This is a step toward our goal of providing the necessary tools for self-moderation.
Before I start on my usual rambling .. note that I've started a
separate thread on the "self-moderation" thing .. because quite frankly .. it's a completely different discussion in of itself .. lol:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/namepros-moderation-and-self-moderation-what-the.1152066/
That being said .. you shouldn't even be considering using likes for any part of moderation simply because of the multitude of reasons and vastly inconsistent reasons likes/thanks/dislikes are given in the first place. Particularly dislikes .. are they given because someone doesn't agree with a post .. or because someone thinks the post in actually inappropriate .. or because someone clicked on it by mistake .. or because someone is holding a grudge against the person and just dislikes for no tangible reason? The fact is that they should be given for the first option .. but it's often the other three .. either way there is no consistency and ZERO reliability in terms of using it for actual moderation.
Look at
@Vito's post
here ... why did
@domainventure not like it? If it's because he didn't like the domains then that's a "disagreement" .. but certainly no grounds for attributing any negative moderation consideration (I'm assuming even he would agree).
Of course you'll say we won't base automated decisions on a single dislike .. but what if 3 other people disliked the post for differing (or the same) reasons .. now all of sudden you've set up a system where
@Vito has every right to be upset with
@domainventure as being part of the decision .. when in fact
@domainventure (likely) had NOTHING against the fact
@Vito posted what he did .. simply that he didn't like the names (even if I think there were good .. lol) .. but you get the point .. nothing about the dislike had anything to do with what effectively should be related to moderation.
The irony with using likes for moderation is that you're creating a system from which grudges and clans will develop .. you'll end up with even more misuse of the like system than you have now and in the end the irony will be that you'll be able to rely on it even less for moderation purposes will need to step in to disagreements significantly more than today.
Personally, I think showing 100 to 500 reaction usernames under every post is a bit excessive and potentially slows page load limes.
Come on Eric .. seriously
.. what percentage of posts have 100+ reactions? Certainly far less than 1/1000. More importantly .. the majority of posts that do have 100+ are usually (not always) epic posts that likely merit the extra kerfuffle!
I also think it's going to produce a lot less likes overall. Just a sneaky suspicion I have about the psychology of group think or bandwagon jumping as us old schoolers used to call it!
Definitely ... This more than anything else is why I don't think you should change it superficially. You will lose likes .. and in turn .. community stickiness.
I personally want people who I like and thank to be aware that I thanked them .. that's kinda the point. While some might do it at first, I think after a while very few will actually open the "+ # others" link.
This is a step toward our goal of providing the necessary tools for self-moderation. Our current moderation system doesn't scale, and we're quickly outgrowing it.
But how likes are displayed has zero relevance with moderation (in fact, as I've pointed out in the past, likes aren't even used consistently, so even using likes as a basis for moderation is a flawed concept).
Even if you were to use likes as some sort of crazy basis for moderation .. why does the way likes are displayed have to change at all? They don't. Keeping likes displayed as they always have been shouldn't in any way stop you from (in my opinion wrongfully) using them as the basis for moderation.
