(Open in new tab to enlarge)

I'm pretty sure the topic and the dire situation itself wasn't "liked", but the article to be passed around (via facebook for instance) and to be read by all.

But at first glace, there wasn't any other differentiation.

o_o

Thought I'd share.

Yikes, we certainly didn't anticipate that!! Certainly can be misleading if you don't think about where the number is coming from. I added a comment in the news item, I don't want to remove it because it's important that this get out to as many people as possible...

Yikes, we certainly didn't anticipate that!! Certainly can be misleading if you don't think about where the number is coming from. I added a comment in the news item, I don't want to remove it because it's important that this get out to as many people as possible...

That's why FB provides the Share button.

I think that FaceBook has created the cultural expectation that 'likes' are a way of SEO-optimising a given post to boost it's rank, rather than an actual 'liking' for the topic in question. And on that basis, I really doubt that anyone is going to take offence...

I think that FaceBook has created the cultural expectation that 'likes' are a way of SEO-optimising a given post to boost it's rank, rather than an actual 'liking' for the topic in question. And on that basis, I really doubt that anyone is going to take offence...

Hopefully not, but I thought I'd note.

(Open in new tab to enlarge)

err!

I think that is why Google went the route of +1 to prevent moral and cultural clashes such as this. Maybe a change in wording to something like "Popularize" would be more appropriate to what it is accomplishing, and it couldn't in and of it self really make the snippet seem "messed up."

I just hate the word "like" altogether. "Rating," "Rank," "Votes," or even "Shares" (though "Shares" is a little misleading, as you aren't reposting it) are better alternatives, IMO, and I'm sure even better words are out there that I haven't thought of.

I just hate the word "like" altogether. "Rating," "Rank," "Votes," or even "Shares" (though "Shares" is a little misleading, as you aren't reposting it) are better alternatives, IMO, and I'm sure even better words are out there that I haven't thought of.

While a valid argument in principle, the word "like" is actually ingenious (it may not seem so anymore as everyone's so used to it by now) because it's personally relatable and directly impacts the liker's perception of the subject matter (whether them as a human being likes it or not). It was the result of a study I don't have the time to locate right now that said that most ratings (this includes the whole variety of blog posts, stuff like IMDb ratings, the previous GD rating system, etc) quite decisevely boil down to a binary distribution, meaning that more than 90% (!) of people tend to set their rating to one of two (usually polarized) values (eg 1 and 10 or 5 and 6). In effect this essentially boils down to "like'nig" and "not like'ing" (youtube implements the "dislike" button, which works for them because there's no perceptible number of potential raters whereas 1) it's in FB's interest not to polarize their usership by encouraging negative opinions and 2) if need be, you can generally roughly estimate the number of potential likers for most FB links based on content and the overall popularity/traffic of the site - eg placement. Hence, the "like" system by and of itself is ingenious, as is the word - it's vague enough to avoid flamewars (which even low ratings can encourage) and it allows people to express something personal in a positive direction.

Google+'s +1 functions exactly the same way, but only works only thanks to FB having introduced the general idea. If someone came out with a completely emotionally unattached "+1" system with no prior background, it'd be as bad as giving non-programmers a "++" or a "--" button (which, btw, GD should implement ) - it'd serve the intended purpose, but it'd be non-relatable, which would discourage people from actually using it. Which is to say that even Google, with its multi-billion dollar budget and enough brainpower to replace a render farm, couldn't come up with anything more ingenious.

When we analyze any of the ratings that we've gotten on this site, on a 1-5 scale we will see almost entirely 1's or 5's with an occasional 4 popping in. Hardly anybody ever rates a 2 or 3. This also includes the old rating system for users from before 2011.