Jump to content
TJ09

Enable "Reaction" feature on forums

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, HeatherMarie said:

... 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 might be wrong, but I think she means that it creeps her out but she's too nice to say it that way.  It creeps me out for sure.  It might even be worse if it's hidden and yet I would know it's there and worry about it.

 

55 minutes ago, Sextonator said:

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.

 

Let's face it, neither thing is much of a reaction.  And if there are many people who follow a thread for a while, just reading it, what harm is done?  If they get to the bottom of the page, they see the advertising, the result is the same as if they actually clicked on anything.  And why distract the good folks who do take the time to just read and especially those who make the effort to compose thoughtful posts?

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, tjekan said:

 

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.

 

Yus. We MUST have a way to switch them off - both seeing and receiving.

 

But Sextonator has a point - if someone is liking every last post that shows up they should probably be restrained....

 

1 minute ago, Stormcaller said:

 

I might be wrong, but I think she means that it creeps her out but she's too nice to say it that way.  It creeps me out for sure.  It might even be worse if it's hidden and yet I would know it's there and worry about it.

 

Let's face it, neither thing is much of a reaction.  And if there are many people who follow a thread for a while, just reading it, what harm is done?  If they get to the bottom of the page, they see the advertising, the result is the same as if they actually clicked on anything.  And why distract the good folks who do take the time to just read and especially those who make the effort to compose thoughtful posts?

 

Exactly this too - we cross posted. I'm not creeped out - I am just utterly repelled. I'd avoid in the same way as I avoid people who spit in the street.

Edited by Fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

Adding this feature would be giving a voice to those who otherwise wouldn’t bother because short “I agree” posts are frowned upon.

 

And I think an important issue is the fact that not only are the defaults in the op mostly positive, but negative ones ARE NOT necessary. I’d be in favor, and really only see these as good additions: Agree, Thanks, Love, and Congrats. These are positive reactions, and they’re simple, they get across a short message. I know in discussions there’s a congrats thread, it could

be positively impacted with a congrats.

 

They don’t have to read as a “popularity contest” or a way to harass people, and I’d like to believe only very few people would be intense enough to go through someone’s history and like all their posts. Heck, Infinis is my favorite artist and I really only see myself reacting to posts of theirs with art, or maybe really detailed crit. Not every post needs the thanks.

 

And what about news posts? If most people just hit the thanks instead of posting, finding things like a compilation of the trick or treat sprites would be easy peasy. Seeing crit or dissatisfaction would be easier too, but without negative buttons there’s not really any worries.

 

I know I’d absolutely love to have an additional way to show my support of certain posts, with or without posting as well.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Sextonator said:

Adding this feature would be giving a voice to those who otherwise wouldn’t bother because short “I agree” posts are frowned upon.

 

If someone can't bother to write even a short sentence, why should we care about their opinion?  Besides, if they only have happy, positive choices, not everyone would be able to express their opinions, even if they were so inclined.  So, I don't see any use for this feature at all.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Stormcaller said:

If someone can't bother to write even a short sentence, why should we care about their opinion?

 

Because it's spam. Positive or not, text that contributes nothing to a thread yet inflates its post count is the very definition of spam.

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Shadowdrake said:

 

Because it's spam. Positive or not, text that contributes nothing to a thread yet inflates its post count is the very definition of spam.

 

True, sentences that consist of nothing more than, "I agree," are spam, but it takes very little more to contribute something constructive to the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Shadowdrake said:

 

Because it's spam. Positive or not, text that contributes nothing to a thread yet inflates its post count is the very definition of spam.

 

That's not actually the definition of spam, you know. I mean, it's fine to use it that way if you want to, but in the other 99.99% of the Internet, the definition of spam is that it is irrelevant. Something that's on-topic but isn't considered a substantive enough contribution is not actually the "very definition of spam."

Newbies are continuously wandering through in confusion over forum quirks like this anyway, and if we start encouraging them to leave emoji reactions to other people's posts their confusion is going to multiply. Because there is no difference between the content of a "like" emoji and a "Great idea!" post  It's never going to make sense to them that one is ok and the other is not. If we want our forum culture to continue strongly discouraging comments that are not complete and well-explained, giving people the ability to automatically comment something as simplistic and ambiguous as a "like" or "sad face" is a poor idea. And if we do want to start allowing people to respond to a post with only an emoji, then we should also really start allowing "I agree with this idea" posts, which are at least a little clearer than the "like."

Edited by tjekan

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Stormcaller said:

 

If someone can't bother to write even a short sentence, why should we care about their opinion?  Besides, if they only have happy, positive choices, not everyone would be able to express their opinions, even if they were so inclined.  So, I don't see any use for this feature at all.

 

 

This is a very good point. I see people talking about reactions allowing people to 'express their opinion' without posting, but would they actually be able to do that? Because restricting the 'reactions' to only positive things like 'happy' and 'congrats' and such is *not* allowing people to express their opinion without posting. I'm certainly not saying that I'd *want* negative reactions, but I think claiming that reactions would help people express themselves is a rather weak claim if all that'll be allowed is positive reactions. 

 

And, in that situation, reactions would be even *less* useful. A suggestion that gets 30 'agrees' but no 'disagrees' because a 'disagree' reaction isn't an option certainly doesn't show people's opinions in any legitimate way!

Share this post


Link to post

If someone disagrees with something, they can agree with a post that also disagrees.

 

Not everyone is eloquent enough to write a novel about how they agree or disagree, and not everyone has the ability to sit and write a long enough post to explain themselves. And not everyone is able to post and then defend their position. Everyone’s opinion matters, and they deserve some way of giving their opinion. I know this is a forum where we should be encouraging discussion, but have you seen some of these posts against something?? Some of y’all are so vehemently against something, I wouldn’t be surprised if people were hesitant to write out why they want something because y’all are out here basically shouting about how awful some simple suggestion is. Like, I have seen a post with four nos. Who would want to risk having to argue with someone who does that??

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Stormcaller said:

 

If someone can't bother to write even a short sentence, why should we care about their opinion?  Besides, if they only have happy, positive choices, not everyone would be able to express their opinions, even if they were so inclined.  So, I don't see any use for this feature at all.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

This is a very good point. I see people talking about reactions allowing people to 'express their opinion' without posting, but would they actually be able to do that? Because restricting the 'reactions' to only positive things like 'happy' and 'congrats' and such is *not* allowing people to express their opinion without posting. I'm certainly not saying that I'd *want* negative reactions, but I think claiming that reactions would help people express themselves is a rather weak claim if all that'll be allowed is positive reactions. 

 

And, in that situation, reactions would be even *less* useful. A suggestion that gets 30 'agrees' but no 'disagrees' because a 'disagree' reaction isn't an option certainly doesn't show people's opinions in any legitimate way!

 

Exactly.

 

6 hours ago, Sextonator said:

If someone disagrees with something, they can agree with a post that also disagrees.

 

Not everyone is eloquent enough to write a novel about how they agree or disagree, and not everyone has the ability to sit and write a long enough post to explain themselves. And not everyone is able to post and then defend their position. Everyone’s opinion matters, and they deserve some way of giving their opinion. I know this is a forum where we should be encouraging discussion, but have you seen some of these posts against something?? Some of y’all are so vehemently against something, I wouldn’t be surprised if people were hesitant to write out why they want something because y’all are out here basically shouting about how awful some simple suggestion is. Like, I have seen a post with four nos. Who would want to risk having to argue with someone who does that??

 

That would have been mine, I think ? And you are still here arguing with me. :lol: But cheer up - if this comes to pass, and we can't block the stuff - you won't be seeing me that much.

 

But I did add why no no no no. :) And clicking a no thanks button would not have added anything to the discussion.

 

As to adding to discussion in general with these things - let us not forget that TJ disabled polls because they tell him nothing, and he prefers to read the thread to find out what we think. Note that he said read.  HE said that when he disabled them.

Edited by Fuzzbucket
typo

Share this post


Link to post

A poll might not tell him much, but likes on posts can. 100 people might like the op, but if posts themselves and their likes are counted, it could end up showing him a little more. Either of us could go until we’re blue in the face about out support/disapproval, but if one gets more likes than the other, it’d paint a clearer picture for tj, especially since I’m sure there’ll be quite the variety of people breezing through to likes posts.

 

Like, the op could have 50 likes, but if HeatherMarie’s posts about her anxiety towards the feature got 100 unique likes, then y’know, a lot more people agree with her points and feel similar, and TJ would know that.

Share this post


Link to post

Lol, I was just wishing for a THIS emoji so I could put it on what Sextonator wrote.

 

I have fun with the emojis on the one discord I spend time on, and I've not once seen them used negatively. They actually add to the convos and bring laughs, and have also spurred more discussion.
   I'm not sure if it's just that specific group of ppl, though, because I have seen the 'like' collecting and negative uses on FB and reddit (which is why I comment on neither, and rarely visit either as well)

 

   It took me a long time to speak up in forums here at all, and yes, a lot of that is anxiety, but a lot of it has been from, as Sextonator said, the vehemence, and what seems like a sometime unwillingness to set aside personal viewpoints to try seeing things from another's perspective. (Not pointing at any one person in particular, it has more to do with the discussion subjects)

AND also there is the fear of viewbombers attacking my scroll if they don't like what I've written.

 

 NOW, a lot of that (besides the viewbombers stuff) could very well be difficulty reading tone in text-I can't see facial expressions or body language, just words. But it is hard to put oneself out there, even if they have a good point to add or want to support a similar already stated viewpoint.

  

 

So this has been my long-winded, and not very eloquent way to say, I feel that the reaction emojis can be fun, and a help (so I wouldn't have to write long-winded posts, lol) but I also understand the hesitation against them. 
Is there a middle ground?
 

 

Share this post


Link to post

"A poll might not tell him much, but likes on posts can. 100 people might like the op, but if posts themselves and their likes are counted, it could end up showing him a little more."

 

No, it's *absolutely* useless as.a diagnostic of any kind. We know that clearly from other forums. Some people are more willing to Like than Dislike; not many people are willing to find an opposing post and Like it if they disagree with the OP; many people post Likes/Dislikes that are meaningless to the conversation because they like/dislike the person or like/dislike something in their sig; some people marshal all their friends to mass like/dislike something to make an idea look more popular/unpopular than it really is; some individuals are prolific likers while many will never use it.

 

It's just a social tool. It's a social tool many people like, so I don't personally object if it gets implemented, but it is NOT any kind of useful metric of public opinion at all. If a post gets 50 likes, especially in a forum where there is no dislike, that says zero about how much support the poster's idea actually has. Literally zero. To the point where I think the best argument against enabling emoji responses is that people will incorrectly start using them as proof of something: "Look, just count up the likes, obviously you should do this!"

Edited by tjekan

Share this post


Link to post

Oh yes, someone posting a well though out argument for something getting 50 unique likes vs someone’s well thought out counter argument getting 20 unique likes is totally useless, because people can’t show that they agree to words that someone’s already written out with a simple button.
 

Again, not everyone is eloquent enough to post long paragraphs why they’re for/against something, and then defend their stance. It would be much easier if they could find a post they agree with and like it. And if it’s an idea that they like/dislike enough, they’ll make their opinion known, whether it’s only through a button or a post, or both. Every opinion matters.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, tjekan said:

"A poll might not tell him much, but likes on posts can. 100 people might like the op, but if posts themselves and their likes are counted, it could end up showing him a little more."

 

No, it's *absolutely* useless as.a diagnostic of any kind. We know that clearly from other forums. Some people are more willing to Like than Dislike; not many people are willing to find an opposing post and Like it if they disagree with the OP; many people post Likes/Dislikes that are meaningless to the conversation because they like/dislike the person or like/dislike something in their sig; some people marshal all their friends to mass like/dislike something to make an idea look more popular/unpopular than it really is; some individuals are prolific likers while many will never use it.

 

It's just a social tool. It's a social tool many people like, so I don't personally object if it gets implemented, but it is NOT any kind of useful metric of public opinion at all. If a post gets 50 likes, especially in a forum where there is no dislike, that says zero about how much support the poster's idea actually has. Literally zero. To the point where I think the best argument against enabling emoji responses is that people will incorrectly start using them as proof of something: "Look, just count up the likes, obviously you should do this!"

 

YES. 

 

Honestly, if 'reactions' of any kind do get implemented, I very very very very very much *hope* that TJ and mods have enough objective sense to realize that reactions don't tell you squat. They should *never* be used to actually gauge interest in a Suggestion, never. As multiple people have talked about in this thread, reactions are always going to be vague and subjective.... Does an 'agree' reaction mean the person legitimately agrees that the Suggestion should be implemented, or do they instead 'agree' simply with how it was worded, or 'agree' that the issue at hand is important, or just 'agree' that they like the person posting?? Reactions are a social, 'fun' thing, and should *only* be used as such. Reactions can *never* tell you what the person is actually thinking, which means it can *never* be used to accurately understand people's opinions on suggestions. 

 

And, again, if only positive reactions were to be implemented, that is *not* going to be a good indication of interest regardless of anything else, because negative opinions/'reactions' won't be possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Uther_Pendragon said:

Lol, I was just wishing for a THIS emoji so I could put it on what Sextonator wrote.

 

I have fun with the emojis on the one discord I spend time on, and I've not once seen them used negatively. They actually add to the convos and bring laughs, and have also spurred more discussion.
   I'm not sure if it's just that specific group of ppl, though, because I have seen the 'like' collecting and negative uses on FB and reddit (which is why I comment on neither, and rarely visit either as well)

 

   It took me a long time to speak up in forums here at all, and yes, a lot of that is anxiety, but a lot of it has been from, as Sextonator said, the vehemence, and what seems like a sometime unwillingness to set aside personal viewpoints to try seeing things from another's perspective. (Not pointing at any one person in particular, it has more to do with the discussion subjects)

AND also there is the fear of viewbombers attacking my scroll if they don't like what I've written.

 

 NOW, a lot of that (besides the viewbombers stuff) could very well be difficulty reading tone in text-I can't see facial expressions or body language, just words. But it is hard to put oneself out there, even if they have a good point to add or want to support a similar already stated viewpoint.

  

 

So this has been my long-winded, and not very eloquent way to say, I feel that the reaction emojis can be fun, and a help (so I wouldn't have to write long-winded posts, lol) but I also understand the hesitation against them. 
Is there a middle ground?
 

 

 

Honestly I completely agree with everything in this post, and the bolded part is what really stuck out to me. Whereas on Facebook and Instagram, where peoples' relatives may well have been bullied off the site, we've yet to see that happen with Discord. Which is far more telling. Because the Discord is actually OUR community. It is the DC userbase - not all of them, of course, but a place where many are, and all are allowed to use. We're, for the most part, a very decent userbase with lots of mature users and a team of mods who are very efficient in stopping any form of bullying. Heck, they even shut down threads because of too-intense disagreements, so any abuse of the reaction system I am assured would not be tolerated. (Plus, sigh, yet again, given the first post, a dislike button doesn't even seem to be in the running here. I agree it's a bad idea, TJ never mentioned it in the first post, and it shouldn't be discussed)

 

Even if they weren't to be used regarding wagering opinions, I think it'd be extremely helpful for when I want to congratulate someone on snagging a great lineage, or thanking somebody for liking my DR topic, or saying "haha" to someone grabbing a funny code without wanting to be annoying.

Edited by RealWilliamShakespeare

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Sextonator said:

Oh yes, someone posting a well though out argument for something getting 50 unique likes vs someone’s well thought out counter argument getting 20 unique likes is totally useless, because people can’t show that they agree to words that someone’s already written out with a simple button.

 

 

They CAN, but in reality, not enough of them do that to make counting likes a meaningful polling method of anything.

 

There are too many variables. Many people don't use the feature, so there's a self-selection problem. Many people cheat the feature, as previously explained. Most people just plain don't use it the way you intend them to, and there's no way to make them.

 

In your example of one argument that gets 50 likes and another that gets 20 likes-- yes, that's noise. If there are 1000 people on the forum, it's completely statistically insignificant that 50 people Liked one post and only 20 Liked the other. It's as easily explained by the fact that Poster A had a cute cat in their sig as it is by the idea that the userbase prefers Poster A's suggestion. Or that Post A appeared at a different time of day than Post B, or that it's higher up the thread and fewer people read deeper, or that Poster A actively got a bunch of friends to come like their post to make it look popular so they could claim they had won the argument... and then there's the fact that 200 people might have disliked Post A and only 10 disliked post B, but since there's no Dislike button, all you see is the Likes, which falsely imply the Post A is more popular than Post B...

 

Okay, in light of the whole "if one gets more likes than the other, it’d paint a clearer picture for TJ" argument, I change my position to "definitely do not enable." The emojis seem cute and innocuous on the surface, but what it's really going to do is create the false illusion of an objective measure of who has "won" an argument and just make everyone angrier about not getting their way. "But my post got 50 likes! TJ is ignoring the will of the people, or all of you continuing to disagree with me have been proven objectively wrong!" I guarantee you we'd be hearing those things over and over at this point...

Edited by tjekan

Share this post


Link to post

From my point of view, I don't see them as a polling tool, I see then more as punctuation. 
 If So-and-so said something that literally put my thoughts into words, a THIS emoji feels like a 'that's it!' and then I can write and add my own post to expand on it, if I feel the need. 
If so-and-so writes that they finally caught an in cave cb gold, a trophy emoji can express my congrats.

 

The listing of this particular thread shows 6,463 views yet only 241 replies-and as I read the thread, some ppl have commented more than once, including myself. So, that's even less ppl represented on a subject that affects the entire forum. The reactions can be a way to let ppl, who may not have the courage to write a post, still feel involved in a less pressured way.

 

Share this post


Link to post

This is me fence sitting months later.

 

However, emojis absolutely should not be used for gathering data. On YouTube, likes and dislikes contribute to getting your material seen. Same with Twitter kind-of. I'm on several discord servers and emoji use does not contribute to the conversation in any meaningful way (outside of indicating that you took something/a dragon is no longer available). Most times they're used as pretty punctuation. 

 

An artist friend posts art that is sparkly. So, I stick a sparkle under it.

 

Delicious food picture? Banana emoji.

 

Lineage with a horse dragon? Horse emoji. Or pizza emoji. Or cloud. Y'all know I don't care.

 

Also, I have absolutely seen people put cry face/upset emojis on the DC discord in connection with not getting a dragon they wanted. Or use memes to one-up people they sniped. These are negative reactions.

 

Sure, emojis can be great for social reasons, but they're not a necessity in the least. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Uther_Pendragon said:

The reactions can be a way to let ppl, who may not have the courage to write a post, still feel involved in a less pressured way.

 

Many people just like to be informed, the same as if they read a newspaper or watched a televised discussion. Not everybody cares that much.  This is perfectly OK and normal.

35 minutes ago, RealWilliamShakespeare said:

Is there a middle ground?

 

Perhaps.  I don't see any real harm in allowing them in the games section.  But, IMHO, they should not be allowed in any sections where people are having a serious discussion.  Besides, we already have a nice array of emojis to use when we feel so inclined. :)  Of course, just posting them without writing some text is not enough to make a post valid.  That being the case, I see no reason to give any consideration to a simple click registered any other way either.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Stormcaller said:

Many people just like to be informed, the same as if they read a newspaper or watched a televised discussion. Not everybody cares that much.  This is perfectly OK and normal.

 

Uh yeah, and some people want to contribute but have anxiety about posting/feel their opinion isn't worth it/don't have time to write out what they're feeling? Some people do care that much, but can't post for one reason or another, and I believe it's fair if they had a way to have their say in a small way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, RealWilliamShakespeare said:

 

Uh yeah, and some people want to contribute but have anxiety about posting/feel their opinion isn't worth it/don't have time to write out what they're feeling? Some people do care that much, but can't post for one reason or another, and I believe it's fair if they had a way to have their say in a small way.

 

 

 

When you put it that way it sounds much more reasonable. I just worry about the thing turning into a kind of wildly inaccurate public opinion poll that people will increasingly start insisting be treated as a democratic vote. Even in this thread some people have started toeing down that path, and it would be a disaster. 

Share this post


Link to post

You also should be considering people with dyslexia, or disabled people, or people without proper access to a keyboard. I’m mobile, so a lot of my posting is with my phone, and it can take 10+ minutes to type out a response, and not everyone has that kind of time.

 

And I have faith that the vast majority of the Userbase is mature enough to properly use a react feature, and those that abuse it are very few.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, tjekan said:

 

When you put it that way it sounds much more reasonable. I just worry about the thing turning into a kind of wildly inaccurate public opinion poll that people will increasingly start insisting be treated as a democratic vote. Even in this thread some people have started toeing down that path, and it would be a disaster. 

4 minutes ago, Sextonator said:

Snipped:

And I have faith that the vast majority of the Userbase is mature enough to properly use a react feature, and those that abuse it are very few.

 

Which is why a trial *with firm start and end dates* could give accurate data of how they actually work within this particular community and setting, and then either rules applied or the option entirely removed.

I'n not wedded to having the reactions, but I'm *always* for making things more inclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Sextonator said:

You also should be considering people with dyslexia, or disabled people, or people without proper access to a keyboard. I’m mobile, so a lot of my posting is with my phone, and it can take 10+ minutes to type out a response, and not everyone has that kind of time.

 

And I have faith that the vast majority of the Userbase is mature enough to properly use a react feature, and those that abuse it are very few.

Please don't assume who we're considering when we post. I'm primarily on mobile/visually impaired and learning differenced if that matters. I also work a full-time job. Adding reactions may make a small difference, but there's no way it's going to improve forum usability by leaps and bounds.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.