The rollout created problems we need to address before moving forward. [...] We still believe there's a better version of how reblogs can work. One that gives every voice in a chain the credit it deserves.
I do not think @tumblr @staff @changes have sufficiently convinced users that the existing system was wrong - if you want users to be in dialogue with you about how to make reblogs better, I think you need to make a better argument in the first place for how the existing system undermined users by discrediting voices, discouraging conversation, or withholding recognition of contributors, as those are your claims.
You say the rollout created problems, which it did, but moreover the problems you claim it aims to fix are not ones I have ever heard users complain about in my entire time on this site. On the contrary, the change to this system being unwarranted is what's garnering the criticism. There is no sense in trying to troubleshoot the rollout if the change the rollout seeks to achieve is still not wanted by the user base.
While I'm as delighted as many others that the rollout is being reversed, I'm concerned at the implication that everyone's backlash has just been a kink to iron out, rather than a resounding refusal that these changes need to happen whatsoever. You must understand that consultation with the users on this change cannot just be to force a compromise, and that refusal of the change altogether if it's found to be unworkable should be an option here.
I think there's a fundamental mismatch here between the interests of staff, who are likely interfacing with the site in a professional capacity, and the users, many of whom have been on the site for *most of their lives* (as I have) or nearly that long, and as such are embedded within the culture and community of the site. I think, through such long term use, the users have intuitive knowledge of mechanics of the website which are too arcane or intangible to be obvious to those who are working on the site from the back end. I don't mean to patronise staff here, but they've made it clear with this rollout that they don't understand the implications of their changes on the user experience, I mean this all sincerely and in good faith.
The notes on Tumblr are completely incomparable in their mechanics to metrics on other sites. Engagement on Tumblr is manifestly different to other sites, and that is the entire allure of the site.
All of the notes on a post being "attributed" to OP is not read as discrediting voices, discouraging conversation, or withholding recognition of contributors. This framing immediately assumes the faulty premise that the function of notes is accreditation, a motivator of conversation, recognition, (even calling it "the love"). This imports assumptions of the function of notes which are anathema to the culture of the site. I'm sure you have heard the phrase "the purpose of a system is what it does"; the system of notes and reblogs has always functioned in a unique way on this site: that is why we have stayed here, it's why people have flocked here, it's why we've boasted to new users about how good our site is, and it's why we encourage our friends to migrate onto this platform. I think this next point is crucial to understand, as it doesn't just stand for this change, it underpins so much of the friction between staff and the users.
Metrics on other sites function as impressions which imply clout - they translate to revenue, reach of influence, popularity, self esteem, value etc.. As such, it can be said:
the purpose of metrics on other sites is to impart or imply value.
This shapes the entire user experience and the incentive structures for the users, which in turn changes user behaviour, the platform's culture, the content on the platform, the interactions on it and so on - a huge chunk of the nature of the platform is downstream from that purpose. Users on other sites can, for instance, get "ratioed", because of how metrics work on them. The fact practices such as ratio-ing aren't applicable on Tumblr is part of what keeps our UX distinct and appealing.
Notes on Tumblr function as an organisational system. The purpose of notes on Tumblr is not to impart or imply value, but to facilitate navigation.
1: Notes do not functionally imply value. When everyone knows how likes and reblogs have always worked, and that notes are "attributed" to OP, there is no competition instilled into users for their contributions to be clickbait/ragebait/low-effort etc to drive engagement on their individualised note count, as they know their contributions, as anyone else's, are a guest in the space of OP's post. Far from discrediting or discouraging people's voices and input, it equalises everyone's.
Furthermore, because everyone is using the same mechanics, we're all aware that you only have one like to give each post, and while it may be hard to decide who to bestow that like to, there can be no hard feelings when we're all aware of that reality. Individualising the note count only incentivises people to become preoccupied with engagement, which none of us want. If we wanted that, we'd join twitter or something.
2: Notes functionally facilitate navigation, and that is their purpose on this site. I think the navigability of the network of a reblog chain has been undervalued by staff for a long time, and this has been demonstrated in a range of updates. It was demonstrated in the segregation of different types of reblogs, as well as the removal of the ability to click on the username whom the latest user reblogged from, to jump to the post on that previous person's blog, within the context of what they'd posted around that time. The more easily the network of reblog chains on a post can be navigated, or can be used to navigate to related content by related users, and the more easily one post that crosses your dash can expose you to users you may not otherwise have seen, the more integrated and communal the user base can be; I encountered many of my mutuals years ago, by realising they were common denominators of my favourite content from my then-mutuals or mutual-in-laws, before this feature was removed.
The more friction is put between a user and interfacing with the contributions of all other users on a post, the more community is functionally discouraged. Much as the change announcement above implies users who "don't add anything" are less deserving of "the love", relegating users who don't add anything to a separate page of reblogs, while streamlining scrolling for an addition, destroys the legibility of the network (in tandem with the previous user's post becoming harder to access). Reblogs which add nothing are equally appreciable to users - I love my mutuals bringing good posts to my dashboard, irrespective of if they have anything to add. Sometimes the context of it being my mutual adds something to the post in and of itself. Sometimes nothing needs to be added. It is senseless to prioritise maximising engagement over the existing social dynamic there, and to assume I'd want my note on their post to go to whomever last put something on that reblog chain is just arbitrary and, frankly, dumb. Again, it shows a huge lack of understanding of the functions of notes, and the social implications of how they are used. These kinds of changes are cumulatively eroding the design choices upon which tumblr's communities have thrived for so many years.
I truly hope staff don't just "listen" to users in the way that, say, EA claims to listen to Sims fans but really just picks a few model simmers to speak for the community, who then betray the community's actual desires. Staff can't just pick and choose whose voices to respond to on this in order to push through predetermined changes, they need to genuinely comprehend what the functions on this website mean to the users, and how, and act accordingly.
