Member names on thumbs, revisited

Tim proposed showing the names of people who thumbed reviews, but the consensus seems to be that the proposal needs to be fleshed out more. Here's my interpretation of the idea:

Goal 1: To improve member interaction with reviews. This is a bit vague, but it might entail encouraging members to read and thumb more reviews, helping them find reviews of interest to read, and increasing the enjoyment they get from reading reviews.

Goal 2: To improve the social atmosphere on the site. This is also a bit vague, but I think associating thumbs with names rather than numbers will create a generally better sense of community. People will start to see familiar names among the thumbers and can use the list of thumbers as a starting point to discover members/libraries of interest. The reviews section of the work pages will feel more like a place occupied by people.

The basic proposal: Member names are attached to thumbs. By clicking on the number next to the thumb picture, you can see the names of everyone who thumbed the review, and these names are links to their profiles. The names pop into the text like a "more" link; there is no lightbox involved.

The default: public. Since this is a significant change, members will be notified by profile comment as well as by a yellow notification box. There will be an option to continue leaving anonymous thumbs. Current thumbs will remain private by default, but there will be an option to convert them all to public.

The additional features. I think this is where the initial proposal fell down; showing the names on its own just didn't seem to do much. Here are a few suggestions for how to get more from the data:

"Thumbed by Member" page. This would be a page that showed all the reviews thumbed by a given user, so that, for example, if I found that lorax had good taste in reviews I could go there to see which ones she considered worthwhile. This would help other users find interesting reviews to read.

"People who thumb like you" page. This would show the people who had also thumbed reviews that you had thumbed; the list of users could be sorted by raw number of shared reviews thumbed or by some weighted algorithm that took into account obscurity (i.e., this option would be built in). This would be useful for finding interesting users and, through them, other interesting reviews and books.

Feed of recently thumbed reviews by set of members. This could be something like Connection News, but it would also be nice if we could see something like this for Groups: so, these are the reviews that were recently thumbed by members of the Ancient History group, etc. (Actually, we should also have this sort of thing for books added, reviewed, etc. on a group-by-group basis. Hmm.)

Anyway, there's a rough outline of what I think the feature could do. What else have I forgotten? What needs to be changed?

I am a lot more in favor of names attached to thumbs when they have more functionality than just names attached to thumbs. Otherwise, I get visions of Tumblr/Facebook and recoil in horror.

I still really don't like seeing the list of "likes"/thumbs, so I voted undecided, because I do like all the other functionality proposed here. I just can't get over the list part. Even if it's "3 (Click to see who)". But I also loathe Facebook and almost anything that resembles it too much, and lists of "likes" resembles it too much.

Incidentally, I'm also completely against names attached to thumbs for recommendations, though that has less functionality than the proposed names attached to review thumbs would.

It makes me sad that Facebook has somehow contaminated the whole idea of certain features. I don't think a list of the people who support something is intrinsically bad, it's just been tainted by the FB connection. :(

Yeah, I think I can understand that. But I really dislike what Facebook is, and anything that seems to be making the site move to become more like Facebook bothers me, even if it is reactionary and not necessarily logical.

The presence of an option to mark thumbs anonymously is nice, but frustrating that if I marked thumbs anonymously (and I would, or perhaps would stop thumbing altogether), I wouldn't have a "Thumbed by Keri" page, which I wouldn't mind people seeing. It's perhaps contradictory, but there it is.

And, like I said, I really like all the other bits suggested to go with the feature, and it would fit neatly with an Explore Reviews page.

And it bothers you just knowing that the list is potentially there, even if you don't have to see it? What if the "Click to see who" text were omitted, and it was just a link (though I think that seems too unfriendly from a UI perspective)? Would it still be too much if the "Click to see who" text appeared only on mouseover?

I admit I'm a bit at a loss here.

You conveniently forget to say that Tim said originally that the purpose of this was to get more thumbs. So the real question to be asked is: will publicly naming the "thumber" accomplish that goal? I don't believe that it will.

I imagine that some of the "thumbers" are authors, illustrators, or publishers that appreciate good reviews of their books. They may be embarrassed to "thumb" their own books if their identities are revealed. Just a thought.

>6 lilithcat: I'm not sure why you have to take such a nasty tone. No, I didn't forget; I looked beyond the superficially stated goal to what the ultimate purpose of the feature might be. Do you really think getting more thumbs is the goal in itself, and that it has nothing to do with improving interaction with reviews or improving the social atmosphere? Please.

>7 shelf-employed: There would still be an option for anonymity.

I'm at a bit of a loss to explain the distaste I have for it, especially since most of what I didn't like about it was that it was originally proposed as a mostly meaningless connection - nothing but names (possibly linked to profiles) who thumbed a review. With added functionality, my dislike is much less, but I still feel apprehensive and unhappy with thumbers' names showing up next to the review.

Perhaps if it were just a link (the # underlined and leading to an inline display, not a lightbox) I wouldn't find myself noticing or being bothered when looking at reviews, but I can't quite bring myself to feel that the list of names works. There's just something about it that feels wrong, and I do associate the "wrong" with how I felt when we were discussing about recommendations-thumber-names.

I think I just don't like the idea of peoples' names being displayed next to votes, though I can't articulate what about it is bothersome. I wouldn't want to see names for poll votes, either, and though I understand the reasoning behind it, the names on spam voting bothers me, too.

I expect to be in a very small minority about this, since the rest of the proposal is a good one. And I do like "Thumbed By So-and-so" being available from the statistics page.

>10 keristars: I guess, depending on what other people say, I would propose an option to disable the link entirely for certain users, but I have a feeling that's the sort of option that Tim would reject.

Are there modifications like this that might sway the other undecided voters in favour, or does undecided mostly just reflect a general lack of interest in the feature?

I started posting my comments on the previous thread, then went away in the middle of it and when I came back found that you all had left me! ;-) Posting it here again, but have to come back later to respond to the new direction of this thread.

OK, this is going to start out sounding tangential, but it's connected to Tim's original purpose, honest! I remember when I first watched Tim give his presentation about LT online (TED? YouTube?). I was surprised about how little I knew about/utilized the information/statistics that was available to me on LT that he was so excited about. At the same time, I noticed how little he talked about how people's participation in groups--which takes up most of my time on LT (multiple hours on many days) and the main reason I value LT so much. Of course, he has a much bigger picture to think about--this is his business, after all--but I decided even if he were just a member of LT, he would still probably use LT very differently than I would. It appeared that he was more excited about statistics and looking at one's library a multitude of ways; while right now I'm heavy into social interaction.

So, here's my point. Tim's got a much bigger picture of LT than I do. I'm assuming that for statistical/business reasons, Tim would like to see more thumbs of reviews. Or maybe he wants to just see more reviews, IDK. I could be way off-base, but it appears that Tim sees a problem (or an opportunity for making some particular aspect of the site work better), comes up with a possible solution, then asks us to vote on it: Yes/No. But, of course, people are going to have questions and concerns, and look at/discuss the change from their own point of view--which seems to upset Tim more than it should (imo).

I'm with Zoe, maybe Tim should just make changes that he thinks improve the site--then take the flak if people don't like it. Or, he can do what he did here--present an idea and ask for feedback, but maybe stay out of the conversation for awhile. Because he does sound immediately defensive (I probably would be too if I had spent a lot of time thinking about how to solve a problem and then got a lot of neg. reaction to it) which seems to lead to more of what he doesn't want, including questioning his motivations and/or underlying goals.

For example, I'm still confused about Tim's underlying goal. He's presenting statistics that indicate he wants more thumbs, yet his solution (personalizing thumbs) is presented as a way to create more connection between the reviewer and the thumber--which might or might not address what he seems to see as a problem. If so, instead of coming up with his own solution (and getting irate when people don't like it), maybe the discussion could be why Tim needs/wants more reviews thumbed, and ask LT-ers for ideas on how the site might go about encouraging this.

>12 bonniebooks: I just read your comment in the other thread, and thought perfectly your final remarks fit with the discussion here about goals.

I suggested that there are two ultimate goals for getting thumbs:
1) To improve member interaction with reviews
2) To improve the social atmosphere on the site

I wondered initially whether this might be related to LibraryThing for Libraries, because I think LT sells reviews and might want a way to distinguish the better ones, but the discussion of the terminology of thumbing led me to reject that (because surely libraries, at least, would be looking for "helpful" reviews).

What other potential value do thumbs have? (This is not a rhetorical question.)

#1 Good post _Zoe_.

I previously voted No on the first message by Tim in the thread titled "Vote: Add member name when you thumbs-up a review?"

But here I voted Yes. Why?

Because I was concerned that my username on those 'thumbs-up' votes I've given would attract unwanted attention to me. I am not looking for an argument when I either write a review or 'thumb' a review. When I thumb a review I do so for myriad reasons. The two most common are that the review was interesting, or the reviewers position is interesting and I want to hear more of it.

I voted yes here (to Message 1, above) because, even though the default is public, anyone after becoming aware of this change could opt out. - Which I will.
Goal 1: no objection.
Goal 2. no objection, but I stay away from social sites myself. I have no presence on facebook and the like. I think this will be fairly common among older members like myself. I am here at LT for the books.
All the additional features are fine with me so long as I can opt out.

I love the anonymity of LT Thumbs. Over at Amazon one is continually in danger of someone throwing a fit because one didn't sufficiently appreciate their particular obsession or the genius du jour... This sort of thing does happen in LT, but only in some groups; but fortunately it is very easy to avoid LT Groups if one wants to.

There are many people like myself who love LT but are largely uninterested in the social aspects. So long as we are not forced into the latter I have no objections to what LTers want to do.

I support _Zoe_'s proposal.

Joe

I like your ideas, Zoe, and I do think my comments fit in with this discussion. Your last comment about LibraryThing for Libraries, and LT selling reviews, is connected to what I'm trying to say, but maybe not as clearly as I would like, and it reminds me in general about the rules/pitfalls of brainstorming.

In brainstorming, someone presents a problem, then everyone brainstorms lots of ideas before discussing any one idea. And no criticism is allowed (because it discourages risk-taking in sharing ideas). Ideas are then discussed and narrowed down, using whatever criteria a group decides on (feasibility, cost, interest, values, etc.) before choosing one solution.

The problem that I see is that we're all trying to make one possible solution work without clearly identifying "the problem" or goal. I mean, I think you're trying to do that, but I wonder if we could get Tim to identify his problem first. Is he trying to get more reviews? Is he trying to improve the quality of the reviews--or at least get the better ones up top, so as to make them more valuable to libraries as you suggest? I think that's totally fine--I want LT to be financially successful too--but there may be a whole raft of solutions that take us far, far away from whether to attach names to thumbs or not, once we establish the underlying goal/problem Tim is trying to address.

>14 pomonomo2003: Thank you so much for that post, Joe. Hearing even one person say that they changed their vote from no to yes makes me feel that the time I spent writing that post was well-spent. And you said it in such a nice way too!

>15 bonniebooks: I agree that it would be useful to identify LT's goals, and then do some brainstorming about how to achieve them (and I did start another thread with at least that first aim in mind--but I think my initial questions were too broad, so nothing much has been accomplished except for many people saying they would leave LT if the cataloguing aspect somehow disappeared). I wonder how to encourage Tim to take up the approach of defining an issue for us and seeing what ideas we come up with.

Clarification polls:

Wait, are you talking about this thread or the other thread with these polls?

This thread; I already posted similar polls in the other thread. Or at least the no polls, which are more important.

Got it. That's what I thought, but then I wasn't sure. Need some caffeine, maybe. Or sleep.

touching on the topic raised above Tim said originally that the purpose of this was to get more thumbs

From my personal experience I know that two of my reviews became hot reviews. I believe the main reason they became hot reviews is because I posted my quick thoughts of the book and that my full review was posted on the book page in the active group threads.

Please feel free to chime in and tell my I am wrong but I think bringing new reviews to other LT readers' attention is what generates thumbs for book reviews so I don't see how displaying the thumbers' name helps here.

>24 lkernagh: Well, in the context of the "Thumbed by Member" pages and recently thumbed feed, reviews that had already been seen and liked by one person would be more likely to be seen by others as well.

> 24

bringing new reviews to other LT readers' attention is what generates thumbs for book reviews so I don't see how displaying the thumbers' name helps here.

"Names on thumbs" alone won't generate more thumbs. However, that should not be a reason to veto "names on thumbs" which has other purposes.

>24 lkernagh:: Tim said originally that the purpose of this was to get more thumbs

Yes, but why does he want more thumbs? Is that his solution to another underlying problem or goal that he wants to address? The answer to that question could lead to lots of other possible solutions.

Zoe, I like Yes/No questions, but like ratings, I sometimes can't answer either because they aren't my reasons for yes/no or undecided. I said no, first of all, because I think that as much as I love my own group and know that there are some absolutely fabulous reviewers there, they appear to be over-represented (is that a word?) already in the "hot reviews" section and this might add to what I think is a problem of popularity vs. quality (as compared to all the other reviews posted for the same book)--though these two things can go together too.

My other reason for "no" was that I knew my library linked to LT reviews and that LT is totally open, except for PM's and private groups. I know anybody can click onto a group and lurk, but I like to think that I can maintain some privacy within the 75-Book group by virtue of the fact that most people who click the link to LT reviews aren't going to go investigate the groups. Heck! Lots of people on LT don't participate in groups. But if our names are attached to thumbs, then people linking to LT reviews can click on our profiles and that all feels too Facebook-y--worse than Facebook, because you have to be invited to see someone's "wall" on Facebook, right? Yes, I know I could always opt out, and make my thumb anonymous, but I'm going to vote "no" to anything that gives us less privacy.

Final reason, I want LT to be successful, and if Tim needs more reviews or more thumbs, I think there are better ways to encourage that. For example, make an automatic link to a person's review when they're discussing it in their, or anybody's, thread. It's a hassle to create a link, and it's an extra step or two (or three or twenty) to find someone's review if they haven't linked it. And, as you've pointed out, linked reviews get thumbed more often for that reason. I really like some of your ideas for increasing interest in reviews and reviewing as well.

Are you listening, Tim?? ;-)

I've voted no because, honestly, I just don't see the point.
I'm not going to throw a fit if it's implimented, but I will be disabling it.

I do logically realize that this website has to have features that lean toward the social aspect, both for the existing "social" members and to attract new members.

And I have read these posts and tried to understand the motivation behind this. I just simply don't understand. How will showing the names of people who thumb reviews lead to a better LT-experience? How will it help this site? I just don't get it. It won't even lead to more thumbs, by itself, as Tim stated he wanted. As much as I try, I just can't understand what the heck it's going to achieve. I can't imagine reading a review, seeing that so-and-so thumbed it, and having that fact change... anything. At all.

Maybe I'm just missing the point.

@28

Yes I think you are missing the point. This thread is about extending the feature to include things that might actually lead to more thumbs. But that's not to say that you can't dislike showing the names enough to vote no anyway ;)

>13 _Zoe_: "...I think LT sells reviews..."

Do they?

30> LT sells LibraryThing for Libraries, which contains reviews (culled down). So indirectly, yes, they sell them reviews.