litphoria

The thing is pretty simple and was brought before - WA does not understand the compulsive completionist kind of a person. If we are presented with some higher grade/rank of anything, we will try to achieve it, and saying we don't have to doesn't solve anything. We will still try - and people who are easy to pressure will be pressured as well.

I once said in chat and I will say it again - the completion bar for the profile should max out at Gold - WA himself once said it is a very workable and completely sufficient state of a profile, so let's make this statement count. Everything a person adds above the requirements for Gold should be just his free, non-pressured choice. I don't remember the exact limits numbers needed to hit Gold but some people were already feeling like a few things were forced to reach that tier, so it won't be under-doing the goals for sure.

Yasu: I hear you but I'm not sure how functionally different "no preference" needs to be from "not set".

The thing is pretty simple and was brought before - WA does not understand the compulsive completionist kind of a person. If we are presented with some higher grade/rank of anything, we will try to achieve it, and saying we don't have to doesn't solve anything. We will still try - and people who are easy to pressure will be pressured as well.

I'm not a compulsive completionist, neither are the friends I mentioned, and we still feel that pressure. We might not act on it and might get frustrated but it's there. Completion systems work really well overall because they motivate a lot of people to do a lot they might not otherwise. But that gets counterproductive in times like this.

Also, Gold requires 100 preferences. That's too many to expect people to fill out without them just throwing the "eh" in with the "fuck yes!" for the completion percentage.

The issue with preference not being set is partially systemic and native to search - it is constructed in a way that you need to set positive preference to qualify as liking something, while it should mean that you prefer something. In short - the site, its systems and people using it should universally understand liking a thing as not disliking it, in contrast to prefering that thing.
Because honestly, many of my preferences are set just because I don't want to be omitted from the searches - but at the same time, I am not an enthusiast of some stuff I set, I just don't mind them too much.

I personally can say this, coming onto this site not knowing anything about it or what things mean when I made my profile and saw the percentage to completion I found myself remaking the profile over and over again thinking I had to. No where does it really explain why this is a thing? Why? Seriously do other people see it? I couldn't understand so the pressure got to me. I thought if other people saw my 'rank' being so low then I wouldn't get rp requests and I'd be viewed down on. Thats all I saw with that percentage of completion was a pressure of being judged on a rank I didn't even understand people may or may not see. Personally I think it should be gone completely but thats just me.

Alright going to add something that wasn't personally me but rather a friend I tried to get to rp here on this site. I wasn't going to say anything at first cause its not my story but was told it should be said. The percentage thing ended up driving away one of my friends from another roleplay site. He felt like he was being judged for not wanting to do it, cause every time he went to work on the description it'd be right there in his face that he was a lower rank. Finally he just up and left deleting his character the moment he finished one rank just to see the percentage thing again. The feeling of being judged really get to him and that stuff with completion and rank made him decide just to stay where he was rather than trying something new out.

Based on that experience it sounds like profile completion across the board should probably just be set to something low and reasonable so that people are definitely filling out a few things, and then go away

It was started so that people would actually be motivated to fill out the various profile options without being prompted by other users, but keeping it present until you've hit absolute 100% on everything is counterproductive. I've said as much previously. I never thought of just setting everything to like, 20 or so things to begin with, and at that point you're done, not 100% but done enough that profile completion goes away.

Account setting to show completion bars on the profile or not maybe?

I would think it shouldn't become a bragging/public thing, especially given scenarios like the one Diana's describing. Nobody needs to feel self-conscious about not doing enough with their own profile, or have features helping that: they should do enough to get started and then let be to figure out what's right for them.

Oh whoops I get what you mean now. An account setting to set whether you still see it for yourself during editing your own profiles.

DISREGARD MY PREVIOUS MESSAGE I misunderstood.

Because honestly, many of my preferences are set just because I don't want to be omitted from the searches - but at the same time, I am not an enthusiast of some stuff I set, I just don't mind them too much.

That exactly. I may not 'highly like' something, but still wanna show up in the searches for those items. The current search system would not show me for anything that was not selected. I want to show up to the broadest number of potential partners, even if I do not strictly crave what they are presenting or looking for.

Preferences are extremely important to the system as a large. Reducing the need for people to fill them out would be severely destructive to comparing and searching as a whole.

You should be able to say pretty quickly if you will or will not play with this particular thing. The half-heart suggestion is also somewhere around for people who want a bit more distance between yes and no.

Reducing the need for people to fill them out would be severely destructive to comparing and searching as a whole.

I'm not sure how.

When I visit someone who has a trait with no preferences I assume it is not important. When I search, either it includes only the people specifically into it, or it includes people who are also indifferent/undecided. (Not sure which one should happen.)

Right now if most preferences must be filled out, the system is prioritising computer system use over human use, and not learning from or servicing how humans are doing their thing very well, both of which are poor for user experience.

Searching preferences only lists people with that preference listed positively. So whatever is not filled out simply reduces your visibility in search, your weakens the result of any matchmaking the site can do, and makes the profile view that much less useful, since now I have to basically guess what you like!

There is, essentially, no reason not have every single preference filled out either positively or negatively, except for things which you just don't care to, or laziness. There is absolutely no reason the site should encourage either, since one assumes that every one who views your profile also doesn't care about that trait, or forces everyone to guess or contact you about what you actually think about on the subject. This is a pretty bad thing!

The other arguments in here about it encouraging profile elitism (???) and assuming people are ranked (??? ??? ???) would need more discussion to be properly digested, but the whole "fill out just 5-10 preferences and you're good!" is very much the wrong message to be sending. It would be like saying the same for interests - 5-10 interests is a good start, but is nowhere near a filled-out profile, and the site should indicate that.

Removing 100% completion, on the other hand, is probably a lot more doable, since it was actually mostly just offered for completionists/OCD people, so they wouldn't have to go and count out every single possibility to get a filled-out profile.

There is, essentially, no reason not have every single preference filled out either positively or negatively, except for things which you just don't care to, or laziness.

If that was totally true, we would not have such a diversity of complaints about being pressured to fill in so many preferences. You would not hear it from us and I wouldn't hear it from the friends I refer or anyone present. Fact is there are such complaints and people do have reasons to not fill stuff out.

The other arguments in here about it encouraging profile elitism (???) and assuming people are ranked (??? ??? ???) would need more discussion to be properly digested,

I will get you started: nobody was actually making those arguments. Someone was providing their friend's experience that made them quit.

So whatever is not filled out simply reduces your visibility in search, your weakens the result of any matchmaking the site can do,

Then those systems should not be assuming blank = ignore.

To repeat my comment from chat which was there wrongly.... I love chocolate ice cream. I hate vanilla ice cream. I do not want to go to places that only serve chocolate, though. It is fun to try new things sometimes. I want to find, and be found by those who can offer me things outside the extremes.

And because that made little sense, I think that we need an option other than like, dislike and blank. We need something for things that are not favored, are not absolute yes, but are things we'd be willing to experience, or are undecided on.

@Yasu, this feedback is about severely slashing the amount of preferences you have to fill out in order to get higher levels of profile completion. It would not particularly help with the desire to have another level inbetween like and dislike (there's half heart preferences for that).

@Others, I do not agree that unlisted should be treated the same as like. That creates the opposite correlation it has on other parts of the site. Unlisted interests are never assumed to be a yes+ for the simple reason that someone searching for that is not going to want someone who can't be bothered to put that on a positive list. I see no reason why preferences would be different.

I think that my comment, and the suggestion that unlisted show up as like are related, though. What they are asking for is something similar to the half heart concept. They want for like to only be the items that they really like, but not to be excluded on searches for the other items. I do not think that blank is the best answer, but I think that they are really asking for the same thing without being wholly aware of that fact.

In fact, I've been more strongly considering going back and removing preferences from a character I've added 220 of them to, instead of adding to that profile (there's still almost 100 to add!).

I've done that. Rather than list every species ("wow! He's into all of these!") and suggesting enthusiasm for all of them or something and also having to keep up with added species categories, it is more useful to me to just wipe them empty and have no species interests to suggest I just don't really care strongly about series.

Apparently that sucks for search but listing them all doesn't work for me or for people, and when push comes to shove I'd rather have human readable profile than one that's less readable and reliably shows up in search.

It creates problems either way it is done. The current way was specifically done to be easy to fill out and reason, since profile creation is already a bit on the heavy side.

If unlisted is assumed to be yes:

• There are two levels of 'yes' now, so unlisting lets you indicate "I will play with this but it is not especially favorite"
• It is inconsistent with literally any other list search behavior on the site (read: not intuitive)
  • Imagine interests operating like this
• You no longer have a "don't care" option, since unlisted now means "yes"
• People who fill out 0 preferences will assume to like everything
• People who don't want to return on a search have to list everything as a dislike
  • Even if they just want to not be assumed to be interested in this, e.g maybe

If the current behavior is maintained:

• It is consistent with other behavior on the site (no one should be surprised by it)
• You have a "don't care" option, where you don't return on search results, and your comparisons are not in any way impacted
• People who fill out 0 preferences will be assumed to not care about everything
• You only have one 'like' level, regardless of how much you like it or you want to emphasize it
  • Can get lost in the noise if there's a lot of options (like for species)
• You will only return on search results if you appropriately indicate what you will play with

If another level (or two, or three) of preference "likeness" is added:

• System is significantly more complicated to fill out
• Presentation is probably going to suck
• Would probably warrant being split off from being presented with traits entirely (whole other can of worms)
• Many levels of like to use
• "Don't care" option still present
• People who fill out 0 preferences will be assumed to not care about anything
• Behavior is consistent (no surprises)

Okay, here is the thing - the whole storm about having not-picked be assumed as something not outright negative partially stems from the fact that we just really don't want to fill a ton of preferences, as they muddy up the character significantly. And since the part about pressure is what we are here to talk about, I will simply back to it, trying to acknowledge all the points that were brought up:

• Profile completion was created to give some sort of a motivation to fill the profile enough to be usable. This straight-up means that when it comes to very high levels of filling out the profile, it doesn't make sense because we are already past the learning/motivating step. I would strongly advise deleting levels of completion above Gold, which is a nicely filled profile. Putting in more should happen on player's discretion.
• Profile completion is a measure seen only by the player, yet that is not very apparent to new people, which can create feeling of the site being elitist and further pressuring them to forcefully fill out the profile. Adding a tutorial step introducing the user to the profile completion and explaining how it is invisible for others and how it is meant to assist with getting to a nicely fleshed-out profile should remedy the issue at least partially. Additionally, a toggle in the settings to turn it off could be useful, as suggested before - for the people who simply dislike it hanging there, for whatever reason. Forcing them to go to settings is already making sure they make the choice at least somewhat consciously.
• The math behind profile completion is flawed - it works based on a percentage of all the possible options in each of the given groups (Traits, Interests, Preferences) which is all fine for Traits and Interests, but creates the heavily discussed issue of adding pressure to fill out things we don't really care about. I am not sure about actual numbers, but I think that it should be more based on the reasonable amount of those - say, Mental Gender has 5 categories, it is reasonable to expect 3/4 preferences for a high level of completion. At the same time, Species has 33 (!) categories - and I don't think it is reasonable to expect anybody to fill more than 10 for a high profile completion. That is, if we actually want to make the Preferences be about the highlights, not everything we can work with. And I am sure we do. I strongly believe that reworking the math behind the amount of preferences required for the steps of profile completion is one of the main steps that can be done to make the system more reasonable.

And if you ask me, if we do these, we solve nearly all the critical issues with the system, as well as lower the controversy around positive preferences - if we expect people to check less of them, they will quickly get the idea that these are not to signify everything that you maybe can work with.

I do want preferences to be about highlights as you say, Roel.

What if you could check a box indicating that all blank preferences should be searchable as yes. This would allow users to actively opt in to that search parameter, so that normal blanks would still be No. I'm writing this from a small phone, so I hope that it makes sense.

Just based on the way that I've seen users actually treat the traits (I.e. Male characters looking all female gender traits and never entering things for all others) I think that an opt in option would be better. This way, when users do not check traits it defaults to the current standard. But if users want to have unchecked traits and as a ' not particular but willing' they can do so consciously.

Liking, dang auto correct.

can confirm that in many cases it means like females, no interest in males That was just my personal experience, and one case. The point is that I think it would be better to opt into something that is not intuitive.

For example: Someone asks me what race I'd prefer to date. Instead of listing every race of person I can think of, I simply say "I don't have a preference" and it's assumed that means "I'd date anyone of any race because that's not important to me."

OK, and why does this not also apply to interests? I can just replace "race" with "interest" in this example and the point is exactly the same, yet I somehow don't believe you are of the opinion interests should also work like this. Or why does this not apply to any other list on the site?

Why doesn't searching for males return search results for male profiles, and then everyone who didn't fill out a trait for sex or mental gender?

What if I search for watersports and get a bunch of profiles that haven't listed it, since they "don't have a preference" on watersports?

The answer to all is: it's not what I searched for, so it doesn't make sense to return it.

The desire to not list is stemming from another desire that this should be a "highlights", instead of the "acceptable" that it was very obviously designed as. We would have the same problem if interests only had two levels to it --- people wouldn't want to list everything under "yes", since it drowns out what they find is the important parts.

can confirm that in many cases it means like females, no interest in males That was just my personal experience, and one case. The point is that I think it would be better to opt into something that is not intuitive.

A toggle might be a workable solution to this problem, but it has the same issue (in my mind) that simply adding a half-heart level (or a gold heart or whatever) does: it complicates filling out profiles, particularly if it is per-trait. That might be something we find acceptable, but it is a problem none-the-less. I think I would prefer having another level of preference over a toggle, though, since it would just be adding another layer to it, and not fundamentally changing how searching works.

The math behind profile completion is flawed - it works based on a percentage of all the possible options in each of the given groups

This is not actually correct, it works based on numbers I pulled out of posterior as to what figures I felt were reasonable given the ideas of "somewhat filled out", "moderately filled out", "very filled out", "exceptionally filled out", and "obsessively filled out"

This is not actually correct, it works based on numbers I pulled out of posterior as to what figures I felt were reasonable given the ideas of "somewhat filled out", "moderately filled out", "very filled out", "exceptionally filled out", and "obsessively filled out"

Well, they felt percentages but.. the technicalities are a bit less of a thing here. My point is that they could use some sort of revision, because they are the biggest point of dispute here - they clearly feel like there is too many required to many people, from what we can hear.

OK, and why does this not also apply to interests? I can just replace "race" with "interest" in this example and the point is exactly the same, yet I somehow don't believe you are of the opinion interests should also work like this. Or why does this not apply to any other list on the site?

That is not strictly true. Interests have a variety of choices from mandatory to no; they have shades of grey. To not fill in an interest means that it has so little meaning that placing it in any of these is not worth the effort. On the other hand, Interests have only 'yes', 'no', and 'not listed'. I may not want to appear at the top of every list looking for interest in furries; the result of toggling all of the species as a yes. However, I am also happy and willing and interested in playing with a wide variety of species, so do not want to be excluded from their lists; the result of both 'no' and 'unlisted'.

I think I would prefer having another level of preference over a toggle, though, since it would just be adding another layer to it, and not fundamentally changing how searching works.

Actually, I personally think that changing the system would be easier on the users Because either you add one or more levels to the preferences, making them more complicated and still requiring that people fill in everything to get an accurate search rate. Or You allow users to check a single toggle that will leave all unmarked preferences as a soft yes. When they check the box, they will have to understand that any NOs will have to be strictly marked, but that seems much easier than having to still fill in all of the preferences to have them function in a meaningful way.