New post stamp feature (Thank, Like, Agree, etc.)

[UKCS-Alias]

And for something completely stupid you can pick creative for trying to think outside of the box.

I still think that none of the buttons should be negative. And when it shows a pattern of being used in a negative way that it still should be punishable. Although i see it rarely being possible to be abused in such way it becomes a problem.

 

[worMatty]

I'd also like a Not Useful stamp. There are times when someone posts something that contains nothing useful or positive at all, but to reply telling them would only make the problem worse.

 

[Fruity Snacks]

After going through most of the posts, skimmed the rest, the thing I would suggest is that everyone at least *try* this system for a week or two, then look back. Time canpresent new views on things. Give it some time for you to attempt to get used to it, then come back say what you like, don't like, or what you feel should be changed.


Personally, I asked for a disagree button, but decided against it. In retrospect I feel that the argument for not having one, as presened by crash and Geit are viable and I agree fully with them.

 

[Crash]

I'd also like a Not Useful stamp. There are times when someone posts something that contains nothing useful or positive at all, but to reply telling them would only make the problem worse.

And how would being passive aggressive with a rating be better? It would just become a stand-in for disagree, dislike, dumb.

If it's that bad, report it to the staff.

 

[EArkham]

My only criticism of the ratings is having to click to see who else has already voted. It was nice to just skim threads and instantly and easily see "oh, so-and-so and so-and-so liked this one," neat. It's not a strong criticism since that info is purely trivia.

If we had a Jimi Jam rating, I would just use that on everything, whether for thanks or likes or pseudo-dislikes or whatever. Every. Thing.

 

[theatreTECHIE]

I don't think that it matters having to press on the list button to have to see who has pressed what, as it makes the page shorter than it would be if everyone that likes or thanks a post is listed. (Thinking especially about ABS' wall of thanks on the old website)

Additionally I think that there can be many uses for the new ratings system, for example with the number of people put next to each ranking, people could easily create a poll with their comment (i.e. click 'Thanks' for option (a), 'Like' for option (b), etc.)

 

[Pocket]

My main issue with this system is that it only applies to new posts, and every upvote made before this was implemented is still referred to as "Thanks". Also, if we're still going to just lump them all under "Positive Ratings", does it even really matter what reasons they were all given? All that changes is how they're referred to on the post itself, and I think it'd be pretty clear from context why people appreciated any given post.

 

[Hotel Detective]

I think people are putting too much thought into this.

 

[YM]

I think people are putting too much thought into this.

Says a person who has 0.5% the number of posts as the highest posting user.

Stuff like this matters. If we make a small change and it has a knock on effect on the feelings of users, even if it's only a minor effect it could cause big ripple effects. We need to get stuff like this right.

 

[LeSwordfish]

Says a person who has 0.5% the number of posts as the highest posting user.

Come on now - let's not be a place that takes that as the main metric of usefulness or importance.

 

[UKCS-Alias]

The most positive part about this rating system is that you can now upvote a post, without showing that you agree with it.

Especialy when someone made feedback that is still usefull although you disagree with it you can still mark it as usefull, and then type on the part you disagree with, yet on posts you agree with you just use the agree button. Even something you dont find suitable to tf2 but still has alot of effort in it and would be nice for any other game has the option of creative.

Personally, I asked for a disagree button, but decided against it. In retrospect I feel that the argument for not having one, as presened by crash and Geit are viable and I agree fully with them.

To add to this:

A pure disagree button or anything negative will just be abused to mark a disagreement. Its just like karma systems. Anyone saying a negative but still important thing can just get spammed by negative votes by the masses, even if they actualy were right and others were not. Its already being used like that and the button doesnt matter. It can say Shoopdawoop and it still gets used as long as it gives that negative mark.
Any negative marking you can give can make people stop posting when overusing it to that person. It turns people away. And you dont want that.

 

[YM]

Come on now - let's not be a place that takes that as the main metric of usefulness or importance.

I was suggesting that to new members and infrequent posters it may not matter, but it matters to those who post lots. Did not meant to correlate post count with validity of opinions.

 

[LeSwordfish]

Fair enough - could have been phrased better.