Suggestion Disagree button

[NTIMESc]

Oftentimes players will have already expressed an idea or rebuttal that you were thinking of when reading a post, so the disagree button cuts down on excess posting.

Once at least one person has given an explanation to support their position, then the rest of the sheeple can jump on the bandwagon and click

 

[Nosajimiki]

The like button serves to draw more attention and support to things the community is interested in without everyone having to write essays that all pretty much say the same thing.
You might think the same logic would apply to a disagree (or hate) button, but for those topics, it's best to either let them die from lack of support, or to engage in an intelligent discourse, with bystanders supporting their preferred position. No booing is necessary.

I agree that if you disagree, it typically deserves an expressed opinion, but I strongly disagree with the position that the same logic does not apply. Likes don't give an accurate picture without the counterpoint expressed. The reason yellow-journalism is so popular on FaceBook & Twitter, etc is because there is no downvote option. They just build up steam from people showing interest until they steam-roll into being accepted truths. By that same mechanism, an inherently flawed idea might have 10 likes followed by 5 pages of discussion. A dev can see that, like the idea, and implement it not knowing that there is a counterpoint that did not occur to anyone until page 3 with 30 likes that clearly and logically proves the flaws of the OP. Then page 3 & 4 are all about everyone agreeing OP was dumb, followed by page 5's inevitable off-topic stuff that gives the dev no inclination about what happened in the middle. The idea then makes it into the game and everyone is angry at the devs for not listening to the community. Disagree puts opinions on the OP no matter how far back you have to reach. It tags it meaning it can be properly handled from an analytical perspective without having to go through wall text every single time to confirm that the idea was not latter debunked.

I can't speak for everyone else, but what I don't like is about the disagree button is that it supports the casual dismissal of a post. I find this to be counterproductive in a discussion-based community forum...

You could always see who disagreed and ask pointed follow up questions, but in most cases this was not necessary. A "casual disagree" is no different than a "casual agree". It makes reading up on a topic much faster by eliminating statements that have already been made.

...So far, the only support for a disagree button was 'a quick way to say "nah"' and an implication that its removal led to abuse of other buttons. Neither of those carry much weight as an argument, as the former carries little information of value (and was subsequently identified with a wasted post), and the latter speaks more to the character of those engaging in said abuse...

Actually no... there were countless pages of other arguments about keeping the disagree button when it was 1st removed... it's just exhausting to constantly have to go back and repeat the same lists of explanations over and over every time someone brings it up.

A disagree button's utility is primarily centered on responding to simple, single-subject posts, which precludes any informative functionality when applied to a multi-point post, like this one, for instance. Replying with a quick "nope", just means that the author has to probe further if any insight as to the nature of the disagreement is to be gleaned.

Finally, speaking only for myself, I quite enjoy opportunities like this to practice my communication skills in written form. A disagree button would have deprived me of this opportunity, as I surely would have been too weak willed to resist its thoughtless, knee-jerk allure.

This is a false assumption: Most of the people in favor of the disagree button are actually among the most historically vocal members of the community. Debi, Valent, CyberTao, myself, etc. We favor the disagree button because it tags what we are saying and keeps discussion on topic, I don't recall a single person who constantly used it as an opportunity to say less. Tagging opinions given the volume of writing that goes into SMD is the only way for a human being to digest the volume of text. Disagree is not about being hateful, it is about indexing your option for use by Schine.
[doublepost=1522271010,1522270697][/doublepost]

Oftentimes players will have already expressed an idea or rebuttal that you were thinking of when reading a post, so the disagree button cuts down on excess posting.

But hey, some special snowflake people might get their poor little feelings hurt.

Can't have that, can we?

I disagree with having a disagree button. If you disagree, then you should explain why you disagree. Once at least one person has given an explanation to support their position, then the rest of the sheeple can jump on the bandwagon and click

This goes back to the "page 3" issue. Just by spamming the first page with support for keeping the disagree button removed, you make any any and all counterpoints to your opinion expressed latter go largely ignored by anyone who does not read the WHOLE thread

 

[NTIMESc]

Thanks for the well-stated response. A few comments:

A dev can see that, like the idea, and implement it not knowing that there is a counterpoint that did not occur to anyone until page 3 with 30 likes that clearly and logically proves the flaws of the OP.

I'm not quite convinced that liking and disagreeing follow the same logic. Generally, when I first read something, I have a quick sense of if I like or dislike it, but in the case of disliking it, I might not be able to articulate exactly why I disagree. Whether this is because I haven't fully analyzed the argument, or because I lack the skill or experience to translate my feelings into a coherent argument. Or maybe I just don't have the time to commit. But what I can do is read someone else's well-formed rebuttal, and decide if I like that.

Actually no... there were countless pages of other arguments about keeping the disagree button when it was 1st removed... it's just exhausting to constantly have to go back and repeat the same lists of explanations over and over every time someone brings it up.

I would have to disagree with this point. Assuming that everyone is already up to speed and knowledgeable on everything that came before is a bit much. No need to repeat the same explanation, just quote and link it.

This goes back to the "page 3" issue. Just by spamming the first page with support for keeping the disagree button removed, you make any any and all counterpoints to your opinion expressed latter go largely ignored by anyone who does not read the WHOLE thread

I wouldn't condone spamming the first page with support, but the actual posts, on whatever page, with support.

This actually has me thinking about how a summary view of rated posts for a thread might be a useful tool for skimming a thread. Especially for busy developer types, who don't have time to read every post.

Slightly off-topic: You mentioned tagging for indexing. Is there such an option for filtering a thread? I see the search by tags, but haven't found the option for post ratings.

 

[Nosajimiki]

Thanks for the well-stated response. A few comments:

I'm not quite convinced that liking and disagreeing follow the same logic. Generally, when I first read something, I have a quick sense of if I like or dislike it, but in the case of disliking it, I might not be able to articulate exactly why I disagree. Whether this is because I haven't fully analyzed the argument, or because I lack the skill or experience to translate my feelings into a coherent argument. Or maybe I just don't have the time to commit. But what I can do is read someone else's well-formed rebuttal, and decide if I like that.

So, you are saying that people who are not as articulate should be discriminated against?

I would have to disagree with this point. Assuming that everyone is already up to speed and knowledgeable on everything that came before is a bit much. No need to repeat the same explanation, just quote and link it.

Here is just one such thread I could easily find, Go Back to Ratings instead of Likes, but there were so many more including private chats. This was not meant as a statement of "It's your fault for not knowing" so much as a "I'm tired of repeating myself."

I wouldn't condone spamming the first page with support, but the actual posts, on whatever page, with support.

This actually has me thinking about how a summary view of rated posts for a thread might be a useful tool for skimming a thread. Especially for busy developer types, who don't have time to read every post.

Slightly off-topic: You mentioned tagging for indexing. Is there such an option for filtering a thread? I see the search by tags, but haven't found the option for post ratings.

Does not need to be so fancy. Just look at an OP and you get a good idea of what you'll find inside of it. At least you could when you had dislikes.

 

[NTIMESc]

So, you are saying that people who are not as articulate should be discriminated against?

Well, that wasn't particulary nice , and a bit a strawman response. When you said,

it's just exhausting to constantly have to go back and repeat the same lists of explanations over and over every time someone brings it up.

I certainly never assumed you were discriminating against people who hadn't read everything before :/

Does not need to be so fancy. Just look at an OP and you get a good idea of what you'll find inside of it. At least you could when you had dislikes.

I know that the thread list has the highest rated item for the OP, but where does the OP show the ratings contained in it's replies?
Here is a short example thread, (so you don't have to look through pages and pages), from when the other ratings were still active: Tiny Blocks

The OP shows only 4 disagrees, 2 likes, and 1 funny, but there are quite a few other ratings on replies, that you'd never know about just from looking at the OP.

 

[kulbolen]

I can't speak for everyone else, but what I don't like is about the disagree button is that it supports the casual dismissal of a post. I find this to be counterproductive in a discussion-based community forum.

So far, the only support for a disagree button was 'a quick way to say "nah"' and an implication that its removal led to abuse of other buttons. Neither of those carry much weight as an argument, as the former carries little information of value (and was subsequently identified with a wasted post), and the latter speaks more to the character of those engaging in said abuse.

A disagree button's utility is primarily centered on responding to simple, single-subject posts, which precludes any informative functionality when applied to a multi-point post, like this one, for instance. Replying with a quick "nope", just means that the author has to probe further if any insight as to the nature of the disagreement is to be gleaned.

Finally, speaking only for myself, I quite enjoy opportunities like this to practice my communication skills in written form. A disagree button would have deprived me of this opportunity, as I surely would have been too weak willed to resist its thoughtless, knee-jerk allure.

i often wonder why were allowed to simply 'like" posts, without explaining what we like about them. in the case of multi-subject posts, id need to probe further to find out what specifically someone liked about what i had to say.

then i think about it and realize theyre both easy ways to gauge reaction to something, and they arent for the purpose of communicating complex thoughts at all.

...the problem i see is that disagreement is considered offensive or combative, and somehow needs explanation while agreement doesnt.

and thats silly.

 

[NTIMESc]

Like isn't the same as agree...
For instance, I occasionally like posts, simply because they are thoughtfully written, even though I disagree with some or all of their content.

 

[Aesthetics]

How the fuck did one whole page of meaningless discussion stem from a suggestion and a joke that came afterwards? I love this forum, now.

 

[NTIMESc]

How the fuck did one whole page of meaningless discussion stem from a suggestion and a joke that came afterwards? I love this forum, now.

 

[kulbolen]

Like isn't the same as agree...
For instance, I occasionally like posts, simply because they are thoughtfully written, even though I disagree with some or all of their content.

youre absolutely right.

wheres the dis"like" button?

theres still a clear positive vs negative perception bias.

 

[Nosajimiki]

Well, that wasn't particulary nice , and a bit a strawman response. When you said,

I certainly never assumed you were discriminating against people who hadn't read everything before :/...

Not trying to be mean, simply pointing out the the potentially offensive subtext in your statement. Not everyone who plays this game are very fluent in English, and some people don't have a lot of free time to forum warrior their views, even if they feel strongly about them. So, expecting everyone to form articulate and well translated responses to everything is in many cases exclusionary. If this forum was in Spanish, I could probably read it well enough, but not really want to fight with saying what I mean every time. This would make my opinion matter less than that of people with more time or fluency.

...I know that the thread list has the highest rated item for the OP, but where does the OP show the ratings contained in it's replies?
Here is a short example thread, (so you don't have to look through pages and pages), from when the other ratings were still active: Tiny Blocks

The OP shows only 4 disagrees, 2 likes, and 1 funny, but there are quite a few other ratings on replies, that you'd never know about just from looking at the OP.

Tiny blocks is a good example of what I mean. At a glance, I can look at the OP and tell that the idea has strong disagreements in the thread. If it was 2 likes and only 1 page of responses, it may have been a good idea that had the unfortunate fate of being posted at a time where other ideas pushed it down into obscurity. I'd have to read down to tell.

Inversely, Power 2.0 doesn't #### is a good example of where not having dislikes is VERY misleading. It has 18 likes and 5 pages of comments! Sounds like "mission accomplished", but if you read the responses, it's filled with replies about all the problems that still exist. Pre-removal of dislikes, Schine could have glanced at a thread with 18 like and a similar number of dislikes and come to the conclusion, "My last update was a big step in the right direction, but I should probably fix a few more of these major issues before moving on to weapons 2.0", instead he just moved on to the weapons update leaving us with a pretty much unplayable game.

The problem with tagging responses is that you still have to read the responses to know if they are in support or against the OP.

Like isn't the same as agree...
For instance, I occasionally like posts, simply because they are thoughtfully written, even though I disagree with some or all of their content.

Like is actually less useful than agree IMO. As a meta-element, it is often misconstrued as showing support for ideas that you do not agree with and doesn't really help anything. Frankly, I think we should go back to ALL of the old tags and just remove Funny because it was so often abused, especially since Like actually would have been an appropriate response for pretty much anything that deserves a Funny tag.

 

[kulbolen]

Not trying to be mean, simply pointing out the the potentially offensive subtext in your statement. Not everyone who plays this game are very fluent in English, and some people don't have a lot of free time to forum warrior their views, even if they feel strongly about them. So, expecting everyone to form articulate and well translated responses to everything is in many cases exclusionary. If this forum was in Spanish, I could probably read it well enough, but not really want to fight with saying what I mean every time. This would make my opinion matter less than that of people with more time or fluency.



Tiny blocks is a good example of what I mean. At a glance, I can look at the OP and tell that the idea has strong disagreements in the thread. If it was 2 likes and only 1 page of responses, it may have been a good idea that had the unfortunate fate of being posted at a time where other ideas pushed it down into obscurity. I'd have to read down to tell.

Inversely, Power 2.0 doesn't #### is a good example of where not having dislikes is VERY misleading. It has 18 likes and 5 pages of comments! Sounds like "mission accomplished", but if you read the responses, it's filled with replies about all the problems that still exist. Pre-removal of dislikes, Schine could have glanced at a thread with 18 like and a similar number of dislikes and come to the conclusion, "My last update was a big step in the right direction, but I should probably fix a few more of these major issues before moving on to weapons 2.0", instead he just moved on to the weapons update leaving us with a pretty much unplayable game.

The problem with tagging responses is that you still have to read the responses to know if they are in support or against the OP.



Like is actually less useful than agree IMO. As a meta-element, it is often misconstrued as showing support for ideas that you do not agree with and doesn't really help anything. Frankly, I think we should go back to ALL of the old tags and just remove Funny because it was so often abused, especially since Like actually would have been an appropriate response for pretty much anything that deserves a Funny tag.

see i like this, and i agree with most of it... except that i think funny should still exist as well, because i dont really subscribe to the belief that theres an "abuse" of a rating. if people are clicking funny... so what?

anyway. i would hit the like button but not the agree button if i didnt plan on replying, and my position would be easy to misinterpret. i wouldve known that before i pressed the button and made a conscious decision to hit it anyway, because its not important enough for me to write an essay on...

look i wrote an essay about rating buttons on obscure internet forums.

 

[Nosajimiki]

see i like this, and i agree with most of it... except that i think funny should still exist as well, because i dont really subscribe to the belief that theres an "abuse" of a rating. if people are clicking funny... so what?

anyway. i would hit the like button but not the agree button if i didnt plan on replying, and my position would be easy to misinterpret. i wouldve known that before i pressed the button and made a conscious decision to hit it anyway, because its not important enough for me to write an essay on...

look i wrote an essay about rating buttons on obscure internet forums.

Abuse of Funny tags was the big influencing factor on the removal of all non-like tags. People were using them in regards to serious ideas and suggestions instead of disagree tags as a way of flame baiting.

 

[Nauvran]

Abuse of Funny tags was the big influencing factor on the removal of all non-like tags. People were using them in regards to serious ideas and suggestions instead of disagree tags as a way of flame baiting.

twas also mainly abused in the faction part of the forum, not big soup rice

 

[NTIMESc]

Tiny blocks is a good example of what I mean. At a glance, I can look at the OP and tell that the idea has strong disagreements in the thread. If it was 2 likes and only 1 page of responses, it may have been a good idea that had the unfortunate fate of being posted at a time where other ideas pushed it down into obscurity. I'd have to read down to tell.

If we both think Tiny blocks is a good example for our opposing points, maybe they're not actually opposing, just different. I agree that ratings on replies are not as accessible as ratings on the OP, since they require additional reading for content to discern whether they even have anything to do with the OP. But I don't think the OP ratings are always the most useful. Sometimes the most valuable content in a thread is, as you pointed out, buried on page 3. The idea that someone would take the OP ratings and run with it, ignoring the content of the discussion seems ludicrous to me, although I'm sure it's happened.

Inversely, Power 2.0 doesn't #### is a good example of where not having dislikes is VERY misleading. It has 18 likes and 5 pages of comments! Sounds like "mission accomplished",

I may be going out on a limb in suggesting that the intended audience can discern the clear distinction between "doesn't suck" and "mission accomplished". Again, as above, my hope is that OP ratings alone don't determine a course of action.

Like is actually less useful than agree IMO. As a meta-element, it is often misconstrued as showing support for ideas that you do not agree with and doesn't really help anything.

I agree that "like" is frequently used in multiple ways, and only the rater knows what they meant. "Agree" and "disagree" can also be used in a similar ambiguous fashion, especially since there isn't a "dislike" option. "Disagree", being the only negative rating, probably gets used in more and varied ways than "like". The OP in this thread, for example, being an unsupported opinion, similar to "I want a cookie", hardly would merit a "disagree" rating.

In conclusion, I would like to have a "Cookie" rating instead!

 

[kulbolen]

Abuse of Funny tags was the big influencing factor on the removal of all non-like tags. People were using them in regards to serious ideas and suggestions instead of disagree tags as a way of flame baiting.

i dont consider that abuse or baiting personally... ive had my stuff rated funny by people who disagree with me a lot, and i just...dont respond, because therse nothing to respond to. as someone who believes there should be dislike and disagree buttons, im content with people using funny to let me know they dislike me or my posts.

 

[Nosajimiki]

If we both think Tiny blocks is a good example for our opposing points, maybe they're not actually opposing, just different. I agree that ratings on replies are not as accessible as ratings on the OP, since they require additional reading for content to discern whether they even have anything to do with the OP. But I don't think the OP ratings are always the most useful. Sometimes the most valuable content in a thread is, as you pointed out, buried on page 3. The idea that someone would take the OP ratings and run with it, ignoring the content of the discussion seems ludicrous to me, although I'm sure it's happened.

I may be going out on a limb in suggesting that the intended audience can discern the clear distinction between "doesn't suck" and "mission accomplished". Again, as above, my hope is that OP ratings alone don't determine a course of action.

The difference is that you think the devs will read everything. I know that they will not; moreover, I know that they should not have to, that is the whole point of having metadata. Missile lock warning is a good example of lack of disagree tags being an issue. It got a planned for development tag with lots of likes, even though half the replies were all about how there are already ways to do this in game using logic systems and how it would be a major nerf to missiles to make it a default feature. This got the planned feature tag, which you rarely see unless the assumption is that it is what the community unanimously is looking for it, even if it is planned.

Now, this was bad participation on the community for not using their disagree tags. If they had, then the devs would have had cause to read though and find out why ppl were disagreeing, but now that there are no disagree tags, they never have a reason to pause and double check.

I agree that "like" is frequently used in multiple ways, and only the rater knows what they meant. "Agree" and "disagree" can also be used in a similar ambiguous fashion, especially since there isn't a "dislike" option. "Disagree", being the only negative rating, probably gets used in more and varied ways than "like". The OP in this thread, for example, being an unsupported opinion, similar to "I want a cookie", hardly would merit a "disagree" rating.

In conclusion, I would like to have a "Cookie" rating instead!

I agree with the point I think you are trying to make here about the arbitrariness of what the tags are, but there does need to be at least 1 negative feedback and 1 positive feedback option regardless of what you call them. It could even be a purely numerical feedback score system like what StackOverflow has where things get voted up or down, but whatever system there is, it needs to have a Yin for a Yang.

The only viable suggestion that I see your train of logic leading to is to just remove tags all together and force the devs to read everything, since that seems to be what you want them to do anyway. I would be okay with this if I thought the devs were actually going to do that.

[edit]: It would also be nice if you were forced to rate an OP to post a reply.