Reactions–Yea or Nay?

2

Comments

  • John HudsonJohn Hudson Posts: 1,659
    With regard to the Like/Dislike flags, I find that I often refrain from using them because a post contains both statements with which I agree and those with which I do not. On the same grounds, I'm sometimes left wondering with which parts of a post others are indicating they agree or disagree. With all of it? With some part of it?

    The 'Insightful' flag seems most useful overall.
  • With regard to the Like/Dislike flags, I find that I often refrain from using them because a post contains both statements with which I agree and those with which I do not.
    In critique threads I've been tempted to put every suggestion in a separate comment just to head off that very ambiguity.
  • Ben BlomBen Blom Posts: 235
    Being able to express approval via a simple ‘agree’ mark gives valuable feedback about the quality of a post
    When a post is basically an opinion, an "agree" reaction means just that. Even when a post is not like an opinion, an "agree" reaction means just that. Quality cannot be defined as something that people agree with.
    Knowing that people agree with a post, or like it, or disagree with it, can be valuable feedback — when its value is not overstated.
  • Good point. The amount of agrees does indeed not indicate much about the quality of the post. But as you can also see *who* agrees, that does make it valuable.
  • Thomas PhinneyThomas Phinney Posts: 1,595
    Jan: Going in and trying to sell *anything* in the middle of that meeting would be intrusive. Using the built-in feedback mechanism that James put in place to give feedback to James seems useful. This discussion board is not a democracy, which is fine. But clearly James thinks feedback is useful, and like Frode and others I think that it is a fine thing to let him know when we agree with him—or don’t.

    There are a variety of blogs and other media that I either own outright or am an administrator on. Recently somebody pointed out that something I said seemed condescending. I really appreciated it, as I had not intended to come across that way on that issue. I changed it.

    Feedback is good.
  • Chris DeanChris Dean Posts: 10
    edited April 2013
    @Jan: I’m indifferent on the reaction features, but I have strong feelings on trash-talking people behind their back.
  • Chris, you have just recently used all the reaction features to the hilt yourself: no one before you used the troll and abuse marks as much. And, you used the troll mark on me too. I take that personally, especially from someone who is purportedly "indifferent" to the reaction features. Did you not just "trash-talk me behind my back" yourself, to paraphrase your quote?

    I feel that you think you are here to "moderate" Typedrawers (including the rightful owner/moderator James P.), as well as you are "moderating" Typophile. I do not like being moderated by you. I do not think you qualify, and I did not sign up for that. Whatever your motivation might be, and I admit it might even be honourable, you have overstepped the mark.
  • Chris DeanChris Dean Posts: 10
    edited April 2013
    I don’t consider responding to posts to be moderating. Simply voicing an opinion on statements. Nor do I consider voicing an opinion through use of a consciously implemented feature to be overstepping my bounds. As far as my role on Typophile, I don’t think you understand what I do. I sincerely hope your “moderating” comment to that effect was not intended as passive-agressive sarcasm.
  • Did you not just "trash-talk me behind my back" yourself, to paraphrase your quote?
    Not at all. You're able to see he's tagged you, so it's completely transparent.

    With regard to your disgust that someone would have the temerity to flag James on his own forum, I'd contend that someone who was genuinely interested in productive interaction would not abuse their position. It's telling that he's weighing up the idea of scrapping the tagging feature now he's been at the sharp end of it.
  • Chris DeanChris Dean Posts: 10
    edited April 2013
    As a result of our conversation, something just occurred to me. Here is my thought process: If I read something, and have the option/feel the need to voice opinion on it, I am going to do so through use of the Reaction feature. If this results in a perception of an attempt to moderate or overstep my bounds, so be it. The fact that you can see who agrees, disagrees, considers something to be abusive, &c may have the potential to foster animosity between individuals. If this is the case, then perhaps the Reaction feature might be somewhat problematic (it is my understanding that the Reaction feature is a plugin of sorts, and cannot be modified without significant effort). I guess we’ll just have to see how it plays out. I do know from other conversations however, that people feel somewhat slighted when their honest reactions are moderated and edited. At this point I may be moving towards “nay.”
  • Best to switch off reactions *and* comments altogether then. That will make sure nobody gets hurt...
  • The reaction feature was no problem until Chris started abusing it.
  • You're able to see he's tagged you, so it's completely transparent.
    So is a signed, public comment about any topic, which started this whole mess. What are you complaining about?
  • It appears that the majority of the members here have a positive opinion on the reactions buttons. I like them and hope they stay. What I dislike is that the "Flag" button is the only one that is visible until the "roll over".
  • the "Flag" button is the only one that is visible
    That may be just to reduce the visual clutter on the page. Unfortunately, it contains the spam, abuse and troll marks, so perhaps it is too attractive at first glance. Oops, another troll mark coming …
  • Chris DeanChris Dean Posts: 10
    edited April 2013
    If you consider my using the Reactions feature as abusing it, that’s your prerogative. And I find your “oops” style remarks infantile, painfully rhetorical, and text-book Troll. I’m not going to bother dignifying your further remarks on this subject with any attention.
  • Jan SchmoegerJan Schmoeger Posts: 280
    edited April 2013
    Infantile? Me? No attention?
    Thanks for obliging with the troll mark so promptly. Yes Chris, you are indifferent.
  • "So is a signed, public comment about any topic, which started this whole mess. What are you complaining about?"
    Well, I'm not actually making a complaint am I? I'm simply drawing your attention to the fact that a tag made on your own post, that was bound to be seen by you, does not really count as 'behind your back'.
  • Nick ShinnNick Shinn Posts: 1,435
    Is it possible to add a "you post too much, it's annoying" button?
    LOL. A major reason for TypeDrawers was to create an environment safe from Hrant Papazian’s inescapable moralizing. What would a “get down off your soapbox” button look like?
  • Frode, personal attacks are covered in James' basic rules for the board.
  • I'm really digging the "abuse" and "troll" flags. I have my fair share. Personally I think it speaks volumes of the person applying those flags. I've gotten them for agreeing with Ray Larabie, for stating I am done with Typophile, for pointing out that Sweden is a haven for IP pirates. Most have come from members who have fewer than 20 comments. Thin skins perhaps?

    I've thrown a few around myself, and maybe I should have been more considerate, before I did that, but hey, what the hell, the button is there and if you piss me off, I'll toss you a "flag". As you should when I piss you off. At least we have a mechanism to voice an opinion, unlike Typophile where all you can do is either argue with the morons or just sit there and take it.

    If I could mark my own post as "abuse" maybe I would. WTFRC!
  • tag made on your own post, that was bound to be seen by you, does not really count as 'behind your back'
    Chris, when it happens retrospectively, on older entries in threads which you are unlikely to check until you have a reason to, it's not exactly obvious. I'll shut up now :-)
  • James PuckettJames Puckett Posts: 1,655
    Can we perhaps agree -- and maybe have it stated in the forum rules -- that the 'Spam', 'Abuse' and 'Troll' flags should be used responsibly and for serious purpose, i.e. to flag something that should potentially be removed by the moderator.
    Good idea! The rules have been updated.
    A major reason for TypeDrawers was to create an environment safe from Hrant Papazian’s inescapable moralizing.
    The major reasons for TypeDrawers were spam and technical issues on Typophile. Being able to block Hrant is just an added benefit.
  • I'm new to this board, having signed on just today. I'm afraid that, as the board grows, the number of buttons and flags and pictures may eventually overwhelm the content. This page has a pretty high noise to signal ratio. (It might help to bump up the type size a notch.) I'd hate to think what will happen when the lunatic and lonely from Typophile get their hands on those flags . . . As the late, great Hunter S. Thompson observed: "When the going gets weird, the weird go pro."
  • Nick ShinnNick Shinn Posts: 1,435
    John Hudson deserves a free coffee for his last post.
  • @James Montalbano
    Okay, it's driving me nuts: what does WTFRC mean?
    (Besides Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission, which is all Google gets me.)
Sign In or Register to comment.