Maybe you can replace the "Disagree" reaction with a "This post sucks" reaction. Use a little vacuum cleaner icon. No room for ambiguity there!
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Withdrawn from sale on MR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
Playing devils advocate, I see "likes" as being detrimental to conversation and potentially as lazy and ambiguous as "disagree"
As an example:
Member A Posts: Wow, the new iPhones look great!
Member B Responds with a Post: I agree, the phones look great, I love the colors.
Member C Responds with a Post: I agree, I love the smaller bezels!
Member D Responds only with a Like emoji to Member A
What about the new iPhones did Member D like? Color, shape, size, processor, camera? Pretty ambiguous and really didn't contribute to the conversation. See how useless the "like" is?
I do find it amusing that there's no Thumbs Down, but an Angry face. ANd the Angry face is somehow less offensive or less negative than a thumbs down? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But I do wish there were more reactions available for a more emotive nuance.
Especially when the person isn't actually angry, they just disagree.
Somehow, anger is preferable to disagreement.
Group think, indeed.
The thing is, with 'like' if you're using it to agree, it's pretty easy to follow that you agree with what the person is saying because of what they have written. No more necessarily needs to be said, though you could expand if you want. A disagreement will almost always warrant further expansion/ explanation, otherwise I find it can come across more as a drive-by F-U.
Yes, very well articulated!
What about the new iPhones did Member A like? Member D's response adds no ambiguity.
Except in purely binary situations (true/false), negation is ambiguous. "Yes, blue" has one meaning, blue. "No, not blue" has no one meaning-- it doesn't mean red, it doesn't mean green, it doesn't mean fuchsia, and it doesn't mean "anything but blue". It's ambiguous.
I am sure I read somewhere that using the disagree/dislike reaction reduces your rep or likes, or something like that. So use it and you get punished in a way for using it.
LOL, true, I cannot speak to Member A's lazy original post.
I don't really believe that I, was just trying to prove the point that trying to claim blanket agreement is any different than blanket disagreement is a disingenuous argument.
When looking at a short thread I absolutely will read through 2-4 pages of posts to see what our community thinks and feels but when I come across a mature thread, 10 pages or more, I value being able to look at an individual post and see how the community felt about it, via the emoji reactions. There are times when I just don't want to read through 10 pages of responses looking for those that disagreed with a post in order to see how many "liked" the disagreement. That is a poor way to gauge the temperature of the community, in that regard emoji serves a valuable purpose.
I heard it makes you go blind if you use it too much...
Last edited:
I wish it was easier to see a threaded view so I could click a post and see all the existing replies. That would make it a lot easier to know if what I wanted to say has already been said. Sometimes you can search a thread in a way that bubbles up the replies (I think if I search "come across a mature thread" in this thread I'll get your post and my response to it), but it's cumbersome to say the least.
I just clicked on the "like" button for a couple of posts above mine because there is no "agree" button, which really would more accurately reflect my sentiments. If we're going to have these darned "reactions" at all, at least they should be far more nuanced than they have been. That's possible, I know it is, as I've seen it on other forums. We may not necessarily like something someone has written but at the same time we agree with it, or we may disagree with something....
It just seems as though clicking on the "like" button is an all too easy and imprecise move even when it doesn't reflect the reader's true thoughts. In the same way, that "angry" button really seems to be going to extremes for what is probably not that strong of a sentiment over what someone has posted. This boils down to: does the reader agree or disagree with someone else has written?
A member faced with few "reaction" choices hitting the "angry" button when he or she really simply just happens to disagree with the OP or someone else in a thread but right at that time is not ready to engage in a discussion about that disagreement when hitting the "angry" button is really not conveying the meaning and the message that he or she probably really is thinking and really means.
Is the member responding to a post with the "anger" reaction genuinely livid, furious, absolutely red-hot angry about something someone has posted or is it really more a matter of simply disagreeing with the post or disliking the person who has posted? Whichever the actual case, the use of the "angry" button certainly comes across as very strong and probably too often appears inappropriately in some threads or subforums.
Ditto when at times some of us hit the "like" button when really it is in many situations a case of just wanting to say, "I agree" with something said by someone in a thread. I may agree with something but not actually like it. As of right now the way the forum is set up, I have two choices: I can mindlessly hit the "like" button to express some sentiment even though it is not exactly reflecting what I am actually thinking or I can not hit any reaction button at all. Most of the time I do have the time to add a post of my own to whatever the discussion is and (hopefully) in many situations that will clarify my thinking process in the first place.
It would be nice to be able to hit the "like" button when it is simply reflecting the sentiment of, "yes, I like this idea/concept/post" and to be able to hit the "agree" button when it's more a matter of "I agree with you...."
Ditto for having the option to hit the "disagree" button in situations where one disagrees with what is posted but which really is not a scenario involving full-out anger....
It just seems as though clicking on the "like" button is an all too easy and imprecise move even when it doesn't reflect the reader's true thoughts. In the same way, that "angry" button really seems to be going to extremes for what is probably not that strong of a sentiment over what someone has posted. This boils down to: does the reader agree or disagree with someone else has written?
A member faced with few "reaction" choices hitting the "angry" button when he or she really simply just happens to disagree with the OP or someone else in a thread but right at that time is not ready to engage in a discussion about that disagreement when hitting the "angry" button is really not conveying the meaning and the message that he or she probably really is thinking and really means.
Is the member responding to a post with the "anger" reaction genuinely livid, furious, absolutely red-hot angry about something someone has posted or is it really more a matter of simply disagreeing with the post or disliking the person who has posted? Whichever the actual case, the use of the "angry" button certainly comes across as very strong and probably too often appears inappropriately in some threads or subforums.
Ditto when at times some of us hit the "like" button when really it is in many situations a case of just wanting to say, "I agree" with something said by someone in a thread. I may agree with something but not actually like it. As of right now the way the forum is set up, I have two choices: I can mindlessly hit the "like" button to express some sentiment even though it is not exactly reflecting what I am actually thinking or I can not hit any reaction button at all. Most of the time I do have the time to add a post of my own to whatever the discussion is and (hopefully) in many situations that will clarify my thinking process in the first place.
It would be nice to be able to hit the "like" button when it is simply reflecting the sentiment of, "yes, I like this idea/concept/post" and to be able to hit the "agree" button when it's more a matter of "I agree with you...."
Ditto for having the option to hit the "disagree" button in situations where one disagrees with what is posted but which really is not a scenario involving full-out anger....
I guess if there are a significant number of people who so tightly wound that they translate "disagree" as "FU", I dunno what to say other than there are a lot more people who need therapy and/or deprogramming than I realized.
Indeed. Often I just simply don't agree with a post, so I disagree with the statement being made by using the disagree reaction. I don't feel that I need to explain myself to express a view.
And besides a lot of the time, I know that making a comment just gets a stupid reply, like that one 5 up ^ or it starts a pointless you're wrong, I'm right waste of energy series of posts.
Certainly if someone actually writes out his or her disagreement and questions things that can lead to the member being challenged, directly or indirectly confronted by other members in the discussion or privately, and there is the possibility of them in the future being shunned or ignored by other members. None of us has to like or agree with our forum mates, we're all in this together, after all, but yes, personality conflicts and disagreements over various situations do occur, and that's all part of being a participant in an online forum.
Some members on a forum are probably going to be more likable, more popular, and that's just the way life works. Usually the ones who express disagreement with various situations are going to not be part of the popular crowd, even when they bring up issues which should be of genuine concern to all. So be it.
Probably the same outcome would occur if any member simply hit the "disagree" button many times over, with or without expressing his or her actual thoughts as to why they disagree with something. At least in the first instance others know exactly with what particular things a member is disagreeing, but in the case of someone simply hitting the "angry" or "dislike" button, that is all left up to guesswork.
I agree to a point but then if I use the like, funny or love reaction, nobody expects me to explain why I like, love or find it funny.
But I must justify why I am shocked, angry or disagree.
Why can't a reaction be exactly what it is? A reaction.
It goes back to the point above, too many people get offended or triggered just because a certain reaction is used. That is the issue more than me having to justify my reason for using it.
Anyway, I don't care either way. Nothing is changing but some interesting posts. Some of which I could have reacted to with a disagree to save me time had it been available
So basically you want to be able to publicly position yourself against something without being respectful enough of the person you're opposing to explain why and without the risk of having your views challenged?
That's exactly the mechanism by which a "disagree" button degrades a discussion.
If there's anything I'd suggest, it'd be removing the "angry" reaction. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, it's simply just a negative reaction with no purpose.
And I know the purpose of the "disagree" reaction is to imply that you disagree with someone's opinion, which is totally fine, not everyone has to agree with everything you say. But it's sadly being used in a negative way most of the time.
So yeah, I think removing the negative reactions but keeping the rest is the best solution in my opinion.
And I know the purpose of the "disagree" reaction is to imply that you disagree with someone's opinion, which is totally fine, not everyone has to agree with everything you say. But it's sadly being used in a negative way most of the time.
So yeah, I think removing the negative reactions but keeping the rest is the best solution in my opinion.
Once again, you have expressed this very well, and I agree with you.
Why would you want to do this?
Why would you wish to post either of these reactions?
Are they likely to engender an atmosphere of respectful and reasonable discussion and debate?
I don't follow? Obviously I don't mean a literal FU, just, as others have tried to explain to you, it may come across as a bit disrespectful to throw out a low-effort button click to disagree, when you can't be bothered to put forward your own opinion, or at least explain your point of contention. i.e. it could be seen as just a little bit rude when someone has gone to the effort of typing out their opinion on a matter...
Perhaps it's a matter of personal sensibilities, but it's sort of the equivalent in an IRL conversation of you explaining something, and the other person giving a derisive 'rubbish' in response and with no further expansion, rather than offering their contrasting POV, and therefore explaining why they disagree.
Exactly, generally that is considered high handed, or rude. Implicit is that you consider who you are responding to is beneath you, and therefore not worth the effort of explaining yourself. It's a subtle unwritten nuance, but this sort of thing does come across naturally if you're brought up with more polite or middle class sensibilities.
I'll keep using reactions as I always have. It all stems from my lack of polite, middle-class sensibilities.
In reality it doesn’t bother me really as if anybody leaves any type of reaction to my posts, it shows as a ‘like’ by default on Tapatalk anyway. I rarely use the desktop version of this site so don’t really see if anybody dislikes or leaves angry reaction clicks on my posts anyway.