If the number doesn't matter, then why does the site keep score?

I do agree it is like Facebook, which is not a compliment.

John

 

Hi Scott,

That time the deductions worked properly. Thank you.

Although, this part of the experiment gave a negative result, there is still the the deduction of 2 likes for one post (see posts 26 and 27) when you clicked unlike. I believe based on that experience and the original experience that initiated this thread that there is a problem in the software.

John

 

It's not your intent that we explore a potential bug that you brought up? Well what was your intent?

Ignored? Your initial post gave a set of events that was easily and fully explained in less than 12 hours. You then provided more information barely twelve hours ago and in less than three hours people were actively trying to explore how the system behaves in light of that. What more do you expect?

1) My intent was to duplicate the problem so as to better define those situations in which it occurred. Finding conditions that reproduce a problem is often the first step in solving a problem. That is not "reverse engineering."

2) Re: ignored
The problem was reported to administration more that 36 hours before posting here. I provided a link to the thread at that time. No acknowledgement or response was received. I felt that providing a link to the open membership at the outset was both unnecessary and could be interpreted as being critical of the TS's manipulation of the like system. Post #10 describes the conditions I experienced and recorded.

Here is a compilation of that problem with an added fact from this thread:
1) "Unlikes" remove one or more likes from a members score. Why should more than one "like" be removed occasionally for each "unlike" (see posts #26 and #27)?
2) A "re-like" may be credited and alerted (see #38)
3) In the original incident, a "re-like" was not alerted and resulted in a deduction of "like" points. I believe that either timing or some as yet unidentified factor may contribute to that result.

I do agree that trying to replicate time-dependent bugs in a computer system can be difficult and not very successful from the user standpoint. In the world in which I worked, we were always concerned about reported bugs. Sometimes, we tried to replicate the error or the user did that for us before reporting the bug, but more often, we just went to the transaction files and reviewed what happened.

I had hoped that my initial contact with AAC administration would elicit a similar response. That is, the administrator would or should have access to the timing and sequence of events . That didn't happen. Apparently, jrap is the only one who can do that, so I will try to alert him to this thread and this post specifically. I hope he will want to look into the matter, and I remain anxious to cooperate in that effort.

In the interim, I see no good reason for removing a "like" months, days, or years after it is given. Of course, one might hit "like" accidentally when replying to a post. In that event, I suggest that the ability to edit a "like" be limited to a short period of a few minutes.

John

 

Hi John:
If like what you said when I clicked the unlike button, but you found out that I deleted two likes then it should be has the problem in the system software, because the like and unlike just like the toggle function, one click should be only one reaction, and when someone click the unlike button then it also should be only affecting to the one whom clicked the like button, I didn't click the unlike before this experiment,

How if it is not a moderator to click the unlike button then what will be happening, just delete one likes or two likes?

 

I see no good reason for removing a "like" months, days, or years after it is given

Makes as much sense as a member removing most of their posted content when they get pissed over something and leave the site. Doesn't it?

 

Thanks for the feedback John. I've made some modifications so that the ability to 'Unlike' is removed after 1 day. The "Unlike" link will be replaced with "Liked"

I will take a look at the Xenforo forums to see if there are bugs relating to the Like count, and if there are patches for them.

Please let me know if you experience any issues with the changes that I have made.

Thanks!

Rob

 

@jrap

Thank you. John

 

Makes as much sense as a member removing most of their posted content when they get pissed over something and leave the site. Doesn't it?

I think you fail to understand the difference between a "like" and intellectual property.

First, let's look at what a like is. What better place to do that than Facebook:


(Source: https://www.facebook.com/help/110920455663362 )

A search on the subject will yield more in depth descriptions, such as like = agree. What one doesn't find is that a "like" means you like the person rather than the content. A few members who posted in this thread seem to trade likes tit for tat, rather than based on content. That seems clearly contrary to the intent of the term. Similarly, when someone gives a like based on content, un-liking it months later seems hard to justify, as the content has not changed. I guess one exception might be a stock tip that you act upon and subsequently lose money. But then, we don't see a lot of that going on here.

In contrast, intellectual property (IP) belongs to the creator (both individuals and corporate). The owner has the option of editing it at any time and can even remove it without reason. As an example, let's say you like a movie made by Disney (e.g., Star Wars). Disney may decide to stop distribution. Would that action make you not like the movie? As applied here and at similar sites, the owner may decide to remove his IP for a variety of reasons -- perhaps the member has developed his own blog, has found a site to better distribute it, or is worried about the safety. As I recall, there was at one time a stun gun in the completed projects collection here that has been removed. Whatever the reason(s), I don't think they need to be explained to you or other members.

While on the subject of IP, some of you may find this recent decision about whether "Like" is IP interesting: http://www.managingip.com/Article/3377251/Facebook-likes-ruled-not-a-form-of-IP.html

Regards, John

 

I think you fail to understand the difference between a "like" and intellectual property.

Oh, I understand. Pretty sure or at least it used to work like this, once it is posted on this or any other site like this, it becomes the sites "intellectual property". Just for grins, how many hours did it take you to delete all your content back then?

 

Oh, I understand. Pretty sure or at least it used to work like this, once it is posted on this or any other site like this, it becomes the sites "intellectual property".

From the User Agreement (for THIS site):

You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content.

 

From the User Agreement (for THIS site):

You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content.

I looked for that but didn't find it, thank you. When John left in a big huff and deleted his content I remember the controversy over doing it, at the time.

 

I looked for that but didn't find it, thank you. When John left in a big huff and deleted his content I remember the controversy over doing it, at the time.

At least in the Blue scheme, if you look at the very bottom right of any (?) forum page you will find a link to the Terms and Rules.

 

...then why does the site keep score?

So they know who to send the prizes to at the end of each month.