Withdrawn from sale on MR

[retta283]

I have been debating making this thread for a while, and recently some other users agreed with my general thoughts on a poll so I figured I may as well bring it up. It seems rather evident to me that the way the current reactions system is implemented on this site is flawed and is damaging the discourse and attitude on MacRumors. Between simple reaction farming, mass down votes, the ambiguity of why someone is down voting your posts as no response is given in addition to the down vote, using the laugh/angry emojis to harass users, and more.

This has become most evident in the news discussion threads where there are blatant attempts to farm reactions, and the general use of emoticons leans towards the more aggressive side, but it is prevalent throughout the forums at large. This site should be founded on discussion between users, actual words and coherent arguments opposed to nonsense flaming using little icons to get one over on someone that has a different opinion than yourself. It has only been about four years since the additional reactions were added, and I strongly believe it was the wrong choice.

My suggestion is for the moderators to conduct a poll on either the outright removal of the reactions system or a change in how it works. My proposals for the latter would be hiding users' reaction scores to help eliminate farming, removal of all other reactions than like (how it was in 2019 and earlier) or changing the requirements for using reactions other than like. I do recognize the valid use of likes to acknowledge that you have seen someone's post when there is simply nothing more to say; the other reactions do not provide this in any meaningful way.

It is obviously up to the mods to hammer out the details of how and what they want to poll, but these are just my suggestions. I am very curious to hear the thoughts of the moderator team and the users alike on this issue. I do not expect an entirely warm response to this thread but please keep it civil; that is the whole point.

 

[russell_314]

My proposals for the latter would be hiding users' reaction scores to help eliminate farming, removal of all other reactions than like

just curious, why would people want to farm reaction scores? I believe you’re rank or title whatever they call it is based on post count so people could just farm posts by making multiple replies. does reaction score do anything other than just a number to brag about? I guess the whole rank thing is just a number to brag about as well because unless you’re a moderator, I don’t believe it gives you any special powers.

I don’t care either way. I feel like reactions are part of the forms that makes it more interactive. I do prefer forms that have reactions, but don’t care if the total counts are posted on my profile or anyone else’s. I just like the interaction part. If I see a post that I agree with, but I just don’t want to make a reply just to say that it’s an easy way to do this. Sometimes it’s also with disagree but not usually because if there’s a reason why I disagree and it makes sense to explain, then I will state that but if not, then just scroll on.

Also, I don’t think reactions mean acknowledge seeing the post. I don’t like posts just because I see them. I like something because I agree with it. If I laugh at something then that means I think it’s funny not just I saw it. I see a lot of posts that I don’t make reactions to.

 

[retta283]

just curious, why would people want to farm reaction scores? I believe you’re rank or title whatever they call it is based on post count so people could just farm posts by making multiple replies. does reaction score do anything other than just a number to brag about? I guess the whole rank thing is just a number to brag about as well because unless you’re a moderator, I don’t believe it gives you any special powers.

I don’t care either way. I feel like reactions are part of the forms that makes it more interactive. I do prefer forms that have reactions, but don’t care if the total counts are posted on my profile or anyone else’s. I just like the interaction part. If I see a post that I agree with, but I just don’t want to make a reply just to say that it’s an easy way to do this. Sometimes it’s also with disagree but not usually because if there’s a reason why I disagree and it makes sense to explain, then I will state that but if not, then just scroll on.

Also, I don’t think reactions mean acknowledge seeing the post. I don’t like posts just because I see them. I like something because I agree with it. If I laugh at something then that means I think it’s funny not just I saw it. I see a lot of posts that I don’t make reactions to.

People farming reaction scores is a curious one, but it happens everywhere. Reddit, Ars, Twitter, Instagram, etc. Since it appears next to your post count and rank in the dropdown I suppose it's just one of those inflated ego type things. It may seem absurd to people like us, but there are plenty of people who are obsessed with it.

With regards to the like system for acknowledgement, I mainly mean if someone quotes my post and says something like "Yeah, I had this too and the same experience" or something along those lines, and the only thing I can really respond with is "So you too." or "Yeah, cool." There's sometimes a use to giving a like in this scenario because it shows that I saw their post and am not ignoring it, giving it some regard.

That can be said about the likes in general, and I do definitely think that likes are the least bad of the reactions. Just that the like count for the user shouldn't be shown below their username, in my opinion. If the likes are only reflected in each post, they serve their purpose and no extra superficial one.

 

[KaliYoni]

I don't have strong feelings about this issue. But if I were put in charge of the reaction system, I would keep the emoticons–and even add some additional ones—but stop calculating the Reaction Score.

 

[maflynn]

t seems rather evident to me that the way the current reactions system is implemented on this site is flawed

The reaction system is part of the forum software provided by the publisher. It is they (xenforo) who are the ones that can change or enhance it. Arn has some flexibility in implementing it, i.e., configuring it, but changing it completely is not feasible

and is damaging the discourse and attitude on MacRumors

How so?

I've not seen any evidence that the use of the thumbs up or disagree reaction diminished conversations. I see news stories as busy as ever.

Between simple reaction farming

Please provide examples of someone posting just for reactions?

In all honesty I really don't think its widespread or prevalent

coherent arguments opposed to nonsense flaming using little icons to get one over on someone

People communicate differently, and I think giving a thumbs up or down is perfectly acceptable, and avoids the "same" or "me too" or "I agree" type posts that would invariably come with the removal of the thumbs up reaction

mass down votes, the ambiguity of why someone is down voting your posts as no response

Its not ambiguous at all. Someone posted something that another member disagreed with. Seems pretty clear cut to me, and those who got mass downvoted generally said something so egregious that many people at MacRumors disagreed with.

Basically as I see it, the reaction scores provide additional ways for members to convey their thoughts. If I see a post that is inanely stupid, I'd rather not give it much effort in creating a reply, but rather just give my thumbs down.

You may be unaware but the disagree reaction is only available in the news forum and there's a constraint per day on how many disagrees you can do. That is there is no way for a member to go on a downvote rampage

 

[Weaselboy]

I have been debating making this thread for a while, and recently some other users agreed with my general thoughts on a poll so I figured I may as well bring it up.

If you like I can add a poll to this thread for you. Tell me what you want the questions to be, and what options you want (from the screenshot above).

I'm not promising the results will be binding, but you are welcome to solicit the feedback.

 

[icanhazmac]

In all honesty I really don't think its widespread or prevalent

Agreed

Please provide examples of someone posting just for reactions?

Well, we cannot really name names but I will take the chance and say that one of the most prolific posters on this site regularly posts very generic, positive-ish responses to nearly all MR articles. These posts don't really add to the conversation and seem to be there only to increase post count and likes. At times these posts are simply nonsensical or they will create two posts that express nearly opposite opinions.

As an example, MR might post an article about iMac colors. This member will commonly post something like "OMG, these colors are so great, can't wait to buy one!" While a valid opinion, this really doesn't contribute much to the article or the community but is vanilla enough to garner "likes". I am sure we have all posted something like this before but this particular member seems to do it every single day on every single article.

I do not pretend to know what the desired result of farming is but other members have commented on this as well and had some insight here: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...st-posts.2388910/?post=32148936#post-32148936 This thread began as a slightly different topic but I think the logic applies. IMO, some members spam post for +1s in order to have a "larger" social profile.

One can also look at some of the community threads that are over-run with inane chat between the same 4-5 members that just constantly like each others posts. Yesterday alone a particular thread had a hundred messages between the same very few members. This is a tech discussion forum, not WhatsApp, get a room!

 

[maflynn]

Well, we cannot really name names but I will take the chance and say that one of the most prolific posters on this site regularly posts very generic, positive-ish

Fair enough, so food for thought. With a membership population of 1,103,292 that single person represents 0.0001% of the membership (if I did my math right which is always suspect). Seems rather extreme to make wholesale changes that will effect over a million members for 0.0001% For conversation sake, lets say 100 people farm likes, that's 0.01% of the membership - still miniscule

Back to that member you have in mind. Since those posts exists (are not deleted) and the person's actions are unabated AFAIK, is it safe to say that their activity is well within the rules of MR? They're not harming anyone, their posts are not frivolous (as the rule is written) and they're not causing division, turmoil, trolling. What does it matter? I mean we have enough negativity in the forum as it stands, why remove some positive posts because the person is getting lots of likes.

 

[maflynn]

Also one suggestion. If a member's posting style, habits or content are such that it annoys you (the royal you), then put them on your ignore list - Problem solved.

 

[icanhazmac]

Seems rather extreme to make wholesale changes that will effect over a million members for 0.0001% For conversation sake, lets say 100 people farm likes, that's 0.01% of the membership - still miniscule

Agreed. For the record I am not suggesting any changes other than getting rid of angry face and opening disagree to all articles. I could bend on some other things like the color of disagree but other than that I'm generally pleased with the current implementation of emoji reactions.

P.S. - I would also like the disagree limit to be lifted. I suggested once that if not for all members then make it a contributor perk as someone willing to pay to be a member has more stake in the community functioning well and would be less likely to abuse it.

Back to that member you have in mind. Since those posts exists (are not deleted) and the person's actions are unabated AFAIK, is it safe to say that their activity is well within the rules of MR?

Agreed, his posts are within the rules. I do feel that these posts add to the bloat of MR and, as others have suggested, can make it harder to engage in meaningful conversation over the noise of meaningless posts. I'm not suggesting that we eliminate all jokes, memes or levity from the site but some members here create a massive wake.

Some members here have suggested using the reaction score to increase/decrease visibility of posts, god forbid this ever happens here as we would only ever see one members posts and this place would cease to be of any use or enjoyment.

Also one suggestion. If a member's posting style, habits or content are such that it annoys you (the royal you), then put them on your ignore list - Problem solved.

Yup, ignoring is absolutely an option but a little piece of me rejects the silencing of voices, feels too censoring, so I just tolerate it. That being said I will complain about it on occasion and where appropriate.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Firstly, I am not sure - I don't know and cannot be certain - that "farming" occurs here, as suggested by @retta283, the OP.

However, the thread is welcome.

Moreover, on the actual topic of reforming, or amending, reactions to posts, - if there is such a poll - personally, I would like to see the complete removal of the "down vote" button.

My own view is that it contributes little to the site, except to add negativity, sometimes, considerable negativity, to the atmosphere of a discussion in a thread.

On a separate but related subject, that of the subject matter of bloat, and what I consider to be a veritable tsunami of bland, almost witless, posts, a plethora of posts from a particular member, I must say that I find myself in complete agreement with @icanhazmac on this subject.

 

[Analog Kid]

Reactions were introduced to stop a behavior that used to be prevalent, which was to do a full reply to make a trivial acknowledgment. The typical was a string of "+1" posts. There's still a bit of that, but mostly they've done that job.

The problem is they seem to encourage a bunch of posts meant to draw reactions, and the reactions are now far less neutral and more emotional-- often negatively emotional. The mocking laugh is the chief example, but the ambiguous angry face (are you angry with me or at me?) and the fact that the negative reactions have more perceptually strong colors are others (love being the exception, but typically used far more sparingly). Then the weird asymmetry between "like" and "disagree".

the ambiguity of why someone is down voting your posts as no response is given in addition to the down vote

Yeah, this isn't terribly conducive to discussion either. Sometimes it's obvious-- I have an opinion, someone disagrees. Sometimes I'll write a few paragraphs and have no idea what's being disagreed with.

just curious, why would people want to farm reaction scores?

There's two patterns that I think are clearly identified:

• The "And I think I speak for everyone when I say freedom is good" type who like knowing they have a group at their back.
• Trolls who enjoy seeing negative and angry responses, and sometimes travel in packs.

I'm not claiming to be able to judge what is someones true but inane opinion, or unpopular opinion rather than subversive intent-- but the patterns seem pretty clear.

I can think of another group interested in reaction farming-- anyone training a bot. If you're running an LLM aimed at user engagement, the reaction score gives a direct signal to train against. Now or in the not so distant future...

posters on this site regularly posts very generic, positive-ish responses to nearly all MR articles. These posts don't really add to the conversation and seem to be there only to increase post count and likes. At times these posts are simply nonsensical or they will create two posts that express nearly opposite opinions.

Yeah, that last bit has caught my attention too. "Tim Cook is the best CEO!" alternated with "Tim Cook has to go!" from a single user without anything that seems to form a consistent world view. Again, I can't get inside anyones mind, but one simple explanation is an effort to create and surf opinion waves.

Fair enough, so food for thought. With a membership population of 1,103,292 that single person represents 0.0001% of the membership (if I did my math right which is always suspect). Seems rather extreme to make wholesale changes that will effect over a million members for 0.0001% For conversation sake, lets say 100 people farm likes, that's 0.01% of the membership - still miniscule

I think you've got the statistics backwards. The argument here is whether 99.99% of users are having their experience degraded because 0.01% of the users are benefiting from the feature.

Similarly, there's a case to be made that for every mindless post like this on the first page of an article (and they seem consistently engaged on page 1) it consumes 4% of the page. The first page sets the tone for the thread. That's a lot of impact on the community.

 

[KaiFiMacFan]

Sometimes on news articles, I just skip the first page or two because I know it will be a bunch of “clever” posts that are ultimately vacuous and don’t contribute to any meaningful discussion.

That said, I think “reaction farming” is more of a problem on a site that has Reddit-style algorithms (hiding posts with lots of downvotes and pushing the most liked posts to the top). I’m thankful MR doesn’t work that way.

Yeah it’s annoying to get a “disagree” on a post with no explanation or a “laugh” reaction from someone who’s clearly lost the debate and is saving face by pretending to be amused, but that’s the internet. What would stop them from just quoting the post with a laugh emoji or saying “I disagree” without going further?

There are downsides to the reactions, but I don’t think they’re significantly hurting the experience here. That said, I wouldn’t miss them if the “like” button were all that remained and the rest went away.

 

[Analog Kid]

Moreover, on the actual topic of reforming, or amending, reactions to posts, - if there is such a poll - personally, I would like to see the complete removal of the "down vote" button.

My own view is that it contributes little to the site, except to add negativity, sometimes, considerable negativity, to the atmosphere of a discussion in a thread.

I try to use thumb up and thumb down for what I believe to be their intended purpose-- to respond without cluttering the thread. I interpret thumb up as "agree", though it's not labeled such. I avoid thumb down when I initially disagree and try to explain why in a response. If the back and forth appears never ending, I'll end with a disagree to indicate that I'm still not convinced but not taking it further.

To that end, I'd keep "agree" and "disagree" options. I'd label them as such, and I'd make the colors more perceptually balanced (desaturate the red, mainly). I'd eliminate the rest. Angry, laughing, wow, love, aren't particularly helpful.

Sometimes simply registering disagreement contributes less negativity than stating it in text with added venom.

On a separate but related subject, that of the subject matter of bloat, and what I consider to be a veritable tsunami of bland, almost witless, posts, a plethora of posts from a particular member, I must say that I find myself in complete agreement with @icanhazmac on this subject.

Yeah, I don't know what to do about that. I've tried flagging some of them as trivial, but the mods seem to disagree. That would be the preferred solution in my mind-- remove them as trivial-- but then it gets into subjective territory.

We all know people IRL who say things at dinner that don't seem to carry a lot of rhetorical weight and we just roll our eyes and move on. I've made use of the forum's ignore function in this case and accepted the fact that, when they do contribute something of value, I'm going to miss out on it.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Re the "likes" (and indeed, the "love", emojis), should the site retain the option of using several emojis (rather than simply clicking on the "like" button), I would like to see something implemented whereby one could draw a distinction between signalling that one "likes" a post, and the situation whereby one is simply signalling that one "agrees with" a post.

This is because I find myself using the "like" emoji to convey both meanings (sometimes, yes, together, but equally frequently, simply one or the other).

However, that is a relatively minor matter.

 

[LeeW]

Fair enough, so food for thought. With a membership population of 1,103,292 that single person represents 0.0001% of the membership (if I did my math right which is always suspect). Seems rather extreme to make wholesale changes that will effect over a million members for 0.0001% For conversation sake, lets say 100 people farm likes, that's 0.01% of the membership - still miniscule

All I would say to that is ask how many of those 1,103,292 are actually active?

Let's define active as having logged in at least once per month in the last 3 and posted at least once per month in the previous 3. That is not setting the bar very high. I doubt that would even be as high as 20k.

If you base the impact on that segment it seems more reasonable than suggesting it will impact over 1m members that don't log in or post much if at all.

Just my 2c, not that I care

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I try to use thumb up and thumb down for what I believe to be their intended purpose-- to respond without cluttering the thread.

Fair enough.

I interpret thumb up as "agree", though it's not labeled such.

I tend to do the exact same thing.

I avoid thumb down when I initially disagree and try to explain why in a response.

Again, fair enough.

Personally, I prefer to read what someone has to say if they choose to register disagreement, than see an engry red emoji.

I dislike the "down" vote for two reasons, firstly, as earlier mentioned, I think it contributes - or contributes to giving rise to to - a negative tone or atmosphere in a thread, and secondly, I think that it is a lazy way of seeking refuge in what is sometimes ill-tempered negativity, in the hope of triggering emotional reactions.

If the back and forth appears never ending, I'll end with a disagree to indicate that I'm still not convinced but not taking it further.

To that end, I'd keep "agree" and "disagree" options.

Okay.

I'd label them as such, and I'd make the colors more perceptually balanced (desaturate the red, mainly).

Amen to this.

An excellent idea.

Use, or abuse, of that angry red emoji does little to aid - or encourage - temperate discussion, in my opinion.

I'd eliminate the rest. Angry, laughing, wow, love, aren't particularly helpful.

As would I.

Yes, I use them, but I would be just as happy if they did not exist as options.

Sometimes simply registering disagreement contributes less negativity than stating it in text with added venom.

Fair enough.

Yeah, I don't know what to do about that. I've tried flagging some of them as trivial, but the mods seem to disagree. That would be the preferred solution in my mind-- remove them as trivial-- but then it gets into subjective territory.

I thought that it was just me, but I am glad to see that others have also noticed the somewhat peculiar posting habits of this individual.

We all know people IRL who say things at dinner that don't seem to carry a lot of rhetorical weight and we just roll our eyes and move on. I've made use of the forum's ignore function in this case and accepted the fact that, when they do contribute something of value, I'm going to miss out on it.

Very true.

 

[KaliYoni]

For anybody interested in benchmarking, another Mac site I read, TidBITS, uses a set of six reaction emojis that are clearly defined when an emoji is hovered over:

• Red heart: "Good post"
• Yellow thumbs up: "I agree"
• Yellow laughing face: "Amusing"
• THANK YOU!, in black text: "Thank you"
• Red question mark: "Confused"
• Yellow thumbs down: "I disagree"

I think the avoidance of the color red for negative reactions, as discussed earlier, is a good practice, as is the ability to thank a poster using an emoji/icon. Further, I like the lack of an anger reaction.

 

[KaliYoni]

seem to be there only to increase post count and likes

I thought that it was just me, but I am glad to see that others have also noticed

Well, at least something that was clearly intended to attract notice seems to be gone.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/profile-picture-can-it-be-my-bulge.2384967/

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Well, at least something that was clearly intended to attract notice seems to be gone.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/profile-picture-can-it-be-my-bulge.2384967/

I suppose that we should be (eternally) grateful for small mercies.

 

[Analog Kid]

I thought that it was just me, but I am glad to see that others have also noticed the somewhat peculiar posting habits of this individual.

I will say that I don't think there is only one individual, and this has been a recurring behavior through history. Some seem particularly adept at it though.

 

[Analog Kid]

For anybody interested in benchmarking, another Mac site I read, TidBITS, uses a set of six reaction emojis that are clearly defined when an emoji is hovered over:

• Red heart: "Good post"
• Yellow thumbs up: "I agree"
• Yellow laughing face: "Amusing"
• THANK YOU!, in black text: "Thank you"
• Red question mark: "Confused"
• Yellow thumbs down: "I disagree"

I think the avoidance of the color red for negative reactions, as discussed earlier, is a good practice, as is the ability to thank a poster using an emoji/icon. Further, I like the lack of an anger reaction.

I don't see a need for such an array. It'll always be incomplete, and always open to abuse.

I'm realizing that what I think I'm after is stripping the emotion from the quick reactions. I think that's the problem with "Angry" and also why the mocking "Ha Ha" is particularly problematic. It makes it really easy to trigger an emotional response.

"Agree" and "Disagree" are logical, not emotional responses by nature.

I don't think we need to eliminate emotional posts or replies, that's part of the discussion and I enjoy a good rant or laugh as much as the next person, but I think the emotional reactions are too low effort and feed/trigger bad behaviors and sniping from the shadows.

 

[Analog Kid]

What would stop them from just quoting the post with a laugh emoji or saying “I disagree” without going further?

I think those would be subject to moderation as trivial posts.

 

[Analog Kid]

View attachment 2221944

If you like I can add a poll to this thread for you. Tell me what you want the questions to be, and what options you want (from the screenshot above).

I'm not promising the results will be binding, but you are welcome to solicit the feedback.

Has anyone replied to @Weaselboy yet?

I'd start with 4 options:

1. Keep unchanged
2. Eliminate the option entirely
3. Allow like only
4. Allow agree/disagree only

 

[Weaselboy]

Thanks... I'd like to get feedback from @retta283 also, since they started the thread.