[Mockup] Starred - A new type of vote

Hyrum Graff·Nov 17, 2014·7 votes·973 views

Have you ever disagreed with a thread, but wanted to give it visibility, because it was thoughtful, well-written and fostered good discussion? Or felt that a thread deserved more than just an upvote?

Well, no longer! Enter the Star vote. You star posts that are thoughtful and promote good discussion, whether or not you agree with them. The kind of awesome discussion you want to read when you jump into a rework thread. The post that opened your eyes.

You'll notice that there's no number associated with a star vote. That's because, rather than being placed on a spectrum, star votes are designed to quickly and easily highlight thoughtful posts and comments. So, if a post/comment reaches a certain threshold, it'll get a star displayed next to it, allowing it to be easily picked out in a discussion. The poster will be able to see how many stars they've gotten, but not how many they need until their post gets a public star. It's like the way honor badges work.

This would be a new way to showcase thoughtful posts, even those that aren't popular (but also those that are popular). One cool things I thought of we could do with a star idea is to create a page like the red tracker, which shows posts that attained star status.

Here's an idea for what it could look like when you're voting to star a post:

http://i.imgur.com/ccMWgVg.png Not voted

http://i.imgur.com/LLIKd7G.png Voted

2014-11-19 edit: You would ONLY be able to star a post from within a post, because unlike a vote -- where you can often tell if you agree without reading it all -- you can't really identify a thoughtful post without reading it.

2014-11-19 edit2: Changed wording in post to clarify that a star means a thoughtful post (I used a lot of words to describe why you'd star a post before). #Clarity

Thoughts?

8 Comments

DaenNov 17, 20141 votes

Hey there Hyrum,

I know we've talked about this, but I wanted to touch on a few things that have changed/weren't quite discussed fully. I'll be devil's advocating here a bit, but that doesn't mean I think your idea is a bad thing (far from it!).

You star posts that are well-written and promote good discussion, whether or not you agree with them. The kind of awesome discussion you want to read when you jump into a rework thread. The post that opened your eyes.

What stops people from deciding to both upvote and star something just because it gives something more visibility rather than as an expression of content appreciation? How often would users star something that they feel is incorrect (downvoted)?

You'll notice that there's no number associated with a star vote. That's because, rather than being placed on a spectrum, star votes are designed to quickly and easily highlight awesome posts and comments. So, if a post/comment reaches a certain threshold, it'll get a star displayed next to it, allowing it to be easily picked out in a discussion. The poster will be able to see how many stars they've gotten, but not how many they need until their post gets a public star. It's like the way honor badges work.

What will be the counterbalancing factor to allow for a threshold? As an example, Honor is roughly a ratio of Honor per game; what would the ratio be here? Would it be "reach x number of stars", or a comparison of stars to another factor?

This would be a new way to showcase high quality posts, even those that aren't popular (but also those that are popular). One cool things I thought of we could do with a star idea is to create a page like the red tracker, which shows posts that attained star status.

This could be cool, though is it possible it could devalue voting?

Would this functionality also be included in replies/comments? If so, how would that be implemented?

Hyrum GraffNov 17, 20141 votes

I know we've talked about this, but I wanted to touch on a few things that have changed/weren't quite discussed fully. I'll be devil's advocating here a bit, but that doesn't mean I think your idea is a bad thing (far from it!).

Always happy to discuss things :)

Also, my ideas on this have also changed slightly since my original idea, so some clarification is probably in order.

What stops people from deciding to both upvote and star something just because it gives something more visibility rather than as an expression of content appreciation?

In this implementation, starring something has no effect on its sorting ranking -- that's still decided by votes as per live. Instead, it's a cosmetic thing, probably with the addition of a "Star Tracker" or something like that. Hopefully that'll be a detriment to people starring things simply for more visibility of the same kind.

That's really the key here, that it's a completely different mechanic.

How often would users star something that they feel is incorrect (downvoted)?

I'm not sure. I would, and I hope others would, too. At the least, that person can see that their post got starred, and get some positive feedback in that way.

What will be the counterbalancing factor to allow for a threshold? As an example, Honor is roughly a ratio of Honor per game; what would the ratio be here? Would it be "reach x number of stars", or a comparison of stars to another factor?

This is something that I intentionally left vague, because I'm not sure yet. Possible implementations are:

Flat number of stars
As a ratio of stars-to-something (posts and/or views; maybe votes/comments)
Flat number of posts -- the top X today.

This could be cool, though is it possible it could devalue voting?

Does the red tracker devalue voting? Kind of -- anything with a red comment on it gets tons more views than all but the most popular posts -- but voting is still meaningful. I think as long as getting starred is a sufficiently rare occurrence, it'll serve more to highlight awesome content than replace voting.

tbh my biggest concern is that content that's already prominently displayed will be the only content with a chance of getting starred. This is one of the reasons why in general I'm a big fan of using ratios of votes/stars to unique-logged-in-user views as a prominent metric.

Would this functionality also be included in replies/comments? If so, how would that be implemented?

Once more, I'd imagine it would function similarly to the red tracker -- you'd have a 'star tracker' on one side of the page, with an option of showing the 'starred rundown,' which shows only threads including starred comments. Other than that, it'd just be a star next to the post, or some other preferential visual treatment.

EMOFRATPARTYNov 19, 20141 votes

So, if a post/comment reaches a certain threshold, it'll get a star displayed next to it, allowing it to be easily picked out in a discussion.

What would your ideal threshold be? To me, your post idea is what the "Best" tab should be utilized for.

Hyrum GraffNov 19, 20141 votes

What would your ideal threshold be?

I'm personally very partial to the following method:

# stars divided by # total unique views (# logged-in users who have viewed, ie, # people who have had the chance to star it).
The top x% of these get a star

The unique views thing gives smaller threads a chance to compete against larger ones, because otherwise all the starred threads would just be the most popular (because more views -> more stars).

To me, your post idea is what the "Best" tab should be utilized for.

Yes. Kind of.

I agree that "Best" isn't a good name for it (I think it should be "Popular," (I'll abbreviate, "Pop") which is much more descriptive of how it actually is).

I also agree that there should be some sorting that prioritizes starred comments. I don't agree that it should be akin to the current 'best' sorting.

Let me take you through my thought process:

Scenario 1: Default sorting is Pop, stars aren't counted in Pop sorting

Outcome: Stars don't really matter because only a minority are going to modify the default options.

Scenario 2: Default sorting is Pop, stars are counted in Pop sorting

Outcome: A star has the same functionality as an upvote. Therefore, stars will be used like upvotes, rather than to distinguish thoughtful content. At this point, why not just let people have an option between 'single upvote' and 'double upvote' on a post?

Scenario 3: Default sorting is Best, which only counts stars

Outcome: Again, stars are just like upvotes. See scenario 2.

This thought process is what drove me to my current iteration: where stars have a distinctly different mechanic from upvotes.

That being said, I do think there should be a way to view starred posts quickly and easily. As I said in my reply to Daen,

I'd imagine it would function similarly to the red tracker -- you'd have a 'star tracker' on one side of the page, with an option of showing the 'starred rundown,' which shows only threads including starred comments. Other than that, it'd just be a star next to the post, or some other preferential visual treatment.

EMOFRATPARTYNov 19, 20141 votes

I'm personally very partial to the following method:

[# of] stars divided by # total unique views (# logged-in users who have viewed, ie, # people who have had the chance to star it).

The top x% of these get a star

While this would work great in theory, the amount of people that actually vote fluctuates so damn much on a post-to-post basis. Tying the presence of a star to the opportunities that a given post has had to be starred wouldn't exactly work, if for no other reason than voting is so inconsistent. In order for that idea to work, there would have to be a method to ensure some kind of consistence in regards to the frequency of votes.

Scenario 3: Default sorting is Best, which only counts stars

Outcome: Again, stars are just like upvotes. See scenario 2.

That's my vote. The "Star Tracker" would also be an ideal way to do it, although archiving would work better for a full categorization, i.e. "Best."

Hyrum GraffNov 19, 20141 votes

While this would work great in theory, the amount of people that actually vote fluctuates so damn much on a post-to-post basis. Tying the presence of a star to the opportunities that a given post has had to be starred wouldn't exactly work, if for no other reason than voting is so inconsistent. In order for that idea to work, there would have to be a method to ensure some kind of consistence in regards to the frequency of votes.

What do you mean, the amount of people who actually vote?

Assuming there is actually random fluctuation in voting (I'm dubious of this; maybe the fluctuation has to do with the content and quality of the post), what do you think are the causes of it?

That's my vote. The "Star Tracker" would also be an ideal way to do it, although archiving would work better for a full categorization, i.e. "Best."

Ooh, archiving! I like, I like.

EMOFRATPARTYNov 20, 20141 votes

What do you mean, the amount of people who actually vote?

Yep. Maybe 'random' wasn't the best word...I think 'inconsistent' is a better fit. There is no constant for voting. I think the causes are related to: content, quality, length, the user posting, and the user viewing (and probably some other stuff I forgot to throw into the mix). Each of those can warrant a longer explanation, which might be better suited for another post entirely.

Ooh, archiving! I like, I like.

A big reason I want to see this is so that I can reference posts that relate to the discussion we are having. Without formal archiving, it's very difficult to keep track, and I actually had a really hard time finding what I was looking for...to the point where I couldn't reference it above.

Hyrum GraffNov 22, 20141 votes

content, quality, length, the user posting, and the user viewing (and probably some other stuff I forgot to throw into the mix).

Well, the reason I say "random" is that, if these factors contribute to how many votes a post gets, isn't that an indication of what the community wants to see? Like, if short, high quality balance posts tend to get voted on more than long, low-quality, skins posts, isn't that the system working as intended?