Add an additional form of "I agree" besides starring or pinning (since pinning is restricted to a smaller subset to begin with) or something that we can use to not clog up the right hand star bar.

This is because sometimes you want to say "I agree" but you don't want to star it because ... let's face it, that's not star-worthy, and you don't want to clutter the stream with fifty thousand "like totes for sure, hella right!" because then it becomes one big back-patting party and you lose all semblance of conversation.

So I would propose a fourth "flag" for chat, that allows us to say "I {agree with|like|am of the same opinion as} this comment" and that it would only be useful in the live-chat (and maybe but not really in the transcript) and that it have no other useful semantics (no badges, no list of's [unless the list is of comments you've upthumbed]).

  • 3
    I agree ------- – Pekka supports GoFundMonica Jun 27 '11 at 15:54
  • 1
    @pekka, I almost office lol'd – jcolebrand Jun 27 '11 at 15:56
  • 7
    I disagree, but if this were chat I wouldn't be able to disagree, would I? I demand equal rights for the cantankerous! – Adam Davis 'ze-zir-zem' Jun 27 '11 at 16:29

If several people "agree" with a given chat post, then it should be starred.

Let's instead change the star sidebar so it requires at least 2 or 3 stars before a post shows up on it. The star function is meant to be the "awesome"/"I agree"/etc vote, and duplicating it and/or dividing it up will lead to more confusion than anything else.

If 3 people "agree" with a comment, chances are good others would be interested in reading it as well.

This should be settable by the room owner - some busy rooms will need 2-3 stars before it shows on the side, but most rooms will remain at the default of 1 star.

  • +1 I can star a bunch of messages in quick concussion up until the daily star limit, this would be pretty annoying. And I also believe that there are chat rooms where some starred messages aren't useful but for the one that starred it himself. – Tamara Wijsman Jun 27 '11 at 16:30
  • 1
    ok, I like this idea better. A threshold for stars to show up. Should it be room-owner-settable? – jcolebrand Jun 27 '11 at 16:52
  • @jcole Oh, that's good. If the default is 1, then it acts like it does now, but for very busy rooms the owners could set it to 2 or 3 or higher based on their own requirements. I'd make it owner settable. – Adam Davis 'ze-zir-zem' Jun 27 '11 at 16:59
  • 6
    I disagree that starring "is meant to be the 'awesome'/'I agree'/etc vote." I think that's an abuse -- albeit a common one -- of the system. From the help page: "Feel free to star any message you feel is particularly useful or worthy of summarizing in the transcript." and "The room sidebar is intended to be a collaboratively created mini-timeline of interesting room events for people who don't have time to read the entire chat transcript." – Pops Jun 27 '11 at 17:02
  • @Popular Ah, interesting! Do you also think we should have a separate "like" button to fulfill the need the OP has suggested exists? – Adam Davis 'ze-zir-zem' Jun 27 '11 at 17:20
  • @Adam, I'm not about to go out and campaign for an "agree/like" button, but I certainly wouldn't be opposed to having one, either. – Pops Jun 27 '11 at 17:33
  • What we need, is for @balpha to come along and whisper in our ears. – jcolebrand Jun 27 '11 at 17:33
  • I disagree - on sites, even as large/small as SU, not many users frequent chat. I read many of our starred messages with only 1-3 stars total, rarely do I see above 4... – studiohack Jun 28 '11 at 1:48
  • 1
    @studiohack - The limit should be set by the room owner so lower volume rooms still find it valuable. Most rooms will leave it at 1 star. Only the busiest rooms would take it up to 2, 3, or more stars. – Adam Davis 'ze-zir-zem' Jun 28 '11 at 2:05
  • @StudioHack ~ not mods, room owners. Slight difference. – jcolebrand Jun 28 '11 at 3:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .