Jump to content
TJ09

Enable "Reaction" feature on forums

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

What has ever been trialled here that didn't stay even if people didn't like it ? This is a genuine question, not a pooh-poohing; I want to know and I can't find anything - I would like to know how sure we can be that this would go away if it were ever enabled, even if a lot of us truly hated it. I know for a fact that I would post less if threads started showing loads of reactions, and I WOULD want a way to disable receiving them for my posts or seeing them under the posts of others. I don't CARE if you "like" my post. I do care what you THINK about it, what you have to SAY about it. I don't care if 9,483 people "liked" someone else's post, either. I don't want to know. It means nothing except that someone passed by and clicked. Did they read a word of it ? We will never know.

 

I can't recall if anything has been trialed here honestly, which is why I'm unsure of how it would go. Doesn't seem like it would mesh well with TJ's style.

 

An option to hide reactions would solve some of the issues people have with them, and customization is always great. But I have to say if that's not possible for some reason, as long as the reactions are not something too obtrusive you can easily just ignore them. I might not care how many posts people have, or their location, or their joined date, or when they edited their post, or even care to see their avatars. For example the number of posts could be seen as a popularity/activity status symbol, and that might bother me (this is a random example, not actually complaining). In that case, I'd simply ignore it. There's a lot of information displayed on the forums that we don't even think about, simply because we're used to it.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, MissK. said:

 

I can't recall if anything has been trialed here honestly, which is why I'm unsure of how it would go. Doesn't seem like it would mesh well with TJ's style.

 

 

I almost said that.... Thanks for being the one to DO it !

Share this post


Link to post

And another thing that frustrates me in suggestion thread: People in support of the idea assuming that users against it can simply ignore it if it's implemented. That's not how the human brain works. It takes a *lot* of effort to deliberately ignore something that you are so against, something that you normally have big reactions to. Location, join date, etc etc are *not* the same as reactions at all, they are not easily turned into a popularity contest and are not easily used against someone. Telling people to ignore reactions is like telling people to ignore a flame-post that insults everyone or calls someone out for something... You can say it, it does *not* mean it's possible or easy. Reactions have the potential to be very divisive, turning the forums into a 'have' and 'have not' type of place, upsetting people who never get any 'likes' and making them feel like their opinions aren't being heard when multiple posts on the same page get tons of likes and theirs get none. Saying we can just ignore it feels like 'let's just ignore all the issues and problems that might arise because if you don't like it you can just ignore it!'. That's..... Not a good way to discuss a suggestion and definitely not a good way to convince people who are against it.

 

(To be clear, while @MissK.'s post did start me thinking about this post, in no way am I saying that I believe that's what they meant in their post. I'm more responding to the general attitude that I see way too often in suggestion threads and expressing my dislike for that in general.) 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

I've seen a lot of people in this thread saying that the issues we bring up 'wouldn't be a problem' here, and that sort of frustrates me. We do not know if these things would be a problem or not. None of us know that until this is implemented, if it actually gets implemented. Trying to shut down concerns by saying it wouldn't be a problem is rather presumptuous. There have been multiple people on this forum recently who have specifically mentioned that they would indeed use reactions *instead* of actually posting. That's not a 'what if', that's something that people have actually said they would do. It's also something that *does* happen on other sites that have reactions/likes. I've seen it. Many of us have seen it. Posts/threads with only one or two actual comments and a dozen 'likes'. Sure, maybe people who wouldn't post either way would now have a reaction option, but some people who otherwise *would* post will instead just use a reaction. 

 

Fair enough. This is just a discussion where I am sharing my perceived opinion, not anything definite. I am happy to be convinced that I am wrong, which in this case I probably am.

 

I have never "liked" something just because it was a user I know well or a close friend, and I would assume that anyone substituting likes for actual post content are the users that don't post actual critique. That's an assumption though.

Edited by Ashywolf

Share this post


Link to post

The thing about reactions, to me, is that most people associate them with things like Facebook and Instagram and such. I know I do, when I think of a 'like' button I immediately think Facebook. And on those sites, most people are used to using them a certain way. On Facebook, for instance, it's completely normal to scroll through posts and hit 'like' on every single one if it's someone you know. It's completely normal for 'likes' to be the regular route of expression, and comments are used much less often then likes. Humans are creatures of habit, and I just worry that users who use 'likes' in those ways on those other sites will automatically continue that habit here. I don't understand some people's assumptions that 'reactions' on this forum would be used so much differently then 'reactions' are used elsewhere. That's my basic concern, that the majority of users will simply use them the same way they would on Facebook or wherever, in which case it most definitely would lead to a decline in actual intelligent posts. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, HeatherMarie said:

 Humans are creatures of habit, and I just worry that users who use 'likes' in those ways on those other sites will automatically continue that habit here. I don't understand some people's assumptions that 'reactions' on this forum would be used so much differently then 'reactions' are used elsewhere. That's my basic concern, that the majority of users will simply use them the same way they would on Facebook or wherever, in which case it most definitely would lead to a decline in actual intelligent posts. 

 

Beautifully put. That's exactly the way I feel about them.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, HeatherMarie said:

The thing about reactions, to me, is that most people associate them with things like Facebook and Instagram and such. I know I do, when I think of a 'like' button I immediately think Facebook. And on those sites, most people are used to using them a certain way. On Facebook, for instance, it's completely normal to scroll through posts and hit 'like' on every single one if it's someone you know. It's completely normal for 'likes' to be the regular route of expression, and comments are used much less often then likes. Humans are creatures of habit, and I just worry that users who use 'likes' in those ways on those other sites will automatically continue that habit here. I don't understand some people's assumptions that 'reactions' on this forum would be used so much differently then 'reactions' are used elsewhere. That's my basic concern, that the majority of users will simply use them the same way they would on Facebook or wherever, in which case it most definitely would lead to a decline in actual intelligent posts. 

 

That's the thing, I definitely wouldn't support reactions if this is how they'd end up being used. It greatly depends on the community; I've seen places where reactions are used more sparingly and to actually respond to something, and nobody cares if they get a lot or none because conversations still happen normally. That's why I wish we could have a trial period, it could go either way depending on the habits of the majority of the userbase. 

 

As for the matter of ignoring something you don't like, my point with my examples was that someone could be as bothered by the post count as you are by reactions. It's not necessarily something you can control, but your eyes learn to slide over it as long as it doesn't actually affect how the forums work. But this definitely doesn't apply in the worst case scenario of reactions actually stiffling discussion or causing some kind of trouble...that would be an actual issue and not a simple matter of personal dislike.

I know you weren't responding specifically to me but just wanted to clear things up some more since I do see your point. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I tend to ignore post count and join date - unless I see a post with a suggestion that totally isn't DC - like battling. And that usually explains how the suggestion came to pass. Because the person is very new here. (Yes, once upon a time, I was new here, too.) Otherwise, I don't really care because it doesn't really mean anything. Reactions, on the other hand - either they don't mean anything, in which case we don't need them in the first place, or they do. Which, to me, is kind of problem that I'd rather not have, but probably won't feel like ignoring., either.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

The thing about reactions, to me, is that most people associate them with things like Facebook and Instagram and such. I know I do, when I think of a 'like' button I immediately think Facebook. And on those sites, most people are used to using them a certain way. On Facebook, for instance, it's completely normal to scroll through posts and hit 'like' on every single one if it's someone you know. It's completely normal for 'likes' to be the regular route of expression, and comments are used much less often then likes. Humans are creatures of habit, and I just worry that users who use 'likes' in those ways on those other sites will automatically continue that habit here. I don't understand some people's assumptions that 'reactions' on this forum would be used so much differently then 'reactions' are used elsewhere. That's my basic concern, that the majority of users will simply use them the same way they would on Facebook or wherever, in which case it most definitely would lead to a decline in actual intelligent posts. 

But... This is a forum. People come here to read posts and respond to them. It is a discussion-based site - that's what a forum is. Facebook, on the other hand, is social media, where it's actually considered kinda weird to comment on absolutely everything you see. They function very differently, and the DC forum is not social media, and people don't just post pictures of their dog or their face every day for their friends to 'like' - we post suggestions and requests and questions about the site. I really don't see how the implementation of a reaction system here would make everyone suddenly forget how to discuss things, particularly in places like Help and Forum Games, where responses are physically required, but reactions could just help add a little more personality.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, RealWilliamShakespeare said:

But... This is a forum. People come here to read posts and respond to them. It is a discussion-based site - that's what a forum is. Facebook, on the other hand, is social media, where it's actually considered kinda weird to comment on absolutely everything you see. They function very differently, and the DC forum is not social media, and people don't just post pictures of their dog or their face every day for their friends to 'like' - we post suggestions and requests and questions about the site. I really don't see how the implementation of a reaction system here would make everyone suddenly forget how to discuss things, particularly in places like Help and Forum Games, where responses are physically required, but reactions could just help add a little more personality.

 

You said it yourself. We come here to discuss. not mindlessly click a button. People have already said, in this very thread, that they would click like rather than post if that were an available option.

Share this post


Link to post

I still maintain my ‘no’ for reactions, especially since this isn’t a social media site. Reactions are okay there, but not on a forum - a place for discussion, not reactions or likes.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, RealWilliamShakespeare said:

But... This is a forum. People come here to read posts and respond to them. It is a discussion-based site - that's what a forum is. Facebook, on the other hand, is social media, where it's actually considered kinda weird to comment on absolutely everything you see. They function very differently, and the DC forum is not social media, and people don't just post pictures of their dog or their face every day for their friends to 'like' - we post suggestions and requests and questions about the site. I really don't see how the implementation of a reaction system here would make everyone suddenly forget how to discuss things, particularly in places like Help and Forum Games, where responses are physically required, but reactions could just help add a little more personality.

I would EVEN add that IF someone posted either of those things in MOST of our threads, here, it would be removed by our mods as spam.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, RealWilliamShakespeare said:

But... This is a forum. People come here to read posts and respond to them. It is a discussion-based site - that's what a forum is. Facebook, on the other hand, is social media, where it's actually considered kinda weird to comment on absolutely everything you see. They function very differently, and the DC forum is not social media, and people don't just post pictures of their dog or their face every day for their friends to 'like' - we post suggestions and requests and questions about the site. I really don't see how the implementation of a reaction system here would make everyone suddenly forget how to discuss things, particularly in places like Help and Forum Games, where responses are physically required, but reactions could just help add a little more personality.

 

...... Yeah. This is a forum. It's *not* social media. You are very right about that. So then, *why* should we have a feature that is normally associated with social media?? 

 

But again, habit. Forums and social media do have multiple things in common: Community, people making 'posts' and 'replies', discussions... The format isn't exactly the same, but that does *not* mean that people will immediately go 'oh this is a totally different type of site so obviously reactions should be used in a totally different way!'... That's just not how most humans work. If a person is used to doing something a certain way, there is a fairly big chance that they will *continue* doing it that way if it's expanded elsewhere. It doesn't matter if I read a book at home or at the doctor's office, I do it the same way wherever. It doesn't matter if I'm at a grocery store or a festival, when I buy something I go through the same types of routine as always. It's silly, imo, to blindly assume that people who are used to doing something one way will easily switch to doing it a totally different way just because it's a different site.

Share this post


Link to post

I have seen many threads with some posts that are obviously only responding to the first sentence or even the first few words of the OP where the respondent jumped to an erroneous conclusion about what the OP was actually about. When one must actually respond to a post and is mistaken about what the post means this way, it is possible to let them know they made an error in their understanding of the post. But, if they just "react" to a post, there will be no way to know whether they understand what they are reacting to. as well as no way of knowing what their reaction actually meant. As has been pointed out several times recently in this thread, this forum is for discussing ideas - how can we discuss ideas when some of the participants in the "discussion" may not know what they are responding to and others don't really understand what the reactions meant? As long as reactions can't really quantified - did you like my idea?, do you just like me (the poster)? did you like the way the post was phrased? are you just liking every post by a name you recognize? reactions will be totally useless to discussion and since we are here to discuss and share they are just useless.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

I've seen a lot of people in this thread saying that the issues we bring up 'wouldn't be a problem' here, and that sort of frustrates me. We do not know if these things would be a problem or not. None of us know that until this is implemented, if it actually gets implemented. Trying to shut down concerns by saying it wouldn't be a problem is rather presumptuous. There have been multiple people on this forum recently who have specifically mentioned that they would indeed use reactions *instead* of actually posting. That's not a 'what if', that's something that people have actually said they would do. It's also something that *does* happen on other sites that have reactions/likes. I've seen it. Many of us have seen it. Posts/threads with only one or two actual comments and a dozen 'likes'. Sure, maybe people who wouldn't post either way would now have a reaction option, but some people who otherwise *would* post will instead just use a reaction. 

There's some irony here, because you could take pretty much the exact opposite of what you've said and use it as a valid argument: We don't know if it would be a problem until it gets implemented, and trying to shut down suggestions by saying it would be a problem is similarly presumptuous. People have also said they would use reactions instead of not actually posting (that is, a net positive contribution to overall forum interaction, no matter how small), which is as much of a what-if as people saying they wouldn't post.

 

There is indeed no value in arguing over hypotheticals. I've pointed that out in suggestion threads countless times that slippery slopes and assumptions about caused problems are logical fallacies that run rampant in this section. We can talk about things as potential risks, but, especially in the case of forums, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence for and against reactions ("this" happened on some forum, or "that" happened on Facebook, or...) but at the end of the day "we do not know if these things would be a problem or not," so similarly acting as if they will (or won't) be a problem is pointless.

 

Overall, there's definitely some strong feelings either way, but I definitely don't see the harm in a trial run. The risk of "permanent harm" from a test seems pretty low to me.

Share this post


Link to post

TJ, if you do decide to implement a test run, I implore you to set an actual date that the reactions will come down if community feedback is negative enough. At the very least, there should be a date set for re-evaluation of the topic. A test run is a great idea in my book, even if I am vehemently against the reactions feature, but a test run without an end date is just an implementation. 

 

I think it would also be a good idea to consider what goals you hope this will foster in the community. What will the test run seek to achieve? If it's more forum participation - even in the way of likes - or whatever the end goal may be. Something like, "The goal of implementing the reactions feature is to increase forum participation without sacrificing conversation. The change will go live on [DD/MM] and discussion will be opened again on the topic on [later DD/MM]. A final decision on the feature will be made on [DD/MM] and will take user feedback into consideration."

 

Not word for word, of course, but I feel that clarity is key. As you can see from this thread, many users hate the idea of reactions. I feel that having a set date to re-open discussion (and keeping them closed until then, to let people get a feel for it!) is the best way to ease the tension and transition.

 

Just some food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Alrexwolf said:

TJ, if you do decide to implement a test run, I implore you to set an actual date that the reactions will come down if community feedback is negative enough. At the very least, there should be a date set for re-evaluation of the topic. A test run is a great idea in my book, even if I am vehemently against the reactions feature, but a test run without an end date is just an implementation. 

 

I think it would also be a good idea to consider what goals you hope this will foster in the community. What will the test run seek to achieve? If it's more forum participation - even in the way of likes - or whatever the end goal may be. Something like, "The goal of implementing the reactions feature is to increase forum participation without sacrificing conversation. The change will go live on [DD/MM] and discussion will be opened again on the topic on [later DD/MM]. A final decision on the feature will be made on [DD/MM] and will take user feedback into consideration."

 

Not word for word, of course, but I feel that clarity is key. As you can see from this thread, many users hate the idea of reactions. I feel that having a set date to re-open discussion (and keeping them closed until then, to let people get a feel for it!) is the best way to ease the tension and transition.

 

Just some food for thought.

 

YES to all of this!! One of my biggest fears about a 'trial run' of anything is that 'trial run' often ends up being 'implement and then never really address the outcome'. I'm not saying that about TJ himself, but in general with many different websites. In my experience it's actually very rare that a 'trial run' is actually treated as a true 'trial', as in gathering data about negatives and positives and opening things up for feedback and actually considering that feedback. I really really REALLY hope that TJ sincerely plans to do all that if a 'trial run' actually happens. 

 

Also, if this is actually going to happen, can we please please PLEASE have a way to turn it off?? Please? Trial run or not, I *will* avoid the forums if there starts being tons of reactions all over that I can't turn off. And honestly that's not me just not liking the feature, that's my anxiety talking. I know there are multiple other people on this forum with anxiety issues, so PLEASE let us have an option to disable this!!! 

Share this post


Link to post

As someone who previously expressed support for a trial run, here's my two cents on it -- as of [date] reactions will be implemented as a test run, they will continue thru [date], at which point they will be disabled for [time period], after which we'll evaluate user feedback on the test

 

Ugh, I just slipped into "I work with programmers" mode, but I think you get the idea? Announce it's going live and for how long, do it, turn it back off, take a day to think on it, redo this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Alrexwolf said:

I think it would also be a good idea to consider what goals you hope this will foster in the community. What will the test run seek to achieve? If it's more forum participation - even in the way of likes - or whatever the end goal may be. Something like, "The goal of implementing the reactions feature is to increase forum participation without sacrificing conversation. The change will go live on [DD/MM] and discussion will be opened again on the topic on [later DD/MM]. A final decision on the feature will be made on [DD/MM] and will take user feedback into consideration."

 

This. What do you hope to gain from it ?

 

6 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

Also, if this is actually going to happen, can we please please PLEASE have a way to turn it off?? Please? Trial run or not, I *will* avoid the forums if there starts being tons of reactions all over that I can't turn off. And honestly that's not me just not liking the feature, that's my anxiety talking. I know there are multiple other people on this forum with anxiety issues, so PLEASE let us have an option to disable this!!! 

 

I heartily second this. I would actually LIKE the option not to allow reactions for my posts at all, which I bet you wouldn't allow ? - but I do know I do NOT want to see them. I think I can find a way to achieve the latter myself, but not the former. PLEASE make that possible.

 

I do also know that my gut feeling is that I would be posting less if this happens, as I am certain sure it will degrade discussion - I saw that happen on a much smaller forum where in the end we all agreed to disable it. Maybe people will be delighted if I do - that's fine !

Share this post


Link to post

It makes me glad that a trial run is being considered, and I think it'll be a great way to see how things will go! I agree that there should be an end date to the trial and then an evaluation of whether it should become a permanent feature, but I'm just happy that the reactions will get a chance because I really can't see it doing lasting damage :)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RealWilliamShakespeare said:

It makes me glad that a trial run is being considered, and I think it'll be a great way to see how things will go! I agree that there should be an end date to the trial and then an evaluation of whether it should become a permanent feature, but I'm just happy that the reactions will get a chance because I really can't see it doing lasting damage :)

 

I just have to say, I'm glad that you haven't experienced the 'lasting damage' that reactions can do. Honestly I am. I'm glad that you haven't been part of a forum where reactions turns everything into a popularity contest and makes people so upset that they just up and leave the community, and turns what could be great discussions into almost-empty threads with tons of reactions instead. I'm so glad you haven't had to go through that. Some of us have. Some of us know firsthand the damage reactions can do, both to a community to a whole and to individual people. I really really *hope* you are right, that there wouldn't be that sort of damage here. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

I just have to say, I'm glad that you haven't experienced the 'lasting damage' that reactions can do. Honestly I am. I'm glad that you haven't been part of a forum where reactions turns everything into a popularity contest and makes people so upset that they just up and leave the community, and turns what could be great discussions into almost-empty threads with tons of reactions instead. I'm so glad you haven't had to go through that. Some of us have. Some of us know firsthand the damage reactions can do, both to a community to a whole and to individual people. I really really *hope* you are right, that there wouldn't be that sort of damage here. 

 

What she said. I have, as I said, been on an invision forum where reactions were tried, and we all agreed that they both stifled discussion and hurt people's feelings.  I hope you are right, but given the prevalence of facebook, and the fact that I would bet MOST people here use it frequently, I would be willing to bet that facebook style reactions will  become the norm here - and that does no-one a service.

 

Please TJ - can you tell us whether it would be possible to choose not to allow "reactions" to our posts ?

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, TJ09 said:

There's some irony here, because you could take pretty much the exact opposite of what you've said and use it as a valid argument: We don't know if it would be a problem until it gets implemented, and trying to shut down suggestions by saying it would be a problem is similarly presumptuous. People have also said they would use reactions instead of not actually posting (that is, a net positive contribution to overall forum interaction, no matter how small), which is as much of a what-if as people saying they wouldn't post.

I think there were also people saying that they'd use reactions instead of posts, and, considering clicking a reaction button is much faster and simpler than actually posting, it's likely that more people will do that than spoke up.

 

And +1 to being able to turn reactions off - even if it only means not being able to see them.

Share this post


Link to post

If there is going to be a trail run, I hope that there will be an option for people to not see/get reactions. I have never liked reactions and, while other people do, I think it would be nice to have the choice to either see or not see reactions.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, olympe said:

I think there were also people saying that they'd use reactions instead of posts, and, considering clicking a reaction button is much faster and simpler than actually posting, it's likely that more people will do that than spoke up.

 

This has been brought up before, but I've read the whole thread and I've only seen people say they'd use reactions instead of very short posts like "I agree" or "congrats" (which are/were against the rules anyway if I recall correctly?), and in cases where they don't know how to phrase a response because people have already said everything they wanted to. Most of the people in favour of this suggestion have said they'd use reactions instead of NOT posting at all.

 

Anyway, I said it before but I'm in favour of a trial run, with specific dates as others have mentioned. It also seems like the ability to turn off reactions would make quite a few people happy so it would be nice to get a response on whether that's possible or not.

Edited by MissK.
more typos

Share this post


Link to post


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.