Post Dislikes

Jul 6, 2015
1,425
819
I still dont like this idea.
upload_2016-7-12_17-11-18.png

But at the very least, could these be hidden from view?
Also, Id like to point out that this is dulling people.
31 people disagree, yet on the 3 posts that got me 10 disrespectfull dislikes (disagree but same thing right?) not 1 person quaoted it and explained why.

Isnt that WHY people didnt want this button?
 
Jul 6, 2015
1,425
819
The only reason why you don't like it is because you keep getting the bad end of it.
Yes and no, I am assuming you saw the picture and assumed: Well hes just being salty because people disagree with him.
and your right.
But im also assuming you didnt read the text part.
Were I stated WHY I didnt want this feature, and why I still dont like it.
 

Yrr

An Actual Deer
aa
Sep 20, 2015
1,308
2,743
I feel like our disagrees contain as much useful information as the image macro posts we're putting them on
 

Hotel Detective

L4: Comfortable Member
Dec 10, 2014
187
191
I still dont like this idea.
upload_2016-7-12_17-11-18.png

But at the very least, could these be hidden from view?
Also, Id like to point out that this is dulling people.
31 people disagree, yet on the 3 posts that got me 10 disrespectfull dislikes (disagree but same thing right?) not 1 person quaoted it and explained why.

Isnt that WHY people didnt want this button?
You couldn't figure out why people disliked your post?
You shouldn't need 10 people to tell you why, let alone even 1.
 

Kube

Not the correct way to make lasagna
aa
Aug 31, 2014
1,342
1,849
Wha was me to post a picture of a popular meme as a joke.
Now people wont take shit seriosly and just say you posted a shit joke, you got red X's.
Thanks society, focus on the "real" problem of this feature, daves shitty images.

OK, let's get real:

People X'd your post not because it was a macro, but it was a macro that felt irrelevant. People give Muddy harsh ratings because it's funny. Everyone is happy to play along with that. Nothing "grill gamer" is involved. And thus, "Respectfully Disagree."

This new rating is meant to target irrelevancy, and I think we should be on the same page about that.
 
Jul 6, 2015
1,425
819
OK, let's get real:

People X'd your post not because it was a macro, but it was a macro that felt irrelevant. People give Muddy harsh ratings because it's funny. Everyone is happy to play along with that. Nothing "grill gamer" is involved. And thus, "Respectfully Disagree."

This new rating is meant to target irrelevancy, and I think we should be on the same page about that.
This is why we dont need that. In 1 sentence you showed me why I should just go back and delete it. (I wont, now that its filled with oppinions)
If he had just done this, or any of the 10 PEOPLE that hit a red X had just flat out said, dave thats not why thats that, and heres why, I would have seen WHY it got those ratings and would have taken the post down.

Thank you for pointing it out, I still think this system is irrelevant.
For example, I dont hit "disagree" without explaining, and I didn't just hit funny and walk away before the red X, people should explain their opinions.
 

Kube

Not the correct way to make lasagna
aa
Aug 31, 2014
1,342
1,849
This is why we dont need that. In 1 sentence you showed me why I should just go back and delete it. (I wont, now that its filled with oppinions)
If he had just done this, or any of the 10 PEOPLE that hit a red X had just flat out said, dave thats not why thats that, and heres why, I would have seen WHY it got those ratings and would have taken the post down.

Thank you for pointing it out, I still think this system is irrelevant.
For example, I dont hit "disagree" without explaining, and I didn't just hit funny and walk away before the red X, people should explain their opinions.

And I would tend to be on the same page as you with that. Just do me a favor and keep something in mind: everyone is and has been trying to be on the same page with you. If you have a serious concern over why your post is being Disagreed with, do it in the right place, and respectfully? I just don't want these sortsa conversations to be toxic, that's all.
 
Jul 6, 2015
1,425
819
And I would tend to be on the same page as you with that. Just do me a favor and keep something in mind: everyone is and has been trying to be on the same page with you. If you have a serious concern over why your post is being Disagreed with, do it in the right place, and respectfully? I just don't want these sortsa conversations to be toxic, that's all.
Thank you, but im not taking down any toxic posts that people "respectfully disagree" with, until that rating is removed in favor of what im doing now. (not shitposting, the oppinion thing)
 

EksCelle

L1: Registered
Mar 4, 2015
42
102
I think that when people Disagree with your post, they expect you to understand why. Someone shouldn't have to waste a post just to say "This meme image is irrelevant to the discussion, and you should not do it again". Unless it's on a post that requires an explanation as to why it was disagreed with, such as a hot debate or a project, I don't think that someone needs to derail the thread just to explain why a post was irrelevant. It's probably why the system was put there in the first place.
 

LeSwordfish

semi-trained quasi-professional
aa
Aug 8, 2010
4,102
6,597
I agree with the comments above - inserting an irrelevant joke into a conversation is a perfectly reasonable thing to Disagree with. It saves drawing the conversation FURTHER away from the topic - in this case from muddy's woes, to "gril gamers" to "why you shouldn't post irrelevant images."

However, we never intended the Disagree ratings to go on your "permanent record" so to speak. It looks as if there's a bug in the add-on system we're using. To resolve it, i'm going to hide the breakdown of ratings on user pages - user pages now don't display what ratings you've got. A bit of a pain, I know, but there was no real point in the breakdown, and the "positive ratings" information is available next to every forum post anyway. As before, Disagrees don't count negatively - so if you have 100 "Agrees" and 10 "Disagrees", it'll still display "Positive Ratings: 100"
 

phi

aa
Nov 6, 2011
832
1,815
The rating was added (from what I am aware) purely to allow users to disagree with low quality, spammy, or otherwise irrelevant posts without having to respond to them and clutter up the thread more. You should not expect a response from people who dislike your post. You made the low quality, spammy, or otherwise irrelevant post in the first place - further derailing of the thread with responses just makes it worse.

You should be aware what constitutes "low quality" and be more mindful about what you post.
 

EksCelle

L1: Registered
Mar 4, 2015
42
102
To resolve it, i'm going to hide the breakdown of ratings on user pages - user pages now don't display what ratings you've got.

Should the users be able to see their own received ratings? I understand not making it public, but I'd like to see what I personally have.
 
Jul 6, 2015
1,425
819
I think that when people Disagree with your post, they expect you to understand why. Someone shouldn't have to waste a post just to say "This meme image is irrelevant to the discussion, and you should not do it again". Unless it's on a post that requires an explanation as to why it was disagreed with, such as a hot debate or a project, I don't think that someone needs to derail the thread just to explain why a post was irrelevant. It's probably why the system was put there in the first place.

Case specific situations shouldnt call for a new rating, in fact it should be the opposite. But if your going to be case specific, derailing a thread like that is near impossible as people will just ignore the existing conversation and post something on topic to the thread's purpose.
Also, one more post about why something shouldnt exist would have resulted in 5 less posts, so your point is wrong in both regards.

Also, why do people assume I DONT know why people disagree'd with that post? Its blatantly obvious why. I was just upset that not a single person explained it.

However, we never intended the Disagree ratings to go on your "permanent record" so to speak. It looks as if there's a bug in the add-on system we're using. To resolve it, i'm going to hide the breakdown of ratings on user pages - user pages now don't display what ratings you've got. A bit of a pain, I know, but there was no real point in the breakdown, and the "positive ratings" information is available next to every forum post anyway. As before, Disagrees don't count negatively - so if you have 100 "Agrees" and 10 "Disagrees", it'll still display "Positive Ratings: 100"

Thank you.
 

LeSwordfish

semi-trained quasi-professional
aa
Aug 8, 2010
4,102
6,597
Should the users be able to see their own received ratings? I understand not making it public, but I'd like to see what I personally have.

Actually, watch this space - looks like removing that function replaces it with an old, very inaccurate number. I'll keep trying to find a sweet spot between the bugs tomorrow morning. As far as i'm aware though, making that breakdown private isn't really possible.

The rating was added (from what I am aware) purely to allow users to disagree with low quality, spammy, or otherwise irrelevant posts without having to respond to them and clutter up the thread more. You should not expect a response from people who dislike your post. You made the low quality, spammy, or otherwise irrelevant post in the first place - further derailing of the thread with responses just makes it worse.

You should be aware what constitutes "low quality" and be more mindful about what you post.

I agree with this. Using the disagree rating to disagree with opinions and not saying why is incorrect use, but when you post a bunch of macros and get a handful of disagrees on each, then maybe there's a link?
 

phi

aa
Nov 6, 2011
832
1,815
Also, why do people assume I DONT know why people disagree'd with that post? Its blatantly obvious why. I was just upset that not a single person explained it.

If you know exactly why people disliked with your post, then you don't need any explanation. If the post was blatantly low-quality then you should expect dislikes without explanation. Nobody is required to explain why they are disliking a low-quality post.
 

Yrr

An Actual Deer
aa
Sep 20, 2015
1,308
2,743
I believe dave is now actively misusing the rating out of spite to get it removed