Announcing new feature: highlighting posts!
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
OP
OP
So, I want to note about the idea of "invisible likes" being used to nominate posts. There's a few different issues with this--some technical, some in terms of users understanding what the purpose of this is--but the biggest issue is this: the site is way too active for that to actually work. We could potentially make it work on a technical level, but there's so much engagement on a daily basis that this would literally just get buried under a standard day's activity.
You guys need to remember that we're one of the last big internet forums and what works for smaller spaces isn't really going to work for us simply due to how big and active the community is. Stuff that's more easily done on a smaller forum tends to break when under the sort of load we tend to put these systems under. You guys need to remember that we're more active than gamefaqs and generally have as many active members at any given moment as reddit's main gaming board does.
We're going to work on the styling, what was suggested was originally the plan in terms of how this will look but the forum software is being annoying about it, and we're hoping that people will see that this isn't the big disaster people are imagining. This isn't about pushing specific ideology or anything like that, it's about trying a different way of making discourse on the site better. We can't ban our way out of every issue, but maybe we can highlight what harder discussions should look like.
You guys need to remember that we're one of the last big internet forums and what works for smaller spaces isn't really going to work for us simply due to how big and active the community is. Stuff that's more easily done on a smaller forum tends to break when under the sort of load we tend to put these systems under. You guys need to remember that we're more active than gamefaqs and generally have as many active members at any given moment as reddit's main gaming board does.
We're going to work on the styling, what was suggested was originally the plan in terms of how this will look but the forum software is being annoying about it, and we're hoping that people will see that this isn't the big disaster people are imagining. This isn't about pushing specific ideology or anything like that, it's about trying a different way of making discourse on the site better. We can't ban our way out of every issue, but maybe we can highlight what harder discussions should look like.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here at all? What would be buried? The idea suggested was an invisible likes threshold automatically triggering the post highlight, I think? No matter the level of activity on this site, surely this is something that can be easily tweaked to work well. For example, 200 likes in Gaming, 150 likes in Etc, 20 likes in Hangouts. Adjust the numbers up/down until highlighted posts are at the preferred volume per day. Maybe it's more like 1,000 likes needed to create a highlight. Maybe even a per-thread override value so super-busy threads aren't full of highlights. What am I missing?
Last edited:
This isn't the right approach, this doesn't make sense. Also, why skip over the numerous posts that bring up moderation concerns regarding staff only being able to highlight posts?
Really hope the staff reconsider their idea and implementation of such a feature.
i don't fully understand how some invisible like system with a threshold is somehow less workable for a site with very high engagement than the current system of asking people to report "highlight-worthy" posts which have to be manually read through and approved by staff? like are you hoping only 0.001% of users will actually make use of it?
if the highlight thing is supposed to be used to spotlight "good quality discussion" then i'm not sure why a couple of one liner jokes and image reactions were highlighted in the rollout
Honest question because I sort of understand what you're saying but not really...
... how would a user-driven Like system not work because of the activity level, but a moderator-driven Like system would work, even though supposedly the users can promote (by Reporting) posts? Other than basically doing what everybody is complaining about, which is to just leave it to mods what all users will see as highlighted or not?
All these forums are nothing without the userbase -- see what happened to NeoGAF back int he day. Having only the mods being able to affect what gets highlighted, based on "internal guidelines" that are not even shared with the forum feels so strange to me based on how this forum got started. But looking at this thread, I guess this is not changing...?
OP
OP
Because, frankly, there's also a vein of posters who seem to want to make everyone miserable and who don't want people to actually enjoy anything. So we want to highlight good discussion and people having fun, hopefully to promote both at the same time.
Again, this isn't a like system!
Would it perhaps be more accurate to say that this is like the threadmark system, but applied forum wide?
I don't think I'm a fan either, which surprises me. I was excited about the idea when it was first brought up in CCD. I think it's great that the admin/mod team is looking at ways to highlight positivity and bring a better vibe to the board. The implementation is really nice aesthetically too.
I definitely do not think this should be used to highlight posts for being funny. As others have mentioned, that does seem to emphasize the problem of cliques that has long been a complaint of many in the user base, even if it doesn't bear out to be the case in practice. Also, as someone who regularly attempts to be funny (perhaps usually failing), it just seems like it would kinda...step on the joke, you know? To have the post emphatically bordered to note that "someone found this funny and so should you." I dunno if that would have the same impact as a bunch of immediate likes from the community...in any case, I don't like those either. Humorous value in written word is very much in the eye of the beholder, and any attempt to guide or reward it in this sort of, well, forum, is contrary to its function. It's not like sitting in an audience surrounded by people who are laughing. I do find it quite gratifying when I make a joke and someone quotes to say "lol" or, even better, to "yes, and" the joke with their own funny comment. Everyone likes that feeling. I am skeptical that this would hit the same, and frankly it's one of the reasons I prefer to post here over a place like reddit, or anywhere else with a like system. It feels more mature, and more earned when someone feels compelled to call out a funny post. I don't want this to come off as "argh, CHANGE!!" but...argh, change!! I like things as they are now. I think organic, user-driven feedback to the value of these sorts of posts is one of the things that makes this place special. I don't think anyone who shitposts here *needs* the feedback, or is driven by it, or they just wouldn't be here to begin with. I am wary of the cultural impact this change would bring in this regard.
I think it's more interesting for highlighting informative posts that users put a great deal of effort into compiling and composing, and I do often wish that we had more ways, as a community, to note and reward this effort and these posts. But...we're already pretty good at that, aren't we? These posts are frequently called out and sometimes threadmarked by the leadership team or by the topic creator. That feels sufficient to me, without creating a risk of blowback when a post that could be controversial is highlighted. This sort of feedback is also directly community-driven. So, I guess I'm not sure what purpose the highlight serves for those kinds of posts.
Finally, while I recognize the technical and general limitations highlighted by Dubs in earlier posts, I agree with those who think it is paramount that any such features remain community-driven. I appreciate the team's desire for avenues to engage with the community in this fashion, but I don't think acting as a go-between for this type of community feedback is the way, at least not beyond what we already have with the report system and threadmarking. That being said, I'm not sure I am supportive of the proposed "invisible like system," either. It's a discussion board, and people should be compelled to discuss posted content if they want to participate, shitpost or no.
Again, I do think the spirit of this is fantastic. I think that's why I was excited when the concept was initially proposed. Seeing it in practice is, I am sorry to say, off-putting to me. I hope that the tech team, and the admin/mod team, iterates on this spirit more in the future.
I definitely do not think this should be used to highlight posts for being funny. As others have mentioned, that does seem to emphasize the problem of cliques that has long been a complaint of many in the user base, even if it doesn't bear out to be the case in practice. Also, as someone who regularly attempts to be funny (perhaps usually failing), it just seems like it would kinda...step on the joke, you know? To have the post emphatically bordered to note that "someone found this funny and so should you." I dunno if that would have the same impact as a bunch of immediate likes from the community...in any case, I don't like those either. Humorous value in written word is very much in the eye of the beholder, and any attempt to guide or reward it in this sort of, well, forum, is contrary to its function. It's not like sitting in an audience surrounded by people who are laughing. I do find it quite gratifying when I make a joke and someone quotes to say "lol" or, even better, to "yes, and" the joke with their own funny comment. Everyone likes that feeling. I am skeptical that this would hit the same, and frankly it's one of the reasons I prefer to post here over a place like reddit, or anywhere else with a like system. It feels more mature, and more earned when someone feels compelled to call out a funny post. I don't want this to come off as "argh, CHANGE!!" but...argh, change!! I like things as they are now. I think organic, user-driven feedback to the value of these sorts of posts is one of the things that makes this place special. I don't think anyone who shitposts here *needs* the feedback, or is driven by it, or they just wouldn't be here to begin with. I am wary of the cultural impact this change would bring in this regard.
I think it's more interesting for highlighting informative posts that users put a great deal of effort into compiling and composing, and I do often wish that we had more ways, as a community, to note and reward this effort and these posts. But...we're already pretty good at that, aren't we? These posts are frequently called out and sometimes threadmarked by the leadership team or by the topic creator. That feels sufficient to me, without creating a risk of blowback when a post that could be controversial is highlighted. This sort of feedback is also directly community-driven. So, I guess I'm not sure what purpose the highlight serves for those kinds of posts.
Finally, while I recognize the technical and general limitations highlighted by Dubs in earlier posts, I agree with those who think it is paramount that any such features remain community-driven. I appreciate the team's desire for avenues to engage with the community in this fashion, but I don't think acting as a go-between for this type of community feedback is the way, at least not beyond what we already have with the report system and threadmarking. That being said, I'm not sure I am supportive of the proposed "invisible like system," either. It's a discussion board, and people should be compelled to discuss posted content if they want to participate, shitpost or no.
Again, I do think the spirit of this is fantastic. I think that's why I was excited when the concept was initially proposed. Seeing it in practice is, I am sorry to say, off-putting to me. I hope that the tech team, and the admin/mod team, iterates on this spirit more in the future.
I like this idea if it only highlights actual good informative well written posts.
I don't like this idea for highlighting "funny" posts. Not only is comedy far more subjective than something being well written and informative, but this forum could use far less people trying to be "funny" especially in basically any serious news thread that happens to involve the slightest off the wall thing and then its just pages of bad puns.
Reporting posts to tell mods about it is also weird, and to me seems to add more workload when mods already have regularly complained about workload.
We'll see how it plays out but I'm not a big fan of it rn.
I don't like this idea for highlighting "funny" posts. Not only is comedy far more subjective than something being well written and informative, but this forum could use far less people trying to be "funny" especially in basically any serious news thread that happens to involve the slightest off the wall thing and then its just pages of bad puns.
Reporting posts to tell mods about it is also weird, and to me seems to add more workload when mods already have regularly complained about workload.
We'll see how it plays out but I'm not a big fan of it rn.
Last edited:
I actually think it could be even more bling!
Love the feature regardless! Good job Dubs and Tech!
Needs more glitter!
Man, I just gotta say I love that you used a post of mine for these.
Also I'm not sure if it's good or bad that, as an almost-40 year old, seeing that I was one of the initial inclusions in this feature gave me warm fuzzy feelings. Like, maybe I shouldn't put so much weight into how people respond to things here on the forum, but also my life is kind of lousy offline right now so I'll take the silver (gold?) lining in this case.
How is it not a like system? The staff highlights posts that are either good discussion or people having fun aka posts the staff like. Maybe I'd believe it if just good discussions posts were highlighted but the moment jokes and funny pics/gifs are included it becomes really obvious what it is because there's no reasoning beyond "Lulz, funny" when
I also believe highlighting good discussion can be good but highlighting funny posts does the opposite, it incentivizes people to not discuss but be funny instead. There's already a tendency for the first reply in a new thread to try and get a zinger in and you don't think this will be 50 times worse if the staff actively encourages funny non discussion posts? Because it is much easier to grab a funny gif or write a one liner as an answer than an actually well thought out post. The first page of a new thread might soon look like the online version of an open mic night and the staff wouldn't even be able to tell people to stop because it would be hypocritical after actively encouraging it and citing posts like that as examples of what people should do.
Thanks I hate it. I dont need to be "told" a post is "great" or "funny". If a post is great or funny it'll be quoted and quoted again. In fact I think I would find the post less funny or informative if I see a yellow box around it and may even choose to avoid it all together. I'll decide if I post is funny or useful. Fine, thread mark informative posts, that's useful. Putting a bright yellow border around a whole post is off putting (what if I don't find it great or funny? (In fact I may find a post less funny, the first highlight I saw was some Cartman "joke" and I just kept reading it looking for the funny, where as I may have found it somewhat funny without it or just kept scrolling because it wasn't)) and makes a post harder to read. I just went into a thread where the (very long) OP post was highlighted and I couldn't read or concentrate on the post but the border around the whole damn thing. If you gotta have it (for reasons I don't agree with) then make it more subtle at least (like a "useful" or "informative" tag for the post perhaps, but then it could just be thread marked anyways so this still makes no sense). I fail to see how this achieves anything but actually feels counter intuitive to what its supposed to be doing. Or let us disable it if you're so adamant to keep it.
#against
#against
It should never be used on jokes. If you put a "management approved" sticker on a joke, it's the kiss of death.
Like others say: not a huge fan that mods would be the ones to decide which posts deserve to be highlighted.
Kinda off-topic:
Is there a thread for meta commentary/general site feedback? Or can this only be done by sending a private message or mail?
When I made a thread, I wanted to add a cover image. But it was kind of maddening to get a picture that was a large enough resolution, yet a small enough file size. Not sure where to ask about this.
Kinda off-topic:
Is there a thread for meta commentary/general site feedback? Or can this only be done by sending a private message or mail?
When I made a thread, I wanted to add a cover image. But it was kind of maddening to get a picture that was a large enough resolution, yet a small enough file size. Not sure where to ask about this.
For general site stuff
And for forum bugs
ResetEra Tech Thread (Report Bugs Here)
Hello everyone! Last time we were proud to introduce the most advanced Image Options available on any traditional forum. Today, we were able to successfully apply a major upgrade to our core forum software -- given how extensively we've customized it, this involves more work than you might...
www.resetera.com
On topic: one of the concerns I keep seeing is this adding to the staff's backlog in the report queue. Do reports for highlights get put in a different bucket so staff can prioritize reports?
Like the other person said: how is this not? It's literally a "mods like" system.
Your explanation doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. As others have said, there is potential to tune the metrics for what gets promoted based on average amount of interactions/feedback. Hell I'd rather none of this if all we get is a "mods like" system in the end.
Thank you.For general site stuff
And for forum bugs
ResetEra Tech Thread (Report Bugs Here)
Hello everyone! Last time we were proud to introduce the most advanced Image Options available on any traditional forum. Today, we were able to successfully apply a major upgrade to our core forum software -- given how extensively we've customized it, this involves more work than you might...
I will say that the latest highlight (regarding Godzilla: Minus One), if anything, quenches any future discussion over the movie as this just seems to promote a certain reading of the movie and moderate consensus.
As there is no way for users to see what was, and what was not, reported, Highlights in their current state just come across as "whilst all speech on ResetEra is welcome, we will reward speech that aligns with how we feel."
Still waiting on those internal guidelines too.
As there is no way for users to see what was, and what was not, reported, Highlights in their current state just come across as "whilst all speech on ResetEra is welcome, we will reward speech that aligns with how we feel."
Still waiting on those internal guidelines too.
It's a bit of an odd system, more of a "mod's favorite posts" system. Which, seems kinda antithetical to the concept of mods to begin with. Like, what's the point even in highlighting an OP? It's also one that's ultimately harmless and easily ignorable, so no blood no foul.
Going back to the story I told of another forum that once implemented a similar concept but how it was initially warmly received, I think the difference is the different dynamic between it's mods and it's users.
To put my own feelings out there out of the gate, while I think there are some potential issues with this system that I discussed before, I don't feel the passionate dislike for it a lot of people in here do. I think it's mostly harmless, if not potentially fun... in a certain context. But I'm not dismissing the criticism people have of it, moreso I think there's an underlying issue at the root of that criticism not being addressed.
Which is, once again, the relationship between the mods and users on this forum is terrible. I could go into a hundred reasons why that is but it's not really relevant here (and I've done so in some ways in the past already). Some of it is absolutely the fault of the staff, some of it is absolutely the fault of the users. But instead of putting blame on any one "side", I think it's just worth pointing out that there's a level of hostility mixed with a sense of distance here. And it's causing this concept to be received very poorly. I think the idea itself is not entirely without merit but it seems to be a critical misread of where the overall userbase is at right now.
To put my own feelings out there out of the gate, while I think there are some potential issues with this system that I discussed before, I don't feel the passionate dislike for it a lot of people in here do. I think it's mostly harmless, if not potentially fun... in a certain context. But I'm not dismissing the criticism people have of it, moreso I think there's an underlying issue at the root of that criticism not being addressed.
Which is, once again, the relationship between the mods and users on this forum is terrible. I could go into a hundred reasons why that is but it's not really relevant here (and I've done so in some ways in the past already). Some of it is absolutely the fault of the staff, some of it is absolutely the fault of the users. But instead of putting blame on any one "side", I think it's just worth pointing out that there's a level of hostility mixed with a sense of distance here. And it's causing this concept to be received very poorly. I think the idea itself is not entirely without merit but it seems to be a critical misread of where the overall userbase is at right now.
OP
OP
The way you are looking at that thread, and us choosing to highlight it, is literally the exact sort of binary thinking we are actively trying to push back against with this entire thing. Nobody has ever said you need to agree with the OP or that this is the only acceptable take. You're literally reading into this and making assumptions based on things that were never said.
The whole reason it was highlighted was because it's an actual thoughtful post on the movie. It doesn't just rush in, drop a hot take with little to no evidence, and then declare everyone who liked said thing is a bigot or supporting bigotry. It lays out a perspective and then backs up said perspective with evidence from the film and history and an explanation as to how the OP got there.
The entire point of highlighting it was because it's thoughtful, well reasoned, and opened the door to an actual conversation about the movie. The OP created a space where you can actually have a discussion. They could have easily written something inflammatory or accusatory toward people who did like the movie and turned the entire thread into a dumpsterfire as a result. The OP did the opposite and as a result there's actual discussion about the OP's position taking place.
It's not highlighted because we necessarily agree with it, but because they put in some real effort to create a space where a discussion can take place. You'll note, I never once even said what the OP's argument even is because it doesn't really matter. It's about the level of effort and thoughtfulness they put into their post.
This is completely opposite to some of the examples that were shared in the OP. There are examples that are literally reaction pics. How is that real effort which promoted a space where discussion may occur? It's just going to be quoted on end. Everyone will react to it. It was simply highlighted because you (or another mod) liked it.
Your replies appear to be just verbose word filler claiming "it's not a like system, you're thinking of it in the wrong way", but as everyone here has claimed - it is a like system, and one that is only applicable from the mods. Which is a bit ridiculous, no?
People sure are grumpy in here, wow...
I like the idea of highlights. And for two reasons:
1. It's actually kind of fun!
2. If used well, it really could promote good and positive behaviors instead of the usual social media-like snarky remarks and all the bickering we see in so many threads.
And I don't understand the arguments about highlights being some kind of "like" system for mods, or for them to transform posts into "management approved" ones. I read all of B-Dubs posts in this thread, and that's far from how I interpret the intentions behind the system. Ultimately, are there possibilities for this system to be used in some kind of shitty way? Well, like everything, sure, yeah, I guess so... But why all the heavy cynicism? I swear, some people are always acting like if the mods here are some kind of sadistic people out there to get them personally.
I don't get it. Granted, I don't go on the gaming side a lot, I'm mostly staying on the EtcetEra side of things. To me personally, ResetEra is barely a gaming forum, I use this forum to discuss sooo many other things than games. So I don't know, maybe things are often working differently on the gaming side? But from my perspective, I don't get why some people always come up with the most cynical of takes when it comes to staff. Are things perfect? Not at all, but come on... I mean if you do really think the mods here are just deliberately malicious, and it regularly makes your stay on this discussion forum focused on entertainment products so unpleasant, there's nothing forcing you to stay.
I guess I just don't get why there's no benefit of the doubt at all.
I don't know. If these pics or gifs are relevant and well-thought-out, why not highlight them? And if it's like the weekend and some are particularly funny, I don't think there's any harm in using highlights.
You know, I don't expect the highlight system to be used on reaction gifs and pics very often, but a little fun never hurt anybody.
I like the idea of highlights. And for two reasons:
1. It's actually kind of fun!
2. If used well, it really could promote good and positive behaviors instead of the usual social media-like snarky remarks and all the bickering we see in so many threads.
And I don't understand the arguments about highlights being some kind of "like" system for mods, or for them to transform posts into "management approved" ones. I read all of B-Dubs posts in this thread, and that's far from how I interpret the intentions behind the system. Ultimately, are there possibilities for this system to be used in some kind of shitty way? Well, like everything, sure, yeah, I guess so... But why all the heavy cynicism? I swear, some people are always acting like if the mods here are some kind of sadistic people out there to get them personally.
I don't get it. Granted, I don't go on the gaming side a lot, I'm mostly staying on the EtcetEra side of things. To me personally, ResetEra is barely a gaming forum, I use this forum to discuss sooo many other things than games. So I don't know, maybe things are often working differently on the gaming side? But from my perspective, I don't get why some people always come up with the most cynical of takes when it comes to staff. Are things perfect? Not at all, but come on... I mean if you do really think the mods here are just deliberately malicious, and it regularly makes your stay on this discussion forum focused on entertainment products so unpleasant, there's nothing forcing you to stay.
I guess I just don't get why there's no benefit of the doubt at all.
I don't know. If these pics or gifs are relevant and well-thought-out, why not highlight them? And if it's like the weekend and some are particularly funny, I don't think there's any harm in using highlights.
You know, I don't expect the highlight system to be used on reaction gifs and pics very often, but a little fun never hurt anybody.
Maybe it would be worth adding a message/banner on the post itself explaining the highlight, then? After all, you said it's like the opposite of a warning and there's a good reason why warning/bans have messages to explain your reasoning. I think that would alleviate some of the apprehension about these posts just being something mods think are Correct.
Also would like to voice that I don't think you've addressed any questions about this affecting the report queue, and I'd like to know if there's been thought put into how to avoid this clogging it up further. Is there some sort of filter in place to try to put these reports in a second queue or is it just up to staff to sort them out? Should people be wording these reports in a specific way to help make that clearer/faster?
The Godzilla Minus One thread admittedly did take me a few moments to understand why it was highlighted. But once I read the thread carefully, I understood why it was picked. It also gave me an understand regarding the movie that I did not have before, and I learned some stuff about the director and how the movie was received in Japan compared to the rest of the world.
Again, the feature seems more like a threadmark feature for the whole forum, rather than some sort of like system. Some clarification, perhaps if you click on the "Highlighted" text on a post, as to why a post was highlighted, would be useful. Something short and to the point such as "This post was agreed upon by staff and community to be informative, offering a fresh perspective on the issue in question, and worthy of being highlighted." The language could potentially be modified depending on if it was entirely a staff pick, a combination of staff and community pick, or overwhelmingly reported by the community, of course.
Again, the feature seems more like a threadmark feature for the whole forum, rather than some sort of like system. Some clarification, perhaps if you click on the "Highlighted" text on a post, as to why a post was highlighted, would be useful. Something short and to the point such as "This post was agreed upon by staff and community to be informative, offering a fresh perspective on the issue in question, and worthy of being highlighted." The language could potentially be modified depending on if it was entirely a staff pick, a combination of staff and community pick, or overwhelmingly reported by the community, of course.
The only way this could have value is if you're highlighting two posts of different posters with non-overlapping viewpoints having a discussion that's not an argument. Essentially showcasing the right way to disagree, as is this feature is useless to harmful to the community
100%. And saying "It's not a like system" doesn't make it not a like system.
If we're persisting with this, please at least give us the option to hide them.
Why change your mind and delete the post? There's so much opposition to this feature. Why not at least consider the suggestion of letting this feature be driven by users, rather than the staff?
Hmm... I'm not sure what's going with the sudden change of opinions, but personally I would like to see the feature have a genuine trial run. It's only been three days, and we're all thinking of how the feature may hypothetically play out. I don't think there's any harm with seeing how it actually plays out over a few months at least.
There are people, especially in the earlier part of the thread, who expressed support or at least their likeness of the feature. I don't think there's universal opposition. It's also not like the feature can't be improved upon if it turns out that it needs to be more community driven.
Can you please just do some focus testing or try A/Bing this instead of going off your own personal vibes in the moment. You're a big site, it's the right thing to do to keep the site sustainable.
If you look for trouble you will find it. And that's exactly what this feature will do with next to no benefit.
If you want this kind of highlight system, just add reactions and depending on how many of a certain reaction a post gets, it gets highlighted for that reaction.
Funny post gets a lot of Funny/Lol/ROFL reactions, it gets highlighted for that.
Insightful post gets a lot of Thoughtful/Informative/Smart reactions, it gets highlighted for that.
Then have a drop down for the thread to find those highlighted posts like threadmarks and staff posts.
Keep the exact reactions private knowledge, not for public viewing on any post.
Funny post gets a lot of Funny/Lol/ROFL reactions, it gets highlighted for that.
Insightful post gets a lot of Thoughtful/Informative/Smart reactions, it gets highlighted for that.
Then have a drop down for the thread to find those highlighted posts like threadmarks and staff posts.
Keep the exact reactions private knowledge, not for public viewing on any post.
Can you clarify a bit in regards to how staff would A/B test such a feature?
I can understand doing some surveys to inquire regarding a new feature, or even potentially testing a feature with a limited focus group. Although that really gets into "prominent member" territory, and thus seems like a really bad idea. But how do you A/B test this? Typically A/B testing is done with two variables to compare them. What two variables is staff testing here?
I forgot to post in here when I saw the announcement banner, I think it would be a great feature if managed well. I think the distinct difference between likes and highlights would be how much likes can be abused in bad faith, while the chance of mods doing so is much lower, plus community still having input without giving us complete control.
The only concern I can think of is if it gets used in argumentative and heated threads, I'm a bit iffy on that front specifically because it could be taken as "taking a side" in an already heated and hostile environment and escalate it further, even if not trying to. But if it's going to be reserved to just promoting positivity and well-thought-out posts, I'm all for it. This site really needs to cool a bit, and the hostility is incredibly infectious and makes it hard to not feel charged at times, or amplify a bad day. More fun shit and promoting positive engagement and good faith is definitely needed.
The only concern I can think of is if it gets used in argumentative and heated threads, I'm a bit iffy on that front specifically because it could be taken as "taking a side" in an already heated and hostile environment and escalate it further, even if not trying to. But if it's going to be reserved to just promoting positivity and well-thought-out posts, I'm all for it. This site really needs to cool a bit, and the hostility is incredibly infectious and makes it hard to not feel charged at times, or amplify a bad day. More fun shit and promoting positive engagement and good faith is definitely needed.
A/B testing is ridiculous. either it works or it doesnt for this community. if people are quitting over highlighted posts and not any of the tens of thousands of other things they could choose to quit over, its a bit of a hard sell for me they wanted to stick around.
my feeling is neutral on the feature, i'd like to see how it goes at least. if it goes for a week and doesnt work, it can be turned off, so whats the harm
The problem they're trying to avoid is the wrong sort of post getting a bunch of positive feedback and lighting up like a Christmas tree. B-Dubs isn't wrong when he says there's a significant number of awful fuckers addicted to shitting up every thread (paraphrasing). Giving them a dopamine hit, on top of the one they already got from shitting on the floor, isn't a good idea.
But I don't see how a staff-curated highlight system addresses that problem. I don't think anyone becomes a better poster because they see someone get a gold badge, granted by the forum elites.
And I don't see how it works as a reward. When I'm being helpful or fun, which does happen from time to time, it's worthwhile because I get direct feedback from other members. "Thanks" or "lol" or "make one more pun and I will beat you to death with your own leg" are the things that keep me posting here. That's rewarding. A highlight, delivered in the same anonymous way as a warning or ban, means nothing to me. At best, I'll think "I guess someone was too self-conscious to talk to me", and at worst I'll feel self-conscious because there's a spotlight on my post that I didn't ask for, and I don't know who put it there or why. I'm kinda fucked in the head so that might be an uncommon reaction, but that's how I'll feel.
It seems the plan is to go ahead with this, so I just hope work is done to make it much more community driven. Ideally 100% community driven. I'm aware of the pitfalls but there must be a way around them. And please don't do anything that encourages people to hit "report" when they should have hit "reply".
Seems like a neat feature, I get there are concerns about it but if it doesn't work out or needs tweaking, changes can always be made
What's the issue with just "open beta"-ing this for the next few months? Why does it need to be focus tested or whatever else is being suggested?
Its such a low stakes feature - just putting a fancy ribbon around a handful of posts - that I fail to see what the catastrophic downside of just giving it a whirl would be. If it runs for a few months and turns out to be a bit of a dud that no one likes, the worst thing that'll happen is it'll just... go away.
I dunno the reaction just seems way overblown for what's being proposed here.
Its such a low stakes feature - just putting a fancy ribbon around a handful of posts - that I fail to see what the catastrophic downside of just giving it a whirl would be. If it runs for a few months and turns out to be a bit of a dud that no one likes, the worst thing that'll happen is it'll just... go away.
I dunno the reaction just seems way overblown for what's being proposed here.
Let us disable it please. Doubling down and ignoring users is not the answer and doesn't look good.
It should be this. This is how other forums handle it and it works.
Also disable the reactions on threads labeled "sensitive" and maybe also "politics"
Bing bang boom, a way for the community (not just mods) to highlight posts.
Moderation is difficult job and the mods here generally do very well at chaperoning the community at large.
But that doesn't meant they're the tastemakers and giving them the power to highlight /reward what they like just influences the community in a way that isn't necessary.
People here have offered better democratised examples for such a feature which allows the community at large to highlight what's important to them rather than a select few.
We did consider community driven, that is the entire point of members reporting it. The fact that we need to screen it for moderation purposes doesn't really change that. If something is decided by the community but turns out to be a problem in the view of moderation, it will be removed regardless. Just like every other feature be they poll, thread creation, gift bot abuse, avatar shenanigans etc. The point of making moderation screening it before the highlight applies is to try and prevent problems rather than having to deal with them as a reaction. I'm looking for abuse/issues, not doing a "is this funny" check or whether or not I personally like it.
Here are some things we simply don't want to deal with: inappropriate/insensitive comments being highlighted by members, reducing discussion or replies, highlighted posts being used to win fights, highlighted posts being used to troll or otherwise antagonise members in subtle ways, getting into an argument with members because we removed a highlight. A post can be 90% fantastic but have a small element that is also not ok. A post can be 100% correct but the user is still being an asshole about it. The point is, we don't want to be too picky with these but there are considerations that we need to make as staff that we don't expect other users to be able to make. Users might not be happy with not being able to choose but I'd bet that is still better than when we're taking highlights down that they feel are 100% correct to users/communities. There will also be a cascading affect where you can then highlight posts that call out mods/users taking down the highlight. Community tends to react faster than moderators, this is why reports are often a game of catchup, find out what is happening, decide on it. You already see posts that were reported go unaction for a long time, imagine such a post highlighted... It will be frustrating to everyone involved. All of this nonsense is really far and away from the purpose of this feature which is simply an option to try and highlight some positivity or fun. I'm sure there will still be mistakes and issues now and then but it will be far less and easier for us to manage.
Nothing stops you from both reporting it for a highlight and posting to tell the member you appreciate them/their post. If anything, posting to say something can be nice in and of itself which is sort of the intent of this feature any way.
The "is or is not likes" calling argument feels pointless. This isn't how I use likes. Maybe it is how you use it and how you will use this feature. Cool. Moving on.
This feature is also not intended to replace threadmarks which are a more permanent feature to highlight important updates or informational posts within a thread. These features might work together but generally speaking serve different purposes. If you see a threadmark, you should probably read it to better understand either the rules or the topic at hand.
On the concern for moderator workload front, sure. It is more work for us, it will not always be quick either but I'll be honest. Seeing a maybe not funny post in the report queue will not do anything too much for me. The report queue can be at times a queue of some of the forums most toxic and tiring posts. Adding some "Is this worth highlighting?" into the mix is not going to be a problem personally and I'll be honest, I don't see a huge number of members using this feature regularly any way.
The way this feature works is a bit clumsy. It is one of the many features we have wanted for a while but also on the backend of things it isn't exactly the what it appears to be. It is a bit complicated but this isn't a feature built from scratch to do what we want so what we can change is also limited. It frustrates staff too and while we turning it back off is always an option I still hope there is stuff we can enjoy from this. I'm not sure what else we can add or change to this all I know is that it isn't easy to work with so try not to take our lack of commentary on people posting "This is a better method" type posts as us dismissing the idea entirely. Even if I like some ideas I can't even really comment on the feasibility of it right now.
Jokes will always be subjective and how familiar you are with the context definitely affects how well it lands. For this reason I personally didn't really want jokes and funnies to be highlighted. With that said though I also recognise it isn't just about me. Who am I to say that others shouldn't get to have a look at a maybe funny. I did consider that if it becomes just a jokes and funnies feed it would be a bit disappointing but I can add that to the considerations when the time comes. I can't exactly force members to make the content I want and then other users to report it for highlighting. This is still going to be something that needs to happen as users post, as others react and choose to report and then moderator reviews.
In any case, if this isn't a feature you want to use that is fine too. I've yet to do tournaments myself, not everything is for everybody. If you don't like any of the highlighted posts, that is fine too. If you do like the highlighted posts, that is great. There will always be some disagreements in this. When I clicked this thread I was expecting to see more discussion on what type of posts people wanted to highlight and examples. If you don't like what we have, give us examples of the cool stuff, the good stuff. We can add to the examples as well.
Have you seen how discouraging the poll results were for things like inclusitivity and representation. Probably not because we ended up killing such polls almost every time. If you think that our forum is full of compassionate, understanding people who are also not internet users who have been over multiple decades now, conditioned by consumerism, social media and entertainment to be reactionary and often hyperbolic or worse yet dismissive in their online interactions I don't know what to tell you.
It isn't just important topics either. There is endless console wars. Trolling each other "for some fun and laughs" in typical internet fashion. Sometimes there are valid criticism that can be subtle or dogwhistling or inappropriate in some ways. You could read an otherwise great post and maybe highlight it. You might not catch the comment that calls out the problematic nature within the post. Others might not as well and so a post with inflammatory or inappropriate content continues on highlighted. This will only further serve to frustrate members. The amount of of "fuck you, got mine" type posts that users will casually endorse. The "I'm just here to talk about games, this is issue is important but I'm not here to talk about that and it doesn't need to be in this topic". The "this is fine to me" handwaving. "All the [minority status] friends I have say..." type posts. The dogpiling over something minor. The snark that made you laugh at the expense of another member. The us vs them mentality across threads, against different communities, against staff etc.
As a moderator, I have been forced to view things with a lot of intersectional considerations. I still make a lot of mistakes. So yes. Forgive me if I don't feel confident that giving users the keys won't result in messes that we'll have to step into and moderate, likely leading to pointless bans and frustrations all around. You have something? Our users will argue over it. Some of them to the graves of their accounts if they are passionate enough. Look no further than this thread where users feel like quitting over it. And I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, people feel how they feel and will have disagreements. I trust members to make mistakes. We all do. I don't want to ban people for them/situations caused so if looking through and denying some of the highlight requests leads to less of it then so be it.
I realise your post probably didn't deserve all of this response but I'm tired of people trying to paint moderators like the forum's biggest asshole.
Here are some things we simply don't want to deal with: inappropriate/insensitive comments being highlighted by members, reducing discussion or replies, highlighted posts being used to win fights, highlighted posts being used to troll or otherwise antagonise members in subtle ways, getting into an argument with members because we removed a highlight. A post can be 90% fantastic but have a small element that is also not ok. A post can be 100% correct but the user is still being an asshole about it. The point is, we don't want to be too picky with these but there are considerations that we need to make as staff that we don't expect other users to be able to make. Users might not be happy with not being able to choose but I'd bet that is still better than when we're taking highlights down that they feel are 100% correct to users/communities. There will also be a cascading affect where you can then highlight posts that call out mods/users taking down the highlight. Community tends to react faster than moderators, this is why reports are often a game of catchup, find out what is happening, decide on it. You already see posts that were reported go unaction for a long time, imagine such a post highlighted... It will be frustrating to everyone involved. All of this nonsense is really far and away from the purpose of this feature which is simply an option to try and highlight some positivity or fun. I'm sure there will still be mistakes and issues now and then but it will be far less and easier for us to manage.
Nothing stops you from both reporting it for a highlight and posting to tell the member you appreciate them/their post. If anything, posting to say something can be nice in and of itself which is sort of the intent of this feature any way.
The "is or is not likes" calling argument feels pointless. This isn't how I use likes. Maybe it is how you use it and how you will use this feature. Cool. Moving on.
This feature is also not intended to replace threadmarks which are a more permanent feature to highlight important updates or informational posts within a thread. These features might work together but generally speaking serve different purposes. If you see a threadmark, you should probably read it to better understand either the rules or the topic at hand.
On the concern for moderator workload front, sure. It is more work for us, it will not always be quick either but I'll be honest. Seeing a maybe not funny post in the report queue will not do anything too much for me. The report queue can be at times a queue of some of the forums most toxic and tiring posts. Adding some "Is this worth highlighting?" into the mix is not going to be a problem personally and I'll be honest, I don't see a huge number of members using this feature regularly any way.
The way this feature works is a bit clumsy. It is one of the many features we have wanted for a while but also on the backend of things it isn't exactly the what it appears to be. It is a bit complicated but this isn't a feature built from scratch to do what we want so what we can change is also limited. It frustrates staff too and while we turning it back off is always an option I still hope there is stuff we can enjoy from this. I'm not sure what else we can add or change to this all I know is that it isn't easy to work with so try not to take our lack of commentary on people posting "This is a better method" type posts as us dismissing the idea entirely. Even if I like some ideas I can't even really comment on the feasibility of it right now.
Jokes will always be subjective and how familiar you are with the context definitely affects how well it lands. For this reason I personally didn't really want jokes and funnies to be highlighted. With that said though I also recognise it isn't just about me. Who am I to say that others shouldn't get to have a look at a maybe funny. I did consider that if it becomes just a jokes and funnies feed it would be a bit disappointing but I can add that to the considerations when the time comes. I can't exactly force members to make the content I want and then other users to report it for highlighting. This is still going to be something that needs to happen as users post, as others react and choose to report and then moderator reviews.
In any case, if this isn't a feature you want to use that is fine too. I've yet to do tournaments myself, not everything is for everybody. If you don't like any of the highlighted posts, that is fine too. If you do like the highlighted posts, that is great. There will always be some disagreements in this. When I clicked this thread I was expecting to see more discussion on what type of posts people wanted to highlight and examples. If you don't like what we have, give us examples of the cool stuff, the good stuff. We can add to the examples as well.
I've talked with mods endlessly about giving things to the community, this is one of them. I want more but honestly, some of the reactions make me question whether it is worth it at all.
Have you seen how discouraging the poll results were for things like inclusitivity and representation. Probably not because we ended up killing such polls almost every time. If you think that our forum is full of compassionate, understanding people who are also not internet users who have been over multiple decades now, conditioned by consumerism, social media and entertainment to be reactionary and often hyperbolic or worse yet dismissive in their online interactions I don't know what to tell you.
It isn't just important topics either. There is endless console wars. Trolling each other "for some fun and laughs" in typical internet fashion. Sometimes there are valid criticism that can be subtle or dogwhistling or inappropriate in some ways. You could read an otherwise great post and maybe highlight it. You might not catch the comment that calls out the problematic nature within the post. Others might not as well and so a post with inflammatory or inappropriate content continues on highlighted. This will only further serve to frustrate members. The amount of of "fuck you, got mine" type posts that users will casually endorse. The "I'm just here to talk about games, this is issue is important but I'm not here to talk about that and it doesn't need to be in this topic". The "this is fine to me" handwaving. "All the [minority status] friends I have say..." type posts. The dogpiling over something minor. The snark that made you laugh at the expense of another member. The us vs them mentality across threads, against different communities, against staff etc.
As a moderator, I have been forced to view things with a lot of intersectional considerations. I still make a lot of mistakes. So yes. Forgive me if I don't feel confident that giving users the keys won't result in messes that we'll have to step into and moderate, likely leading to pointless bans and frustrations all around. You have something? Our users will argue over it. Some of them to the graves of their accounts if they are passionate enough. Look no further than this thread where users feel like quitting over it. And I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, people feel how they feel and will have disagreements. I trust members to make mistakes. We all do. I don't want to ban people for them/situations caused so if looking through and denying some of the highlight requests leads to less of it then so be it.
I realise your post probably didn't deserve all of this response but I'm tired of people trying to paint moderators like the forum's biggest asshole.