In favor of "me too" posts

[yesthattom]

I just realized why discussions on the internet are so full of flames. (Well, _one_ of the reasons).

If you agree, you just go to the next post. The only time you are going to post a reply (or type a reply in a chat room, etc.) is if you disagree. Therefore, the flames are all people see.

On the other hand, while the tradition of posting “me too” is annoying to those that are already suffering from information overload.

At Google we have a tradition of posting “+1” in reply to an email that we agree with. That means while your idea may receive 2-3 flames, it might also receive a few +1’s and if you are lucky a +2.

gmail.com makes this particularly non-annoying since all emails are viewed as threads, and the quoted material is obscured until you click on it (imagine if the “>” quoted parts of emails were displayed like LJ-cut links).

Thus, if someone posts on a mailing list, “I like sunny days”, and 2 people quickly reply “+1” and someone else replies, “I disagree” you see it all in one web page. Since the quoted material is obscured, visually it is very efficient and easy to read. One click and they are all archived (or deleted, if you delete your email). A different click and you can see the quoted material.

So, in an effort to make the internet a less flame-filled place, I now like “me too”s.

Comments

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

gmail.com makes this particularly non-annoying since all emails are viewed as threads, and the quoted material is obscured until you click on it (imagine if the “>” quoted parts of emails were displayed like LJ-cut links).

...although weirdly and annoyingly, gmail does not do that for quoted sections that are quoted in >-prepend fashion. It only works if you top-quote and don't interleave any text. Which is kind of making a silk purse out of a sow's ear...

[baerana.livejournal.com]

me too! :)

[airshipjones.livejournal.com]

I like the way they do it on dailykos.com. They have a little check box and next to it it just says Recommend. I think it tracks the number of people that recommend a response, and the number of replies to that response. Simple but good numbers.

[kingfox.livejournal.com]

Heh, I was waiting for someone to say that.

[sweh.livejournal.com]

You could always have the best of both worlds; a "me too" post that expands on the original post and gives more reasons.
eg
"I like sunny days"
"Me too; they let me sit out in the park and have lunch"
"Me three; there's nothing like strawberries and champagne by the river on a sunny day"

[vees.livejournal.com]

It also cuts off my personal flame favorite at the pass:

"Obviously the silent majority agrees with ME!"

[dariens-haircut.livejournal.com]

I do try to do that.

Sometimes, I cannot, and I even reconsider the value of saying anything at all if I cannot add anything. But I do try to have something to add.

[jenocyber.livejournal.com]

+1

[ljtourist.livejournal.com]

...which reminds me of one my favorite filks.

[awfief.livejournal.com]

definitely. I find that problem with my flist when I post good stuff. It's very discouraging to feel like nobody is sharing in my happiness. How come there are so few "yay!" posts and so many "hugs" ones?

[awfief.livejournal.com]

except more kosher.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

double-plus ungood, when you think about it.

[drwex]

Interesting.

To my knowledge, the +1 thing originated at MIT, on Zephyr and discussion boards there. It was seen as particularly geeky and lazy and fell out of favor during the heyday of Rush Limbaugh, who encouraged a stream of sycophantic "me too" responses to his bloviation.

I've recently (couple years) noticed it coming back into vogue, along with the geek version of "I agree with the previous comment" expressed as "==$NAME" for whatever name you're agreeing with.

[vees.livejournal.com]

+1