Disagree / Dislike reaction needed! :)

[svenmany]

I still propose a fourth: confused. There are some posts that just leave me scratching my head. If I had to type a reply with that one, it would always be, "What you talkin' about, Willis?".

It's a good one. But, it still has the possibility of being misinterpreted. "I don't understand what you're trying to say." or "That's a confusing situation you've described." But I think the first interpretation is so much more likely that the risk is slight.

 

[belvdr]

It's a good one. But, it still has the possibility of being misinterpreted. "I don't understand what you're trying to say." or "That's a confusing situation you've described." But I think the first interpretation is so much more likely that the risk is slight.

Those would still apply as well. I look at it as more "I'm thinking about your post", regardless of positive or negative. It would depend on what the post was really.

 

[svenmany]

See the footnote on my post to I7guy (in post 146) where I address this exact answer. While you two (and I'm sure some others) may see the two reactions as different, I doubt most would, thus having both of those reactions would be very confusing and people would just be randomly clicking one or the other without any rational thought as to a distinction. And if you're "liking" posts you don't agree with, I can guarantee you many will construe that as meaning you agree with the poster. Be careful!

This is an example of my not liking the conclusion you've reached but possibly agreeing with it.

Do you think more thorough hovers that explain the reactions could help address this? I really feel they are required.

But yeah, reactions are such careless things and a source of misinformation since people probably don't think too much about them. Did I mention I want reactions to go away?

 

[svenmany]

Those would still apply as well. I look at it as more "I'm thinking about your post", regardless of positive or negative. It would depend on what the post was really.

Thanks.

The more I think about it, the more I like it. It's a non-judgmental reaction. It is almost self deprecating. There's no way anyone can really disagree since you're making a statement about your own mental state. It encourages discussion since it's inviting people to help clarify.

Maybe it's me, but I don't think I'd ever interpret it to mean "You are a confusing person and you should have done a better job". A tooltip like "I'm confused" would cement the meaning.

Excellent.

 

[usagora]

Do you think more thorough hovers that explain the reactions could help address this? I really feel they are required.

I don't think they need to make it any more complicated than it is now. If a "like" or any other reaction doesn't fully or accurately describe how I feel about a post, I'll simply reply to it.

I also think you have too much faith in people to think they would not only hover over a reaction waiting for a tooltip to pop up, but also read it and think about it before clicking 😂. I think the pictures themselves are self-explanatory as to the meaning.

 

[I7guy]

Yes, that's my whole point! You're acting like it's the only explanation.



All the back and forth is precisely because you continue to overthink this 😉 If you had simply said, "You're right, it depends on the context" instead of insisting on one universal definition/connotation regardless of context, then that would've been it.



The thesaurus disagrees with you. I literally posted a screenshot of it earlier. Again, they're not always synonyms, but in this context (reactions to forum posts) they are.



You keep saying "they do not mean the same thing" without qualification, but--once again--that is totally dependent on the context in which they are used. In some contexts you are right, in this context (and others) you are wrong.



No, like and agree mean the same thing in this context as well. Why on earth would I "like" something I don't agree with?* If I'm ambivalent about it, then I wouldn't react at all. Your proposition here would be highly confusing because of that overlap. Honestly, if we're wanting to consolidate to three reactions, I'd propose "like/agree", "laugh", and "dislike/disagree".
_____________
*If your answer is, "Well maybe I think the post was well-written, even though I still don't agree with them", I would still not want to put a "like" out there for it because that will certainly be misconstrued by many as you agreeing with their conclusion. Instead, I'd simply reply to them and say something like I appreciate their careful thought, even though I'm still not convinced, etc.

The thing is, it's a good (I am not even sure it's a good discussion what with the claim being I am "overthinking" this) intellectual discussion but that is where it ends. Clearly I disagree (though not dislike) your position, which you claim I am overthinking this, which is exactly what you are doing. And hence we disagree - though probably not dislike. This has clearly turned into a subjective discussion of semantics.

At the end of the day people will use the reaction system the way they want and reply they way they want. There is no perfect science. All of this though is self-obvious.

 

[usagora]

The thing is, it's a good (I am not even sure it's a good discussion what with the claim being I am "overthinking" this) intellectual discussion but that is where it ends. Clearly I disagree (though not dislike) your position, which you claim I am overthinking this, which is exactly what you are doing. And hence we disagree - though probably not dislike. This has clearly turned into a subjective discussion of semantics.

You seem to be taking offense in my saying you're overthinking this. Not sure why. At least that means you're capable of deep thought. Not sure how I'm overthinking it. My position is the more basic one that "disagree" and "dislike" mean the same thing in this context. But therein lies the problem: it seems you're still not acknowledging that words can have different meanings based on their context. That is just a fact of language, though.

Edit: guess I missed the joke I made, but I'm glad you thought it was funny 😉

 

[ndouglas]

Someone mentioned disliking the system used by Ars Technica, personally I find their system to be a great way to filter crummy posts, even graying out ones that are disliked or downvoted a lot. Same with Reddit. Both systems are not perfect of course, but I find them far more effective and enjoyable.

 

[I7guy]

You seem to be taking offense in my saying you're overthinking this. Not sure why. At least that means you're capable of deep thought. Not sure how I'm overthinking it. My position is the more basic one that "disagree" and "dislike" mean the same thing in this context. But therein lies the problem: it seems you're still not acknowledging that words can have different meanings based on their context. That is just a fact of language, though.

Edit: guess I missed the joke I made, but I'm glad you thought it was funny 😉

Another emoji is needed for sad joke. I thought we were debating in good faith. However the post above is just disingenuous and seems to be typical of what happens sometimes in these forums when posters try to determine the mental status behind another post(offended, triggered, etc) when if they really thought about it they are looking into a mirror.

Disagree and dislike are close, but not exact in definition. They are fundamentally different. In this context meaning the MR thumbs down, the reaction is disagree. One could pretend the reaction means dislike, but it’s only pretend.

 

[usagora]

Another emoji is needed for sad joke. I thought we were debating in good faith. However the post above is just disingenuous and seems to be typical of what happens sometimes in these forums when posters try to determine the mental status behind another post(offended, triggered, etc) when if they really thought about it they are looking into a mirror.

Disagree and dislike are close, but not exact in definition. They are fundamentally different. In this context meaning the MR thumbs down, the reaction is disagree. One could pretend the reaction means dislike, but it’s only pretend.

Uh, we are debating in good faith. You sure seemed to be stuck on the fact that I said you were overthinking it (you kept referring to me having said that), so it seemed you had taken offense to it. Notice I didn't say you had taken offense to it, but that you had seemed to. Not sure what is "disingenuous" about that.

"close" and "fundamentally different" are mutually exclusive descriptors, imo. And once again, you fail to acknowledge the factor of context. So, since we're obviously not getting anywhere, and you're now questioning my sincerity, I'll end the conversation here. Good day.

 

[I7guy]

Uh, we are debating in good faith. You sure seemed to be stuck on the fact that I said you were overthinking it (you kept referring to me having said that),

I didnt say though, you appeared to have been “triggered”. I attempt to discuss the post and not the poster.

so it seemed you had taken offense to it. Notice I didn't say you had taken offense to it, but that you had seemed to. Not sure what is "disingenuous" about that.

An opinion of “taken offense” vs a fact of “taken offense” is your talking point?

"close" and "fundamentally different" are mutually exclusive descriptors, imo. And once again, you fail to acknowledge the factor of context. So, since we're obviously not getting anywhere, and you're now questioning my sincerity, I'll end the conversation here. Good day.

Correct the definitions and use of like/dislike and agree/disagree are fundamentally different. And while I’m sure one can manufacture a context which they are similar, and please feel free to do so, as used as a reaction in MacRumors they are different and not opposites.

 

[svenmany]

A great discussion that has gotten a bit personal. I'd like to apologize if I contributed to that. I think we all need a big group hug.

We often talk past each other and misinterpret intention. No way this would happen if we were face-to-face. The internet sucks.

 

[usagora]

A great discussion that has gotten a bit personal. I'd like to apologize if I contributed to that. I think we all need a big group hug.

We often talk past each other and misinterpret intention. No way this would happen if we were face-to-face. The internet sucks.

This video always cracks me up (though I don't think it applies here--this conversation didn't even approach heated at all . . . it's just when people start questioning your honesty/sincerity for no reason, I see no point in wasting further time):

 

[svenmany]

This video always cracks me up (though I don't think it applies here--this conversation didn't even approach heated at all . . . it's just when people start questioning your honesty/sincerity for no reason, I see no point in wasting further time):

That is hilarious. My dogs are so vicious when on leash. Take them off leash and they are cowards.

 

[I7guy]

A great discussion that has gotten a bit personal. I'd like to apologize if I contributed to that. I think we all need a big group hug.

We often talk past each other and misinterpret intention. No way this would happen if we were face-to-face. The internet sucks.

I’m glad the staff has allowed this thread to remain open in spite of the somewhat off-topic talk. It does happen that people post things and are sometimes unaware of how it lands. ( or post things and are very aware of how it lands I suppose). But I agree this is a good discussion.

 

[Apple_Robert]

@arn If possible, I think it would be productive for the disagree reaction to be disabled for a user, until he or she responds to the post in question. This is supposed to be a discussion forum and I think it would better serve the community as a whole, if users where prevented from using the aforementioned ability if they aren't wanting to actually engage the member to the contrary. It would also help prevent some abuse, in my opinion.

 

[retta283]

@arn If possible, I think it would be productive for the disagree reaction to be disabled for a user, until he or she responds to the post in question. This is supposed to be a discussion forum and I think it would better serve the community as a whole, if users where prevented from using the aforementioned ability if they aren't wanting to actually engage the member to the contrary. It would also help prevent some abuse, if my opinion.

I strongly agree. I am often left confused when I get a down vote because it's never clear why. I want to hear why. Myself I would eradicate the reactions system in its entirety, but anything moving towards more direct communication is a marked improvement.

I have thought about asking if a poll could be started on this matter but I am not sure how well that would go. This site is getting worse as of late with regards to dialogue, it hasn't been this nasty in a long time and I feel the reactions aren't helping one bit.

 

[yaxomoxay]

@arn If possible, I think it would be productive for the disagree reaction to be disabled for a user, until he or she responds to the post in question. This is supposed to be a discussion forum and I think it would better serve the community as a whole, if users where prevented from using the aforementioned ability if they aren't wanting to actually engage the member to the contrary. It would also help prevent some abuse, in my opinion.

They’ll just use the laugh emoji.

 

[Apple_Robert]

They’ll just use the laugh emoji.

Good point. There are some that use the laughing emoji to taunt other users, no matter what a user may say. However, my focus at this moment in time is the disagree emoji.

 

[Clix Pix]

Yes, MR started out as a discussion forum about all things Apple.....and now it seems to have been swamped by threads filled with videos in response to comments or questions, not to mention "inspirational" posters, memes, weather maps, excessive use of emojis and so on. The art of the use of words, the ability to hold an interesting and effective discussion is all-too-rapidly and visibly going down the drain, and that is so sad.

Maybe it is time for MR to simply eliminate all the "reactions" to posts, and outlaw the use of videos, memes, "inspirational" posters pulled from other sites, weather maps and require the use of words, real words, in all threads without all this junky visual clutter that means nothing.

 

[icanhazmac]

If possible, I think it would be productive for the disagree reaction to be disabled for a user, until he or she responds to the post in question. This is supposed to be a discussion forum and I think it would better serve the community as a whole, if users where prevented from using the aforementioned ability if they aren't wanting to actually engage the member to the contrary. It would also help prevent some abuse, in my opinion.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/disagree-dislike-reaction-needed.2312243/page-3?post=31352369#post-31352369

I am going to keep referencing this post until someone addresses it. If Like/Love are intended to give members a way to agree with a post without posting "I agree" or "+1" then why can't we have a disagree to eliminate the same repetitive posts for those that want to disagree.

Do you really want a thread full of posts like this: "I disagree too" or "-1" or just 10 posts that mirror the same disagreement?

Why is it that people feel entitled to either a verbal or written reason for another disagreeing with you? Have you never been in a room and had one of your ideas voted on with a show of hands? A show of hands is very similar to an emoji response, yea or nay, no further explanation or discussion, no asking each individual why they didn't raise their hand for your idea versus another.

I know the emoji reaction system is not perfect and can be "abused", I have children that follow me around with "laughing" emoji too but I refuse to let those trolls win. I have also been disagreed with via emoji on posts that make me scratch my head wondering why, but trust me, I don't lose any sleep over it.

If I am late to a thread and it is already 10 pages deep in posts I usually don't have anything to add so I will bounce through it and like/disagree my way through as I read. There is no reason for me to quote every post I like and reply "+1" or quote every post I disagree with and reply "I disagree for the same reasons 10 other members already listed". There simply comes a time when everything you would have typed in a response, positive or negative, has already been typed. Without emoji one has no other way to be counted, with emoji reactions we can still register our vote.

I do not believe the system is broke enough to burn down, I believe it has value, but if it must go I will certainly vote for it all to go as I find no value in the blanket approvals and farming that only having likes or positive feedback will enable.

Edit: I have yet to see a thread with nothing but a post and a bunch of red disagreements. I do not believe we are struggling to find people willing to use words. Are people here really trying to increase conversation or just trying to remove all the evil, triggering red icons that make you sad at night?

 

[Apple_Robert]

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/disagree-dislike-reaction-needed.2312243/page-3?post=31352369#post-31352369

I am going to keep referencing this post until someone addresses it. If Like/Love are intended to give members a way to agree with a post without posting "I agree" or "+1" then why can't we have a disagree to eliminate the same repetitive posts for those that want to disagree.

Do you really want a thread full of posts like this: "I disagree too" or "-1" or just 10 posts that mirror the same disagreement?

Why is it that people feel entitled to either a verbal or written reason for another disagreeing with you? Have you never been in a room and had one of your ideas voted on with a show of hands? A show of hands is very similar to an emoji response, yea or nay, no further explanation or discussion, no asking each individual why they didn't raise their hand for your idea versus another.

I know the emoji reaction system is not perfect and can be "abused", I have children that follow me around with "laughing" emoji too but I refuse to let those trolls win. I have also been disagreed with via emoji on posts that make me scratch my head wondering why, but trust me, I don't lose any sleep over it.

If I am late to a thread and it is already 10 pages deep in posts I usually don't have anything to add so I will bounce through it and like/disagree my way through as I read. There is no reason for me to quote every post I like and reply "+1" or quote every post I disagree with and reply "I disagree for the same reasons 10 other members already listed". There simply comes a time when everything you would have typed in a response, positive or negative, has already been typed. Without emoji one has no other way to be counted, with emoji reactions we can still register our vote.

I do not believe the system is broke enough to burn down, I believe it has value, but if it must go I will certainly vote for it all to go as I find no value in the blanket approvals and farming that only having likes or positive feedback will enable.

I don't care about the agreement emoji. It can be removed for all I care. I do care about the disagreement and angry emoji and how they get abused towards other members without the user offering up any credible retort. If a user is going to read my posts and let me know they are very angry and dissagreed with what I said, the least they can do is respond and let me know why. Otherwise, the 2 emojis become nothing more than emojis used to taunt others, just like the laughing emoji is being used to taunt fellow members, which is wrong as well.

If the value of the discussion forum is going to be raised to promote better knowledge and growth, I think the hidden abuse of the current system should be considered and better addressed, in my opinion.

There is nothing wrong with one member disagreeing with another. There is something wrong when members go around using the disagreement and angry emojis as quickly as they breathe, without even attempting to offer up a reason why person B disagrees with person A. It very well could be that person A was in fact wrong on a certain matter but, person B decided to use the emoji system as an under the radar weapon on others. If the ability of the emoji use went away, I would be fine with that as well.

I realize my view is probably in the minority around here and that is fine but, I waned to express my opinion on the matter just the same.

 

[icanhazmac]

I do care about the disagreement and angry emoji and how they get abused towards other members without the user offering up any credible retort.

On the angry emoji, I could not agree with you more. I have very rarely used it and I think MR is doing us all a disservice by forcing us to use ANGRY as the only way to register a "disagree" response for member created threads.

If I had my way, Angry would be eliminated and Disagree opened up to all threads. I most certainly can disagree with someone without being angry at them. Perhaps this would take some of the heat out of member created threads. While I don't think it necessary, if it helps keep disagree around I would also be in favor of changing its color to blue as red seems too triggering for some.

 

[Juicy Box]

I could do without all the emojis reactions, just leave the classic thumbs up and thumbs down.

The argument of saying it is wrong for someone to use a thumbs up or down if they don't leave a post explaining theirselves is a little shortsighted and not well thought out.

Think of it this way, wouldn't it be better to see one post with a thousand reactions (either up or down) to it, than a thousand posts with the same exact response?

 

[R3k]

I would enjoy trialing a more reddit like system- bringing back downvoting and allowing us to sort forum threads by score, with sub discussions underneath the original comment. Ideally helpful and high effort posts will stay at the top while low effort posts drop off the radar, such the numerous "This sucks / Apple sucks" posts that dont even try contribute a rational reason.

This said, I could imagine this going south in a few ways and the current system makes Macrumors forums, well, Macrumors forums. I dont find it broken by any means.