Would You Apply a ‘Dislike’ to Your Co-Workers’ Content?
October 10, 2008 4 Comments
On Digg, you can apply the “bury” rating to stories. On Amazon.com, you can apply a single star to rate something negatively.
Would you ever do that to the work of your colleagues?
I’m not talking the annual HR exercise of 360 reviews. I’m talking Enterprise 2.0 apps, which incorporate the features we see out in Web 2.0. The ability of people to rate the content they see.
A few social media sites have taken a binary approach to ratings: (1) positive rating, or (2) abstain:
- FriendFeed Like
- Twitter Favorite
- Hacker News Up rating
While some others are incorporating the notion of negative ratings:
- SocialMedian Moods of Like or Dislike
- Strands Like or Dislike
- Reddit lets you vote up or down
- Amazon.com 1-5 Star ratings
Out on the Web, where you’re interacting on platforms with thousands of anonymous or unknown people, negative ratings make sense and help bring some order to the scrum of content and products.
See Louis Gray’s post for a good perspective on this whole rating thing in social media.
Inside companies, things are a little different. There’s a vetting of other Enterprise 2.0 users, in the form of the hiring and annual review process. This automatically raises the average quality of contributions.
And there’s this….Enterprise 2.0 apps are used by people you know and work with. People you’re going to see in meetings, on projects and who have common connections. A negative rating to someone’s Yammer or wiki entry or social bookmark is a big deal. You’re essentially saying:
“Dude, this is bad. I mean really bad. So bad that I had to ‘dis you and let the rest of the organization know how bad it is.”
Personally, I’d have a hard time with this. In the most egregious cases, I’d apply the negative rating. But I’d strongly prefer to “work it out” in the comments to the original content.
My concern is that a negative rating turns into a basis for internal feuding and chills open discussion about ideas, information and observations. But in a large organization with a heavy flow of content, maybe the negative rating is the most efficient way to handle the value if information.
Perhaps I’m in the minority here. How about you? Would you give a thumbs down to your co-workers’ content via Enterprise 2.0 apps?
*****
See this post on DFriendFeed: http://friendfeed.com/search?q=%22Would+You+Apply+a+%E2%80%98Dislike%E2%80%99+to+Your+Co-Workers%E2%80%99+Content%3F%22&who=everyone
About Hutch Carpenter
I'm Not Actually a Geek 
Pingback: Independent Blogging Compared to Corporate Blogging | Kyle Lacy, Social Media - Indianapolis
Ideally, I’d like applying any sort of rating to also require comments in a comment field. Easily gamed, of course, as people type in gibberish or a word or two, but at least the expectation of discussion would be there.
I think trying to get these tools adopted by users inside the enterprise is hard enough with out being negative to the few that are there. In some situations the use of negative/bury type responses would be useful i.e. in idea management functions like Dells Idea storm etc. But until the tools really take hold then likes, favourites etc should be the focus
Aden – that’s a good observation about encouraging employee participation. Having your contributions negatively rated certainly chills the participation vibe.
Someone from Lockheed Martin said they decided not have negative ratings for their enterprise social media in a comment on FriendFeed: http://bit.ly/ZU0N2