Disagree / Dislike reaction needed! :)

[JM]

It all depends on the objectives of the admins for the forum.

On many forums, the "like" button is a way to mitigate a lot of literal "I agree" posts. When you agree, there's often little to add - you're presumably agreeing with what has already been stated. If you do want to add something, you post.

The reason we don't see a lot of literal "I disagree" posts is most people who disagree and would be willing to post "I disagree" want to express what they disagree about. If users agree with their "disagreement", then they can "like" the "disagreement". If the don't want to take the time to articulate what they disagree about, then their opinion of "disagreement" isn't worth sharing. "I disagree" does not increase user engagement - it actually tends to deter user engagement by discouraging discussion.

The general forums current arrangement encourages user engagement, which is what MacRumors is primarily after.

MacRumors News articles are generally the worst comments. It's a flood of regulars trying to be "first" and make a "witty" comment (sometimes they are, most often they are not) that will get 50 "Likes" (there are users here with a thousand received "likes" who never contribute anything meaningful, just some variation of "Apple sucks"). News article comments do not encourage actual discussions or critical thinking, but rather a virtual food-fight (and why it's frustrating that MacRumors has a zero-tolerance policy on allowing separate forum discussions on current "news" topics where people could have, you know, actual discussions).

My gripe about the buttons in the news articles, particularly "disagree" button is that it doesn't break it down by type. A comment with 50 reactions looks pretty much the same if it's 5 agrees and 45 disagrees, or 45 agrees and 5 agrees. Having to stop and click the reactions score to see what is what makes it all even more meaningless, because no one is going to regularly do that.

@I7guy
Here’s a good case of explaining a Like:

there is way too much posted above that a Like could possibly cover.
Maybe I agreed with EVERYTHING here, but likely I didn’t.

In fact the part I agreed with so much, that I hearted it, was this below:

The reason we don't see a lot of literal "I disagree" posts is most people who disagree and would be willing to post "I disagree" want to express what they disagree about. If users agree with their "disagreement", then they can "like" the "disagreement". If the don't want to take the time to articulate what they disagree about, then their opinion of "disagreement" isn't worth sharing. "I disagree" does not increase user engagement - it actually tends to deter user engagement by discouraging discussion.

 

[JM]

Yes. It's a lazy post that adds so little value to any conversation. It's the kind of post I wish people would just ignore.



A simple thumbs down to that post is impossible to interpret. Does the person mean to say that the iPhone 14 is not the worst phone? Or do they mean to say that the 13 was the worst phone? Or do they mean to say that the 14 is the best phone? Or do they mean "stop being inflammatory and explain yourself". A thumbs down cries out for an explanation.

There is so much discord and misunderstanding from online disagreement. I wish everyone would make the effort to minimize this by explaining exactly what they are disagreeing with. Given that wish, adding a disagree reaction is a step in the wrong direction.



I'll replace "liked" with "agreed with" in your question. I hope people don't like such a post even if they agree with it.

Everyone should explain themself if they have something to add beyond what they are agreeing with. The post mentioned has so little content that any agreement would likely have something to add.

One could argue that someone who agrees precisely with a post and has nothing more to add should say as much, explaining the nature of their agreement. That's the "me too" post some people think adds little to no value. I'm not sure what I think about that. Forcing people to make a post expressing precise agreement might motivate them to think more carefully and realize they do have something to add. But, I suspect we're all too lazy to realize that benefit.

@I7guy
Me too.

There, see? That was a pretty useless post of me to post a response of affirmation.

In the same way, “I disagree” would be an equally inane post.

Though, as stated above, the disagree thumbs down reaction is open to a lot of community destroying interpretation, while what could possibly be misinterpreted about a thumbs up? (*as an aside, it just occurred to me the Heart could be easily misinterpreted as well 🤣)

 

[I7guy]

@I7guy
Me too.

There, see? That was a pretty useless post of me to post a response of affirmation.

In the same way, “I disagree” would be an equally inane post.

Though, as stated above, the disagree thumbs down reaction is open to a lot of community destroying interpretation, while what could possibly be misinterpreted about a thumbs up? (*as an aside, it just occurred to me the Heart could be easily misinterpreted as well 🤣)

I think of the disagree as dislike also. Even though the reaction official name is “disagree” I use the reaction to dislike posts. (Edit: I don’t believe I’m alone in this)

In a perfect world people would post fairly and genuinely and explain themselves as much as possible.

But in this imperfect world, people post hit and runs. Those hit and runs get likes and disagrees. Even if there is no substance behind the posts.

 

[JM]

I think of the disagree as dislike also. Even though the reaction official name is “disagree” I use the reaction to dislike posts. (Edit: I don’t believe I’m alone in this)

In a perfect world people would post fairly and genuinely and explain themselves as much as possible.

But in this imperfect world, people post hit and runs. Those hit and runs get likes and disagrees. Even if there is no substance behind the posts.

Well the dislike button hurts feelings. That’s my takeaway from it, haha. It should be blue at least. Or purple. Heck, pink even. Make it a cordial disagreement/dislike.

 

[svenmany]

Well the dislike button hurts feelings. That’s my takeaway from it, haha. It should be blue at least. Or purple. Heck, pink even. Make it a cordial disagreement/dislike.

The dislike reaction would hurt my feelings if I received it.

Other reactions are pretty bad and subject to misinterpretation. I've seen the "Haha" reaction applied when the person was laughing at the poster and when laughing with the poster. So, it's either a positive or negative reaction. I once received an angry reaction and I wasn't sure whether they were angry with me or the situation I was describing.

The fact that we automatically dislike posts we disagree with is sad. We really don't want to discuss things and have our opinions change; we just want to make our points and get affirmation, and hear things that reinforce our opinions. All but one post in this thread I've liked, even the ones I disagreed with.

From listening to other people in this thread and being forced to think more deeply, I've concluded that the whole reaction functionality is pretty bad. I wish it would go away.

 

[JM]

The dislike reaction would hurt my feelings if I received it.

Other reactions are pretty bad and subject to misinterpretation. I've seen the "Haha" reaction applied when the person was laughing at the poster and when laughing with the poster. So, it's either a positive or negative reaction. I once received an angry reaction and I wasn't sure whether they were angry with me or the situation I was describing.

The fact that we automatically dislike posts we disagree with is sad. We really don't want to discuss things and have our opinions change; we just want to make our points and get affirmation, and hear things that reinforce our opinions. All but one post in this thread I've liked, even the ones I disagreed with.

From listening to other people in this thread and being forced to think more deeply, I've concluded that the whole reaction functionality is pretty bad. I wish it would go away.

The mad reaction yeah, I’ve used that only a few times and it was related to something that was either blatantly terrible to say, or a situation that a company did that made me mad. Can totally see how it would be misinterpreted.

The haha face definitely has been used as trolling to pester (happened to me even where the haha came from the same person and was applied to several posts that were opinions and not meant to be funny), but it seems the moderators shut that behavior down pretty quickly thankfully.

I can definitely can sympathize with the opinion that the likes and dislikes can foster an environment of “like chasing” or “saying it for the likes”, but it seems like the forums overall are a place that don’t typically reward that behavior as the likes just kind of fall off if someone isn’t contributing anything substantial (and the person leaves).

The reactions are fun, but can be misused and improved upon, so keeping them helps with engagement.
I guess it’s like anything in life that is fun: it can be abused.

Thanks for being a good forum member

 

[JM]

I think of the disagree as dislike also. Even though the reaction official name is “disagree” I use the reaction to dislike posts. (Edit: I don’t believe I’m alone in this)

In a perfect world people would post fairly and genuinely and explain themselves as much as possible.

But in this imperfect world, people post hit and runs. Those hit and runs get likes and disagrees. Even if there is no substance behind the posts.

Using as dislike makes sense. Maybe it should change name to “dislike” then.

That it way more clear than “disagree” since disagree begs for more explanation.

 

[NM08SRT8]

Think this would be a great addition. Gives a way to not agree with something without being overly dramatic using the angry face.

Figured this option/addition will never see the light of day but thought to request it anyway.

 

[antiprotest]

It seems that threads started by MR articles would have them. Otherwise no. I agree all threads should have thumb down option.

Try these for example. Have fun.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/hands-on-with-the-new-freeform-app-in-ipados-16-2.2367438/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-updates-pages-numbers-and-keynote-with-new-ios-16-and-macos-ventura-features.2367364/

 

[Juicy Box]

I am pretty sure that there used to be a thumbs down option.

I noticed that a lot of forums are removing thumbs down, I assume because it hurts peoples feelings.

Just look at YouTube, for example.

 

[russell_314]

I think it would make it simpler if there was a like “thumbs up”, a dislike “thumbs down” and maybe a laugh reaction for funny posts

 

[contacos]

I also think a thumb down option would make more sense. If it was removed to take out the „negativity“ then the angry emoji kind of makes no sense either because just because you may disagree with someone, doesn’t mean you are „pissed off“ at them which the angry emoji may imply.

example:

„I love Samsung“ : 👎🏼 - I don’t agree but you do you

„I love Samsung“ : 😡 - F off - you have no idea what you are even talking about. What r u even doing here! Go back to your country

 

[russell_314]

I also think a thumb down option would make more sense. If it was removed to take out the „negativity“ then the angry emoji kind of makes no sense either because just because you may disagree with someone, doesn’t mean you are „pissed off“ at them which the angry emoji may imply.

example:

„I love Samsung“ : 👎🏼 - I don’t agree but you do you

„I love Samsung“ : 😡 - F off - you have no idea what you are even talking about. What r u even doing here! Go back to your country

I agree but maybe some posts might require the second one 😂

Some people say the like and dislike thing is lazy since it doesn’t require someone to make a post but I don’t think everything needs a post. If someone says the 14 Pro Max has outstanding battery life I don’t need to make a reply agreeing and if someone says it’s a terrible phone I don’t need to reply to that either

 

[0128672]

I would like to see the angry emoji go away. But what I'd really like to see is a minimum post requirement before newbies can use emojis. Too many times there are 1-post newbies who sweep through news stories posts with lots of angry emojis but no posts explaining their position. And then we never see them again but the angry reaction remains.

 

[maflynn]

I'm a big believer in balance. if we have a like or agree button, then its reasonable to expect to have a disagree/dislike button. I know the prospects of abuse is higher with dislike button but isn't that already the case with

so what's the harm in adding it

 

[usagora]

I would like to see the angry emoji go away. But what I'd really like to see is a minimum post requirement before newbies can use emojis. Too many times there are 1-post newbies who sweep through news stories posts with lots of angry emojis but no posts explaining their position. And then we never see them again but the angry reaction remains.

Well, I'd definitely say the angry emoji is a bit too extreme. They should simply replace it with the thumbs-down emoji in ALL threads (it's never made sense to me why they limit the thumbs down to news stories). We also need an eye-roll and facepalm reaction emojis 😂

Unless the post is completely ludicrous--not even being worthy of a verbal response--I always try to respond with the reason for my "negative" reaction if I give one.

 

[usagora]

I'm a big believer in balance. if we have a like or agree button, then its reasonable to expect to have a disagree/dislike button. I know the prospects of abuse is higher with dislike button but isn't that already the case with View attachment 2102382 so what's the harm in adding it

It would be cool if, as a compromise, they'd permit the dislike emoji in every thread (not just news stories), but when a user clicks it, it would automatically quote the person they were reacting too (as if they had clicked "reply") and have a pop-up message that says something like "Please provide a rational response to this poster in order to dislike this post. Failure to do so will result in your being banned." Then if people try to circumvent this by typing gibberish or ----, they'd be reported and banned.

Not even sure the forum software can be made to do that, but it would be interesting to try if it could.

 

[maflynn]

"Please provide a rational response to this poster in order to dislike this post. Failure to do so will result in your being banned.

So you're advocating that we ban the people for not providing a reason for their disagreement?

Seems excessively harsh. In the name of balance it ought to be instituted for any clicking on like as well then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Seriously, I believe if you want to like a post because what you agreed with the content, and/or it was a well written, cogent post, then you ought to be able to dislike a post because you disagree with the content - without being required to justify your actions or be forced to post reasons

 

[belvdr]

Well, I'd definitely say the angry emoji is a bit too extreme. They should simply replace it with the thumbs-down emoji in ALL threads (it's never made sense to me why they limit the thumbs down to news stories). We also need an eye-roll and facepalm reaction emojis 😂

Unless the post is completely ludicrous--not even being worthy of a verbal response--I always try to respond with the reason for my "negative" reaction if I give one.

And a confused emoji.

 

[usagora]

So you're advocating that we ban the people for not providing a reason to for this disagreement?

Seems excessively harsh. In the name of balance it ought to be instituted for any clicking on like as well then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Seriously, I believe if you want to like a post because what you agreed with the content, and/or it was a well written, cogent post, then you ought to be able to dislike a post because you disagree with the content - without being required to justify your actions or be forced to post reasons

Yes, absolutely, on your first question (and that's only if they try to circumvent the reason requirement by typing gibberish or something . . . and of course they could be given a warning on the first offense).

As to the rest, no, because the like button isn't a negative reaction and isn't abused. That's the whole point. Really, how hard would it be for a non-troll/sincere "disliker" to type out a succinct reason for their disagreement? I see no downside to it except in the mind of people wanting to abuse the emojis--and I have a hard time feeling bad for being "harsh" on those types. This is a discussion forum, after all. Thoughtful, verbal responses promote conversation and rational dialogue.

 

[belvdr]

Yes, absolutely, on your first question (and that's only if they try to circumvent the reason requirement by typing gibberish or something . . . and of course they could be given a warning on the first offense).

As to the rest, no, because the like button isn't a negative reaction and isn't abused. That's the whole point. Really, how hard would it be for a non-troll/sincere "disliker" to type out a succinct reason for their disagreement? I see no downside to it except in the mind of people wanting to abuse the emojis--and I have a hard time feeling bad for being "harsh" on those types. This is a discussion forum, after all. Thoughtful, verbal responses promote conversation and rational dialogue.

There are times when I disagree with others and hit the thumbs down emoji. Their statements are generally very binary, such as "Apple users are the smartest people", and a thumbs down is all that's required. I think your idea might have the opposite effect. You disagree, but replying to the user will only result in circling the toilet bowl.

 

[usagora]

There are times when I disagree with others and hit the thumbs down emoji. Their statements are generally very binary, such as "Apple users are the smartest people", and a thumbs down is all that's required. I think your idea might have the opposite effect. You disagree, but replying to the user will only result in circling the toilet bowl.

I'm assuming your example was meant to read ". . . aren't the smartest people" (not "are"). And, if so, that example is of an abusive/trolling post that should be simply reported anyway and removed by the mods. I'm talking about disagreeing with posts that are within the rules and will be allowed to stand. Yes, some of those are still pretty ludicrous, but people invariably reply anyway, so it really makes no difference.

 

[belvdr]

I'm assuming your example was meant to read ". . . aren't the smartest people" (not "are"). And, if so, that example is of an abusive/trolling post that should be simply reported anyway and removed by the mods. I'm talking about disagreeing with posts that are within the rules and will be allowed to stand. Yes, some of those are still pretty ludicrous, but people invariably reply anyway, so it really makes no difference.

It was an example without quoting a real post. It could easily be "The Apple M2 is going to bring down Intel/AMD". Point is I feel it is better to sometimes hit the thumbs down and move on.

 

[svenmany]

I would hate it if a thumbs down were introduced where the hover read "dislike". Less so if the hover read "disagree". We're having a discussion and should appreciate and encourage input, even if we disagree with it.

Every reaction need more information in its hover to ensure its use is not misinterpreted. Most all of them could be interpreted as directed at the post or expressing a shared emotion that the post is conveying. For example, are you laughing with or at the poster.

Reactions are part of what's bad about the social media. They foster misunderstanding to serve the needs of the hosts - to generate user engagement and traffic.

 

[usagora]

It was an example without quoting a real post. It could easily be "The Apple M2 is going to bring down Intel/AMD". Point is I feel it is better to sometimes hit the thumbs down and move on.

Yes, of course I know you're giving hypothetical examples, but there's a world of difference between your last hypothetical (a broad-brush insult against an entire group of people) and this one (a comparison of processors), so it matters. If my idea were in place, and you didn't feel like explaining why you disagree with them, you could just ignore the post entirely. So I don't see how any of this is a "con" with my idea.