Like a Thread: Appreciating Overall Discussion

[Grinkle]

Have the folks who decide such things ever considered a mechanism to like a thread at large, as opposed to single post?

I am not picturing having any benefactor / recipient of the like, as the like would indicate an appreciation of the overall discussion as opposed to any single post.

The total number of likes for posts inside a thread imo is a different indicator than someone indicating appreciation for an overall discussion.

Total likes for a thread and total likes for posts inside a thread might end up correlating very strongly anyway and not add additional information, but its not completely obvious to me that it would.

Edit:

For me -

Likes for posts are to give the poster credibility. If I read a post and I don't have a lot of personal history reading this poster and I don't quite follow the post, the ratio of total posts to total likes factors into how much benefit of the doubt I give the post. If I see 1/0 post or a 100/2 post and it looks like gibberish to me, I won't bother to respond ex. If I see a 100/25 post that looks like gibberish, I will probably ask a clarifying question, and if I see a 100/50 post, I will definitely assume I am missing something and ask a clarifying question. This is also my thinking when I give likes - I am giving the poster general credibility, not making a global comment about the thread.

I never look for threads with lots of post likes and read those threads, because I don't tend to think of good posts as necessarily correlating to a good thread on the OP topic.

I would appreciate being able to sort by thread-level likes, I expect. That is what prompted this suggestion.

 

[Klystron]

Perhaps 'liking' the original post indicates support for the thread or the ideas presented in originating the thread. Realistically we cannot know the balance of replies unless/until

1. the premise and argument of the original post is valid.
2. the original question is answered sufficiently, presuming the thread asked a question.
3. the thread is closed by moderators.
4. the thread is 'hijacked' for various reasons diverging far from the original post or the original is edited, thus changed.

Depending on the reader's motive for following a thread, #1 where the OP requires correction from mentors and moderators produces some surprisingly instructive posts. Sometimes the raft of corrections where the OP posts near nonsense exposes the reader to excellent thinking and knowledge from the corrective responses. In that case while disliking the erroneous premise, the overall thread is 'likeable'.

Item #3 poses an interesting problem in that, while unable to reply to a closed thread, the reader can still 'like' individual posts. Item #4 presents difficulties. Some of the best threads encourage the reader to reason beyond the original post. Weak OPs may be strengthened by divergent but more knowledgeable posts; a redirect.

 

[symbolipoint]

The simple way to think is if you like the original post, apply a LIKE to it. If you like any specific post for whatever reasoning, you can apply LIKE to the specific post. Any register of a LIKE is currently for specific postings and that is showing LIKING to a specific posting member. This seems to be a good method as current.

 

[mfb]

Likes for posts are to give the poster credibility. If I read a post and I don't have a lot of personal history reading this poster and I don't quite follow the post, the ratio of total posts to total likes factors into how much benefit of the doubt I give the post.

That is not always working. Posts in the lounge (e.g. here) are not counted but likes are. We have users with an official post count of 50 and hundreds of likes, accumulated from hundreds to thousands of non-counting posts.

 

[Grinkle]

@symbolipoint I am positing a different social value to tracking how often a discussion as a whole earns peer endorsement in addition to the current great system that tracks when individual posts within a discussion earn peer endorsement.

@mfb Thanks for noting that - I was thinking that could only happen when one post gets numerous likes and when I saw a lopsided count like that I was wondering what incredible post had earned so many likes!

 

[Klystron]

I have only participated in a few online forums but software without 'like' buttons seems to engender more complete responses insofar that the reader must reply, if only with a +1, often stating their reasons. The comments section in the New York Times has no 'like' on comments or response to articles; regarding the sobriquet as juvenile according to one editorial; using 'recommend' instead. Not just semantics or synonyms. Like implies an internal state. Recommend explicitly directs others to read and possibly benefit.

Compromise position: 'like' posts, 'recommend' threads.

 

[Evo]

Likes for posts are to give the poster credibility. If I read a post and I don't have a lot of personal history reading this poster and I don't quite follow the post, the ratio of total posts to total likes factors into how much benefit of the doubt I give the post.

The ability to "like" a post has only been around a couple of years, so members that have been around for years may have a decade of posts that received no likes because it simply was not an option. So do not judge the quality of a member's posts by the ratio of posts to likes, it is not an indicator of quality or accuracy. A person can get lots of likes for being silly. "Likes" are not a sign of credibility, that is not their purpose. It's just to show that you "liked" the post, for whatever reason, even if it's completely wrong.

A good indicator of consistent, helpful, accurate, high quality posts are the designations of Science Advisor, Homework Helper, etc... Of course very new members will not have been around long enough to qualify. If you are looking for a designation to help you decide which members are more likely to be correct, these designations are what you should be looking for, not "likes". Hope that helps clear things up.

 

[Grinkle]

If you are looking for a designation to help you decide which members are more likely to be correct, these designations are what you should be looking for, not "likes". Hope that helps clear things up.

Mentors /Homework Helpers / Science advisor titles are and have always been very indicative to me of quality posts. Of course these titles are given by a group of people much more qualified than I am to identify good physics discussion, and anyone can give a like.