Jump to content
TJ09

Enable "Reaction" feature on forums

Recommended Posts

4 hours 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!"

 

This, very much.

 

3 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

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. 

 

And having negative reactions available is asking for trouble, it REALLY is.

 

2 hours ago, Jazeki said:

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. 

 

Exactly all this too.

 

2 hours 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.

 

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.

 

And this is the crux of it. They tell you NOTHING.

 

53 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. 

 

Quite. It would never give a real feel for opinion and cannot be allowed to pretend to.

 

40 minutes ago, Jazeki said:

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.

 

Agree 100%. And thanks for coming out of the woodwork to make the point.

Share this post


Link to post

Reactions to the contrary don't have to be negative. It doesn't have to have an angry face, or a thumbs down. It can simply say 'disagree'

That's not heated in any way.

Or like someone suggested earlier, choose 'smile' or 'like' over a post that aligns with your disagreement of the subject at hand as a way to avoid any emojis that could be seen as mean or angry.

 You posted disagreeing with what others suggested, and I'm not getting a negativity vibe, just, well, disagreement. I don't see why a disagree emoji couldn't do the same for someone else who may not be as comfortable posting.

 

  I don't see them as intended to improve the forum by leaps and bounds,(nor is it a necessity), but just a little enhancement to user experience, for someone like me. Every time I type in here, my palms sweat and anxiety ramps up.

It would be a nice option to let someone, who is more comfortable speaking in public -and far better at it- say their piece and I'd get to click the 'this' emoji -and then I don't have to fuss with the quote button and have my reply coming out huge if I cut and paste something like I keep doing...and so on. I can flesh out my opinion as needed, but wouldn't have to restate the same exact thing that was already put to paper. Or take up thread real estate with 'this!' (Guess which reaction I'd use a lot? Lol)

 

Unless we gave it a trial, we can't really say what will for certain happen *in this particular forum with this particular group of people* it's all speculation.

 

(Although we could definitely shut down anyone trying to use it as a public opinion poll. Adding emojis doesn't silence anyone's voice ..er typing)

Share this post


Link to post

A "negative" reaction button is a negative button and can be used anywhere. Think of a "disagree" after someone posts "sorry your dog died". It can happen. It can even happen by accident - I well remember a frantic post from Socky, years ago, who had accidentally voted the wrong way on something when there were still polls.

 

I would still like confirmation from TJ that if this ever did happen, we could opt out of receiving "reactions" or seeing them on posts.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm yeah if ppl are going to be ugly, then hopefully a mod would be able to unclick yuck reactions? And ppl can be ugly now, without a reaction system live, so there are ways to lessen yuck impact already in place. In fact though, how often does that crop up? (Genuine curiosity as I've never seen things go way haywire, the mods here are awesome)

 

On Discord, if you accidentally choose the wrong emoji, you just click it again and it goes away. (And the mods on the server I visit can nuke either posts or people if they can't play nicely. But that's exceedingly rare.)

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pretty sure I've said so before, but I'm still not in favor of adding reactions. It won't take long before the first petty person hands out CB rares or 2nd gen prizes for 50 likes/supports and will send a mass PM every time to each of their "trading partners" to link every post they want "liked". Like... like on demand.

It will only be so long until some enterprising soul comes up with the idea to create 10, 50 or 100 throwaway accounts - sock puppets - in order to like their own posts. Or dislike those of the people on the other side of the argument.

 

And don't tell me there aren't people like that. We have players stalking SAs and Thuweds in order to figure out when their eggs will hit the AP and improve their chances to snatch them. We've had players figure out as many Prize winners as possible and PM them directly in order to trade for offspring. We had a player (Tree Decorating Contest winner) put something in their signature after the raffle the year after like "If you won a CB Prize this year, please contact me so I can offer on it." This was a clear attempt at pretty much cheating someone out of their own Prize by low-balling. We have players maliciously view-bombing not only other players' scrolls, but view-bombing a beloved fansite into oblivion. So, yes, there are bad people around. And some of them will come up with schemes to get more likes than they should. Since this will be most likely a behind-the-scenes feature where you don't see what happens, it's prone to abuse.

 

Reactions can so easily abused and are more of a social feature that belongs in social media than in forums like DCF. They do not contribute to discussions, they are used more for social power plays (I got more likes than you, so people like me better), are not indicative of much besides popularity (or, heaven forbid, trading power/downtime).

I also don't see it as a problem to show my support of a suggestion/argument by hitting the quote button, cut out what I don't want displayed and write a short sentence or two in support. It's not that hard. Even with google translate, you can easily find phrases like these:

  • I (don't) like this.
  • I (don't) want to see this.
  • What about [x problem]?
  • Can you explain how it works?
  • I prefer option A/B/C.

It's not that hard.

Share this post


Link to post

(y)

 

But I will add words because an emoji is NOT a post.

 

Olympe is spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Sextonator said:

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.

 

1) An intentionally annoying minority can still be extremely annoying. Again--we have had trolls who caused trouble by viewbombing people they were angry at on the forums, or sending them abusive PMs and having to be blocked. That stuff is against the rules--if enough people were willing to do that to make an annoyance of themselves, surely significantly more people would take the completely legal action of recruiting friends to like their posts or (if dislikes were available) disliking every post by someone they were mad at.

 

2) Most of the people whose usage would make the emojis worthless as a poll metric would have NO abusive intent--they just wouldn't be using likes the way you think they should. They would like posts by their friends, or like posts by people who support something in their sig that they also support, or like a post that has something funny in it. Cute punctuation, as somebody up there put it. You can't adequately read more than this into their intentions in liking anything.

 

3) The fact that a post with 50 likes seems psychologically more important or more popular to many people is a real problem. More than 3000 people have read this thread. A difference of 20 likes wouldn't even be statistically significant.

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, olympe said:

It will only be so long until some enterprising soul comes up with the idea to create 10, 50 or 100 throwaway accounts - sock puppets - in order to like their own posts. Or dislike those of the people on the other side of the argument.

 

Can't people already do this though to write posts to agree with themselves or give their own posts attention? I don't really see how this is a valid argument

 

56 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

(y)

 

But I will add words because an emoji is NOT a post.

 

Olympe is spot on.

 

Precisely, an emoji isn't a post. So a little reaction button would make it easier to agree without needing to post something that has no other sentiment ^^

 

And yeah I still vehemently dislike the idea of a dislike button. I completely agree that's just asking for trouble. But congrats, thanks, haha buttons, I believe would be useful for aforementioned reasons.

Share this post


Link to post

Very much not ha ha. And PLEASE @TJ09  come in and tell us it would be turn-offable.

 

Quote

Precisely, an emoji isn't a post. So a little reaction button would make it easier to agree without needing to post something that has no other sentiment ^^

 

And also says NOTHING, nor does a button. So what is the point of reaction buttons ? They too say nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, RealWilliamShakespeare said:

 

Can't people already do this though to write posts to agree with themselves or give their own posts attention? I don't really see how this is a valid argument

 

They most definitely can.  But it's easily traceable. If player_B always supports player_A, no matter what - and both player_C and player_D do the same, it becomes kind of obvious eventually that it's always the same group - for whatever reasons (sock puppets, RL BFF...) But if someone always gets an incredible amount of likes on posts - maybe even posts that openly call out or attack another player - that's much more subtle, and unless you see the names of the people who liked, it's impossible to trace and thus much more insidious.

 

19 minutes ago, RealWilliamShakespeare said:

And yeah I still vehemently dislike the idea of a dislike button. I completely agree that's just asking for trouble. But congrats, thanks, haha buttons, I believe would be useful for aforementioned reason

It's very easy to abuse those, too. Some examples:

Quote

Player_A, your argument doesn't even make sense. Did you ever even enter high school?

Support? Haha? Like? Thanks? No thanks!

Quote

Player_A, if you don't like it, go do something else.

Support? Haha? Like? Thanks?

I'm sure there are many more ways to do so.

Edited by olympe

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a little torn on this one. (Sorry for my inability to be brief--I acknowledge it's a problem!)

 

As someone in the camp of 'posting in discussion threads can feel quite daunting' I do like the idea of being able to contribute without potentially welcoming a big back and forth or argument when posting a differing opinion and having to thoroughly explain a POV.

 

Discussions on here can get quite passionate (for lack of a better term) and if you aren't the best at articulating your point, especially when someone's reply can really pick that point apart, that can be a real deterrent. If you're someone who is more sensitive (like me 😅) something as small as people replying to your post with words in bold or in caps can feel almost like an attack. I know that's more of a 'me' problem rather than with the person's communication style and I'm not trying to bag on those replies, just offer up a perspective on why someone may not post.

 

So then I suppose it partly comes down to, if someone's anxieties and sensitivities are making them lean towards not posting, is the sentiment 'sure that's a shame but that's for them to find a way around it if they want to contribute'? Because these reacts could be that 'way'.

 

But the question is, are these reacts going to help that much in that space, and are they worth having around for all the people who strongly don't want them? I agree they should be opt-in if they were to be implemented (so people who don't like them can have their posts unreactable and/or not see other reacts), and with only non-negative reacts.

 

I do see people's concerns for if it may go the other way and be a deterrent for people who want to post a reply though. Because then that same worry about someone replying in a certain way now has the added component to contend with of how well-received their post will be from a react sense. It could serve as some sort of metric that can mean something different to everyone. It can be a way to make people think that, if they aren't going to get as many reacts, then their opinion is less valuable. And I don't think something that could reduce conversation is a good thing. So that's my 'con'.

 

My 'pro' is that if someone has said something I really agree with, it allows me to show support or feel involved without opening myself up to a spat potentially.

 

So I think a trialed version as suggested may be a good idea to get a feel for if our concerns on either side are in reality as bad as we think.

 

(And I know the forums aren't as scary as I make out haha, but my brain sure does like to make me second guess everything. :lol:)

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, dragonico said:

Discussions on here can get quite passionate (for lack of a better term) and if you aren't the best at articulating your point, especially when someone's reply can really pick that point apart, that can be a real deterrent. If you're someone who is more sensitive (like me 😅) something as small as people replying to your post with words in bold or in caps can feel almost like an attack. I know that's more of a 'me' problem rather than with the person's communication style and I'm not trying to bag on those replies, just offer up a perspective on why someone may not post.

 

So then I suppose it partly comes down to, if someone's anxieties and sensitivities are making them lean towards not posting, is the sentiment 'sure that's a shame but that's for them to find a way around it if they want to contribute'? Because these reacts could be that 'way'.

 

 

 

 

I definitely agree with this. I know at least 3 people on this site who feel the exact same - and evidently yourself included! I just think reactions would be a great way to take some of this stress away. I noticed someone say before that it wouldn't be a solution to the problem - of course it wouldn't be a be-all-and-end-all. Nor would it be a 'necessity'. But it would sure help a good amount of people. :) (For other reasons than social, such as ease for mobile users too as mentioned above!)

 

Oh, and big agree to a trial run. If it goes horrifically and this place becomes a bully-fest of cliques and harassment then I'll happily bow out and say I was wrong, but I really don't think it'll come to that. 

Share this post


Link to post

A trial might help, but I wonder how much, really.

If there is a dramatic drop in people actually posting will that mean that they now find no need to post and are just "agreeing" instead? Are we missing nuances that might have come up if they had been forced to post instead? Or might it mean that, as dragonico suggested, they might be deterred from posting because they might be afraid they won't get reacts? Either way, a drop in people posting would seem to me to be a bad thing, so maybe it doesn't matter.

If there is to be a trial, though, it must have a way for people who are adamantly against it to opt out of seeing the reacts.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, dragonico said:

I do see people's concerns for if it may go the other way and be a deterrent for people who want to post a reply though. Because then that same worry about someone replying in a certain way now has the added component to contend with of how well-received their post will be from a react sense. It could serve as some sort of metric that can mean something different to everyone. It can be a way to make people think that, if they aren't going to get as many reacts, then their opinion is less valuable. And I don't think something that could reduce conversation is a good thing.

 

That's a good point too.

 

Another thing is that many posts have more than just one main thought discussed. A change in paragraphs often means a change in ideas.  That means that it would be difficult to determine just what any clicker would be agreeing or disagreeing with and just how strong their feelings about them are. We use words to convey these concepts; nothing else will do the job.

Share this post


Link to post

Its a bit nerve wracking to contribute to this but here is my opinion/take on it.

So i think everyone on both sides of this thread for and against these can agree that both sides have merit and good points i also believe its clearly a very personal/individual thing on why people are so for and against it, for me contributing to a discussion is rather neeving and i tend to stress wherever it will be read as intended or course offence or even get acknowledged by someone, for others like this the ability to quietly get a feeling or subtle opinion across without baring to much or overly contrabuting can be a real life saver.

However i totally understand were the other side of the discussion comes in by saying inevitably someone or group will come across these and eventually miss use the system and use it for self gain, popularity and one upping it dose happen on places like social media

Also as someone who is very dyslexic its rarther daunting to write a long or worded post (ironically this is), full of topics and ideas and complex discussions, were countering opinions can often happen on the meny wonderful topics we have on DC we seem to be a passionate bunch to say the least, for me someone with writing and spelling difficulties the fear of miss spellings, wrong punctuation, wrong word and simply getting all my sentenses and words crossed is a big deal and is quite scary, i often eddit a post several times after posting no matter how long or short or how many times i check for errors, the ability to almost skip that fear would be nice occasionally and a way of putting something that can get a small point or simply gester across can be anxiety reduceing in that regard a yes i agree and a good idea or like can do that

But that being said i think its important to note that we all know its a forum a place for general and topic based discussion, were we all talk and communicate with each other, the idea is to write and discuss on points of intrests discuss ideas and elaberate our individual points of view not just click generic a generic picture response, even me who struggles to write new this when sighning up to the forum, i new at somepoint if i wanted to get my point across id have to communicate thought the dreaded written word

Im sorry for going on and i hope its not a useless post as im a bit middle ground and on the fence but its basicaly a long post to say i think were all in a catch 22 situation about this

What if the original post creator had the ability to turn on or off the opion for these reactions, say as standard there off but they can turn them on so its post specific, and when a person enters the particular thead it will say or says on the link thing jou click that takes you there that this thread is using emoticons or reactions, then its down to the individual if they want to contribute to a thread that contains them, its an individuals choice to discuss, i know this may course issues for a popular theads were people might whant to discuss things and it seemingly blocks them from doing so but if someone is that intrested in a post with them then it might out way that, but they will know going in so both sides can be happy

Sorry its long but just my ramblings on the topic

Edited by Bloommist

Share this post


Link to post

I used to have a gallery of my drawings on Facebook, but I eventually deleted it because I felt that I had to beg my friends to like and/or comment on my pictures, because without them I felt like no one was paying any attention to my pictures. I'd probably get the same feeling here if reactions were a thing, so I am firmly against them.

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Stormcaller said:

 

That's a good point too.

 

Another thing is that many posts have more than just one main thought discussed. A change in paragraphs often means a change in ideas.  That means that it would be difficult to determine just what any clicker would be agreeing or disagreeing with and just how strong their feelings about them are. We use words to convey these concepts; nothing else will do the job.

Yes that's also true. On sites such as reddit, I see shorter posts more readily getting 'upvotes' (essentially likes) since it's easier to agree in whole with something simpler and with one cohesive point. So if reacts were to influence how people post, it may be that people are encouraged to write smaller posts, which again could theoretically limit discussion. My personal opinion is that people who want to write larger posts  (or in my case--can't help themselves :lol:) will continue to do so though.

 

But then as you also say, with longer posts, reactions can be confusing when multiple things are discussed (or even in smaller posts). If I get a reaction where it isn't immediately obvious why it was chosen (e.g. haha), I can be left scratching my head and even possibly ruminating on something like that (not to try and sound dramatic heh, but could very well happen).

 

I mentioned a 'pro' being that a reaction won't invite as much of a back and forth, and I agree it wouldn't feel like something that I would go so far as to PM someone about to elaborate (if not-anonymised). Whereas in a conversation using words, it's easier to ask someone what they meant by something if I wasn't sure. So reacts could result in more miscommunication possibly, unless it literally was just the reaction of 'like'. Anything else could be very well-intentioned, but more open to being used either sarcastically or just generally more open to interpretation and projection.

 

@Bloommist I echo basically everything you have to say. :) I do think I prefer it to be user-specific (i.e they can opt out altogether) rather than thread-specific myself, just so those who dislike the reacts don't feel excluded from any topics.

 

2 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

And also says NOTHING, nor does a button. So what is the point of reaction buttons ? They too say nothing.

I suppose as with a lot of social media, people can crave validation or some form of acknowledgement, and reacts can offer that. If no-one were to reply to one of my posts as an example, that can be perhaps a bit dejecting, but a reaction maybe would be less of an ask? As I'm typing, I do feel that there's probably no more chance of someone liking my post versus just replying though. I'm just imagining this very thread with posts having reactions, and I think it may perhaps feel more clique-y or divisive? I think having this measure of popularity in some form ultimately is making me think I'd prefer no reactions, but I'm still open to the idea of a trial. Like @Sazandora has mentioned, that feeling is one of the reasons I don't really post much on social media. And as someone who already doesn't post much on the forums, it would probably make me want to post less.

 

I think for me it would benefit the more lurker-types (such as myself) but hinder those wanting to post.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know if I've posted here before and don't want to slog through 11 pages of arguing to find out, so I'll just pose my opinion and be done with it.

 

I am neutral on this suggestion, leaning to support. It would be at the very least a good way to convey agreement, disagreement, or even simply acknowledgement if used in other places on the forum. I wouldn't throw a fit if it were or were not implemented, but it's something that I'd like to have the option to use if nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's worth stressing that for better or for worse, we have a forum culture here that discourages non-substantive comments as useless, annoying, even spammy. How can one permit the posting of nothing but a like emoji in response to a post while continuing to hold the line against an "I agree with this so much" post? If anything the "I agree with this" post carries a little more meaning, since it's usually clearer what they're agreeing with (it being quoted) and since you can at least feel certain the like emoji is meant to show agreement rather than, for example, sympathy.

 

Do we want to keep the discouragement of one-sentence posts and posts that do nothing but agree with other posters? Because if so, we should really not allow responses with only an emoji on them either. It's quite inconsistent otherwise.

Edited by tjekan

Share this post


Link to post

Except a reaction wouldn’t be a post, it’d be an icon at the bottom of a post with a number beside it.

 

I very much like Bloomist’s idea of it being something the op can choose to opt in, and it should be a default off, imo. That way if it’s not needed, like in a suggestion thread, they won’t have to be there.

 

And honestly I still don’t see reactions becoming a replacement for actually posting a substantial post, more as an addition to posts, like using a congrats in the congrats thread, or a love/thanks in dr, or the gifting thread, and then following up with an actual post. They’re no replacement for using actual words.

 

@TJ09 Can we get a little more information on the reactions? Like, how they look and how they’re uh... set up...?

Share this post


Link to post

Olympe,

so, I had zero idea about the Tree decor thing, and that is just gross. :(  I was here for the EATW thing, but thought that was more of an isolated bombardment for a specific reason. I truly had no idea that there was so much strife and discontent in this forum. The most I've seen is when suggestion threads get slightly heated, and a mod steps in almost immediately to ask that things chill out. I really didn't know.

    If this forum is that, idk the word I want--angry? Then yeah, I guess reactions should be a no-go.

 

 

I was thinking that reactions would work here more like they do in some of the Discords, but I wonder if that works so well because it is a faster paced platform? Everyone writing a long response to everything wouldn't really work?

(I've never seen or heard of anyone reaction fishing--it just doesn't work like that.

It's more like: one person posts something I find hilarious. I post the 😂 😆 below their comment and that's it. I didn't need to write out 'I found that hilarious!' Which could be disruptive.)

 (Though I am also a member of a long-time, large forum and we've not had a single issue over the emoticons. I guess maybe we've been extremely lucky? Idk)

 
If it were to get a trial here, I totally agree with an opt out being needed. I really don't feel that it would curb much discussion, since that's a big part of this forum's culture, each suggestion needs evaluating, pro and conned from all angles and perspectives, so I don't imagine that changing drastically. The reactions are just that, a way to point out that a comment or point someone made really struck a chord. And then I can elaborate on that, if I choose to comment further. (Or not if I'm feeling over anxious at that time, or like Bloommist said, concerned someone might take my meaning wrong.. sometimes it's a heavier yoke than I'm able to shoulder.)

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Don't want it, and wouldn't use it.

 

Forums aren't Facebook, and I don't see any reason why people would need to "like" a Forum post.  It's not as though you gain points or your post will move to the top of the thread if it's more popular, so what point does it serve that replying with " :) " doesn't?  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, tjekan said:

I think it's worth stressing that for better or for worse, we have a forum culture here that discourages non-substantive comments as useless, annoying, even spammy. How can one permit the posting of nothing but a like emoji in response to a post while continuing to hold the line against an "I agree with this so much" post? If anything the "I agree with this" post carries a little more meaning, since it's usually clearer what they're agreeing with (it being quoted) and since you can at least feel certain the like emoji is meant to show agreement rather than, for example, sympathy.

 

Do we want to keep the discouragement of one-sentence posts and posts that do nothing but agree with other posters? Because if so, we should really not allow responses with only an emoji on them either. It's quite inconsistent otherwise.

 

I can't tell if your post is meant to be for or against reactions, but a post (even one that just says "Like!") takes up a significant chunk of real estate while a reaction is a little icon with a number, so the two cannot really be compared.

 

2 hours ago, Sextonator said:

@TJ09 Can we get a little more information on the reactions? Like, how they look and how they’re uh... set up...?

 

The first post links to an official announcement that shows what it's like to "use" a reaction.

 

2 hours ago, Sextonator said:

I very much like Bloomist’s idea of it being something the op can choose to opt in, and it should be a default off, imo. That way if it’s not needed, like in a suggestion thread, they won’t have to be there.

 

No, it is not possible to allow people to choose to opt-in per-topic or whatever. If you don't want to see them yourself, I imagine it would be easy enough to block the particular element.

 

2 hours ago, Sextonator said:

And honestly I still don’t see reactions becoming a replacement for actually posting a substantial post, more as an addition to posts, like using a congrats in the congrats thread, or a love/thanks in dr, or the gifting thread, and then following up with an actual post. They’re no replacement for using actual words.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. Someone even quoted an old post by me suggesting the same thing: that reactions could potentially allow more overall contribution to happen, albeit in a very small, lightweight way.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh thanks for replying TJ! I totally didn't notice that link in the first post. It's pretty cool that there's a removal feature.

 

I'm pretty tired and spacey, so no arguments from me rn, but I am totally for contribution from being able to react to posts, and for people being able to opt out, since it's so important to the nayers.

 

Is there a limit to how many reactions there can be? I don't really see more than a small handful necessary, but having different options to what's in the op would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Sextonator said:

Oh thanks for replying TJ! I totally didn't notice that link in the first post. It's pretty cool that there's a removal feature.

 

I'm pretty tired and spacey, so no arguments from me rn, but I am totally for contribution from being able to react to posts, and for people being able to opt out, since it's so important to the nayers.

 

Is there a limit to how many reactions there can be? I don't really see more than a small handful necessary, but having different options to what's in the op would be nice.

 

I think that post was just saying that Admins can disable the reactions - just like this forum is now, with no reactions. As TJ just said, I don't think it's possible for individuals to opt out?

 

That being said, I still opt for a trial run. I think it's the only way to know for sure how this forum as a whole would... Heh, react to them.

Share this post


Link to post


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.