There isn't enough context in your question for me to figure out what you mean.
What you say "accounts" are you talking about fediverse accounts that seem to be operated by a single person, for personal reasons?
When you say "face", do you mean an apparent real photo of that person (like your image)? When you say "logo", do you mean a corporate-style identified, like the Macdonalds "golden arches"? What do you classify my image as? It's neolithic cave-art carving of a face - not my face, I'm not that old! - but it isn't an abstract logo of anything ...
OK, so we don't disagree about the meanings of the words, but I still don't really understand the context of your question, given that there seems to be a large excluded middle and lack of description. I can only assume that this is a subtoot from something relating to #fediforum
@yojimbo I do polls literally every day with hundreds of respondents. If I wanted to have a more specific question, I'd ask it. I try not to over explain questions because I think it inhibits participation. I'll post more background after the poll is closed.
That's cool, I'm not trying to double-guess you here, I just couldn't figure out how to answer this one - so I haven't - and tried to put that into words.
I selected "Somewhat face" really this is a true neutral position in my opinion. I trust accounts based on verifiable posts in the pasts. It just happens to be mostly face accounts.
Is it possible that you might be falling prey to the rational actor fallacy, ascribing more rationality to your own behaviour than is warranted? Most of us use subconscious or conscious heuristics for this kind of decision; overcoming those biases takes a lot of effort and concentration, which isn't usually needed.
@Evan Prodromou If I had to guess, I'd say that on a subconscious level, a photo probably increases my level of trust slightly, but I do not have any hard data to corroborate that hypothesis.
I find a picture of any type to be an awful metric for trust, increasingly so in fact. That may however be an extension of my personal experience wherein actual IRL face snap judgements have proven unreliable indicators of trust/intention.
I think when an organization has many employees, members, or other staff on a social network, it has two main ways to represent itself.
One is to let each human person (face account) speak about their own work, and then a brand (logo) account reshares it.
The other is that everything comes through the brand account, and the individual humans aren't given any official voice -- and are maybe discouraged from participating at all.
I vastly prefer the first format. People using their own name and likeness have a lot at stake. They aren't hiding behind a corporate shield. They are owning the work they share.
But the second format has become very common, and for news in particular I'm likely to trust brands I know by their logo.
One wild thing you see in the startup community is founders that take on the logo of their company as their only avatar, even for unrelated discussions. That's weird; don't do that.
A lot of the repliers say it doesn't make a difference to them. I think that's unlikely, and that they're suffering from the rational actor fallacy, believing that their own actions are more rational than others'.
I don't see trust as a one dimensional thing. I'd trust you to be positive about fedi-things and have some experience with the unpleasantness of accidents. That reputation isn't tied to your pictogram, but more to your name. For your opinion of the best kombucha drinks, I have no idea how to rate that, so it'd be "random Person on mastodon" bucket. Again, I doubt your profile pic is going to have an influence there.
I don't understand this post. Are you talking about me saying that people are ignoring cognitive biases, or are you extending your example from the previous post?
i distrust brand logos and i distrust corporate faces, although it's hard to say which i distrust more. i suppose it's something like this, from "least trustworthy" to "most trustworthy":
- corporate logo - professional headshot - casual headshot / selfie - casual logo - furry avatar - anime avatar - cat pic - abstract art
all in all, "somewhat face" but with notable caveats for the definition of "face" and "logo".
I'm too late to answer, but I find this interesting.
If I'm looking for trust in a company - to post about stuff about that company which is true - I'm probably more keen to see the logo. I want to know it's coming from the source.
Trust in a human - eh - I don't know. I guess for making friends, I do like to associate a face with a person, but I've been very online for very many years now and I'm used to handles and avatars and all that. I don't need a face, necessarily.
Space Catitude ๐
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •The accounts I find most trustworthy seem to have cartoon or abstracted faces.
(Part of why I changed to that)
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Space Catitude ๐ • • •Space Catitude ๐
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •CMDR Yojimbosan โ
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •There isn't enough context in your question for me to figure out what you mean.
What you say "accounts" are you talking about fediverse accounts that seem to be operated by a single person, for personal reasons?
When you say "face", do you mean an apparent real photo of that person (like your image)? When you say "logo", do you mean a corporate-style identified, like the Macdonalds "golden arches"? What do you classify my image as? It's neolithic cave-art carving of a face - not my face, I'm not that old! - but it isn't an abstract logo of anything ...
Evan Prodromou
in reply to CMDR Yojimbosan โ • • •@yojimbo
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/account
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/face
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/logo
face - Wiktionary, the free dictionary
WiktionaryCMDR Yojimbosan โ
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to CMDR Yojimbosan โ • • •CMDR Yojimbosan โ
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to CMDR Yojimbosan โ • • •@yojimbo I gave my response here
cosocial.ca/@evan/113146953090โฆ
Evan Prodromou
2024-09-16 11:18:10
Khleedril
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Khleedril • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •William McCormick
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to William McCormick • • •Ian Brown :verified:
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Jonathan Lamothe
in reply to Evan Prodromou • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe • • •hoergen (Ai) likes this.
Jonathan Lamothe
in reply to Evan Prodromou • •MrCopilot
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Other:
I find a picture of any type to be an awful metric for trust, increasingly so in fact. That may however be an extension of my personal experience wherein actual IRL face snap judgements have proven unreliable indicators of trust/intention.
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I think when an organization has many employees, members, or other staff on a social network, it has two main ways to represent itself.
One is to let each human person (face account) speak about their own work, and then a brand (logo) account reshares it.
The other is that everything comes through the brand account, and the individual humans aren't given any official voice -- and are maybe discouraged from participating at all.
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I vastly prefer the first format. People using their own name and likeness have a lot at stake. They aren't hiding behind a corporate shield. They are owning the work they share.
But the second format has become very common, and for news in particular I'm likely to trust brands I know by their logo.
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •C.N.
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •For your opinion of the best kombucha drinks, I have no idea how to rate that, so it'd be "random Person on mastodon" bucket. Again, I doubt your profile pic is going to have an influence there.
C.N.
in reply to C.N. • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to C.N. • • •@chrisn
I don't understand this post. Are you talking about me saying that people are ignoring cognitive biases, or are you extending your example from the previous post?
C.N.
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •that's a reaction to the 'many people say X, but i think that's unlikely, they must all be [fallacy]'.
I'm not suggesting large groups must be right, but it sounds like the "you are not the user" fallacy?
It seems to me, you post these questions to learn more about how other people function. To then write that you dismiss a big group, seems weird.
But then, I hardly post, hardly respond to posts, so your engagement must be orders of magnitude different. That changes things too I guess
Evan Prodromou
in reply to C.N. • • •infinite love โดณ
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •i distrust brand logos and i distrust corporate faces, although it's hard to say which i distrust more. i suppose it's something like this, from "least trustworthy" to "most trustworthy":
- corporate logo
- professional headshot
- casual headshot / selfie
- casual logo
- furry avatar
- anime avatar
- cat pic
- abstract art
all in all, "somewhat face" but with notable caveats for the definition of "face" and "logo".
Guillaume Ross
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •David B. Himself
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to David B. Himself • • •@DavidBHimself usually.
Trust is the question, here.
Sara Joy :happy_pepper:
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I'm too late to answer, but I find this interesting.
If I'm looking for trust in a company - to post about stuff about that company which is true - I'm probably more keen to see the logo. I want to know it's coming from the source.
Trust in a human - eh - I don't know. I guess for making friends, I do like to associate a face with a person, but I've been very online for very many years now and I'm used to handles and avatars and all that. I don't need a face, necessarily.