Disagree / Dislike reaction needed! :)

[beanbaguk]

Is there any way to add a disagree/dislike reaction to the available options (thumbs down)?

The closest option is angry, but that's just inflammatory and not required in 99% of situations. It's good to be able to disagree/dislike a post, just like you are able to like it.

 

[Realityck]

Is there any way to add a disagree/dislike reaction to the available options (thumbs down)?

The closest option is angry, but that's just inflammatory and not required in 99% of situations. It's good to be able to disagree/dislike a post, just like you are able to like with it.

I was surprised by disagree being removed, and leaving only angry for someone that disagrees with a discussion response. Why the change to something we almost never are even if we disagree?

 

[Madhatter32]

If you dislike, you should comment with an explanation rather than use a juvenile icon. IMHO.

 

[velocityg4]

I was surprised by dislike being removed, and leaving only angry for someone that disagrees with a discussion response. Why the change to something we almost never are even if we disagree?

Disagree (thumbs down) is still available. As usual it's only available in news threads. I just checked two random articles and the disagree is available.

Disagree Button

Why is the disagree button removed from some posts? What's the criteria for when it shows and when it's hidden?

forums.macrumors.com

For example this article has a disagree. Note disagree is only available for comments not the article itself.

Apple Begins Selling Refurbished iPhones in Canada

Apple has begun selling iPhones on its Certified Refurbished online store in Canada, offering residents in the country a more affordable way to purchase iPhones from Apple online. Apple has been selling different refurbished iPhone models in the United States online since 2016. While Apple...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[sracer]

If you dislike, you should comment with an explanation rather than use a juvenile icon. IMHO.

... and if you like, you should comment with an explanation rather use a juvenile icon. IMHO.

If you have ANY emotional reaction to a post you should comment and eliminate "juvenile" icons altogether.

 

[icanhazmac]

The closest option is angry, but that's just inflammatory

This! It is far more likely that I would disagree with a post versus being angry at it.

 

[ruka.snow]

This! It is far more likely that I would disagree with a post versus being angry at it.

Dislike is used as an inflammatory reaction. You can even see the odd member disagree with someone then find all the posts by that same person and spend their dislike budget. Reactions in general have always been rather negatively used on the web, even likes are damaging as you end up with people 'needing' to have their posts, images, or other content 'liked' in order to feel good about themselves. Non of these reactions serve any useful purpose (except marketing or engagement ad clicks perhaps?), but I keep seeing more and more studies that these are bad for peoples mental health and bad for online communities as a whole.

 

[Madhatter32]

... and if you like, you should comment with an explanation rather use a juvenile icon. IMHO.

If you have ANY emotional reaction to a post you should comment and eliminate "juvenile" icons altogether. View attachment 1838454

Incorrect. I dislike your comment. Let me explain. The thumbs up in agreement needs no explanation. It is simply agreement. An explanantion is likely to be redundant. A dislike is not the same because there are many possible reasons to dislike a comment -- its requires an explanation. As for it being "juvenile" -- it is what it is.

 

[icanhazmac]

Dislike is used as an inflammatory reaction.

To everyone: CAN WE PLEASE REFER TO THE REACTION PROPERLY, IT IS "DISAGREE" NOT "DISLIKE".

I have to disagree with you on this. If it were "dislike" I would agree with you but it is specifically "disagree". Have we really gotten to the point where one cannot disagree with another without that being perceived as an emotional/inflammatory response? A "disagree" should be issued and received in its logical sense not an emotional one.

Example Post:
Member A: The iPhone mini sucks, no one wants a smaller phone except loud members of MR
Member B: Tags with a disagree

I cannot speak for every individual but I would not assume that Member B is emot'ing with emotion or trying to be inflammatory, I would assume they just disagree on the topic. Also, should Member B be required to post a response like "I disagree with you, I love my mini and I am not loud at all" or is a simple disagree emoji sufficient?

You can even see the odd member disagree with someone then find all the posts by that same person and spend their dislike budget.

I agree with you here, there are even children on this site that do this with the laughing emoji, attempting ironic use as laughing at you vs laughing with you. I have several such children that follow me around and am sure they will show up soon. As the reaction system on MR is meaningless, so are negative emoji, so if one is a well adjusted adult one shouldn't care about such things.

Reactions in general have always been rather negatively used on the web

I disagree, look around MR and most posts that do not involve some hot button issue are generally likes, or other positive emoji. Even some of the most heated PRSI or SFF threads are generally different sides of a discussion issuing positive reinforcement to their tribe versus issuing negative emoji to the other side, note I say in general because it can and does go off the rails from time to time.

Take this thread for instance, no negative emoji at all but if I were to have used a disagree emoji on your original post its intention would have been to show that I "disagree" and not anything more inflammatory than that and I hope that you would have received it that way but I cannot control the value you personally place on non-supporting reactions. If I were trying to show emotion I would have used an emotional response such as "angry", this is why I would like MR to add the disagree back to user created posts, I don't usually want to present as emotional.

even likes are damaging as you end up with people 'needing' to have their posts, images, or other content 'liked' in order to feel good about themselves.

I agree with you on this point but only in regards to the true "social" media sites like Facebook, Twitter, IG, etc. I have heard there are studies linking depression and suicide in teens to social media as a result of bullying or to your point not receiving enough positive engagement from their profiles and posts. This is of course terrible and perhaps some changes should be forced upon the true social media companies as they have shown no indication that they want to minimize the "social currency" aspect of their platforms for children. Not saying adults cannot fall prey to this as well but I would imagine it would be in far smaller numbers.

Where we may differ is on a tech forum like MR I doubt there are many members that are so delicate that taking a dislike/angry/sad pounding on one of their posts is likely to be too detrimental to their mental state.

Non of these reactions serve any useful purpose

Again I would respectfully disagree. It has been discussed in other threads on the topic that "likes" or positive emoji save our threads from several "+1, I agree, Me too, etc" posts from members that have the same feelings on a topic, this avenue allows members to engage without having to post an identical thought. I feel the exact same way about a "disagree" emoji, it means just that, I disagree with your post and nothing more emotional than that. Others in the thread may have already posted my thoughts on the topic so no need for me to "+1" or "I disagree too"

 

[velocityg4]

Dislike is used as an inflammatory reaction. You can even see the odd member disagree with someone then find all the posts by that same person and spend their dislike budget. Reactions in general have always been rather negatively used on the web, even likes are damaging as you end up with people 'needing' to have their posts, images, or other content 'liked' in order to feel good about themselves. Non of these reactions serve any useful purpose (except marketing or engagement ad clicks perhaps?), but I keep seeing more and more studies that these are bad for peoples mental health and bad for online communities as a whole.

While I'd agree that "disagree" and "angry". Definitely, don't do anything constructive and just annoy the recipient. Although I've gotten plenty of those and it's never bothered me much.

"Sad face" and "Laughing" may also be negative. As they get misused to be dismissive or mock the poster. When they obviously aren't appropriate for a post's content. Where the intent is obviously "laughing at you" or "sad you'd think that way". Which I think is worse in some ways than "Angry" or "Disagree".

"Like" and "Heart" I don't consider that bad. Although without the others you just receive an echo chamber of agreement. Which may feed self delusion.

While a "Like", "Heart" or "Laugh (with me) feels good and an "Angry", "Disagree" or "Laugh (at me)" doesn't. I'd rather know everyone doesn't agree with me, than feel like everyone does. To keep myself grounded. Although I'd prefer a response as to why. So, I can hear their opinion and reflect upon it. To either rebut, ignore or perhaps see errors in my opinion or logic.

... and if you like, you should comment with an explanation rather use a juvenile icon. IMHO.

If you have ANY emotional reaction to a post you should comment and eliminate "juvenile" icons altogether. View attachment 1838454

While responses are good. I think a bunch or quotes from people saying they agree would get rather annoying. While a disagreement begs the question. What did you disagree with? Unless someone has something relevant to add upon the post. Simply knowing people agree is with a "Like" is sufficient.

At least with how this forum is formatted. As you have to click the notifications or read the entire thread for responses. If it was a branch structure like Reddit uses. Where you can see replies in direct relation to a comment. Reading through responses wouldn't be so bad.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I think all users should have a daily "budget" of post reactions they are allowed to use.

It would encourage a more judicious usage of likes/dislikes/etc and actually make them all mean more if you only had so many to give out.

 

[Madhatter32]

To everyone: CAN WE PLEASE REFER TO THE REACTION PROPERLY, IT IS "DISAGREE" NOT "DISLIKE".

If "thumbs up" = "like", is it really that confusing to see how people would assume that "thumbs down" = "dislike" even though it says "disagree"? The icon should be changed if the difference between "dislike" and "disagree" is material in this context -- which I suspect it is not.

 

[ruka.snow]

https://web.archive.org/web/2015081...ains-new-national-geographic-channel.1888802/ going back just a few years we had a much more positive implementation of the like system here with just a simple thumbs up that was much easier to ignore and much easier to exclude with some custom stylesheet or browser extension.

 

[turbineseaplane]

https://web.archive.org/web/2015081...ains-new-national-geographic-channel.1888802/ going back just a few years we had a much more positive implementation of the like system here with just a simple thumbs up that was much easier to ignore and much easier to exclude with some custom stylesheet or browser extension.

Great point.
It would be nice if MR allowed a way to simply not see any part of the like/dislike system if you’d prefer.

@arn - what say you?

 

[icanhazmac]

If "thumbs up" = "like", is it really that confusing to see how people would assume that "thumbs down" = "dislike" even though it says "disagree"? The icon should be changed if the difference between "dislike" and "disagree" is material in this context -- which I suspect it is not.

No, it is not confusing but it is frustrating that people don't bother to read. Words do matter and different words carry different meanings, as I have said before "disagree" is more logical while "dislike" is more emotional. I disagree with your opinion on this matter but I don't necessarily dislike it, hopefully that makes sense.

going back just a few years we had a much more positive implementation of the like system here with just a simple thumbs up that was much easier to ignore

I see your point on this, by using only perceived positive reactions different sides of a discussion would be limited to only showing support for their side versus also being permitted to show a perceived negative response. This accomplishes the same goal though it makes it a bit harder to gauge the community response. I can't say I'd be against this I just don't see why tiny little red faces trigger some folks so much, they are easily ignored and you actually need to click on them to see the breakdown. If you don't like the system just don't click on it!

It would be nice if MR allowed a way to simply not see any part of the like/dislike system

Can't argue with this, just not sure if the forum software allows for it. I know some members found a way to block avatars, perhaps there is something similar for the reactions line?

 

[ruka.snow]

Great point.
It would be nice if MR allowed a way to simply not see any part of the like/dislike system if you’d prefer.

@arn - what say you?

Hiding is all well and good, but better would be a way to completely op out like we can opt out of sharing our profiles.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Hiding is all well and good, bu better would be a way to completely op out like we can opt out of sharing our profiles.

That’s a great point actually…
We sort of need both.

Without being too cynical, I’m guessing we have no hope here because these sorts of divisive reaction tools probably increase engagement, which is directly in the interest of advertising revenue and site monetization

Facebook has shown us that getting everybody incensed with each other gets them hooked.
The Internet is such a dumpster fire in this regard

 

[ruka.snow]

That’s a great point actually…
We sort of need both.

Without being too cynical, I’m guessing we have no hope here because these sorts of divisive reaction tools probably increase engagement, which is directly in the interest of advertising revenue and site monetization

Facebook has shown us that getting everybody incensed with each other gets them hooked.
The Internet is such a dumpster fire in this regard

Aye, negative reactions like laughing and dislike have proven to increase engagement. 'Like' wasn't ever really an issue from what I've seen, it never needed any context and you can't use it in a negative way. You can 'like' a deplorable post, but that just makes you look as bad as said deplorable person.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Aye, negative reactions like laughing and dislike have proven to increase engagement. 'Like' wasn't ever really an issue from what I've seen, it never needed any context and you can't use it in a negative way. You can 'like' a deplorable post, but that just makes you look as bad as said deplorable person.

Yeah I guess I never had an issue with like but it definitely can create a pile on culture in a thread.

I suppose I just would prefer everybody “think for themselves” and not need reaffirmation or knowledge of what everybody else thinks via likes and dislikes.

If the MR website were sorting and crafting a view of a thread that is trying to surface “interesting posts” but in a way where none of us knew the like or dislike count, I would feel differently.

To me that is the most intelligent way to use that data.

If you want to let people up and down vote something, do it so nobody can see the results of that but the forum software could use the information to surface or submerge content in a particular optional view of a thread.

 

[ruka.snow]

Yeah I guess I never had an issue with like but it definitely can create a pile on culture in a thread.

I suppose I just would prefer everybody “think for themselves” and not need reaffirmation or knowledge of what everybody else thinks via likes and dislikes.

I have felt a weird pressure from 'like' before on a photography forum where one picture I posted got hundreds and the other got a few dozen. Both where as good as the other to my eyes, but then my mind is wandering wondering why the newer picture doesn't deserve the same number of likes. Eventually I decided I didn't really care all that much because I am still going to photograph foxes and print them for my walls regardless of what other people think of the image, but I can imagine that being rather difficult for a bairn in secondary school to deal with and they might overthink it a wee bit more that I did.

 

[foliovision]

This whole site (I've been a member here forever it turns out and hacking Macs even longer) is extremely useful for the detailed information on how to get around the poison Apple is putting into its systems to make it impossible to run Mac Pro Silver Towers (CMP) with modern versions of the OS or MBP 2011 with Mojave or which PCIe cards actually work. There are incredible members doing yeoman work helping normal Mac owners use their computers to their fullest.

On the other hand, as an Apple site, MacRumors.com attracts a huge mob of partisans who all unite to shut down anyone who doesn't think Tim Cook walks on clouds and that the latest Apple locked-down junk and half-broken annual OS update should have been user tested before released.

Now these sycophants will have their like button only but can't have their feelings hurt by a down-vote. I remember one of these passive-aggressive namby-pamby prattlers personally DM'd me about a downvote for one of his "yea Apple charge me more and lock my device down harder and violate my privacy some more" posts. I didn't mean much by the downvote but when I explained to him that Apple is in fact violating his privacy in the thread (why keep it in DM), the overly sensitive manchild wrote to the moderators in an attempt to have my account banned altogether. Since that incident, I'm even more cautious about responding to DM and what posters to which I'll respond to at all. If someone can't bear a critical word about Apple then they shouldn't be allowed in the company of inquisitive rational adults whose critical faculties are intact.

Normally I mostly participate on the technical threads. I don't see why MacRumors has to join the US bandwagon of safezones and hypocrisy (extremely violent police and laws, the highest rate of incarceration in the world but we cannot disagree with one another without hurting each other's feelings?).

I'm not the most active member here but removing the downvote will encourage me to become 1. less active 2. use the angry face and haha far more often than I'd like (I generally prefer to politely disagree just to register that there is an opposing non-Apple sycophant view) 3. generally not react and disengage.

It would be a great pity if the moderators here were to follow down the same stupid trail of a disagreement-free fake-positive empty void of the major platforms. MacRumors is not Facebook or Instagram and never will be. Adding their destructive (to critical thought and emotional self-sufficiency) social engineering is vacuous virtual signalling and will slowly but surely turn this place into yet another anodyne and useless Apple-fanboi site.

It's a tough line to hoe between Apple-critical and Apple-fanboi. Up until now MacRumors has done the best job of any of the Apple sites. Not happy at all to see the polite Disagree icon removed. Are we now officially a community of yes (wo)men?

****

By disagreeing with someone with a thumbsdown, we are not signalling that we think someone is a bad person. We are showing that we disagree generally with the sentiment or thoughts expressed in that post. Why would that be a problem? MacRumors.com is not supposed to take sides or be a vendor itself or a propaganda organ of Apple. The general vibe here is of long-time Apple users who appreciate when Apple does good things (very good phone cameras which help normal people take better pictures with less trouble, attractive industrial design, high quality displays with decent colour management) and when Apple does bad things (lock down the OS so third-party software can't run, slap red update stickers for OS we don't want to upgrade to, sherlock third party developers, dead end pro applications like Aperture with a wide body of users, sabotage right to repair, extremely ungreen policies with almost nothing efficiently repairable, MacBook Pros for a decade with dysfunctional graphic chips whose inadequate heat management inevitably results in failure within two or three years of normal use without extreme counter measures in the way of gfxStatus and TurboBoost Disable kexts, not pay local taxes with behind closed doors tax deals, predatory app store revenue share – this is just the short list).

Why, why, why does MacRumors feel it necessary to cosset and indulge the rah-rah crew? Apple right now needs perhaps the hardest kick in the pants it ever has since the Gil Amelio era.

 

[pianostar9]

Everyone should note that there is in fact still a disagree option.

Top Stories: iPhone 13 Launch, iOS 15 Features, iPhone 14 Pro Rumors, and More

Following Apple's big media event last week, this week saw users able to get their hands on much of the new hardware and software, headlined by the iPhone 13 lineup and iOS 15. This week also saw some new rumors, including a fresh report about next year's iPhone 14 Pro and our own discovery...

forums.macrumors.com

However, I think it would be nice if disagree/angry votes were counted separately from other types of reactions (e.g. 23 likes, 12 disagrees)

 

[Weaselboy]

Everyone should note that there is in fact still a disagree option.

The disagree reaction is configured to only appear in news threads.

 

[sunapple]

Just a single like option would be best in my opinion.

 

[smoking monkey]

Disagree (thumbs down) is still available. As usual it's only available in news threads. I just checked two random articles and the disagree is available.

Ahhhh... Thanks. That explains it. I often wondered why I sometimes saw the thumbs down and other times I didn't. I thought there might have been a quota or a setting where users chose to allow it or not!

I have no problem in using the disagree/thumbs down, but I'm reticent to use the angry face. Because really, if you get angry or label yourself as angry about a rando posting on the net, they you really need to walk outside and leave the tech alone for a bit.