True, but by giving it too much, by showing too little discrimination, you are devaluing the meaning of the 'like' functionality for everybody.

Consider:
If every other person got a gold medal, what would the value of gold medal be?
Or from reality: if every moron football player scoring an extra point is called a 'hero', how do the people who actually deserve this description feel? What is the value of calling somebody a 'hero' if you use the term for the guy brining hot coffee for the whole office in the morning, just because you happen to like hot coffee? What does it say about the meaning of the word 'hero'?

The bottom line:
Something like the 'Like' functionality has more value when you apply stricter guidelines of when you use it. If people just 'like' everything they consider slightly funny, or whatever - half the posts or more will get the 'like' label, and nobody will pay any attention to what is 'liked' and what is not. And 'Like' will become meaningless.

Well... you do what you do, no problem, I just think that this is what the guy meant. At least - this is how I have read it.

Pls forgive me, Robert, this will be my last [OT] deviation (at least in this direction )


I accept that it may be “too much” for your taste. For me, it’s just “more than usual”

This is not about Olympic collecting of “likes”. This is NOT about competing for the “likes” of people.

I’d perhaps compare it to … adding some neurotransmitters to a nervous system many things will then be raised above the perception threshold. And don’t forget: there still are more posts where I do NOT click “like”. So … I’m perhaps just adding my own “layer” of “likes” on this landscape.

BTW I also click “like” for post where forum newbies introduce themselves—because 1) it’s a nice thing to say “hi” and to introduce oneself, and because 2) so they immediately see how they can give a quick positive feedback for a post.

For any deeper discussion of this we should move into another thread.

Thanks, Tom

I understand your point. But I disagree.

There are cultures out there which stress excessive politeness. People say 'thank you' and 'please' all the time... is it nice? I don't know. How do I tell when somebody is really grateful and when he simply follows convention? So in such cases - other indicators are needed... a deeper bow, a warmer smile... and then *this* becomes what makes you all warm and fuzzy inside, what makes you feel appreciated. Somebody saying 'thank you' for everything you do becomes meaningless or even a nuisance.

Same here. I think that the 'Like' functionality is there to denote posts which are somehow 'special' to you... and then it means something. If every other post is marked as 'special', then what is special and what is ordinary? The meaning and value gets diluted.

Bottom line:
If we all did 'Like' every other posts we run across, for whatever reason, each post would have been liked by 50 people or so. And then I ask you - would anybody care if a post was 'Liked' or not? It would be meaningless. Right now, only one person is so generous, and so it is no big deal. In theory, however, if you do not place strict and narrow guidelines on how you evaluate things, your evaluation becomes less meaningful.

Praise is a gift not to be withheld, but not to be given lightly neither.
That's all I am saying.

My take:

1.) When you get a "like", even if it's from someone that gives out likes freely, there's at least an indication that they didn't hate what you had to write.

2.) If you care about your "like count", then I see Bantari's point in that the number of likes you have loses its value (if it had any to begin with).

3.) I think there's another dimension, and that is who gives you a like. Getting a like from a like-happy user does show that they agreed with your post, but maybe comes to become accepted as normal. Getting a like from someone who usually hates your guts seems to indicate, "Well, this guy usually hates what I have to say, but we seem to agree on this front."

Regarding the last point, I feel that there are cliques (to a mild degree) on the forum, so it's often common that person X says something, and persons A, B, and C, who usually like what person X has to say. As is usually the case with arguments on the forum, maybe person Y disagrees with person X, and persons D, E, and F, who usually like what person Y has to say commonly like Y's points.

After endless arguments on the forum, this comes to be expected, and you can say, "Oh, X posted. Of course A, B, and C like what X has to say.", and you don't think much of it. But what's significant is when you see D and E like what X has to say, and then you can think, "Hm. That's odd."

---

Aside from likes, I feel the same phenomenon happens in the many arguments that happen around the forum. X makes an argument, A, B, and C chime in to express their agreement. Y counters, along with his cronies D, E, and F.

After awhile it all starts to lose its significance...