Wedge
Public area => Features => The Pub => Features: Posts & Topics => Topic started by: Nao on May 11th, 2011, 03:40 PM
-
Area: Miscellaneous
Feature: Reactions (Likes)
Developer: Arantor & Nao
Target: users
Status: 95% (core functionality implemented for posts and thoughts)
Comment:
We never liked karma in SMF. We don't like the idea that people get thumbs down on the basis of a message, but they never get to know which posts got them that reputation. Plus -- it's a bit of an ego trip.
Implementing 'like' buttons on posts/topics is a better way of actually guiding people through a user's best posts. We're hoping to implement the feature in every possible feature, such as media items.
The structure already implemented allows for liking any structure in theory - even plugin-added ones, and there's already the foundation for even doing it through AJAX, just more UI work needs to be done; most of the core was added in enough time to get it on wedge.org with more to follow ;)
:edit: October 2014: added support for multiple like types; renamed to 'Reactions'.
-
I am not too fond of "Dislike" It discourage user. :(
-
And I'm all for it :eheh:
Then again my site doesnt have too many sensitive users at all, if you give them the option to like but not dislike, they will post their dislike in the thread anyway.
-
The key difference is that while karma/reputation are per user, like/dislike are naturally per post (though you can of course theoretically extrapolate reputation out of likes/dislikes)
-
I would rather have Like/Unlike than Dislike. There's a reason why some sites don't implement Dislike expect for YouTube. lol
-
I'm sure (at least assuming) there will be options to enable/disable dislikes so those who dont want to use it can can disable it.
I installed live's like mod a while back and my users simply didnt like it because it was one-sided to them.
-
Maybe there's a reason for YouTube to do it :P
Anyway -- I can understand your point. Maybe we could show a warning asking the user to confirm their Dislike and say it should be done with caution. Or, maybe, we could show a list of people who Liked and Disliked. That way, people couldn't 'dislike-troll' areas. I could see myself implementing a 'like-ban' feature to remove likes and dislikes from spammers and such. (And do it when their accounts are removed, as well.)
-
This is actually a feature my users have requested a few times, will be nice to have it built in.
And I'm sure they'd just love being about to hate on some posts with a dislike button :P
-
Personally, I like the idea of a like/dislike on a post-basis instead of a user-basis, especially if it's not just implemented for messages, but media items (etc.) as well.
Ideally, the feature would be implemented with different levels, if you will: disabled altogether, partially enabled (likes only), fully enabled (likes and dislikes). IMO, that is.
-
Per item rather than per user makes much more sense, and really I don't see why it shouldn't be per area (per board, per album or whatever)
YouTube lets you disable it per video, so I'd suggest that it can be tweaked on that basis, optional on/off, as well as the options above. I can even envisage the case, admittedly rarely, of 'dislike only' in some cases (like a spamming board) so there's no reason why we couldn't just build it to cope with that.
-
Sure :)
-
Maybe there's a reason for YouTube to do it :P
Anyway -- I can understand your point. Maybe we could show a warning asking the user to confirm their Dislike and say it should be done with caution. Or, maybe, we could show a list of people who Liked and Disliked. That way, people couldn't 'dislike-troll' areas. I could see myself implementing a 'like-ban' feature to remove likes and dislikes from spammers and such. (And do it when their accounts are removed, as well.)
-
I dunno, ideally we can fine-tune everything, but it all adds up... I mean, too much fine-tuning is overwhelming. It's already a bit like that in the SMF admin. Even with that feature search engine, you just never remember that some of the features are set in the Theme page while other are in the Server page when you thought they'd be in the main settings page, etc...
-
That's because it's a disorganised clusterfuck right now.
With an overhaul of structure, from the ground up, that should cease to be a problem.
-
That's because it's a disorganised clusterfuck right now.
With an overhaul of structure, from the ground up, that should cease to be a problem.
-
That's almost half the problem: a number of those who are used to it can't see what's wrong with it.
-
Like this guy :P
<---- Admittedly tho, I agree much of it doesnt make sense, it's more that I'm use to it so I'm not bothered by it
-
That's because it's a disorganised clusterfuck right now.
With an overhaul of structure, from the ground up, that should cease to be a problem.
-
We're coming up to the stage where we could call it 1.0 but to me it feels like something that should be one of the defining elements of our first release, you know?
IOW, that's a hint I should sculpt a bit quicker :P
-
A strong hint :P
Because once 1.0 is out, we can hardly modify the admin area in depth, as it could mean replacing a lot of the hooks etc.
-
Now you know why 2.0 didn't :P
-
Well, SMF2 requires a rewrite of many mods in the first place...
At this point, we do not know yet if Wedge2 will be a heavy rewrite, or if we'll try to retain our modder community. After all they'll have been through to make their mods work in Wedge1.... :P
-
In which case, let's make the backend as sane as possible in the first place... to minimise the changes that would later come.
-
Up to you to revive the discussion I guess!
-
To a point I almost need to go and just build it rather than floating around and around trying to figure out the best way to do everything, aka holy grail syndrome.
-
That's how I built AeMe in the first place. By doing it first and talking later :P
-
Seeing as I'm not a developer my opinion probably doesn't matter too much. But I think it might help a bit so here goes. I would say get the backend stuff done for 1.0 because that will be easier on you and the users in the long run. Though I'm guessing a lot more work now. Just my two cents.
-
Problem is, I'm relatively okay with the current admin setup so I'm waiting on Pete to share his vision of the new admin area. Considering the amount of work involved, I'm not sure we'd be able to pull it off in a timely manner. That's the only thing I'm worried about -- the redesign itself, I'm positive it can be impressive.
-
For your consideration - forums are a means of communicating, like/dislike (thumbs up, thumbs down) communicate nothing and allow disagreements without explainations. I would prefer that if there is an agreement or disagreement the person would express that opinion rather than to annonomously like/dislike. Discussions are a 2 way street, why nub it into a oneway street?
-
See, there are plenty of forums where some people 'do all the work', they provide a service in their posts, and all they ask in return is a word of thanks. Often, people are just too lazy to even do that (or too shy, or whatever.)
And you get these Thank You mods that allow them to just say thank you. That's one of the reasons to do this. (Of course, in this case, one may want to disable the Dislike feature.)
-
I vote YES for making the dislike button optional. It would also be cool to have the option of seeing who disliked and liked the post, maybe above the sig/footnote area?
Oh and another thing that could be cool: if the user attains a certain threshold of likes/dislikes, the post background could change colour to reflect the popularity of the post. An example of this can be seen in the Blizzard message boards.
Example: http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/283440738
(first post is glowing blue, the rest is normal. I think theres a grayish blue for disliked posts)
-
Hello guys,
just when started to accept the annoyance of themes/languages/mods mess in smf I discovered your project.
I had already started to thing about custom mod for smf regarding karma so I just would like to share my thoughts. I am rather a proponent of karma system for certain topics insted of simple like/dislike democracy.
Ideal karma/post popularity system would IMO have these features:
- input is just by post voting (no buddy/ignore at user level)
- users karma is made according to their posts popularity, activity in forum (post count), date of registration
- user vote for post is weighted by their karma and average vote given by themselves
- post look would be deterined by their popularity (treshold for smaller font, less contrast text/background)
Question is how to manage the circular dependency in user karma/post popularity. Two extremal solutions would be complete instant recalculation (guess would be terribly resources intensive) or not to recalculate historical values.
I would love to hear your opinions either for cultivating thoughts about such system for myself or for discussion if it should be implemented in wedge or as a mod.
-
I really, REALLY dislike karma as a concept. This, unfortunately, even more so.
With your methodology, users who have a run of being unpopular will not only be pushed out of the community forcibly, they don't even have much of a chance to redeem themselves.
Plus, it has the single worst characteristic of a meritocracy: long term members who have voice can easily and effectively shut out new people in the community by never giving them much of a say in the first place. It means their crown can never be challenged, so to speak.
The *only* way I'd ever support such a solution is if downvoting, in whatever form, cost the user some of their reputation in order to make.
I do not see us supporting this in the core, doing it as any kind of mod is likely to be frustratingly complex no matter how flexible we make the modding system.
-
I'm with Pete. Plus, if you mostly give dislikes, you're likely to get bad karma over time. So people would just stop disliking altogether.
-
This is why Facebook and Google+ doesn't give dislike tool. But to each their own.
-
Thanks for your replies.
I understand your points but think that some of them are just a matters of setting or fine-tuning the system.
Problem is that I would like to give my users some hint on which posts are valuable because when they are new to the board they usually can not distinguish good and bad info (not talking about opinions). As I think over your posts I would like to ask if you think that this should be solved otherwise (member groups...) or that like/dislike would help in this case.
-
@DS> My only gripe with 'dislike' not being there, is that you don't know if people don't 'like' your items because they disliked them, or just because they didn't read it... ;)
For the French reading this -- think of L'école des fans. Everyone gets a 10/10, even if they suck.
-
Completely agree there Nao, I'm a very strong advocate for the dislike feature with the option to disable for those who do not want to use it.
-
Completely agree there Nao,
But this is the only point where I'm pro-dislike. Overall I'm not very enthusiastic about it. Why? Because I think a 'dislike' is not something encouraging, and if you really want to share your feelings about something, it should be constructive criticism -- i.e. you should post an actual comment about it.
-
So basically, I think it'd be good to calculate the average score of an item based on its number of likes AND visits.
i.e., it doesn't matter if you have 500 likes for a post if you have 10 million views on that page. However, if you have 50 likes on a pages with 10 topic views, it means more. This should be taken into account and that page should appear above the other in Like scoreboards.
-
We never planned to focus on the poster ;)
-
I agree with everyone here who has stated that "karma, like/dislike" that the feature (sic) has no redeeming value. On the three forums that I Admin I refuse to activate karma, and refuse any request for the "Thank You" mod.
If I like a post I will send the poster a PM acknowledging it.
-
Yeah we had a disaster with the karma thing until we put in that mod where people had to own up to changing karma and now that it's out dated we just don't use it anymore. Feelings got hurt, people got pouty, serioulsy, a bunch of 20 and 30 somethings got their panties in a twist over forum karma.
Weird. But they are a lof of fun to drink with. :)
-
You do realise that karma is very different to the like feature, right? Karma is per user, but likes are per post.
-
You do realise that karma is very different to the like feature, right? Karma is per user, but likes are per post.
-
If there is no way to hold someone accountable I can foresee it being abused and for some reason taken far too personally. Unfortunately the general interwebz are not always populated with the same level of maturity we see here.
-
i think something similar to this: http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=1890
it would be perfect!!! :)
-
There won't be a 'dislike' feature, as far as I'm concerned.
-
I thought we were going to make it optional but supporting both like and dislike? That was the plan in my head at least...
-
If you write the feature, sure :P
-
There won't be a 'dislike' feature, as far as I'm concerned.
like and unlike as in fb ? :hmm:
-
Nope, as already discussed in more than one place, the ability to physically indicate your dislike of something.
-
Would there would be an option to unlike something a user liked?
-
Doesn't make sense.
-
Unliking something that you yourself marked as liked, makes sense to a degree, but having the ability to reset someone else's like, no, not seeing any point to that at all.
-
It's pretty meta that's for sure.
I think he means "dislike the like" maybe.
Maybe not.
It seems weird.
-
I'll be adding options to 'like the like', 'like the dislike', 'dislike the like', 'dislike the dislike', 'thank the like for disliking the dislike', 'dislike the thank for liking the thank for disliking', and of course the mandatory one, 'I'd love to say something generic but I can't bother to type so I'll just click this generic button that doesn't say anything special.'
-
I'd love to say something generic but I can't bother to type so I'll just click this generic button that doesn't say anything special.
-
<generic>
<nao was there>
-
I don't need it at least. Simple likes are enough to make my whole site "troll around" (up me and i'll up you, why can't I get free likes, etc).
That said some sites probably want them and I think it does fit in a forum core*. :)
*Like / Dislike, not "like the like"
-
I suspect it mostly depends on the forum. I don't envisage running it on my more professional forums, but the more social ones I can fully envisage enabling it.
-
I do sort of see it becoming a thing on more professional ones too, I guess. Like, if a post is super-insightful or helpful, it could be interesting to see it in some sort of list in the sidebar or another prominent place on the page.
Sorry. I'm just thinking out loud here, not trying to get you to implement things. This could be a pretty kickass plugin though...
-
Sorry. I'm just thinking out loud here, not trying to get you to implement things. This could be a pretty kickass add-on though...
And yes, it could, especially as it should be a drop-in deal not one that needs edits.
-
HA! Told ya! :niark:
-
What, you told me that we should use "add-on"? :P :lol:
-
The irony is that I was actually trying to do it the "right" way.
I'd have said module if I was choosing what to say.
-
Mod > plugin > add-on? ::)
-
Yes, yes, alright, I know there's a debate on this.
The real point is that I'm trying to discourage these extra items from MODifying the code, such that they would plug in or add on to the system.
-
It's pretty meta that's for sure.
I think he means "dislike the like" maybe.
Maybe not.
It seems weird.
-
Yeah, I can't see us ever implementing 'like the like' or 'dislike the like' simply because it's a whole level of abstraction that isn't really necessary.
-
Truth is dislike is not a good feature for forum system because, sometimes people became groups and fight each other inside and use this kind of features to destroy or even they use it to start a riot against forum admins.
But still i know you guys make option to disable dislike :P
-
It depends on the community, really. Some communities thrive on drama and the ability to dislike something can make a difference there.
There's also a potential there for doing something more powerful; if someone consistently gets their posts disliked, it might suggest that the community is not a good fit for them, and perhaps it might encourage an auto warning to be engaged on someone's account? Obviously, you'd have to tune it but someone who gets an avalanche of dislikes is generally just trolling anyway and a timeout might not be a bad idea.
-
timeout you mean
after X day topic/post will be closed to dis/like. Maybe option to put close for disliking (topic/board based)
-
No, that's not what I mean at all, nor what I implied from the above.
If it auto warns someone, the chances are you want to limit them in terms of what they can do, e.g. auto moderate their posts, or even give them a timeout from the forum to temporarily ban them.
-
::)
It depends on the community, really. Some communities thrive on drama and the ability to dislike something can make a difference there.
in my forum there are a lot of likes but not one dislike so far ::)
-
On one forum I'm a member of, they have both like and dislike, and as well as it being per post, each user can see how many times their posts were liked/disliked in total.
I don't post there *that* often, 186 posts in a shade over 3 years, of which Like/Dislike only appeared in the last year or so, and I've personally had 270 likes and 55 dislikes (of which 12 were a single post)
But I've seen people get 70+ dislikes on a single post in the past.
(This forum is quite big, about 1.1m posts, but mostly because that's all comments on new stories, and many stories do readily hit 100+ replies. Mind you, the readership is mostly cynical people, so downvotes do happen quite often, and invariably there's a "Before the haters downvote me...")
I suspect the fact names aren't attached to it does make a difference, and I can see providing the option both ways (names/no names, maybe names for author only as an option) could be good.
-
See, the way I see nhwd was asking if there'd be the ability to unlike something for another user. As an admin permission of sorts.
Not sure why'd that would be needed, but that's just how I took it to mean.
-
*nods* That is what he asked, Cassiel, and there wouldn't be much need for that.
-
What I meant was If you could remove your 'Like'. Let's say you read the beginning of a post and (for some dumb reason) you 'Like' it but then you read the rest of the post and disagree with something. Will you be able to remove that 'Like'?
-
Yes.
-
What I meant was If you could remove your 'Like'. Let's say you read the beginning of a post and (for some dumb reason) you 'Like' it but then you read the rest of the post and disagree with something. Will you be able to remove that 'Like'?
-
*nods* That is what he asked, Cassiel, and there wouldn't be much need for that.
That would just be a whole other bucket of crazy.
-
Well, it seems now that there's been talking at cross purposes because what was originally confirmed to have been the case has been overturned but I think it's fairly clear that we're all on the same basic page.
-
Whoops. When I was reading the comments the way it sounded made me think you guys were taking it as being able to "like" the "like" that somebody likes. Just a whole series of sub-"likes" and "dislikes" from that.
That would just be a whole other bucket of crazy.
Thanks for clearing it up guys.
-
I suspect the fact names aren't attached to it does make a difference, and I can see providing the option both ways (names/no names, maybe names for author only as an option) could be good.
-
I did say 'maybe'. I don't know yet how I want to play that, because there are consequences and implications that need to be attended to.
-
(If it's up to me, social features like this will be in Wedge 1.1 btw. Otherwise v1.0 will never be out by the end of the year...)
-
Hmmm one thing that would be nice is if it was possible to "like" a post without incrementing the users "reputation" or cumulative "likes". This might prevent some likewhoring while making it possible to "like" a helpful post .
-
Everything is possible but multiplying options isn't always for the best.
-
It's usually for worst actually.
-
Can someone update this topic?
-
Eheh :)
Since Pete wrote the feature, I think he should be the one to update the first post in the list.
How much has it reached now...? 50% completion? 60%? 90%?
It all depends on how much we're going to add later...
-
Certainly 60%.
-
Let's say 61% once we fix the 'x and y like this' div to not stand out too much compared to the rest of the post ;)
-
Works for me :)
-
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but something I like:
If dislike *is* implemented (I don't mind either way), a certain amount of dislikes would send an automatic report to the administrator to have it checked out. That would be sweet :) Just popping ideas around! :D
-
We decided against Dislikes quite some time ago.
Either reddit or Facebook. Can't have both!
-
Did we? I don't actually remember that, but I guess the likes structure has no support for it at the present time.
-
If we didn't, at least I consider we did ;)
-
Oh, just wanted to be sure... Likes are associated to a post ID, right? So, if we merge or split a topic, Likes are kept everytime?
(I'm 99% positive it's yes, but I would be mad at myself for not making sure of it.)
Also, it may be possible that I forgot to deal with parent posts when splitting and merging topics. That, I'm 40% positive I dealt with them...
Not that it matters much for now (we're not using that field), but it may in the future...
-
Correct, yes, it's always on post id, never topic.
Also, it may be possible that I forgot to deal with parent posts when splitting and merging topics. That, I'm 40% positive I dealt with them...
-
Sure, but I'd rather we have a clean codebase to begin with... :lol:
-
Is it as desired, that we're not caching likes in the posts table...? (ot topic table even? per first-post or for all posts in the topic?)
I could see it as an interesting sort method, even if we still need to tell if our own likes are in these.
-
Well... if it's being done for sorting, it makes no difference whether a given person's is in there or not, since you'd just be sorting based on the like count of a topic.
I didn't bother putting it there since I didn't really see that much of a use for it at that level...
-
Well, we can always add this later and do a small script to import all data from the likes table of course...
-
Of course we can :) I'm just not sure we need it at this point in time ;)
-
Should we hide the Like button for ignored posts...?
Pros:
- It takes less room. Even if hiding the action bar, the Like button is still on the same row, meaning I have to show said row... And I can't really move the Like button elsewhere...
Cons:
- If a post is really liked, this may be an incentive to actually unhide it. For instance, you may want to ignore a post spammer who often says interesting things but tends to pollute topics... (People like Pete and I :lol:)
-
Well, when hidden, IIRC it's the entire post+buttons+signature that's hidden and unless you've actually liked that post already, I see no reason to change that.
-
No, it doesn't hide everything. The code has to specify which divs will be hidden. actionbar is not hidden, but locally I've hidden actions (the right side of actionbar), which works well, but removing the Like button would defeat any reason to actually unhide a post. (In many cases.)
-
Well, that's kind of the point, when you hide a post it's because you don't consider anything the person has to say of any value so you're not likely to want to like their posts. But if you already did like the post, you're not going to want to hide it.
-
But what about my use case? Isn't it realistic?
-
I'm not sure it is, really.
In order to like it, you'd presumably have to read it, which means you'd have to unhide it anway. Might as well hide everything, then.
-
But if 10 people liked it and it says so -- wouldn't you be interested in knowing what it says?
We can always hide the Like button if there are no likes though!
-
Hmmmmm, I see your point there.
On the flip side I think that if you've hidden it, you've hidden it for a reason.
-
It's just a Like button. It's no biggie I think. It's not like we're showing the entire post :)
Committed in rev 1588.
-
So... The feature I've been working on for the last couple of weeks (not that much work really, but I've been busy IRL as you all know) is working on my side, but I need feedback before I can commit it.
Basically, Wedge now allows webmasters to have more options than a 'Like' button... Ideally (not now), I'll even let post authors decide what kinds of buttons are allowed on their post (e.g. if you're posting about someone's death, it would be wise to only keep a "Sad" button, so that no troll can press "Like" or something...)
Now this is where I need you guys... I've "simply" been reusing smileys for options, but I don't know if I should limit myself to smileys (honestly I think I will, because it means the code to add more buttons is already there), and WHICH ones I should have by default.
Here's the current list...
like ^_^
funny :lol:
love 8-)
what :^^;:
unsure :unsure:
meh -_-
sad :sob:
thanks :thanks:
Some of these are only in the 'Cyna' smiley set, which is probably not ever going to be added to Wedge, so I'll have to change them, probably :unsure: would become :-/, for instance.
I need to know if any of these choices are superfluous, if I'm missing anything important (should I have choices for "I agree"/"I disagree", for instance, or are the smileys enough?), and I don't know if they should be stored (in the database) as smiley codes (meaning they automatically adapt to the current smiley set), or image URLs. Currently, I'm using the smiley codes...
-
Hmm i get the point for more buttons, something like "helpful", or "approve" etc can be useful. But something like "sad" or "love", i dont know if they really make sense, because they are quite similar to like or thanks. Perhaps less buttons and more specific opinions per default?! How i understood, admins can change those buttons?!.
Also I feel a bit uncomfortable with the idea of having smileys to "rate" a post. Additional icons would be better i think.
I recently saw that thing on a xenforo forum, where you could rate a post (i dont know a better word for this) as "helpful", "non-helpful", "approve", "disapprove", "like", "dislike" and "get well". For example if someone posted something stupid and offending, people pressed the "get well" button and it showed the general position of the community.
All in all i think its a good thing for big communities where you want to integrate peoples opinion who dont post alot or to minimize "thanks", "agree on your position..." posts which dont really add any new information to the discussion to keep them clear.
BTW: I dont like xenforo, too much of everything and it is often really ugly. But first saw a notification system on a xenforo forum, they are "modern" in a way. But never installed it or informed myself about it. In general i dont like commercial forum softwares.
-
Could always use something like the old mood icon systems that forums used to always have.
Heck, come to think of it, I don't recall anyone ever asking about those anymore....LOL
Reason I suggest them, is that most had text to them. I think that would look better than just a plain smiley image.
I can't find the one that used to be on SMF long ago, but I know I used to have it on one of my sites back then.
-
Looks like you really struggle about that thing :hmm:.
I'm not sure but as a plugin that would be quite nice.
Don't think that its really core stuff that everyone needs.
But what wedge needs are more plugins :D
Kill two birds with one stone?!
-
Looks like you really struggle about that thing :hmm:.
All in all, this patch took only a few hours to write, so it's no biggie. I thought it'd be a good opportunity to try out committing to a new branch, and then reverting to the master... Seems to work. I'm git-rusty you see.I'm not sure but as a plugin that would be quite nice.
Don't think that its really core stuff that everyone needs.
But what wedge needs are more plugins :D
Kill two birds with one stone?!
- I can write core stuff, but plugins..? Not really. I used to leave that up to Arantor in the first place.
- I need all the help I can get to promote Wedge once I'm done with my 'busier' days.
-
I understand your arguments but an overloaded core is not desirable.
Look at aeva media gallery. Its a good idea and probably useful for some forums,
but most don't need it. While nearly everyone uses mentions and thats not in core.
Dont get me wrong, aeva is a part of wedge for long, and it should be in the future.
But the few moments when i looked at the gallery, it felt for me strange. I missed
multiple integrations into the forum, which could be important.
-
AEVA in my opinion, is a very good core feature. Look how many people download or ask about media galleries at the SMF site.
Mentions.... I agree, that should also be added as a core feature.