Agree and disagree button

Martron

Was just thinking instead of having just a thanks button i think it would be also a good idea to have an "agree" and "disagree" button.

especially in the like of forums where there is advice given as in the diy or motors forum.

the like but acts as an agree but when bad information or advice is given there should be a dislike or diagree button.

this would also help cut down on the size of the thread and make such threads easier to read and follow.

Could be interesting in the photography forum where people might not like your picture too ( but more for the advice forums especially where there is advice and opinion given)

WindSock

The good part of a discussion board is so you can explain why you disagree with something

Plus you will get trolls abusing the disagree function to no end.

faceman

WindSock wrote: »

The good part of a discussion board is so you can explain why you disagree with something

Plus you will get trolls abusing the disagree function to no end.

*clicks I agree button*

Dohnny Jepp

*Clicks disagree button* :pac:

Martron

* clicks agree to disagree*

ah but its the same with the like button except you have agree and disagree. and yes i agree that the best part is berating the stupid advice sometimes but sometimes i can not be arsed and i would prefer to show my dislike with a simple click.

facebook and the likes have been campaigning for it. so boards should lead the way!!!


beside maybe its an option the forums should have.

Saibh

But if someone clicked "disagree" on one of your posts would you not be wondering why they didn't agree if they didn't post a reply to it?

Part of Boards is having a discussion on why posters agree or disagree of certain things.

This was discussed before in regard to having a "thumbs down" button and a "thumbs down" was given to this.

Martron

yeah but people thank posts without commenting. so can people not disagree to a comment witout having to add a comment.

Overheal

I think we need a Disagree Button badly.

But all it will do is instead of show up as Anti-Thanks, it will link the user to a Web Page that explains once and for all why we don't have an Anti-Thanks/Disagree system.

edit: that was a joke btw

Hank_Jones

I disagree, with this idea.

Think it would just cause clutter tbh.

AckwelFoley

**shrugs at the thought of youtube comment boards**

**Timbuk2**

I like the positive-only thanks feature that we have.

If I went to the bother of posting a reply, and for it to get more 'Disagrees' than 'Agrees' (therefore a negative helpfulness), I would be pretty annoyed.

Hank_Jones

Plus it might encourage trolling.

i.e. Trolls might try to get as many ''dislike post'' clicks as possible.

Martron

Martron wrote: »

yeah but people thank posts without commenting. so can people not disagree to a comment witout having to add a comment.

Why not go the whole hog and remove the reply button altogether and turn boards into a polling group?
In for a penny in for a pound.

Amhran Nua

Can we get the button that does this?



I'll purchase a subscription!

stovelid

Because we need more love, bothers and sisters, not less.

bonkey

Martron wrote: »

yeah but people thank posts without commenting. so can people not disagree to a comment witout having to add a comment.

I like that people can indicate agreement without cluttering up a thread....my feeling is that it helps discussion flow, bu reducing the number of posts of the type "+1", "What he said", "QFT" and so on.

Conversely, I think indicating disagreement without content would have the opposite effect. It would lead to more people asking "why do you disagree", and possibly posts of a "I don't have to tell you why - the button was there and I'm entitled to use it" nature.

In other words, I see having a thanks / agree button as a way to help discussion, where I'd see having a "disagree" option as a hindrance to same.

danjo-xx

No to Disagree Button AND no to Agree button. Let's keep it as a positive thanks.

+1 nothing in life is ever Black and White.:)

4zn76tysfajdxp

Overheal

Nyla Deafening Nature wrote: »

Try this one:

Dudess

Well there generally isn't a need for "I like your post because..." posts, but when you disagree with someone's post, it usually makes for better discussion if you give your reasons why. A "dislike" button would be like saying "I disagree with you" and leaving it at that.

stovelid

It's the potential for abuse that is the most problematic side of a disagree button. It's not as if you can inundate another user with Thanks as a gesture of spite.

Gordon

You could use the hack that us Admins use when we don't like something, we just hack the url of the thanks button from it saying do=post add thanks, to change it to no thanks, works for us, that's how we get the no thanks working.

My name is URL

This looks shopped. I can tell from the lack of commas and from seeing quite a few of shops in my time

Tar.Aldarion

Red Hand

Dudess wrote: »

Well there generally isn't a need for "I like your post because..." posts, but when you disagree with someone's post, it usually makes for better discussion if you give your reasons why. A "dislike" button would be like saying "I disagree with you" and leaving it at that.

I disagree with you.

Sharpshooter

Dudess wrote: »

Well there generally isn't a need for "I like your post because..." posts, but when you disagree with someone's post, it usually makes for better discussion if you give your reasons why. A "dislike" button would be like saying "I disagree with you" and leaving it at that.

Exactly, and then you would have the user asking the person who disagreed to explain why. So, thread gets dragged off topic.

I've never seen anyone ask why their post was thanked.

Overheal

Sharpshooter wrote: »

I've never seen anyone ask why their post was thanked.

You havent? Ive seen entire threads dedicated to the motives behind thanking someone's post.

Sharpshooter

Overheal wrote: »

You havent? Ive seen entire threads dedicated to the motives behind thanking someone's post.

You misunderstood me Overheal.

So to be clear.
I've never seen a thread dragged off topic by someone asking why their post was thanked.

Gordon

My name is URL wrote: »

This looks shopped. I can tell from the lack of commas and from seeing quite a few of shops in my time

Actually, no image manipulation program was used for that post. That image is a screenshot.

As for why there are no commas, well, obviously Admins don't need commas.

Black Swan

Jeremiah 33 3 wrote: »

I disagree with you.

Why?

Flamed Diving

I just came to this forum to request this.

Jumpy

Overheal wrote: »

Try this one:

Martron

Run away, they dont like anything that will involve change or upset a few people!

Overheal

Martron wrote: »

Run away, they dont like anything that will involve change or upset a few people!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av1JPq0Qmy4

Midnight_EG

Can we get a de-thanks button that takes away one thanks from the post, but the thanks you remove (whoever thanked) is completely randomized? :pac:

My name is URL

Midnight_EG wrote: »

Can we get a de-thanks button that takes away one thanks from the post, but the thanks you remove (whoever thanked) is completely randomized? :pac:

Just thank a post and go back and remove it a few hours later.. same outcome

fonecrusher1

I think its ridiculous that there is no 'no thanks' or 'i disagree' button in this forum.

Don't get me wrong i think this a good forum but i find it annoying that you have the option to lavish someone with heartfelt thanks especially in an argument & you feel obliged to support someone that your familiar with.:rolleyes:
Yet it requires a separate post to express disagreeing with someone?

Sometimes i think the thanks button makes this place one big popularity contest.

I suspect that having a "no thanks" or "dislike" button would be the death knell for the thanks system. The rep and karma systems failed for similar reasons. The only site I know with such a button is YouTube and you certainly don't want that style of posting on here.

fonecrusher1

Oh & i also noticed how quick the mods were to banish an obviously sensitive matter in a very popular section to the depths of the forum in an attempt to bury the issue.;)

Bonito

snyper wrote: »

**shrugs at the thought of youtube comment boards**

Just about to say that. This aint youtube. 'tis boards.ie :cool:

This be how we roll yo'. Peace out, aight.

:pac:

fonecrusher1

Karsini wrote: »

I suspect that having a "no thanks" or "dislike" button would be the death knell for the thanks system. The rep and karma systems failed for similar reasons. The only site I know with such a button is YouTube and you certainly don't want that style of posting on here.

Then maybe there shouldn't be a 'thanks' button at all.
Maybe if you agree with a post you should make the effort of actually explaining why you agree instead of lazily clicking on the 'i wanna be in your gang!' button.

Its like saying; hey if you agree with me, just click on that little button & i'l feel ever so loved. But if you disagree your going to have to file a lengthy complaint & inevitably be accused of being a moaner because you went to the trouble of posting an objection.

Translation: its easy to agree but difficult to disagree. Utter bullsh!t.

fonecrusher1

Bonito wrote: »

Just about to say that. This aint youtube. 'tis boards.ie :cool:

This be how we roll yo'. Peace out, aight.

:pac:

Thats not even a coherent argument. Thats just 'thanks' hunting.

Point proven.

fonecrusher1

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Then maybe there shouldn't be a 'thanks' button at all.
Maybe if you agree with a post you should make the effort of actually explaining why you agree instead of lazily clicking on the 'i wanna be in your gang!' button.

Its like saying; hey if you agree with me, just click on that little button & i'l feel ever so loved. But if you disagree your going to have to file a lengthy complaint & inevitably be accused of being a moaner because you went to the trouble of posting an objection.

Translation: its easy to agree but difficult to disagree. Utter bullsh!t.

The main reason the thanks button was brought in was due to the proliferation of "+1" posts, people didn't bother explaining why they agreed, they just replied with +1 and left it at that.

Bonito

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Thats not even a coherent argument. Thats just 'thanks' hunting.

Point proven.

I wasn't arguing so no your point is not proven :rolleyes:
Relax the cax. I couldn't give a toss if my post gets a thanks or not. I am in agreement with another poster so what's your problem? There's nothing wrong with the layout as it is so why change it?

You're complaining about there not being a disagree button. Lets put it this way. There's a thread that's split down the middle. 2 people are in disagreement with their point on this particular thread. I come along and I see one side of the argument, I agree with the poster, I click thanks.

You come along, you disagree with the poster I agree with but there's no disagree button, hmmmm whatever shall you do. Here's a thought. Either A) Keep looking through the thread for the post that is in disagreement with the post you agree with and click the thanks button or State your argument why you disagree.

I'll summarise that for you. If you don't agree with someone then respond to their post. You'll get one back. If there's already a post that covers everything you want to say to the person you disagree with then thank it.

Why should there be an agree and a disagree? That'd mean you click disagree on the ones you don't like and click agree on the ones you do. Which is basically the youtube set up.

With the way it is now, all you do is find a post you agree with and click thanks. Nobody is stopping you adding an extra post in agreement with this person. Sure you can do both if you want to! The point is a lot of people will agree with each other but wont just thank and leave, they'll throw their own opinion in too. Same thing would happen if there was a disagree button. Not everyone who clicks disagree will do only that and leave. A lot of people like putting their own point across. Whether people agree with them or not is different. Just because they're quoting and saying plus one doesn't mean they're thanks whoring or anything. Just means they're putting their voice across in their own words and contributing to the thread.

My name is URL

There's no denying that certain times posts are thanked in the knowledge that the receiver will reciprocate it. It does undermine discussion sometimes, and on busy forums like AH it can end up being used as a negative towards people's intentions for 'using' the site

I joined up after the Kudos system was replaced so don't really know why that was any worse than the current system. I guess it was initially an idea to differentiate members who were helpful as opposed to those who weren't.. but it's not something that's scalable considering the diversity of bigger forums where the feature transcends the purpose of the board

fonecrusher1

Karsini wrote: »

The main reason the thanks button was brought in was due to the proliferation of "+1" posts, people didn't bother explaining why they agreed, they just replied with +1 and left it at that.

Yeah but pinning your name to the bottom of a post is even easier. Wheres the explanation in that? The essence of discussion isn't just about if you agree with someone, its why you agree with someone.

Its a popularity contest.

Have both options or have neither. IMO.

fonecrusher1

My name is URL wrote: »

I joined up after the Kudos system was replaced

Can you please explain this as i wasn't a member of the forum at the time?

You mean they had a system similar to what im talking about?

Sharpshooter

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Yeah but pinning your name to the bottom of a post is even easier. Wheres the explanation in that?

Well it shows that you agree with the post, and you are thanking it because it saved you from posting what had already been said.

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

The essence of discussion isn't just about if you agree with someone, its why you agree with someone.

You thank a post because you agree with it, what's the point in thanking and then posting why you agree.
You have already done that by thanking the post.

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Its a popularity contest.

No, it shows by the click of a button that you agree with what has been posted.
The user you thank is not going to ask you on thread why you agreed.

If however you have a problem with a post then you quote the person and say why.

By quoting, you are letting the user know why you disagree and it saves them replying ( if there were a disagree button, asking you why did you disagree with my post scenario).

Do you see the difference?

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Have both options or have neither. IMO.

The thanks has worked so far, why get rid of it?

Dudess

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

i find it annoying that you have the option to lavish someone with heartfelt thanks especially in an argument & you feel obliged to support someone that your familiar with.:rolleyes:

Or maybe you just agree with them/like their post?
I hate this paranoid sh1t - all this stuff about "thanks-whoring" and only thanking people you're friends with... where's the proof? I know I certainly don't do it.

Yet it requires a separate post to express disagreeing with someone?

Absolutely. If you just click a "thumbs down" button, that's it - would it not be better to say why you disagree with the post? Whereas saying why you like a post isn't particularly necessary - the post itself explains that. The thanks button also eliminates reams and reams of "great post", "lol" and its various derivatives, smileys etc, which are fine once in a while, but pages of them are just wasted space.

Sometimes i think the thanks button makes this place one big popularity contest.

Well that's up to you - perhaps don't read into it so much?

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Oh & i also noticed how quick the mods were to banish an obviously sensitive matter in a very popular section to the depths of the forum in an attempt to bury the issue.;)

Yes, because it's such a terrifying threat to them... :pac:
Maybe they moved it because it was the wrong forum?

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Maybe if you agree with a post you should make the effort of actually explaining why you agree instead of lazily clicking on the 'i wanna be in your gang!' button.

When a person feels compelled to explain why they agree with something, they are free to do so, but a lot of the time, it's simply not necessary.

fonecrusher1

Obviously ive touched a nerve in the land of Shiny, happy people holding hands.....:D

I think having the thanks button available in threads like jeepers! chocolate or crisps. Which is better? is fine, but in serious discussions its just a nuisance. A person can essentially win an argument because he/she is better known in the forum community than the other person & so of course gets the 'im with you' vote.:rolleyes:

Dudess im not paranoid & thats a sly attempt to undermine my point. Stick to a legitimate counter argument & lets leave the personal remarks out of it. Oh & you must be blind if you can't see numerous posts that are very very obviously seeking thanks, usually the one-liner post that comes after the OP's original post.

Unless there has been a system in place that includes a 'i disagree' button that has proven to be a failure then not one person can say it wouldn't work. Wheres your proof.:)

Why don't we have a poll about this in a very popular section of the forum & see how it goes?

Dudess

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

you have the option to lavish someone with heartfelt thanks especially in an argument & you feel obliged to support someone that your familiar with.:rolleyes:

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Oh & i also noticed how quick the mods were to banish an obviously sensitive matter in a very popular section to the depths of the forum in an attempt to bury the issue.;)

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

'i wanna be in your gang!' button.

Its like saying; hey if you agree with me, just click on that little button & i'l feel ever so loved. But if you disagree your going to have to file a lengthy complaint & inevitably be accused of being a moaner because you went to the trouble of posting an objection.

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Thats not even a coherent argument. Thats just 'thanks' hunting.

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Its a popularity contest.

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Obviously ive touched a nerve in the land of Shiny, happy people holding hands.....:D

A person can essentially win an argument because he/she is better known in the forum community than the other person & so of course gets the 'im with you' vote.:rolleyes:

The above isn't paranoia? (Especially the bolded one - wtf?!) I wasn't being sly either, simply making an observation. You're being sly by making all these unfounded accusations against a lot of people, complete with plenty of snide smileys. So there might be the odd genius who thanks a post only because it's made by someone they lick up to - why pay any attention to that rubbish though? People do simply thank posts because they genuinely like them - no doubt that's the case the vast majority of the time.
And there might be the odd person who only posts something for thanks - again, why care? You seem to care too much - and you also seem to think other people care as much as you do, with your comments about how you've "touched a nerve" as if you've upset people. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean you've "touched a nerve".
As for people being more well known appearing to be more enthusiastically received sometimes: isn't that just the nature of anything? It's not a deliberate policy or anything - they were newbies too at one stage.

Oh & you must be blind if you can't see numerous posts that are very very obviously seeking thanks, usually the one-liner post that comes after the OP's original post.

After Hours was the very same before the thanks button was introduced though.

Unless there has been a system in place that includes a 'i disagree' button that has proven to be a failure then not one person can say it wouldn't work. Wheres your proof.:)

Didn't say anywhere that it wouldn't work - I'm just giving an explanation as to why it might be considered pointless. If you thank a post, you're saying "I agree with what you say" - generally there isn't any need for a follow-up, but if there is, there's plenty of space for the poster to do so. If you click a "thumbs down" button, you're saying "I disagree with your post" - whenever someone does that by post, they'll invariably be asked why, which is reasonable. It doesn't add much to a discussion to simply say "I disagree".

My name is URL wrote: »

There's no denying that certain times posts are thanked in the knowledge that the receiver will reciprocate it.

Is there definitely no denying though? Just a question, not a hostile remark.

I think it's read into WAY too much...