Knowledge Base
Community

Kudos, Best Answers, etc. and Vanilla...

Started by: blackfive460
On: 10/11/2018 | 11:51
Replies: 72
Reply

by: jokeyboi77
on: 13/11/2018 | 19:12

@blackfive460 wrote:

@jokeyboi77

 

It's perfectly possible to disagree without 'deliberately offending' or 'making people feel actively unwelcome on the forum'.

 

Since we already have the kudos button which allows us to show that we agree with what someone has posted without needing to make yet another 'I agree' post so what would be wrong with having a similar button to show disagreement?

Surely that's far less likely to cause offence than posting.

 

 

@blackfive460

 

That's fair enough I suppose a disagree button could be better than posting 'I disagree' although I don't see anything wrong with posting I disagree either if it's explained why you're disagreeing, but I just object to calling it 'pap' or anything derogatory that could cause more offense than I disagree or a disagree button. But equally I think members should give a reason why they're agreeing too instead of just posting 'I agree'.

Message 21 of 73
by: harrrrrry
on: 13/11/2018 | 21:38 edited: 13/11/2018 | 21:48

@ujo55

 


Not sure that the 'negative' reaction sits well with the no 'name and shame' culture of GG

It's not really necessary either. Just the same as poor posts presently get few if any kudos, they will get few if any future positive reactions so there's not really any need to create what might be seen as an unnecessary potential public admonishment.

 

 

Get a free giffgaff Sim

Message 22 of 73
by: as7861
on: 14/11/2018 | 01:15 edited: 14/11/2018 | 01:21

Hi

Interesting feature.

I actually like the kudo function at moment but if reactions can be complementary to it. Then why not. As reactions could be a way to show what the kudo actually meant. Did it mean thank you, agree, supported or something else?

But in my view kudo has many meanings so based on that imagine the interpretation of a post being marked as disliked. Would the person want to seek help or just not post again?

In my view, having a negative reactions might cause people to be less inclined to come back on and post. Just imagine a post has 0 postive reaction and 10 negative reaction. So if I was the person that posted this be wondering why? So I guess disagreeing and putting a reason is more better so a person can understand your footsteps of why you disagreed. Instead of being left with wilderness of not knowing and assumptions arrising from it. 

Back to the point, The concept of reactions is perfect but keeping that upbeat atmosphere is for the best in my view Smiley Happy

- Amer Get a free giffgaff Sim
Message 23 of 73
by: ip633
on: 14/11/2018 | 09:13 edited: 14/11/2018 | 09:20

Interestingly enough, I had a look at the Vanilla forums website, and ended up having a live chat with a young lady about Kudos. Her response was “do you mean Likes?”, and although I didn’t manage to get a definitive answer, the fact that she’d never heard of the term, does suggest that it’s not currently available on the Vanilla platform. I’ve already asked this question once (in this post), but are we talking about renaming one of the “reactions” as being “Kudos”, or are we talking about it being a separate function in its own right?

 

With regards to the concerns around negativity, I do like their approach to self-moderation, as posts that receive too many negative reactions are automatically greyed out and then queued for moderation. So even if you’re not inclined to report posts, you’re still providing valuable feedback to assist staff in doing their job. Labs suffers from a lack of moderation, and it’s not helped by the fact that so many of us are giving that section a wide berth. It’s no good having good tools for moderation on one platform, but not the other, so wouldn’t this be an ideal opportunity to retire Labs, and transfer those ideas across to the new platform?

 

Edit: typo

Message 24 of 73
Highlighted
by: blackfive460
on: 14/11/2018 | 09:40

@ip633 wrote:

Interestingly enough, I had a look at the Vanilla forums website, and ended up having a live chat with a young lady about Kudos. Her response was “do you mean Likes?”, and although I didn’t manage to get a definitive answer, the fact that she’d never heard of the term, does suggest that it’s not currently available on the Vanilla platform.

My guess is that we'll end up using Vanilla's 'Like' function but I would imagine that it would be a minor coding issue to have a 'Like' button that displays as 'Kudos' instead.

 

However, I'd think that this would be a good time to switch to 'Like'. After all the ability to 'Like' has become the industry standard across forums and social media and is more readily understood while probably Kudos isn't. 

 

Regarding including a negative reaction; while I agree with @as7861's point about someone seeing a large total, it needn't work that way. It could be coded in such a way as not to show a total but simply show that it has been used.

It's academic anyway; all sweetness and light, remember!

Message 25 of 73
by: ip633
on: 14/11/2018 | 11:18 edited: 14/11/2018 | 11:23

@blackfive460 wrote:

My guess is that we'll end up using Vanilla's 'Like' function but I would imagine that it would be a minor coding issue to have a 'Like' button that displays as 'Kudos' instead.

However, I'd think that this would be a good time to switch to 'Like'. After all the ability to 'Like' has become the industry standard across forums and social media and is more readily understood while probably Kudos isn't.

 

Although I’m impressed with the potential offered by this platform, I’m very much in the “less is more” camp, but that view is probably at odds with the reliance on gamification to improve engagement in the forums. If we do adopt the more widely used term of “Like”, then that’ll finally put an end to any debate around the abuse of Kudos. It’ll just be a further dumbing down of an already diminished community  Smiley Sad

Message 26 of 73
by: essie112mm
on: 14/11/2018 | 11:26

 

Firstly, I am well aware of community rules and do not advocate breaking them. Having said that, the star ratings system which was referred to a few posts back and was introduced by a former Head of Community did just that: overtly name and shame. The stars disappeared (if my memory serves me right) after a change to the website and were not reinstated.

 

Secondly, "pap" is something soft, or lacking in substance. I think a reaction which means "lacking in content" is apt for posts which contain nothing more than three letters (lol) or one word comments such as "great!" or "wicked", or those which go a little further and say, "Not bothered". I am not sure that an "I disagree" button would be appropriate for this. There is plenty of scope for how to implement changes and no reason why some buttons can't be hidden from view. I can't see why this has to be about abusing or making anyone feel unwelcome on the community. Rather, letting a member know that one word posts are not considered acceptable would serve as a private form of education without input from a member of staff. 

 

As a rule I don't visit Labs but I remember from previous threads that ip633 has expressed concerns about the way members (particularly new ones) are treated. I am on record as saying that is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.I stand by that view. There are plenty of examples of it already on other forums. 

 

The aim should be to improve the quality of posting, which ranges from the highest quality to absolutely dire. So far changing how payback works has not had the desired effect, keeping everything 'positive' has shown no tangible improvement and led to many good members finding better things to do with their time, and now we are left with the "report, report, report" mantra, which personally I find repugnant. To test how flaky this is a few weeks ago I reported posts for engaging mildly in indirect naming and shaming, which unless it is an example of a post which is unequivocally offensive is not something I would normally do. Each time the post was either removed or edited. In my view the reports were unnecessary and action was out of all proportion - but as I said, I filed the reports to test the system. In each case an educator would have had an exchange of PMs with the members concerned and in minor cases I really I don't think this is a good use of educator time. I don't like the concept of members reporting members and it is so ungiffgaffy that it astonishes me so many support it. Keeping in mind that educators can't be all over every thread we need therefore an alternative form of moderation. 

 

 

27/08/2017
My @mentions are turned OFF
Message 27 of 73
by: jokeyboi77
on: 14/11/2018 | 12:01

Thanks for the explanation @essie112mm and I agree with your sentiments, and that's got me thinking of a 'insufficient content' button for the 'lol and wicked' posts as opposed to something a little harsher than 'pap' and after a couple of those insufficient votes you could maybe hide those comments from view from the thread, because that way maybe no education is required, freeing up Educator time, and members don't have to swim through the insufficient comments to find the comments with more substance. But also maybe have a tracking system where if you make maybe 5 or more of these type of posts then education is required, but would this be open for abuse if certain members hold a grudge? 

Message 28 of 73
by: tradertall
on: 14/11/2018 | 12:27
i like vanilla
Get a free giffgaff Sim
Message 29 of 73
by: essie112mm
on: 14/11/2018 | 13:04

I like the idea of making inadequate posts disappear when they attract a certain number of Reactions for insufficient content. 

 

Before posting I mulled over the idea of a tracking system because I like that as well. It would be open to abuse - but then so are kudos and buttons for positive attributes. If a tracking system flagged up someone after (say) five or more "insufficient content" button votes over a number of threads, an educator could have a quick look at the posts and who clicked on the button and then make a quick decision as to whether further action is required. 

 

I think this is something which needs input from a member of staff, preferably Will, or we'll get nowhere. And that would be a pity because it's a good thread which I hope gets a spot in this week's edition of The gaff. 

27/08/2017
My @mentions are turned OFF
Message 30 of 73