Would agree / disagree buttons be useful?

submitted by wizzwizz4 from (self.SaidIt)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The system in it's current form is a paragon of anti-shill beauty.

I find myself clicking insightful for things that are well-written, but that I don't agree with.

Why not try to use the insightful/funny as intended.

If we had agree / disagree buttons in addition to insightful and funny, we would be able to more clearly see the general consensus.

Who do you mean by we?

Additional differentiation may be used against a user in the not so distant future. I think it's safe to assume that TPTB will eventually attempt to roll out a version of the Chinese sesame score in the West.

This info could be used against individuals in a situation similar to that. Sometimes vague is good.

Wizzwizz4:

I'm struggling to imagine a situation where someone would vote insightful for "well written" comments that they "disagree" with...??? This explanation seems a bit contrived. A shill would do exactly this. However, they have an ulterior motive. This is surprising behavior.

  • What information gathering are you interested in?
  • Why are you Interesting in sorting through it?
  • Why propose significant changes, because you don't use the system icons as intended?

If you're a curious individual, then additional info can always be inferred through people's comments. It's inexact, but that's how the social sciences are evaluated.

Also, I like the idea of making the intelligence agency's put a bit of effort into spying; when trying to figure out a person's perspective.

I vote to leave the system as it is. The Intel agency's should have to collect and sort their own stolen data.

Let's avoid making things convenient for them... ;-)

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Why not try to use the insightful/funny as intended.

I click insightful for things that are insightful. The nagging voice in the back of my head saying "why are you supporting something you disagree with", however, makes it hard to do this.

Who do you mean by we?

Us. You and me and the other users of Saidit.

Additional differentiation may be used against a user in the not so distant future. I think it's safe to assume that TPTB will eventually attempt to roll out a version of the Chinese sesame score in the West.

What does this even mean?

This info could be used against individuals in a situation similar to that. Sometimes vague is good.

I think I sort of understand what you're getting at, but it's perfectly optional to click the buttons. Plus, this info wouldn't be public.

I'm struggling to imagine a situation where someone would vote insightful for "well written" comments that they "disagree" with...???

If they're insightful, maybe?

This explanation seems a bit contrived. A shill would do exactly this. However, they have an ulterior motive.

Oh, quit it. If I were a shill, I wouldn't be expending so much time in trying to help people, and I'd probably spend more time on the site. I'm sorry; healthy scepticism is good, and I shouldn't take it personally.

  • What information gathering are you interested in? Seeing whether a particular opinion matches the consensus of the readers.

  • Why are you Interesting in sorting through it? So I can see whether a particular opinion matches the consensus of the readers. It was just a thought.

  • Why propose significant changes, because you don't use the system icons as intended?

I think you're the one not using them as intended, if you're using them to show agreement or disagreement.

If you're a curious individual, then additional info can always be inferred through people's comments. It's inexact, but that's how the social sciences are evaluated.

This is a good argument against the change.

Also, I like the idea of making the intelligence agency's put a bit of effort into spying; when trying to figure out a person's perspective.

I like the idea of this too, but it's relatively easy to estimate whether someone's pro or con by the language they use. One of Project Debater's simpler components does this – and before you start saying that Project Debater's a government project because of this, this technology's been around for a while. I could probably make a version with 70% accuracy in a week.

Plus, an individual's votes are not public. Comments are. So they'd still need to sort through the comments, unless the /s/SaiditCanary s stopped coming.

I vote to leave the system as it is. The Intel agency's should have to collect and sort their own stolen data.

Let's avoid making things convenient for them... ;-)

Not having this feature would not really make it harder for them.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I click insightful for things that are insightful. The nagging voice in the back of my head saying "why are you supporting something you disagree with", however, makes it hard to do this.

This is an interesting statement.
You are staying that something in your own mind is telling you that you could be wrong.
However, you continue to ignore it. In spite of the nagging feeling.

That nagging feeling is trying to tell you to re-examine your beliefs, and opinions. Are you willfully suppressing this feeling, because it contradicts your existing world view? Something is going on there. that you might benefit by look into.

I suspect that I would probably get along quite well with your nagging conscience. You should create an account for him/her/ze.

Not having this feature would not really make it harder for them.

You seem to know quite a bit about them.
Feel free to publicise your SaidIt-related personal info.

Please stop asking everyone else to publicise their info, so you can conveniently sort it.

[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are an ass.

If you disagree it's because you're wrong and can't admit it.