Balanced reaction and anti-reaction seems to remove the icon, rather than showing a 0. I don’t think antireactions are a good idea—I’d much rather someone who feels otherwise just choose a different reaction to show, rather than trying to remove someone else’s opinion.
The vote-like counter on the react popup is hard to find if not looking for it, and the concept is confusing as to when to use it.
I think my main objections are not those (though reducing others’ voice is a worry, and this is related to it). It’s the assymetry of reaction and anti-reaction. Reactions are about the post, anti-reactions are about the reactions. An anti-reaction to “concrete”, for instance, does not claim that the post is vague, it just claims that someone else’s reaction of concrete should be suppressed.
I would support having a near-antonym for each reaction, and encourage people to say “vague” if that’s their reaction, EVEN IF someone else said “concrete”. But anti-concrete is a very strange way to do that.
I guess the other way to go would be NOT to suppress a reaction if it’s 0 or negative, but to show it in red, as an indicator that the majority felt it was the opposite of concrete. Still seems overcomplicated, compared to just counting discrete reactions and not trying to net anything out.
Hm. Initially, I wasn’t thinking of anti-reactions as being about the reaction. I saw it as symmetrical, like the agree/disagree spectrum. But because anti-reacts can hide the react altogether, they are not symmetric.
Thinking some more about it, I think I don’t want reacts to be hidden by anti-reacts.
I think my clarity argument is weak anyway. In my experience, it is rare that there are many reacts anyway. On our Slack where there are frequent reacts, most people just strengthen the ones already there and I have seen only a couple comments with more than eight different ones (big celebrations or fun ones).
My suggestion for a solution is to drop anti-reacts and offer pairs of reacts instead.
agreement and disagreement
clear and muddled
And always show these next to each other if present.
Balanced reaction and anti-reaction seems to remove the icon, rather than showing a 0. I don’t think antireactions are a good idea—I’d much rather someone who feels otherwise just choose a different reaction to show, rather than trying to remove someone else’s opinion.
The vote-like counter on the react popup is hard to find if not looking for it, and the concept is confusing as to when to use it.
I like the idea of counter-reactions. I am not sure it works out but very much worth a try.
Pro counters:
Clearer: Countered reactions don’t clutter the feed.
Symmetrical: Without them, you need up and down symbols and that clutters further.
Con:
Reducing other’s voice (the argument mentioned above)
Abuse potential
For me clarity wins and some abuse potential is also a chance to notice abusers.
I think my main objections are not those (though reducing others’ voice is a worry, and this is related to it). It’s the assymetry of reaction and anti-reaction. Reactions are about the post, anti-reactions are about the reactions. An anti-reaction to “concrete”, for instance, does not claim that the post is vague, it just claims that someone else’s reaction of concrete should be suppressed.
I would support having a near-antonym for each reaction, and encourage people to say “vague” if that’s their reaction, EVEN IF someone else said “concrete”. But anti-concrete is a very strange way to do that.
I guess the other way to go would be NOT to suppress a reaction if it’s 0 or negative, but to show it in red, as an indicator that the majority felt it was the opposite of concrete. Still seems overcomplicated, compared to just counting discrete reactions and not trying to net anything out.
Hm. Initially, I wasn’t thinking of anti-reactions as being about the reaction. I saw it as symmetrical, like the agree/disagree spectrum. But because anti-reacts can hide the react altogether, they are not symmetric.
Thinking some more about it, I think I don’t want reacts to be hidden by anti-reacts.
I think my clarity argument is weak anyway. In my experience, it is rare that there are many reacts anyway. On our Slack where there are frequent reacts, most people just strengthen the ones already there and I have seen only a couple comments with more than eight different ones (big celebrations or fun ones).
My suggestion for a solution is to drop anti-reacts and offer pairs of reacts instead.
agreement and disagreement
clear and muddled
And always show these next to each other if present.