Enable "Reaction" feature on forums

[HeatherMarie]

1 hour ago, MissK. said:

 

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.

 

The thing is, even an 'I agree' post is *tons* more helpful then a 'like' in terms of actual communication. As I and multiple others have stated, multiple times, you really have no idea what a person is actually thinking when they 'like' something. Do they actually agree with your suggestion/idea, do they just like the way you worded things, do they like that maybe you quoted them or were responding to something they said, are they simply going through and liking every post they see, did they even actually *read* your post.... You don't know. At least an 'I agree' post is straight-forward: The person agrees with your post (or at least part of it). That's simple and easy to understand. 'Likes' are not. I personally would much rather have multiple people simply saying they agree with my post then have multiple completely ambiguous 'likes' on my post. 

 

And also, am I the only one who may open a reply box with the intention of saying one short sentence, but then end up expanding on it as I type? I can't really be the only one who does that. If the majority of people who would otherwise open a reply box simply use reactions instead, there is no chance of that happening. I'm not saying that happens all the time, but I'm sure I can't possibly be the only one.

[MissK.]

I have to say I've seen plenty of long responses in suggestions where the person clearly hadn't read even the first post of the thread.  To me a like is agreement with what the post says; if there was some kind of stipulation to go along with it, like only agreeing with one part, the person would have probably elaborated. You can't be sure, but a vague "I agree" doesn't offer any more information, and if I understood TJ correctly earlier in this thread he's not a fan of those posts either. I kind of doubt that many people would use reactions for totally random reasons (for example if I got a "haha" reaction at a

longer post including a joke, it'd be pretty safe to assume what the reaction is about), but that's the sort of thing we can only speculate over right now.

 

I don't think it'll be that confusing. I also don't think this is a super necessary feature though, so. *shrug*

[RealWilliamShakespeare]

I'd like to bring back my support for this. There have been plenty of times recently where I've appreciated the sentiment of a post and would like to give a small appreciative reaction rather than make a whole post just to say "thanks" in response.

[Natayah]

The problem with having even "positive only" reactions is that, like writing, like speech, like everything these days, people get to interpret them as they choose and if they don't like something and feel it is offensive and/or breaking of rules policies, they can call in the Mods. Which means Mods not only have to moderate at least written out words (which make a bit more sense), now they get to mod people's reactions to and using emoticons/emojis/silly symbols. So there is hate speech, there is triggering micro aggression, and now there are hate symbols or triggering symbols as well. And the mods get to deal with all of that. I just would like them to have less to deal with, especially as they are volunteers and don't get paid for this. 

 

Because it doesn't matter what symbols or emojis you choose. It is all about how the person interprets it. You can't really pre-moderate that now matter how positive or well meaning or very neutral your symbols may be. 

 

Since it is a Forum and there are rules, someone gets to enforce the rules by people who have differing intents and interpretations and perceptions. 

 

But I mean if the Mods are down with all that, I don't really care other than I would pull back from the forums and use them even less than I do now because I am here to read words, not see pictures (generally, I go to the forums for the art for those thingies, avatars and sigs I have no issue with because those have always been a forum thing and those have limits). This is a pixel game. If I wanted more pictures, I would be playing video games. Which I wouldn't do either way because I would get to deal with the migraines they cause me.

 

But that is just me that I don't want to see a pollution of stupid images more than I need to and I don't need social media and that has to do with the age I came into the internet and the fact I never developed a love of video or images due to my brain reacting badly to them, even early basic ones. I care more about the work of the mods.

 

I can already emphasize myself and respond to people if I want. You can also color and change fonts even! I can send someone a PM if I want to give someone a feedback that I don't want to post for some reason. Emojis are cheap to me. But again, I'm locked in a time frame of the internet that doesn't exist anymore and I just can't deal with blue light and graphics and various sensory input like I used to be able to. I would not use my issues to hold that against other people to be able to do what they want and to "move forward" if that is really what the players want or like to have.

[Fuzzbucket]

Oh god is this resurfacing. NO NO NO NO NO.

 

and thanks.

 

Like Natayah, I would use the forum less, no question. Silly emoticons say nothing.

 

@RealWilliamShakespeare it takes a SECOND longer to type thanks in the reply box than to click a meaningless button.

[Sextonator]

Yes please. I think would be a very nice addition to the forum. I doubt it would really affect conversation or suggestions, I mean, if I like a post and it shows that I liked it, I can expand on it, or post about how/why I agree.

 

Plus the applications in OTHER subforums would be quite nice, as in DR I could like posts and then post about how much I like it. Or if I visited the subforum for discussing the game, I could like posts with breeding combos I liked, and then post about how great it is.

 

Emotes can be an addition to conversation, not a replacement.

[purplehaze]

On 3/14/2018 at 4:35 PM, HeatherMarie said:

The thing is, even an 'I agree' post is *tons* more helpful then a 'like' in terms of actual communication. As I and multiple others have stated, multiple times, you really have no idea what a person is actually thinking when they 'like' something. Do they actually agree with your suggestion/idea, do they just like the way you worded things, do they like that maybe you quoted them or were responding to something they said, are they simply going through and liking every post they see, did they even actually *read* your post.... You don't know. At least an 'I agree' post is straight-forward: The person agrees with your post (or at least part of it).

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the reaction feature in general. It basically adds nothing. I have seen some "likes" on Facebook that leave me scratching my head. (Not my account because I refuse to have one, but I occasionally peek in at hubby's account.) Post: My kitty died today. Reaction: "like" with no comment. REALLY? What does that even mean? Some sort of sympathetic comment -- even a few words -- is better than that!

[Dohaerys]

I would love this, it would be an easy way to +1 a post without having to type an actual reply that only has a few words in it- which I would normally not bother with.

Besides, a thread full of 'I agree's gets quite drawn out, and having these reactions would make threads more compact in a way, and also encourage players who don't like to post (like me) to still show their opinion in a simple, quick way

 

In my opinion, if someone posts 'my cat died' , you dont need reactions to troll that post, you can just reply with lol and get the same effect, so it won't make a difference in my opinion. 

[Fuzzbucket]

8 hours ago, purplehaze said:

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the reaction feature in general. It basically adds nothing. I have seen some "likes" on Facebook that leave me scratching my head. (Not my account because I refuse to have one, but I occasionally peek in at hubby's account.) Post: My kitty died today. Reaction: "like" with no comment. REALLY? What does that even mean? Some sort of sympathetic comment -- even a few words -- is better than that!

 

My view PRECISELY. This is not facebook. Let it not become an equally unthinking clone.

[Rememberdrgns]

I believe this adds a quick way to show agreement without having to post. I see the arguments are stating that the reactions are vague, but since they can be customised, it can be made to have reactions that are clear in meaning. As for what, I don’t know, I am fine with the defaults, but just a ‘+1’ is fine as well.

As for this leading to less discussion, I don’t really agree. A person that only reacts likely isn’t going to post something that adds much to the discussion anyway now. I see reactions as a way to dis/agree with points already mentioned in a discussion. I normally wouldn’t want to post simply to show an opinion without adding anything as I feel it’d take up space. People who’d like to expand on the post and its points would keep posting, reactions aren’t meant to replace in-depth discussion, but just as a reaction to the post if there’s nothing to add.

[Fuzzbucket]

If there is nothing to add, why react ? It would very likely just degenerate into a popularity contest.

 

I for one would never ever use them, on principle as much as anything, as I find them so utterly tacky.

Would we be able to set our preferences so that we could not receive them ?

Edited November 17, 2019 by Fuzzbucket

[RealWilliamShakespeare]

Forgive me, but I can't help but feel like people are worrying over things with little reason to. A like system of sorts is in place on many discussion boards, forums, and different types of social media. Perhaps even on most. Never once have I heard of huge reports of bullying and targeting through a like system. 

 

I just don't wanna clog up a post, or send a whole PM to people just to say "really liked that", or "thanks for the sentiment". It wastes my time and theirs. If I could click a button and send an automatic little "thanks", it'd be so much more helpful.

 

I also think it would be a good way to wager opinions. On certain posts, many people may agree with a certain comment, but see no need to post to simply say "I agree". On a subform like this, where opinions are much appreciated, it could help to show whether one opinion is more popular with the user base than another, and that might help TJ and the mods come to a conclusion on whether something is worth incorporating. Because, let's face it, not every suggestion on here is black and white, with an easy set-up for a poll to wager opinions. And, even if they are, polls are pretty rare to see nowadays anyway. A like system would greatly help in these situations to see which opinions are more popular.

 

If this react system was anonymous (which I don't know if it is), I don't really see how any harm could come from it. Unless somebody makes a comment like "lol [certain user] sucks" and it gets a hundred "likes", I don't see how it could be used for bullying purposes (and obviously those types of comments would get taken down immediately anyway!!). And, quite frankly, with regards to popularity, there are already pretty clearly some users that are more "popular" than others, simply because they're more well-known. Obviously almost the whole site knows of TJ and the mods, as well as in-cave artists, and also the users who are known in, and post frequently in, many different subforums. Perhaps some users are more inclined to agree with those peoples' opinions simply because of who they are - but that is their issue. Anybody who turns a like system into a "popularity contest", would simply baffle me. And I'm sure if anything of the sort became aggressive in any way, it would get shot down right away.

 

I'll reiterate: hundreds of websites have a system like this in place simply to aid in communication and ease of use, and they aren't all one big smorgasbord for bullying. I don't see how it would stagnate conversation. Plenty of people would like a post they agree with, and then give their opinions as to why. Evidently, lots of users wouldn't like things at all. And there are always going to be varying opinions: "I agree with this part of your post, but not this part, and here's why"; "I disagree with everything in your post, and here's why"; "I really agree, but have you considered?" I feel like a reaction system would just bring more life and ease to this forum.

Edited November 17, 2019 by RealWilliamShakespeare

[HeatherMarie]

1 hour ago, RealWilliamShakespeare said:

Forgive me, but I can't help but feel like people are worrying over things with little reason to. A like system of sorts is in place on many discussion boards, forums, and different types of social media. Perhaps even on most. Never once have I heard of huge reports of bullying and targeting through a like system. 

 

 

You must be very lucky then. Because it does happen. A lot. I've seen it. Others have seen it. People deliberately only 'liking' friend's posts, all friend's posts no matter the content. People giving 'negative' reactions (angry-face, etc) on every single post of someone they don't like. People getting upset that some posts/comments are getting tons of reactions and theirs don't get any. People eventually being *less* likely to actually post anything, because they worry over whether they will get any reactions, or because they haven't gotten reactions in the past and therefore feel their posts aren't worth making. 

 

Those things happen a *lot* on the 'big social media' sites, like Facebook and Instagram. All you have to do is talk to a group of teenagers to hear how easily 'reactions' can become a complete popularity thing. They can also happen on message boards as well, there was actually a forum I was very active on a handful of years ago that implemented 'reactions' and it actually caused so much friction between groups of users that the reactions were eventually removed. This is not overreacting or worrying without reason, these are things we have *seen* on other sites and we don't want these forums to become yet another frustrating anxiety-filled popularity contest. 

 

edit: Also, as far as reactions somehow helping to show whether some suggestion should be implemented.... Oh God I hope not. As multiple people (including me) have stated in this very thread, 'reactions' are very vague and very subjective. Just because someone 'reacts' to a post does *not* mean they think the thing should be implemented, or agree with whatever is said, or heck it doesn't even always mean they read the post in full! Simply 'liking' a post is *not* a good indicator that the site would actually benefit from a suggestion. At all. In no way. I very much hope that 'reactions' would *not* be taken into account in that way. 

Edited November 17, 2019 by HeatherMarie

[Fuzzbucket]

1 hour ago, RealWilliamShakespeare said:

Forgive me, but I can't help but feel like people are worrying over things with little reason to. A like system of sorts is in place on many discussion boards, forums, and different types of social media. Perhaps even on most. Never once have I heard of huge reports of bullying and targeting through a like system. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

You must be very lucky then. Because it does happen. A lot. I've seen it. Others have seen it. People deliberately only 'liking' friend's posts, all friend's posts no matter the content. People giving 'negative' reactions (angry-face, etc) on every single post of someone they don't like. People getting upset that some posts/comments are getting tons of reactions and theirs don't get any. People eventually being *less* likely to actually post anything, because they worry over whether they will get any reactions, or because they haven't gotten reactions in the past and therefore feel their posts aren't worth making. 

 

Those things happen a *lot* on the 'big social media' sites, like Facebook and Instagram. All you have to do is talk to a group of teenagers to hear how easily 'reactions' can become a complete popularity thing. They can also happen on message boards as well, there was actually a forum I was very active on a handful of years ago that implemented 'reactions' and it actually caused so much friction between groups of users that the reactions were eventually removed. This is not overreacting or worrying without reason, these are things we have *seen* on other sites and we don't want these forums to become yet another frustrating anxiety-filled popularity contest. 

 

What Heather said. It DOES happen. I have grandchildren in school and university and the tales they can tell are horrifying. One had to close his instagram over it. And he is a thoroughly nice kid who would never hurt anyone - which serves him ill at times.)

Edited November 17, 2019 by Fuzzbucket

[LadyLyzar]

I am still not a fan of these.  It's a forum, not social media.  It's meant for discussion.

 

I find reactions on a forum largely pointless, but I can also accept being called an old fuddy duddy.  I would honestly like to be able to turn them off if they are implemented.

 

Regarding bullying via reactions - that can happen with or without.  That is what the mod team is here for.

[TCA]

I've been on forums with 'likes' or other reactions, and I've been on Discord communities that use them heavily, and I am very strongly against.

 

Not only do reacts make me and others uncomfortable or unhappy, I went on Discord for quite a while with the ability to view reacts disabled, and then kept being left out of the loop when people used them to communicate in place of actually posting, and ended up having to enable them to keep up with my own personal friend group despite the fact I'd really rather have them off. And that's in a circumstance where short, fairly low-effort comments are completely okay! Even if you give the people who get a ton of anxiety from reacts the ability to Not Look At Them, this will change and flavor (however subtly) the way people communicate on any platform that has it.

 

It may not cause harm in the end, but even so, I am not fond of even the subtle "harmless" shifts it tends to cause in communication.

 

Please no.

Edited November 17, 2019 by TCA

[tjekan]

Getting dislikes doesn't bother me, so I don't care either way. However, it WILL be misused, so you'd have to go in prepared for that. There have been people who went around viewbombing people who posted things they didn't like on the forum, declined their trade, etc. There will definitely be many more people willing to take the legal action of downvoting everything a person says out of spite than illegally viewbombing them for the same reason.

[Sextonator]

I’m still really for these. I feel they’d be more beneficial to the forums than harmful.

 

But, instead of asking if it can be hidden, I wonder, can user’s ability to use it be taken away? If it really does get used to harass people, then it should be able to be taken away.

[Fuzzbucket]

I'm sure the right to use it could be taken away. But I never never never want to see that stuff. It is pointless, boring and means nothing. I want to be able to hide any of any such buttons and I want to disable people's ability to click any on any post of mine. Even if any introduced here were favourable only.

 

And TCA is also spot on. They do NOTHING good except make popular people feel superior, to be blunt.

 

@LadyLyzar Fuddy duddies of the world unite. Just because we are fuddy doesn't mean we are WRONG.

Edited November 17, 2019 by Fuzzbucket

[Stormcaller]

I absolutely despise those things!   If this is a forum, which it is, it's a place set aside for people to exchange ideas. That means that you have to think about it and say something about the topic being discussed using words. I don't think that's asking too much of anyone and I don't think simply clicking on a button to post a response is adequate. 

 

And, hiding them is not enough; they don't belong here at all.

[Fuzzbucket]

I LIKE you ! Come to dinner - we have cheese....

[Sextonator]

There’d be nothing to stop people from actually carrying a conversation, and the emotes don’t have to be just like/dislike, in the op there’s Thank, Haha, Confused and Sad. They can be configured, which I assume means customized to fit the forums, so we wouldn’t have to get just like/dislike, we can get Agree, Thanks, Love, Haha, and others, which is much better than just having up/down votes.

 

TJ reads like he’s pretty in favor of the feature, anyway. He’d rather people be able to react to a post than just post an “i agree” with no substance.

 

And emotes aren’t a replacement for conversation, they’re an addition. If people have something to say, they’re going to say it, whether there’s an emote for it or not. Plus, I doubt an “I agree” is enough for some people anyway. And if people can show support for something with a like, maybe they’ll start posting a little more, so instead of the same voices in suggestions, we can have more variety.

[HeatherMarie]

At this point I feel like this will probably happen someday, especially given TJ's apparent support of it.... And I'll say right now that a way to completely turn them off is a *must*, both a way to not see them *and* not allow anyone to 'react' to our posts. A must. I, very simply, would not be able to participate in this forum anymore if a turn-off/opt-out was not available. My anxiety surrounding 'reactions' is simply too much for me to constantly deal with just to frequent a specific forum. 

 

And I guess that's what it comes down to for me. The concerns over popularity contests, bullying, spiteful negative 'reactions', deliberate lack of 'reactions' or deliberately reacting on every single post from someone.... All of it comes down to 'I need a way to disable it or I can no longer be a part of this forum', and that's what scares me. I've been here a looooong time and I really don't want that to happen. I really don't want to be forced to leave a community I love so much, *especially* because of a feature that I honestly don't think is a positive thing for the forum in the first place.

[Fuzzbucket]

25 minutes ago, Sextonator said:

There’d be nothing to stop people from actually carrying a conversation, and the emotes don’t have to be just like/dislike, in the op there’s Thank, Haha, Confused and Sad. They can be configured, which I assume means customized to fit the forums, so we wouldn’t have to get just like/dislike, we can get Agree, Thanks, Love, Haha, and others, which is much better than just having up/down votes.

 

TJ reads like he’s pretty in favor of the feature, anyway. He’d rather people be able to react to a post than just post an “i agree” with no substance.

 

And emotes aren’t a replacement for conversation, they’re an addition. If people have something to say, they’re going to say it, whether there’s an emote for it or not. Plus, I doubt an “I agree” is enough for some people anyway. And if people can show support for something with a like, maybe they’ll start posting a little more, so instead of the same voices in suggestions, we can have more variety.

 

He didn't say he supported it. (Or if he did I completely missed it.) He said would we like it.

 

Quote

The forum software has the ability to "react" to posts (https://invisioncommunity.com/news/product-updates/new-reactions-r1016/). I saw someone that someone wished they could heart a post, etc, so I'm interested in seeing if others would find value in turning this feature on.

 

The answer many of us have given is NO. And GOD please not a shedload of "exciting" and "varied" extra ones.

 

OH OK - he did go as far as this:

 

Quote

I don't have any strong interest either way; the first post explains that I'm doing this because others have brought it up and given that I have a more complete picture of what the forums are capable of, I figured it would be useful to point out this capability in case there was broad enough interest to turn it on. Though, I've seen the feature in use in several other places (such a discord) and found that it positively contributed to discussion. The claims in this thread seem to believe that contributing to a thread is zero-sum—that adding reactions inherently detracts from the number or quality of posts. That is simply not true; in general the vast majority of people simply "lurk" and do not contribute. Adding a form of light-weight contribution will more likely allow these people to participate than it will lower the effort put in by existing contributors.

 

15 minutes ago, HeatherMarie said:

At this point I feel like this will probably happen someday, especially given TJ's apparent support of it.... And I'll say right now that a way to completely turn them off is a *must*, both a way to not see them *and* not allow anyone to 'react' to our posts. A must. I, very simply, would not be able to participate in this forum anymore if a turn-off/opt-out was not available. My anxiety surrounding 'reactions' is simply too much for me to constantly deal with just to frequent a specific forum. 

 

And I guess that's what it comes down to for me. The concerns over popularity contests, bullying, spiteful negative 'reactions', deliberate lack of 'reactions' or deliberately reacting on every single post from someone.... All of it comes down to 'I need a way to disable it or I can no longer be a part of this forum', and that's what scares me. I've been here a looooong time and I really don't want that to happen. I really don't want to be forced to leave a community I love so much, *especially* because of a feature that I honestly don't think is a positive thing for the forum in the first place.

 

I absolutely agree here. I would not come here any more except for ESSENTIALS (which would hardly need likes or not - "anyone got a blue siyat x solstice" isn't going to be impacted, I HOPE !) if this came about. Discussions with nonsense buttons are not discussions. I don't have anxiety or anything - I just find it all utterly repellent. Instant loss of interest is what it would mean for me. Luckily for me, I am on other forums where we have all agreed that they are nasty things - and that's FOUR other forums where we agreed on that.

Edited November 17, 2019 by Fuzzbucket

[tjekan]

5 hours ago, Sextonator said:

But, instead of asking if it can be hidden, I wonder, can user’s ability to use it be taken away? If it really does get used to harass people, then it should be able to be taken away.

 

Trying to police who is allowed to leave emojis on whose posts how many times and for what reason invariably makes the problem worse, not better. Either enable the emojis and give people who feel negatively about them a clear way to turn them off, or else don't enable them. Enabling them and then trying to enforce rules about how people are allowed to use them would be a total mess.