Reaction score

[heavenslight]

What is a reaction score?

 

[Lamb]

We have reactions that members give each other such as Like, Dislike, Agree, etc... if you look in the lower right hand corner of my post and hover your mouse over the word Like, it will bring up the other reactions to choose from. The reaction score is based on these reactions. Some reactions add to the score, others do not and some remove points from the score.

 

[Josiah]

@heavenslight

Click on "members" in the upper blue bar.... you'll find a report on this and other issues.



.

 

[prism]

What is the purpose of a reaction score?

 

[Lamb]

What is the purpose of a reaction score?

It used to mean that a person's post was more reliable because people liked it. It doesn't really hold that value anymore because people can post a thousand memes on a Christian forum and get a thousand likes but say nothing about theology.

 

[Chris Grigg]

It used to mean that a person's post was more reliable because people liked it. It doesn't really hold that value anymore because people can post a thousand memes on a Christian forum and get a thousand likes but say nothing about theology.

Consider possibly removing the ability to "react" to posts in categories that isn't on topic?

 

[Lamb]

Consider possibly removing the ability to "react" to posts in categories that isn't on topic?

I actually like that idea! Thanks, Chris!

 

[tango]

I actually like that idea! Thanks, Chris!

A twist on the idea might be to only score points for posts that are on topic. It would seem a shame to have a "haha" response but not allow it in a humor thread, for example.

It could be a tricky thing to implement without being able to objectively define what is on-topic and what is off-topic. A side note in a deep discussion about theology might trigger responses based on a witty observation rather than a profound theological point.

 

[Albion]

A twist on the idea might be to only score points for posts that are on topic. It would seem a shame to have a "haha" response but not allow it in a humor thread, for example.

It could be a tricky thing to implement without being able to objectively define what is on-topic and what is off-topic. A side note in a deep discussion about theology might trigger responses based on a witty observation rather than a profound theological point.

Exactly. And I just posted a 'ha-ha' on another member's post because he closed his post with a good and appropriate joke, but the topic was religious and it was on a thread about a religious matter! I wasn't laughing at what he said about his religious beliefs.

SO what does that mean to a moderator who, under the proposed "new" system would have to be making specific judgments about the topic and also the appropriateness of the "like" when several different aspects of a single post draw a response? And exactly what makes a particular post be on-topic? It's common for one idea to lead to a related one that's not exactly off-topic, which means another kind of judgment about the little icon that was used would have to be interpreted.

It's not a good idea to fiddle with this cute little function UNLESS (in my humble opinion) the change is simply to stop making negative "likes" available in the belief that having them as choices tends to encourage sparring between the posters.

 

[tango]

I don't see any reason why a "disagree" shouldn't count as a negative score. If people are posting stuff that triggers widespread disagreement why shouldn't it accumulate a negative score?

There's always the risk that people will end up posting what they think will trigger a lot of positive feedback but that rather defeats the point of a forum. I'd be inclined to either keep it more or less as-is, or get rid of it entirely.

 

[Albion]

I don't see any reason why a "disagree" shouldn't count as a negative score. If people are posting stuff that triggers widespread disagreement why shouldn't it accumulate a negative score?

Because those are mixed in equally with the affirmative reactions, meaning that the total score at present represents nothing more than that this poster is active or thought-provoking, not that he or she is better or worse than someone else.

The "disagree" and "dislike" (which as we see doesn't necessarily mean the post was liked even though we call those icons by that word), could logically be subtracted from the others, but again, why would we want to fiddle with this amusing little sidelight? Leave it alone. No one was complaining about it in the first place. We're having this discussion because a new member asked what that function was all about!

There's always the risk that people will end up posting what they think will trigger a lot of positive feedback but that rather defeats the point of a forum. I'd be inclined to either keep it more or less as-is, or get rid of it entirely.

 

[tango]

Because those are mixed in equally with the affirmative reactions, meaning that the total score at present represents nothing more than that this poster is active or thought-provoking, not that he or she is better or worse than someone else.

The score at present means very little. Forum scores generally don't mean much, except that a person has been around a while.

The "disagree" and "dislike" (which as we see doesn't necessarily mean the post was liked even though we call those icons by that word), could logically be subtracted from the others, but again, why would we want to fiddle with this amusing little sidelight? Leave it alone. No one was complaining about it in the first place. We're having this discussion because a new member asked what that function was all about!

We got into this because of post #6 rather than post #1.

 

[Albion]

We got into this because of post #6 rather than post #1.

Posts #1 and #4 raised the issue for the readers, so I'll have to "disagree."

 

[tango]

Posts #1 and #4 raised the issue for the readers, so I'll have to "disagree."

#1 raised the issue, #6 made suggestions for the change we ended up discussing.

Still, we can disagree if you like

 

[Lamb]

Since it's been brought up...here are our current settings for the reaction scores you receive when someone gives your post a reaction:

 

[tango]

Curious scores. So if someone posts "my dog died" a "pray" response gets a point but a "sad" response does not.

 

[Albion]

Since it's been brought up...here are our current settings for the reaction scores you receive when someone gives your post a reaction:

View attachment 1965

Great. Very logical. Let's call the matter settled.

 

[Lamb]

Curious scores. So if someone posts "my dog died" a "pray" response gets a point but a "sad" response does not.

We chose not to have the sad reaction as a point because people can be sad about someone's poor post of theology.

 

[Messy]

I saw someone putting 's as a response to someone's religious views, cause he thought they were stupid and did not agree. Now that poster gets a +1.

 

[tango]

We chose not to have the sad reaction as a point because people can be sad about someone's poor post of theology.

Yet if someone responded with "haha" to a post that they thought was so theologically bad it was comical they'd get a point?