What do the like responses mean?

[theluggage]

if any bother you, ignore them. Digital "sticks & stones..."

...good advice, although maybe easier said than done for those who haven't been developing a thick online skin since the days of comp.sys.mac - and it doesn't excuse someone going out of their way to harass an individual. Given that some people will abuse the responses I think it's reasonable to ask what advantages they bring to justify that risk - and I really don't think there's a reason for "angry" to exist.

we need an "octopus" one......for those who over-spend on an MacBook

...or anybody who wants to summon Cthulhu?

Disagreement can yield robust debate.

Just clicking "disagree", "angry" or "wow" without a supporting argument has nothing to do with "robust debate". If you have a counter-argument or correction, either take the time to write a response - or "like" a post that has already done that. "laugh" is OK in response to a joke of funny anecdote, but if people are going to abuse it, well, you could always "like" a joke (or come up with a funny comeback).

If people don't have time to respond, that's unfortunate but comes under the heading of "their life, their problem", and if they can't find civil words to express their anger then maybe they should step away from the keyboard, make a cup of tea (not coffee) and think happy thoughts for a few minutes.

If you actually want a straw poll on a subject, there's a button for that (not that the results will mean anything).

Come on MR, fix it!

Just having "like" would be perfectly adequate.

However, the real abomination that urgently needs fixing is that I can't type a proper "colon hyphen parentheses" emoticon as Professor Ascii intended without the software trying to change it to a hideous yellow smilie emoji. Now, where's that "angry" response =:-O

 

[icanhazmac]

If you actually want a straw poll on a subject, there's a button for that (not that the results will mean anything).

Yes, you can create a poll for the topic or first post, you cannot create one for responses, that is what emoji can do.

If people don't have time to respond, that's unfortunate but comes under the heading of "their life, their problem", and if they can't find civil words to express their anger then maybe they should step away from the keyboard, make a cup of tea (not coffee) and think happy thoughts for a few minutes.

If people cannot handle tiny red emoji perhaps they are the ones that should step away and allow the well adjusted adults to communicate?

Just having "like" would be perfectly adequate.

That is your opinion, and you care certainly entitled to it, but I would find that approach wholly inadequate. I feel the more communication options we have the better.

 

[theluggage]

If people cannot handle tiny red emoji perhaps they are the ones that should step away and allow the well adjusted adults to communicate?

Well adjusted adults should be able to communicate without getting "angry" (esp. on a forum about consumer electronics - perspective, folks!) and be able to express the reasons why they disagree with something.

I've yet to see any reasoned argument as to what benefit the "red emojis" actually bring to the table. If they discourage some people from posting (esp. the "angry" one) and can be removed without losing anything of value, then perhaps they should go, making the world a slightly nicer place.

Anybody who actually wants to "communicate" is always free to write a proper response.

Yes, you can create a poll for the topic or first post, you cannot create one for responses,

...anybody can create a new poll thread on a relevant topic and post "Hey, I created a poll here..."

that is what emoji can do.

No they can't - the whole complaint about them is that they don't have a consistent meaning and, worse still, just counting emojis risks ignoring anybody who's actually posted a proper response.

A poll thread is still statistically dubious, but at least each response has a well-defined meaning (...and people can critique the design of the poll in the contents).

 

[icanhazmac]

Well adjusted adults should be able to communicate without getting "angry"

I totally agree, this is "forced" upon the community by MR not allowing and limiting disagree. If we could disagree I think use of "angry face" would drop at least 75%. This is the reason I very rarely use "angry face", it is largely inappropriate. As I have said before, 9/10 times I am genuinely angry at a post it gets mod'd in short order. I would much prefer we could just register a disagree without all that added emotion. MR, so far at least, seems content with us being angry at each other.

...anybody can create a new poll thread on a relevant topic and post "Hey, I created a poll here..."

Creating poll threads for responses to a 10 page thread is not practical. If I would like to know how our community felt about 10 well thought out responses I would need to create a poll for each?!?! That would get old quickly.

No they can't - the whole complaint about them is that they don't have a consistent meaning

Really only "laughing face" suffers this kind of abuse. As I have said many times, those that abuse it by "laughing at you" are giving their target a +1 to their reaction score and boosting that persons post so who wins?

and, worse still, just counting emojis risks ignoring anybody who's actually posted a proper response.

I don't see that as being an issue. You generally wouldn't emote or check the emotes of a post you didn't read.

 

[theluggage]

I totally agree, this is "forced" upon the community by MR not allowing and limiting disagree.

Nobody is forcing anybody to mis-use "angry face" to mean "disagree". Reply and type "I disagree" or - better still - "I disagree because...".

 

[icanhazmac]

Nobody is forcing anybody to mis-use "angry face" to mean "disagree". Reply and type "I disagree" or - better still - "I disagree because...".

Some members want to use emoji responses... when you only have a hammer everything looks like a nail.

Angry face is there and used by the community in whatever way they feel like using them. It is sad that some members act like children. I also refuse to use angry face as a "disagree" but some don't mind it at all. MR seems to encourage the practice by not providing a more appropriate emoji response choice, even though they could very easily do so.

I cannot fathom why "disagree" is not available to user created content so when it comes up I make sure my vote is placed.

 

[icanhazmac]

If you have a counter-argument or correction, either take the time to write a response - or "like" a post that has already done that.

Why is it ok to like or agree with a post without explaining why but not ok to disagree without explaining? Wouldn't the explanation of why people support a position be equally valuable?

Example:

Member A: I like the memory options on the new mac mini

Member B: 👍

So did Member B mean:

Member B: Yes, I really appreciate the increase to X gb on the base model.

or

Member B: Yes, the max increase from X to Y gb will be valuable to those with heavy workloads.

Which provides more context and fosters more conversation? You can't have it both ways, either we allow emoji responses or we don't.

 

[theluggage]

You can't have it both ways, either we allow emoji responses or we don't.

Member A: 👍
Member B: 👎