A 'like' tells me that someone actually read my post, which is nice. This is the only forum of the half-dozen that I visit regularly that permits 'likes', so I don't think to give them as often as I probably should.
I miss them on other forums now. To acknowledge a post on them I either need to reply to it, which creates meaningless "I agree" posts, or send a PM which is too much.
This is precisely why I don't put much stock in likes. To me a like indicates tacit agreement. I won't like something I don't agree with. I would love to have a 'dislike' or even a 'HATE' button, or possibly a 'You suck, go home' button. I feel that liking a post you disagree with only serves to embolden the purveyor of the message. Then, under the delusion that lots of people agree with the message, they post even more radical and extremist messages, because, well . . . their last post got half a million likes. This serves to bring more wackos out of the woodwork, with more nasty messages, who write more books and hold more conferences, et cetra ad nauseam. When someone likes a message by Pastor Douglas Wilson, it only emboldens him to continue to advocate for the return of slavery. When people protest his lectures he can say, "There were only a couple hundred misguided individuals who had turned their back on the true message of Christ because they were deluded by abolitionist propaganda, but my message is reaching millions and I receive thousands of likes daily."
Oh, I need to clarify one thing. I would NEVER 'like' a nasty message, or one that steps out of line as regards courtesy, or jumps off the deep end with sexism, racism or any other -ism. I only 'like' the posts I can have a rational exchange with. I also do try really hard—on this forum—to stick with the topic of writing. For example, somebody might say they dislike italics for thoughts, and give their reasons why. I will 'like' their post—even though I don't agree with their view on italics—and then go on to post my own saying why I don't agree. That indicates I respect their point of view, even though I don't agree with it. I see nothing wrong with that. However, start name-calling or being nasty in any way ...no likes.
Obviously they must be important if they are tracked in our profiles. I assumed it had something to do with level of importance, more likes, more important. I have a brother that hits like on absolutely everything I post online that has a like button, no matter what it is I am posting. I use them as an acknowledgement that I have read the post and agree or appreciate what was posted. I will also LIKE something if I LIKE what was said.
So by the sounds of it, the forum really needs a "read" button. Just to acknowledge that you've read the comment and are not ignoring it. Seems to be the way quite a few use the "like" feature. The problem is that there is only one button and it has such a specific connotation - the "I like this" message is dictated - but then people are apparently not always using it to send the message it is designed to send. So if "like" could mean a dozen different things, and only one of those actually being "I like this comment", they suddenly mean a lot less, because the recipient of the like is unable to interpret which of the handful of meanings is actually intended by the giver.
Is it possible that we're taking the "like" button a little too seriously? I mean... it's a click, not a manifesto...
It is all that matters. I write every post with the aim of collecting as many "likes" as possible. Sod freedom of expression and vocalising unpopular thought to spur debate, I want "likes"! Stifle debate! Get "likes".
Likes don't mean anything, they're just a way for people to show that they agree with or 'like' a posts message and- Wait. *looks at own like to post ratio* Likes show how much value you have, not only as a member of this forum, but as a humanbeing in general. Every post should be an effort towards like, every idea cultivated in pursuit of more likes. God bless the like and long shall it reign.
When I get a "like" I take it as one of the following: - the person agrees with me. - what I said was funny (I rarely assume this, as I'm not a funny person . . . like ever). - I added something to the conversation. - the person appreciates my attempt to add something to the conversation. - the person appreciates my attempt to help. - I actually helped. Those are basically what I take them as. When I give a like is a little more unpredictable, as I go between being stingy and giving them out like candy on Holloween within the same minute. I often forget the button's even there. Anyway, usually the likes I give mean: - I agree. - what you said is funny and therefore I like it. - I feel this added to the conversation. - I read and appreciate your response to my post, but don't have enough to say to reply in a post (I don't "like" something to say I read it unless the person is responding to me directly). - thank you. - I found your post helpful, useful, or interesting. - I "liked" another person's post so now I feel guilty about not liking yours because you basically said the same thing and your post is also useful/adds to the conversation.
When we first installed the "like' button, goodness but what a kerfuffle it caused. When we were a VBulletin forum we used the green/red blocks system of "reputation points", which is a feature of that software. It had an inherent system of restrictions that allowed a given Member to give only so many reputation points in total during a given period of time and also restricted giving reputation points to a particular member during a particular period of time. So, neither could you just bestow rep points whole-sale to every and all, nor could two people (or a group) conspire to rep one another into exalted status. It did also have a feature where a Member's power to grant reputation grew as their own reputation grew. A new member granting reputation to someone else might only increase the recipient's reputation by a few points, but a member with maximum points could knock you up a whole green block with one granting. This system did not jive very well when we switched to Xenforo and for a while it was completely unrestricted to the point where the majority of active members hit maximum reputation points within just months of the switch. The "likes" system was also in play, but not being as visually satisfying as snazzy little green blockies, it took a smidge to catch on and only after it was obvious that the green blocks were pretty meaningless since the max number would be hit in no time flat. This was 2013, the year when the forum was overrun by The Politics Brigade. *dramatic stage sigh* We did away with the meaningless blocks and a small core of head-butters furiously argued that the "likes" system was a political tool to denote allegiance to factions within the forum. Yes, I realize how perfectly tragic that sounds. I hesitated to even type it, but them'z the facts. I have to say that I don't pay too much mind to the "likes", which probably makes me appear stingy in their granting since, again, I don't really pay attention to them.
Liking is a political tactic used to push forward one's agenda without raising too many alarms. "He just told me to go **** myself, but he's also liked all my posts. Cool guy." It's also used in a conspiracy against @matwoolf , who has been known to go nuts when he has not received enough likes.
That assumes that they're Liking because they agree. I'm fairly likely to Like something as much because I like the way it was phrased. I may agree or I may not. (Though admittedly if I bitterly disagree, I'm not going to Like it.)
That's more or less the way I use 'likes' as well. With the emphasis on 'added something (positive) to the conversation.'
The way I view other people's "like" count is as a sort of read on their general status and agreeability within the group. It's important to remember that the use of likes has changed over time, but by viewing someone's overall like percentage, you can get a quick read on how well they fit into this particular group. You, for instance, have a just over 50% like/post ratio (and no, I don't do the math on everyone), which, for someone fairly new to the forum is doing pretty well. In contrast, there was a member here (they are still listed on the roster, but have thankfully shut their offensive yap for some time now) who never posted to assist anyone else, never failed to argue with anyone who tried to help them, and never gave up on a storyline that the collective membership was practically screaming at them to leave to die. They have/had a post count that was over a thousand, yet their like count was, IIRC, sub-50. Kind of the way some people walk into a room and everyone says hello to them, but other people find no one but the newest members will make figurative eye contact with them.
This, I agree with, but maybe replace the word "agreeability" with "helpfulness"? And only because there are members who participate a lot in the RP subforum who don't receive a ton of likes, but they are agreeable/helpful when they make appearances on the general forum. Generally, the people who have the +50% like/post ratios are very active in answering all the questions posed in the general sections and workshop. Obviously there are outliers, but that's what I've noticed.