You obviously have not thought this through fully Katiou [sic]...
Funny. I was thinking the same about you.
Point One: New Users.
Sure, if universal comments become a thing it might work the way you expect, but: logic failure, what about NEW users? Every time we get a new person signed up, that process of breaking down the reticence for posting comments must begin again for that user, so the button continues to serve that purpose forever.
Except the hesitation only exists because there's no precedent. Once the comments begin to pile up, the precedent is set, and thus the only qualm is whether or not they believe their preference is any good.
Point Two: Lucky Strike.
Sometimes, (I'm not sure how often, but ocasionaly,) the writer will just GUESS what the majority of the people hitting that 'I want more' button wanted, and write accordingly.
Well, if we look at it purely from the perspective of possible thread additions, your math is obscenely wrong. The probability for individual threads is dependent on the contents of each thread, but typically there's three or four readily apparent options noted within the thread plus one or two options in the details and background that don't click in the writer's head immediately, so let's estimate that at 20%. With that established, we then calculate the probability of 35% or more of all threads resulting in this lightning strike - which, in my opinion, would be a high enough percentage to perpetuate the idea comments aren't essential. Under these circumstances, the chance of lightning striking 35% of CHYOA threads is less than 1%. You'd be correct if our site was binary, in which case the odds are very nearly 100%, but the site simply isn't that restrictive. And even if it was, writing.com proves it's extremely easy to get around such restrictions.
On top of that, I'd like to remind you we've looked at this from the perspective of
possibilities; that is to say, we've looked at it under the assumption that every thread receives exactly one (1) "I Want More of This" vote. When we consider it with the far more likely possibility that threads receive more than one vote each, we now have to consider the probability that each click represents a continuation of the same idea - using my prior examples as a base, this means the probability that every "I Want More of This" for the first example was a request for anal play (for argument's sake). As the votes pile up, the probability of that unanimity rapidly approaches 0%. For the proof, go back to my 20% chance per thread estimate: at 2 votes, the chance of concurrence is 20%; at 3, 4%; at 4, 0.8%. Even if we assume 50% per thread - the highest possible odds - the respective odds of identical votes are 50%, 25%, and 12.5%. Unless all the votes are unanimous, the thread cannot be considered a lightning strike; otherwise, someone didn't get what they wanted more of and has to clarify.
Both of these conclusions combined, the probability of a writer getting lucky enough to never need someone to clarify after the fact is virtually 0%. And this is before we consider the possibility that they got what they wanted, but not
how they wanted it, which would also lead to a comment.
As such, all you've presented, at most, is a delay to my conclusion, not an actual turnaround - and even then, it'd likely be about a 30 second delay at the longest. A delay that was fully calculated from the very beginning, in turn meaning we circle back to the endgame of "I Want More of This" becoming targeted for removal.
This chance Increases with certain prepared statements on the writers' parts: "I will continue the branches with the most 'I Want More Of This' votes," and so forth... This makes the comments unnessecary for that chapter.
See above to my simplistic examples of all too common concepts that demonstrate how this means comments become even more essential under such action. In fact, just hours ago, you were applauding this idea and those examples for the fact that they demand an accompanying comment. Why the sudden 180?
Point Three: Okay, You Don't Like It...
Fine you're not a fan of the idea: here's what I DON'T see, constructive criticism! You can think of all the arguments against implementation you want, but I don't see you coming up with a better idea, do I? Instead of being an obstacle to progress let's hear what you think would do the same job with existing features or a different/improved version of this one.
Well, I'd love to, and actually have said how to get more comments elsewhere on the forum several times. I'm also not above reposting it, complete with an update based around the idea of "I Want More of This" to demonstrate such a method that does not achieve self-termination; although, I'd really rather not adjust it around this reason since I'm of the opinion people don't always know what they want, and that the better long-term strategy is to promote original thought while this only promotes pandering. However, the last time I made a suggestion, you sent me a PM telling me to be quiet. So which is it, Nemo? Do you want my suggestions, or my silence?
