Dislike daily limit

[techfreak23]

Why is there still a daily limit for this? If there’s a limit for dislikes, there should be a limit for ALL reactions. This trying to protect people’s feelings on the internet is ridiculous. You guys care about spamming the dislike button but it’s okay to spam the like button? Wtf

 

[icanhazmac]

Minor point but it is "Disagree" which is completely different from Dislike.

Anyway, I have suggested removing the limit for contributors who are IMHO less likely to spam the response as a troll against a single member.

 

[The Clark]

How are you even hitting the limit? You don’t have to dislike everything that you see. I didn’t even know that there was a dislike limit.

I agree the dislike shouldn’t upset people, it’s just a reaction on a forum site however hitting the limit on a regular basis is wild. Maybe just learn to keep scrolling.

 

[icanhazmac]

How are you even hitting the limit?

The limit is 10 I believe, it's not hard to hit if you are an active member.

 

[rm5]

I did not know there was a limit to disagree reactions... huh. Since I never use it, I don't really care either way.

 

[Chuckeee]

There are occasional trolling issues here, so a reasonable daily limit on “disagree” thumbs-down reactions is an unfortunate necessity, in my opinion.

And if there is a user or a topic where you feel a need to use many thumb-down reactions; Using the ignore function might be a better response

 

[rm5]

Why is there still a daily limit for this? If there’s a limit for dislikes, there should be a limit for ALL reactions. This trying to protect people’s feelings on the internet is ridiculous. You guys care about spamming the dislike button but it’s okay to spam the like button? Wtf

I don't think there should be a limit for reactions, disagree included. I don't necessarily think "spamming" is the correct word though—to me, that implies a single individual reacting with something multiple times on the same post... which is impossible. What would happen is that a bunch of different people would react to a post with whatever. Now, using that logic, a daily dislike limit actually makes absolutely no sense to me. You can't "spam" the dislike reaction on a single post—as in, "MAN, I REALLY HATE THAT, so I'ma spam the dislike button 20 times!!!"

Here's the thing—I see no difference between a person spamming the dislike button on 20 posts, and the same person liking (as in reacting with "like") 20 posts of the opposing view.

 

[VisceralRealist]

As I always say: the disagree is treated differently from the like. It isn't just that there's a daily limit on the number you can give, the disagree reaction is also restricted to the News section of the forum. Is it that you want the disagree to be treated no differently from the like, including allowing its usage anywhere in the forum, not just the News sub-forum?

The site staff clearly have found reason to treat the disagree differently, in giving it multiple restrictions. Even the fact that it's called "disagree" and its supposed opposite is called "like" indicate the degree to which it is different and is not simply a counterpart to the like. It seems to me that its function is to help in the promotion/demotion of posts on news articles. It is not simply to express that you don't like someone's post anywhere in the forum.

And yes, the fact that it is negative sets it apart. It can be used to lower someone's "like" score, and what would stop someone from going through the posts of someone they don't like and simply "disagreeing" them all? How many is too many before it becomes trolling?

I'm fine with the current restrictions. If you have to dislike someone's posts that badly, maybe come back the next day when you have your arsenal of "disagrees" refilled and you've cooled off and question whether it's really that important to dole them out again.

 

[I7guy]

As I always say: the disagree is treated differently from the like. It isn't just that there's a daily limit on the number you can give, the disagree reaction is also restricted to the News section of the forum. Is it that you want the disagree to be treated no differently from the like, including allowing its usage anywhere in the forum, not just the News sub-forum?

The site staff clearly have found reason to treat the disagree differently, in giving it multiple restrictions. Even the fact that it's called "disagree" and its supposed opposite is called "like" indicate the degree to which it is different and is not simply a counterpart to the like. It seems to me that its function is to help in the promotion/demotion of posts on news articles. It is not simply to express that you don't like someone's post anywhere in the forum.

And yes, the fact that it is negative sets it apart. It can be used to lower someone's "like" score, and what would stop someone from going through the posts of someone they don't like and simply "disagreeing" them all? How many is too many before it becomes trolling?

I'm fine with the current restrictions. If you have to dislike someone's posts that badly, maybe come back the next day when you have your arsenal of "disagrees" refilled and you've cooled off and question whether it's really that important to dole them out again.

I find the multiple posters liking a “distorted” post is just as distasteful as using the disagree button to spam a particular post.

 

[fatTribble]

I often get a Disagree for a post that I can’t for the life of me figure out what was controversial. I really wish folks would give a quick response saying what they disagree with.

A couple of folks did this so much I looked at their postings. It was just a full page of Dislikes and no text ever posted.

 

[icanhazmac]

Even if the limit stays in place I would like to see "disagree" opened to all posts.

I cannot imagine why "Angry" is considered more appropriate for member created content than "Disagree". I disagree with a lot of posts, I am genuinely angry at very few.

 

[VisceralRealist]

The "angry" reaction can be used sympathetically, i.e. "I am angry too". The "disagree" is really only meant to express opposition to a post.

My experiences on other sites that allow "dislikes" anywhere tell me that it would invite more drama, and thus more work for the mods. So I don't see them expanding its usage.

 

[rm5]

The "angry" reaction can be used sympathetically, i.e. "I am angry too". The "disagree" is really only meant to express opposition to a post.

Thanks for this explanation, cause I have always been confused as to the difference between the two. That changes my argument then—there should be a limit to dislikes if it's used that way.

 

[icanhazmac]

The "angry" reaction can be used sympathetically, i.e. "I am angry too"

I suppose it could be but if you look at the actual usage it is a cross between "oops, I hit my disagree limit so I will use angry face" or as a "disagree" for user created threads.

If I had to guess, angry face is used 100/1, or more, for disagree vs I'm angry too. This follows suit for laughing face which is probably used 50/50 for laughing with you versus laughing at you.

 

[za9ra22]

I don't even have a dislike button! I feel left out. These are all I get...

 

[NoBoMac]

Dislike is available in news threads, not available in "general" threads.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The "angry" reaction can be used sympathetically, i.e. "I am angry too". The "disagree" is really only meant to express opposition to a post.

My experiences on other sites that allow "dislikes" anywhere tell me that it would invite more drama, and thus more work for the mods. So I don't see them expanding its usage.

It can be "used sympathetically", yes, but, all too dismally often, this is not how it is used on these and other fora.

 

[techfreak23]

And yes, the fact that it is negative sets it apart. It can be used to lower someone's "like" score, and what would stop someone from going through the posts of someone they don't like and simply "disagreeing" them all? How many is too many before it becomes trolling?

My point is it’s largely to protect people’s feelings on the internet. Your last line makes that clear. One can spam someone’s comments with likes all they want to boost their score and that’s okay? If someone is trolling, there are ways to deal with that with a report and a quick investigation. Accounts purposefully targeting people can be banned. The majority of users aren’t using it that way anyway.
If it’s a controversial post with upwards of over 100 comments or a “political” post with those restrictions, there are going to be a lot of comments liked and a lot of comments with which one “disagrees”. It’s ridiculous that they can like as many as they want but are limited on the other. In those cases it allows comments to look more positively received because in reality people were limited in disagreeing with it. Also people arguing, “can you tell me why you disagree? REPLY.” We don’t have to reply, especially if we feel we wouldn’t be adding to it or our counter points have already been made in other comments that we are limitlessly allowed to like. I reply and quote comments when I feel it is necessary just as I do if I agree with something.

 

[techfreak23]

I don't think there should be a limit for reactions, disagree included. I don't necessarily think "spamming" is the correct word though—to me, that implies a single individual reacting with something multiple times on the same post... which is impossible. What would happen is that a bunch of different people would react to a post with whatever. Now, using that logic, a daily dislike limit actually makes absolutely no sense to me. You can't "spam" the dislike reaction on a single post—as in, "MAN, I REALLY HATE THAT, so I'ma spam the dislike button 20 times!!!"

Here's the thing—I see no difference between a person spamming the dislike button on 20 posts, and the same person liking (as in reacting with "like") 20 posts of the opposing view.

Posts can only be reacted to once. This is mainly talking about comments. They would rather attempt to protect people’s feelings on the internet and artificially sway comments to the positive side. 10 disagrees a day is ridiculous. That can be spent in minutes on a single controversial post with a few pages of comments, but like and use any other reaction all you want.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

My point is it’s largely to protect people’s feelings on the internet.

And what is wrong with that?

Being allowed, or permitted, to express oneself in an uninhibited manner does not - or, ought not - allow casual insult, or deliberately giving profound offence under the blanket, or cover, of the protection afforded by the ideal, or notion, of "free speech".

An argument ought to be possible without having to seek recourse to insulting or offending someone. Answer (refute, rebut) the argument, rather than insult the person making - or advancing - that argument.

Worse, and moreover, and most unfortunately, language isn't neutral.

Alas, all too often, it comes complete with the cultural baggage and weighted with the freight of those who have the right to use it, and the right to define what words mean, and how they are used (and abused).

The thing is, advocating the right to (untrammelled) free speech is all too often a convenient cover for allowing insult, or excusing offence on the grounds that those who are traduced - and who then react, stung - are feeble beings unable to handle their "feelings".

If, in a post, arguments are addressed (rather than people insulted) acknowledging - or, being obliged to acknowledge - "feelings" should no longer be anything of an issue.

 

[VisceralRealist]

@techfreak23 Just going through some of the threads in the Political News section, there's a lot of frustration with "dislikes" and "angry-face" reactions received. It's not surprising to me that the two most negative reactions are making people angry and demanding an explanation for their usage. You may not demand that someone reply to you when you're downvoted, but enough people do that I think it proves my point that the dislike (and the negative reactions more broadly) is fundamentally different from the others. It's just silly to pretend that a post getting a lot of likes is no different than a post getting a lot of dislikes. Of course it's different. One is negative, one is bad, one makes the poster frustrated/angry/upset.

 

[rm5]

They would rather attempt to protect people’s feelings on the internet and artificially sway comments to the positive side.

I will not say one way or the other what is happening, because I don't even know. Does it really matter though?

Of course it's different. One is negative, one is bad, one makes the poster frustrated/angry/upset.

Precisely.

 

[fatTribble]

Also people arguing, “can you tell me why you disagree? REPLY.” We don’t have to reply, especially if we feel we wouldn’t be adding to it or our counter points have already been made in other comments that we are limitlessly allowed to like. I reply and quote comments when I feel it is necessary just as I do if I agree with something.

Of course people don’t have to reply.

In my experience, I’ve seen a large number of Disagree’s both on my own posts and others that seemed entirely uncontroversial. So whatever point the Disagree was supposed to make, didn’t.

 

[icanhazmac]

It's just silly to pretend that a post getting a lot of likes is no different than a post getting a lot of dislikes. Of course it's different. One is negative, one is bad, one makes the poster frustrated/angry/upset.

Then why do you "disagree" without posting a reason/response?

A quick check of that thread will reveal that you gave me a "disagree" without following it up with a post.

By your own logic your intention must have been to make me frustrated/angry/upset? Hello pot, my name is kettle. I get red reactions without words all the time, including from you, and couldn't care less. I am not narcissistic enough to believe that everyone will agree with my every thought.

Why do you and others continue to claim it is "dislike" when it is very clearly "disagree"? There is a large difference between the two. As an example, if you are addressing a group of people and someone looks at you and says "I dislike you" and another says "I disagree with you" do you treat those reactions the same? I doubt it.

 

[VisceralRealist]

Please cite me where I claimed that any "disagree" vote needs to be accompanied by a response. My observation was that in some threads in the News section, users were demanding an explanation for disagrees or angry reactions (especially when they received a lot of them), meaning that people do get incensed by them, thus proving they are often viewed differently from other reactions (no one asks for an explanation for a lot of likes). I never claimed that I don't use the reaction or that a disagree or angry reaction must be accompanied by an explanation.

I also never said that anyone using the disagree reaction is trying to upset the user. I said that sometimes people who receive a lot of disagrees are upset with receiving them, as evidenced by their demanding an explanation for them. You don't demand an explanation if you are content with the reaction you got.

My argument all along has been that the disagree is not the inverse of the like, as the OP seemed to be implying (and yes, even I fell into that trap by mistakenly referring to it as the "dislike"). I was providing evidence of the ways in which it is different and why I think there are restrictions on its use. Not that it should be removed or that I never use it myself.