Telly Talk's "Reaction" function (Likes, etc.)

[Snarky Oracle!]

Read the first two posts.
Jeff Freilich's FC. | Forums for television shows past and present (tellytalk.net)

What about them??

LIKE has two useful purposes: 1) the obvious one and 2) to let someone know that a post-within-a-discussion has been read and that there will be no follow-up comment (for the time being).

THANK YOU if someone took the time to answer a question or post (additional) interesting facts or pictures or videos within the context of topic being discussed.

AGREED is self-explanatory and also the most important rating because it keeps threads from being unnecessarily bumped for no other reason than an "I agree" comment.

INFORMATIVE. If a post is informative does it also need to be rated as informative?
It reminds me of the "repeating same phrase" topic in the Dynasty forum.
It's like if someone posts a video and then rate it with a video smiley.

It's happened to me quite a few times that my opinion which contained no new information whatsoever got an "informative" rating.
I read that as: "whatever, nobody cares what you have to say".
Now, since I'm not here to be loved or appreciated I don't care if someone thinks that my post is embarrassingly irrelevant, but it's not very nice to rub someone's nose in it. Then just don't comment or rate at all.

HA HA, same as AGREE

FRIENDLY HUG, almost always used in a positive way. And sometimes less is more.
It can be abused as a way of saying "I feel so sorry for you that you got it so very wrong and I sympathize with your inability to comprehend the issue being discussed".
But that rarely happens.

CELEBRATE, probably the most community-spirit-friendly smiley.

WINNING, to show apprecation is someone goes the extra mile or post something that pleases you very much (for whatever reason).

SAD, same as HA HA (tears and sadness and happiness)

COOL. We're discussing Dallas and Dynasty, we are never cool. But we are niche, and personally I like that even better.
As a rating it's impossible to decipher what it means. See example of the FC discussion posted above.
Shades = shady = cheeky?

WOW. Probably the most confusing one. "Wow" what? Shockingly good, surprising, sexy, bad, awful, inconsiderate?

DISAGREE

And is there a "you're just crazy!" emoji available?

 

[Willie Oleson]

What about them??

Sorry, my mistake. Post 1, 2 and then 3. I find it very relevant to this discussion (and who is and isn't sensitive to certain smiley ratings).

you're just crazy!

Waaaaaaa!

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Is there a "I forgive you" option? And also a "phukc you!" smiley??

And, ideally, a way to use them simultaneously -- the ultimate in passive-aggression.

I find it very relevant to this discussion (and who is and isn't sensitive to certain smiley ratings).

​

​

But I don't want those smiley ratings suppressed. Some do.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Some do.

Because I'm working for the CIA. There. I've said it.

Let's not take this too seriously. Or, to quote Vicky from Falcon Crest: "lighten up, mother!"

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Let's not take this too seriously. Or, to quote Vicky from Falcon Crest: "lighten up, mother!"

Yes. Let's.

 

[Emelee]

Funny, I've only ever used the "informative" reaction in a sincere way. I never even thought of it being used sarcastically.

Same here. Why would any sane person use the informative reaction it sarcastically?! I use it when someone posts something that I didn't know or when someone posts something that's useful to me. Like giving the heads-up for a new series or lets the rest of us know of something that has happened.

I personally don't want any disagree reaction. I think it's better to reply with words what you disagree with or why you disagree. Is it the whole post or just part of it? Don't leave it hanging with just an emoji.

 

[James from London]

When I get an "informative" alert, I find I always say the word out loud in a robotic voice in the same way K9 used to say "affirmative" on Doctor Who.

I don't like to think too deeply about the way I use the alert function. I just want it to be an instinctive reaction. Several years ago, I received a private message from a poster who hasn't been around for a long, long time asking why I hated her, her rationale for that being I hadn't "liked" a sufficient amount of her posts (if any). The irony was that I hadn't really considered how I felt about her until then, but now she'd made me self-conscious about how I "reacted" to posts and so I decided I did hate her after all.

I've nothing really useful to add. I think the functions can be used passive-aggressively and/or sarcastically, but it can be hard to be certain exactly when it's happening and you can easily drive yourself mad trying to pinpoint someone's true intentions. I've no wish to relive the horribleness of the DALLAS TNT era, although I did learn a lot from it.

It's difficult - communication all boils down to nuance and and nuance is notoriously tricky to convey on the internet.

 

[Daniel Avery]

I'm also not a fan of the dislike/disagree buttons, mainly because there are those who cannot (or will not) observe the difference between disliking what someone has said and disliking the person who said it. I see how members on other sites use their versions of dislike buttons and see nothing positive coming from it.

Since it is obvious (eye-opening, I would say) that we all have differing views of what the rating buttons are really saying, I would not spend too much time re-evaluating what else to keep or to "tweak," since everyone will likely view the changes in a thousand different ways anyway.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I don't like to think too deeply about the way I use the alert function.

Just how others do. You're so very, very James, Saint James.

 

[Crimson]

when it's happening and you can easily drive yourself mad trying to pinpoint someone's true intentions

This seems like a recurring theme, so not directed to you specifically; but why not just take them at face value rather than trying to imagine a motive behind them?

I don't think any of them are particularly ambiguous, although a few seem to have very niche usage.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

This seems like a recurring theme, so not directed to you specifically; but why not just take them at face value rather than trying to imagine a motive behind them?

And successfully lobbying to have the emojis changed but pretending not to care. Not to direct this at anybody specifically.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

In general, I prefer more options, rather than less. Having said that, too many can be redundant.

There should be some type of disagree option, maybe with a required commentary so that it is not just
defiance.

I thought the "informative" option was a serious positive reaction. Am I misreading it?

I am much more concerned about postings that are excessively confrontational, bullying, obnoxious, and downright hostile.
Maybe there should be an option for rudeness.
I know there is a report function, but it should not be used frivolously.

Right now, I am commenting mostly on entertainment.
I am not commenting on politics too much on this site, because I do not need
the toxic negative energy that some people seem intent on imposing,
especially when I am harassed for things that I never said.
My joy and happiness is what matters to me, and I do not care to
engage in discussions where the other person cares only about their own agendas.

 

[Crimson]

successfully lobbying to have the emojis changed but pretending not to care. Not to direct this at anybody specifically.

There's some truth to this, even if I have no idea who it's mysteriously aimed at. People who are concerned about things are often the people doing those things; so if some interpret these Reactions as passive-aggressive, they have probably used the Reactions in a passive-aggressive manner.

If anyone has ever thought they've weaponized the Reactions against me, the joke's on them! I take them them all as a positive reinforcement.

Now the dormant "Dislike" and "Disagree" are poster children for passive-aggressive. They're aggressive because they're used to convey negativity and they're passive because it's lazy to click a button without telling someone why.

If @Willie Oleson ever gives me an "Informative", I'm going to be very skeptical about it.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I use it when someone posts something that I didn't know or when someone posts something that's useful to me

When I post something informative (that isn't my opinion on something) then I already know it's informative.
The rating sounds a bit like "how informative of you, well done. Here's a pat on the back". I find it a little patronizing.
If my information is useful to you and you want to show appreciation (and I say want, because nobody should feel obliged to do anything) then a LIKE or THANKS makes more sense to me.

I just want it to be an instinctive reaction

Yes. Although, a few days ago I hesitated when I was about to LIKE a post because it was part of a Celebrity Has Died thread.
And so I decided to sneak out quietly.

And successfully lobbying to have the emojis changed but pretending not to care

When we discussed a Dynasty scene (my absolute favourite thing to do) you said - in response to my comment - "This why the "optimistic" smiley is sorely missed"
The problem with a condescending rating like that is that it kind of muddles the flow of the conversation. I'd rather know that you simply disagree with what I posted so we can all move on and talk about the next example.
I'm not interested in a "tut-tut" or a slap on the wrist. But you HAD to bring it up anyway.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

When we discussed a Dynasty scene (my absolute favourite thing to do) you said - in response to my comment - "This why the "optimistic" smiley is sorely missed"
The problem with a condescending rating like that is that it kind of muddles the flow of the conversation. I'd rather know that you simply disagree with what I posted so we can all move on and talk about the next example.
I'm not interested in a "tut-tut" or a slap on the wrist. But you HAD to bring it up anyway.

Oh, stop trying to sound reasonable.

 

[Willie Oleson]

No.

Sounding reasonable is so simple it's one of life's pleasures.

 

[Frank Underwood]

It's difficult - communication all boils down to nuance and and nuance is notoriously tricky to convey on the internet.

Bingo! It's not always easy to pick up on intent. I've had people who seem quite adversarial towards me end up giving me a like or a compliment, which always throws me off.

If anyone has ever thought they've weaponized the Reactions against me, the joke's on them! I take them them all as a positive reinforcement.

I know I've had reactions weaponized against me, but never on my own posts. They're always given to others who rebuke me in a condescending way. It was easy to pick up on.

As for reactions I personally receive, I've always taken them as positive reinforcement as well. I like to give them in the same manner.

I get why people are against the negative reactions. I'm okay with them staying dormant, but if they returned, I know I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to use them.

 

[Seaviewer]

I miss the "creative" button for when someone suggests a good plot or the like. But then I suppose that could be used sarcastically, too.

 

[Brian Kinney]

Firstly, I had no idea some people would view ‘cool’ and ‘informative’ as passive aggressive, so that’s quite interesting to learn.

Neither did I. Maybe the people who think that are a little bit off in their judgment because two of them are on my ignore list.

 

[bmasters9]

and now some call for the 'informative' option removed because it's also "passive-aggressive".

To me, that should not be removed-- if someone has gone to great lengths to find the facts about a particular subject being discussed, then "informative" seems to be a good way to say "way to find out things about this subject that I/we didn't know about before," among other things.