Disagree / Dislike reaction needed! :)

[belvdr]

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.

Your assumption made my inital example an insult.

Sometimes, I like to express my disagreement with a thumbs down. Your idea of banning or giving warnings is excessive. I think it would do the opposite of what your desire to promote discussion. In my case, you're saying to ignore it and move on, which doesn't promote discussion.

 

[svenmany]

it is better to sometimes hit the thumbs down and move on

In my world it is never better to hit the thumbs down and move on. In fact, it's never good at all. It adds no value. No one really knows what you meant, they just have a guess. Misunderstanding is an infection of social media.

 

[belvdr]

In my world it is never better to hit the thumbs down and move on. In fact, it's never good at all. It adds no value. No one really knows what you meant, they just have a guess. Misunderstanding is an infection of social media.

For the most part, I agree and give a response (case in point, this thread). I don't think disagreeing always needs a text response though.

 

[dmr727]

My problem with a dislike button comes from Ars Technica - the reader comments section is one of the biggest echo chambers I've experienced on the web*, to the point where they argue about the nature of the dislikes themselves and make edits in response to them. Yes it cuts down on the trolls, but it also stifles any conversation that strays from the prevailing attitudes of the membership.


* and I say this as someone whose attitudes about tech (and the world in general) aligns with theirs.

 

[usagora]

Your assumption made my inital example an insult.

I thought it was a pretty safe assumption, since I don't think I've ever seen someone make a blanket compliment towards all Apple users on this forum 😂 . . . and many times I've made that typo (typed "are" instead of "aren't" or vice versa).

Sometimes, I like to express my disagreement with a thumbs down. Your idea of banning or giving warnings is excessive. I think it would do the opposite of what your desire to promote discussion. In my case, you're saying to ignore it and move on, which doesn't promote discussion.

But you weren't going to discuss it anyhow, so that's my point--my idea wouldn't do any harm in that case. However, it would indeed promote discussion if you want to post a "disagree" reaction because you'd have to explain why you're disagreeing. I'm not saying you would have to write a treatise, but providing at least some rational reasoning is better than simply clicking a disagree button.

If you think the post is so obviously ridiculous or false that no explanation is needed to disagree, then there's really no point to the disagree emoji either. Folks aren't going to be looking at it thinking, "Well, gee, no one disagreed with an emoji so what they said must be true!" lol!

And another advantage of my idea is that you wouldn't be limited in the number of "dislikes" you can react with like you are now.

 

[icanhazmac]

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

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).

Banning someone for not putting their disagreement into text is absurd. I have submitted this multiple times for consideration but the anti-disagree folks never acknowledge or discuss it... if we can "like" as a way to avoid "+1", "me too" or "what they said" posts then why can't we use disagree the exact same way?

Example that no one seems to have an issue with:

Member A: Can't wait for the new iPhone to be released.
Member B: REPLIES: I agree, the new phone looks great.
Member C: Emotes "like" with A & B instead of mirroring Member B's comment.

Example that some people feel is inflammatory or rude:

Member A: I feel the upcoming iPhone is a mediocre upgrade, I'm going to skip it.
Member B: REPLIES: I'm not sure why you feel that way the new features look great.
Member C: Emotes "disagree" with A and "likes" member B's reply.

Why is this example any different from the first? Why should member C need to mirror the reply of member B in order to register their opinion of member A's post? IMHO people want (and should have) a way to express disagreement without a "me too" post.

THIS ^^^^^^^^

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.

How could a completely meaningless emoji reaction be "abused".

 

[svenmany]

For the most part, I agree and give a response (case in point, this thread). I don't think disagreeing always needs a text response though.

Respect...

I'm interested in what value you gain from seeing a thumbs down on a post you're reading.

 

[icanhazmac]

Respect...

I'm interested in what value you gain from seeing a thumbs down on a post you're reading.

Aside from reading typed replies to any given post it is a way to gauge how the community that didn't type out a response feels about the post. IMHO they are generally two different groups of members with only a little crossover.

 

[usagora]

Banning someone for not putting their disagreement into text is absurd. I have submitted this multiple times for consideration but the anti-disagree folks never acknowledge or discuss it... if we can "like" as a way to avoid "+1", "me too" or "what they said" posts then why can't we use disagree the exact same way?

The banning would be for trying to circumvent the forum rules. And that't not absurd at all. This is already done. We already have a rule that requires members to back up any factual claims they make, so I don't see how asking members to explain why they disagree with a post is that far-fetched. No, the disagreement may not be over alleged facts. It may be over an opinion, but our opinions should still be based on rational thought processes that we can articulate.

You seriously don't see the difference between a like and a dislike? If they have equal weight, then why does this forum limit how many times you can use the dislike/disagree emoji but not the like/agree emoji? There's no negative equivalent of "+1", "me too", "^this", etc.

And agreeing with someone doesn't need an explanation. Disagreeing with someone, on the other hand, needs to be explained if our goal is rational discourse. If you present an idea to your boss, and he says, "I like it! Let's do it!", you're not going to say, "Well, aren't you going to explain why you like it???" Of course not. On the other hand, if your boss says, "Sorry, that's a no-go", are you going to be ok with that answer without further elaboration? Doubt it. You're going to be dying to know why. Why doesn't he like this idea? What's the issue? You'd expect him to explain his reasoning.

If a post is so ludicrous that you don't think it's even worth explaining why you disagree with it, then it's not even worth clicking an emoji for anyway.

How could a completely meaningless emoji reaction be "abused".

Oh, so they're meaningless? Then let's just get rid of all the reaction emojis and call it a day. Problem solved. What's the point of a meaningless feature on the forum, after all?

 

[I7guy]

The banning would be for trying to circumvent the forum rules. And that't not absurd at all. This is already done. We already have a rule that requires members to back up any factual claims they make, so I don't see how asking members to explain why they disagree with a post is that far-fetched. No, the disagreement may not be over alleged facts. It may be over an opinion, but our opinions should still be based on rational thought processes that we can articulate.

You seriously don't see the difference between a like and a dislike? If they have equal weight, then why does this forum limit how many times you can use the dislike/disagree emoji but not the like/agree emoji? There's no negative equivalent of "+1", "me too", "^this", etc.

And agreeing with someone doesn't need an explanation. Disagreeing with someone, on the other hand, needs to be explained if our goal is rational discourse. If you present an idea to your boss, and he says, "I like it! Let's do it!", you're not going to say, "Well, aren't you going to explain why you like it???" Of course not. On the other hand, if your boss says, "Sorry, that's a no-go", are you going to be ok with that answer without further elaboration? Doubt it. You're going to be dying to know why. Why doesn't he like this idea? What's the issue? You'd expect him to explain his reasoning.

If a post is so ludicrous that you don't think it's even worth explaining why you disagree with it, then it's not even worth clicking an emoji for anyway.



Oh, so they're meaningless? Then let's just get rid of all the reaction emojis and call it a day. Problem solved. What's the point of a meaningless feature on the forum, after all?

The official name of the reaction is disagree...which is less emotional in definition than dislike.

The problem with forcing an explanation for disagreeing is the same as forcing an explanation for liking.

eg - "the iphone 14 is the worst upgrade in history" garners 10 likes and 10 disagrees. And while it is a baseless, subjective statement devoid of any fact, the "disagreers" should have to explain their position more than the "likers"? Agreeing with a negative, baseless, subjective statement should require an explanation where disagreeing with a negative, baseless, subjective statement should be the norm.. But of course none of this can be written into the rules that can be enforced properly at the scale of MacRumors.

The overall issue is that some posters misuse the reaction system as evidenced by the 10 daily limit on disagree.

 

[icanhazmac]

If a post is so ludicrous that you don't think it's even worth explaining why you disagree with it, then it's not even worth clicking an emoji for anyway.

If another member has already typed out my disagreement why should I need to retype the exact same thing? That is stupid. See post #57.

If "Likes" are fine to avoid "+1" and "me too" posts then "Disagree" can be used the exact same way, simple as that.

Oh, so they're meaningless? Then let's just get rid of all the reaction emojis and call it a day. Problem solved. What's the point of a meaningless feature on the forum, after all?

Nice try, my clear meaning on this was who cares if one of your posts gets "disagrees"? Even if every member of this forum went back and disagreed with every single one of your posts, or mine, what would then occur? Will the seas rise? Will the mountains crumble? No, nothing will happen.

The emoji system is a nice way to gauge the temperament of the membership here that chose not to articulate a response via text. Maybe someone already typed their exact feelings, maybe they just had to get to work and didn't have time.

 

[usagora]

If another member has already typed out my disagreement why should I need to retype the exact same thing? That is stupid. See post #57.

You don't. Neither do you need to add a disagree emoji to it. If you have additional reasoning behind your disagreement that the other poster didn't touch on, then you can add a "disagree" emoji and add your 2 cents.

If "Likes" are fine to avoid "+1" and "me too" posts then "Disagree" can be used the exact same way, simple as that.

Apparently the forum administrators disagree with you (no pun intended), since they limit how many times you can dislike posts.

Nice try, my clear meaning on this was who cares if one of your posts gets "disagrees"? Even if every member of this forum went back and disagreed with every single one of your posts, or mine, what would then occur? Will the seas rise? Will the mountains crumble? No, nothing will happen.

Again, ask the admins. They're the ones restricting the use of the dislike button. With my idea, you could dislike all you want as long as you provide your reasoning. Seems like a good compromise to me!

The emoji system is a nice way to gauge the temperament of the membership here that chose not to articulate a response via text. Maybe someone already typed their exact feelings, maybe they just had to get to work and didn't have time.

So, using your logic, what will happen if they're not able to post a disagree emoji? Will the seas rise? Will the mountains crumble? 😉

 

[svenmany]

Aside from reading typed replies to any given post it is a way to gauge how the community that didn't type out a response feels about the post. IMHO they are generally two different groups of members with only a little crossover.

OK. I'll have to trust your ability to gauge that. I don't have that ability.

My question was looking for something a little deeper. For example, suppose someone subscribes to a service that tells them, with a 60% probability, how many clouds were in the sky at 10 PM on the previous day. I ask them what value they get from that. They answer that it tells them how many clouds were in the sky and they want to know that.

There are two problems here. One, they believe they've been told how many clouds were in the sky. They weren't; they were given a count with a probability. So they're being mislead. Two, unless it's just some kind of personal pleasure knowing how many clouds were in the sky, they haven't explained what value that information has for them.
If they were to explain that they have a statistical model that predicts hurricanes based on cloud counts, then I would understand the value.

Like the misunderstood cloud count, a thumbs down is also likely to mislead a reader. If I see a post with a single thumbs down, that's so little data for me to gauge anything about the community; I have no idea what the person's problem with the post was. Also, I almost never research the person who had the reaction. I have no idea if they're a regular or just a new visitor. I have no idea if they can reason well. Maybe they're just having a bad day. To be honest, if I see you or @belvdr giving a thumbs down, I'd give it more weight than a thumbs down from someone I don't recognize. But for the most part, I don't recognize or even notice the names of the people having reactions.

If I see a bunch of negative reactions, I still don't know what to conclude about how the community feels about the post. Are some of the disagreeing and others disliking? What parts of the post are they disliking since each person could be disliking different aspects of it.

I gotta say, if I dislike a post, I get pleasure when I see people giving it a negative reaction. If I like the post, I generally discount the reaction or think less of the person giving it. I don't think I'm healthy in this.

If I disagree with a post and I see a negative reaction, my beliefs are reenforced. That is dangerous. They might not share my beliefs and be disagreeing about something entirely different. I've really learned nothing, but I've been pushed into a more intransigent state.

My comments seem to apply to all the reactions, not just the thumbs down.

One of my posts above got an angry reaction. I have no idea what the person was angry about since I made a few points. Actually, I was the one having a bad day when I made the post; the thread on Brazil was making me very upset. My post had more emotion than I usually allow. It would have helped me to have received a reasoned response. But instead, MacRumors got the benefit of increased user engagement at my expense.

 

[svenmany]

Nice try, my clear meaning on this was who cares if one of your posts gets "disagrees"? Even if every member of this forum went back and disagreed with every single one of your posts, or mine, what would then occur? Will the seas rise? Will the mountains crumble? No, nothing will happen.

This explains a lot to me. It shows me that we are very different people; you have much thicker skin than I do. If every member of this forum disagreed with every single one of my posts, it would massively affect me. That you think nothing will happen means that it wouldn't affect you.

So I guess there is no way to reason to the correct answer to the thumbs down issue. A big part of it is just personal preference.

 

[usagora]

The official name of the reaction is disagree...which is less emotional in definition than dislike.

Meh. I feel both terms have the same weight, given that they're in reference to the content of a post, not a person themselves.

The problem with forcing an explanation for disagreeing is the same as forcing an explanation for liking.

As I explained earlier, "agreeing" with or "liking" someone's post doesn't require an explanation. I know you know this. Just think about the times you've posted what you believe was a well thought-out, informational post. You start getting floods of likes but no replies. Are you going to be scratching your head thinking "Why are they liking my post? Why aren't they explaining why they like it?" LOL! Of course not. On the other hand, if you start getting floods of "disagrees" but no replies, you're going to be wondering "Why the heck are they disagreeing with my post? What is there to possibly disagree with?!" That's the whole point of my idea. It prevents trolls from simply spamming dislikes or people disliking out of spite because they know they have no rational response. It promotes rational discussion.

eg - "the iphone 14 is the worst upgrade in history" garners 10 likes and 10 disagrees. And while it is a baseless, subjective statement devoid of any fact, the "disagreers" should have to explain their position more than the "likers"? Agreeing with a negative, baseless, subjective statement should require an explanation where disagreeing with a negative, baseless, subjective statement should be the norm.. But of course none of this can be written into the rules that can be enforced properly at the scale of MacRumors.

Why do we need to see disagree reactions? YouTube, for instance, for many years now only shows likes on comments and not dislikes. If I disagree with a comment on YouTube, I reply to it stating why. If I don't feel like replying, then I just move on. If that works for YT (and other sites, of course), it can work for MR. And the only rule that would be needed would be easy to enforce. The rule is when you click "disagree" you must provide a reason, and trying to circumvent this by just typing "n/a" or anything else that is clearly not a rational reason would cause the post and dislike to be removed and a strike against the user.

The overall issue is that some posters misuse the reaction system as evidenced by the 10 daily limit on disagree.

Which my idea would also address while also removing that limit. Win-win.

 

[maflynn]

So I guess there is no way to reason to the correct answer to the thumbs down issue. A big part of it is just personal preference.

This is a good point, we all react differently

Which my idea would also address while also removing that limit. Win-win.

I disagree. Having a policy of banning people because they did not give a reason for their disagree button is horrible. I also think forcing members to justify the use of certain reactions sends the wrong message and the end result would be doomed. To be honest, I really don't see the site owner doing something so extreme like that.

I agree MR is a discussion site, but there are many ways to communicate and convey your opinions and thoughts - not just words. Believe it or not, using thumbs up and thumbs down like reddit can convey just as well as words.

 

[usagora]

I disagree. Having a policy of banning people because they did not give a reason for their disagree button is horrible. I also think forcing members to justify the use of certain reactions sends the wrong message and the end result would be doomed. To be honest, I really don't see the site owner doing something so extreme like that.

"Horrible," "doomed", "extreme" ??? A bit over-dramatic there, don't you think? You're acting like I'm saying they require a 1000 word essay or ban people for life. It could be a single sentence as long as it's a rational reason. I understand not everyone will agree with my idea, but it's certainly not the words you used to describe it by any stretch of the imagination. Somehow I don't think people are going to leave MR in droves simply because they can't hit "disagree" without explaining why. Imo, those who would leave because of that would most likely be people not contributing anything worthwhile to the forum anyway.

I agree MR is a discussion site, but there are many ways to communicate and convey your opinions and thoughts - not just words. Believe it or not, using thumbs up and thumbs down like reddit can convey just as well as words.

I don't use Reddit. Do they limit how many times you can dislike per day? And I totally disagree that an emoji conveys just as well as written words (assuming, obviously that it's a thought-out response, not just "dislike" or "I disagree"). And as I've explained already, liking and disliking are not equivalent in weight and purpose (which is why this forum limits the latter and not the former).

 

[I7guy]

Meh. I feel both terms have the same weight, given that they're in reference to the content of a post, not a person themselves.

MacRumors calls the "thumbs down" a disagree, which is the name gotten by hovering over the button.

As I explained earlier, "agreeing" with or "liking" someone's post doesn't require an explanation. I know you know this.

I disagree. I posted an example where liking a negative, baseless, factually devoid post should require a response.

Just think about the times you've posted what you believe was a well thought-out, informational post. You start getting floods of likes but no replies. Are you going to be scratching your head thinking "Why are they liking my post? Why aren't they explaining why they like it?" LOL! Of course not. On the other hand, if you start getting floods of "disagrees" but no replies, you're going to be wondering "Why the heck are they disagreeing with my post? What is there to possibly disagree with?!" That's the whole point of my idea. It prevents trolls from simply spamming dislikes or people disliking out of spite because they know they have no rational response. It promotes rational discussion.



Why do we need to see disagree reactions? YouTube, for instance, for many years now only shows likes on comments and not dislikes. If I disagree with a comment on YouTube, I reply to it stating why. If I don't feel like replying, then I just move on. If that works for YT (and other sites, of course), it can work for MR. And the only rule that would be needed would be easy to enforce. The rule is when you click "disagree" you must provide a reason, and trying to circumvent this by just typing "n/a" or anything else that is clearly not a rational reason would cause the post and dislike to be removed and a strike against the user.

I'm confused, YT has thumbs up and thumbs down.

Which my idea would also address while also removing that limit. Win-win.

It is not a win-win for the moderators. It's a lose-lose in fact.

 

[maflynn]

"Horrible," "doomed", "extreme" ??? A bit over-dramatic there, don't you think?

I'm just offering my opinion of your idea. There's really not much for me to say other then what was already said. In the name of fairness, balance, equity, ying and yang - what ever you want to call it. If there's a like button, there ought to be a dislike button with no extra strings attached.

More often then not simple solutions tend to succeed and flourish. When you surround a solution with all sorts of conditions and constraints, the solution tends to become the problem imo. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[icanhazmac]

Neither do you need to add a disagree emoji to it.

But why shouldn't I be able to? In the case of our discussion on this topic most have taken to registering only "like" emoji in support of views we like but what harm in registering our disagreement both in text and emoji? Most times I choose to do this when acknowledging that someone is debating in good faith but if someone is just trolling with their responses I will then use an emoji alone or in conjunction with a typed response.

Apparently the forum administrators disagree with you (no pun intended), since they limit how many times you can dislike posts.

I doubt is is that personal, I assume it is because they are tired of trolls that spam "disagree" based not on an individual post but based on their dislike of another member. Unfortunately there are idiots, trolls and children everywhere.

I am in favor of lifting the 10/day disagree limit but I understand why it probably won't change.

Again, ask the admins. They're the ones restricting the use of the dislike button. With my idea, you could dislike all you want as long as you provide your reasoning.

All that will do is create tons of duplicate posts, just like it would on the positive side.

Which is better?

Member A: "Apple sux"
Member B: "I disagree, Apple has contributed many things to modern society"
Member C: "I disagree, Apple has contributed many things to modern society"
Member D: "I disagree, Apple has contributed many things to modern society"
Member E: "I disagree, Apple has contributed many things to modern society"
Member F: "I disagree, Apple has contributed many things to modern society"
...
Member Z: "I disagree, Apple has contributed many things to modern society"

Or

Member A: "Apple sux"
Member B: "I disagree, Apple has contributed many things to modern society"
Members C - Z: Disagree emoji to A, perhaps a Like to Member B

Also, sometimes members here create a thread or post that is clearly just trolling and an emoji is a way to register your opinion without "feeding" the bridge dwellers.

So, using your logic, what will happen if they're not able to do so? Will the seas rise? Will the mountains crumble?

You are right, the world will not stop but it does silence the voice of members that did not want to put their feelings in text. Maybe they didn't have the time, maybe they are not comfortable engaging in conversation, regardless they should be able to register their thoughts in more ways than one.

What a horrible existence some of you must have when you are so triggered by people simply not agreeing with you.

 

[usagora]

I doubt is is that personal, I assume it is because they are tired of trolls that spam "disagree" based not on an individual post but based on their dislike of another member.

But if dislikes aren't a big deal, then why would they care how many times people dislike comments or what their motivation is? Don't get me wrong--I agree with you that someone disliking your or my post shouldn't trigger us, and I am not triggered by it (contrary to your implication at the end of your post). But it is irritating when people dislike posts and not even one of them can (or is willing to) explain why. I don't lose sleep over it, but I do shake my head at it.

My idea isn't going to result in any more repeat posts than people would've made anyway, because it doesn't require people to dislike posts and reply. If you see a comment you don't agree with has already been disliked and refuted by someone else, you can just move on.

 

[usagora]

I'm just offering my opinion of your idea. There's really not much for me to say other then what was already said. In the name of fairness, balance, equity, ying and yang - what ever you want to call it. If there's a like button, there ought to be a dislike button with no extra strings attached.

More often then not simple solutions tend to succeed and flourish. When you surround a solution with all sorts of conditions and constraints, the solution tends to become the problem imo. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I understand you're offering your opinion. And I'm saying your opinion is over-dramatic, as I described. There are already "strings attached" to the dislike button, as you know (the site limits how many times you can use it per day). I don't think requiring a succinct, rational response for disagreeing is a complicated requirement. But since you want equal balance with likes and dislikes, I'm assuming your'e for lifting the limitation for using the dislike button. I'm also for that.

 

[usagora]

MacRumors calls the "thumbs down" a disagree, which is the name gotten by hovering over the button.

I get that. You then added your own interpretation that one term was less "emotional" than the other. I'm saying I disagree with that. I think they're both equally negative (which is not a bad thing . . . just saying).

I disagree. I posted an example where liking a negative, baseless, factually devoid post should require a response.

Nor should it require a "disagree" emoji if it is so self-evident.

I'm confused, YT has thumbs up and thumbs down.

Go to any YouTube video right now, look at the comments and tell me how many downvotes any comment has. You can't, because YouTube does not show dislikes.

It is not a win-win for the moderators. It's a lose-lose in fact.

No more than enforcing any other rule is 🤷🏼‍♂️ Simply putting a hard limit on the dislike button like they do now is definitely the easy way out, but is also too constraining.

 

[icanhazmac]

But if dislikes aren't a big deal, then why would they care how many times people dislike comments

Because we have some easily triggered, sensitive souls on this board that complain to the mods about "abusive" disagrees. Like you I could care less, I have a couple of children that follow me around from time to time with ironic use of the laughing emoji but instead of being triggered and reporting them for "abusive" behavior I prefer to let them label themselves as fools. Using the laughing emoji to indicate "I am laughing at you" or "mocking you" on MR is really stupid as you are doing nothing but feeding +1s to the reaction score, I find that irony hilarious.

 

[usagora]

Because we have some easily triggered, sensitive souls on this board that complain to the mods about "abusive" disagrees. Like you I could care less, I have a couple of children that follow me around from time to time with ironic use of the laughing emoji but instead of being triggered and reporting them for "abusive" behavior I prefer to let them label themselves as fools. Using the laughing emoji to indicate "I am laughing at you" or "mocking you" on MR is really stupid as you are doing nothing but feeding +1s to the reaction score, I find that irony hilarious.

Then you'd think the same restriction would apply to the "angry" emoji and at least somewhat to the "laughing" emoji, because if someone's triggered by a thumbs down, I imagine they'd also be triggered by those other two. Oh well.