Disappointing. Mods, care to chime in on the reasoning behind this? You must have discussed it amongst yourselves, surely?
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.
Dislike daily limit
- Thread starter techfreak23
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This functionality is baked into the Xenforo forum software and not something that can be toggled either way.
Why do you consider "disagree" a negative reaction? Disagreements are potential learning experiences for both sides. I acknowledge a worded disagreement is more constructive but reactions still have some value.
I find it sad that you lump everyone that disagrees with you on this into one group that has a "problem".
I doubt more than a handful of the members here even know that. I wouldn't had you not mentioned it.
That is your opinion. Trolls aside, I find the disagree reaction very useful. I have mentioned many times that I think 'disagree' should be allowed on all posts and 'angry face' eliminated. I don't feel angry face is useful as almost any post I am genuinely mad at probably gets mod'd anyway.
I value reactions as informal "polls" for each post.
A post explaining ones view that may disagree is very useful and sparks debate
There is no useful value in the emoji reaction alone
I, as a poster, don't need to know you disagree on my post itself
Others don't need to see it (it generally sparks a pile on culture)
What we all gain value from is a constructive textual retort
Sort of related to this:
I was just listening to a podcast discussing the studies and governing body reports imploring Instagram to hide likes.
Even positive affirmation (or the lack of it) via likes has been studied and shown to be a potential mental health problem.
Ultimately, it's just not necessary.
This is a discussion forum and "reactions" to what people say should probably be limited to "saying something back in a constructive fashion"
It's low effort and not a value add to do drive by emoji reacting -- I find a lot of accounts that do it never say anything at all (positive or negative) -- Sometimes I wonder if there is a bot problem on MR honestly
Again, this is your opinion, you are entitled to it but you often state it as fact, it is not.
I, as a poster, enjoy seeing the unofficial "poll" that emoji responses provide, especially to response posts versus the original.
While I feel for anyone whose self esteem is so low that little tiny pictures can be a strain on their mental health I am not at the point where I feel we need to eliminate, what I feel, is a useful tool. People die in car accidents every day, shall we eliminate cars?
I think we should also take a look at the difference between a true social site like Facebook, IG, etc. versus a site like MR. I have heard about how social sites are thought to be extremely detrimental to young peoples mental health, especially young girls. In these situations real identities are commonly known and you can be picked on or bullied by not only your circle of classmates or those in your geography but literally on a world-wide scale. Here at MR I would imagine we have a mostly adult community, most of whom are hidden by their aliases. I think you would need to be seriously unstable to be so affected by emoji here.
Well, now that you mention it, nothing of real value would be lost if all reaction emojis were removed. I feel that the only reason those emojis exist is to give someone the feeling of being liked or accepted - this is one of the mental tools that keep some people coming back to a certain platform. This is a perfect example of a person's value and identity being obtained from the wrong source. Everyone on earth could hate you, but the good news is that this doesn't change your value or identity at all. Everyone on earth could love you, but that also doesn't change your value or identity. So what about those emojis? Can you begin to see that the "value" they bring is actually meaningless where your value and identity are concerned? And, if they're meaningless, can we not simply ignore them? Problem solved?
If we view opinion as opinion, then no harm done. The damage comes when we begin to view opinion as fact.
limit for "Disagree" could be 10 times a YEAR, and I wouldn't know about it 😏
I appreciate that there are reactions to express the opposite of, or something other than, "Like". It's a conversation, after all.
I agree that a limit is fine, as some built-in moderation is needed, but do wish it was higher.
I agree that a limit is fine, as some built-in moderation is needed, but do wish it was higher.
While I would prefer no limit, I do acknowledge we have some children in our midst that will use any tool available to troll others.
A limit of some kind is probably a good idea but I still feel contributors should be exempt from this as we wound have an interest in keeping things civil and would be far less likely to abuse the system. I don't know if the forum software can handle that but it would be a nice perk.I have mentioned a number of times that I thought the daily limit was 10, it appears to be far less, I think it is 5 in 24 hours.
People need to grow thicker skin. The problem with people who worry about a reaction picture is that they don’t have enough real problems.
Edit: 😭
Edit: 😭
Sadly if you read the rules of this forum, you’d see just how protective it is of people’s feelings, and the site doesn’t want to hurt them hence the limit on dislikes.
Please take this for what it is, site feedback.
I did not realise it before, but today whilst browsing a certain political news section article about a … controversial US figure, I hit my limit. Why the hell is there a limit on this?
I cannot think of anything beyond the fact that someone - no idea if it’s site owners or moderators - whoever pulls the strings - doesn’t like the fact that a significant number of dislikes might sway the view of a discussion to readers.
For example, political discussion of a controversial figure with many people who ‘love’ and many people who ‘hate’ them. It’s called ‘debate’. Well, we know you remove posts of those who you don’t agree with meaning that site of the argument is already covered up as it appears, no posts with that viewpoint are there. The last resort people of the opposing view have is to simply, passively leave a ‘dislike’. It could be argued that that method of disagreeing, especially in complicated situations where a line was crossed (or not) and a post was removed that the other member is able to ‘dislike’ and leave it at that.
Before you rush to ‘private site, so we allow what we want’.. what do you want? Recurring users… who are here for fun, engaging and informative debate and discussion about tech which sometimes gets political. To keep clicks and ad revenue coming in (don’t get me started on the unholy number of trackers on the main news site..but I’ll stay on topic). So why would you want to suppress discussion further, isn’t ‘the other side’ still a huge part of the market you want coming here, engaging and contributing. If we wanted an echo chamber we’d go to Reddit - right?
I doubt this feedback will ever lead to a change. If this post isn’t removed, it might at least serve for a bastion of getting a sizeable portion of users who agree to make it known and there is some hope it is taken onboard.
It would be a nice courtesy, at least, to disclose the political bias and the fact that some views / political preferences are not tolerated to at least give members a warning that their views are downright not welcome in discussion or to be part of the forum. They could bump into the walls a bit less then if the disclosure was made upfront.
One credit I will give, the current ‘React’ system, at least unlike Reddit doesn’t cripple discussion altogether by controlling what is seen. But if the moderation is going to simply do it manually, what is the point?
I did not realise it before, but today whilst browsing a certain political news section article about a … controversial US figure, I hit my limit. Why the hell is there a limit on this?
I cannot think of anything beyond the fact that someone - no idea if it’s site owners or moderators - whoever pulls the strings - doesn’t like the fact that a significant number of dislikes might sway the view of a discussion to readers.
For example, political discussion of a controversial figure with many people who ‘love’ and many people who ‘hate’ them. It’s called ‘debate’. Well, we know you remove posts of those who you don’t agree with meaning that site of the argument is already covered up as it appears, no posts with that viewpoint are there. The last resort people of the opposing view have is to simply, passively leave a ‘dislike’. It could be argued that that method of disagreeing, especially in complicated situations where a line was crossed (or not) and a post was removed that the other member is able to ‘dislike’ and leave it at that.
Before you rush to ‘private site, so we allow what we want’.. what do you want? Recurring users… who are here for fun, engaging and informative debate and discussion about tech which sometimes gets political. To keep clicks and ad revenue coming in (don’t get me started on the unholy number of trackers on the main news site..but I’ll stay on topic). So why would you want to suppress discussion further, isn’t ‘the other side’ still a huge part of the market you want coming here, engaging and contributing. If we wanted an echo chamber we’d go to Reddit - right?
I doubt this feedback will ever lead to a change. If this post isn’t removed, it might at least serve for a bastion of getting a sizeable portion of users who agree to make it known and there is some hope it is taken onboard.
It would be a nice courtesy, at least, to disclose the political bias and the fact that some views / political preferences are not tolerated to at least give members a warning that their views are downright not welcome in discussion or to be part of the forum. They could bump into the walls a bit less then if the disclosure was made upfront.
One credit I will give, the current ‘React’ system, at least unlike Reddit doesn’t cripple discussion altogether by controlling what is seen. But if the moderation is going to simply do it manually, what is the point?
^Is complaining the only thing you do here?
Why not try contributing for once?
I guarantee you that "the other side" thinks their views are not tolerated. You are not special.
Why not try contributing for once?
I guarantee you that "the other side" thinks their views are not tolerated. You are not special.
Last edited:
The posts were originally in a separate thread, but I was responding to facedmurkroots, who has now made several posts with essentially the same complaint about the moderation.
Dislikes are limited because of issues with people targeting people and spamming dislikes. The number is allowed is pretty arbitrary.
Dislikes are used in the calculation to show comments from under the articles on the main article pages.
arn
That’s terrible.
“Targeting people” - by subtly, passively, non confrontational disagreement? What if the consensus is that the post is an unpopular, lousy viewpoint? Good discussion would be welcoming it as well as a gentle, polite disagreement.
Why not limit all reacts? As with the partisan / unaccountability of moderation on here having posts removed that often don’t even break site rules, the current system is dragging the forum down to Reddit levels.
We have the wonderful, diverse and involved members here. Why are we treating them this way? Bizarre.
The fact this post was ‘merged’ only further suppresses actual feedback to make it appear as a less pressing issue many of us have as community members here
The wonderful, diverse, and involved members are doing just fine, and have been for ten or twenty years.
I was about to start a thread and then I found this one. Seriously, this makes no sense. This is especially true in the news forum where a thread hits like 30 pages in 2 hours. I got to page 6 of the iPhone mini thread posted earlier and I got this warning:
I didn't relentlessly dislike every comment, either. I think I only reacted to about 10 comments.
And while we're on this topic, why is the dislike\disagree button only in the news (maybe others but I haven't seen it) forum? I find myself using the "angry" button when I actually just disagree with something. If anything only have the disagree button.
I didn't relentlessly dislike every comment, either. I think I only reacted to about 10 comments.
And while we're on this topic, why is the dislike\disagree button only in the news (maybe others but I haven't seen it) forum? I find myself using the "angry" button when I actually just disagree with something. If anything only have the disagree button.
My issue with the dislike reaction is that it’s lazy. It says I don’t like what you’re saying, but I’m not sure why I don’t like it. Unfortunately, this is very common with people today where they will not like something, but if you pin them down on what it is about it, they don’t like they just scream.
While I don’t like the dislike reaction, I’m not sure if removing it would be beneficial. The people using the dislike reaction likely cannot communicate clearly what they’re trying to say so would we end up with just a bunch of crazy replies and causing the mods stress. Maybe the action of clicking that dislike button makes them feel better and then they can move on. Maybe a limit on how many times they can use it during the day keeps them from browsing the forms just to dislike posts.
Sometimes I’ll get a dislike on one of my replies and it takes me a while to figure out what part they disliked but in the end, that’s not really important. Everyone can’t like everything.
If you agree with this, don’t forget to dislike this reply! 😂
Agree completely.
Actually, and unfortunately, I think that it is not just a case of: "I don't like what you are saying, but I'm not sure why I don't like it", but rather, more, a lazy, dismissive, case of: "I don't like what you are saying, and I cannot be bothered to explain why."
I agree.
I don't know how it could actually be implemented, but a world where you had to make a comment in reply to something you disliked would be better.
I agree with you but don’t you think it would just end up with replies like “you suck” causing the mods grief?
Agreed, but that could be addressed by simply prohibiting the idiocy of "you suck", replacing it with "this sucks".
In other words, insist that posters address the argument, rather than attack the person who makes the argument.
Anyway, I am of the opinion that simply shooting - or, attacking - the messenger (just because you don't like the message) works as poorly online as it usually does in real life.
Then, they can restrict them to the "laxative room", so that they can post all their crap there, to get it out of their system and perhaps, they can later be elevated to the "become an adult room", so that they can learn to post appropriately. After a while there, they can be let out into the regular forums.