Theory: the first thumb given for a post, whether green or red, sets in motion the likelihood of getting the same thumbs from following readers of that post.
Get a green thumb first, and the next reader is already biased that it's likely a good post and may give a green thumb. Same for red.
Whaddya think?
@chaney3 saidI think this is not what happens.
Theory: the first thumb given for a post, whether green or red, sets in motion the likelihood of getting the same thumbs from following readers of that post.
Get a green thumb first, and the next reader is already biased that it's likely a good post and may give a green thumb. Same for red.
Whaddya think?
@chaney3 saidWell, the anonymous thumbs function is an infantile feature of this website, but I find it hard to believe that the infantilism of many of those who use it could run so deep as to make your theory correct.
I think it's possible that a reader of a post, who sees a red thumb, may already be subconsciously thinking that the post isn't good, even before they start reading it.
@chaney3 saidRHP is the best chess-and-chat website on the web, imo.
Theory: the first thumb given for a post, whether green or red, sets in motion the likelihood of getting the same thumbs from following readers of that post.
Get a green thumb first, and the next reader is already biased that it's likely a good post and may give a green thumb. Same for red.
Whaddya think?
The anonymous thumbing (up/down) feature replaced the “recommended” (effectively “up” only) several years ago, and is a rare mistake in the development of RHP which is probably the last of the chess websites with a truly personal feel.
Perhaps the only other mistake Russ has made is the occasional erroneous choice of forum moderator; which has sometimes seen a quiet and reserved, but deeply partisan member appointed to a role which requires a silent objectively rarely possessed by existing forum contributors.
Edit: @Badwater for example
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
@chaney3 saidI think the thumb theory only really kicks in after 2 thumbs (in either direction). To give a third green thumb instigates a notification and to deliver a third red thumb carries gravitas. (It also opens the door to multiple thumbs).
I think it's possible that a reader of a post, who sees a red thumb, may already be subconsciously thinking that the post isn't good, even before they start reading it.
Just a theory.
Edit: For example, Dive's post above currently has one thumb down. The urge for me to give a 2nd thumb down is negligible, but if it already had 2 thumbs down the likelihood of me giving a third thumb down is increased. (And even more so if it had 3).
@chaney3 saidYour theory doesn’t hold up for people who make up their own minds about things. For those who can’t make up their own minds about things, there are religions and political parties and ‘influencers’ to make up their minds for them.
Theory: the first thumb given for a post, whether green or red, sets in motion the likelihood of getting the same thumbs from following readers of that post.
Get a green thumb first, and the next reader is already biased that it's likely a good post and may give a green thumb. Same for red.
Whaddya think?
@divegeester saidGooster, I think you meant well, just worded it all wrong!
RHP is the best chess-and-chat website on the web, imo.
The anonymous thumbing (up/down) feature replaced the “recommended” (effectively “up” only) several years ago, and is a rare mistake in the development of RHP which is probably the last of the chess websites with a truly personal feel.
Perhaps the only other mistake Russ has made is the occasional erroneous ch ...[text shortened]... a silent objectively rarely possessed by existing forum contributors.
Edit: @Badwater for example
-VR