Jump to content
TJ09

Enable "Reaction" feature on forums

Recommended Posts

This thread specifically talks about "reactions" and not likes because the feature is agnostic to how you use it. We can set up whatever reactions we want, and they don't need to be the normal "I like this."

 

10 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Then "quote" the post you think is great enough to "like" and type "support" or "I agree" under the quote. That will actually serve to re-post what it is you want people to notice. And if you (generic) now say well, what if it's a lot of posts - that would just indicate how useless "like" buttons are. If every post garners a shedload of"likes" that means - nothing

Interestingly, I find those posts that just say "exactly this" to be low signal. In such cases, I would personally rather they take a more condensed form.

 

10 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

And we will all be well aware of who likes and dislikes whom

Not necessarily. That can be avoided.

Share this post


Link to post

Even so - just "reactions" don't add anything. Reposting at least brings the "reacted" post to the fore. If I "reacted" to something pages back, it being the first time I have come to the thread - chances are that those in heated discussion will never know. How many of us would go back to see if some older post had been reacted to ?

 

As to not seeing who reacted how - that still will allow people to feel upset if others haven't reacted the way they hoped, and people will still encourage their friends to "like" (and there I do mean like) their posts to add to its perceived weight.

 

If you do go for this, I do hope there will be a toggle not to see them, just as there is for not seeing sigs.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Even so - just "reactions" don't add anything. Reposting at least brings the "reacted" post to the fore. If I "reacted" to something pages back, it being the first time I have come to the thread - chances are that those in heated discussion will never know. How many of us would go back to see if some older post had been reacted to ?

 

This is a very very good point. While I don't particularly see the value in simply quoting posts just to say 'this!' or 'I agree!', it still brings much more to the table then reactions do. If you quote a post it brings that post back into the current conversation, it highlights something that may already be buried pages back. Reactions don't do that. Especially in faster-moving threads, like news threads or some suggestions, 'reactiing' to a post multiple pages back is pretty much completely worthless because most people aren't going to actually see those reactions at all, since the thread has gone so much farther and anyone actually following the thread most likely isn't going to be re-reading multiple pages back just to look for reactions. 

 

That, combined with the many negative points 'reactions' can bring (popularity contests, hurt feelings when a post gets no reacts, etc etc etc), makes me really not understand what 'reactions' would actually add to the forum. 

Share this post


Link to post

The argument of reactions being obnoxious is mind-blowing to me. I posted a picture of an example of how Discord reactions work in a different thread: here is said picture. They don't clutter anything; if anything, signatures are the most cluttering thing in a thread, so I really don't understand how people can think they're an eyesore.

 

And again, popularity contests are a petty thing. Honestly, Dragon Cave is the most mature website I've been part of - we have a lot of mature users [many of whom say they wouldn't use the feature anyway, soooo... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ] who I know to be sensible and not pander over certain users. I'm sure the most drastic thing to happen would be if an in-caver/well-known artist posts art, or a mod states a decision, or TJ gives his opinion, yeah, those posts would probably accumulate a lot of reactions, but those are the sorts of posts that gain a lot of "this is awesome!" posts anyway, so nothing would really change. Like TJ said up there as well, often simple little "I approve" comments can be a little vague and thread-cloggy, I suppose. Plus, it has been said that the reactions available to the website can be changed, so I'm sure we wouldn't be allowed dislike/angry/feel sick reactions that could hurt players, so no danger could be done there.

Share this post


Link to post

DC may be a mature forum - though there have been some huge flame wars - you weren't around for the withdrawal of the Frills for instance, and I thinknot for the gold and silver sprite fights ? But I think PART of that maturity is in not having knee-jerk options with buttons. We actually TALK. (I have looked at the Discord and - sorry, but I am not very impressed. I am also aware of a couple of people who have actually left DC because of arguments on Discord. I am not naming names here OR by PM, so don't ask, but one has outlined that fact in their amended sig.

 

I saw your image before. I said at the time it made no difference to my distaste, by the way. I do agree that sigs here are cluttering, but they often contain useful links.

Share this post


Link to post

The thing is, if you quote something in order to agree, you do so with your name and your own opinion stated, plus you've already decided to post anyway, so you might just decide to add something else to the discussion - be it a great strike of inspiration or merely a brainfart. Both happen.

 

Likes, however, can be very anonymous and don't say much, really. Do you like the person? Part of what they said? All of it? How they expressed themselves? Do you like a piece of art posted by the person, but not the post itself?

 

Plus, with a quote, you get people to notice the post you "like" because you get it to the bottom line of the discussion. Which means that, even if you quote a post that was posted just before your bedtime (and it's after school/work for you now) and the thread has gained several pages in between, your opinion will be seen. With a like... not so much.

 

And, yes popularity contests are a thing. They always are, be it for tree decorating or sending Valentine's cards or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post

My opinion.

 

I can see either "likes" or reactions killing conversations. People can use either of these systems to avoid posting. Unless a "like" or reaction bumps posts, it would be very possible for a topic to disappear because people are using the system to avoid actually entering the conversation so ultimately there could be no conversation. Of course, this is an extreme example, but I think it could be a reality. More and more reactions less and less actual discussion and sharing of ideas.

 

Also, just because the forum seems mature doesn't change the fact that a lot of us are youngsters and many of us oldsters (me included) don't always behave maturely.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, olympe said:

The thing is, if you quote something in order to agree, you do so with your name and your own opinion stated, plus you've already decided to post anyway, so you might just decide to add something else to the discussion - be it a great strike of inspiration or merely a brainfart. Both happen.

 

Likes, however, can be very anonymous and don't say much, really. Do you like the person? Part of what they said? All of it? How they expressed themselves? Do you like a piece of art posted by the person, but not the post itself?

 

Plus, with a quote, you get people to notice the post you "like" because you get it to the bottom line of the discussion. Which means that, even if you quote a post that was posted just before your bedtime (and it's after school/work for you now) and the thread has gained several pages in between, your opinion will be seen. With a like... not so much.

 

And, yes popularity contests are a thing. They always are, be it for tree decorating or sending Valentine's cards or whatever.

 

So very, very much this. You explained things very well.

 

I'm honestly not sure I'd call the DC forums 'mature', certainly not in some situations... We have had ridiculous flame wars, we've had more threads closed for harassment and insults then I can count, people throw fits when certain things happen (Frills being retired, last year's Soulstone changes, the alt Sweetling changes, etc etc)... There is already plenty of proof that DC users sometimes can't talk about certain topics without getting overly upset and argumentative. I do *not* want 'reactions' thrown into the mix as yet another way for people to express their intense dislike (or hive-minded approval). 

 

Also, just because popularity contests are 'petty' doesn't mean they aren't a real issue, and the concern over them shouldn't be tossed aside just because it's a 'petty' thing to do. Some people would probably find it totally 'petty' to angrily leave a pixel dragon website because of disagreements, or to pull your artwork from a site because of user's reactions, or a number of other things that have happened around here.... Just because something is petty doesn't mean it doesn't drastically affect people. 'Reactions' have the potential to be incredibly damaging in multiple different ways, that multiple people have already outlined. 

 

I'm not 100% against 'reactions' in any possible form, but I'm not sure how they can be implemented in a way that will cause the least amount of drama and popularity-contest mentality and hurt feelings. That's what I'm concerned about, because I've seen it happen elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post

As I just said in the thread about “likes”, the only place I could see this really being useful is for suggestions/requests, particularly those dragon requests you realllllly like, but saying “I love this art!” would be both off topic and thread bumping, and meh. Other than wanting a way to support dragon creation without any art skills, I don’t think I’d have a need for reactions. On the other hand, if they were limited to positive things / the emojis we already have, I don’t see a problem.

Share this post


Link to post

I... am tentatively in support of this suggestion.

 

I would definitely like to see a 'trial run' of this feature, say a week or even a month of it being turned on.  (Personally I'd be more in favour of a month, as it would give enough time to allow everyone to settle into using the feature and not spamming because 'yay new feature!!1!' and therefore give a more accurate view of how long-term use would go.)

 

I can see this going one of two ways; either everything turns into flame wars and popularity contests and all discussions are replaced by anonymous, identical 'likes', or everything is perfect and peaceful and lurkers get to put in their vote without having to show themselves but it doesn't harm discussion whatsoever. (I hope my exaggeration on both sides is clear? Obviously this isn't clear-cut and there's going to be some grey area.)

The thing is, I don't see this forum's users behaving in such a childlike manner. Even though there are, of course, some users who may spam or break the rules or otherwise act irresponsibly, those are always a minority. The majority of posts I see on this forum (I tend to hang around Suggestions, News when there's an event, and Roleplays) are well-written and well thought-out. And being afraid of negativity isn't a new thing. Personally, I can see myself being a lot less anxious if some of the negativity my post were to get was to be in the form of a reaction, and possibly being bolder in my statements about it. (Just look at the first sentence of this post...)

 

I feel like the effective removal of 'I agree' and 'this' posts would only be a benefit to this forum, not least because the option is still there. The quote button isn't going to go away. If someone wants to bring a post from pages back into the discussion again, they can still quote, perhaps saying 'quoting to bump, agree with this' or similar. True, it is a niche example (I can't recall an instance of that happening, though that may just be my memory) but nothing is being taken away. If users are going to be nasty, or have popularity contests, or start flame wars, they already can. (And in some cases, already do. Sweetlings anyone?)

 

 

So with my reasons for support out of the way, here are some things I'd like to see if the feature were to be implemented:

 - Suggestions would have 'support' and 'no support' in place of other reactions. It's familiar, concise and not too negative, and having those in place of other reactions should discourage off-topic discussions (not that there are many).

 - I would like to see a 'like', 'sympathy', 'thanks' and 'haha', but not 'confused' - if you're confused, you should say what confuses you (and possibly add your take on whatever is being discussed).

 - It would be cool (but more work) to have custom images for the reactions. The Discord server uses some of Dirtytabs' drawings as well as a few in-cave sprites (for example, the tombstone sprite) and while the Discord server is a bit more memey (or it was when I was active on it lol) it did give the server something of a unique feel which I personally think could translate quite well onto the forums if we were to have reactions.

 - Reactions should be anonymous. While that does cause some problems ('Who keeps adding no support to my posts?! :angry:' or 'Who liked my post? I need to be their friend!') I think it would prevent more problems than it would cause.

 - I think the reactions should go between the post and the signature, perhaps on the line that currently separates the two. Anywhere else really wouldn't make any sense. (Underneath signature would imply reacting to the signature rather than the post and above posts would imply reacting to the above poster.) An obvious point but an important one, I think.

 - I'm torn on the matter of a 'one reaction per user per post' rule. While it would decrease spam ('I think this post should get attention so I will use all the reactions!') there could be cases where multiple reactions would be appropriate. (The only potential example I can think of would be something like a hatchling with a name referencing immortality getting sick and dying, which would warrant a sympathy because it died as well as 'haha' because of irony...)

 

I wouldn't be actively against an 'angry' or a 'no.' reaction, but I think I'd have to see it work to be in support. Positive reactions only really have popularity contests and 'why did they like my post about a dead CB gold' to worry about, but negative reactions opens a whole other can of potential worms. Like with positive reactions, I can see this community using them well without abuse, but I think there's a little bit too much potential for harm in negative reactions and not enough potential for benefit. (Like most people in this thread seem to think of reactions in general. XD)

 

 

Long post is long.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Zeditha said:

I would definitely like to see a 'trial run' of this feature, say a week or even a month of it being turned on.  (Personally I'd be more in favour of a month, as it would give enough time to allow everyone to settle into using the feature and not spamming because 'yay new feature!!1!' and therefore give a more accurate view of how long-term use would go.)

 

The thing is, I don't see this forum's users behaving in such a childlike manner. Even though there are, of course, some users who may spam or break the rules or otherwise act irresponsibly, those are always a minority. The majority of posts I see on this forum (I tend to hang around Suggestions, News when there's an event, and Roleplays) are well-written and well thought-out.

Yes, even if the general consensus is "no" from forum users, I'd still like to see reactions have a trial-run. Because although lots of people are saying there's be flame wars and popularity contests, I think those things quite unlikely, and only a trial-run would be able to say so. In just a month of testing, I don't think anything so drastic as bullying would happen, so I'm all for it. Not to mention, we have fantastic mods who would shut down bullying as soon as it happened, and a fantastic user base which would report such behaviour and not allow it to go any further. I really would like to see the feature implemented, so yeah, big yes to a trial.

Share this post


Link to post

And just how are you going to report anonymous likes/dislikes/no supports/whatever? 

 

Also, a one-month test run where the worst that could happen is not expected to happen is not exactly a valid test run, is it? ("Let's smoke for a month and see. It's not likely for us to develop lung cancer in that period of time, anyway. So, once that test run is out of the way, let's just keep on smoking because no lung cancer happened." See the flaw in that logic here?)

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, olympe said:

And just how are you going to report anonymous likes/dislikes/no supports/whatever?

 

Exactly.This is one area where mods will not be able to do anything to help anyone. You have only to look at another thread here today to see how an individual member can take ANYTHING said that disagrees with their idea as deliberate flaming and hostility. If that individual had been clicking reactions instead of expressing themselves at length - no-one would have been any the wiser. And there would be no way for anyone but TJ to know whether the 457 "likes" of this post were all from one angry person.... And I would rather he spent his time working on the store than checking reactions, myself ;)

Edited by Fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, olympe said:

And just how are you going to report anonymous likes/dislikes/no supports/whatever? 

 

Also, a one-month test run where the worst that could happen is not expected to happen is not exactly a valid test run, is it? ("Let's smoke for a month and see. It's not likely for us to develop lung cancer in that period of time, anyway. So, once that test run is out of the way, let's just keep on smoking because no lung cancer happened." See the flaw in that logic here?)

That first point is why I'm not in favour of negative reactions or 'dislikes'. The 'no support' is the closest to that, but it's a necessary opinion for the suggestions topic.

Perhaps mods should be able to see who has submitted what reactions, so if anyone feels like they're being stalked and disliked, they can talk to a mod who can check it out. But apart from that, reactions aren't going to pose a lot of threat. Certainly anonymous posts could be harmful, but a 'dislike' on your post is hardly going to have a huge effect.

If it gets really bad, perhaps an option to disable reactions to your posts (as well as an on/off for individual posts) could be put in place, but if it gets to that point then removing the option entirely is probably the safer bet.

 

I don't think smoking is a suitable analogy, although I don't have a better one off the top of my head... The difference being that smoking will *always* result in harmful side effects if you smoke for long enough, whereas this is dependent on the community where it is introduced - a mature and sensible community with a minority of nasty people will likely use the reactions for additional fun, small contributions and reduction of clutter, whereas a less organised, nastier, and perhaps less mature community is far more likely to find itself with a problem. But what I think (and I will admit that I'm not sure how true this is) is that a forum community that is petty and vindictive enough to tear itself apart at the introduction of reactions will likely have torn itself apart from the text posts.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

Exactly.This is one area where mods will not be able to do anything to help anyone. You have only to look at another thread here today to see how an individual member can take ANYTHING said that disagrees with their idea as deliberate flaming and hostility. If that individual had been clicking reactions instead of expressing themselves at length - no-one would have been any the wiser. And there would be no way for anyone but TJ to know whether the 457 "likes" of this post were all from one angry person.... And I would rather he spent his time working on the store than checking reactions, myself ;)

(Emphasis mine)

Whether allowing multiple different reactions on a post by one user could be okay is something I'm on the fence about. Whether a user can submit multiple of the same reaction is not. I don't think anyone is going to be in support of a system where a user can sit and click a button and add hundreds of reactions to one post.

And as to the first bolded sentence... Exactly. If someone who wants to be petty and mean can click a button and think 'haha, I've destroyed their self-esteem!' and it only leaves a small button saying 'sad' or 'no support', isn't that better than typing out a long post tearing down every ounce of your argument, ripping you to shreds personally, and outlining every reason you should kill yourself? I'm sure that this isn't a clear split issue, and even with reactions that kind of nasty person is still going to exist (although I'm sure mods would stamp that kind of behaviour firmly out!) but some who may otherwise be nasty in words can instead leave a relatively meaningless reaction.

(Also what thread are you talking about? Genuinely curious, I would like to read. Mostly for context since I'm fairly sure I misunderstood some of your point from a lack thereof.)

Share this post


Link to post

Well, it's not hard to make several forum accounts and then hunt down the people you hate with some bots. I mean, if people already manage to attack whole click sites just for the heck of it...

And, voilà, you've got one user with the ability to add 100+ likes/dislikes. I'd rather have my arguments ripped to shred than accumulated 100+ dislikes on every single one of my posts just because I pissed someone off - someone with more computer knowledge than me, that is. At least arguing (with some logic behind it) takes actual effort and a lot of time. Plus, it's the argument that's ripped to shreds, not me. Personal attacks can and will be dealt with swiftly by our moderators. (And I'm reasonably sure that telling someone to actually kill themselves should put the poster on posting moderation, at the very least.)

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure that anyone botting dislikes on someone would be caught and dealt with swiftly.

 

But when the worst reaction you can give is 'no support', even if a post does reach 100 or 1,000 'no support's, so what? It's a little reaction. People don't like your idea. We can already give similar reactions by filling pages with 'no support' anyway, and I have no doubt that many users who would do so will continue to leave posts detailing their reasons whether or not they leave a reaction.

 

And if anyone is really that afraid of potential negative response - which I do understand - there should be an option when posting to disable reactions on that post.

(Maybe the ability to retroactively turn off reactions too, which should have a similar effect to hiding a post now does. Re-enabling reactions on a post, if it was a feature, should have to keep the reactions on it.)

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

And there would be no way for anyone but TJ to know whether the 457 "likes" of this post were all from one angry person...

I was looking into the Invision system earlier. While I didn't find an answer to my question, I did come across an answer to this. It's possible to set name visibility to certain user groups. (i.e. All mods, not just TJ.) Additionally, a single person could not "like" a post more than once.

 

2 hours ago, olympe said:

Well, it's not hard to make several forum accounts and then hunt down the people you hate with some bots. I mean, if people already manage to attack whole click sites just for the heck of it...

People can't access the rest of the forum without going through introductions, which is in place specifically to stop bots.

 

 

Edited by 11th
Typo.

Share this post


Link to post

As far as analogies go, I feel this would be more… do we allow cell phone use here? Most places do, some, where allowing it would be more annoying than banning it, like movie theaters, don’t. Or... if you open a new park, is skateboarding allowed?

 

I’m up for a trial run, particularly if after the month is up there’s another thread like this one.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe reactions should be user specified? Like an OP has the ability to turn them on and off for the whole thread and individuals have the ability to hide reactions or to block people from using them on their posts.  People who use reactions irresponsibility will have privileges revoked for a certain period of time, etc.  I think, if used properly, reactions would be good.  Especially for those of us who want to opt into this, we would be able to, but if you didn’t want to, then you wouldn’t have to take part.  A gradual introduction would also be helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Zeditha said:

 

So with my reasons for support out of the way, here are some things I'd like to see if the feature were to be implemented:

 - Suggestions would have 'support' and 'no support' in place of other reactions. It's familiar, concise and not too negative, and having those in place of other reactions should discourage off-topic discussions (not that there are many).

 - I would like to see a 'like', 'sympathy', 'thanks' and 'haha', but not 'confused' - if you're confused, you should say what confuses you (and possibly add your take on whatever is being discussed).

 - It would be cool (but more work) to have custom images for the reactions. The Discord server uses some of Dirtytabs' drawings as well as a few in-cave sprites (for example, the tombstone sprite) and while the Discord server is a bit more memey (or it was when I was active on it lol) it did give the server something of a unique feel which I personally think could translate quite well onto the forums if we were to have reactions.

 - Reactions should be anonymous. While that does cause some problems ('Who keeps adding no support to my posts?! :angry:' or 'Who liked my post? I need to be their friend!') I think it would prevent more problems than it would cause.

 - I think the reactions should go between the post and the signature, perhaps on the line that currently separates the two. Anywhere else really wouldn't make any sense. (Underneath signature would imply reacting to the signature rather than the post and above posts would imply reacting to the above poster.) An obvious point but an important one, I think.

 - I'm torn on the matter of a 'one reaction per user per post' rule. While it would decrease spam ('I think this post should get attention so I will use all the reactions!') there could be cases where multiple reactions would be appropriate. (The only potential example I can think of would be something like a hatchling with a name referencing immortality getting sick and dying, which would warrant a sympathy because it died as well as 'haha' because of irony...)

 

I wouldn't be actively against an 'angry' or a 'no.' reaction, but I think I'd have to see it work to be in support. Positive reactions only really have popularity contests and 'why did they like my post about a dead CB gold' to worry about, but negative reactions opens a whole other can of potential worms. Like with positive reactions, I can see this community using them well without abuse, but I think there's a little bit too much potential for harm in negative reactions and not enough potential for benefit. (Like most people in this thread seem to think of reactions in general. XD)

 

 

Long post is long.

 

Let's see if I can articulate my responses to these points:

 

Suggestions is one place where *any* sort of 'reaction' feature would simply not be helpful in the least, and I *certainly* do not want a 'support' and 'no support' reaction in Suggestions. Suggestions, moreso then any other part of the forum, requires actual conversation. Hashing out the pros and cons of an idea, figuring out different ways it could be implemented, addressing any concerns and trying to alleviate them... What on earth does a 'no support' reaction do? It does absolutely nothing in terms of moving the suggestion forward or making it something that could actually be implemented to people's satisfaction. An anonymous 'no support' is completely useless, in large part because it doesn't say *why*. If a suggestion gets 20 'no support' reactions but only two actual posted responses, there is no way to tinker with the suggestion to make it better or more liked, no way to iron out the wrinkles in it, because no one is saying *why* they don't support it. PLEASE no reactions in Suggestions!

 

I have reservations about the 'sympathy' and 'haha' reactions, for much the same reason I don't want a 'dislike' reaction. It has the potential to cause drama. People could use 'haha' on a serious post about someone's dragons being viewbombed, or their eggs getting sick, or missing out on a release, etc etc. You may say that people here wouldn't do that, wouldn't act in that 'childlike' manner, but the fact is that it happens elsewhere when 'reactions' are involved, so we really don't know for sure that it wouldn't happen here. This forum already sees it's fair share of name-calling and defensive accusations and such, so we do *not* know that reactions won't be used in a negative way.

 

IF this were to be implemented I would definitely push for a trial period, but *only* if TJ was 100% open to turning off 'reactions' if many users voiced displeasure over how it was turning out. The fact is, many times on websites things can be promoted as a 'trail run', but when all is said and done the people in charge don't really want to revert back to how it used to be, no matter how it's actually working out. I would not want to see that happen with this.

Share this post


Link to post

I generally don't post my opinions much, so I wouldn't mind seeing a feature like this implemented. For me, it makes much more sense to use an 'agree' reaction than quoting/mentioning a user while adding nothing to the conversation other than "exactly this, I totally agree" etc.

 

However I do think that any negative reactions such as angry/dislike should be avoided, as those would definitely cause trouble amongst users.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, olympe said:

Well, it's not hard to make several forum accounts and then hunt down the people you hate with some bots. I mean, if people already manage to attack whole click sites just for the heck of it...

And, voilà, you've got one user with the ability to add 100+ likes/dislikes. I'd rather have my arguments ripped to shred than accumulated 100+ dislikes on every single one of my posts just because I pissed someone off - someone with more computer knowledge than me, that is. At least arguing (with some logic behind it) takes actual effort and a lot of time. Plus, it's the argument that's ripped to shreds, not me. Personal attacks can and will be dealt with swiftly by our moderators. (And I'm reasonably sure that telling someone to actually kill themselves should put the poster on posting moderation, at the very least.)

Pretty sure if someone were to go to these very extreme lengths, they could just create multiple forum accounts to type out loads of nasty mean replies, or send loads of horrible PMs. This site is not the best place to try to bully someone, so the example is pretty far-fetched imo. How many people on this site viciously hate one another like this? I don't think any do - not to this extent.

 

I feel as though if the reaction system were to be implemented, negative reactions wouldn't really be allowed. Certainly no dislikes - you can't even dislike on Facebook, and that place is rife with actual bullying.

 

TJ, in the first post, said that these reactions were the defaults, but they and more reactions are configurable:

 

 
Quote
 
  • react_like.png Like
  • react_thanks.png Thanks
  • react_haha.png Haha
  • react_confused.png Confused
  • react_sad.png Sad

 

 

Like, thanks, and haha are great to me, and I think confused makes sense because a post could be vague or something, whereas I'm not too keen on sad. I don't think negative reactions should play a big part because IF some people were to use them maliciously, they could hurt feelings. But certainly no dislike feature. Maybe some other reactions could be love, joy, surprise... The list goes on c:

Edited by RealWilliamShakespeare

Share this post


Link to post

I hate it even worse now that I see those.... So what do you see - a string of react_like.png under a much "liked" post ? Or one, and you hover and see a string of names...

 

People wanted "sad" to sympathise in general discussion when a pet dies... Which I rather feel is cheap as a response. If you really can't be bothered to post "sorry for your loss", just don't do anything. I know I would feel no better at all seeing a string of  react_sad.png under my post.

Edited by Fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

I think it would work with the icon and a number by its side. I'd be surprised if they worked any other way.

 

As to suggestions - My thought is that anyone willing to post their ideas as to *why* an idea is good or bad will do so regardless of whether there is a reaction feature. I know that if I have something to say, I'll say it, but if I just want to agree, I have a choice between bumping and cluttering the thread with a '+1 support' post, or leaving entirely. The option to add a small token of support that is, no matter how cluttering you may think the reactions are, less cluttering than 'support' or 'no support' posts, would be a good option that I would like to see.

Share this post


Link to post

The way someone suggested - the way it is on Discord - showed the names of those clicking. TJ said that could go either way.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.