Rating instead of Hearts for Liking Posts and Comments

I would suggest a 0-5 rating scale instead of hearts. It would lead to more compromise in our discussions, better allowing us to reach consensus and improve the quality of our discussions, which is vital for our survival and success as a group in the face of our many challenges. This could be the edge for cardinal supporters to unite and work together to enact superior voting methods. I also think people would be more willing to write comments that incorporate various popular ideas (‘compositing’ as it is known in this book) and thus quicker lead us to right theories and good ideas.

Edit: Just found a way for this community to execute 0-5 ratings at https://meta.discourse.org/t/ratings-instead-of-hearts-for-likes/122813/4

Just start a poll!

Your opinion on: Should hearts on posts be changed to a :zero:-:five: rating scale?

  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

We can go with a quorum of, say, 10 voters, and a minimum rating of 2.51 to pass. Glad to see the rating has already produced nuance :slight_smile:
Edit: Let’s go with a minimum rating of 4 3.75 instead. That ensures it has 75% consensus or greater.
I’d also point out that with Retort, we can have both hearts and ratings.

It looks done for! Thanks for supporting it though. Even if the next 5 people give it a 5/5, it will max out at 3.6, below the cutoff.

My issue with this proposal is that there are a lot of posts on this site, and rating all of them would be a hassle. Most posts make useful but minor contributions to their discussion, and it’s hard to justify either penalizing (as an averaging system might do) or rewarding a user (as a sum might do) for writing such posts. If you feel a post merits rating, you can always reply to give nuanced feedback.


The rating would’ve been optional, an additional source of info, and easier to give than a reply. Sometimes there is legitimately nothing to say except “I like that this much.”

I feel that “compositing” (taking the best in several high-scoring comments) comes naturally from sums. In averaging, I’m a fan of Majority Denominator for all users who rated within a post.

I would be curious whether something like 0-2 rating would be more palatable, or if there are other compromise proposals.

Adding a dislike option would be somewhat equivalent to this (if the default rating were 1).

Of course, if we do that, -1,0,1 would make much more sense than 0,1,2.

I don’t believe in downvoting. It would encourage negativity and polarization; at most, maybe a -0.2 would be acceptable as a way for a majority to team up and downvote a post without it being abused by individual avengers and pissing people off. How do you feel about plain (0, 1, 2)?

It might be worth asking around for examples of how Score or STAR have helped. I suspect the STAR campaign probably used and was benefitted by STAR in making decisions.

I agree with this post. Liking a post is supposed to be a quick and simple thing and not something you’d want to give much thought to in terms of a particular score. If you considered a post to be a 2 or 3 out of 5, I just don’t imagine you’d have the motivation to rate it, unless you were the sort of person who would rate every post, and that person probably doesn’t exist.

(Just had to do a Google search to find out how to quote in this bizarre forum (select the text and an option comes up). And I wouldn’t have known what to search for if someone hadn’t mentioned “Discourse” earlier in this thread.)

“Let’s not have voting in the elections, it’s irrational!” /s

I would certainly use ratings as a tool to give feedback and nudge people towards my position and vice versa. Over time, I’d expect we’d all better compromise in our discussions.