Agree and disagree button

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...

fonecrusher1

Dudess wrote: »

Didn't say anywhere that it wouldn't work

Well then lets make it a poll. And not down here in the depths of the forum. Maybe in Afterhours or any section thats very popular.

It could actually make the forum better you know.

If it turns out that the majority of forum users like things the way they are then fair enough. Case closed.

stovelid

On the obsession with thanks-whoring. In AH, there seems to be no shortage of snide remarks about jokes and puns being made specifically to garner thanks which is bizarre given the kind of forum it is. I think this view is often motivated by a prejudice against jocular or so-called inane posting too. I mean, if posting puns and lame jokes (which I personally like) in AH is thanks-whoring, then isn't hanging around Politics and Humanities posting an excessive amount of reasoned intelligent responses the same thing? Or the regulars who hang around PI perennially dispensing advice and tough love: same thing, no?

And the second-post thing in AH. Should you wait around for a few minutes before joking in a new thread for fear of being the second poster?

The only time I could think of where I would hate thanked posts is when a mod intervenes in a spat and comes down on one poster (or is perceived to) and the 'opposition' thank the mod. I don't mean when an obvious idiot is censured though.

Personally speaking: the poster who said that no-thanks/dislike would be the death-knell for the thanks system was spot-on.

fonecrusher1

stovelid wrote: »

On the obsession with thanks-whoring. In AH, there seems to be no shortage of snide remarks about jokes and puns being made specifically to garner thanks which is bizarre given the kind of forum it is. I think this view is often motivated by a prejudice against jocular or so-called inane posting too. I mean, if posting puns and lame jokes (which I personally like) in AH is thanks-whoring, then isn't hanging around Politics and Humanities posting an excessive amount of reasoned intelligent responses the same thing? Or the regulars who hang around PI perennially dispensing advice and tough love: same thing, no?

And the second-post thing in AH. Should you wait around for a few minutes before joking in a new thread for fear of being the second poster?

The only time I could think of where I would hate thanked posts is when a mod intervenes in a spat and comes down on one poster (or is perceived to) and the 'opposition' thank the mod. I don't mean when an obvious idiot is censured though.

Personally speaking: the poster who said that no-thanks/dislike would be the death-knell for the thanks system was spot-on.

No thanks. I disagree.

Sorry i know its a bit of a waste of a post simply to express my disagreeing with the above post but unfortunately there is no 'no thanks' button available.

Dammit it would be so much easier if i just agreed.

Sharpshooter

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

No thanks. I disagree.

Sorry i know its a bit of a waste of a post simply to express my disagreeing with the above post but unfortunately there is no 'no thanks' button available.

Dammit it would be so much easier if i just agreed.

That's it in a nutshell.

You disagreed, and gave a reason.

Had you just hit a No thanks button, we wouldn't know why.

fonecrusher1

Sharpshooter wrote: »

That's it in a nutshell.

You disagreed, and gave a reason.

Had you just hit a No thanks button, we wouldn't know why.

Nope i didn't say why i disagreed. I didn't give any reason.:)

Yeah but why do you agree with the post? Thats not discussion, you just hit the thanks button.

We know you agree but why do you agree?

Thanks. You just proved my point.

Sharpshooter

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Nope i didn't say why i disagreed. I didn't give any reason.:)

But you did.

Sorry i know its a bit of a waste of a post simply to express my disagreeing with the above post but unfortunately there is no 'no thanks' button available.

And this could go on and on, do you understand where I am coming from now?

fonecrusher1

Sharpshooter wrote: »

But you did.



And this could go on and on, do you understand where I am coming from now?

Yup around & around we'll go.

If there was no 'thanks' button, you would have to explain why you agreed. Do you understand me now?

Dudess

But why would you have to explain why you agree? For example: in a discussion on the Irish language, I don't know what your stance is, but just say you said "I don't think the Irish language should be mandatory after Junior Cert as it's not a vital skill", I'd thank it. What would be the point in me writing a post saying "I agree with that - it's true, it ISN'T a vital skill". Not a particularly valuable contribution there.
However, if I disagreed with it, clicking a "thumbs down" button would be like saying "I disagree"... and not elaborating. Not a valuable contribution either. The inverse of each other tends to apply.
Of course if someone agreed with something and wanted to add to it, they are free to do so too - e.g. "I agree with that point about the Irish language, and I'd also add..."

Sharpshooter

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Yup around & around we'll go.

If there was no 'thanks' button, you would have to explain why you agreed. Do you understand me now?

The thanks button gets rid of the +1 posts which add nothing to a thread, apart from make it longer than necessary.

So, thanking a post shows you agree without you having to say why, because it's already been explained by you giving thanks to a post.

Whereas if you hit a disagree button it's more than likely you will be asked why by the user you are disagreeing with.

I really don't see why you can't grasp that?

fonecrusher1

I disagree.