'Disagree'

[B S Magnet]

Your opinion. I find them useful.

…

Again, your opinion. I feel they actually save me bandwidth

The way an ADHD brain is wired is not opinion. It’s thoroughly established by neuroscience, as are the attention-oriented prompts to pull that brain away from principal focus.

Here, on a forum, the principal focus is on the discussion threads and the content contained.

Standout posts — posts which do a thorough job of resolving a task or an original post’s question — tend to be given a thumbs-up. That’s instructive for future viewers of the settled thread, as it can deliver pointers on how to do the same thing with their gear.

And yes, thumbs-down and “angry” reactions do have an established track record of derailing the central focus of discussion threads. They sometimes necessitate a moderator to moderate the discussion.

That is a ridiculous claim.

I sincerely didn’t mean to hit so close to home there.

 

[B S Magnet]

Ça plane pour moi.

C’est Plastic Bertrand! “IT’S ALL WORKING OUT FOR ME!”

Never a better French New Wave-meets-surf rock jam if there ever was another.

 

[I7guy]

A lot of people — myself included — live with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Clutter distractions — “thumbs-down”, “angry” reactions — are neither instructive nor constructive. They consume mental bandwidth better reserved for other matters. I also realize the handful of people who relish those non-productive reactions hope to achieve just that: sap from the bandwidth of others.



Then inform the forum moderator(s) to merge the threads. C‘est assez simple.

Rather than removing them, I would opt for an option to hide them all. IMO, it doesn’t further the community or the discussion to see a hyperbolic post liked eg “Tim Crook is a liar and should be fired”.

So to me all of the reactions serve useful purposes, but if there are those members that are bothered by them there should be an option to turn them all off as a profile option for example.

And yes, there are those serial dislikers, just like serial likers. Depending on the post content, neither is good. Upvoting a post that contains the above verbiage is not a good thing either.

So now that the disagree is part of the MacRumors landscape, I think it should stay.

 

[B S Magnet]

@I7guy , I welcome you to owe this sidebar back-and-forth its proper due.

Giving that due means paying a visit to local public library system and asking to check out the 2010 book, ADHD in Adults: What the Science Says, by Barkley, Murphy & Fischer. It’s well worth a read or even a quick browse-through, if instead you prefer to find it at a nearby book store, to look through it whilst sipping a coffee.

But the science, the research bolstering ADHD and ways to both treat it and to give people who have it the tools they need to limit its impact on executive function, is decades in the making.

 

[I7guy]

I believe I did in fact did take your claim of ADHD seriously and mention the reaction system should be a profile option you can opt out of displaying.

So I’m not sure where i quoted your post without comment.

 

[B S Magnet]

I believe I did in fact did take your claim of ADHD seriously and mention the reaction system should be a profile option you can opt out of seeing.

My apology. You may have inadvertently posted after quoting my post, requiring an “edit this post” to add what you appended. What I saw here was just my post, quote-texted without a remark. I’ll correct my previous post.

Rather than removing them, I would opt for an option to hide them all. IMO, it doesn’t further the community or the discussion to see a hyperbolic post liked eg “Tim Crook is a liar and should be fired”.

That’s a halfway measure, but one for which an opt-in, rather than opt-out, would be more productive. An option at this level should not be incumbent upon an established (or new) user to need to manually opt-out of something they had not requested in the first place.

An opt-in, meanwhile, would be available for anyone who desires more granular-level meta-information about a post. Opt-in tends to be more user-oriented, whereas opt-out tends to be more provider-oriented (e.g., email solicitations, user-profiling settings). The former is, by structure, voluntary; the latter is, by intent, compulsory unless acted against.

That said, I don’t know whether the Xenforo platform offers an administrator provision for something like that, whether for opt-out or opt-in.

So to me all of the reactions serve useful purposes, but if there are those members that are bothered by them there should be an option to turn them all off as a profile option for example.

An opt-in for those extended reactions would do this job sufficiently. This, of course, provided that the extended reactions in question — “disagree”, “laugh”, and “angry” — ultimately remain in the picture.

And yes, there are those serial dislikers, just like serial likers. Depending on the post content, neither is good. Upvoting a post that contains the above verbiage is not a good thing either.

I give a thumbs-up for a constructive post which not only aids in a discussion topic, but also moves me to look at the question in fresh light. I treat a thumbs-up — and I may be an oddball here — more as a “this was useful, cheers” acknowledgement and less as an “agree”. Then again, I spend most of my time on the MR forums both learning from and helping others on maintaining legacy Macs in 2024. Those communities — like PowerPC Macs and Early Intel Macs — tend to work together as a loose team with a shared objective behind our motivation for giving our time there.

With rare exception, I don’t generally amble over to topics on forums where the crux of the discussion is predicated on “agreement” or “disagreement”, because I don’t find these to be a good use of my spare time.

So now that the disagree is part of the MacRumors landscape, I think it should stay.

“Thumbs-down” is core to the Xenforo platform and can be found on everything from TinkerDifferent to Tonymacx86 . It, along with other post reactions, is not incidental to MacRumours and, as noted in the Xenforo online manual, can be toggled forum-wide or within specific forums.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Right, but it'd be nice to know how few is few. I'd guess that most folks on MR don't care one way or the other (I'm definitely in that camp), so I'm just trying to understand the POV of those that seem to think that the emojis are negatively affecting their experience.

I’m trying to not point in any direction, but I’ve been literally trolled with emojis by folks in here arguing about this whole thing right now (not you)

The folks that do it .. know they do it .. know it works to irritate people and aren’t debating this topic in good faith.

A solution here would be that anyone on your ignore list … also has their emoji reactions invisible to you. Problem solved. Not sure if that’s possible or not, but it would be amazing.

Emoji reactions are a “hole” in the entire “just ignore someone” concept.

 

[B S Magnet]

A solution here would be that anyone on your ignore list … also has their emoji reactions invisible to you. Problem solved. Not sure if that’s possible or not, but it would be amazing.

Unless one clicks on the link to look at all reactions (when there are more than three), the last three users to react and to have their names displayed as reacting will not display any user who is on your “ignore” list. Which is to say: if four users reacted and one of those is on your ignore list, it will only show the names of the three who aren’t on that list.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Unless one clicks on the link to look at all reactions (when there are more than three), the last three users to react and to have their names displayed as reacting will not display any user who is on your “ignore” list. Which is to say: if four users reacted and one of those is on your ignore list, it will only show the names of the three who aren’t on that list.

Yep -- and I can't tell you the number of posts of mine where the only reactions are "laugh emoji trolling" ... in some threads it's been every. single. post.

Like I said -- folks that do this know precisely what they are doing.

 

[I7guy]

Yep -- and I can't tell you the number of posts of mine where the only reactions are "laugh emoji trolling" ... in some threads it's been every. single. post.

Like I said -- folks that do this know precisely what they are doing.

I know what you mean. I say what I feel is right or correct and those views are opposite to what others may feel or believe in. I personally ignore the “laughing reaction” when used in that manner.

There are all sorts of posts that in my opinion a “wtf” emoji would be perfect for instead of the laughing reaction or a disagree.

I also think folks know precisely what they are doing and the reactions that will be received when “that stuff” is posted.

The reactions give broader visual communication options to the forum. If someone is bothered by them, as I said above, maybe a profile option to hide the reactions in the posts could be a possibility.

 

[B S Magnet]

I know what you mean. I say what I feel is right or correct and those views are opposite to what others may feel or believe in. I personally ignore the “laughing reaction” when used in that manner.

There are all sorts of posts that in my opinion a “wtf” emoji would be perfect for instead of the laughing reaction or a disagree.

I also think folks know precisely what they are doing and the reactions that will be received when “that stuff” is posted.

Perhaps, alongside a “wtf” (maybe represented by a question mark), there might also be a “thinking” reaction for those posts which you have your reservations.

But again, this is feature-crawl on a topic about whether those features are a need in the first place.

 

[I7guy]

Perhaps, alongside a “wtf” (maybe represented by a question mark), there might also be a “thinking” reaction for those posts which you have your reservations.

But again, this is feature-crawl on a topic about whether those features are a need in the first place.

Over the years different aspects of MR has been discussed. And whether a particular aspect should be discontinued, expanded or altered.

One thing is for sure there are many different opinions that come across in these posts.

For reactions, this is the landscape for social media. The question on the table is not whether there is a need (because it is a given reactions are a part of the social media fabric), but whether it can be optional for those who don’t wish to see reactions.

 

[MysticCow]

I have no problems with the disagree button. I think it serves a purpose. But should this not be to promote discussion?

Could we not have a PSA put out asking people to at the very least back up their disagreements with a reason why?

They can disagree all they want. FACTS do not change.

 

[G5isAlive]

Your answer to this is to force them to respond with a post?

If it is the same people doing it over and over, maybe they just disagree with your views.

This. There are some people here that seemingly go out of their way to complain. I get that nothing is perfect, but if something is always wrong, or always a disappointment, why keep repeating your negativity amongst those interested in learning something new or useful? I do find the thumbs down useful to register my disagreement. Or a frown. Which yes I do see the irony. I do give people the benefit of the doubt and try to engage in rational dispute, but some prove they won’t argue in good faith. For them, the emoji is enough.

But I would like to nominate an additional emoji, the facepalm.

 

[I7guy]

This. There are some people here that seemingly go out of their way to complain. I get that nothing is perfect, but if something is always wrong, or always a disappointment, why keep repeating your negativity amongst those interested in learning something new or useful? I do find the thumbs down useful to register my disagreement. Or a frown. Which yes I do see the irony. I do give people the benefit of the doubt and try to engage in rational dispute, but some prove they won’t argue in good faith. For them, the emoji is enough.

But I would like to nominate an additional emoji, the facepalm.

100%, a facepalm emoji would round out the cornucopia we have now.

 

[wbeasley]

There are some posts so outrageous the disagree button handles the feedback from members and is very useful.

However, if you are responding to a post in the “political news” section, that is where political posts and other controversial posts are allowed.

some posts need to be in the political category.

currently you can be moderated for a comment because what's been stated originally or in posts is clearly political or will open up political comments.

posts like "EU decides..." or "DoJ decides..." are going to talk about country policy which is clearly political.

limiting to the Political category also ensures we avoid new accounts set up to drop a bomb and leave or get suspended.

Seems too that when you reply to some people, they start attacking you rather than the topic.
I know you can report them. A couple have been suspended.

After a week of posts, it's now clear there are some people who will not listen to facts (not opinions) and continue to argue in tangents. And then get personal once trapped. They continue to trot out arguments that other posters have shown to be incorrect but when they find someone new to engage they start over.

There are at least 5 posters I will not give responses to anymore.
I will post, they can snip bits back, but I'm not engaging with them as they clearly like the banter.
Perhaps they are lonely and this is the only outlet they have?

I have learnt quite a bit from other posters.
Happy to modify my opinion when facts are used.
Happy to sometimes agree to disagree.

The Disagree button is sometimes just the easiest option once you've exhausted reasoned discussion.

 

[wbeasley]

Eh, sometimes I like seeing people get ratio'd for their page one "hot takes" (which is where you see the most usage of the disagree button). We don't need to hear 33 people explain why they disagree with "Tim Apple doesn't know how to run a company". Lol.

Besides, if you get rid of the disagree button, then you're just going to see a bunch of people using the "laughing" and "angry" reactions to express the same disagreement/disdain, as is done outside of the News section.

once you run out of Dislikes, the Laugh is your unlimited friend

 

[rm5]

some posts need to be in the political category.

I don't quite get it... are you saying that some posts should be in the Political News section that are not? Neither you nor I is in control of what goes in there; it's an "editorial decision." That would be an instance where you use the good ol' "Report" button, requesting that the administrators qualify the thread as "political," thereby moving it to the Political News section.

After a week of posts, it's now clear there are some people who will not listen to facts (not opinions) and continue to argue in tangents. And then get personal once trapped. They continue to trot out arguments that other posters have shown to be incorrect but when they find someone new to engage they start over.

That's true, very true. And I would extend this to almost any large online community.

There are at least 5 posters I will not give responses to anymore.
I will post, they can snip bits back, but I'm not engaging with them as they clearly like the banter.
Perhaps they are lonely and this is the only outlet they have?

I know I'm repeating information you probably already know, but there's that ignore button for posters you're not fond of...

Perhaps they are lonely, idk.

 

[Chuckeee]

once you run out of Dislikes, the Laugh is your unlimited friend

Nooo, the laugh should be in response to a humorous post that I think is funny. If you run out of dislikes then angry or sad would be a better response

 

[G5isAlive]

Nooo, the laugh should be in response to a humorous post that I think is funny. If you run out of dislikes then angry or sad would be a better response

except some remarks are both so pedantic and wrong that laughing really is the only response. why get angry?

 

[wbeasley]

100%, a facepalm emoji would round out the cornucopia we have now.

seems i need a tr*lling emoji...

 

[Nermal]

Rather than removing them, I would opt for an option to hide them all.

I'm a month or so late to the party here, but those familiar with user style sheets may wish to add the following:

.reactionsBar, .reaction {
  display: none !important;
}

This will not stop you from getting a notification when someone reacts to your post, but it'll hide both the reaction bar and the "Like" button.

 

[annk]

I don't quite get it... are you saying that some posts should be in the Political News section that are not? Neither you nor I is in control of what goes in there; it's an "editorial decision." That would be an instance where you use the good ol' "Report" button, requesting that the administrators qualify the thread as "political," thereby moving it to the Political News section.

.....

Administrators don't make editorial decisions - the editors do. So please don't use the report function for this. You can for example post in Site and Forum Feedback when you want to question an editorial decision - where a news thread has been posted, why a certain story has/hasn't been covered, etc.

 

[rm5]

Administrators don't make editorial decisions - the editors do. So please don't use the report function for this. You can for example post in Site and Forum Feedback when you want to question an editorial decision - where a news thread has been posted, why a certain story has/hasn't been covered, etc.

Ahhh, gotcha. I apologize for causing confusion.