posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:50 AM
Originally posted by BayesLike
I believe a stars and flags system is better as views is fairly easily manipulated. People make careers out of doing the views and click count
metrics. +Counting views doesn't really drive the same behavior. The stars and flags drive some level of analytical participation. Views can
drive outrageous and immature posts rather than analytical posts. +A merely interesting title can get lots of views while stars and flags focus more
I've also noted that there is no "anti-star" or "dislike" which is a positive overall as this promotes analysis instead of mere argumentative
dissension. There's enough of that as it is!
I would prefer a dishonesty button. But people would use it against me.
But I do find that the star/flag system has faults. Not so much in their implementation I guess, but who uses them, and why.
If I find a post informative or genuine in it's intent to do whatever is the opinion of the author, I star their post. If the content is worthy I
flag the thread.
But there are a lot of "Heyy hippy happy groupy groovers, have a flag and star one me, blessed smiles and bliss!!" while ignoring everything about
the content or intent, people around.
It's nice, but defeats the purpose.
I think the star system is there for a "Me Too" style reply, without the reply. But it can also be a "I dislike the guy you're arguing with, not
much more than you however. Have a star." ...
Maybe a thread Karma system. Not governed by clicks alone.
Maybe that sleepy sloth has been sniffing around with his language heuristics and is relaying all his perceived 'star and flag' contenders before
they hit that shiny icon, back to the chief. Maybe we can ask him to gauge the karma of a thread by how many hostile to happy posts there are.