one of the main people who is involved with this is not a 100% lately.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:59 PM on November 13, 2009
Any way you want to cut it, somebody who doesn't post and only uses favorites is definitely anti-communicative.
I'm asking that people look at favorites as a form of communication; a nonverbal form, like nodding or applauding or shrugging or chuckling.
Note that also I said "anti-communitarian" and not "anti-communicative." Those are different things.
So the questions were are people getting high-fived for bad or wrong things? Is that perpetuating bad behavior to the larger audience?
You're right, those are the more important questions. But I think that the answer to them is not about favorites. It's not the favorites that are the problem, it's favorite-seeking behavior that pushes the boundaries of acceptable participation. Can't we manage that behaviorally rather than take a function away?
posted by Miko at 7:07 PM on November 13, 2009
I'm asking that people look at favorites as a form of communication; a nonverbal form, like nodding or applauding or shrugging or chuckling.
Note that also I said "anti-communitarian" and not "anti-communicative." Those are different things.
So the questions were are people getting high-fived for bad or wrong things? Is that perpetuating bad behavior to the larger audience?
You're right, those are the more important questions. But I think that the answer to them is not about favorites. It's not the favorites that are the problem, it's favorite-seeking behavior that pushes the boundaries of acceptable participation. Can't we manage that behaviorally rather than take a function away?
posted by Miko at 7:07 PM on November 13, 2009
I'm asking that people look at favorites as a form of communication; a nonverbal form, like nodding or applauding or shrugging or chuckling.
Favorites are pretty non-contextual so I don't know how that would play, especially in light of "bad" things being favorited.
Note that also I said "anti-communitarian" and not "anti-communicative." Those are different things.
Sorry for the misread. On a second pass, I don't think those things are necessarily too far apart.
It's not the favorites that are the problem
Nope, and the favorites are still there whether you have them turned on or not.
Can't we manage that behaviorally rather than take a function away?
Are those separate? If so what do you propose as a behavioral modification in the case of bad favoriting? Have the function of favorites been taken away? That last question is the source of most contention surrounding the experiment, but I think it has brought up a lot of interesting points surrounding that.
posted by P.o.B. at 7:42 PM on November 13, 2009
Favorites are pretty non-contextual so I don't know how that would play, especially in light of "bad" things being favorited.
Note that also I said "anti-communitarian" and not "anti-communicative." Those are different things.
Sorry for the misread. On a second pass, I don't think those things are necessarily too far apart.
It's not the favorites that are the problem
Nope, and the favorites are still there whether you have them turned on or not.
Can't we manage that behaviorally rather than take a function away?
Are those separate? If so what do you propose as a behavioral modification in the case of bad favoriting? Have the function of favorites been taken away? That last question is the source of most contention surrounding the experiment, but I think it has brought up a lot of interesting points surrounding that.
posted by P.o.B. at 7:42 PM on November 13, 2009
I don't know, Miko. Over the years, I've seen numerous cases where people didn't show themselves in a community because they were intimidated, or because they were 'shy', or in other ways finding it difficult. However, I only know about those people because they eventually found the nerve to come out of their shells, and, step by baby step, I've seen them become not only more vocal, but often pillars of the community. That's a beautiful, beautiful thing to see unfold. One of the reasons I've become so enamored of web communities is seeing those who would whisper being heard. So when you say that forcing people to interact one-on-one is anti-communitarian, I have to entirely disagree. I want people to come out and play.
posted by zennie at 7:55 PM on November 13, 2009
posted by zennie at 7:55 PM on November 13, 2009
I want people to come out and play.
Favorites go a really long way toward encouraging that to happen.
posted by Miko at 9:30 PM on November 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
Favorites go a really long way toward encouraging that to happen.
posted by Miko at 9:30 PM on November 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
I want people to come out and play.
Favorites go a really long way toward encouraging that to happen.
If so what do you propose as a behavioral modification in the case of bad favoriting?
Increased flagging; increased attention to the issue; calling out from others, inthread and in MetaTalk as needed; MeMailing the jokester; mod interaction if habitual/egregious.
In general, I personally fail to see this as a big problem. Most of the time, the first handful of comments in a thread are non-substantive. I don't think that harms much. If there's interesting conversation to be had, it will emerge when people start really saying something. IF not, a couple of sassy comments don't hurt the thread. It's not as though it generally sets the tone, or anything.
posted by Miko at 9:33 PM on November 13, 2009
Favorites go a really long way toward encouraging that to happen.
If so what do you propose as a behavioral modification in the case of bad favoriting?
Increased flagging; increased attention to the issue; calling out from others, inthread and in MetaTalk as needed; MeMailing the jokester; mod interaction if habitual/egregious.
In general, I personally fail to see this as a big problem. Most of the time, the first handful of comments in a thread are non-substantive. I don't think that harms much. If there's interesting conversation to be had, it will emerge when people start really saying something. IF not, a couple of sassy comments don't hurt the thread. It's not as though it generally sets the tone, or anything.
posted by Miko at 9:33 PM on November 13, 2009
It's not as though it generally sets the tone, or anything.
This has not been our experience. A few early snarky comment can totally sink a thread that might have otherwise been okay; removing a few crappy comments at the beginning of a thread can sometimes mean that a sort of adrift thread rights itself. I've seen enough of both sorts of situations to feel that I can say that with some authority. This isn't to raise issue with anything else you've said, just that the whole "early snarking" habit that some people like to get into really does, in my mod opinion, have a negative effect on threads. It's actually one of the larger problems we deal with over on the Blue aside from really serious personal infighting.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:25 PM on November 13, 2009 [2 favorites]
This has not been our experience. A few early snarky comment can totally sink a thread that might have otherwise been okay; removing a few crappy comments at the beginning of a thread can sometimes mean that a sort of adrift thread rights itself. I've seen enough of both sorts of situations to feel that I can say that with some authority. This isn't to raise issue with anything else you've said, just that the whole "early snarking" habit that some people like to get into really does, in my mod opinion, have a negative effect on threads. It's actually one of the larger problems we deal with over on the Blue aside from really serious personal infighting.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:25 PM on November 13, 2009 [2 favorites]
...the whole "early snarking" habit that some people like to get into really does, in my mod opinion, have a negative effect on threads. It's actually one of the larger problems we deal with over on the Blue aside from really serious personal infighting.
Are there repeat offenders across the blue? Or is it more of a thing where lots of individuals thinks they're being original, just this one time, and don't realise how annoying it is when everyone makes just one joke?
Because if it's taking up so much mod time, and it's a pain in the arse to deal with, maybe repeat early-snarkers should get a timeout so they can think about how funny they aren't. (NB: I'm trying to think of a way to make MeFi better without losing favourite counts. I miss them.).
posted by harriet vane at 11:09 PM on November 13, 2009
Are there repeat offenders across the blue? Or is it more of a thing where lots of individuals thinks they're being original, just this one time, and don't realise how annoying it is when everyone makes just one joke?
Because if it's taking up so much mod time, and it's a pain in the arse to deal with, maybe repeat early-snarkers should get a timeout so they can think about how funny they aren't. (NB: I'm trying to think of a way to make MeFi better without losing favourite counts. I miss them.).
posted by harriet vane at 11:09 PM on November 13, 2009
Because if it's taking up so much mod time, and it's a pain in the arse to deal with, maybe repeat early-snarkers should get a timeout so they can think about how funny they aren't.
The problem is: define "snark". It's an argument that I personally would want no part of as I see it being unresolvable.
That said, one type of "early-in-the-thread" offense that I do think could be moderated without too much grief is lazy slagging (ie: "This is a poor post", "This is NOT best of the web" etc.) By all means, register your criticisms but do it via the flagging option.
KEEP IT OUT OF THE DISCUSSION.
It's just noise that generally has nothing to do with enhancing discourse ... and, quite bluntly, it's often WRONG. That is, one man/woman's best of the web is not necessarily mine ... and visa versa.
posted by philip-random at 12:07 AM on November 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
The problem is: define "snark". It's an argument that I personally would want no part of as I see it being unresolvable.
That said, one type of "early-in-the-thread" offense that I do think could be moderated without too much grief is lazy slagging (ie: "This is a poor post", "This is NOT best of the web" etc.) By all means, register your criticisms but do it via the flagging option.
KEEP IT OUT OF THE DISCUSSION.
It's just noise that generally has nothing to do with enhancing discourse ... and, quite bluntly, it's often WRONG. That is, one man/woman's best of the web is not necessarily mine ... and visa versa.
posted by philip-random at 12:07 AM on November 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't think the definition of snark matters, this is about what's *already* getting deleted, not some new deletion reason. I haven't seen any complaints about early thread-shitting getting deleted, either from the thread-shitters themselves or the people who favourite it.
I'm just saying that if someone is getting stuff like that deleted frequently, maybe they need a firmer reminder that they're just making work for the mods, not actually contributing in a funny or useful way. I think it'd be more helpful for encouraging positive contributions than getting rid of favourites.
posted by harriet vane at 12:33 AM on November 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm just saying that if someone is getting stuff like that deleted frequently, maybe they need a firmer reminder that they're just making work for the mods, not actually contributing in a funny or useful way. I think it'd be more helpful for encouraging positive contributions than getting rid of favourites.
posted by harriet vane at 12:33 AM on November 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
Not to nitpick about a completely trivial detail, but isn't this international let's have to option to try obscuring favourites month?
posted by Meatbomb at 3:41 AM on November 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Meatbomb at 3:41 AM on November 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
> While it would increase the number of posts, if folks couldn't favorite in agreement, they are actually forced to interact with the community other than simply clicking their mouse button.
So you're in favor of lots of "Me too!" comments? To each his own.
I'm with Miko and lalex here, and I hope favorites-on will be the default come December.
posted by languagehat at 6:42 AM on November 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
So you're in favor of lots of "Me too!" comments? To each his own.
I'm with Miko and lalex here, and I hope favorites-on will be the default come December.
posted by languagehat at 6:42 AM on November 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
the whole "early snarking" habit that some people like to get into really does, in my mod opinion, have a negative effect on threads. It's actually one of the larger problems we deal with over on the Blue aside from really serious personal infighting.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that. I guess you all might be doing such an effective job of cherrypicking those out that I don't see many, and when I do see a few they're not especially damaging.
So, hm, what else could discourage this? And in addition to harriet vane's question about repeat offenders, some other questions come to mind: are we sure that favorites encourage it, or is it simply something that happens because jokesters are jokesters? Was the increase in this behavior after favorites were introduced disproportionate to the increase in user numbers? Are the frequent offenders newer-ish users who are still learning the culture of the site, or older-ish users who should sort of know better by now? I ask because I wonder if maybe we're looking in the wrong place for a solution. I'm sure that those people who do a lot of clowning in the first few comments enjoy the virtual yuks they get from a bunch of favorites after making their snarky comments, but I'm not sure it follows that's why they're doing it.
posted by Miko at 7:48 AM on November 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that. I guess you all might be doing such an effective job of cherrypicking those out that I don't see many, and when I do see a few they're not especially damaging.
So, hm, what else could discourage this? And in addition to harriet vane's question about repeat offenders, some other questions come to mind: are we sure that favorites encourage it, or is it simply something that happens because jokesters are jokesters? Was the increase in this behavior after favorites were introduced disproportionate to the increase in user numbers? Are the frequent offenders newer-ish users who are still learning the culture of the site, or older-ish users who should sort of know better by now? I ask because I wonder if maybe we're looking in the wrong place for a solution. I'm sure that those people who do a lot of clowning in the first few comments enjoy the virtual yuks they get from a bunch of favorites after making their snarky comments, but I'm not sure it follows that's why they're doing it.
posted by Miko at 7:48 AM on November 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
I see the early snark issue as similar to the issue of why talk radio is conservative as analyzed by David Foster Wallace: a knee jerk lulzy dismissal of any given topic doesn't require reading the article, does not require any new information, and is probably going to push a bunch of people's buttons in exactly the same manner.
For any known topic there are the old chestnuts of received wisdom that we have all repeated or heard repeated a gazillion times and somebody is going to have the perfect little gem of a phrase ready to sum it up as soon as they see an FPP related to that topic. The way I interpret those favorites is that there is a race to be the one who makes the obvious jokey dismissal, and if someone else got there first you just favorite it instead of repeating the same crap.
If a topic has a history of controversy, post early in the thread and say "this is sure to wendell" or some reference to circumcision or declawing cats and get at least 25 favorites. If the topic is NASA or the moon, mention "moon landing hoax" and watch the favorites pile on. It is just cliche and knee jerk repetition of memes in action.
posted by idiopath at 8:24 AM on November 14, 2009 [2 favorites]
For any known topic there are the old chestnuts of received wisdom that we have all repeated or heard repeated a gazillion times and somebody is going to have the perfect little gem of a phrase ready to sum it up as soon as they see an FPP related to that topic. The way I interpret those favorites is that there is a race to be the one who makes the obvious jokey dismissal, and if someone else got there first you just favorite it instead of repeating the same crap.
If a topic has a history of controversy, post early in the thread and say "this is sure to wendell" or some reference to circumcision or declawing cats and get at least 25 favorites. If the topic is NASA or the moon, mention "moon landing hoax" and watch the favorites pile on. It is just cliche and knee jerk repetition of memes in action.
posted by idiopath at 8:24 AM on November 14, 2009 [2 favorites]
I hope favorites-on will be the default come December.
We're not planning to do anything different than a return-to-normal. The issue with time-outs for early thread snark is that would be a change in policy from how we do things and not one we're really wanting to implement for a variety of reasons. We've slightly, over the past year or so, been removing more early thread-shitting sort of snark and non-comments but even this seems a little ... abrupt I guess. While it's easier to look at a "this sux lol" comment as noise it's a little more difficult with something like "this will wendell" or something else that indicates that yes the person really does know how the site works, etc.
As much as I'd like to chitchat more about ways to approach this, I'm finding it a little difficult to have any real back and forth in a thread of this length. Maybe we should, at some point, start a new thread to have a discussion about some of the issues raised here. This isn't a great weekend for anyone, so I just want to say that while we're listening to what folks our saying, our thoughts are pretty much elsewhere.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:17 AM on November 14, 2009 [4 favorites]
We're not planning to do anything different than a return-to-normal. The issue with time-outs for early thread snark is that would be a change in policy from how we do things and not one we're really wanting to implement for a variety of reasons. We've slightly, over the past year or so, been removing more early thread-shitting sort of snark and non-comments but even this seems a little ... abrupt I guess. While it's easier to look at a "this sux lol" comment as noise it's a little more difficult with something like "this will wendell" or something else that indicates that yes the person really does know how the site works, etc.
As much as I'd like to chitchat more about ways to approach this, I'm finding it a little difficult to have any real back and forth in a thread of this length. Maybe we should, at some point, start a new thread to have a discussion about some of the issues raised here. This isn't a great weekend for anyone, so I just want to say that while we're listening to what folks our saying, our thoughts are pretty much elsewhere.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:17 AM on November 14, 2009 [4 favorites]
Metafilter: It is just cliche and knee jerk repetition of memes in action.
posted by Pronoiac at 10:37 AM on November 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Pronoiac at 10:37 AM on November 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
Man, I feel like people are speaking several different languages here.
But thanks knapah, Kattullus, and lalex (and anyone I missed) for responding to my questions.
posted by zennie at 1:03 PM on November 14, 2009
But thanks knapah, Kattullus, and lalex (and anyone I missed) for responding to my questions.
posted by zennie at 1:03 PM on November 14, 2009
For FPPs, I've started seeing (or noticing?) "n users marked this as a favorite", while in the comments it is still just "has favorites". Did this change? (no way am I going to read this whole thread, again!)
posted by Rumple at 12:02 PM on November 15, 2009
posted by Rumple at 12:02 PM on November 15, 2009
Huh, shows how much I really don't notice the damn things I guess.
maybe if I made as many great FPP as you Kattallus I would though
posted by Rumple at 12:05 PM on November 15, 2009
maybe if I made as many great FPP as you Kattallus I would though
posted by Rumple at 12:05 PM on November 15, 2009
I like the favourites off and will keep them that way if we have a choice after this month. But I have noticed that if you copy the "posted by line" to elsewhere (I was pasting a comment into email to send to someone) the number of favourites is not obscured in the pasted text. Wondered if this was intentional.
posted by paduasoy at 12:51 PM on November 15, 2009
posted by paduasoy at 12:51 PM on November 15, 2009
But I have noticed that if you copy the "posted by line" to elsewhere (I was pasting a comment into email to send to someone) the number of favourites is not obscured in the pasted text. Wondered if this was intentional.
3. We're including the favorite count invisibly in the byline still, so that those who specifically want to use that information or to write/modify scripts affected by it can do so. (from the OP)
posted by Night_owl at 4:57 PM on November 15, 2009
3. We're including the favorite count invisibly in the byline still, so that those who specifically want to use that information or to write/modify scripts affected by it can do so. (from the OP)
posted by Night_owl at 4:57 PM on November 15, 2009
The issue with time-outs for early thread snark is that would be a change in policy from how we do things and not one we're really wanting to implement for a variety of reasons. We've slightly, over the past year or so, been removing more early thread-shitting sort of snark and non-comments but even this seems a little ... abrupt I guess.
Just to clarify, I didn't mean a time-out for every early-snark, just for people who've had frequent early-snark deletions. But if it's different people each time, with no-one doing it more than once or twice, my idea wouldn't work at all.
Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud now... er, thinking with my typing fingers... whatever. You're right about having another thread for ideas later on. I'm heading back over to the other longthread to see how #1 is doing.
posted by harriet vane at 5:11 AM on November 16, 2009
Just to clarify, I didn't mean a time-out for every early-snark, just for people who've had frequent early-snark deletions. But if it's different people each time, with no-one doing it more than once or twice, my idea wouldn't work at all.
Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud now... er, thinking with my typing fingers... whatever. You're right about having another thread for ideas later on. I'm heading back over to the other longthread to see how #1 is doing.
posted by harriet vane at 5:11 AM on November 16, 2009
I've only loosely followed this thread, but I'd like to follow up on my initial negative reaction because I didn't opt out, you know, just to see.
I don't mind it as much as I thought. If I'm really curious about how many favorites something has, I can click, which is only a minor annoyance. I do miss it when trying to scan a long thread that I have no intention of keeping up with completely, and it's not worth it to go to my settings and change it when I have a specific desire to see them all. This one is neither good nor bad, but I think I've noticed that I'm more conservative with my likes.
Some people like it and some don't, so it seems likely to me that this will stay in some form. Judging by the progigious size of this thread, I might be surprised if no one came up with these before, but: How about a toggle in the byline? Or a favorite count on mouseover?
posted by cmoj at 11:47 AM on November 17, 2009
I don't mind it as much as I thought. If I'm really curious about how many favorites something has, I can click, which is only a minor annoyance. I do miss it when trying to scan a long thread that I have no intention of keeping up with completely, and it's not worth it to go to my settings and change it when I have a specific desire to see them all. This one is neither good nor bad, but I think I've noticed that I'm more conservative with my likes.
Some people like it and some don't, so it seems likely to me that this will stay in some form. Judging by the progigious size of this thread, I might be surprised if no one came up with these before, but: How about a toggle in the byline? Or a favorite count on mouseover?
posted by cmoj at 11:47 AM on November 17, 2009
Are we going to get to vote or something? I don't understand how the experiment works, what data is being gathered, or who will judge the results - but I've not changed my settings and I've been reading this favorite-less metafilter and I loathe it. It makes a horrible difference and I don't understand how it will help de-snarkify the threads. Wiseacres like to crack wise so people will think that they're funny, and (maybe) so they can get favorites. Why is making the favorites invisible expected to change that behavior?
posted by moxiedoll at 4:47 PM on November 17, 2009
posted by moxiedoll at 4:47 PM on November 17, 2009
I don't understand how the experiment works, what data is being gathered, or who will judge the results
I think it helps to think of it more as an "experience" or an "exercise" than an "experiment."
posted by Miko at 6:27 PM on November 17, 2009
I think it helps to think of it more as an "experience" or an "exercise" than an "experiment."
posted by Miko at 6:27 PM on November 17, 2009
It's not a science experiement. It's a "let's try this and see what happens" experiment which we wanted to try because people were complaining that they felt that favorites were ruining MetaFilter. I've explained this a few times above in this thread. Things will go back to normal December 1st and I will take a vacation.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:34 PM on November 17, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:34 PM on November 17, 2009 [1 favorite]
Hey, sorry, Jessamyn. Didn't mean to be exhausting. I understand why this is happening, I was just sincerely wondering about the "see what happens" part. Are the mods going to make a decision about keeping it this way? Will there be another thread to comment? Maybe voting? Might we lose favorites entirely? (I'm very rarely a tl;dr but this thread is pretty impenetrable with a lot of sub-fights about who swore first and so forth).
posted by moxiedoll at 6:48 PM on November 17, 2009
posted by moxiedoll at 6:48 PM on November 17, 2009
I really think I've addressed this but I realize it's an epic thread.
- We're NOT going to keep it this way, period.
- We might offer an option for people to not see favorites if they so choose (maybe, I haven't spoken to Team Mod about this) in the future I suspect
- Favorites are not going away. I don't know any other way to say "this is not on the table"
- We were going to have another MeTa thread to sort of follow this one and then mathowie went into the hospital and we didn't. I've been away for five days and I got back two hours ago.
- There will not be a vote, but we've considered adding a polling feature so that we can get community feedback. Like everything else we consider, this has gone as far as the "bullshitting about it over email" stage so I can't tell you any more about it.
You can CTRL-F for my other comments [I've made many fewer than cortex] if it's helpful, though cortex really sort of took the helm for the last few days in talking about this.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:53 PM on November 17, 2009
- We're NOT going to keep it this way, period.
- We might offer an option for people to not see favorites if they so choose (maybe, I haven't spoken to Team Mod about this) in the future I suspect
- Favorites are not going away. I don't know any other way to say "this is not on the table"
- We were going to have another MeTa thread to sort of follow this one and then mathowie went into the hospital and we didn't. I've been away for five days and I got back two hours ago.
- There will not be a vote, but we've considered adding a polling feature so that we can get community feedback. Like everything else we consider, this has gone as far as the "bullshitting about it over email" stage so I can't tell you any more about it.
You can CTRL-F for my other comments [I've made many fewer than cortex] if it's helpful, though cortex really sort of took the helm for the last few days in talking about this.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:53 PM on November 17, 2009
I think the post no-favorites-month polling feature could be a great idea! It would allow you all to gather some personal and individual feedback, and people would be afforded a private 'forum' to vent their whatever, commiserate and appreciate, and share insights directly with the mod team. It might be a cathartic experience for everybody, with sexy and/or postive results!
posted by iamkimiam at 7:22 PM on November 17, 2009
posted by iamkimiam at 7:22 PM on November 17, 2009
While I appreciate the spirit of that, I think the mods have had enough catharsis and venting from the userbase to fill them for a year. I'm amazed they're even considering polling at this point.
posted by middleclasstool at 9:06 PM on November 17, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by middleclasstool at 9:06 PM on November 17, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't like the idea of a poll. People would use the results to bludgeon opposing viewpoints. I like the consensus by discussion model of MetaTalk. It's worked well in the past.
posted by Kattullus at 9:31 PM on November 17, 2009
posted by Kattullus at 9:31 PM on November 17, 2009
Heh. Honestly, I'm looking forward to the discussion come December, and do think it'll be a nice group-sharing counterpoint to the bumpiness of the first few days of this thread. I'm sure there'll be some aspect of poking-the-beehive in starting any new conversation about it, but I doubt it'll be anything compared to launch day.
The polling thing is something I'm personally excited about, as much for its potential as an infrequent general tool for the site as for this specific situation—it'd be neat to be able to do the occasional poll/survey on the site without having to do anything hacky or involve a third party, etc. But this certainly seems like a good place to use it, as that might provide a nice way for folks to do a little sharing outside of or in addition to the inevitable metatalk thread itself.
And I want to say, it can be a tough slog trying to get through a lot of feedback and criticism and re-explaining when its actively going on and I really appreciate the degree to which a lot of folks made efforts to keep the road as relatively smooth as possible when that was going on, but even when we're in the thick of it we try to remind ourselves that it's a temporary spike that'll pass. Looking at it two weeks later, that's pretty much where I am: willing to voice a dark, throaty laugh about it but not feeling burnt or anything. I love this community not despite but because of its vitality, even if that vitality occasionally makes me want to strangle people temporarily, and a crazy-making day or three now and then can't hope to change that.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:36 PM on November 17, 2009
The polling thing is something I'm personally excited about, as much for its potential as an infrequent general tool for the site as for this specific situation—it'd be neat to be able to do the occasional poll/survey on the site without having to do anything hacky or involve a third party, etc. But this certainly seems like a good place to use it, as that might provide a nice way for folks to do a little sharing outside of or in addition to the inevitable metatalk thread itself.
And I want to say, it can be a tough slog trying to get through a lot of feedback and criticism and re-explaining when its actively going on and I really appreciate the degree to which a lot of folks made efforts to keep the road as relatively smooth as possible when that was going on, but even when we're in the thick of it we try to remind ourselves that it's a temporary spike that'll pass. Looking at it two weeks later, that's pretty much where I am: willing to voice a dark, throaty laugh about it but not feeling burnt or anything. I love this community not despite but because of its vitality, even if that vitality occasionally makes me want to strangle people temporarily, and a crazy-making day or three now and then can't hope to change that.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:36 PM on November 17, 2009
People would use the results to bludgeon opposing viewpoints.
For what it's worth, my thoughts on a poll for this are not really along the lines of "do you want visible favorite counts y/n" so much as general usage questions. More of a chance to provide all comers with the same plate of generally qualitative questions about their thoughts and habits and preferences than anything.
That said, the idea is very rough at this point; pb is looking into how we might implement the survey functionality internally, I'm sort of idly considering what we could try and cover with the actual survey questions and how, and we'll probably talk about it a bit more as a team over the next week now that Jess is back in one place again and we're not in such nail-biting territory re: Matt's Hospital Adventure. I'm totally interested in thoughts and suggestions, as far as this goes.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:44 PM on November 17, 2009
For what it's worth, my thoughts on a poll for this are not really along the lines of "do you want visible favorite counts y/n" so much as general usage questions. More of a chance to provide all comers with the same plate of generally qualitative questions about their thoughts and habits and preferences than anything.
That said, the idea is very rough at this point; pb is looking into how we might implement the survey functionality internally, I'm sort of idly considering what we could try and cover with the actual survey questions and how, and we'll probably talk about it a bit more as a team over the next week now that Jess is back in one place again and we're not in such nail-biting territory re: Matt's Hospital Adventure. I'm totally interested in thoughts and suggestions, as far as this goes.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:44 PM on November 17, 2009
cortex: general usage questions
Oh hey that's totally sensible. Finding out, for instance, how many people use the popular favorites page regularly or use favorites as bookmarks etc. would be very helpful. My main worry is that a pop-up survey would surely annoy some people, even if it could be set to happen only once per account, and if it wasn't a pop-up then it would be a fairly self-selecting crew that would answer (this is the age-old opt-in vs. opt-out problem).
posted by Kattullus at 9:55 PM on November 17, 2009
Oh hey that's totally sensible. Finding out, for instance, how many people use the popular favorites page regularly or use favorites as bookmarks etc. would be very helpful. My main worry is that a pop-up survey would surely annoy some people, even if it could be set to happen only once per account, and if it wasn't a pop-up then it would be a fairly self-selecting crew that would answer (this is the age-old opt-in vs. opt-out problem).
posted by Kattullus at 9:55 PM on November 17, 2009
Yeah, I don't think we'd be likely to even consider a pop-up thing. Just as with the rest of this whole experi^H^H^H^H^H^Hventure, I think in general we're more inclined to go for a less-obnoxious implementation and sacrifice some formal methodological soundness than to piss a larger number of people off for the sake of chasing down a purer data set.
Sidebarring any such survey and throwing it in the top-bar banner sitewide is probably about as pervasive as we'd get. That that means a significant self-selecting aspect is kind of a shrug-and-move-on thing; we'll know going in that anything we collect has to be viewed through that lens, and that's okay.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:01 PM on November 17, 2009
Sidebarring any such survey and throwing it in the top-bar banner sitewide is probably about as pervasive as we'd get. That that means a significant self-selecting aspect is kind of a shrug-and-move-on thing; we'll know going in that anything we collect has to be viewed through that lens, and that's okay.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:01 PM on November 17, 2009
> general usage questions
So like "serial comma yes/no" and "punctuation inside or outside quote marks"? Groovy!
posted by languagehat at 6:41 AM on November 18, 2009 [4 favorites]
So like "serial comma yes/no" and "punctuation inside or outside quote marks"? Groovy!
posted by languagehat at 6:41 AM on November 18, 2009 [4 favorites]
SERIAL COMMA FOREVER BITCHEZ
DON'T HATE THE EDITOR HATE THE MANUAL
posted by scody at 12:31 PM on November 18, 2009 [5 favorites]
DON'T HATE THE EDITOR HATE THE MANUAL
posted by scody at 12:31 PM on November 18, 2009 [5 favorites]
I have lots of ideas about polling and data analysis, but one thing I'd be particularly curious about...
Having a poll question that allows people to rank how they primarily use favorites, such as:
1. Bookmarks
2. Positive encouragement/backchannel/props
3. Other ________ (fill in)
Then, for each user that ranks 'Bookmarks' as their primary use, calculate their favorite count to site activity ratio from October, as compared to favorite count to site activity ratio from November. Then average that for all primarily 'Bookmarking' users, to see if there was a significant amount of change in amount of favoriting behavior during the month of November for this category of users. Then do this for the 'Positive encouragement' and 'Other' categories, and compare all results.
Here's why: my guess/hypothesis is that we will see a minimal change in favoriting activity from the Bookmarkers, but a very marked change in behavior from the 'Positive encouragement' and possibly the 'other' categories. That is to say, the latter two categories will have a significantly decreased amount of favoriting activity, as well as overall site participation (and not in the same ratio as pre-experiment). Then, if you could cross-correlate that info with density of networks, you might be able to see evidence of a spreading social effect, where groups of tight networks (lots of mutual contact activity...hawt), will have very noticeable activity and behavior drop-off, since the social reinforcement features of the site have been obscured from public indexing. And one more thing, running this in 5-day intervals (6 blocks) might reveal some interesting trends over time, as people adjust to the new changes, as well as to the new social dynamic that is created as a result of these changes.
So, yeah, that's all hypothetical, but as a sociolinguist who focuses much of her research on the interface between online communities and real-life interactions, this whole experiment has got me thinking about all sorts of possibilities. I'm completely fascinated by what has happened here, and what the short and long term outcomes will be.
posted by iamkimiam at 12:59 PM on November 18, 2009 [4 favorites]
Having a poll question that allows people to rank how they primarily use favorites, such as:
1. Bookmarks
2. Positive encouragement/backchannel/props
3. Other ________ (fill in)
Then, for each user that ranks 'Bookmarks' as their primary use, calculate their favorite count to site activity ratio from October, as compared to favorite count to site activity ratio from November. Then average that for all primarily 'Bookmarking' users, to see if there was a significant amount of change in amount of favoriting behavior during the month of November for this category of users. Then do this for the 'Positive encouragement' and 'Other' categories, and compare all results.
Here's why: my guess/hypothesis is that we will see a minimal change in favoriting activity from the Bookmarkers, but a very marked change in behavior from the 'Positive encouragement' and possibly the 'other' categories. That is to say, the latter two categories will have a significantly decreased amount of favoriting activity, as well as overall site participation (and not in the same ratio as pre-experiment). Then, if you could cross-correlate that info with density of networks, you might be able to see evidence of a spreading social effect, where groups of tight networks (lots of mutual contact activity...hawt), will have very noticeable activity and behavior drop-off, since the social reinforcement features of the site have been obscured from public indexing. And one more thing, running this in 5-day intervals (6 blocks) might reveal some interesting trends over time, as people adjust to the new changes, as well as to the new social dynamic that is created as a result of these changes.
So, yeah, that's all hypothetical, but as a sociolinguist who focuses much of her research on the interface between online communities and real-life interactions, this whole experiment has got me thinking about all sorts of possibilities. I'm completely fascinated by what has happened here, and what the short and long term outcomes will be.
posted by iamkimiam at 12:59 PM on November 18, 2009 [4 favorites]
Yeah, Kim, the "how do you use favorites" question is definitely one of the ones I'd be interested in surveying folks about. It's always interesting to hear anecdotal reports about that when these conversations get going, and having a little more information about that from folks (and being able to get it from them in a way that doesn't put pressure on them to decide that "this is something that merits me choosing to comment in a thread about it") seems like a good thing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:03 PM on November 18, 2009
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:03 PM on November 18, 2009
Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma?
I've seen those English dramas too, they're cruel
So if there's any other way to spell the word
It's fine with me, with me
Wise words from Vampire Weekend.
posted by Kattullus at 1:07 PM on November 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've seen those English dramas too, they're cruel
So if there's any other way to spell the word
It's fine with me, with me
Wise words from Vampire Weekend.
posted by Kattullus at 1:07 PM on November 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
That is to say, the latter two categories will have a significantly decreased amount of favoriting activity, as well as overall site participation (and not in the same ratio as pre-experiment). Then, if you could cross-correlate that info with density of networks, you might be able to see evidence of a spreading social effect, where groups of tight networks (lots of mutual contact activity...hawt), will have very noticeable activity and behavior drop-off, since the social reinforcement features of the site have been obscured from public indexing.
If iamkimiam's theory is correct (and my feeling is that her prediction will be quite accurate), I'd say that is an excellent argument against any change. Unless of course breaking down our loving and excellent community is what we want to do...
posted by Meatbomb at 1:17 AM on November 19, 2009
If iamkimiam's theory is correct (and my feeling is that her prediction will be quite accurate), I'd say that is an excellent argument against any change. Unless of course breaking down our loving and excellent community is what we want to do...
posted by Meatbomb at 1:17 AM on November 19, 2009
Having a poll question that allows people to rank how they primarily use favorites
I'd be really interested in this. I'd also be interested in how people 'receive' favorites--what they perceive as the meaning behind that and what the story they tell themselves about it is.
I don't have a good poll question for evaluating that. But the experience of 'getting' favorites is as interesting to me as the experience of 'giving' favorites.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 5:59 AM on November 19, 2009
I'd be really interested in this. I'd also be interested in how people 'receive' favorites--what they perceive as the meaning behind that and what the story they tell themselves about it is.
I don't have a good poll question for evaluating that. But the experience of 'getting' favorites is as interesting to me as the experience of 'giving' favorites.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 5:59 AM on November 19, 2009
To do a poll, could you send a Mefi mail invite to random active users, to avoid the self-selection factor?
(I'm very interested in this topic--I posted an AskMe yesterday about 'favoriting' systems).
posted by A Terrible Llama at 6:04 AM on November 19, 2009
(I'm very interested in this topic--I posted an AskMe yesterday about 'favoriting' systems).
posted by A Terrible Llama at 6:04 AM on November 19, 2009
Oh and I think that it'd probably be better to release the poll wording on MetaTalk before the actual poll, in case there are ways of using the site (and favorites) we haven't thought of or has been forgotten deep in the scrum of this thread.
posted by Kattullus at 8:34 AM on November 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 8:34 AM on November 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
What we need here is a committee, possibly with a subcommittee to brainstorm some methodologies, use cases, and desired outcomes. There will be regular status updates at stand-up meetings, with monthly reports kicked up the chain.
I expect a PowerPoint deck on my desk first thing Monday.
posted by mkultra at 8:41 AM on November 19, 2009
I expect a PowerPoint deck on my desk first thing Monday.
posted by mkultra at 8:41 AM on November 19, 2009
I haven't removed this thread from Recent Activity because I'm concerned I'll miss something mod-wise. Can I remove this secure in the knowledge that any announcements would be made in new MeTa posts?
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:53 AM on November 19, 2009
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:53 AM on November 19, 2009
To do a poll, could you send a Mefi mail invite to random active users, to avoid the self-selection factor?
That wouldn't avoid self-selection at all, would it? Let's say you sent an e-mail to the users whose accounts end in 5. You'd reduce your sample by nine tenths, and it would still be the case that some people would elect to take the survey and others wouldn't. You'll want to ensure that it's not just people who read Metatalk or look at the sidebar take the survey, but that could be solved just by having sending a sitewide MeMail. (Note that you could get the same "random active users" your suggestion would yield by just randomly picking responses from from that data pool, so sending the MeMail to random users obviously doesn't do anything.)
posted by painquale at 9:09 AM on November 19, 2009
That wouldn't avoid self-selection at all, would it? Let's say you sent an e-mail to the users whose accounts end in 5. You'd reduce your sample by nine tenths, and it would still be the case that some people would elect to take the survey and others wouldn't. You'll want to ensure that it's not just people who read Metatalk or look at the sidebar take the survey, but that could be solved just by having sending a sitewide MeMail. (Note that you could get the same "random active users" your suggestion would yield by just randomly picking responses from from that data pool, so sending the MeMail to random users obviously doesn't do anything.)
posted by painquale at 9:09 AM on November 19, 2009
just randomly picking responses from from that data pool
Sorry... that should be "randomly picking users and taking their suggestions from that data pool." You won't get the same results unless you count users who didn't respond in your random sampling.
posted by painquale at 9:12 AM on November 19, 2009
Sorry... that should be "randomly picking users and taking their suggestions from that data pool." You won't get the same results unless you count users who didn't respond in your random sampling.
posted by painquale at 9:12 AM on November 19, 2009
I really wouldn't want my favoriting pattern from this month to be seen as meaning anything in any analysis. It's rotten as an indicator, because part of the whole experimutational approach to the month has disrupted my normal behaviors. I'm self-observing to a ridiculous degree, and self-conscious about whether and when I'm favoriting, in order to do a self-check. As educational evaluators will always say, the way people behave when observed, even if observing themselves, is not a good predictor of how they actually behave in the wild. So many times this month I've done odd things like consciously avoiding favoriting stuff I liked, using favorites at home but not at work, favoriting stuff more or less than usual depending on my mood to see how it makes me look at things - that I think any ratio deriving from this month's stats would be altogether useless in understanding my favorites behavior. I'd wager I'm not alone.
I think a poll is interesting, but ratios or analytics building on data for this month won't be able to be much other than "huh, interesting." That goes back to the idea of design - this asperiment wasn't designed to have a control group whose participation patterns were unchanged, so most everybody's did change, in ways that probably don't make a lot of sense as numerical data.
posted by Miko at 9:28 AM on November 19, 2009 [5 favorites]
I think a poll is interesting, but ratios or analytics building on data for this month won't be able to be much other than "huh, interesting." That goes back to the idea of design - this asperiment wasn't designed to have a control group whose participation patterns were unchanged, so most everybody's did change, in ways that probably don't make a lot of sense as numerical data.
posted by Miko at 9:28 AM on November 19, 2009 [5 favorites]
I just crunched a few numbers. Here are the numbers of favorites and the number of favorited items across the subsites for the first two weeks each of Sept, Oct, and Nov:
posted by Plutor at 10:58 AM on November 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
SEPTEMBER 1-14 - 66985 favorites askme = 17205 (+3.2%) on 6215 (-5.0%) items mefi = 43546 (+29.7%) on 9451 (+15.3%) items meta = 6064 (+9.5%) on 1872 (+17.6%) items music = 135 (-13.5%) on 76 (-14.6%) items OCTOBER 1-14 - 62121 favorites askme = 17338 (+0.8%) on 6184 (-0.5%) items mefi = 38846 (-10.8%) on 8929 (-5.5%) items meta = 5823 (-4.0%) on 1708 (-8.8%) items music = 92 (-31.9%) on 60 (-21.1%) items NOVEMBER 1-14 - 73267 favorites askme = 18212 (+5.0%) on 6506 (+5.2%) items mefi = 38313 (-1.4%) on 9308 (+4.2%) items meta = 16390 (+181.5%) on 3474 (+103.4%) items music = 290 (+215.2%) on 142 (+136.7%) itemsNote the huge jump in MetaTalk favoriting and the fact that more comments and posts have been favoritied across the board. I was worried that these numbers (especially MetaTalk) would be skewed by some huge traffic shifts, so here's some numbers corrected by the total number of comments in each subsite:
SEPTEMBER 1-14 askme = 17336 (+2.2%) on 6262 (-5.9%) items mefi = 39648 (+20.4%) on 8605 (+7.0%) items meta = 6332 (-12.1%) on 1955 (-5.6%) items music = 133 (+11.8%) on 75 (+10.3%) items OCTOBER 1-14 askme = 17338 (+0.0%) on 6184 (-1.2%) items mefi = 38846 (-2.0%) on 8929 (+3.8%) items meta = 5823 (-8.0%) on 1708 (-12.6%) items music = 92 (-30.8%) on 60 (-20.0%) items NOVEMBER 1-14 askme = 19328 (+11.5%) on 6904 (+11.6%) items mefi = 38209 (-1.6%) on 9282 (+4.0%) items meta = 10183 (+74.9%) on 2158 (+26.3%) items music = 279 (+203.3%) on 136 (+126.7%) itemsUnfortunately, there's been a lot of prank favoriting in MetaTalk (this thread in particular), so these numbers might still be off.
posted by Plutor at 10:58 AM on November 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
So people are favoriting more. That's interesting. Not surprising, but very interesting. To draw a strong conclusion from opaque data I'd say that at the very least it counters the criticism of comment favorite occlusion that people who spend a lot of time writing creative comments would feel less rewarded.
posted by Kattullus at 11:09 AM on November 20, 2009
posted by Kattullus at 11:09 AM on November 20, 2009
Heh. That 127% increase in mefi music? That's me going nuts with favorites in the last two weeks, as well as raving about it to everybody I know. Yay, I love legitimately skewing data!
posted by iamkimiam at 11:28 AM on November 20, 2009
posted by iamkimiam at 11:28 AM on November 20, 2009
(...) at the very least it counters the criticism of comment favorite occlusion that people who spend a lot of time writing creative comments would feel less rewarded.
Not really. You are referring to a comment about the impression of the number of favorites a person gets by referring to the number of favorites they actually get. They aren't necessarily the same thing, particularly when it requires an extra click and page-view to get there, instead of seeing it in thread. AND the public nature of a visible favorite count could likely contribute to someone feeling good about the time they spent on a comment, in a way that a private view into a favorite count does not.
posted by dirtdirt at 11:37 AM on November 20, 2009
Not really. You are referring to a comment about the impression of the number of favorites a person gets by referring to the number of favorites they actually get. They aren't necessarily the same thing, particularly when it requires an extra click and page-view to get there, instead of seeing it in thread. AND the public nature of a visible favorite count could likely contribute to someone feeling good about the time they spent on a comment, in a way that a private view into a favorite count does not.
posted by dirtdirt at 11:37 AM on November 20, 2009
dirtdirt: AND the public nature of a visible favorite count could likely contribute to someone feeling good about the time they spent on a comment, in a way that a private view into a favorite count does not.
Oh wow! I'd never even thought about this, that visible comment favorites could be a status marker, i.e. that having comments with a lot of favorites would confer status to the commenter. That's such a new idea to me that my first reaction is that it can't possibly work like that.
Huh, over 2600hertz comments later and I'm still learning new things about how comment favorites are interpreted.
posted by Kattullus at 11:46 AM on November 20, 2009
Oh wow! I'd never even thought about this, that visible comment favorites could be a status marker, i.e. that having comments with a lot of favorites would confer status to the commenter. That's such a new idea to me that my first reaction is that it can't possibly work like that.
Huh, over 2600
posted by Kattullus at 11:46 AM on November 20, 2009
Well, that's what I had to gather from your most recent comment. Happy to help!
posted by dirtdirt at 11:52 AM on November 20, 2009
posted by dirtdirt at 11:52 AM on November 20, 2009
So people are favoriting more.
I know I have been. I wouldn't have thought that the number of favorites someone already had on a comment would have affected my decision to fave it myself, but not being able to instantly see the number has proved that I would have guessed wrong.
I hated this at first, but now I kinda like the fact that the new system makes me more charitable. Even if I don't exactly know why.
posted by quin at 11:58 AM on November 20, 2009
I know I have been. I wouldn't have thought that the number of favorites someone already had on a comment would have affected my decision to fave it myself, but not being able to instantly see the number has proved that I would have guessed wrong.
I hated this at first, but now I kinda like the fact that the new system makes me more charitable. Even if I don't exactly know why.
posted by quin at 11:58 AM on November 20, 2009
A possible problem with that analysis is that the people who use favorites the most may very well be the users who are most likely to revert back to the old-style comment view.
There's a way to segregate that out by comparing users with and without the reversion, but would require more info than is available in the current infodump.
posted by chrisamiller at 12:22 PM on November 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
There's a way to segregate that out by comparing users with and without the reversion, but would require more info than is available in the current infodump.
posted by chrisamiller at 12:22 PM on November 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Personal datapoint:
AskMeFi has been slightly less fun for me since this change was put into effect. I enjoy the reward of favorites in return for time put into an answer. It motivates me and it makes me feel happy to know that my contribution was appreciated or my perspective shared.
So, yeah, I'm a favorites slut.*
In the last couple of weeks it seems I've been favorited much less frequently. I'd assumed that favoriting was down overall, but Cortex's data seems to indicate otherwise. Maybe it's causing some other change in favoriting behavior that disfavors my style. Or maybe I'm just in a slump. Gotta go sharpen my keyboard.
*No, I do not favorite myself! How disgusting.
posted by alms at 1:08 PM on November 20, 2009
AskMeFi has been slightly less fun for me since this change was put into effect. I enjoy the reward of favorites in return for time put into an answer. It motivates me and it makes me feel happy to know that my contribution was appreciated or my perspective shared.
So, yeah, I'm a favorites slut.*
In the last couple of weeks it seems I've been favorited much less frequently. I'd assumed that favoriting was down overall, but Cortex's data seems to indicate otherwise. Maybe it's causing some other change in favoriting behavior that disfavors my style. Or maybe I'm just in a slump. Gotta go sharpen my keyboard.
*No, I do not favorite myself! How disgusting.
posted by alms at 1:08 PM on November 20, 2009
I'm trying to be a good MeFite and read every single comment. But only being able to chip away at this thread when I have some time to read here and there, that means I'm about here in this thread:
|
| .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Matt just announced the option to turn Favourites off or on in preferences to give you some perspective of how much of this thread I've read so far.)
So for all I know, it's already been announced that the experiment is over (or permanently implemented or a really early April Fool's joke) but I thought I'd weigh in with some random thoughts before the month comes to an end.
- my initial instinct was too dislike the change even though I tend to read every comment in every thread that I choose to click through to. I only use Favourites as a signpost of popular/funny/insightful comments and yes, sometimes click to add my own "vote" for ones that particularly grab me. But I just didn't see how removing a feature that's obviously useful in a variety of ways for different users was any sort of an advantage.
- beyond the loss of an actual valuable feature, I think much of the backlash initially was around the word "experiment" which connotes scientific rigour and measurable variables for many people when this seemed to be much more casual, at least in comparison to the impact it would have on site usability. Maybe calling it a "test" or a "trial" would've been better?
- on the other hand, the backlash against the word "Faved" was pretty funny. I know it's a goofy word but that's what people got so worked up out of all of this?
- whether you're the site owner, moderator, frequent poster, or a lurker who only chimes in with your favourites to add your "me too!", I think the single biggest lesson/reminder from this experiment is that everyone uses the site(s) in different ways and there is no *right* way to do so - no matter what Koeselitz says ;-)
- perhaps a secondary lesson is that the site is growing/changing/evolving and as much as some of us fondly remember the "good ol' days", it's probably not a good idea to try to go backwards.
- and why the hell not? I might as well throw out a thank-you to Matt and the Mod Squad for being willing to try something drastic to see how it affects the site. Although I didn't/don't like it, as someone already pointed out, they try these things with the best intentions for making the best site for all of us while balancing more and more conflicting needs and desires. They don't deserve the "You should be punished" comments (though, being the Internet, I'm sure they don't let those ones hurt their feelings too much.)
- Anyhow, I'm sure I had lots of more great thoughts but sheesus, I should've been taking notes or something. I'm probably going to get the bends from diving down here to comment then going back to where I left off...
posted by Jaybo at 2:08 PM on November 24, 2009
|
| .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Matt just announced the option to turn Favourites off or on in preferences to give you some perspective of how much of this thread I've read so far.)
So for all I know, it's already been announced that the experiment is over (or permanently implemented or a really early April Fool's joke) but I thought I'd weigh in with some random thoughts before the month comes to an end.
- my initial instinct was too dislike the change even though I tend to read every comment in every thread that I choose to click through to. I only use Favourites as a signpost of popular/funny/insightful comments and yes, sometimes click to add my own "vote" for ones that particularly grab me. But I just didn't see how removing a feature that's obviously useful in a variety of ways for different users was any sort of an advantage.
- beyond the loss of an actual valuable feature, I think much of the backlash initially was around the word "experiment" which connotes scientific rigour and measurable variables for many people when this seemed to be much more casual, at least in comparison to the impact it would have on site usability. Maybe calling it a "test" or a "trial" would've been better?
- on the other hand, the backlash against the word "Faved" was pretty funny. I know it's a goofy word but that's what people got so worked up out of all of this?
- whether you're the site owner, moderator, frequent poster, or a lurker who only chimes in with your favourites to add your "me too!", I think the single biggest lesson/reminder from this experiment is that everyone uses the site(s) in different ways and there is no *right* way to do so - no matter what Koeselitz says ;-)
- perhaps a secondary lesson is that the site is growing/changing/evolving and as much as some of us fondly remember the "good ol' days", it's probably not a good idea to try to go backwards.
- and why the hell not? I might as well throw out a thank-you to Matt and the Mod Squad for being willing to try something drastic to see how it affects the site. Although I didn't/don't like it, as someone already pointed out, they try these things with the best intentions for making the best site for all of us while balancing more and more conflicting needs and desires. They don't deserve the "You should be punished" comments (though, being the Internet, I'm sure they don't let those ones hurt their feelings too much.)
- Anyhow, I'm sure I had lots of more great thoughts but sheesus, I should've been taking notes or something. I'm probably going to get the bends from diving down here to comment then going back to where I left off...
posted by Jaybo at 2:08 PM on November 24, 2009
I'm surprised that people are favoriting more; I personally feel like I'm favoriting a little less.
posted by Kwine at 6:52 AM on November 25, 2009
posted by Kwine at 6:52 AM on November 25, 2009
I personally feel like I'm favoriting a little less.
Oh, I KNOW I'm favoriting a LOT less. I suppose part of it is not feeling compelled to "vote" for comments that have a lot of favorites, which isn't something that I ever actually realized that I did until the favorite count was removed.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:05 AM on November 25, 2009
Oh, I KNOW I'm favoriting a LOT less. I suppose part of it is not feeling compelled to "vote" for comments that have a lot of favorites, which isn't something that I ever actually realized that I did until the favorite count was removed.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:05 AM on November 25, 2009
I don't feel compelled to "vote" fo a comment that has a lot a favorites. I've never used favorites to vote something up. To me they are bookmarks...and a lot more.
I like favorites because sometimes, in the midst of a pile-on or a thread heavy with snark, a couple favorites let you know there are Mefites saying they've got your back.
I spend a lot of time on the site, and I've felt a little depressed lately with, in my case, movie threads that just tear apart films I've enjoyed as just the most godawful dreck, and I'm sure others have the same experience with the infamous "your favorite band sucks" music threads. In those threads, a few favorites say, "Hell, yes, I loved that too!"
And when you're trying to get a point across that seems to be going missed in the big picture, or the thread derails around an insignificant side item of semantics or statistical improbability, favorites say, "I'm still following along with you."
posted by misha at 9:29 AM on November 25, 2009 [3 favorites]
I like favorites because sometimes, in the midst of a pile-on or a thread heavy with snark, a couple favorites let you know there are Mefites saying they've got your back.
I spend a lot of time on the site, and I've felt a little depressed lately with, in my case, movie threads that just tear apart films I've enjoyed as just the most godawful dreck, and I'm sure others have the same experience with the infamous "your favorite band sucks" music threads. In those threads, a few favorites say, "Hell, yes, I loved that too!"
And when you're trying to get a point across that seems to be going missed in the big picture, or the thread derails around an insignificant side item of semantics or statistical improbability, favorites say, "I'm still following along with you."
posted by misha at 9:29 AM on November 25, 2009 [3 favorites]
I can't wait for the nanny-culture "has favorites" experiment to be over. epic thread, epic fail.
posted by krautland at 12:30 PM on November 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by krautland at 12:30 PM on November 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
I can't wait for the nanny-culture "has favorites" experiment to be over.
You can have your favorites back when you put your stick down and use your walking feet in the house, mister.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 1:53 PM on November 27, 2009
You can have your favorites back when you put your stick down and use your walking feet in the house, mister.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 1:53 PM on November 27, 2009
Things nannies say!
posted by found missing at 4:12 PM on November 27, 2009
posted by found missing at 4:12 PM on November 27, 2009
We were planning to start one a little further into the month but mathowie's illness sort of took precedence. So we're not planning anything special but yeah I figure we'll have a MeTa thread looking back once things are back to normal. If someone wants to start one, that's fine too but this weekend probably isn't going to get a lot of people looking at it, though who knows, I hear it's not a holiday in other parts of the world....
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:23 PM on November 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:23 PM on November 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
What?! Start an alphabet thread here? That's crazy talk!
posted by Kattullus at 7:41 PM on November 29, 2009
posted by Kattullus at 7:41 PM on November 29, 2009
Xactly!
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:50 PM on November 29, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:50 PM on November 29, 2009
Z҉҉̡̢̡̢̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑҉A҉L҉G҉҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̚̕̚҉ ̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̚̕̕̚̕̚͡ welcomes back favorites.
posted by idiopath at 7:58 PM on November 29, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by idiopath at 7:58 PM on November 29, 2009 [2 favorites]
DAMN YOU EMPATH
posted by idiopath at 9:23 PM on November 29, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by idiopath at 9:23 PM on November 29, 2009 [2 favorites]
favorites, favourites. flame-outerites. forget-aboutites.
posted by Cold Lurkey at 9:33 PM on November 29, 2009
posted by Cold Lurkey at 9:33 PM on November 29, 2009
Schmavorites.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 11:29 PM on November 29, 2009
posted by flapjax at midnite at 11:29 PM on November 29, 2009
Licks
posted by found missing at 8:19 AM on November 30, 2009
posted by found missing at 8:19 AM on November 30, 2009
Woah there, fuckos: doing your little illegal activities in the dark shadows, well away from me, is one thing. Actually taking my comment as the starting point for your hooliganism is completely beyond the pale.
I simply will not stand for this.
Stop, or I am totally finking you all out to the terrestrial mods.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:36 AM on November 30, 2009
I simply will not stand for this.
Stop, or I am totally finking you all out to the terrestrial mods.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:36 AM on November 30, 2009
Mutherfuckin' Rats!
posted by From Bklyn at 8:42 AM on November 30, 2009
posted by From Bklyn at 8:42 AM on November 30, 2009
Omphaloses (on account of how [+] looks like a wee little bellybutton!)
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:28 AM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:28 AM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
Papa, paparazzis. (or P-p-p-poker faces, if you prefer)
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:32 AM on November 30, 2009
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:32 AM on November 30, 2009
Umbrage (if un-favouriting were to be implemented, others could take it)
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:21 AM on November 30, 2009
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:21 AM on November 30, 2009
validatapoint
posted by found missing at 10:23 AM on November 30, 2009
posted by found missing at 10:23 AM on November 30, 2009
xesturging the turd
posted by found missing at 10:29 AM on November 30, 2009
posted by found missing at 10:29 AM on November 30, 2009
Counterweights
posted by not_on_display at 11:36 AM on November 30, 2009
posted by not_on_display at 11:36 AM on November 30, 2009
Dudes, or Duders.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:46 AM on November 30, 2009
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:46 AM on November 30, 2009
El Duderinos, if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:48 AM on November 30, 2009
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:48 AM on November 30, 2009
Here is something I'd like to mark for my own reasons mind your own business
posted by found missing at 12:03 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by found missing at 12:03 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
jessamyn, I think his intent is clear.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:25 PM on November 30, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:25 PM on November 30, 2009
Memory aid
posted by found missing at 12:55 PM on November 30, 2009
posted by found missing at 12:55 PM on November 30, 2009
Negative favorites rating will affect your credit score
posted by kuujjuarapik at 1:04 PM on November 30, 2009
posted by kuujjuarapik at 1:04 PM on November 30, 2009
Over four hours!? Call your doctor
posted by found missing at 1:30 PM on November 30, 2009
posted by found missing at 1:30 PM on November 30, 2009
Past performance is no indication of future results.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 1:33 PM on November 30, 2009
posted by kuujjuarapik at 1:33 PM on November 30, 2009
Schrödinger and I assume this comment is both worth noting and not worth noting
posted by found missing at 2:35 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by found missing at 2:35 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
Unable to process your request at this time. Please try again later.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 3:18 PM on November 30, 2009
posted by kuujjuarapik at 3:18 PM on November 30, 2009
Viddy well, fellow MeFites. Viddy well.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:27 PM on November 30, 2009
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:27 PM on November 30, 2009
Wombat
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:18 PM on November 30, 2009
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:18 PM on November 30, 2009
All aboard! This train making all stops from the letter A to the letter Z! Aaaaaaaall aboard!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:20 PM on November 30, 2009
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:20 PM on November 30, 2009
Crap! B was supposed to be about the beachball I get everytime I load this thread.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 7:20 PM on November 30, 2009
posted by kuujjuarapik at 7:20 PM on November 30, 2009
Dammit!
posted by EvaDestruction at 7:22 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by EvaDestruction at 7:22 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
Fudge! We'll just keep going and pretend it never happened.
posted by 26.2 at 8:22 PM on November 30, 2009
posted by 26.2 at 8:22 PM on November 30, 2009
GRAR!
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:24 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:24 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
hell, i sure am glad i don't have to wear that damn dress
posted by pyramid termite at 8:31 PM on November 30, 2009
posted by pyramid termite at 8:31 PM on November 30, 2009
I'll wear it instead.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:31 PM on November 30, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:31 PM on November 30, 2009
Kay!
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:05 PM on November 30, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:05 PM on November 30, 2009
Man, last time I took the "El" I was hella late for the next stop.
posted by Cold Lurkey at 9:20 PM on November 30, 2009
posted by Cold Lurkey at 9:20 PM on November 30, 2009
November was the cruellest month for comment skimmers.
posted by shii at 9:25 PM on November 30, 2009
posted by shii at 9:25 PM on November 30, 2009
Ode To A Small Lump of Green Putty I Found On My Post One Midsummer Morning
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:41 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:41 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by rtha at 12:06 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]