CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Suggestion: Like/Dislike button for posts

Suggestion: Like/Dislike button for posts

Started by Laura Jackson51 · · 👁 13 views · 83 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Laura Jackson51mellowseal27Matthew Wilson50rustydrifter10driftingpilotAngela Robinsonslywolf45Matthew Grant9Henry Cox78Michelle Palmer6reddriver35Taylor Gonzalez79Steven Clark2Joshua Allen10Sandra Gonzalez3Jacob Foster11briskbison41Arthur Booth96Alex CookDavid JonesTyler SullivanNicole JamesNicole Martin4Anthony Jackson2 …
steelskipper5 steelskipper5 Active Member
176 messages
joined Feb 2010
#61 ·
Jacob Foster11 said:Once again, I fail to see the point of this user reputation system.

Here is a proposal for how it should actually work. First, stop counting posts within all the casual chat threads on the forum. A moderator for any given thread should have the option to disable the post counter for users there. Second, reputation should be calculated automatically using a pre-defined mathematical function. This function would take two parameters: the total number of user posts (excluding those from chat threads) and the cumulative number of warnings, points, or days banned (some combination of these). More posts increase reputation; penalties decrease it. Again, based on a carefully selected, predetermined formula.

That is how you make something actually meaningful.

Actually, even that doesn't really work. You've got users with terrible reputations who somehow still have a mountain of warnings and even partial bans.
Real reputation isn't something you can just calculate on a forum.
Maybe you can do that in academia, where your reputation grows alongside your citation count, but that's not how things work here. Especially since, under this setup, reputation is basically just determined by moderators handing out warnings; at that point, you aren't measuring reputation—you're just measuring how much people comply.
Samuel Morgan40 Samuel Morgan40 Active Member
178 messages
joined Mar 2010
#62 ·
Jose Barrett said:I’d love to see a system where high-quality posts get rewarded with stars (not those five-pointed ones, though).

Thumbs up or Thumbs down

Abuse would be pretty easy to prevent.

Your ranking could only climb when you receive a thumbs up from a user who already holds at least two stars.

That way, clones couldn't just boost their own ratings.

Now, we all know there are users who write great stuff but are constantly picking fights and have an endless stack of red cards.
For them, a thumbs up should probably only come from moderators, admins, executives, or assistants.

Thanks for reading.

This isn't strictly about this forum, but Jubito has that feature where groups, clans, and friend circles can essentially inflate each other's reputation with random little comments. It’s not quite the same thing, I suppose, but it points toward what Jacob Foster11 mentioned below:
Jacob Foster11 said:Terrible idea. There is no way to ensure high-quality users actually get a high reputation while the low-quality ones stay low. You'll just end up with a clique of people hanging out in a chat room, artificially boosting each other's scores without contributing anything of value to the site. Meanwhile, an actual expert might only chime in on specific topics where they provide real insight, but because they aren't part of the chat group, they won't have a crew to inflate their reputation.

Agreed. It makes no sense, and honestly, it wouldn't be realistic anyway.
Jose Barrett Jose Barrett Member
48 messages
joined Jun 2009
#63 ·
Samuel Morgan40 said:This isn't strictly about this forum, but Jubito has that feature where groups, clans, and friend circles can essentially inflate each other's reputation with random little comments. It’s not quite the same thing, I suppose, but it points toward what Jacob Foster11 mentioned below:

Agreed. It makes no sense, and honestly, it wouldn't be realistic anyway.

Look, don't take this the wrong way, but your comment is pretty much pointless—it's immature and lacks substance.
You aren't really grasping the potential issues facing this American forum.

We're all just trying to help raise the bar here.

Some of us, like steelskipper5, have been around since 2002 under various handles, and we actually want what's best for this community.

I'm not here to play politics or suck up to anyone, and honestly, you're probably too young to see the weight behind what you're saying.
Samuel Morgan40 Samuel Morgan40 Active Member
178 messages
joined Mar 2010
#64 ·
Jose Barrett said:Look, don't take this the wrong way, but your comment is pretty much pointless—it's immature and lacks substance.
You aren't really grasping the potential issues facing this American forum.

We're all just trying to help raise the bar here.

Some of us, like steelskipper5, have been around since 2002 under various handles, and we actually want what's best for this community.

I'm not here to play politics or suck up to anyone, and honestly, you're probably too young to see the weight behind what you're saying.

What exactly are we getting worked up about here, guys? Is there some kind of fire breaking out somewhere that I'm missing? Maybe you were a little offended by my jokes—or perhaps, if I'm being honest, you’re just twisting everything to fit into your own specific little narrative. I have to wonder... do you even actually grasp the point I was making? 😂 🤣 In other words—no matter how much that might sting for you—I simply don't like it. I suppose I feel exactly the same way Jacob Foster11 does.
Jose Barrett said:Look, don't take this the wrong way, but your comment is pretty much pointless—it's immature and lacks substance.
You aren't really grasping the potential issues facing this American forum.

We're all just trying to help raise the bar here.

Some of us, like steelskipper5, have been around since 2002 under various handles, and we actually want what's best for this community.

I'm not here to play politics or suck up to anyone, and honestly, you're probably too young to see the weight behind what you're saying.

Who exactly are you to be lecturing me on "quality"? Seriously—what have you actually contributed to this conversation, aside from hiding behind a string of ridiculous pseudonyms?
Jose Barrett said:Look, don't take this the wrong way, but your comment is pretty much pointless—it's immature and lacks substance.
You aren't really grasping the potential issues facing this American forum.

We're all just trying to help raise the bar here.

Some of us, like steelskipper5, have been around since 2002 under various handles, and we actually want what's best for this community.

I'm not here to play politics or suck up to anyone, and honestly, you're probably too young to see the weight behind what you're saying.

So, we’re all out to get someone now, are we? I suppose we should all just bow down. Tell me—is your only metric for judging someone's actual quality or how much they truly care about this community really just their account age and their total post count? That seems... well, let's call it a rather shallow way to measure substance. 🤔 Well, I suppose this really highlights the current state of your reasoning skills—and your ability to communicate with others—which, frankly, seems to be sitting at absolute zero. I can’t help but wonder what the actual issue is here—what exactly is the problem when I happen to find myself in agreement with my colleague and a few others?
Jose Barrett said:Look, don't take this the wrong way, but your comment is pretty much pointless—it's immature and lacks substance.
You aren't really grasping the potential issues facing this American forum.

We're all just trying to help raise the bar here.

Some of us, like steelskipper5, have been around since 2002 under various handles, and we actually want what's best for this community.

I'm not here to play politics or suck up to anyone, and honestly, you're probably too young to see the weight behind what you're saying.

😂 I think I surpassed your age a long time ago. 😬😍 So, you’re going to call me a girl, is that the plan? Look, if your only goal here is to belittle someone else's comments, then you aren't actually contributing anything to the discussion—nor are you showing any respect for other people's perspectives or input—which, frankly, does nothing for this forum. There are always consequences for what one says. 🤣 Good grief, those sentences... honestly, give it a rest with all these self-important little stories of yours.
Alex Cook Alex Cook Active Member
157 messages
joined May 2009
#65 ·
James Chavez91 said:kbkk

Like
Taylor Gonzalez79 Taylor Gonzalez79 Active Member
78 messages
joined May 2008
#66 ·
I honestly think this poll is just begging for a fourth option.
briskbison41 briskbison41 Active Member
145 messages
joined Sep 2009
#67 ·
So, what would that even look like..?
cosmicskipper39 cosmicskipper39 Active Member
71 messages
joined Jan 2012
#68 ·
briskbison41 said:What kind of "insight" are you talking about? You mean being able to see which users are just farming reputation points...?
Look, you can give those "points" to other people normally, and technically you could boost your own original account if you were using a burner account to give yourself a thumbs up. But you can't just directly inflate your own reputation score.

As for "favorite users," we basically already have that feature through contact lists. We've got block lists and friend lists, but with the friends list—or "favorites"—it’s more convenient because we don't see their posts; we just see the pluses next to their nicknames on the homepage. It makes it way easier to spot when our friends are online.

And all that stuff about highest ratings, most popular users, or 5-star rankings? Honestly, it's redundant. Sure, there are some forums out there that use those features just for show or because they found some obscure vBulletin hack that isn't used much, but here, it would just be a playground for spammers and trolls. It wouldn't serve any actual purpose.

Back on that old monitor forum, we used to have those little "star" ratings, but let's be real: people were just handing them out to themselves anyway since the option was basically dead 😁
briskbison41 briskbison41 Active Member
145 messages
joined Sep 2009
#69 ·
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s basically how it went down 😁. That’s likely why they killed off those identical hacks on the forums—mostly just to stop people from messing around with 😁.
Honestly, it's a good thing that so many features on this forum haven't been working right since some updates over a year ago. The admin team probably feels like there’s zero point in rolling out any new changes when things are still broken 😁
cosmicskipper39 cosmicskipper39 Active Member
71 messages
joined Jan 2012
#70 ·
I don't feel like I'm missing anything, except maybe some video tags—but hey, you can survive without them. Honestly, I couldn't care less about getting likes on my posts when I can just drop a "thanks" if someone actually helps me out 🙂
briskbison41 briskbison41 Active Member
145 messages
joined Sep 2009
#71 ·
Regarding those video tags—assuming you’re talking about embedded clips—it’s honestly better to just leave them out. It would only drag down the thread loading speeds (I mean, waiting for every single clip to buffer feels like an eternity), plus it starts eating up the forum's storage capacity. Even though we have plenty of gigabytes to work with, that data adds up faster than you'd think.
Brandon Lopez6 Brandon Lopez6 Regular
656 messages
joined Feb 2010
#72 ·
I’m not really feeling this idea... A forum should act like a forum, and Facebook is Facebook... but this is starting to feel way too much like Facebook to me 🤷
Jacob Foster11 Jacob Foster11 Active Member
132 messages
joined Nov 2007
#73 ·
briskbison41 said:Regarding those video tags—assuming you’re talking about embedded clips—it’s honestly better to just leave them out. It would only drag down the thread loading speeds (I mean, waiting for every single clip to buffer feels like an eternity), plus it starts eating up the forum's storage capacity. Even though we have plenty of gigabytes to work with, that data adds up faster than you'd think.

I don't think video tags would strain the server. They'd be pulling directly from YouTube, not from the forum itself. 😉
briskbison41 briskbison41 Active Member
145 messages
joined Sep 2009
#74 ·
Yeah, but your browser is already struggling to load things fast enough anyway.
For example, when you click on a thread, you already have to wait a second or two just for all 40 posts to properly line up. If we added these video tags, it would take way longer. Every time you try to play one of those clips within a post, your browser takes a bigger hit; you end up having 10 to 15 different video clips running in a single tab, whereas on YouTube, you’re usually just dealing with one at a time.

But looking at it realistically, using tags would basically be the same experience as loading images in a thread. From what I've heard, though, this kind of hack would eat up memory on the forum itself—not to mention potentially slowing down the whole site or messing with its stability.
This server still crashes randomly from time to time, and it'll probably start breaking down even more if we start installing more hacks.
cosmicskipper39 cosmicskipper39 Active Member
71 messages
joined Jan 2012
#75 ·
jowo, man, you gotta chill out just a little bit 😉

Maybe I should start begging for some stuff for us losers who love dropping links instead of actually hitting the like button 😉
Jacob Foster11 Jacob Foster11 Active Member
132 messages
joined Nov 2007
#76 ·
Ugh, regarding server load, the server doesn't care whether it's parsing a link or a YouTube clip. The strain is identical.

As for file size (in bytes), it's negligible. The images only load once—just that one time. These images are roughly 20 KB, which is at least five times smaller than the typical images usually posted. After that, every subsequent load only pulls about 1 KB per embedded video.

I just finished measuring all of this myself.
briskbison41 briskbison41 Active Member
145 messages
joined Sep 2009
#77 ·
Jacob Foster11 said:Ugh, regarding server load, the server doesn't care whether it's parsing a link or a YouTube clip. The strain is identical.

As for file size (in bytes), it's negligible. The images only load once—just that one time. These images are roughly 20 KB, which is at least five times smaller than the typical images usually posted. After that, every subsequent load only pulls about 1 KB per embedded video.

I just finished measuring all of this myself.

Fair enough. I don't know the technical specifics of how this works, so I didn't realize we were talking about mere bytes here.

Jacob Foster11 said:Ugh, regarding server load, the server doesn't care whether it's parsing a link or a YouTube clip. The strain is identical.

As for file size (in bytes), it's negligible. The images only load once—just that one time. These images are roughly 20 KB, which is at least five times smaller than the typical images usually posted. After that, every subsequent load only pulls about 1 KB per embedded video.

I just finished measuring all of this myself.

Regarding the bold text, it sounds like the browser is essentially "caching" it or remembering it somehow.
If it's only grabbing 5 kB on the initial load and then just 1 kB for everything else after that...

Where exactly are you getting those numbers from?

We've drifted a bit off track here.
Jacob Foster11 Jacob Foster11 Active Member
132 messages
joined Nov 2007
#78 ·
briskbison41 said:Fair enough. I don't know the technical specifics of how this works, so I didn't realize we were talking about mere bytes here.

Regarding the bold text, it sounds like the browser is essentially "caching" it or remembering it somehow.
If it's only grabbing 5 kB on the initial load and then just 1 kB for everything else after that...

Where exactly are you getting those numbers from?

We've drifted a bit off track here.

It’s probably just staying in the browser cache.

I've been working on developing a web app lately, so I have certain tools at my disposal to analyze this (hint: Chrome DevTools). I also have my own site where I embedded a video, so I measured all of that. Basically, for the older embedded videos, it pulled 1 KB per video, but for the newly embedded ones, it hit about 20 KB for the image plus another 1 KB, just like the old ones.
steelskipper5 steelskipper5 Active Member
176 messages
joined Feb 2010
#79 ·
cosmicskipper39 said:Back on that old monitor forum, we used to have those little "star" ratings, but let's be real: people were just handing them out to themselves anyway since the option was basically dead 😁

You couldn't just give yourself a rating. Unless, I guess, you cloned your own account.
placidranger placidranger Regular
339 messages
joined Sep 2004
#80 ·
I’m a fan of these rating systems and "reputation points" on forums—especially those meant to keep the public informed. It helps newcomers instantly distinguish between someone dropping high-quality insights and someone just churning out spam. I wouldn't go so far as to say it actually reduces the volume of junk, but at least you can tell who's backing their claims with solid arguments.

Take Reddit, for example. They have mechanisms like this built-in. When someone puts together a "TL;DR" summary after a long debate, or when an expert drops a deep dive for beginners, their standing goes up. People will do just about anything for a bit of digital status.

As for this specific forum, I'm not convinced a blanket system would work that well here. It might be useful on certain sub-sections, but not everywhere. Honestly, if we did it, we should probably have separate scores for every sub-forum to make it actually meaningful.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads