.faved{display:none;}
.oldFav{display:inline !important;}
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
... [faved -] Favorite added! [!]MY EYES
much of what draws favorites is snarkI'm not entirely sure that that's true, at least not within the context of this discussion.
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.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"?
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.
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.
This is a description of an echo chamberPeople 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.No, I did not, and no, it does not constitute that.
It does when at least 90% of the non-grief "faves" in this thread are in the HATE HATE HATE categoryHow do you know?
Beans, beans—they're good for mostposted by oaf at 12:41 PM on November 1, 2009 [12 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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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".
This is why events unnerve me57
They find it all a different story
Notice for whom wheels are turning...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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?
I'm in a mixed marriage: He no likey mayo. No deviled eggs.DTMFA
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
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.
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
—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.
—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.
/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.$ ./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
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
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!
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
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 rtha at 12:06 PM on October 31, 2009 [2 favorites]