Enable "Reaction" feature on forums

[tjekan]

[I will add #3. #4 and #2 are the same point, though. I condensed the various restatements of the negative positions a lot too. #4 is just the reason why the people from #2 would feel more comfortable emoting than posting.]

 

Quote

"Posts that do not contribute to the topic or forum may be removed and/or result in a warning"

 

Do you consider a like emoji a valid contribution to the topic? If so, why do you consider a post with nothing but an emoji in it non-contributing? (I understand that you think it is too long, a second issue and a potentially valid one; but why do you consider it non-contributing?)

 

And if you do not consider a like emoji a valid contribution to the topic, then why are we bothering with it?

[Stromboli]

I would enjoy having the reaction feature enabled. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Fuzzbucket]

31 minutes ago, Shadowdrake said:

 

If everyone who wanted to agree with a post did so by quoting and emoting, the majority of a thread's page would be regurgitated text and emoticons. They're not at all equivalent and I wish "react with an emoji post" would stop being brought up as anything but spam. As the forum guidelines say, "Posts that do not contribute to the topic or forum may be removed and/or result in a warning". Textless emoji posts would absolutely fall under that and shouldn't be encouraged because if they spread I imagine mods would have to crack down hard on them. Imagine if the suggestions forum was full of quoteposts and thumbs up emotes! On the flipside, reacts would take up much less space than any signature or avatar and dozens, hundreds or more can be displayed without any extra space than one react would be.

 

 

Actually invision has the capacity to show a post in a sort of condensed form when it's quoted.

That would cut down on the excessive space they can take on a page.

 

And "reactions" contribute exactly the same amount as an emoticon - nothing in the way of discussion whatsoever. But they do offer opportunities for totting up and competing, as well as "reacting" without reading.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Fuzzbucket

[Jazeki]

26 minutes ago, Shadowdrake said:

Usually, yes. It's a lot less pressure than posting, which by design show the person's name, avatar, signature, etc. whereas reacts only show names and only if you care enough to click. Obviously there will always be a few whose anxieties prevent them from contributing even in this way but that can't be helped.

The example link that TJ posted in the OP shows reactions showing up in activity notifications. So, if I was watching this thread, there is potential that I'd be notified of exactly who reacted and when.  There looks to be plenty of room for customization, but it's something to consider as well.

[Fuzzbucket]

Thank goodness I have notifications turned off for practically everything. Ugh.

[Sextonator]

But would the majority of users here do just that? React without reading? And if they react, does that mean they won’t make a post? What is stopping them from contributing by posting if they react?

[purplehaze]

12 minutes ago, Jazeki said:

The example link that TJ posted in the OP shows reactions showing up in activity notifications. So, if I was watching this thread, there is potential that I'd be notified of exactly who reacted and when.  There looks to be plenty of room for customization, but it's something to consider as well.

Oh, that's a horrid thought! I would hope TJ could disable that because I can't imagine a reason for being notified of every reaction!

[Fuzzbucket]

11 minutes ago, Sextonator said:

But would the majority of users here do just that? React without reading? And if they react, does that mean they won’t make a post? What is stopping them from contributing by posting if they react?

 

So why not just post so that we can all see what they think ? Several regular posters in this thread have said that if they can use "reaction" buttons they will use them INSTEAD of posting.

[Sextonator]

Because, they have anxiety about posting, so it’s an easy way they can feel they’ve contributed without having that anxiety. And just because some have stated they’d use just the button doesn’t mean everyone will. I for one would use both, depending on the situation.

[RealWilliamShakespeare]

And many people, myself included, would use it instead of doing nothing. It's a small, less-obtrusive way to still make a contribution.

[HeatherMarie]

I'm seeing some *very* concerning and upsetting attitudes in the last couple pages of this thread. I'm seeing multiple people completely ignoring what others are saying just to push their own opinion as fact. That's very frustrating.

 

The attitude that 'some people may cry over this but that's okay because some other people will like it' is honestly just disturbing. Many users have posted very personal and heavy posts about *why* reactions would be a negative thing to them, about things they have *seen* happen on other forums... And some people seem to be totally dismissing all of that because who cares as long as some people are happy about the change? That is a horrid attitude to read in this thread, honestly. 

 

With how many negative points people have brought up, I think it's just completely dismissive to say that most people would like it, or mostly good would come from it, or certain bad scenarios would outweigh the good, or whatever.... It feels like instead of really getting into the actual issues and trying to compromise or figure out solutions, some people just seem to completely ignore all the bad things because they don't think those things are important?? 

 

(Idea/question: What if, *instead* of 'reactions', that 'quote+emoji' idea was implemented? If you could 'react' to a post simply by quoting and adding an emoji or two (which, really, is all reactions are), would that be a good compromise? Would that be helpful to people who like reactions and don't always want to post actual words? Because a compromise is always going to be better than ignoring concerns.)

[Fuzzbucket]

7 minutes ago, HeatherMarie said:

I'm seeing some *very* concerning and upsetting attitudes in the last couple pages of this thread. I'm seeing multiple people completely ignoring what others are saying just to push their own opinion as fact. That's very frustrating.

 

The attitude that 'some people may cry over this but that's okay because some other people will like it' is honestly just disturbing. Many users have posted very personal and heavy posts about *why* reactions would be a negative thing to them, about things they have *seen* happen on other forums... And some people seem to be totally dismissing all of that because who cares as long as some people are happy about the change? That is a horrid attitude to read in this thread, honestly. 

 

With how many negative points people have brought up, I think it's just completely dismissive to say that most people would like it, or mostly good would come from it, or certain bad scenarios would outweigh the good, or whatever.... It feels like instead of really getting into the actual issues and trying to compromise or figure out solutions, some people just seem to completely ignore all the bad things because they don't think those things are important?? 

 

(Idea/question: What if, *instead* of 'reactions', that 'quote+emoji' idea was implemented? If you could 'react' to a post simply by quoting and adding an emoji or two (which, really, is all reactions are), would that be a good compromise? Would that be helpful to people who like reactions and don't always want to post actual words? Because a compromise is always going to be better than ignoring concerns.)

 

The only downside I can see is that TJ says even just emoji posts take way more server space. I'd rate the concerns of many members way above that, to be honest.

 

One other thing. This is a suggestion about implementing something that many members are seriously unhappy about for a variety of reasons - some of which involve very real anxieties (I don't include my profound distaste for the nasty things in this number !) 

 

Can I just ask - before this ever came up, just how many members were actively unhappy about the fact that there were no buttons ?

 

I'm betting it hardly every crossed anyone's mind.

[Sextonator]

But some of those concerns are a little too hypothetical, we don’t know how badly reacts could be abused, we don’t know how widely they’ll be used, or if having them will slow down discussions.

 

And honestly, it also boils down to how many more people would benefit from this than be harmed. We can say a few would benefit, but we can’t say that more would be harmed. And if 50 people aren’t contributing now, but will once they’re implemented, and maybe only 2 end up harmed or with trouble, how is it fair to deny those 50 people a way to contribute because of those 2?

 

Yes that all is also hypothetical, making me hypocritical.

[Fuzzbucket]

I ask again - how desperately upset were you that there have till now been no buttons to click ?

[MissK.]

6 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Can I just ask - before this ever came up, just how many members were actively unhappy about the fact that there were no buttons ?

 

I'm betting it hardly every crossed anyone's mind.

 

I have always been actively unhappy about how intimidating it often is to post in this forum, that's part of the reason I hardly bother anymore. It's not specifically because there were no reactions, but those can help with existing issues, while nearly all the concerns people have are based on hypotheticals. Yes, something might not have worked well in a certain community,but that doesn't mean anything about how it would do in this specific one unless we try it since there are just as many examples of it being totally fine on other forums.

Edited November 21, 2019 by MissK.

[RealWilliamShakespeare]

5 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Can I just ask - before this ever came up, just how many members were actively unhappy about the fact that there were no buttons ?

 

Lol, me. That's why I revived the thread. Because in the last few weeks, I've seen so many posts that I have desperately wanted to give a small "thanks!" or acknowledgment to, because it would allow for small acts of communication without clogging someone else's thread, or taking time out of both of our days to send a whole PM just to say "thanks". Like. I have become actively frustrated multiple times, to the point I searched for this thread and asked for it again. So it does happen.

[Chaosdawn]

18 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

Can I just ask - before this ever came up, just how many members were actively unhappy about the fact that there were no buttons ?

 

I'm betting it hardly every crossed anyone's mind.

 

I can honestly say it never occurred to me until this thread was revived. And I find it a little disturbing that reacts could be added, that feels too much like social media, which I think is a plague. 

 

I am one of the people with bad anxiety, who are afraid to post and re-read and re-write my posts repeatedly then sometimes still just delete them without posting. It is terribly intimidating to put your opinion out there sometimes. I still would find no comfort in reacts, positive or negative, and would not use them. 

 

I do like Olympe's quote+emote suggestion though, that would certainly make me post more. I might even throw in a word here or there. I guess what I really have an issue with is that posts have to 'contribute' to the discussion, yet simple support or a short post isn't enough. At least that's the feeling I get. Could just be me though. 

[olympe]

1 hour ago, Jazeki said:

The example link that TJ posted in the OP shows reactions showing up in activity notifications. So, if I was watching this thread, there is potential that I'd be notified of exactly who reacted and when.  There looks to be plenty of room for customization, but it's something to consider as well.

Goodness, no! I wouldn't want to have 123 notifications for likes and, hidden in between, a notification for a quote or being tagged. That's just - ugh. Please no!

 

50 minutes ago, Sextonator said:

And honestly, it also boils down to how many more people would benefit from this than be harmed. We can say a few would benefit, but we can’t say that more would be harmed. And if 50 people aren’t contributing now, but will once they’re implemented, and maybe only 2 end up harmed or with trouble, how is it fair to deny those 50 people a way to contribute because of those 2?

I don't think that hitting a "like" button and becoming a (mostly anonymous) +1 in the number is much of a contribution, to be honest. Besides, nobody is stopping them from actually contributing now. Yes, there's anxiety, but I dare say that it's the minority of cases - just like with the people who get anxious because of the possibility of reactions.

And, re "we can't say" - we honestly can't say how many users would be affected in good or bad ways. We can't say which group is bigger, nor by how much. So, your numbers are inherently false and based on your personal bias.

 

ETA to answer fuzzbucket's question: No, it never occurred to me that reactions could be a thing here. I definitely don't miss that feature.

Edited November 21, 2019 by olympe

[Stromboli]

1 hour ago, RealWilliamShakespeare said:

And many people, myself included, would use it instead of doing nothing. It's a small, less-obtrusive way to still make a contribution.

 

Yep. I don't post much. Adding reactions could hardly make me post less. But it'd be nice to have a lightweight way to interact with a topic without needing to fully emerge from lurking and wade into the fray.

[tjekan]

Can TJ chime in with whether there exists any possibility of blocking the reaction functions from being used on an individual person's posts? Obviously the reactions MUST be associated in the programming with the people whose posts people leave them on, since they can get notifications when that happens. So it isnt that big a stretch to hope that they could be blocked user by user, is it?

 

Yes, it is a hack, but it would be nice to know if it's a possible one...

Edited November 21, 2019 by tjekan

[Shadowdrake]

4 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

That would cut down on the excessive space they can take on a page.

That hardly changes the fact that "emoji quotes" will still be an avatar length at minimum, and also eat up the number of posts displayed at one time.

 

3 hours ago, olympe said:

I wouldn't want to have 123 notifications for likes and, hidden in between, a notification for a quote or being tagged.

I expect if you do have notifs enabled for them, multiple likes for the same post will be condensed into a single line like how multiple reacts will be condensed on posts.

 

4 hours ago, purplehaze said:

Oh, that's a horrid thought! I would hope TJ could disable that because I can't imagine a reason for being notified of every reaction!

Notification settings already exist. React options would probably resemble the current options for followed threads.

 

 

Quote

Quotemoji posts part 2

Please may this never be a widespread thing. At this point I don't even care if reacts are ever implemented or not because both sides are clearly important to some people, but as a frequent mobile user it would be horrifically frustrating to have to scroll through multiple posts of just avatars and quote boxes I've already read, condensed or not.

[Fuzzbucket]

11 hours ago, RealWilliamShakespeare said:

 

Lol, me. That's why I revived the thread.

10 hours ago, olympe said:

ETA to answer fuzzbucket's question: No, it never occurred to me that reactions could be a thing here. I definitely don't miss that feature.

 

10 hours ago, Chaosdawn said:

 

I can honestly say it never occurred to me until this thread was revived. And I find it a little disturbing that reacts could be added, that feels too much like social media, which I think is a plague. 

 

OK it cuts both ways. Even so - the place has worked fine without the things.

 

10 hours ago, olympe said:

And, re "we can't say" - we honestly can't say how many users would be affected in good or bad ways. We can't say which group is bigger, nor by how much. So, your numbers are inherently false and based on your personal bias

 

 

That's true. The people who post in any thread are a self selected group with strong views one way or the other. And in this particular case, those with the severest anxiety - either way - are probably the most likely to be lurking. There may be - say - (I am too lazy to look) 50 people in this thread. There are well over 50k forum members (the player base isn't relevant here as it would only affect forum users.)  You can never extrapolate numbers from a forum thread.

 

[Stormcaller]

15 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

... Because a compromise is always going to be better than ignoring concerns.)

 

Now that's not at all true. It's quite possible for both parties to a compromise to go away unhappy.

[Ruby Eyes]

The general idea of a compromise is usually for all parties to go away less unhappy than before.

 

Anyway, I still don't think this feature is necessary here. Totally personal feeling, nothing objective.

 

[Aqub]

Quote

(and tell me, would a "like" or a hug emoticon have helped much ?)

 

So, posting here because @Fuzzbucket asked me this in the emotional support thread and I'd like to respond to it here rather than there. I think overall I would prefer if reactions weren't a thing on this forum, to encourage communication through words. 

 

First off, I'm not at all a fan of reactions as far as text conversations go. It's a really big pet peeve of mine when people use a react on my message rather than responding, makes me feel like I'm not worth their time when they don't take the time to type back to me. So I would always much rather have a text response to anything I type rather than a reaction. Even if it's just something short. And if it's too short or off topic that it would be considered spam, go ahead and PM it to me, personally that wouldn't bother me at all. I would prefer being talked to over a "like" or reaction any day. A "like" in addition to your response, sure, but instead of it, no... 

 

Then again, the forums aren't exactly like a text conversation. I understand the other side of this debate too, that enabling reactions would give people a little bit of a voice when otherwise they wouldn't post at all. In the past especially, I used to be (and still am) shy, and wouldn't really post much. But I don't think it would feel much like contributing anyway if I tried to communicate through reactions to posts, its almost like I'm leaving myself out of the conversation?

I do understand wanting to react to people's posts to be friendly and show a little support, or maybe like a sprite update in the dragon suggestions threads?

 

Another thing though, how bad would it feel if I had made a post on the emotional support thread, and people could easily heart react to it to show support, but no one did? 

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Aqub