Are dislikes acheiving anything for UKC?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Offwidth 13 Oct 2015

So what are the UKC views on this and can anyone explain anything at all postive for the site from its use? Most of what I see seems to be childish, like tit for tat emphasis in ding-dong arguments and anonymous mild cyberbullying of the dumbly mean (where a polite reply explaining the dumb meaness is more responsible and IMHO achieves much more). I can see some benefits of UKB style negative karma as the post has to authored and have reasons and it can take arguments off the thread (and has it adult consequencies for misuse... tit for tat responses for instance are expressly against the rules). The arguments about expressing sympathy (some feel they can't sensibly like a sad post) are better done with an empathy button or better still a post in sympathy. There are some genuinly funny uses at times but I even wonder about them, as all of my use of like and dislike buttons has been due to clumsy fingers (I've even amusingly disliked my own posts a few times due to this). There are obvious wider debates around this subject around its suggested inclusion on Facebook but from the evidence here alone I'd personally like to dump the UKC dislike.
Post edited at 10:37
151
 The Lemming 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

It would seem that I get loads of Dislikes, purely because of my pseudo, rather than the content of my replies.

Good job I have thick skin
58
 EddInaBox 13 Oct 2015
In reply to The Lemmingoceros:

> It would seem that I get loads of Dislikes, purely because of my pseudo, rather than the content of my replies.

Do you have any evidence to back up this contentious assertion?
11
 MG 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

(I've even amusingly disliked my own posts a few times due to this).

How? I can't do that.

Overall they seem reasonable to me. The balance of likes/dislikes gives an impression of the balance of opinion about a post or subject. Not to be taken too seriously.
8
 The New NickB 13 Oct 2015
In reply to MG:

> (I've even amusingly disliked my own posts a few times due to this).

> How? I can't do that.

You can't, but it was possible for a while.
7
 The Lemming 13 Oct 2015
In reply to EddInaBox:

> Do you have any evidence to back up this contentious assertion?

Hmmm,

Take a look at my post above and check out the likes/dislikes counter.
23
 ScottTalbot 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

After years of putting photos up on photography forums, I've developed a fairly thick skin. People can like/dislike my posts to their hearts content, I'm not here for the popularity contest..
11
 Sir Chasm 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

On the whole I'm in favour of them. A very small proportion of people registered actually post here and the buttons give the anonymous mob a handy outlet. And I particularly like that small red and green buttons really irritate some particularly po-faced posters.
And I've disliked your post because of the heading. But I've liked lemming's so he stops crying.
8
 d_b 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

I think they make the site more interactive. Before there was a dislike button peoples options then presented with something they disliked were to post a reply or deal with it.

Replying takes effort, and dealing with things is out of fashion these days, so the developers caterd to them by adding a "passive aggressive poke" option.

It gives people a small dose of the righteous little glow they get from writing a top quality put down without the risk of making a fool of themselves. What's not to like?

I present the dislike score on the OP as evidence.
5
 Shani 13 Oct 2015
In reply to davidbeynon:

It'd be nice if there was a ranking of who has used the dislike the most. Perhaps even a limited amount of weekly dislikes. Also, maybe only logged in users should have access to 'dislike'.
9
 d_b 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Shani:

Implementing the feature, waiting 6 months and publishing full dislike data would be amusing. Spotting stalkers would be almost as much fun as outing sock puppets.
6
 Dave Garnett 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

Does anybody get this Facebook idea that you should 'dislike' posts expressing disapproval of something in order to express your approval of the poster's opinion? Does anyone actually do this? It just seems weird to me.
6
 malky_c 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

Likes and dislikes rarely mean anything in dribs and drabs, so should be ignored. I think when there's a large number of them against a particular post (such as your opening post for example), then they indicate the general consensus quite well. Quite handy in controversial threads 100's of posts long where the OP makes claims that everyone agrees with their opening statement (or vice versa) - it is then quite easy to see whether they are correct.

I can think of threads in the past where the OP has made a statement about their dislike of windfarms, then decided that everyone is against him, when in fact it is only perhaps 5% of the posters. Repeat indefinitely with threads about bolts, toproping, out-of-condition winter climbing on summer lines, motorbikes on Stanage Causeway etc etc.

I mostly prefer to respond properly or not bother at all, but anybody who starts a thread about their dislike of the dislike button tends to get a dislike from me on principle
7
 d_b 13 Oct 2015
In reply to malky_c:

With respect, you are doing it wrong. If you are capable of making the effort to reply then the dislike button is not for you.
8
 Trangia 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

I think we could save loads of space and people having to give any thought to their response to a posting they either like or dislike. All any moron has to do now is click to the appropriate button and remain doubly anonymous .

Easy

But we could also do with "sit on the fence" button......
7
 Shani 13 Oct 2015
In reply to malky_c:

windfarms - like
bolts - dislike
toproping - like
out-of-condition winter climbing on summer lines - dislike
motorbikes on Stanage Causeway - like
11
 malky_c 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Shani:

Perhaps you could write a programme to auto-like or dislike any post containing those topics as per your preferences...
4
 malky_c 13 Oct 2015
In reply to davidbeynon:

Maybe not. I liked, then disliked one of your earlier posts, then decided to remove my dislike completely but not re-like it.
4
 d_b 13 Oct 2015
In reply to malky_c:

I will take that as a vote for a "Confused" button then.
4
 Trangia 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Shani:

Top ropers - dislike
University students - they've now moved firmly into dislike
TPS - dislike
Treadmills - like
Cyclists - dislike
VW Owners - like (sympathy vote)
VW - dislike
Senior Social Workers - dislike
Worst winter on record - like
The Royals - dislike
ISIS - dislike
Jeremy Corbyn - who?
5
 Shani 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Trangia:
So now we need a 'who' button along with "Like" "Dislike" "On_The_Fence" "Confused". I like it.

Perhaps we should have a Godwin flag that shows up in the forum for very long threads that have invoked Godwin's law? It'd save a lot of reading.
Post edited at 16:03
5
 d_b 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Shani:

> Perhaps we should have a Godwin flag that shows up in the forum for very long threads that have invoked Godwin's law? It'd save a lot of reading.

I think you got a dislike because that's the sort of thing a Nazi would suggest.

'

4
 MikeSP 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

Just ignore them, like the bolts on retro-bolted routed.
4
 Shani 13 Oct 2015
In reply to davidbeynon:

> I think you got a dislike because that's the sort of thing a Nazi would suggest.

> '

I agree. Have a dislike!
7
 d_b 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Shani:

I think you were looking for the Godwin button.
4
 Rob Exile Ward 13 Oct 2015
In reply to davidbeynon: This is beginning to morph into a version of Mornington Crescent.

4
 Timmd 13 Oct 2015
In reply to The Lemming:

> Hmmm,

> Take a look at my post above and check out the likes/dislikes counter.

It could be that people dislike that you're assuming it's not due to the contents of your posts?

I don't have an opinion either way on whether that's true.
5
 Timmd 13 Oct 2015
In reply to davidbeynon:
> Replying takes effort, and dealing with things is out of fashion these days, so the developers caterd to them by adding a "passive aggressive poke" option.

Well put, the dislikes can seem rather passive aggressive.
Post edited at 19:49
8
 toad 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

How about if you hover over the like/ dislike counter, you could see the id of the posters (dis)liking? Might kill off some of it...
5
 Roadrunner5 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Does anybody get this Facebook idea that you should 'dislike' posts expressing disapproval of something in order to express your approval of the poster's opinion? Does anyone actually do this? It just seems weird to me.

I think some do that. Most don't.

Overall they should get rid of it tbh. It makes it lazy to to click either or rather than explain the reasoning.

5
 Jon Stewart 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

Both buttons are shite. If you can't express yourself in words, then maybe an internet forum isn't for you.
16
 Timmd 13 Oct 2015
In reply to The Lemming:
I actually preferred it when there weren't likes and dislikes, and people had less of an idea of how annoying they could sometimes be to other people, as it ment they were more likely to stick around and sometimes came up with something insightful or funny.

Whichever is true, re my other post in reply to you, I wouldn't take any notice of the dislikes.

Post edited at 20:34
9
 Timmd 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Timmd:
> Well put, the dislikes can seem rather passive aggressive.

It's interesting how my post agreeing about them sometimes seeming rather passive aggressive has had 3 dislikes from people who'll not actually post in reply to disagree.

That's passive aggressive to a 'T'.

If not, why not? Post and state your cases.
Post edited at 20:32
7
 The Lemming 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Timmd:

> It could be that people dislike that you're assuming it's not due to the contents of your posts?

Apart from the OP, I have the second highest amount of dislikes by any margin of other contributors.

The OP, by the mere fact of complaining about the Dislike button, has painted a big Red Bullseye to the whole thread and set down a gauntlet for some people to hit the dislike button just for the fun of it.

As for me?

My initial post which has raked 23 dislikes, so far, isn't all that inflammatory. So why do I have so many followers compared to other contributors who are willing to go the extra mile and click a button that says that they dislike me?

Think I shall go in the corner and hide from those nasty cyber bullies for intimidating me as the gang together is some sort of virtual solidarity in singling me out.

As I said, thick skin.
12
In reply to The Lemming:

sorry, i couldnt help it... my finger just twitched over that button and there it was...



i didnt really dislike your post...

i think they can be useful on some threads- the uni climbing club one currently running is a case in point.

i realise this is a complete about turn from my previous position on the subject, but consistency is highly overrated...

3
 malky_c 13 Oct 2015
In reply to The Lemming:

I don't think I've disliked any of your posts before but you were asking for it really . A bit like all those comments on the BBC have your say pages that end with 'I bet this comment won't be published'.
1
 pec 13 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

Personally I never look at how many likes or dislikes a post gets, either my own or anybody elses, nor have I ever liked or disliked anybody else's post. If I care enough I'll write something, buttons are just meaningless crap for people who can't be bothered to write some words.
On the basis that many people may not use them and their use may be more skewed to certain demographics, I don't really see how they can be used to give a fair impression of what the consensus is anyway.
5
 d_b 13 Oct 2015
In reply to pec:

Just mentally replace the numbers under your post with ape like hooting noises and you are on the right track.
3
 d_b 13 Oct 2015
In reply to davidbeynon:

ooook!
2
In reply to Offwidth:

Hi, an intresting and well thought out OP, the click hate shown in response is about par for the course. I guess we've reached the same point of empire as Rome in the pre fall times, it reminds me of the quote from Gladiator, something along the lines of, the mob is Rome, he (or she, in modern context) who controls the mob controls Rome...

Been something of a new age space faced hippy, I'd like to think after the next fall of empire we don't have a second dark age, but we reach the golden age where we become a true space faring civilization, I know I'm way off topic again, soon someone will be saying , he's not john simpson, he's a hologram....

Gotto love the haters
3
OP Offwidth 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

Oh well. I guess I didn't expect much and sure got it in spades.

I'm a fully aware we can (and many do) just ignore likes and dislikes but it would be nice to see other vaguely intelligent opinions ( more than a handful) on why such things are felt to be useful or not.
3
 radddogg 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

Facebook are introducing exactly that
1
Andy Gamisou 14 Oct 2015
In reply to The Lemming:

> As I said, thick skin.

Not only skin.......

2
 The Lemming 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Willi Crater:

> As I said, thick skin.

> Not only skin.......


Was there really, any need for that?
4
 Goucho 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:
I think in the case of the number of dislikes on your first post, it's simply UKC demonstrating its sense of humour - as a seasoned member of this forum, I'm sure you must have seen it coming?
Post edited at 19:15
2
OP Offwidth 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Goucho:

Sure.. yet often you get a bit more fun and information in the replies. Its also funny enough for my OP but not very funny in the case of Lemming.
3
Wiley Coyote2 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

it would be nice to see other vaguely intelligent opinions

Well you've come to the wrong place for that!

Likes and dislikes (apart from your OP, which just begged mischevious dislikes - as I'm sure you well knew when you wrote it) are merely quick ways of agreeing or disagreeing with a post. Quicker than typing "B*llocks" for posts people disagree with and providing a brief smattering of applause for those they agree with.

It does also give a rough and ready snapshot of the way general opinion is going, a quite handy thing when someone is doing a lot of shouting but not making much sense.

1
KevinD 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Goucho:

Yup whilst I broadly agree with the OP its hard to resist the temptation to hit dislike.
2
OP Offwidth 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Lets look at that shall we... firstly why does Lemming deserve so many dislikes... just nasty bullying in most of those cases of button presses if you ask me (and has very much cemented my view that it needs to go even if I regret he had so face such nonsense due to replying sympathetically to my 'knowing' OP) ; secondly I never struggled before the buttons arrived to realise if people agreed or disagreed.

As I've got older we have moved from the likes of brutish jeering and egg throwing to include cyber bullying in the arsenal of the lazy extremist vocal minorities, so call me old fashioned if I always preferred adult debate and wit.
5
Wiley Coyote2 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

> Lets look at that shall we... firstly why does Lemming deserve so many dislikes...

I've no idea. I can't say I take a blind bit of notice of the id of the poster (a few total nutters excepted - you know who you are - whose contributions I tend to ignore.

>just nasty bullying in most of those cases of button presses

Oh give me a break! Someone hitting the dislike button is not bullying, though I do appreciate that in these time rolling your eyes at someone's opinion you disagree with is on a par with ripping their heart out. If getting a dislike makes you feel bullied, it may be time to give up internet forums.

> As I've got older we have moved from the likes of brutish jeering and egg throwing to include cyber bullying in the arsenal of the lazy extremist vocal minorities, so call me old fashioned if I always preferred adult debate and wit.

You're old fashioned. (Boom, Boom) Face facts, much of the cr*p on here is not worth either debate or wit. A quick dislike to let people know you think they are talking rubbish is about as far as it goes.

4
OP Offwidth 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
1 or 2 dislikes maybe but 42 (so far) for what he said is bullying in my view.

Have you ever considered that a soft attitude to crap behaviour breeds more crap? If you compare UKC with the other channel, karma seems to work so much better.... juvenile fun stuff is still OK and debate on the edges of moderator terrain is arguably tolerated a bit more, but pure crap gets short shrift.
Post edited at 21:35
4
In reply to Offwidth:

who gets to decide what is juvenile fun stuff, and what is pure crap?

btw, 100 dislikes- surely a record- congratulations!

gregor
3
 Sir Chasm 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

> 1 or 2 dislikes maybe but 42 (so far) for what he said is bullying in my view.

> Have you ever considered that a soft attitude to crap behaviour breeds more crap? If you compare UKC with the other channel, karma seems to work so much better.... juvenile fun stuff is still OK and debate on the edges of moderator terrain is arguably tolerated a bit more, but pure crap gets short shrift.

Do you think pressing the dislike button is crap behaviour? Is pressing the like button good behaviour? Is it bullying if one person does it? Or does it take 42?
3
OP Offwidth 14 Oct 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

The smell?
4
OP Offwidth 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:
It can be crap behavior but you really need to ask all those who pressed why they did it. 42 for such a post is bloody odd... 100ish for me is maybe disappointingly low.

Its no slight on the UKC site as a whole as there are many thousands of us. Ive faced anything from trots to evil minded managers in my time dealing with workplace bullies who claimed the 'mob' was behind them (and we proved them wrong). Changes that cut anonymous negativity are always going to be good in my view and like Dave Garnett above I never got this disliking bad things to show a 'ike'... contrived idiocy given a few words would be clear as mud and much nicer.
Post edited at 21:56
4
Wiley Coyote2 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:
> 1 or 2 dislikes maybe but 42 (so far) for what he said is bullying in my view.

Rubbish. Lemming said he got a lot of dislikes and, bless my soul, everyone (well 43 people) click 'dislike' for a laugh. The content of the post is so innocuous it does not, of itself, merit either a like or dislike. But rather like your OP, it begged a reflex action, don't you think, not as bullying but as 'I get a lot of dislikes' 'Well have another, mate'.

Mrs Num Num must sob herself to sleep every night is that's bullying
Post edited at 21:57
5
 d_b 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I think like and dislike are both pretty bad ideas myself. Turning every conversation into a popularity contest is a great way to breed conformity.

Finding out who agrees with what will be really useful when the government goes full totalitarian and decides to copy Chinas citizen score scheme as well. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28314-inside-chinas-plan-to-give-eve...

Get yer tinfoil hats here boys and girls! I called it!
Post edited at 21:59
3
OP Offwidth 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Just kids laughing in a playground eh? .....anyway I can't tell motives as they are anonymous and 42 seems very high for such humour.
5
 d_b 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

If the answer is 42 then at least we now know what the question was. Here come the Vogons.
3
 Goucho 14 Oct 2015
In reply to davidbeynon:

> I think like and dislike are both pretty bad ideas myself. Turning every conversation into a popularity contest is a great way to breed conformity.

I got 33 likes and no dislikes on another thread for admiting to punching someone's teeth out in the Clachaig and getting barred.

I suppose it all depends on what mood the mob is in at any given time


3
 Goucho 14 Oct 2015
In reply to davidbeynon:

> If the answer is 42 then at least we now know what the question was. Here come the Vogons.

...and their sodding poetry!
2
Wiley Coyote2 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

> Just kids laughing in a playground eh? .....anyway I can't tell motives as they are anonymous and 42 seems very high for such humour.

But less than half yours, most, if not all, of which, were presumably lighthearted. I think you're getting your knickers in a knot over something most people don't really care about. Bask in the glory of your genuine ton of dislikes. It is a record that could stand forever.
3
In reply to Wiley Coyote:

i dunno

andy morley and fran hammond are giving offwidth a good run for his money on the university climbing club thread...!
4
 Sir Chasm 14 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

I was asking you, rather than the button pushers, because you claimed it was bullying. I don't know who pressed the button, but I know who claims it's bullying.

I don't understand disliking bad things to show a like either, I dont see how you could tell that was what was happening - but then I don't even know it's a thing.
3
 d_b 14 Oct 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Part of me suspects that Fran Hammond was just a random drive by troll. If so then it was a work of genius.

The alternative explanation is a bit more depressing.

[edit] I just looked. Seems that it wasn't.
Post edited at 22:46
2
In reply to davidbeynon:
well he's popped up again in response to my posting on the other thread tonight. i'm pretty sure he's real. with all that that implies...

edit- just seen your edit..!
Post edited at 22:48
3
OP Offwidth 14 Oct 2015
In reply to davidbeynon:

Thought of that and kept quiet sure enough number 43 came along.
2
 Wicamoi 15 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

Are dislikes achieving anything for UKC? No, they are ungood.
2
 Morgan Woods 15 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

Just think of them as virtual boo's :p
2
OP Offwidth 15 Oct 2015
In reply to Morgan Woods:

So why was risk of booing so worrying Facebook and which of the latest Facebook Emojis corresponds to "he's behind you!!"?
2
OP Offwidth 15 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

A link, in case it escaped anyone that negativity is an online corporate problem:

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/facebook-reactions-design/
3
 Sir Chasm 15 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

Isn't your dislike of the dislike button rather negative? Or is it positive to dislike the dislike button because you think it's negative?
1
 Andy Morley 16 Oct 2015
In reply to davidbeynon:

> Part of me suspects that Fran Hammond was just a random drive by troll. If so then it was a work of genius. > The alternative explanation is a bit more depressing. > [edit] I just looked. Seems that it wasn't.

Thanks also for the mensh on my own part guys, but seriously you're focussing on a tiny pimple here whereas the elephant in the room is the anonymity that people hide behind in UKC, except when they're in little groups who obviously know each other without sharing the benefit with everyone else. Some of you fit this bill maybe?

Fran Hammond is more of a man than any of you will ever be until you 'come out' because you can, in a couple of clicks, see his facebook page, how he's mates with Calum Wadsworth and they take climbing picture of each other etc. etc. Considered through that lens, all the high-falutin moral statements made by some of you here are just dross.
4
OP Offwidth 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:
The dislike button problem IMHO is nothing like as bad as the abuse of anonymity and of course overlaps with it. Small groups know each other on UKC and it's clear they hold back in the tone of critique amongst friends. Its not just anonymity though... some named/known posters at times express levels of anger I suspect they would never do in real life...we all need to ask ourselves would we say this face to face to a stranger in a pub before we post?. The other channel has less bile on view and needs less moderation I think partly as a lot more people there know each other (as well as karma having a better effect than likes and dislikes). I'd rather the UKC site went back to more of a community feel (as it once was and it is still on the other side) and dislikes don't help in my view.
Post edited at 10:41
5
 Wft 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

I don't know the figures but I would assume that UKB has fewer active forum users than UKC. The community feel can't be achieved en masse.

However, I agree with the sentiment of your OP and argued for it not to be used on ukb when the topic was raised.
1
OP Offwidth 16 Oct 2015
In reply to GuyVG:
Sure its harder for UKC... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and improve things. Lots of people, who posted good stuff here once, left the site because of the levels of nastiness they perceived and although the moderators work very hard to cut abuse, the site design could be tweaked to help... small things such as no dislikes and clearer advice in what constitutes forum abuse... taking care to not kill the fun (like advising a friendly wink to indicate something is intended as gentle humour).
Post edited at 11:09
4
 johnjohn 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

I'm from Yorkshire and so I don't actually like anything. You want to take away the only button I can push? I call discrimination...
1
OP Offwidth 16 Oct 2015
In reply to johnjohn:

Yorkshiremen having trouble expressing themselves and resorting to single button presses? Really??
4
 Andy Morley 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

> The dislike button problem IMHO is nothing like as bad as the abuse of anonymity and of course overlaps with it.

The dislike button is the same thing. It's the opportunity to take a trivial little swipe at someone without even risking your anonymous alias/ pseudonym or whatever you call it. In its way the 'like' button is even worse as it trivialises things - it conjures up the phenomenon of likehunters who then compete with each other to say glib inane things, post pictures of cute cats or claim they climbed an E5 stark bollock naked (not sure what kind of like/ dislike response that one will get if ever those pics get posted on UKC).

> Small groups know each other on UKC and it's clear they hold back in the tone of critique amongst friends. Its not just anonymity though... some named/known posters at times express levels of anger I suspect they would never do in real life...we all need to ask ourselves would we say this face to face to a stranger in a pub before we post?.

You don't drive a car or motorbike or ride a pushbike even then?

> The other channel has less bile on view and needs less moderation I think partly as a lot more people there know each other (as well as karma having a better effect than likes and dislikes). I'd rather the UKC site went back to more of a community feel (as it once was and it is still on the other side) and dislikes don't help in my view.

As a 'drive-by' person myself, though punter rather than troll, I don't even know what 'the other channel' is. Care to enlighten me?

But you haven't addressed my point. UKC is just like what the norm was 10 or more years ago, pre MySpace and then Facebook. These petty agressions you describe were just par for the course in those kinds of forum and anonymity was a large part of that. However, I'm beginning to learn that UKC is very different in one specific area, which combined with that anonymity makes matters worse in an entirely predictable and understandable way. But anyway, why are you personally 'in the closet'..?
5
 Sir Chasm 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

What, in your opinion, was "the norm was 10 or more years ago, pre MySpace and then Facebook"?
1
OP Offwidth 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:
You seem to me verbose, self obsessed and aggressive in a way that fails my polite pub test and would benefit from calming down. There is in some pubs a "you spilt my drink/looked at my girlfriend/support a team I hate" attitude, but I avoid those. The internet red mist to me is pretty much the same as the red mist of car drivers in their protective shell. Pretty much everyone has a bout from time to time.

I've very identifiable as a BMC guidebook volunteer and through the website linked from my profile... Offwidth is a veil to keep away problems from petty troublemakers but my commonly known identity still makes me accountable for my posts (and started partly because my name was used by others). I've been on UKC since almost the beginning and it wasn't always like the problematic websites you describe and the other channel still isn't like that now (the other channel btw is a bit like that Shakespeare play). I have form for seeking improvement in difficult areas where others shout and scream, so some will have to forgive me for that. I believe the behaviour in the red mist shouldn't be used to define us but we should try and avoid getting that way in the frst place.
Post edited at 12:23
4
 johnjohn 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

I can usually express my negativity perfectly well. A blank scowl usually is all that's needed, though I can shift through the gears to full expressive contemporary dance mode as occasionally required.

The dislike button is valued, but does sit at the the lower end of this range. How about having a "really really cross" button, kind of like a car horn as they seem to be used?
1
 Timmd 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Isn't your dislike of the dislike button rather negative? Or is it positive to dislike the dislike button because you think it's negative?

The second one.
1
OP Offwidth 16 Oct 2015
In reply to johnjohn:

I guess its similar to asking you to consider Lancashire may not be that bad afterall... a bit of a lost cause.
2
OP Offwidth 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Timmd:

More like its a tiresome and unhelpful dumbing down (unless your from yorkshire).
2
 Timmd 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:
Some of the happiest people I've met have been from Yorkshire.

Some of my best friends etc...
Post edited at 12:51
1
 johnjohn 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

...the comparison with UKB is interesting. Their 'karma' is non-anonymous, with negative karma very rarely being used (usually against 'outsiders'). Does this make discussion more bland? Dunno. It might.

(p.s. I liked your 'Lancashire' comment just as an exercise in pure will to see if I could push the button. I feel dirty. Might do it again....)

1
 Andy Morley 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> What, in your opinion, was "the norm was 10 or more years ago, pre MySpace and then Facebook"?

Bulletin boards, by and large. Before then it was newsgroups ('usenet' as it was often called). In parallel with those, there were email 'exploders' which were more primitive but quite effective and were like a controlled version of the 'reply-all' option in a group email.

The first and the third of those technologies converged through things like 'Onelist' and 'eGroups' and Yahoo Groups which still exists together with Google Groups. But extricating ourselves from the technological morass and thinking more about the human dynamics, it was like a group of people being locked in a room together with blindfolds on, to a greater or lesser extent, with frequent periodic incursions and excursions - the 'drive by' aspect.
1
OP Offwidth 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Timmd:

Ditto... Moff is also from Yorkshire (albeit born in Denton so they had to train her). My in-laws still live in Yorkshire (but are also trained refugees) and I stuggle at times to understand if its getting in my blood or that's just bits of gritstone from jamming.
2
 Sir Chasm 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

So there isn't, and never has been, a norm. Because we're still pretty close to the start of the internet and it's continually developing/changing.
1
 d_b 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

I am both shocked and horrified to discover that all these years I have been unwittingly hiding behind a pseudonym.

The sense of betrayal I am feeling now that I have learned that for my entire life people have lied to me about my own name is only matched by my newly forged determination to discover the truth!

I'm guessing it is probably Gertrude.
2
OP Offwidth 16 Oct 2015
In reply to johnjohn:

Oh dear, you mentioned that name...and Lancashire... I think bland is a long way off the mark as a description for the other channel, unchallenging of the common site viewpoint is sometimes a fair critisism (a few folk do stir things up ...nearly all banned from here once)
2
 mwatson 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

I Used to think it was a good idea as it lets people know when they post something that is stupid or over the line. for example if you posted something homophobic or prejudiced you would quickly see that your views were not accepted and might re-examine them.

However I see now that people are far more likely to shift their views on to hated of the dislike button and wave hands around talking about anonymity and how bad that is rather than risk admitting they could have been wrong.

While were here. Your complaining about not being able to identify people who disagree with you while coming off as confrontational and violent in other posts is slightly disturbing.

I still think it's a good idea. Arguments on the internet grow too long and confusing if everyone who reads posts their point of view. liking and disliking allow people to show which arguments they support without having to reiterate them.
1
OP Offwidth 16 Oct 2015
In reply to mwatson:

In what sense does it really convey that? For every positive example used to fight predudice (that you argue for) I'm sure we could find an opposite one where dislikes support something not so good or for that matter a lateral one (eg the humour on my 100+ score). It can also be done better by someone writing and calling out predudice (and, if you insist, counting the likes on that).

Facebook I guess is worried as much about the effect on advertising as being seen to be encouraging nastiness.
1
 mwatson 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

I think your probably right about the lateral reasons (especially in this thread). But could you give an example of something not so good they could support? I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I guess likes could be seen the same way. But there are some points of view that I actively dislike rather than just a neutral response, if I saw a post like that with 10 dislikes already I would probably just add my own, no need to side track the conversation to tend to someone's unpopular views. I can see their use but weather these situations actually happens is a mystery to me.
1
 Timmd 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:
> Ditto... Moff is also from Yorkshire (albeit born in Denton so they had to train her). My in-laws still live in Yorkshire (but are also trained refugees) and I stuggle at times to understand if its getting in my blood or that's just bits of gritstone from jamming.

I know what you mean. I'm surprised at how plainly I can find myself speaking sometimes after living in Sheffield since I was a toddler. It only really started to happen as I became an adult and was more exposed to the wider city and less around my family, being from a polite middle class type background.

It's not always a bad thing if somebody is taking the mickey, but it needs keeping an eye on.
Post edited at 13:49
2
 Niall 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Trangia:


> But we could also do with "sit on the fence" button......

This. Alan, kindly implement a 'Meh' button at your earliest convenience
2
OP Offwidth 16 Oct 2015
In reply to mwatson:

I encourage the debate as its not simple. Overt predudice as your good example is against site rules and someone will normally report abuse and all the dislikes go up in smoke. Not so good examples relate to most political or religious debate.... people do dislike things not because of the argument but because they don't want to even listen. There are also tons of examples of pure bullying on the web and UKC is not imune.
2
 Timmd 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:
> Not so good examples relate to most political or religious debate.... people do dislike things not because of the argument but because they don't want to even listen.

Exactly, I think you probably have you get to a point where you decide it's not that important though, and remember life went on nicely enough before UKClimbing, but I strongly agree.
Post edited at 13:52
1
 Hat Dude 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Timmd:

> Some of the happiest people I've met have been from Yorkshire.

You need to get out more

1
 Andy Morley 16 Oct 2015
In reply to davidbeynon:

> I am both shocked and horrified to discover that all these years I have been unwittingly hiding behind a pseudonym.

And there I was thinking that David Beynon was your real name and that you were an exception to this tendency!
2
 d_b 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

So was I.
1
 Andy Morley 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> So there isn't, and never has been, a norm. Because we're still pretty close to the start of the internet and it's continually developing/changing.

To me, that's a complete logical non-sequitur. Being and the beginning, middle or end of a phenomenon of any kind doesn't stop there being norms during those periods. Rate of change will affect things to an extent but if you consider the world of fashion in clothes, regardless of whether fashions come and go very quickly or whether things stay similar for many years, while a fashion is around, it is a norm of a kind.

Also, different norms exist in different communitites and generations, but they can be inter-related. Out-doorsy people are a prime example as they are often many years behind the times when it comes to their internet use. Though that again is not a universal trend, it's enough of a pattern to be recognisable over an extended period of time.
1
 Timmd 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Hat Dude:

> You need to get out more

Ha ha.
1
 Sir Chasm 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

> To me, that's a complete logical non-sequitur. Being and the beginning, middle or end of a phenomenon of any kind doesn't stop there being norms during those periods. Rate of change will affect things to an extent but if you consider the world of fashion in clothes, regardless of whether fashions come and go very quickly or whether things stay similar for many years, while a fashion is around, it is a norm of a kind.

But your idea of what the "fashion" was on the Internet doesn't equate to mine. And neither of us even scratched the surface of what was available 10 years ago.

> Also, different norms exist in different communitites and generations, but they can be inter-related. Out-doorsy people are a prime example as they are often many years behind the times when it comes to their internet use. Though that again is not a universal trend, it's enough of a pattern to be recognisable over an extended period of time.

Here you are just plain wrong, so many people on here work in IT, and many who don't spend their working day behind a monitor.
1
 Andy Morley 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> But your idea of what the "fashion" was on the Internet doesn't equate to mine. And neither of us even scratched the surface of what was available 10 years ago.

What makes you say that?

> Here you are just plain wrong, so many people on here work in IT, and many who don't spend their working day behind a monitor.

Good point actually, but then not everyone who works in IT is necessarily going to be a big Facebook user. IT is so all-pervading these days that it covers a huge range of people compared to 50 years ago. Meanwhile, things are definitely changing and people under say 25 are so used to Facebook, smartphones and all that that they'll be streets ahead, even if they don't work in IT. But at a general level, my own experience of outdoorsy cultures is that they're behind the times internet-wise.

2
OP Offwidth 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

Odd ...most people I know under 25 don't seem as interested in Facebook as they would have been a few years back.
1
 Sir Chasm 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

> What makes you say that?

You claimed "ukc is just like what the norm was 10 or more years ago". I'm pointing out that you don't know what the norm (of the whole internet!) was 10 years ago.

> Good point actually, but then not everyone who works in IT is necessarily going to be a big Facebook user. IT is so all-pervading these days that it covers a huge range of people compared to 50 years ago. Meanwhile, things are definitely changing and people under say 25 are so used to Facebook, smartphones and all that that they'll be streets ahead, even if they don't work in IT. But at a general level, my own experience of outdoorsy cultures is that they're behind the times internet-wise.

The plural of anecdote isn't data. Your claim that outdoorsy people are behind the times of the internet is an unsupported claim.
1
 mwatson 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

(Not wanting to listen..) I'm not so sure that's true of most people, but it does happen in some cases. But in that case what harm does it do? you didn't want to listen to an argument, you 'dislike' it without reading if it's a controversial argument others will like it and that will reflect how it is received as a whole. At worst dislikes seem neutral here

While bullying is a problem i don't think the dislikes cut anywhere near as hard as written replies, threats, finding personal info and private messages. Maybe harsher replies are more likely if the poster has seen that the other people are likely to be on their side.

I was going to suggest that they would be better is replies were hidden if they had too many dislikes with very few or no likes. Maybe this would stop side tracking and branching so the conversations could stay on topic. But unless people could restrain themselves (and who can when work is so dull) there would probably be loads of replies before it got hidden anyway.
OP Offwidth 16 Oct 2015
In reply to mwatson:

You asked for examples, I provided some.. Goucho gave another above... loads of likes for a violent tale that I don't 'dislike' but it shows how easily we fall into unwise aggression when aggravated by nasty idiots, such punches can kill or do serious damage and I'm sure no one sensible would want that, prick though the unrepentant petty thief certainly was.

It seems to me we have no clear idea what the dislikes to any post means and even if we guess (I think a good few of those Lemming dislikes were probably with bullying intent and I think we see a lot of low level tit for tat) we may be wrong so all we have in the end is that warm glow you get when you hit the button. Is the extra traffic from allowing that warm glow with its negative connotations worth it?
 Andy Morley 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

> Odd ...most people I know under 25 don't seem as interested in Facebook as they would have been a few years back.

I think you may be right but if so, why would it be 'odd'..?

Facebook is not new and interesting anymore, it's verging on becoming 'old school', so everyone that age is well-used to it, and to communicating that way. So yeah, you're right but when those guys are established rock climbers and you're starting to get elbowed aside by them, they'll probably be communicating in totally different ways. That would be my guess anyway.
2
 FactorXXX 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

Facebook is not new and interesting anymore

Strange, in a previous post you were using Facebook as an example of modern IT usage, now you seem to be using at as an example of the opposite...
 Andy Morley 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> The plural of anecdote isn't data. Your claim that outdoorsy people are behind the times of the internet is an unsupported claim.

Something tells me you wouldn't like the answer that I'd be inclined to give to this one, because it involves elaborate and (some would consider) boring/ pretentious labels like 'epistemology'. So instead, I'd invite you to think a little more deeply about your first statement. It's a phrase that I've heard so often before on the internet that I think that maybe it's reached the stage where people trot it out unthinkingly, just because it sounds good - for the first few times that you hear it at any rate. What does it actually MEAN though and why is that relevant here?

As for 'unsupported claim' - it's my personal experience, so it's supported by that. But perhaps your own personal experience does not at all overlap with mine on this particular area - that's as interesting in its way as if it did.


3
 Andy Morley 16 Oct 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Facebook is not new and interesting anymore
> Strange, in a previous post you were using Facebook as an example of modern IT usage, now you seem to be using at as an example of the opposite...

Are supermarkets new and interesting?
Does that mean that people don't use them regularly or that they're well used to how they work?

I'm really sorry (not really) - just had a call; about to go climbing Will not be around to answer for quite some while!

1
 malky_c 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

> It seems to me we have no clear idea what the dislikes to any post means and even if we guess (I think a good few of those Lemming dislikes were probably with bullying intent and I think we see a lot of low level tit for tat) we may be wrong so all we have in the end is that warm glow you get when you hit the button. Is the extra traffic from allowing that warm glow with its negative connotations worth it?

I'm sure Lemming got many of his dislikes for the same reason that your first post did - that's certainly why I gave him one! The rest may have been from people who have had a quick look at his other posts and discovered that they mostly aren't peppered with dislikes, and he protests a little too much.
 mwatson 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:
Given that it doesn't really seem like we have an idea of what likes mean either. It's just a reaction from the crowd I guess. We both recognise that there are some good situations. And i'll agree that the tit for tat is a waste of time. But that's all it is it's not hurting anyone (plus it might not even be people posting just anonymous supporters).

I just don't think it can be used in a bullying way that effectively. You can only do it once how could one dislike be seen as bullying? and if you have aggravated 50 people maybe you should know about it, and that's where it ends with the dislike button, no messages, no threats, no getting carried away with ever more personal replies, just a number.

The more this goes on the more I think I don't actually have an opinion on it. It seems like they could use it to hide posts or it could stop side tracking if the culture changed (but it hasn't). So in it's current incarnation it does seam pretty pointless. Maybe I agree
Post edited at 17:20
 flopsicle 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

I use dislike for posts that clump human beings together, whether it be kids, city folk, students etc. I use dislike to avoid bumping the thread, to see it sink, disliked to the bottom of the deep blue page.

Some threads, however, reach a point of constant bumpage, but mostly at this stage anything I would say has been said - if not and it has floats, then I will post my thoughts too.
 flopsicle 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

> Fran Hammond is more of a man than any of you will ever be until you 'come out' because you can, in a couple of clicks, see his facebook page, how he's mates with Calum Wadsworth and they take climbing picture of each other etc. etc. Considered through that lens, all the high-falutin moral statements made by some of you here are just dross.

If Fran is a man I have to agree with your first statement in regards to myself, loving the assumption though. But, onto usernames. There's a great deal more to identity than a name. I am recognisable in real life enough to have other members introduce themselves with confidence - even to laugh at my surprise. Equally, (as it happens) those here that have done just that have user names as obscure as my own.

It isn't just my own name I won't use, it's also the names of others and even venues (do use venues now as that was a bit daft!). This isn't about hiding, it's about the search function online - I don't consider it wise to make it possible to discover all sorts from my tastes in ale, parent's issues and terrible films I've viewed. None of these things are hidden and neither am I.



 FactorXXX 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

Whether or not Facebook/Supermarkets are new and interesting is besides the point.
The fact is, you used Facebook as an example of modern IT when it suited you. However, as soon as it was pointed out that Facebook usage is waning in the under 25's, you stated that it was a good example of old fashioned IT.
Happy climbing...

1
In reply to flopsicle:
> I am recognisable in real life enough to have other members introduce themselves with confidence - even to laugh at my surprise. Equally, (as it happens) those here that have done just that have user names as obscure as my own.

> It isn't just my own name I won't use, it's also the names of others and even venues (do use venues now as that was a bit daft!). This isn't about hiding, it's about the search function online - I don't consider it wise to make it possible to discover all sorts from my tastes in ale, parent's issues and terrible films I've viewed. None of these things are hidden and neither am I.

quite. and likewise, i've been chatting to someone at the top of broad crag, and twigged who they were off of here at the same moment they said, "are you no more scotch eggs...".

i even sign my posts with my real first name, but likewise would prefer not to have everything i share on here linked back to me forever...


gregor
Post edited at 20:09
1
 Sir Chasm 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley: I've had a quick think and decided that it's up to you to explain your claims such as "Out-doorsy people are a prime example as they are often many years behind the times when it comes to their internet use." - other than being a generalisation of your acquaintances. You can use whatever elaborate, boring or pretentious labels you like, apparently you struggle not to.
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I get the feeling he'd be a rotten chess player: early in the game, he'd make a killer move - the kind of move only somebody as clever as him could make; the kind of move that would stun you into submission and from which there'd be no recovery.

So you'd take his queen.

At which point he'd go on about the pointlessness of your endeavours and how it's hardly worth playing against you, as it's wasting his time. Then he'd spring his killer move - the kind of move that only somebody as clever as him could make.

At this point you'd have one of his bishops.

Oh, but Andy Morley's got you on the ropes now, epistemologically-speaking. As he destroys your arguments, you grab the other bishop, both castles and a horsey piece. And then, when he's being at his most cleverest, you pop him in checkmate.

So he pretends he's got better stuff to do and leaves. And he won. Because you clearly don't understand the first thing about playing the game. Not like Andy.


(As it goes, I'm a rotten chess player. But as a cow vet, I can spot b*llsh*t when I see it - and he's full of it)
1
 Sir Chasm 16 Oct 2015
In reply to Martin not maisie:

I'm not sure it's that involved, perhaps it's more akin to playing chess with a pigeon.
 Andy Morley 16 Oct 2015
In reply to flopsicle:

> But, onto usernames. There's a great deal more to identity than a name. I am recognisable in real life enough to have other members introduce themselves with confidence - even to laugh at my surprise. Equally, (as it happens) those here that have done just that have user names as obscure as my own. > It isn't just my own name I won't use, it's also the names of others and even venues (do use venues now as that was a bit daft!). This isn't about hiding, it's about the search function online - I don't consider it wise to make it possible to discover all sorts from my tastes in ale, parent's issues and terrible films I've viewed. None of these things are hidden and neither am I.

These things aren't black and white - it's possible to construct a viable online identity the way you describe. But a lot also depends on the culture of the forum. If it's full of anonymous clones and your name looks like a soubriquet, then it's easy for the casual passer-by not to notice your personal version of online uniqueness. Facebook's format changed the game regarding that sort of thing and created a whole new dynamic. Personally, I think its a healthier one, but it does often lack the focus of old-style forums like this one. There is alway a price to pay.

3
 flopsicle 17 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

I can't say that I really mind if folk don't see my online uniqueness. It still isn't the same as hiding.

My point was that evidently it does not hide who I am and evidently those with non name usernames who have introduced themselves aren't hiding either. You made an assumption that was incorrect. Although I did agree I was 'less of a man'.
 Andy Farnell 17 Oct 2015
In reply to The Lemming:

> Apart from the OP, I have the second highest amount of dislikes by any margin of other contributors.

> The OP, by the mere fact of complaining about the Dislike button, has painted a big Red Bullseye to the whole thread and set down a gauntlet for some people to hit the dislike button just for the fun of it.

> As for me?

> My initial post which has raked 23 dislikes, so far, isn't all that inflammatory. So why do I have so many followers compared to other contributors who are willing to go the extra mile and click a button that says that they dislike me?

> Think I shall go in the corner and hide from those nasty cyber bullies for intimidating me as the gang together is some sort of virtual solidarity in singling me out.

> As I said, thick skin.

Oh, I wouldn't say you have the most haters on here. If UKC's darling had got his finger out and climbed a new H17/E23 9d then you'd be a distant second in the mostly likely to be killed by a pitchfork stakes...

Andy F
OP Offwidth 17 Oct 2015
In reply to andy farnell:
As someone who has criticised your posts on said young lad I don't think they should be used to frame who you are (and some of the flack you got was nasty). I've been accused of being a sycophantic fan when, although I like the climbs, I wish he presented his achievements with less of the ' Jack Sparrow' pose. The world isn't split into forced likes and dislikes and the mob needs to be discouraged (robust difference of view ever stirred up the hornets nest).
Post edited at 10:11
1
 Andy Morley 17 Oct 2015
In reply to flopsicle:

> I can't say that I really mind if folk don't see my online uniqueness. It still isn't the same as hiding..... it does not hide who I am.....You made an assumption that was incorrect. Although I did agree I was 'less of a man'.

It was a perception, not an assumption. Meanwhile, my statement that people here who hide behind sobriquets were "less of a man" that someone who displays all the characteristics of a pop-psychology psychopath was clearly wrong from a literal perspective. It was an exaggeration made to underline a point.

You said you considered it unwise to put yourself in a position where online searches could enable others to find out more about you and your life; that is neither right nor wrong but is a position that can be coherently argued. One of my lads was in A&E this morning after having been mugged and stabbed with a 12" knife. Anyone who had a grudge against me could easily find their way to him through Facebook. Two of my children graduated from uni in the same Yorkshire city where this happened last night, he is one of them; between them, they've spent years living there and have never been attacked. I could jump to all sorts of conclusions and ask myself whether this would not have happened if he and I were both not of a similar disposition and whether keeping safe and away from the limelight would have prevented this from happening. It's impossible to answer most questions like that based purely on the evidence. You just have to assess your perceptions as best you can, apply your values and take a punt.
 Timmd 17 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

I Hope he's alright.
1
 timjones 17 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

> I'd personally like to dump the UKC dislike.

Should we dump the like button as well?

In reply to timjones:

> Should we dump the like button as well?

No
2
 timjones 17 Oct 2015
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Why not, a like button on it's own is rather pointless. If you can express approval with one click its only fair to be able to express disapproval with the same ease.
Post edited at 15:29
 Andy Morley 17 Oct 2015
In reply to Timmd:

> I Hope he's alright.

Apparently he is, thanks for asking
OP Offwidth 17 Oct 2015
In reply to timjones:
Not fussed either way. I don't use it and see it as pretty pointless on UKC so wouldn't miss it. Its about the same as being given a free shop card point whereas +ve karma is a treat and a kind reply is human warmth.
Post edited at 17:10
2
 timjones 17 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

So why not adopt the same attitude to the dislike button?
1
OP Offwidth 17 Oct 2015
In reply to timjones:

I'm happy to see both go from UKC... one being a pretty pointless positive and the other varied types of negative from a joke to mild bullying. The post was motivated by the fuss on Facebook where they considered it and dumped it (and likes are more useful on facebook) .
1
 flopsicle 17 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

Hope your son has a speedy recovery.
In reply to Andy Morley:

+1

Best wishes to him

Gregor
1
 Andy Morley 17 Oct 2015
In reply to flopsicle:

> Hope your son has a speedy recovery.

The knife missed his lung so he'll be fine. But to the point about anonymity, I could if I wanted to make a very coherent argument and convince myself of all sorts of very plausible links which would somehow confabulate my putting myself out there on the internet under my own name with all sorts of distressing and inexplicable impacts on myself and my family. Maybe, if I used an anonymous ID or put myself out there on the internet less, maybe life would be safer for me and mine... But really, and within the bounds of obvious common-sense precautions, I don't think so.

In any 'risk assessment' we make, whether it's to hide behind anonymity on the internet, or to take up or avoid intrinsically risky sports, we need to account for the costs of hiding away from dangers as well as the costs of embracing them. Anonymity can be very poisonous online and there is every possibility of a link of some kind between the tendency towards anonymous commentary on UKC, and the unpleasantness of its interactions which many people notice. Anonymous likes and dislikes are just one small part of that. On Facebook, you can see who's 'liked' something, and with no 'dislike' button, if you don't like something, you have to come right on out and say so, or bite your lip. I think that's much healthier.
3
 Jon Stewart 17 Oct 2015
In reply to timjones:

> Should we dump the like button as well?

Yes. The only value in it is when someone posts a link that's good, in which case they don't have any responsibility for the content but it's nice to be able to say "I enjoyed that, ta". If someone has made an excellent contribution to a thread, it doesn't take long to say "great post" - which is something different to saying "I'm on your side in this petty argument" which is what's more often than not expressed by that crappy button.
2
 Rob Parsons 17 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

> ... to the point about anonymity ...

We have no idea whether or not your real name is Andy Morley. Nor whether or not the photograph on your profile is actually of you.

The whole concept is a chimera.

1
 Andy Morley 17 Oct 2015
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> We have no idea whether or not your real name is Andy Morley.

Is that the 'royal we'..?

1
In reply to Andy Morley:

No, everyone on here (except any that have actually me you). Britain is a big place. 'Andy Morley' from 'uk midlands' is no more or less anonymous than 'no_more_scotch_eggs' from 'west Yorkshire'...

Cheers
Gregor
1
 Andy Morley 17 Oct 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> No, everyone on here (except any that have actually me you). Britain is a big place. 'Andy Morley' from 'uk midlands' is no more or less anonymous than 'no_more_scotch_eggs' from 'west Yorkshire'...

It's all relative, but things online have changed a lot over the past 10 years - except perhaps in forums like this one. The internet is becoming closer to real life in some ways.

As to 'real life' itself - is your nearest neighbour or your colleague at work the person who you really think they are? If you're married/ cohabiting, how well do you really know your partner? So many people who might say 'really well' actually don't know that their other half as well as they think. I know various people whose job it is to talk to the distressed of this world and though those friends wouldn't talk about the detail of their work, I understand that people having secret affairs is one of the biggest causes of stress in the population, if South East England is anything to go by.
5
In reply to Andy Morley:

They've still got a bit more to go on than a username, profile pic, paragraph of text and a climbing logbook! All of which might be fictional...



Gregor
1
 Andy Morley 17 Oct 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I'm not disagreeing with you. Your own profile is quite informative, other people's, less so. But all this information together makes a network. If UKC were to remove the anonymity of the 'like' and 'dislike' button so you could see who had clicked them, it would make that action less of a 'passive aggressive side-swipe' and more of an honest comment, albeit a rather terse one.
3
In reply to Andy Morley:

Not that informative! Haven't updated it for 4 years now.... Well, except for logbooks

I agree that it would be interesting to see who's liked/disliked a post. Would also be interesting to see number of likes/dislikes someone has made on their profile, in the same way that we can currently see number of votes made for photos.

I expect I'll be disliked for this post...

1
In reply to Andy Morley:

> I'm not disagreeing with you. Your own profile is quite informative, other people's, less so. But all this information together makes a network. If UKC were to remove the anonymity of the 'like' and 'dislike' button so you could see who had clicked them, it would make that action less of a 'passive aggressive side-swipe' and more of an honest comment, albeit a rather terse one.

I'm not sure about removing the anonymity like some sites that use the Disqus software do. But I think some kind of monitoring might be useful. For example, on the thread about electric cars, the first 30 or so posts all got 1 dislike. Most of them are completely innocuous which makes it look like a person (or a script) ran along the thread giving everything a dislike for no particular reason. So maybe a quota on the number of dislikes per account per week, or a 'top list' once a week of the people who handed out the most likes and dislikes so it becomes obvious if one particular person is responsible for a massively disproportionate amount.

Also maybe the software should look for someone using 'Dislike' as a personal grudge and disliking every single post they see from someone else no matter what they say.

1
 timjones 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Yes. The only value in it is when someone posts a link that's good, in which case they don't have any responsibility for the content but it's nice to be able to say "I enjoyed that, ta". If someone has made an excellent contribution to a thread, it doesn't take long to say "great post" - which is something different to saying "I'm on your side in this petty argument" which is what's more often than not expressed by that crappy button.

I guess that you might use the the line button in that manner, I know that I don't use it that way and there's no way that either of us can know how anyone else uses it.
OP Offwidth 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

Best wishes and hopes of a speedy recovery from me to your son too.

On the subject of the button what infantile fool gave gregor's sympathy post a hit?
1
OP Offwidth 18 Oct 2015
In reply to timjones:

Which begs the question what is the point besides individual gratification, since the collection of likes and dislikes for different posts combine different people with different motives (some trying to be funny who shouldn't give up the day job).
1
 timjones 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

> Which begs the question what is the point besides individual gratification, since the collection of likes and dislikes for different posts combine different people with different motives (some trying to be funny who shouldn't give up the day job).

Is there something wrong with individual gratification?

If we start getting rid of things that give a sense of gratification to the individual climbing and all other sports will soon be gone.
OP Offwidth 18 Oct 2015
So then the question is can we find ways of keeping people happy that is more useful for the site and reduces risk of mob idiocy and looking at what Facebook do (identified likes and no dislikes) and t'other channel (with indentified karma and rules like no tit for tat). Where are the good examples of forum sites elsewhere with anonymous likes and dislikes?
1
 timjones 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

> So then the question is can we find ways of keeping people happy that is more useful for the site and reduces risk of mob idiocy and looking at what Facebook do (identified likes and no dislikes) and t'other channel (with indentified karma and rules like no tit for tat). Where are the good examples of forum sites elsewhere with anonymous likes and dislikes?

If we're going to have likes we need dislikes. I'd like to see the anonymity removed from both, if you're not prepared to put to put your real identity behind your opinions then they probably shouldn't be expressed.
 Andy Morley 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks, and no worries - I wouldn't have used it as an example in this discussion if it had been a serious injury, though he was bloody lucky there. It's easy to react to negative events by becoming over-cautious about life as a result. I've lost count of the number of over 50s (and a few in their forties) who won't use social media because they think it's 'dangerous' - whether that's because it's 'new' or because of an accumulation of negative baggage on their part, I'm not sure but my guess is that whichever or these lies behind that fear, it's just a more extreme version of the same issues that make people use pretend names in groups like this one.

With likes and dislikes, anonymous ones are fundamentally pointless in a purely text-based forum because they tell you nothing. Someone might 'dislike' someone's observations because they know that they are factually or logically wrong but they might equally do it because they fear that they might be right. Since you know neither this, nor who has registered them, they just becomes more 'noise' in an forum which already has more than enough of that.
2
 malky_c 18 Oct 2015
In reply to timjones:

You might appreciate the irony of me liking that comment

I'd be all for the likes/dislikes being identifiable too. Especially the ones which have already been given
In reply to Andy Morley:



> Someone might 'dislike' someone's observations because they know that they are factually or logically wrong but they might equally do it because they fear that they might be right. Since you know neither this, nor who has registered them, they just becomes more 'noise' in an forum which already has more than enough of that.

Or, of course, they might think the poster is an arrogant, smug twerp. Epistemologically speaking.

I expect that's how I garner most of mine.
1
 Andy Morley 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Martin not maisie:

> Or, of course, they might think the poster is an arrogant, smug twerp. Epistemologically speaking.

Exactly my point. They're just noise.
4
In reply to Andy Morley:

> Exactly my point. They're just noise.

No, no, it's not your point at all; you're either missing the point, or else ignoring it to avoid the effort of introspection.

Noise is putting up interminable, but essentially empty, posts. People telling you this with dislikes is the forum's attempt at noise abatement.
1
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Perhaps it is, but surely only to people who lack any ability to mentally edit out posts that irritate them? After all it takes less time to skip past andys posts than it does to actually read them, get irked and then click the dislike button....

In which case, the problem with the disliker, not with andy....

Cheers
Gregor
Post edited at 17:06
1
In reply to Offwidth:

> Best wishes and hopes of a speedy recovery from me to your son too.

> On the subject of the button what infantile fool gave gregor's sympathy post a hit?

It's my dislike stalker- almost all my posts get one. I consider it a source of pride, that someone out there takes the trouble to look out for everything I post. It's almost disappointing now when they miss one.

But yes, sometimes they make a bit of fool of themselves...

Gregor
1
 Sir Chasm 18 Oct 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Perhaps it is, but surely only to people who lack any ability to mentally edit out posts that irritate them? After all it takes less time to skip past andys posts than it does to actually read them, get irked and then click the dislike button....

> In which case, the problem with the disliker, not with andy....

> Cheers

> Gregor

Like the people unable to ignore the like/dislike buttons?
 Andy Morley 18 Oct 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Perhaps it is, but surely only to people who lack any ability to mentally edit out posts that irritate them?

I wonder if there are people who go round with a felt-pen 'liking' or 'disliking' lists of ingredients on food packaging, or instructions in foreign languages on household electrical goods? I bet there are...

2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Perhaps it is, but surely only to people who lack any ability to mentally edit out posts that irritate them? After all it takes less time to skip past andys posts than it does to actually read them, get irked and then click the dislike button....

Don't get me wrong: the only benefit I've observed from the like/dislike function is to reinforce my previous suspicions that I'm an @rsehole. But dislikers are probably doing the forum a favour - can you imagine what would happen if they all decided to join in and explain *why* they didn't like a post? The entire thing would grind to a halt.

My point is that some people are utterly clueless as to how they come across and the dislike feature can help those of us who are afflicted to understand this; swearing at the vicar, or being the second-cleverest kid in the Infants, may seem like an achievement in one's own head, but somehow it doesn't occur that other people might be just as, if not more, clever.

As to your stalker, at least it's just button-pushing: I had one numpty last year who kept phoning me up with threats. It's probably your Mum, anyway.

1
 Andy Morley 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Martin not maisie:

> As to your stalker, at least it's just button-pushing: I had one numpty last year who kept phoning me up with threats.

You serious? Someone you met online? How did they get your phone number?
In reply to Andy Morley:

Ironically, because I'm extremely easy to trace online.
1
 Timmd 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Martin not maisie:

I understand you can pay to have yourself less traceable online.
 Andy Morley 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Martin not maisie:

> Ironically, because I'm extremely easy to trace online.

From my perspective, sharing my phone no online is a no-no. What was the numpty's beef?
In reply to Andy Morley:

Again, with the missing the point.
In reply to Martin not maisie:

I see what you're getting at, and you've got a point. For some people, they are telling them something useful. There's a fine line between that and the sort of ganging up that off width is concerned about though.

Re stalkers, yes mines is just funny, what you had to put up with was nasty. Glad that's gone away

Best wishes

Gregor
1
In reply to Timmd:

> I understand you can pay to have yourself less traceable online.

That really wouldn't help me to earn a living.....
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> I see what you're getting at, and you've got a point. For some people, they are telling them something useful. There's a fine line between that and the sort of ganging up that off width is concerned about though.

Well, I'm still not completely certain what Offwidth is most upset about - I think there's perhaps too much invested in these threads sometimes. He's usually fairly on the nail, but I think he's lost his usual humour on this one.

Simply put, you can't have it both ways: you can't be robustly sensible AND worry about people being mean on the internet, if you're putting out strong views.

But what I'd probably like to see would be a like/dislike button for use only on the Pub forum, and just a Thanks button for the advice-rich threads - gear, expeditions, etc. That would perhaps encourage people to participate more, and leave the mud-slinging to us usual suspects.

1
 Timmd 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Martin not maisie:
> That really wouldn't help me to earn a living.....

Bollox


Post edited at 19:09
1
 Andy Morley 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Martin not maisie:

> I think there's perhaps too much invested in these threads sometimes.

Certainly is.

At first I thought this was just because it was full of testosterone-charged climbers. Then I thought it was young dudes who still thought they were going to be famous mountaineers. Then I thought it was maybe academics or outdoor instructors with career-related sensibilities. But now I've finally realised the answer - UKC is the place that Victor Meldrew's ghost decided to haunt after he popped his TV clogs!
1
In reply to Martin not maisie:

Yeah that sounds like a good compromise. I was dead against them to start with, but think I'd miss them if they were removed now. But the pub sounds like the right place for them,

Cheers

Gregor
1
In reply to Andy Morley:

> Certainly is.

> UKC is the place that Victor Meldrew's ghost decided to haunt after he popped his TV clogs!

And you're welcome here, Mr Meldrew
1
 Sir Chasm 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

Of course it could be a complete mixture of people, rather than just one type.
 Jon Stewart 18 Oct 2015
In reply to timjones:

> I guess that you might use the the line button in that manner, I know that I don't use it that way and there's no way that either of us can know how anyone else uses it.

The point is whether the like button is clicked after a post that a lot of thought has gone into and is well expressed, or whether it's clicked on an inane, snidey post opposing someone else but not actually saying anything. So yes, you can tell how it's used from the context.
3
 Andy Morley 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Of course it could be a complete mixture of people, rather than just one type.

This is a bit dƩjƠ vu, but it's about the culture - the whole, which is greater than the sum of its parts (the individual participants in all their many splendoured variety).
 flopsicle 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:


> At first I thought this was just because it was full of testosterone-charged climbers. Then I thought it was young dudes who still thought they were going to be famous mountaineers.

Bleh! And some are female!

 Sir Chasm 18 Oct 2015
In reply to flopsicle:

No, you don't understand. As Andy will explain at tedious length, ukc is one, obviously male, homogeneous mass (apart from iconoclasts like Andy, obviously).
One of us, one of us.
 Andy Morley 18 Oct 2015
In reply to flopsicle:

> Bleh! And some are female!

It's a Darwinian ritual. The females sit around watching with amused interest as the males make dicks of themselves, before deciding whether they can be bothered with one or more of them. I know this because one of my female climbing partners told me this was why leaping between Adam and Eve on Tryfan is 'a guy thing'. That didn't stop me from collecting my own personal Darwin award up there last weekend.
3
 Sir Chasm 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

Perhaps a female can explain the Darwin Awards to you.
 flopsicle 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Perhaps a female can explain the Darwin Awards to you.

In this instance I feel experiential learning would be of more benefit.
 Sir Chasm 18 Oct 2015
In reply to flopsicle:

Apparently it's too late.
 flopsicle 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:

To be fair, he may have lost his knackers.
 Sir Chasm 18 Oct 2015
In reply to flopsicle:

He's probably dropped a bollock here and there.
In reply to Andy Morley:


> It's a Darwinian ritual. The females sit around watching with amused interest as the males make dicks of themselves, before deciding whether they can be bothered with one or more of them.

its as well Shona's currently banned, again, or the reception you've had so far would seem like an awards ceremony compared to what she'd be posting after that comment...!
1
 Andy Morley 18 Oct 2015
In reply to flopsicle:
> In this instance I feel experiential learning would be of more benefit.

Fee fi fo fum, I smell the cogs whirring of some extremely literally-minded people!
Post edited at 21:03
1
 FactorXXX 18 Oct 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

its as well Shona's currently banned, again, or the reception you've had so far would seem like an awards ceremony compared to what she'd be posting after that comment...!

Calls JCT to the thread...
 Steve Perry 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

I'm all for the like/dislike showing who clicked it. Doing so would make the forum a little more community like.
2
 FactorXXX 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Steve Perry:

I'm all for the like/dislike showing who clicked it. Doing so would make the forum a little more community like.

To make it more interesting, I think it should be displayed randomly...
 timjones 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The point is whether the like button is clicked after a post that a lot of thought has gone into and is well expressed, or whether it's clicked on an inane, snidey post opposing someone else but not actually saying anything. So yes, you can tell how it's used from the context.

Is it compulsory to write an essay every time you disagree with someone else?
 Timmd 18 Oct 2015
In reply to timjones:
Is it compulsory to mind people's posting styles?

I find your's very annoying.
Post edited at 21:19
2
 timjones 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Timmd:

I'm afraid you've lost me there
 Jon Stewart 18 Oct 2015
In reply to timjones:

> Is it compulsory to write an essay every time you disagree with someone else?

No, but it's worthwhile to say why you disagree, because 'dislike' doesn't mean anything. It could be "you've made a spelling error and I'm an arsehole"; "I agree generally with what you're saying, but I think the tone is really unpleasant"; "everything you've said is factually incorrect, carries disgusting attitudes and is badly expressed"; "I don't like the other things you've said in the past because they come from a different perspective to me, so I'm just going to click on this button because I don't like you from what I know about you" or anything really. It's just shit and pointless, adds nothing to the discussion and has no value.
3
 Sir Chasm 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

So just ignore it.
 timjones 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

You list a lot of negative reasons for clicking dislike. How about the possibility that someone quite simply disagrees with a post. Maybe the button should be labeled disagree instead of dislike.
 Timmd 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> So just ignore it.

I'm detecting a certain irony in how you keep posting about people who post about liking or disliking the dis/like buttons, but I can't work out what it is...

I'm sure you can ignore people like John posting about the.....


Post edited at 21:45
1
 Jon Stewart 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I do, unless someone asks my opinion on it.
1
 Jon Stewart 18 Oct 2015
In reply to timjones:

> You list a lot of negative reasons for clicking dislike. How about the possibility that someone quite simply disagrees with a post. Maybe the button should be labeled disagree instead of dislike.

But disagreeing intrinsically involves having a reason. If you don't give the reason, you could be saying anything. It's meaningless, pointless noise.
3
 Sir Chasm 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

There's no problem then, is there? It's a mildly interesting issue to ponder what likes or dislikes mean, as if we could tell, as they're all individual. So if you don't mind and I don't mind, and they don't mean anything, then we can all happily ignore them.
 timjones 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> But disagreeing intrinsically involves having a reason. If you don't give the reason, you could be saying anything. It's meaningless, pointless noise.

I disagree. As long as we have both like and dislike or agree and disagree buttons they can serve as a means of monitoring peoples opinions.
 Jon Stewart 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> So if you don't mind and I don't mind, and they don't mean anything, then we can all happily ignore them.

We can indeed. Just like I ignore commercial radio when it's on in the tea room at work.
1
 Jon Stewart 18 Oct 2015
In reply to timjones:

> I disagree. As long as we have both like and dislike or agree and disagree buttons they can serve as a means of monitoring peoples opinions.

I think they're utterly ineffective in this regard. Often they say things like "3 right wing people are reading this thread" or "1 person dislikes timjones". Shite.
2
 Sir Chasm 18 Oct 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Excellent, we're agreed there's no problem. Harmony rules.
1
 Andy Morley 19 Oct 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Excellent, we're agreed there's no problem. Harmony rules.

Not sure if the above is conscious or unconscious irony, but two observations:

The collective behaviour here appears to be quite some way along the autistic spectrum - that's a metaphor, not a diagnosis, but evidence to support this observation includes social anxiety about not understanding what other people are thinking or saying about you. To me, interpreting the evidence of this thread, these anonymous like and dislike buttons are making things considerably worse. If this were trivial, this thread would not be so long, so UKC, since the buttons add nothing bar angst, why not get rid of them?

Second, people in online forums like this are first and foremost writers and second, climbers, mountaineers or whatever. That's not only self-evident in a largely text-based forum, it's also supported by social analysis of the way the world has been going these past 50 or 60 years by public figures as diverse as C S Lewis and Andy Warhol. People here are also considerable literary critics of one another, and by any stretch of the imagination, the literary criticism that goes on here absolutely sucks. You need positive, constructive criticism as well as the negative that largely predominates here. These buttons add nothing at all on that dimension - on the contrary, here too they are very unhelpful.
5
 Rob Parsons 19 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

> Second, people in online forums like this are first and foremost writers and second, climbers, mountaineers or whatever. That's not only self-evident in a largely text-based forum, it's also supported by social analysis of the way the world has been going these past 50 or 60 years by public figures as diverse as C S Lewis and Andy Warhol.

Go on then: what's Andy Warhol had to say on this matter?

OP Offwidth 19 Oct 2015
In reply to Rob Parsons:

ā€œI think everybody should be nice to everybody.ā€

ā€œSometimes people let the same problem make them miserable for years when they could just say, So what. That's one of my favorite things to say. So what.ā€

ā€œI like to be the right thing in the wrong place and the wrong thing in the right place. Being the right thing in the wrong place and the wrong thing in the right place is worth it because something interesting always happens.ā€

ā€œYou have to be willing to get happy about nothing.ā€

ā€œPeople are always so boring when they band together. You have to be alone to develop all the idiosyncrasies that make a person interesting.ā€

ā€œYou can never predict what little things in the way somebody looks or talks or acts will set off peculiar emotional reactions in other people.ā€

ā€œWhen people are ready to, they change. They never do it before then, and sometimes they die before they get around to it. You canā€™t make them change if they donā€™t want to, just like when they do want to, you canā€™t stop them.
1
 Rob Parsons 19 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks, they're very nice quotes.

However I don't see any relevance to the claim that 'people in online forums like this are first and foremost writers and second, climbers, mountaineers or whatever.'
 timjones 19 Oct 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I think they're utterly ineffective in this regard. Often they say things like "3 right wing people are reading this thread" or "1 person dislikes timjones". Shite.

Left wing or right wing peoples views are still valid and I really don't believe that we have many people on these forums that randomly dislike things because of the poster.
 Goucho 19 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

> Second, people in online forums like this are first and foremost writers and second, climbers, mountaineers or whatever. That's not only self-evident in a largely text-based forum, it's also supported by social analysis of the way the world has been going these past 50 or 60 years by public figures as diverse as C S Lewis and Andy Warhol.

Are you auditioning for the next series of Reith Lectures, or just currently suffering from verbal dioreha?

UKC is an online forum, and the fact that it's for climber's doesn't make it any different from any other online forum.

There will be good posts, silly posts, angry posts, piss taking posts, witty posts, stupid posts etc etc - it's the nature of human beings on Internet forums.

The like/dislike buttons are just shorthand for expressing a simple yes/no sentiment.

Personally I don't have an opinion either way, but I don't think they are detracting from, or stifling, the nature of lively debate on UKC - as this very thread proves.



In reply to Andy Morley:

> Not sure if the above is conscious or unconscious irony

No. Irony is an old bloke coming on the forum with an interminable whine about Young People and their Behaviour, followed by a curmudgeonly refusal of an apology, before accusing others of Victor Meldrew behaviour. I think perhaps you share an understanding of the concept with Alanis Morrisette.

While you're looking up the Is in your dictionary, take a quick detour through 'introspection' as well.

(Second irony was the dig about others being on the autistic spectrum, BTW)
1
 Andy Morley 19 Oct 2015
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Go on then: what's Andy Warhol had to say on this matter?

It's just the "famous for 15 minutes" thing. The 'democratisation' of access to a mass audience in this instance. The price of that is lots of crap stuff, which is what C S Lewis pointed out as the growing trend. People get very indignant about that, but then they got very indignant about exactly the same thing 500 years ago when similar stuff happened after the printing press was invented in an earlier iteration of this process.
1
 Andy Morley 19 Oct 2015
In reply to Martin not maisie:

> No. Irony is an old bloke coming on the forum with an interminable whine about Young People and their Behaviour, followed by a curmudgeonly refusal of an apology, before accusing others of Victor Meldrew behaviour. I think perhaps you share an understanding of the concept with Alanis Morrisette. > While you're looking up the Is in your dictionary, take a quick detour through 'introspection' as well. > (Second irony was the dig about others being on the autistic spectrum, BTW)

I climb with people ranging in age from 19 to 65. Though the one I've climbed with and learned most from this year has been the youngest, that's because of the person they are, not their age.

Yes, I've noticed your fondness for 'introspection', which you've mentioned before but too much of that can turn to navel-gazing. If you opened up your mind and looked outwards as well as inwards, perhaps you might come to appreciate people of all ages?

If you yourself have a prejudice that's based on age, you might tend to see other people as being prejudiced too and so you might see any reference to autism as a 'dig'. But my suggestion that a collective culture might display autistic characteristics is a metaphor. Like I said, it's often associated with social anxiety and struggling to interpret what other people are thinking, and that kind of thing can only be made worse by ambiguous messages. As these buttons don't seem to add value but may well do harm, why not get rid of them?

2
In reply to Andy Morley:

Sorry, are you actually saying that all you got from that was to form the non sequitur that I'm prejudiced against old people?

Does somebody dress you in the mornings?
2
cb294 19 Oct 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

"Like / dislike" are not particularly useful categories, hence the buttons are likely to be used for fun, bullying, and who knows which other purposes.

"Agree / disagree with point made in the respective post" would be much more limited but therefore unambiguous and useful categories.


CB
KevinD 19 Oct 2015
In reply to cb294:

> "Agree / disagree with point made in the respective post" would be much more limited but therefore unambiguous and useful categories.

But what if several points were made some of which you agree with and some you dont?
Or if you agree with the points but dont like the way it has been made?
cb294 19 Oct 2015
In reply to KevinD:
Then reply in full, having ten buttons below won£t work.

edit: couldnĀ“t press the dislike button, as I simply disagree....

CB
Post edited at 15:04
KevinD 19 Oct 2015
In reply to cb294:

> Then reply in full, having ten buttons below won£t work.

could have scores between 1 and 10?

 Andy Morley 19 Oct 2015
In reply to KevinD:

> could have scores between 1 and 10?

Like the old 'Hot or Not' website? - That would up the ante a bit...
3
 johnjohn 19 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

> Like the old 'Hot or Not' website? - That would up the ante a bit...

Rate my rant?

 Andy Morley 19 Oct 2015
In reply to johnjohn:

> Rate my rant?

Nul points, sorry. Fancy another go? Try not to be quite so agreeable and definitely don't say something that's relevant...
4
 FactorXXX 19 Oct 2015
In reply to Andy Morley:

Like the old 'Hot or Not' website? - That would up the ante a bit...

Wouldn't people just vote 1 or 10?
Which would basically be the same as now...
 Andy Morley 19 Oct 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Like the old 'Hot or Not' website? - That would up the ante a bit... > Wouldn't people just vote 1 or 10? > Which would basically be the same as now...

Here's an experiment. As I mentioned earlier, four of us went up Tryfan a week ago and did all sorts of clowning about. I'm not about to share the photo of me in mid-air but I'll post a link to a video a couple of the others made which I actually quite rate. So there is a statement begging for validation if ever I saw one. After I've posted the link, please like or dislike this message for all you're worth, or rate it out of 10 if you prefer. I don't reckon we'll end up any the wiser, but please feel free to prove me wrong...

https://www.facebook.com/john.higgs.790/videos/10153178069273008/?pnref=sto...

1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...