The option to give a thumbs-up to a post has spared me the effort of writing a 'me too' reply which would only be tiresome for me and everyone else.

my aching sides ;-)

(to all the anonymous 'neggars with attitude')

I just don't think they're very Word - they run the risk of discouraging people from expressing an opinion.

I've voted a few times, pos and neg. At best they can be considerably more than irrelevant. I don't always notice or look, but I can say the post I've seen with the most negative "score" was one I too had "negged", and which most reasonable people would have found objectionable. The posts with the most positive scores are mostly ones that also brighten my day.

Once (as far as I've seen), a post of mine had had a few positive nods. Which was nice.

don't like them, just think they are a bit unecessary.

It hardly encourages debate if you can just put a + or - against a comment and run away and hide.

This from a magazine that thumbs it's nose at star ratings in album reviews - what's the difference?

I can more or see the point of the +, as a sort of virtual clapometer, but I can't see the point of the negative button at all. If anything is truly objectionable - because it's spam, offensive or contravenes the FAQ guidelines in some way - it'll either be removed by Fraser or the commenters will make it quite clear that some mark or other has been overstepped.

All I can see the "negging down" of posts achieving is that it'll put up yet another barrier to put off first-time or infrequent posters. Surely this place is quite cliquey enough already.

And - although perhaps I shouldn't be mentioning this on my 52nd birthday - isn't it all just a bit, well, not very grown-up?

Many happy returns.

Like Gatz I find it nice to be able to signal your approval of a post without cluttering up the thread with a 'me too' comment (so in other words Gatz, er, me too).

It's the 'negs' I don't like. I can't stand seeing negatives next to comments that are perfectly reasonable. Whenever I see one I add a positive just to redress the balance.

I'd like the site to keep the + vote but drop the - vote. Similar to Facebook's 'like this' function. (Having said that, I did neg a post that looked like spam a few days back.)

EDIT: Oh, I see Archie's just said almost exactly the same thing.

accentuate only the positive if you must. Negging is cold, formal and sneaky and not what discussion is about. Not for me. I have not, and will not neg.

I notice a kind of 'Lib Dem' consensus emerging here - not 'get rid of them' or 'keep them' but a third way, or 'Word way' even, of keeping only the positives. Quite heartwarming ;-)

They don't bother me in particular, but I can safely say I ignore them completely - it would never occur to me to 'vote' one way or the other - or to look at the net score for any of my posts.

If I disagree with a post, or have something to add in support of a post, I'll respond giving my view either positively or negatively. I would suggest that most regular contributors would do the same. That way, posters can see who (dis)agrees with them - and why.

And so debate is fostered, and the thread will grow, develop and (more often than not) end up somewhere completely different.

A tally of anonymous 'thumbs up/down' won't help achieve this as far as I can see - and the site would be the poorer if that was the outcome.

I don't like it.
I have said elsewhere that I'd rather people took me to task properly than 'negged' me. Then I have the right to reply.
A 'me too / thumbs up' button would be good.

but I wouldn't miss them if they were gone.

Oh, those bloody silly blue arrers? Ignore them, they're just their for the children to play with while the rest of us use words and sentences.

would like to see them removed - if you've got a comment to make, be it for or against, make it and put your name to it. that's what debate's about. there are a number of contributors who've made the effort to start threads , only to find no comments added to it, but a number of negatives shown by the arrows - surely this will just discourage posters.

...everywhere shorthand. No-one wants to take the scenic route, anymore, already, and I've just noticed that I've inadvertently assumed the disgruntled brogue of a Jewish mother.

WORD doesn't do star ratings, which pleases me no end, so why should it introduce a "me too" button. I want to know WHY "me too"!

Bring back the days of Charles Shaaaaaaar Murray album reviews where it was impossible to tell whether or not he actually liked the album (schmalbum). Oy!!

I like the arrows: often a post is just a point of information or the heads up on a TV programme so being able to give a positive tick is quick way of thank them. Also I like to praise when someone says something nice.

Obversely if someone says something real dumb well I don't see why you have to lay out an endless argument. This isn't the UN there's no need to get all high and mighty about standard of debate rock music is at heart dumb and all the attempts to lift it too high have failed (see prog and jazz rock).

The anti arrow cadre are also perilously close to the whole if "you've not got anything positive to say don't say anything at all" nonsense. A line of thinking which would have left the Tolpuddle Martyrs high and dry.

Part of the justification for their introduction was to encourage people to think before they post in that if you say something dumb, illiberal or deliberately offensive well you'll soon find out. I can't see the "but it's anonymous" line either because you can choose to post under any name you like anyway (we have no real proof that anyone is who they say they are).

Also if people are worried about hurt feelings well what's worse a few demerits or a long chain of comment explaining in great detail to you why you are completely wrong in liking Dollar?

If it really did put off newcomers well then that would be a bad thing be usually apart from trolls and spammers new comers hardly get there bag nicked and thrown onto the train tracks.

You only have to peak at the comment pages of YouTube (I'd use a welders mask if haven't already) to seem that the word blog is nice place to be but let's not get to nicey nice though.

I would vote to keep them I can't see the debate round here getting stifled by the odd bad review and it will keep things lively.

don't say anything at all"

My Grandma taught me that.
She was a wise woman.
:-)

I don't think that's what we are saying though.

I'd really like to know what's wrong with Dollar! (Actually... on second thoughts...)

Wow - sounds your Gran invented 21st century parenting!!
Age doesn't always, bring wisdom - v. true - I'm deffo getting stupider...

Thanks for clarification of your position, Chris - very Word that! :-)

are pointless - which is a less than ideal quality in an arrow

but caught myself just in time!

:-)

Every morning at 3.00 a.m. UK time, it crawls every page of the Word blog randomly clicking arrows, thereby rendering their values even less meaningful than they already were. Which was approximately the square root of minus one.

creates a higher possibility for web nastiness.

Whilst its necessary for many people to have usernames that don't give who they actually are away for reasons of not losing there jobs and for reasons of being able to say things without censor, and so that part of anonymous web engagement is a necessary evil, that isn't the case in terms of these arrows.

And anyway usernames at least tell people who you are in some senses as the names often reflect the person. In my case you can easily track my real name down anyway.

Anonymous positive comments we can surely live with, but anonymous negatives will help create negative web cultures. I've been on a few boards that have developed problems like that and the word board seems to generally avoid it so I would strongly caution against doing anything to encourage this.

The problem with the web is how easy it is to click and how easy it is to be horrible to someone else because you are not dealing with them face to face and they don't know who you are. Often people feel victimised when each comment would in isolation not have upset them, but the cumulative effect of lots of people adding another humorous negative can really upset people.

I was given a stupid nickname at school and it became so popular that everyone in the school shouted it at me everywhere I went. The individuals shouting were just having a laugh. But 20 individuals having a laugh in a row results in a build up of abuse that can really upset someone.

The internet is many wonderful things, but it is also an even better breading ground for bullying than a secondary school.

I know this seems like a trivial issue but I truly believe that these little things are very important when creating a cultural vibe. For example people get upset by kids playing there music loud on mobiles. If we had never created mobiles that played music out loud then this annoyance wouldn't occur. Children would have to find different ways of challenging adults and people outside their friendship groups. And possibly there would be less general anger between teenagers and adults than we have now.

The Word team get to create there own culture here. How they choose to create it will determine what it becomes. Generally they have done really well. This is a first rate site that offers so many impressive and innovative ways for people to interact online. Lets get rid of anonymous attacking of peoples opinions and it will flourish even more.

I don't doubt that there are dishonourable and unpleasant reasons for "negging", as some have eloquently described here. However, there have occasionally been posts which, for me, have fallen into the territory of "not worthy of dignifying with a reply." I've had no compunction about hitting the down arrow about a couple of them, though they are still in the overwhelming minority.