POLL**Addition of posting like/dislike categories ....

Do you want the addition of 'dislike' and 'category likes'

  • Yes -

    Votes: 6 15.0%
  • No -

    Votes: 31 77.5%
  • Yes - aslong as it's used properly.

    Votes: 3 7.5%

  • Total voters
    40

Saddlerrad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
4,077
Reaction score
1,105
Points
113
Location
Staffordshire
Supports
Walsall
TB popped up on Skype this morning asking whether he thought this may be a worthwhile addition. The add-on as such isn't just a 'dislike' button, but admins can manually add words available to use to describe why a post is good, great, or absolute hot air. The issue is, I get the feeling this MAY lead to some complaints and a few issues with people not wanting 'dislikes' by their posting profile...but this is the internet in 2015 and I mean...who should get offended by someone not liking a post? (Never that simple)

I haven't explained that very well have I? So I'll add a link to the add-on.




1) This is what the post would look like if someone decided to take it up.
Screenshot (706).png



2) If you went to your normal profile or alerts system it would tell you everytime someone likes your post, like it does now but with what they liked it for.
Screenshot (704).png





3) You would have your own nice little profile to look at inside your normal profile pages.
Screenshot (703).png






4) This is where the admins would list the words you are able to use as such.
Screenshot (705).png




So for example, Walsall sign someone and they aren't very good...but I rave them up to be amazing... someone may 'dislike' my post and dislike it for being 'a load of elephant sack' (providing we allowed use of that statement - which we wouldn't) but someone may 'like' it for being 'optimistic'.

It's just basically a bit of a fun that could bring a few laughs to the table. However, people can take the internet seriously and this along with the shoutbox upgrade is £45 out the budget, so if it's just going to cause a load of arguements, or be removed within a few weeks then it really is pointless as we don't get the finances back.

With that being said, after a pretty crap explanation...we are a place for the people.

So let's leave this to poll.
 

Aberstone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
2,955
Reaction score
1,347
Points
113
Location
Luton
Supports
Wealdstone
I've voted no, it wouldn't be used properly and would just cause unnecessary confrontation.
 

Saddlerrad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
4,077
Reaction score
1,105
Points
113
Location
Staffordshire
Supports
Walsall
I've voted no, it wouldn't be used properly and would just cause unnecessary confrontation.

The admins control the terms of it use, so we would be able to be strict on what reasons were given.

For example, someone doesn't like a post..we could just let the negative terms be 'Disagree' or 'Not a fan'.

We could be a little more open with the positives terms...

X person gets the ban 'Astounding news'. So there is limits on it that we can monitor.
 

JimJams

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
7,170
Reaction score
2,567
Points
113
Supports
Premier League Champions 15/16
Dislikes will lead to some people getting hammered for no good reason.
And generally the tone of a post is indicative of why people like it. If you've posted something funny then that's why they like it. If it's a well explained theory on why a team will win a competition you know why it's being liked. You don't post up the latter and then wonder if they liked the post because they thought your explanation of how to use a 5 man midfield was fucking hilarious and made them piss themselves.
 

Bottega Don

Lenging Man Down
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
4,444
Reaction score
1,419
Points
113
Supports
Scunthorpe United
No.

I've seen this implemented on a different forum and it was cool at first but the novelty soon wore off. People stopped using it and I don't think it's particularly worth the money or hassle.
 

blade1889

sir
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
3,569
Reaction score
1,225
Points
113
Supports
Sheffield United
Twitter
@blade1889
I've voted no, think that too many features will just make it messy
 

PrestonCha

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
1,026
Reaction score
836
Points
113
Location
Preston, Lancashire.
Supports
Preston North End
It's a No from me. Same reasoning as blade1889 & JimJams.

I've seen it being used on the Bradford Forum, and it looks incredibly tinpot.

Keep it simple. It's working very well as it is.
 

StagsForLife

In Matt Green we trust.
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
489
Points
83
Location
Mansfield
Supports
Mansfield Town
Twitter
@CWJG_Gregory
qWIxPTg.jpg
 

Murphy

Bloody Nice Chap
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
1,190
Points
113
Location
Norwich
Supports
Dagenham & Redbridge and Stephen Mulhern.
Twitter
@NickMurphy1995
No.

I've seen this implemented on a different forum and it was cool at first but the novelty soon wore off. People stopped using it and I don't think it's particularly worth the money or hassle.

Dislike.
 

Red

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
2,540
Reaction score
1,111
Points
113
Location
Chesterfield
Supports
Opposing the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre!!!!
No prizes for guessing which way Red will vote.
Being absolutely honest mate and I'm really not messing about, I'm not that fussed either way. If it's going to cost money to implement it I'd say don't bother unless a substantial majority want it. I say a substantial majority and not just a majority because it could potentially be divisive.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
15,673
Messages
1,032,377
Members
6,120
Latest member
rudders80
Top
CleverNT: 53154 Visits Devices Code Obs Start: 2021-09-01 End: 2021-09-30 Copy the code. Paste it on the source code of your website, near the bottom, just before ex: same way you insert the google analytics script/code In case you're using banners, you also need to add the Tag: