Hide reactions of ignored users

[Euroamerican]

That's my problem with the whole concept: Certain members appear to want to only get "likes" for what he/she/they/it posts...

Well, not everyone agrees with everything that anyone in particular posts. That's just not real life.

And, hiding from responses doesn't help the "town square" feel for the participants as a whole.

 

[turbineseaplane]

That's my problem with the whole concept: Certain members want to only get "likes" for what he/she/they/it posts... Well, not everyone agrees with everything anyone in particular posts. That's just not real life, and hiding from responses doesn't help the "town square" feel for the participants as a whole.

That's a different discussion (reactions being "a thing" at all)

My request is just that if a user is "ignored" -- all aspects of interaction with that user should be invisible for you.
The whole point of "ignoring a user" is to "get rid of them" for x,y,z reasons

That's really not a bad thing. Some folks just will never get along and it's a determent to the forum overall to not have a way for those who bristle at each other to completely avoid each other.

The current "Elon+Twitter" thing is a great example. Some want to discuss and share and some are just in there to irritate folks for "fun" I guess -- it's great to be able to completely ignore those types of users...but you're having to see them go "laugh" at things (to troll) and "dislike" or "frowny face" over and over and over again on everything...

Just childish nonsense honestly..


Does that clarification make more sense?
I'm really just asking for "ignore" to really truly mean "ignore in all possible ways"

 

[Euroamerican]

I think you illustrated your stand on the subject very well!

 

[roland.g]

That's a different discussion (reactions being "a thing" at all)

My request is just that if a user is "ignored" -- all aspects of interaction with that user should be invisible for you.
The whole point of "ignoring a user" is to "get rid of them" for x,y,z reasons

That's really not a bad thing. Some folks just will never get along and it's a determent to the forum overall to not have a way for those who bristle at each other to completely avoid each other.

The current "Elon+Twitter" thing is a great example. Some want to discuss and share and some are just in there to irritate folks for "fun" I guess -- it's great to be able to completely ignore those types of users...but you're having to see them go "laugh" at things (to troll) and "dislike" or "frowny face" over and over and over again on everything...

Just childish nonsense honestly..


Does that clarification make more sense?
I'm really just asking for "ignore" to really truly mean "ignore in all possible ways"

I wholeheartedly agree that the forums, especially with regards to certain topics can become a total cesspool. And that the interaction with others gets to a place that it really shouldn't. However, that is the nature of things whether we like it or not. The reality is if it bothers you that much, might I suggest, that operating in that space is probably not a good idea for you if ignoring their posts isn't enough and seeing their emojis or whatever below posts is causing you issue. It sounds like choosing to discuss those topics perhaps in person or via text in another sphere may be a better, safer place, if the reactions are causing issue.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The reality is if it bothers you that much, might I suggest, that operating in that space is probably not a good idea for you if ignoring their posts isn't enough and seeing their emojis or whatever below posts is causing you issue. It sounds like choosing to discuss those topics perhaps in person or via text in another sphere may be a better, safer place, if the reactions are causing issue.

With respect, suggesting others "maybe should leave if they can't handle it" is mostly counterproductive.

I'm advocating for the great "ignore" functionality to simply be more complete and successful.

Again, the reason to ignore someone is to not see or interact with them.
It's very reasonable for that to include their "reactions" to posts.

Anyone who's been around long enough has noticed that some folks never say much of anything and get their rocks off just "trolling through emoji reactions". Particularly egregious and annoying are those the endlessly "disagree/thumbs down" and never contribute and say what they actually think... they just "react" to everything. It's just a waste of bandwidth and contributes nothing to the forum or the environment and discourse.

I doubt MR thinks this is great.
I suspect it's simply more of a technical challenge to eliminate reactions from ignored users.

Put another way -- nobody would argue for "allow people to ignore people, but definitely make sure they can still leave visible post reactions". That doesn't really make sense, I'm sure you'd agree.

 

[turbineseaplane]

An alternative here that I think would actually be pretty positive is to not allow negative reactions to be seen by anyone. Perhaps those could just be used to influence up/down location in a "best/most helpful/etc posts" view or something?

Or perhaps some other data view you could dive into if you wanted to re: your posts and reactions to them?

I just don't see how it's helpful to the forum to have negative reactions even be a thing, and definitely not from users you'd chosen to "not see".

 

[roland.g]

I don't believe it is counterproductive.

If you have an issue with certain users, you should certain ignore them as many of us have done and that alone gets the interaction with those that might raise your hairs to keep the discussion more civil, etc.

But I didn't say you should leave if you can't handle it. I said, if you can't handle seeing their emoji reactions to other posts, which really isn't the content of the discussion, and that is something you need removed from view, then that particular discussion may be too much for you given that their "likes" are that problematic.

Now. I will say that to my knowledge MacRumors has an option that removes signatures from the discussion to streamline it. A toggle for reactions might be a good idea. Might already be there for all I know. But that suggestion like signatures would be for ALL reactions, on every post, as well as the ability to react (potentially) in order to streamline the view (especially on mobile).

But I think you are asking too much of the code, which is a forum code that AFAIK they license and don't write, to filter out of the reactions line in your view only, the reactions from your ignore list.

 

[giv-as-a-ciggy-kent]

That's my problem with the whole concept: Certain members appear to want to only get "likes" for what he/she/they/it posts...

Well, not everyone agrees with everything that anyone in particular posts. That's just not real life.

And, hiding from responses doesn't help the "town square" feel for the participants as a whole.

This is the main reason sites like reddit are absolute trash. Their karma system and the heavy handed moderation of negative responses means dumb posters are encouraged to continue posting dumb content to get likes from other dumb posters... ad infinitum. No real discussion is possible, just repetition of catchphrases and corporately acceptable talking points.

 

[ericgtr12]

I don't believe it is counterproductive.

If you have an issue with certain users, you should certain ignore them as many of us have done and that alone gets the interaction with those that might raise your hairs to keep the discussion more civil, etc.

But I didn't say you should leave if you can't handle it. I said, if you can't handle seeing their emoji reactions to other posts, which really isn't the content of the discussion, and that is something you need removed from view, then that particular discussion may be too much for you given that their "likes" are that problematic.

Now. I will say that to my knowledge MacRumors has an option that removes signatures from the discussion to streamline it. A toggle for reactions might be a good idea. Might already be there for all I know. But that suggestion like signatures would be for ALL reactions, on every post, as well as the ability to react (potentially) in order to streamline the view (especially on mobile).

But I think you are asking too much of the code, which is a forum code that AFAIK they license and don't write, to filter out of the reactions line in your view only, the reactions from your ignore list.

Technically speaking this is a deficiency on the part of Xenforo. One cannot truly ignore another if that person is shown the reactions by the person being ignored, this has been pointed out several times on Xenforo's site and they have so far refused to address. It's actually great forum software but they are not very good about listening to their community.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Technically speaking this is a deficiency on the part of Xenforo. One cannot truly ignore another if that person is shown the reactions by the person being ignored, this has been pointed out several times on Xenforo's site and they have so far refused to address. It's actually great forum software but they are not very good about listening to their community.

Good clarifications, thank you.

The features around this definitely are lacking compared to something like Reddit.

Another smart thing there is not allowing someone to reply to someone they’ve blocked/ignored or are blocked by..

We definitely have that issue here with folks talking past one another because folks are blocking/blocked by someone. (I’ve experienced this plenty…from both sides)

To those watching from the side, it must seem odd that folks can be directly talking to someone and quoting them but they never see replies because that person has the commenter ignored

 

[turbineseaplane]

What about the concept of limiting the amount of "reactions" folks can use every day?

We do it with the "dislike" and now instead we have lots of folks who troll via the "laugh" emoji

Maybe all reactions should be limited per day, which would encourage more judicious use of them?

(I suppose we could say that thumbs up and heart are fine in endless amounts since they are a positive reaction and the forum could use a lot more positivity - for sure)

 

[jav6454]

What about the concept of limiting the amount of "reactions" folks can use every day?

We do it with the "dislike" and now instead we have lots of folks who troll via the "laugh" emoji

Maybe all reactions should be limited per day, which would encourage more judicious use of them?

(I suppose we could say that thumbs up and heart are fine in endless amounts since they are a positive reaction and the forum could use a lot more positivity - for sure)

I ignore all "reactions" as I find them inconsequential.

 

[KaliYoni]

Personally, when I find myself beginning to feel online discussions, disagreements, and reactions are too aggravating, I turn off my computer. Then I engage with the real world by doing something like going outside, seeing friends and family, or volunteering at a community organization.

 

[I7guy]

I am not for any further changes to the "reaction" system. But that is my view.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I am not for any further changes to the "reaction" system. But that is my view.

If anything, I'd be for "less of it" honestly

It's nice to get a pulse on things rising to the top (based upon upvotes) in a thread I'm coming to late ... and sometimes as an acknowledgement of a post or retort without a full blown reply..

 

[turbineseaplane]

I got a message from MR staff today that included this line:

"Since (user in question) is on your ignore list, you won't see the user's reactions to your posts unless you purposely seek them out."

From what I'm seeing that is not true (and never has been, thus why I created this thread)

Is this possibly changing soon?
If that feature is indeed coming soon, it would be VERY welcome news to many

 

[jav6454]

I got a message from MR staff today that included this line:

"Since (user in question) is on your ignore list, you won't see the user's reactions to your posts unless you purposely seek them out."

From what I'm seeing that is not true (and never has been, thus why I created this thread)

Is this possibly changing soon?
If that feature is indeed coming soon, it would be VERY welcome news to many

Quite possibly is a "Coming Soon" feature.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Quite possibly is a "Coming Soon" feature.

That would be so amazing and welcome

I hope it's true and it wasn't just a misunderstanding by the staff member I've been chatting with.

 

[jav6454]

That would be so amazing and welcome

I hope it's true and it wasn't just a misunderstanding by the staff member I've been chatting with.

I am guessing tho, not 100% sure.

 

[djgamble]

Great idea. People do troll with the reaction icons. If they are being ignored, it would be great if they could be ignored totally.

Agreed. Particularly those 'DISAGREE' reactions.

I've seen a few accounts that don't even post, they just 'DISAGREE'. Leads me to think that this is a method of trolling that could quite easily be self-regulated.

That is... if I can't see their 'disagree' or get an alert then it's outta sight, outta mind.

 

[annk]

I got a message from MR staff today that included this line:

"Since (user in question) is on your ignore list, you won't see the user's reactions to your posts unless you purposely seek them out."

From what I'm seeing that is not true (and never has been, thus why I created this thread)

...

We (the admins) were incorrect about this. We had some crossed wires in our convos about this backstage. I'm sorry for the confusion!

 

[giv-as-a-ciggy-kent]

"trolling through emoji reactions".

Not saying this is you but a lot of people who get bothered by this type of trolling would never survive a Web 1.0 environment.

 

[djgamble]

Not saying this is you but a lot of people who get bothered by this type of trolling would never survive a Web 1.0 environment.

Why? I'd argue that 'reacting' to everything is a feature of Web 2.0.

For example I remember uploading an image of a soda syphon to Imgur so that I could discuss it on Reddit (in a tiny, niche group of people who use oldschool soda syphons). I didn't realise what setting it to 'public' (on Imgur) would do. Within 20 minutes I had ~50 low-grade comments like 'LOLz that looks like a dick!!! Can you send me some pics of you using it?!?' I made it private and was like 'jeez some people are freaks! Welcome to Web 2.0 I guess, where EVERYBODY has an opinion/reaction to random stuff that I though was just going to site there for storage purposes, not the subject of lotsa low-grade reactions from people so young/immature they've never even seen one before...'

I regularly browse the web on my G4 using Hotline, Gopher, old forums...etc. Personally I prefer the pace and depth of Web 1.0 when compared with Web 2.0. I suspect others who hate 'reaction trolling' on here may feel the same.

 

[icanhazmac]

Personally I find "trolling" via laughing emoji as fools labeling themselves as fools. The reaction system on MR feeds a completely meaningless reaction rating system. People thinking they are trolling by laughing at versus laughing with are idiots because they give members they mean to insult a "+1" to a completely meaningless rating system. Again, fools.

Just ignore the tiny pictures and all is well.

 

[Funny Apple Man]

I didn't realized how some of the reaction emojis can give people the idea that I'm being malicious. I'll try to be careful next time and sorry for those who I offended.