Names Now Associated with the "Like" button

[RickS]

I just noticed today that there are now names associated/displayed when one picks a 'Like' button option. When did this start?

 

[johanson]

Yes, I thought I had seen that, but I thought no, then I double checked after reading what you posted, and that is exactly what is happening.

For what it is worth, I don't know how to react to this. Part of me likes it, part of me doesn't and the other part says why does it matter

[kam]

Doesn't it just turn the board into a popularity contest? And stir up more antagonism between members? And, finally, serve as a "stop" before you hit a button, in effect editing your opinion? 

[Xena]

I don’t think putting names to the buttons makes it anymore of a popularity contest than it was before. 

I am not sure it will stir up more antagonism. It will help aim it in the right direction. It will make posters accountable for their stalking behavior in some cases. 

If you need to be anonymous in order to offer your opinion maybe you should keep that opinion to yourself.

I did notice that Mainecoons and Moderator 2 voted down the same post. That seemed unfair to the OP. When the votes were anonymous  he could get away with that but now at least we know.

Those are just my thoughts. Like Pete, I don’t know how to react to the change and if/how it will affect how I react to a post. I would like to think it won’t matter, but I will see. 

 

 

 

[Mainecoons]

Well in actuality when there are multiple button pushes the names are not associated with the specific votes.  However that doesn't prevent someone from jumping to conclusions and posting them here.  Won't be so hard to find the stalkers though. 

Frankly I think the entire thing should be dropped.  For some here, just another way to express personal rancor towards people they don't know or who dare to hold different opinions than they do.  Fortunately we know you'd never do that. 

 

[Xena]

So, who decided to include the reaction buttons? They just come with the program when it got switched? It seems to be a common feature on social media. I seem to see more positive responses to posts than the sad/confused faces but maybe I have not been paying enough attention. I don’t think I would miss the reaction buttons if they were gone. We got along fine before we had them. 

[mudgirl]

There's another forum I participate in and in my notification page there, I can see who thumbs upped any ofmy posts, but that's not visible to others on the public forum. Seems like a better way.

[ComputerGuy]

I am with Xena on this. They did switch to nameless icons back with the new software change, but the naming capability has always been available... just not switched on. That allowed some people to hide behind an icon while being nasty... like posting the SAD icon for the Chapala Pride. How cheesy and entitled is that? The old software let you post a like by using your name. And let's face it, very few people use their real names here anyway.

Another way to look at it: now you know when someone agrees or disagrees with you, and who that someone is, without having to get deeper into a discussion if you don't want to. Of course, there will be those who misuse the concept anyway, I'm sure. That's antisocial media for you.

[barcelonaman]

And wonder or wonders people can and have removed previous icons to save face.

R.

 

[Xena]

21 minutes ago, barcelonaman said:

And wonder or wonders people can and have removed previous icons to save face.

R.

 

Now, THAT is most interesting. And, the best reason for keeping the feature enabled. 

[gringal]

I'd prefer it if no reaction buttons existed at all.  Therefore, no stalkers or enthusiasts.  But then, I'm the kind of curmudgeon who has a negative opinion of the value of social media, too.🤐

[Fred Habacht]

You certainly make enough use of "social media" so it must have some value.

Fred Habacht

[HarryB]

I didn't even realize it was there.

 

[Xena]

12 minutes ago, barbara habacht said:

You certainly make enough use of "social media" so it must have some value.

Fred Habacht

I don’t think Gringal considers web boards social media.

[Mainecoons]

They showed up out of the blue with no warming to the mods or anyone else.  I tested to see if mods were listed along with members.  They are.

I've sent recommendation to admin the whole thing should be dropped.  If you agree please consider doing likewise.  We really don't need another tool for expressing personal rancor here, some are quite good at it on their own.

[Fred Habacht]

For a very seldom time....I agree with your opinion. I would also add that the MODS should try to remain neutral and voice their personal feelings with their alternate names or real ones if they can.

Fred Habacht

[gringal]

1 hour ago, Xena said:

I don’t think Gringal considers web boards social media.

Correct.  I only read and post on two local web boards.  No Facebook, twitter, etc. etc.  Waste of time, lack of privacy and the simple principle of not inclined to give away what they proceed to sell to advertisers. Email is there to stay in contact with people I actually know.  Clear enough? YMMV.

[gringal]

1 hour ago, barbara habacht said:

You certainly make enough use of "social media" so it must have some value.

Fred Habacht

Not true.  Local web boards are not "social media" in my opinion.

[Xena]

23 minutes ago, gringal said:

Not true.  Local web boards are not "social media" in my opinion.

It is true, Gringal.

”Social media are computer-mediated technologies that facilitate the creation and sharing of information, ideas, career interests and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks.”

If that is not a web board, what is?

[fordtruckman]

Yes, that is certainly the opinion you espouse.

 

https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-social-media-explaining-the-big-trend-3486616

 

 

[gringal]

4 minutes ago, Xena said:

It is true, Gringal.

”Social media are computer-mediated technologies that facilitate the creation and sharing of information, ideas, career interests and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks.”

If that is not a web board, what is?

Technically, that's correct.  IMO, you're nitpicking. We both know the difference between Chapala.com and Facebook.  It's in "the spirit of the thing".  People on here aren't baring their little hearts and the mods put a brake on bullying (mostly).  As far as I know, the site isn't selling our information to advertisers, or at least I hope not.

But, if it's important:  you're RIGHT.  Peace anyway.🖖

[fordtruckman]

Hahaha!

Gasp! You may have more in common with the masses than you thought.

 

 

[gringal]

7 minutes ago, fordtruckman said:

Hahaha!

Gasp! You may have more in common with the masses than you thought.

 

 

If your comment suggests that I don't want something because "the masses" have adopted it, I really don't give a spit what they do or don't want.  Do you, or do you think for yourself?

We all share one thing in common:  If we hang around long enough on the planet, we get old. You, me and the masses.😉

 

[fordtruckman]

Mostly I just bemuse myself!

[Xena]

Gringal, There is nothing “technical” about the definition. I think the problem is it does not fit with what you decided it means to you. That does not change reality. I know the difference between Chapala.com, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. They are different from each other, but they are all social media. You are incorrect when you say you are not on any social media. But if you need to be right you can continue to say that here on this computer-mediated technology that facilitates you sharing information, ideas, and other forms of expression via this virtual community.