A community for leaders on the Imzy platform.
Hearts
I would really like to have an option to disable the "hearts" on posts and on comments that I create. Like, just make it completely unavailable. I know people find the presence of a "like" button useful, but I don't particularly like the feature.
I don't think its conducive to conversation. People will like a comment without providing any kind of feedback and I don't think it's because they don't have an opinion, it's because the option allows them to be lazy about their input. I think this creates posts that comment wastelands. It's not because the content isn't good, I think it's because participation is inadvertently deterred.
It also creates an atmosphere of popularity (isn't that a Reddit thing? Is it ok for imzy to be different?) which highlights agreeance, which not totally what I'm looking for. It's really not what I'm looking for at all. I would like (polite) dissent/conversation/objection. But right now, I see one comment with 8 "hearts". What does that even mean? Not much, I think.
I know it's a comfort to former Reddit users to have features similar to a site that they used to like, and maybe imzy is intent on keeping that feature because there are advantages that are seen other than being similar to other social media sites (what are they?), but it would be nice if I could have the option to create posts and comments that don't promote passive feedback or empty (?) popularity. I'd rather have a reply to a comment or a comment on a post than a "heart".
I'm not saying to take away the feature for everyone (although....why not?), I'm just asking to have to option to not participate in that system.
What do you think?




If you read many posts you will find out in most cases the posts are informational only, and requires no real feedback. Blogs, News, or information posts benefit from the like button greatly IMO as a simple way to say Thanks for the information or great story.
Now conversation posts as you have here. State an opinion then ask for feedback on that opinion. So the heart doesn't really do much for this post, but even so. If you were to ask "Do you agree" the Heart could be seen as a sign of agreement.
Honestly I like the heart, and don't see any reason for changing it as I see it making little to no difference in that amount of engagement someone gets on a post or not.
Side note: I don't think a like button is anything like Reddit myself, but more like a Twitter. Reddit is a voting system with upvote/downvotes, and this is not what the Heart is intended for IMO.
Thank you for the feedback :)
Re: Kinds of posts
That's true, there are different kinds of posts, I agree. But of course, I disagree that it would change engagement. There are plenty of opinions (posts/comments) that get hearted without a word. Sure, it could mean I agree. Or a multitude of other things.
As far as the Reddit/Twitter comparison, I think that makes sense to me (I was never a Reddit user), the only way that I contend with your comparison is that there are posts with comments that are set to have the most popular comment at the top (am I wrong here? Am I misreading the format?) and other comments not "hearted" by anyone are lost among all of the other comments.
Thanks again. š
The popular sort also takes number of replies into account, not just hearts. I believe a reply is worth more than a couple hearts.
Hm. Are you sure? There's a post I'm following with A comment towards the top with a lot of likes and only one reply.
And there are comments towards the bottom with way less hearts and a good bit of replies.
Maybe the weighting system is the opposite of you suppose?
I'll keep an eye out, though. Thanks. ^-^
Ya I would trust Weffey :) - she designed it (if memory serves me right haha).
Thanks for the input though. See I struggle to see some improvements on the site as I've been using so long now, and just grown to love it for what it is. So you making me think outside the box is very helpful! Also it gets me thinking of more ways to add to Weffey and others giant list of to do's! :)
Great post, keep it up!
Ok.
Maybe there's another setting that the post I referred to employs and I'm just unaware of what it could be. It's definitely not sorted by "new" or "old" comments.
Maybe there's an arbitrary thing happening.
Thanks. :)
So there are a few different sorting options. I want to make sure I understand are you talking about Post sorting or Comments?
Posts I believe, but just making sure?
Oops. Sorry! That's where I went wrong. When referring to the sorting/popularity question, I meant to say that there are posts with comments that are set to have the most popular COMMENT at the top.
So within a post, the comments are sorted by popularity.
So like I was saying earlier, there is a post with a very "hearted" comment at the top and one reply. And within the same post, there are comments towards the bottom with many replies.
Hope that helps. :)
Ok Yes, Comments can be sorted by popularity and this is based off the hearts... However Posts themselves can be sorted by Activity or New. Activity takes the heart into account, but is only a piece of the equation.
Now I do have a question. Would you rather see a comment with 30 hearts - 3 replies at the top, or a comment with 1 heart - 20 replies back and forth from the same two people?
This is where you start getting into trouble as I believe you could just be viewing the people who rant on and on about something vs people who took the time to write a well informed comment stating their opinion.
Side note: You can also choose whether you want your comments sorted by New, Old, Popular when making a post under Options. I think you know this, but just for others reading who might not.
I don't like the popularity sorting at all. So...neither? š
Old/New is fine for me.
Thanks. :)
Well you're in luck! Just set all your posts to default sort of New :), and your Posts view to sort of New. :)
Great conversation! Thanks again for all that!
š I still think we're not on the same page, but thanks anyway!
I don't like the idea. I use the like function in a number of ways and find it quite handy. If I see a post without the ability for me to "heart" it, I'll most likely ignore it and move on to the next post with which I can interact as I wish.
Thank you for the feedback!
Re: ignoring - I would totally be ok with that, which is why I suggested it. I had a feeling people really liked the option, but I find it counterintuitive, so being ignored is sacrifice I'd be willing to make.
Thanks again. š
So what would happen if lots of members had the same option as you and took it? How welcome and inclusive would such a community be?
I think I get what you're trying to say. Essentially there would be a huge difference between a community with the option I've proposed and the one that exists now. And my response is: no there wouldn't. š
I say that for a couple of reasons.
I can count on one hand the number of users who made me feel welcome outside of my introduction post. There was 1 (one).
I would comment here and there and get "hearts". And it made me feel the same way I feel now: "uh. Ok, thanks for stopping by? I guess?"
Some of the users who I brought over from another site feel the same way I do. And they said it waaay before I recognized that their opinion was something I agree with. "I'm subbed to over 100 communities and it feels like a ghost town" (to paraphrase) "Where is everyone?" (to paraphrase) "See I posted something and obviously no one really gets to see it or even really cares." (to paraphrase)
While these comments can't solely be attributed to the presence of the "heart" function, I think the function is a contributor and these comments attest to how "welcoming" this community actually is versus how you imagine it to be.
Take away the crutch to encourage more conversation, that's what I say.
Yes, we all have different experiences, but I'm telling ya. I'm not the only one. And if an atmosphere makes one consider turning away after a couple of weeks of usage, what does that say? I'm looking for a solution and the heart function came to mind. š
I have the same issues. I post nearly daily and yet I get no responses. Meanwhile a similar community gets thrice the subscribers for half the work. :\
ššš Well, it's entirely possible that they just know more people than you, which comes with establishing a community and taking the time to build it.
But I'm glad you see where I'm going with this. Hard to view the current setup as welcoming although there are other factors that contribute. I think it's healthy to look for solutions. ^-^
Heart given while I still can, obvs.
I'm not sure taking away the option to heart posts means you'll get more comments. I think you'll probably get less interaction altogether.
If I haven't been engaged enough to do more than heart now, I'm not comment just because the option goes away.
Yeah my suspicion is this would be the case.
I cannot even begin to stress how much I prefer this as opposed to one comment with 8 replies that say nothing but "me too" or "I agree".
I get what you are saying (well, I think I do, I could be wrong, it is a day ending in 'y' (Note: This joke kinda flops in languages other than English) after all), I just don't agree it is 'lazy' as much as it is 'much cleaner'.
That said, I could get on board with the option for individual communities to disable the hearts on all posts/comments within that community, assuming it isn't a nightmare to program. But if the community has them enabled, I don't believe there should be an individual option to post without them. In my mind, this aligns with the Imzy idea of community.
š Empty comments can be quite the annoyance. I see your point. I would rather hear from people than not. I can ask an "I agree" or a "Me too" questions. I can't ask a "heart" questions or engage with it. I can only stare at it and fill in what I imagine them saying.
I think what I'm seeing here is a community (that is, imzy) that has never been without the heart/like function and has used other platforms that use it (so basically....everyone!), so I feel like part of the pushback I'm unfortunately seeing comes from a place of having never tried to go without it. So it's scary and just no, leave it alone š . I could be wrong, but that's what it seems like.
Anyway. Yeah. I like that compromise. Some kind of ability to have control over attempting to eliminate (as someone said in a somewhat related post) "people simply peeking through a keyhole".
We have options for so many other things. Even the option to make private posts where only certain people can see them! How is that what imzy is for, but providing an option to disable the heart function isn't? (Legitimate question).
Imzy seems to provide users with tools and options to make their experience a little more elevated than their experience elsewhere. And I think a lot of that has to do with options.
This is another option.
You can ask an "I agree" questions, but I think you'll find that it may come across as aggressive. People don't like to be quizzed on something that they have only expressed mild interest in.
My underlying point here (as in many other threads I've participated in) is that, as a corollary of the basic theory of internet lurking behavior, people will have a sense of how much they want to participate from the beginning, and you can't reliably increase that (and attempts to do so can easily backfire).
I almost never use hearts, but on posts I've used it once or twice for personal posts that I wished to express that I had read (since I had already chosen a name, my avatar displayed in the Participating list) but felt I couldn't actually reply to, and on comments I've used it when people have said things that I entirely agree with and all of my thoughts on have already been voiced that are furthermore not very high up in a very long thread. So maybe I'm not who you're complaining about.
To continue this format, would you prefer seeing one comment with 20 likes and one or two replies, or 6 comments that all say essentially the same thing with 14 more replies between them that largely duplicate each other? Sometimes, there aren't as many things to say as people to say them.
I've used a bazillion message boards without something like a heart function. Hearts/likes/Facebook-esque emotes add more than they take away, in my opinion. No, you don't know what I'm saying with it, and you can't ask it questions, but if I wanted to say more to you, I would've.
Yeah this.
If you take away "likes" you're not gonna get more comments, you're gonna get more posts with no activity at all.
Just to be clear my proposal is to make it optional. Not to take it away from those of you who hold it so dear.
Re: the comment number vs. hearts number.
I'm not sure why the results would be so black and white. But you see sure if yourself, so I have no problem believing you. Thanks!
In reality, they wouldn't be. But in your hypothetical world where people want to type something thoughtful out but realize that there's a little heart-shaped button they can just click instead (which I do not believe is the real world), would you rather give them that button or have them post their idea regardless of whether it has already been said (better)?
And I don't really care about ("hold dear") hearts, I just think that they improve the standard of discourse by removing a good fraction of "^This"es and "+1"s while maintaining the slight benefit that they do, in fact, provide.
Thanks for clarifying! š
I suppose for me, the heart button is a simple way of saying 'I appreciate you posting this/I appreciate seeing this on my feed/I appreciate you saying this'. If I have more to say, then I'll leave a comment.
I also feel like the heart button is a good entry to participation, especially with a new community. I generally lurk for a couple weeks in a new space to make sure I understand the flow and tone of the community before posting content; the heart button means I can at least show appreciation for what I see while still in 'observation mode'.
That's great! Lurking is inherent Internet behavior.
Thanks. :)
Many communities I've belonged to over the years have had suggested lurking periods for the reasons I've stated above and others, so it wasn't just inherent but highly recommended.
I suppose it's become personally ingrained to give things a trial period and I can absolutely see adding a 'recommended lurking period' line to one of my own communities in the future.
Ok. Great!
What makes that comment great, though?
Do you disagree?
No, I want to know why you felt that it was great.
Should I have just "hearted" it instead? š
Although, like I mentioned before. I prefer verbal feedback so I'm inclined to that kind of behavior with other people.
I felt it was great because they expressed their feelings about the topic in a direct way. I didn't have to guess what they were talking about or what they meant!
Snags happen, but I can appreciate smooth sailing. Which is what I got!
Thanks for asking!
I feel like some of the problem comes from the interpretation. If you only say "Great!" - especially when there's an option to heart/like/whatever that honestly serves the same function - it can come across as passive aggressive or sarcastic.
Aside from that, while I do understand the wish for verbal feedback and more meaningful interaction I'm not sure what the actual functional difference there is most of the time between a 'heart' and someone only saying "I like this" without any more commentary. They're both equally lacking in conversation. Which was kind of illustrated here: you said great but had nothing more to add and so the interaction petered out.
Sure. That makes sense. Thanks!
I don't know, I feel like no one has an obligation to be really verbose in a conversation, or give anyone a three page thesis as to why they feel the way they do about something. Not everyone can really phrase things well, and sometimes everything that that person is thinking has been said. Me just repeating everything the commenter above me said is just going to be redundant and waste everyone's time, and I'm sorry, I'm not going to do it. If someone already expressed everything I want to say, I'm not going to just repeat it, particularly if they manage to do it in a much more clear and concise way that I could.
A heart is a good way to express "I agree with this" or "Me too" without having to repeat what someone else said, potentially coming across as copying too, depending on the community and its context.
You mentioned responding to "I agree" or "me too" with a question-- but what if they answer is simply "what they said/you said it better/I have nothing to add to this current conversation but I find it interesting because I'm learning/figuring things out/seeing my thoughts phrased in a way that'll make them easier to explain in later conversations".
No one needs to be interrogated, no one appreciates being interrogated, and tbh this is a site where most of us hang out for fun, I don't understand the constant need to call certain things "Lazy" as if this is some kind of obligation or job anyone in the community has.
Thanks for your reply!
I have NO clue how my original post is being interpreted in such an agressive way. Please let me know how to fix that in your opinion!
I'm not promoting obligation, interrogation and I don't believe (but correct me if I'm wrong) I mentioned laziness "constantly" or presented a constant need to do so.
Let me know if I need to elaborate in any way. Thanks again. š
Okay, I'm going quote what ruffled my feathers:
"People will like a comment without providing any kind of feedback and I don't think it's because they don't have an opinion, it's because the option allows them to be lazy about their input."
You're not the first person to refer to people's behavior in communities as "lazy". I've seen people claim disliking arguments is lazy. I've seen people claim blocking people is lazy. There's this sense that participating in these communities should be some kind of work, when no, if we don't want it to be, it shouldn't. We're not getting paid for this, we're doing it for ourselves, and we owe others respect sure, but that's in the sense of not trolling and treating people like human beings, not having to interact with a comment or post beyond hitting a little heart if we don't have it in us to for ANY reason. That comment about "constantly" was not aimed specifically at you but at an attitude I've seen in discussions about the community a lot.
Furthermore calling a behavior "lazy" usually implies some kind of judgement on someone's part, which is bound to make people defensive.
Someone saying "I agree with this comment" and your replying with a question does feel pretty interrogative, and I explained why. Some people aren't good with words, or at explaining feelings or thoughts, or just don't want to. Again, just not feeling like it as a perfectly good reason not do something in this community (as long as it's not "I don't feel like respecting your boundaries" or something like that.)
But people who struggle with phrasing things may not necessarily be eager to be asked to explain themselves further, because sometimes they just can't, and whoever else you're agreeing with said everything you're thinking already, but better.
I'm not a fan of coming under fire for other peoples' previous input that I had nothing to do with, but that's ok.
And as far as not wanting to respond to someone's question? Don't. I agree we don't (or most of us don't) work here. Having the opportunity to have further conversation is what I'm after. I don't think I'm strong arming anyone to do anything they don't want to with my proposal. I can't. It is literally impossible.
And just to drive a point home. This supposed to be optional.
Thanks for the input!
except that your whole point about wanting to get rid of hearts is because you think it encourages people not to bother respond to you and you think if you get rid of them it'll make people reply to your posts. Like, that's the whole point of this entire post of yours.
Which does tell me you DO want to control the way people interact with others on the website and you want it done on your terms, which again, suggests you feel there's a certain way people SHOULD engage the website.
Which is why a lot of people actually think people are going to interact LESS. You're wanting to limit the way they engage because it's not acceptable to you, it's not good enough for you.
Look, people who want to reply to you will reply to you whether there's a heart or not. People who would just hit the heart wouldn't reply to you even if it wasn't there. But you seem to think they will, which is why you want to have the option to remove them-- again to control the way people interact and respond.
And every time I've seen the "lazy" argument I've pointed out that it's crummy, so you're not alone, don't feel bad. :D
(ETA: Also I would hardly call "Hey this trend of inferring users are lazy for not engaging in the way you think they should is crappy" putting you under fire but OKAY)
Thanks for the awesome feedback!
There needs to be a way to determine post ranks, unless one wants to convert their community to Metafilter-style pure timeline or classic forum-style activity-sorting. Without a downvote (like on reddit), it's a lot harder to create an echo chamber where a dedicated group of users can silence alternative opinions.
Additionally, a heart counter being separate from a number of replies allows for both passive engagement ('heart'ing the post without commenting, as a measure of saying, 'thank you for this post' or 'this content is good' or 'i want to save this') and active engagement (participating in the comment thread attached to the post, which doesn't necessarily indicate agreement or interest or enjoyment), and neither fulfill the role of the other.
As I see it, making the button a 'heart' will contribute a lot to how it's used, by hinting/reminding/pushing a given user to consider it differently from a 'vote'. Twitter and tumblr have hearts/likes, and those work well as ways of showing popularity without showing value or grade.
Maybe the heart button could not display the number, but display some combination of heart count and engagement number? Like on tumblr, where a reblog or reply adds to the count as well? It will inflate the numbers, but it will also lend psychological weight to replies that currently don't hold as much sway.
ĀÆ\_(ć)_/ĀÆ
Thanks for the feedback. :)
I hope I made clear that this wouldn't apply to everyone. Only to people, like myself, who would like to engage in a different way.
The popularity part irks me a lot.
Thanks again.
I apologize for misunderstanding. To clarify, do you mean only to hide the number and icon from yourself? Or disable it for all users on any content you create? If the former, I could probably whip up a userscript for you that would hide such an element, or you could ask the Imzy team to add that option for you. If the latter, I don't think Imzy is the right platform for such a feature.
The latter ^-^
Thanks!
What do you mean by "the popularity part" that "irks" you so much? Do you feel threatened if more people heart as a "thanks for posting" or "good comment" to other people's input more than to yours? If not, why on earth does it matter when you can just set things to "newest" yourself?
Thanks in advance for your feedback! :)
I don't feel threatened at all! And you're very welcome. š
I comment if I have something to say. A heart really is a plus one and without the option, you'll still get silence out of me.
It's all good. Thanks for weighing in. ^_^
I enjoy the like feature just because it shows me if people agree with what I've posted, sometimes a comment isn't necessary, but I definitely understand why you would prefer comments since they give you actual feedback to read. (:
Aww! Thanks for understanding! I appreciate you weighing in. š
In my experience, as much as habitual 'liking' might discourage vocal participation, I think nothing solicits discussion more on social media than thoughtful editorialising of a shared link.
If I expect reader engagement, then I must make an effort to predigest the article and tell friends why this matters (is it new? Is this false or contradictory? Is it interesting for personal reasons?) or what strange questions fall out of it. I have to add a layer of my own value, before anyone else adds theirs.
You are so excellent at participating and engaging. And you're so polite. You always seem to get your point across pretty well without being rude or defensive. I would encourage everyone to follow your example. I hope everyone on this card sees this comment and pays attention to you. And maybe modifies their habits if necessary.
Thank you for your input. You get a heart. ā¤š
Thank you for my heart, Dora. It warmed my, er, heart.
ā¤
"I appreciate the input" without engaging with it is more meaningless than a heart or upvote would ever be.
I can see that point of view too. :)
There's not anything "empty" in post popularity. It means lots of people appreciated the post. ā¤
And clicking a heart is an active choice not a passive one: a heart doesn't post itself. Someone chose to recognise the post in a positive way. I'm not sure why that seems to cause you so many problems.
Finally, it's not "lazy" or "passive" to choose the level of engagement you want, rather than the one the original poster was sekritly hoping for.
I of course disagree. But thanks for weighing in again. šš
Well, you specifically said you want objection and dissent. Glad Imzy has come through for you!
Me too! It's been a learning experience. I'm thankful for it.
Me too! It's been a learning experience. I'm thankful for it.
I'm another person who would like the option to turn off hearts in a community. Doesn't mean they can't be used in comms that want them, just means comm leaders have both choices.
A brave soul! š
I was reading about "likes". I was going to include the article. And now that I'm talking about it, maybe I should. But someone wrote an article about them saying, "hey they aren't all that good for people". His last sentence is literally my point. It's a system we adhere to and...for what?
Honestly, had I known I would come across some pretty nasty replies, I wouldn't have brought it up, but I'm glad I'm not the only one. I certainly hope a compromise can be made because this would NOT be the end of imzy or its vision.
It already has so many options that so many other communities shun. And that's part of the reason why I like it here! I appreciate being able to make a private post, or shut down comments if I need to or block people in a way that isn't too confrontational! Why not be able to make a post that's like "hey, that's not what we're about here."?
It doesn't stop people from lurking. They can still lurk. This just makes it feedback takes on a different form.
Thank you for not being offended by my suggestion. š
If you're interested. http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/upvote-systems-damaged-online-communities/
Before there was 'liking' in whatever form, there were post counts and forum titles and the hallowed self-applied forum title that often only got earned after a ludicrous number of posts. There was the "OMG someone else's stupid post had knocked mine of the first page because all of their friends are basically spam bumping" moment. Liking didn't destroy online discussion. Things change and stay the same all over the place.
That certainly wasn't the takeaway I got from the article. Thanks for chiming in again!
It's literally called "How Upvote Systems Have Damaged Online Communities".
ā¤
I know. But like I said, that wasn't my takeaway. Probably because I don't necessarily equate the word "damage" and the word "destroy". šā
Thanks again for your reply. Re-reading the title was useful!
I think part of Dora's "takeaway" was that the author of the article was really obviously lacking in experience of older online communities that didn't have an upvote system.
So I will give you some of my experience:
I have been part of a fan community that was literally destroyed by encouraging people to comment and join in. It did this through the very common mechanism of rewarding numbers of posts with post titles.
There was an influx of newbies who were determined to reach the top title fast. They posted and posted and posted. The old active-but-relaxed community was driven off to LJ and eventually dispersed. The newbies quickly got bored, as actual interesting discussion was gone, and the message board died.
So I agree with Dora's point: upvotes are just another form of what has gone before. I will side with offering a chance to "approve" of a post or comment any time.
It's non-spammy participation, and that's a beautiful thing.
Cool. Thanks. š
Does "Cool. Thanks." :) actually mean you've taken onboard my points, or is it coded for "Go away and stop offering context that works against my thesis?"
I think I'd prefer a heart.
ā¤
ā¤
It means whatever you like! We all have our preferences. š
So, basically, you made a post complaining about "passive" and "meaningless" responses and... you are all over the comments with passive, empty and meaningless comments?
Okay, then.
⤠⤠ā¤
Not at all! I appreciate the input. Thanks again. ^-^
This.
With hearts. ā¤
I'm going to respond to that article: I don't think it's entirely relevant. It's about upvotes and reputation, not hearts. You might think this is a distinction without a difference, but in my opinion the difference is significant.
That article conflates "reputation systems" (a la Reddit) and "Likes" (a la Facebook or Tumblr). Not only is this not a reasonable generalization, but Imzy doesn't have the most important traits of either type. (It also brings up reblogs/tweets which are even farther out. Unfortunately, it doesn't elaborate, so I'm just ignoring that part of the argument. Especially considering that sharing on Imzy isn't much like reblogging at all.)
The fundamental differences between Imzy hearts and reputation is that reputation is tracked (whereas I can't find my total number of received hearts without visiting them all and getting out a calculator) and that typically, where there's an upvote there's a downvote. Imzy has no equivalent to the downvote, which means that the only people capable of silencing voices are moderators). Just for that reason it's very different from Reddit.
Hearts aren't votes, and a heart on a post is not an "I want more people to read this" signal here. It's simply an "I read this, keep up the good work." most of the time, and when more than that was meant, it turns out that it doesn't matter after all because there's no explanation given. On comments, they are slightly different, because there the primary purpose is to replace "+1" and "^This", which everybody agrees do nothing to spur discussion.
The essential difference between hearts and Likes is mostly that hearts are nearly meaningless. I don't get notifications when I receive hearts, I can't look at who did the hearting, and again there aren't easy totals anywhere. These factors make Imzy provide less meaningless "validation" than, say, Facebook or Tumblr. (Also, in an article about upvotes/Likes, one of their primary pieces of evidence is that... looking at vacation photos makes people envious? How is that relevant? Photo galleries exist just fine without Likes.) And I'm not just immune to that effect: It got me pretty bad when I started a blog, and it's one of the reasons I've never fully returned to Tumblr. But it doesn't happen on Imzy.
Obviously, some parallels can still be drawn, and that's worthwhile if it helps people to understand Imzy. But Imzy is not Facebook, not Tumblr, not Twitter, and certainly not Reddit. Some things are really unique to it.
Lastly:
I'm terribly sorry you feel you've been attacked. It was certainly never my intention to attack you, rather I simply think that removing the hearts will not bring about the aim you stated in the post and will, furthermore, probably have a slightly deleterious effect instead.
Makes sense. š