I think I recall you mentioning this in another thread, I find that very interesting. I'm generally averse to doing heavy browsing on my phone (partially because of its dreadful battery) so I had never tried MacRumors on Tapatalk. I'll have to check it out sometime just to see what it looks like.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Withdrawn from sale on MR
- Thread starter retta283
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You know, I am curious as to why some who profess to like the existence of the "disagree" button, also seem to wish to defend the right to be discourteous in discussion and debate.
A curious correlation indeed. I suspect it’s possible that it is related to agreeableness, or a lack thereof. A personality low in agreeableness is more likely to defend their ability to disagree than an agreeable person will be to defend themselves against discourteous disagreement. I think the former thrives on the internet. Which is not an insult, just an observation.
Perhaps we can get back to more civil discourse, or at least get back on topic?
I don't think anyone has offered a counter to some collective points:
1) Disagreement by emoji hurts communication: The MR community has no shortage of people willing to use words to disagree, I have yet to see anyone reference a thread that was overrun with emoji disagreements with few or no textual ones. As long as we have a robust community that is willing to debate in posts who cares if some, shall we say, ride the coat tails of others? Is there a real, meaningful difference between a 10 page thread vs a 13 page one because everyone who disagreed was either forced to post "+1s" and "me too" posts?
2) Emoji reactions allow us to quickly gauge the temperature of the community when a thread is huge or if we do not have the time to read through every post. This is actually my #1 reason for keeping both an agree and disagree, sometimes I just don't have the time to read all the posts in a thread but I still want to gauge a community temp.
3) Some have already stated, here and in other threads, that they simply want the little red emoji to stop triggering them. This is based on the premise that disagreement is synonymous with negativity, which is simply not the case. I will admit that the MR community, like all others, has some children and trolls that use emoji to harass other members, if this bothers you I offer the following:
I don't think anyone has offered a counter to some collective points:
1) Disagreement by emoji hurts communication: The MR community has no shortage of people willing to use words to disagree, I have yet to see anyone reference a thread that was overrun with emoji disagreements with few or no textual ones. As long as we have a robust community that is willing to debate in posts who cares if some, shall we say, ride the coat tails of others? Is there a real, meaningful difference between a 10 page thread vs a 13 page one because everyone who disagreed was either forced to post "+1s" and "me too" posts?
2) Emoji reactions allow us to quickly gauge the temperature of the community when a thread is huge or if we do not have the time to read through every post. This is actually my #1 reason for keeping both an agree and disagree, sometimes I just don't have the time to read all the posts in a thread but I still want to gauge a community temp.
3) Some have already stated, here and in other threads, that they simply want the little red emoji to stop triggering them. This is based on the premise that disagreement is synonymous with negativity, which is simply not the case. I will admit that the MR community, like all others, has some children and trolls that use emoji to harass other members, if this bothers you I offer the following:
- Laughing emoji from children using it as laughing at you: these trolls are actually giving you a +1 to your meaningless reaction score AND boosting your post! Who deserves to be laughed at now? For as bad as a "laughing at you" makes you feel just imagine how bad you would feel if all those +1s went away? LOL.
- Regardless of what emoji some anonymous online troll throws at you THEY AREN'T REAL! Ignore them!
- Angry faces, to the best of my recollection, do nothing to your reaction score, they just sit there looking angry. In essence they do nothing, so don't let them ruin your day.
- Does the OP, or anyone that voted yes, expect detailed posts from everyone that voted no and didn't post here?
- Are those that voted yes also expected to post a detailed reason for their supporting vote? If not, why? There have been a couple different opinions from members on why like only would be good, if members don't define why they voted yes isn't that also detrimental to communication?
Last edited:
Taking responsibility for one's own emotions, rather than blaming others for somehow "triggering" them? Are you CRAZY? You know that's totally unreasonable. I mean...come on, man!
For the humourless: I am COMPLETELY AGREEING with the post I quoted.
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to express and make a case for your position.
My issue is not with disagreement per se, but with the fact that some who call for the right to disagree, seem to confuse the right to disagree with how this disagreement is expressed, for, it is clear the right to express disagreement seems to be confused, or conflated, with the right to gratuitously give offence while disagreeing.
These are two different things, and I believe that allowing disrespectful disagreement cannot but harm the tone in which discussion and debate occurs on the site.
Perhaps.
However, reading this debate, I am coming to the conclusion that some who support the retention of the "disagree" emoji, who argue for the right to disagree, are really arguing for the right to be offensive while disagreeing.
And, whether one is an agreeable personality or not, such a development can only be something to be regretted, as it will engender a more negative and potentially toxic atmosphere when debate and discussion occurs.
🤔 - The missing emoji response. You have given me a point to ponder.
Do you think something as simple as removing angry face and changing the color of disagree to the same as like would accomplish the goal of making emoji disagreement a little less off-putting? Personally I don't see the need for blue disagreements as colors do not trigger me, but to your point, some may take advantage of how red affects others. Towards that end I could support that compromise.
I think it's more like this:
People who advocate for the "disagree" option are unsure how or why (despite the "explanations" offered) a simple disagree emoji can be so traumatizing, create so much supposed "offense" or so much sheer DRAMA.
I mean...my god, it's a silly little cartoonish drawing. How on Earth can people get so wrapped up in assigning so much "inferred" or "suspected" intention behind such a thing?
It's mindboggling.
As a side note, as much as I think the forum software uses here is horrible (and I've not seen it used elsewhere), one redeeming feature it has is the dislike button (the other is inserting images into posts without munging them up). It seems like it would be a real shame for this feature to disappear.
I am having a really hard time wrapping my head around the notion of being upset by an emoji. Not everything needs a diatribe or a long winded explanation.
I do wish there was a disagree/dislike button in the non-news forums. I rarely, so very rarely, use the anger button because I'm just usually not invested enough here to be angry about something. But I can't say I've never used it. But it seems fairly over the top for most things around here. But there are times when I might disagree with someone, or want to register disappointment/disagreement and don't need something as forceful as anger. I can think of instances where someone is arguing incessently and I'm just done with the conversation, and I'd rather just dislike the post than risk being accused of trolling. Because there are a lot of instances where disagreements with or to the wrong person will get you labeled as trolling even if you are legitimately explaining or defending your position, however tactful. A dislike button would handle a lot of that without fueling the fire.
I do wish there was a disagree/dislike button in the non-news forums. I rarely, so very rarely, use the anger button because I'm just usually not invested enough here to be angry about something. But I can't say I've never used it. But it seems fairly over the top for most things around here. But there are times when I might disagree with someone, or want to register disappointment/disagreement and don't need something as forceful as anger. I can think of instances where someone is arguing incessently and I'm just done with the conversation, and I'd rather just dislike the post than risk being accused of trolling. Because there are a lot of instances where disagreements with or to the wrong person will get you labeled as trolling even if you are legitimately explaining or defending your position, however tactful. A dislike button would handle a lot of that without fueling the fire.
Actually, I am having a hard time trying to understand why some who desire the retention of the "disagree" emoji seem to conflate this, perhaps confuse this - expressing disagreement - with the right to be discourteous and rude and to give offence while expressing their disagreement.
This is because, to my mind, these are two quite different and quite distinct things.
This is because, to my mind, these are two quite different and quite distinct things.
Who said it was their right? The issue here is in the view held by some that a reaction is intended to be discourteous and/or rude.
Anyway, it's not changing. And this thread is a perfect example of where reactions are useful. The same thing, from the same people over and over, whilst nothing new is being said as there isn't anything new to say. It's only the triggered users that will keep this thread going.
I don't think there's a single reason but as I see it.
First it provides a counter balance to the like emoji. If there's a mechanism to like a post w/o comment then there ought to be a disagree emoji for the same reason
Secondly as I touched upon, some posts are worded such that I choose not to get into an argument or desire to expend the energy on diagreeing. Perhaps the member is one that loves to argue and all I want to convey is my disagreement. Also I may be on my phone and its a lot easier to just thumbs up or down w/o trying to type a post.
Thirdly, different strokes for different folks, not everyone wishes to express themselves with posts. There are plenty of lurkers who enjoy reading the stories and posts, but choose to approve/disapprove using the emojis
Fourthly, social media and the use of thumbs up and down seem to be synonymous with online activity and as such many people expect similar features
For me it boils down at not limiting our ability to express ourselves which is why I'm for the emojis
This issue pops up from time to time. My opinion in the past has been to keep things as they are. This is an online community (in the classic sense) and we're all going to have feelings about what we read. Providing FEWER ways to express those feelings will simply cause those feelings to be amplified in the fewer ways available to express them. We lose the granularity of response.
Having a "Like only" reaction system restricts the expression of emotions into only direction. If a person gets their feelings hurt by a thumbs-down reaction, it is a guarantee they'll have a meltdown if the only way to express disagreement is to post a comment saying so. The natural response to a disagreement is to become defensive. And if the poster wants to know why someone thumbs-down the post and didn't post why... there's a reason they chose not to explain it.
I've been active in online communities since the early days of usenet. MacRumors is a pretty special place... the moderators do an admirable job of monitoring things. The forum software is very helpful... particularly in the "ignore" functionality. Not only do I not see posts by those on my ignore list, but I don't see their posts that are quoted by people that I don't ignore. It is rare that I even know that an ignored member has posted. On those occasions, I'll peek to see who it was and what they said... and my typical response is, "yep, there's a reason I set them on ignore." 😂
One's experience on MacRumors forum comes down to... self-control and developing a thick skin.
Self-control... to avoid sections of the forum, or threads (based on title) where one knows that they're "gonna have feelings". Self-control... to decide when or if one should weigh in on a topic. Self-control... If there are posters who rub someone the wrong way, simply ignore them and move on... if their posts disrupt the flow of thread after thread, use the forum's ignore tool. That's why it's there.
Thick skin... The danger of social media and online communities is that it fosters an inflated sense of self-worth. Why else would someone think it important enough to post a picture on Instagram of the lunch they're eating? At the core, it encourages a "I have something to say and it is important enough for others to hear about it" mentality. A "Like only" reaction system encourages that thinking... There have been times when I have been simultaneously accused of being an Apple Fanboy and an anti-Apple bigot from a single post.
😅 I don't take it personally. I'm not important and people are free to have a reaction to what I post. Regarding the claim that people are trolling for thumbs ups, that claim is undermined by the fact that reaction scores of posters are hidden. One must click on the pulldown below the poster's name on the lefthand side to see it. Reactions scores are not visible by default.
I asked in another thread about the possibility of making them visible by default. And in line with that request, maybe post reaction visibility could be a user setting. Don't want to see reactions to posts? Disable that in preferences. Want to see reactions? Enable it. What to see only "thumbs up"? Have that as a 3rd option.
People aren't going to be less rude with the removal of negative reaction emojis. If anything they will be more rude through the use of words.
They used to be visible by default until a few years back. I think it was just a Xenforo change and not an intentional change on behalf of MR. I will say that I do agree with giving an option to completely disable reactions from the users' end of things, more personalization options are always a good thing no matter how niche. Perhaps both of these things could be made options if the Xenforo software allows. I think that when viewing this site without an account you cannot see reactions at all, so it should technically be possible.
As a follow up to my last message, I just discovered that it would be totally possible to make reaction score visible by default. It is called a postbit and a setting for it is provided in Xenforo, as well as an option to make it possible for the user to choose whether to show or automatically collapse the postbit. Therefore all MR has to do is go check that box in the forum settings.
If the disagree button is really the counterpart to the like button, then why is it limited to news articles? Surely if it's the same as the like button, just its inverse, it wouldn't be restricted to one part of the site. Why not introduce it to the rest of the forums? I don't feel very strongly about the disagree button. I wouldn't miss it if it were removed, but I'm also not going to campaign for its removal. That said, it seems a bit inconsistent to say that it's the counterpart to the like button if it's restricted to a small subset of the forums. Clearly the site owners and moderators view it differently from the other reactions.
The fact is, reaction emojis are how online communication works right now: they're on most social media sites, they're in iMessage, they're everywhere. I don't really think anything needs to change here. The only thing that I would strongly disagree with (and thankfully no one seems to be proposing it) is creating some kind of Reddit-like system, where posts are by default sorted by the number of likes and dislikes (and disliked posts are hidden from view).
But it's interesting that the conversation is all about the disagree button, yet I see more people "triggered" by the laugh reaction. 🤔
Last edited:
I have no confirmation but it does appear to be related to ranking the most popular replies to the new articles. If you read the article then look below it there is a list of 6-10 replies that are deemed "most popular". So that being the case (if correct) then MR themselves use the disagree reaction as part of that popularity contest for replies. Again, I am assuming that if someone gets 10 likes and 1 disagree then that equals 9.
Reading what @KaiFiMacFan and @LeeW have written, another question occurs:
Why should either "likes" or "dislikes" - why should the total number of "likes" and "dislikes" that a post receives, or a poster receives - be tallied, be enumerated?
Why not simply allow someone to register a "like" or a "dislike" without anything further resulting from the fact that this preference has been expressed?
Yes, I understand that it may serve to measure engagement - or, even drive or encourage engagement - with an online platform, but, is it so necessary?
Why should either "likes" or "dislikes" - why should the total number of "likes" and "dislikes" that a post receives, or a poster receives - be tallied, be enumerated?
Why not simply allow someone to register a "like" or a "dislike" without anything further resulting from the fact that this preference has been expressed?
Yes, I understand that it may serve to measure engagement - or, even drive or encourage engagement - with an online platform, but, is it so necessary?
Exactly! Really, this whole "likes" thing is definitely just a popularity game or semblance of one, and it really is not serving members well. Some members become obsessed by them (hence, the "farming" and the race-to-the-top kind of behavior). In some situations it may be actually exacerbating any mental health issues the member might have.
Get rid of all reacts, including "likes". The invention of "likes" was when the internet went downhill. I know this will never happen... not just here but anywhere. But one can dream of returning to a less toxic and addictive internet.
I really wish that had been an option from which to choose in the poll....
Presumably a higher like count (Reaction Score) indicates that a given poster is viewed by the rest of the forum as a positive/helpful contributor. Someone who has 1,000 posts and yet a RS of say, 3,000, is clearly valued by members as a whole, whether offering helpful solutions to questions or generally engaging in a positive manner. I don't think there is a specific ratio that is expected or required to be seen in a favorable light.
Conversely, someone with a lower RS can potentially be viewed as a contentious or unhelpful participant. A lower RS doesn't necessarily tell the whole story of course, though, as some people just don't post a lot or get to know other members of the community; I think people who are more visible or vocal OR who have found a core group of friends tend to get more likes than people who post less.
Given that the Reaction Score is hidden by default I don't really see the harm of it. I could not tell you what mine is (nor could I actually tell you my post count; these are not things I track as a personal metric). If it makes some people feel better to chase likes, it isn't negatively affecting me in anyway, and maybe that person has a retched IRL that getting likes here on MacRumors makes up for something. Who am I to judge on that?
Conversely, someone with a lower RS can potentially be viewed as a contentious or unhelpful participant. A lower RS doesn't necessarily tell the whole story of course, though, as some people just don't post a lot or get to know other members of the community; I think people who are more visible or vocal OR who have found a core group of friends tend to get more likes than people who post less.
Given that the Reaction Score is hidden by default I don't really see the harm of it. I could not tell you what mine is (nor could I actually tell you my post count; these are not things I track as a personal metric). If it makes some people feel better to chase likes, it isn't negatively affecting me in anyway, and maybe that person has a retched IRL that getting likes here on MacRumors makes up for something. Who am I to judge on that?
Simply because Arn chose too. I feel it ought be consistent and available throughout the forum