The Checkrate Checkmark

[Unimatic1140]

It has come to my attention that their has been some confusion of what the red check mark is in the upper right hand corner of every post.

The red check mark is meant as our version of a "like" button. It was styled after the 1950's Consumer Reports Checkrate mark, when they liked a product they placed that red check mark next to the rating of the product.

I had heard that it was getting confused with the "Report/mark as offensive" button. So I've now clearly labeled the Checkrate button. If there is a number to the right of the check mark, that shows how many people have liked that post. A blank means no one has checked like as of yet.

The checkrate/like button was only available to upgraded members but I just changed the system so it is available to any member who is logged-in. Normally I do not extend features that are for upgraded users but I will make an very rare exception this time because it is such a minor feature and it might help get more likes across the board.

Please let me know if you find any issue with this new label. Clicking the Checkrate mark will anonymously show that you like this particular post, no one can see who exactly has liked a post. If you click it by mistake and want to "unlike" it, simply click it again. A blue check mark means you've Checkrated this post already.

 

[mattl]

Funny, the check mark always reminds me of dairy products from when I was a kid.  Did not remember the name but Google helped out and here is a link to their website.  It's from Quality Chekd Dairy.  Honestly do not remember the brand name around here in MI but it looks like various dairy companies all fall under that branding.

 

Somehow I think it kind of applies here too - except for the dairy part...

http://www.qchekd.com/

 

[mickeyd]

In school, the red check mark always meant wrong. Maybe that's where the confusion stems from. I wish that the checks were not anonymous, especially when a negative, offensive post gets 5 or 6 checks, like the one in Dirty Laundry that called people who fly the flag "especially stupid." There would be far less support for such rhetoric without the cover of anonymity. Let our names be known.

 

[rp2813]

I disagree with reply #2, and might add that I've yet to visit a web site (e.g. Yahoo! News) that listed the names of every visitor -- and this could number in the thousands -- who "liked" something.

 

Under the subject matter listings on the "Create a New Thread" screen, Robert has made it quite clear what the members-only Dirty Laundry forum will contain by providing the following description: 

 

"Any off-topic subject that might be controversial such as Politics Religion, Sexual Overtones, etc)."

 

Thus, members have been warned about content in the DL forum and those who are overly sensitive to such material should proceed (or retreat) accordingly.  This is where the big boys hold their off-topic discussions.  The "Report" button is still an option in DL, and if enough members click on it, Robert will remove the post.  The specific post referenced in reply #2 that received several "likes" obviously didn't receive enough "Reports" to have it removed.    The system is working fine in its current format. 

 

[kb0nes]

As Michael suggests it would be possible to display who "liked" a post, Facebook does this with all likes. Typically on this site any given post doesn't receive more then 10-20 likes at most. I'm not convinced that the benefit would be worth the possibly considerable amount of work it would be for Robert... I think it would be neat though and I wouldn't be against publicly liking posts.

As for adding the "Checkrate/Like" text to avoid confusion my thoughts are that it really isn't needed and it's not aesthetically pleasing. The browsers I tried all have a pop up tip box description which is more functional and doesn't clutter up the page. Alas I didn't try Firefox as I tossed it into the pile with Mosiac, Netscape and Opera years ago

Just some ramblings from the nose-bleed seats...

 

[danemodsandy]

Michael:

The purpose of the anonymous reporting of offensive posts is to decrease confrontations between members. Before this system, it was possible for some very heated confrontations to get started.

I for one would not be happy to see that begin again. The present system alerts the Webmaster, who can take care of things quietly, keeping the group as harmonious as possible. It takes seven "offensive" reports before a post will be edited or removed, so the present system seems fair in that it does not rely on the perception of one or two people; it's not possible for one person's dislike of another to get a feud started.

 

[redcarpetdrew]

Here, here! Like it a lot. Thanks, Robert! A slightly funny suggestion would be a skull and crossbones or the 'nuke' icon for the report button... LOL!

Sandy, I remember too vividly those heated 'discussions' and always thought that we lost good members due to them. With the occasional passionate 'discussions' between Reno and Beltsville (luv ya John!) aside, the new system coupled with the Dirty Laundry area seems to work pretty well. Thank you, Robert!!!

RCD

 

[revvinkevin]

I also disagree with reply #2

 

 

If I choose to "like" a particular post, why do <span style="text-decoration: underline;">you</span> or anyone else need to know I was one of those who clicked the "like" checkrate mark?   

Simple answer: You don't.   

 

Your being offended by (whatever) has <span style="text-decoration: underline;">nothing</span> to do with me (or anyone else) clicking the checkrate, so again, why do you need to know who "checked" it?   

Simple answer again: You don't.

 

If you are offended by something posted in the Dirty Laundry forum, DON'T GO IN THAT FORUM!   Yes it is just that simple!!   If you are offended by something posted in another forum, then click the "Report" button, because that <span style="text-decoration: underline;">is</span> why it's there.

 

Since the DL forum was created I've only "entered" a small handful of times, but generally avoid it like the plague.   This is because there is nothing of value OR interest to me in there.      

 

~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~ 

 

Personally I really enjoy the tranquility we've had on AW since the other forums were created.   Sure there are the occasional "heated discussions" that pop up from time to time, but it's nothing like it was before!

 

THANK YOU SO MUCH Robert for ALL of your effort and the ongoing improvements you add to AW to make it an even better place for us appliance enthusiasts to be!

 

Kevin

[this post was last edited: 9/10/2013-15:49]

 

[perc-o-prince]

Let our names be known......

Who cares?

It's a pretty much, "All Things Are Go" forum, so no one should be offended. As has been said, those reading have been warned that content may be offensive, and it's the individual's choice to read it or not.

Maybe this is apples to oranges (I doubt it, but for the sake of argument...)... You go to a newsstand that carries all kinds of publications, including porn. You know this before you walk up to it (warning posted), you choose to walk up to it, and you're offended that they sell porn mags?

People, really. When will we once again have accountability and responsibility for ourselves instead of trying to police the world around us? Personally, after reading the replies, I'd like to see a + and - button for like and dislike for each post, if it weren't hard for Robert to do. It wouldn't mean anything other than to show who likes and who dislikes a post. Kind of like the thumbs up or down on FB. As was eluded to before, red would be negative and another color (blue? black?) would be positive.

That said, the check mark program was made clear so this really is a non-issue. If someone chose not to read the post about it, it's on them.

Signed,

So Sick of People Not Taking Responsibility For Themselves and Trying To Put It on The Other Guy (Chuck)

 

[travis]

As someone that has made some of the "heated" comments in the DL posts, the only benefit I see in knowing who has checked my post either positively, is that I would know who I could chat with privately by email.  If a post I have made has been reported, I really don't want to know by who.  I might want to retaliate.  I wish I could say forgive and forget all the time, but sometimes it gets personal

 

I love this group, but understand the political slant of the vocal members here.  I go into the Dirty Laundry forum knowing that I may get pissed off.  When I get upset enough, I respond.  I find is fascinating when I agree with someone that I don't expect to.  I think it's great to have an area to vent.  It keeps the public areas clean as intended.

 

[mickeyd]

Dear Ralph,

I wrote this last night, but decided not to post it, figuring I could let sleeping dogs lie, and not make it any worse because the thread was Robert's and just move on.
That was a mistake. It may have been more helpful if members had read this last night. One can only hope. Here's what I wrote:

"Robert started the thread because of confusion about what the red check mark means. It therefore seemed possible to deduce this morning, when reading his post, that some members thought by "red-checking," they were indicating opposition.

So the question remains: How many "likes" were really "dislikes?" And what were the circumstances that led to his clarification? And did the "especially ignorant" post prompt the confusion. Only Robert knows for sure. I did not, as far as I know, Dear Ralph, just fall off the turnip truck, (laughing), and am well aware of the rules, including the most relevant one which you cleverly omitted:

" There will be no posts meant to offend or hurt any other member, in a manner which is offensive or inflammatory. " Flag fliers being especially ignorant fills the bill, and the current system failed. Seven is way too high a bar to reach. More turnips: Well aware that this is only one man's opinion.

And Hey Big Boy as Phil pointed out, ever hear of Facebook, LOL. That's the other origin of our red check mark, as was stated when we first got it. So it didn't seem original or ground-breaking to hope that our club could complete the Facebook protocol of identification of the likers.

Wouldn't it be nice to know who regularly likes what you post, finding a friend you didn't know you had, like I never knew I had you till the day we exchanged such fun when I confused you with Nate?"

TODAY; What's wrong with taking us to the next level of civility. Let's go up another notch. Let's get even better in the way we treat each other. Let's really consider how we'd feel to be the other guy. What's wrong with that?

 

[rp2813]

Hmmmm

Michael, I think you may have confused me with someone else again.  From the verbiage you have put in quotes above, it appears you've attributed remarks to me that were made by another member, and it also seems like you're inferring that the post about flag fliers that offended you was written by me.  Not true in either case.

 

Your point about misinterpretation of the check mark is a valid one, but I don't lose sleep over whether the counter next to the check mark on any of my posts might actually include a "dislike" from someone who didn't realize what they were doing.  Additionally, when the "Report" button is correctly used, 7 is a very reasonable threshold for deletion.  Many threads receive hundreds of views.  Taking that into consideration, 7 can often represent 5% or less of those who read a particular post.

 

I did not intentionally omit anything in reply #3.  As I stated, my verbatim cut-and-paste of the type of material that belongs in the DL forum came from the "Create a New Thread" screen.  Your quote regarding rules against hurtful or offensive posts aimed at a specific member is located elsewhere on this web site, and I'd have to do some searching to find it.  I appreciate that you saw my omission as clever, though.  ;-)

 

I don't know from Facebook.  I have no interest in that web site whatsoever.

 

Finally, your direct reply to me has fallen short.  As evidenced above, you should have included Sandy, Kevin, Chuck and Travis.

 

I appreciate your idealism, but I stand my my statements.

 

 

 

[maytagbear]

There are

some who understood the check mark the first time around.

If anyone wants to "talk" to me from here, there's washer mail, and also the email in my profile (email will be changed in profile soon, however).

I don't particularly want to know who "likes" or "dislikes" whatever I say here; it destroys my illusion of being universally loved here at AW.org. (< sarcastic humor attempt).

Lawrence/Maytagbear

 

[beekeyknee]

Check mark scheck mark. I hadn't even noticed the check mark until this thread, that is. Mountains and molehills.

LOL. Oh wait. I need to make my first check mark.

 

[jeffg]

Robert, I second mickeyd's comment about the checkmark color. Typically red is used for flagging, green for liking.

Also imo a thumbs up symbol or plus sign or similar instead of a checkmark would be clearer.

 

[redcarpetdrew]

Much ado over nothing...

All this shouting over a little red checkmark? I'm dense but even I recognized a Consumer's Digest check. Let's make up our minds, people. If memory serves me, everyone was singing Robert's praises when he first started the whole thing! Even you, Mickey. Now, not so much...

How about a thumbs up and a middle finger? A happy face and a dead face? Sorry, but this whole flap seems like something out of nothing. I don't care who likes or dislikes a comment I said. Why? So I can start a secret 'list' of people I do or don't like? I can pretty much tell who I wish to talk with or not by how they conduct themselves here and how they post without seeing a list.

RCD

 

[revvinkevin]

HERE HERE!!!

 

 

VERY well said Andy, very well said!

 

~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~

 

Is anyone put-off or offended by RCD's comments about all this sillyness?  Anyone?  

 

Is anyone put-off or offended because I just "liked" RCD's post?   If so, I'd like to politely suggest you go pound sand.

 

Kevin

 

 

[yogitunes]

There are a LOT more things in this world to worry or care about than a silly little red checkmark.....

Robert has explained this to us in the first part of this thread as well as when it was first introduced, AND that's all you should need.....clarification....done!

I don't know about you, but personally, I am more concerned with the health and well being of a few of our members who have been going thru some rough ordeals.......namely Kelly, Tom and Franks sister Betty.....and they need our prayers....if your gonna waste time typing, at least put it to good use!

pick a battle worth fighting for, grow a pair, and then move on....

if you want a choice of color, make it a rainbow, so no one feels left out!...

rant over....on to bigger and better things....

 

[redcarpetdrew]

Martin...

I love you... Lol!

RCD

 

[jeffg]

Good grief. Nothing like being made to feel like an idiot for trying to explain your forum and asking for feedback on improvements, eh Robert?

 

[yogitunes]

Robert wasn't asking for an opinion, or what color he should select....he was asking, after making changes, and clarifying how it works, if anyone was experiencing issues of the new setup not working for an individual, as with any other program that he adds or makes changes to....he wants to be alerted to any thing that is out of the ordinary not working as he has planned...

an actual issue that has turned up, but not sure if its a cause of these changes...the "wallpaper" is missing....

 

[foraloysius]

Martin

There is wallpaper in the Imperial Forum and in the Deluxe Forum. IIRC the Super Forum never had wallpaper.

 

[Unimatic1140]

Really I think we all have now made what the red check mark means obvious and I don't think there is much more need to discuss this, so lets move on and I'll close the thread.

I do appreciate the input and maybe at some point I will consider some other changes.

Thanks again all.

ps. Louis is correct, the wallpaper shows up only in Imperial and Deluxe.