Reactions
-
A thing to keep in mind: Unless we are explicitly gunning for the ability to spell things out with regional indicators or fill several screens with every reaction possible, I think it might be a good idea to limit users to, say, five separate reactions per post.
-
On CS, tags were useless if they contained a space.
Much like all the rest of CS.
Hey! What other forum software is there that allows entire fake posts to be put into a signature and displayed as if they’re part of the thread?
As for the actual question that started this: I’m not really bothered either way. The main problems I see are that “Filed under” tags are useful only if people use them responsibly (good luck, not just around here, but at least on this forum that’s compensated by the humour that will inevitably derive from them), while emoji can be ambiguous (what looks like a crying one to me may be a big smile to you). On the whole I’d prefer tags, I suppose.
-
On the whole I’d prefer tags, I suppose.
It's worth pointing out that tags can theoretically be set up in a way to allow to work as a tag.
-
@ben_lubar said in Reactions:
To clarify the idea for anyone who wasn't on Community Server,
Filed under
was a system that allowed users to tag individual posts with arbitrarily named categories. The tags showed up after the user's signature and were frequently used for hiding punchlines of jokes.On CS, tags were useless
if they contained a space.FTFY
Other than for jokes and breaking things, of course.
-
@pie_flavor said in Reactions:
A thing to keep in mind: Unless we are explicitly gunning for the ability to spell things out with regional indicators or fill several screens with every reaction possible, I think it might be a good idea to limit users to, say, five separate reactions per post.
I see a new Likes thread coming.
-
@topspin hopefully without server cooties this time.
-
-
Ah, you were just helping with the markdown. With regards to voting I was expecting "view raw" to uncover something along the lines of:
5x chaotic evil
2x chaotic neutral
1x neutral goodWell, we could react with the D&D morality system too I suppose. Although I dunno how we'd pick which forum members to be the posterchilds for which alignments.
-
@Atazhaia the ideal choices, in the traditional grid:
-
@pie_flavor said in Reactions:
A thing to keep in mind: Unless we are explicitly gunning for the ability to spell things out with regional indicators or fill several screens with every reaction possible, I think it might be a good idea to limit users to, say, five separate reactions per post.
I see
amany new Likes threads coming.Gotta have one for each reaction!
-
@ben_lubar said in Reactions:
On the whole I’d prefer tags, I suppose.
It's worth pointing out that tags can theoretically be set up in a way to allow to work as a tag.
Filed under:
-
@loopback0 Take my up-regional-indicator-symbol-letter-y
-
@pie_flavor said in Reactions:
A thing to keep in mind: Unless we are explicitly gunning for the ability to spell things out with regional indicators or fill several screens with every reaction possible, I think it might be a good idea to limit users to, say, five separate reactions per post.
Nah. In desktop mode it could easily fit a lot more than 5 reactions.
The box should be flexible, and it should display the most frequent ratings first (sorted in descending order by number of people who rated that emoji -- break ties by which was more recently given or something). If there are still too many ratings to fit reasonably on a single row, there should be an indication that there were more ratings that weren't popular enough to display ("..." or "N others" or something) and clicking on the list should bring up the entire list of raters as it does currently.
edit: or did you mean per user? Nah, multiple votes wouldn't be allowed. You can vote only once, so you'll have to pick which emoji best represents your vote.
-
@anotherusername You're limiting the mischief.
Votes/tags should be shown in order of how recently the first instance was awarded, and multiples per user.
-
Votes/tags should also allow the user to arbitrarily inject JavaScript into them.
-
@loopback0 said in Reactions:
@anotherusername You're limiting the mischief.
Votes/tags should be shown in order of how recently the first instance was awarded, and multiples per user.Damn right I'm limiting the mischief. You get one vote. Pick it carefully and make it count, because you can only change it as many times as you want. (Except... if it's really old, I seem to remember that maybe you can't?)
Anyway, if it only displays the top N ratings, people are more likely to want to see the most popular ratings for the post, not just the most recent ones. That's why I think it should sort first by the number of users who added that emoji, and second by how recent it was.
-
I just realized something else: this system would need to account for the fact that downvoters are traditionally hidden (and we've pretty much decided that changing this would be unfair at this point). "Negative" reactions should probably be handled the same way: give the count, but not the names of the users (unless the viewer is a mod).
-
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
I just realized something else: this system would need to account for the fact that downvoters are traditionally hidden (and we've pretty much decided that changing this would be unfair at this point). "Negative" reactions should probably be handled the same way: give the count, but not the names of the users (unless the viewer is a mod).
Nah. This is a new feature. Name&Shame everyone!
-
-
@Tsaukpaetra A group of emoji to be defined, which at the very least would have to include the one that's used to map between old downvotes and new emoji.
Three such groups would exist: positive, negative, and neutral. The emojis would need to be sorted into a corresponding group (but it would probably be simpler if most of them were left in the neutral group).
For example...
Negative:
Positive:
Anything not in either of those sets would be neutral. (...I did a quick look through the emojis, so it's possible that I missed some in either category)
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Reactions:
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
"Negative" reactions
RFC: what emoji are considered "negative"?
-
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Reactions:
@djls45 NO!
*Waits a moment*
Oh, you didn't do the entire set, thank $Deity.
Oh, which did I miss?
-
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
Damn right I'm limiting the mischief.
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
"Negative" reactions should probably be handled the same way: give the count, but not the names of the users (unless the viewer is a mod).
Could just have all reactions public, so people are casting them on the basis they're public. IIRC the main gripe last time was that votes cast as anonymous were public.
Downvotes cast before implementation of reactions would remain private.Or just continue blaming them all on @boomzilla.
-
@loopback0 said in Reactions:
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
Damn right I'm limiting the mischief.
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
"Negative" reactions should probably be handled the same way: give the count, but not the names of the users (unless the viewer is a mod).
Could just have all reactions public, so people are casting them on the basis they're public. IIRC the main gripe last time was that votes cast as anonymous were public.
Downvotes cast before implementation of reactions would remain private.Or just continue blaming them all on @boomzilla.
Since the current plan is to allow arbitrary text (with some max length) I'm gonna go ahead and make them all public by default because otherwise there's no good way to classify them.
-
-
-
@djls45 The main reason that I didn't include any of the face emojis (, , , ...) is because they would likely be used as reactions on the thing in the post, rather than the post itself. Meaning, for example, that someone who posted a link about something terrible in the News thread would get down-rated for it, if those ratings were negative.
Oh, which did I miss?
I'm not checking that, but you included twice.
@ben_lubar said in Reactions:
Since the current plan is to allow arbitrary text (with some max length) I'm gonna go ahead and make them all public by default because otherwise there's no good way to classify them.
In that case I guess they should be in addition to the existing upvote/downvote system. Unless there's a way to make all of the old downvotes remain anonymous (and still have the system know who gave them to prevent double voting).
-
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
In that case I guess they should be in addition to the existing upvote/downvote system. Unless there's a way to make all of the old downvotes remain anonymous (and still have the system know who gave them to prevent double voting).
yes
-
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
I'm not checking that, but you included twice.
Ah, so I did. It was listed under two separate categories.
-
@loopback0 said in Reactions:
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
Damn right I'm limiting the mischief.
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
"Negative" reactions should probably be handled the same way: give the count, but not the names of the users (unless the viewer is a mod).
Could just have all reactions public, so people are casting them on the basis they're public. IIRC the main gripe last time was that votes cast as anonymous were public.
Downvotes cast before implementation of reactions would remain private.Better phrased then mine above. Maybe that's why someone downvoted mine...
-
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
I'm not checking that, but you included twice.
Not his fault they made
:fu:
and:middle_finger:
the same
-
Maybe that's why someone downvoted mine...
It's boomzilla. It's always boomzilla
-
Not his fault they made and the same
Um, they did?
They look different to me.
-
@anotherusername IIRC predates the addition of to Unicode (and therefore EmojiOne and those icon sets)
-
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
Not his fault they made and the same
Um, they did?
They look different to me.
Oh - there was an edit done there in @djls45's... Guess I never saw the dups then...
-
@dcon That particular emoji is listed both under "People" (with the various skin tone modifiers) between
:flexed_biceps:
and:writing_hand:
and under "Other" between:manhole:
and:mlp_allmybits:
.
-
-
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
I'm not checking that, but you included twice.
Just like real life!
-
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
there should be an indication that there were more ratings that weren't popular enough to display ("..." or "N others" or something) and clicking on the list should bring up the entire list of raters as it does currently.
I'd go with: >
Just because it'd be as much fun to "click" on mobile as the post's reputation number is currently...
-
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
there should be an indication that there were more ratings that weren't popular enough to display ("..." or "N others" or something) and clicking on the list should bring up the entire list of raters as it does currently.
I'd go with: >
Just because it'd be as much fun to "click" on mobile as the post's reputation number is currently...This! I click it when I don't want to and can't click it when I do!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Reactions:
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
"Negative" reactions
RFC: what emoji are considered "negative"?
All of them
-
@anotherusername said in Reactions:
@Tsaukpaetra A group of emoji to be defined, which at the very least would have to include the one that's used to map between old downvotes and new emoji.
Three such groups would exist: positive, negative, and neutral. The emojis would need to be sorted into a corresponding group (but it would probably be simpler if most of them were left in the neutral group).
For example...
Negative:
Positive:
Anything not in either of those sets would be neutral. (...I did a quick look through the emojis, so it's possible that I missed some in either category)
I don't necessarily agree with your categories. Personally, I'm more likely to use to indicate that I'm laughing at something stupid than something humorous.
-
@HardwareGeek yeah, that'd probably be better as a neutral emoji.
-
@HardwareGeek, @anotherusername And why is with the positives? It's neutral at most.
-
@HardwareGeek
maybe we should use the yellow ones as positive and all skin tones as negative ...vs
-
@HardwareGeek And what of good old
-
@HardwareGeek And what of good old
Obviously, it has to break all the rules and live in all 3 categories.
-
@dcon We should have one with a neutral and frowning expression on top of the smiling one though.
-
@JBert
And different colors. This shit is racist.