Testing disagree icon

[ebr 14913]

1 hour ago, Q-Droid said:

Besides, @Abobader runs a tight ship

Very true and we are very grateful for it .

[Abobader 2945]

Good day,

First thanks you all for testing and indeed all the points you all pointed out are all good, well done.

I want just to point out regarding points as:

Point giving for: "Like, Thanks, Agree, and Haha" as +1 point. No point giving for the rest of the icons as "Null".

As @softworkz said, we simply testing this, to see how this goes, the idea to reduce big arguments, you simply click on that reaction and meant to say "have a nice day", but if this goes in the wrong way, we will remove it.

My best

[Dibbes 431]

I still like the "Snowflake" idea mentioned earlier...

[softworkz 3335]

Abo,

wouldn't it be better - both visually and logically - when the +1 and -1 buttons would be located next to each other?

 

Currently I see this:

Edited February 24 by softworkz

[roaku 795]

3 minutes ago, softworkz said:

Abo,

wouldn't it be better - both visually and logically - when the +1 and -1 buttons would be located next to each other?

 

Currently I see this:

To me, they appear in order of sentiment, which I prefer.

[softworkz 3335]

I mean like this:

Also, the smileys are 3d-ish and the others are flat, which also makes it looking better when the flat ones are in one group and the smileys in another.

[softworkz 3335]

3 minutes ago, roaku said:

To me, they appear in order of sentiment, which I prefer.

I see no "order  in sentiment" here. These are different reactions but it's in no way that each right one is more positive than the ones to its left.

 

[roaku 795]

Just now, softworkz said:

I see no "order  in sentiment" here. These are different reactions but it's in no way that each right one is more positive than the ones to its left.

 

I disagree.

[softworkz 3335]

The idea of -1 was not to introduce a stronger reaction than facepalm but to express a plain factual disagreement which is not drivern by sentiment.

[softworkz 3335]

1 minute ago, softworkz said:

The idea of -1 was not to introduce a stronger reaction than facepalm but to express a plain factual disagreement which is not drivern by sentiment.

Ordering them in the current way doesn't align with that idea.

[softworkz 3335]

5 minutes ago, roaku said:

I disagree.

That's exactly what the button is meant to be for.

[Gilgamesh_48 943]

4 minutes ago, softworkz said:

Abo,

wouldn't it be better - both visually and logically - when the +1 and -1 buttons would be located next to each other?

 

Currently I see this:

I totally agree. There is no good reason to make them so far apart but the fact that you have multiple choices but have to click the heart icon to get to the choices and that is far from obvious. Maybe, instead of a heart, some other icon should be chosen or, I believe better, a simple text button that says "react" or even "react to this post" which I think would be better. Since early childhood we have been brainwashed into believing that "a picture is worth a 1000 words" but that is only true some limited amount of time. Internet icons are often very hard to understand particularly when hidden behind them are multiple conflicting icons many of which disagree with the "normal" meaning of the icon. 

A heart icon is not the first place anyone would click to indicate disagreement. 

Those of us that use this forum often know but infrequent users could be very confused.

[roaku 795]

3 minutes ago, softworkz said:

The idea of -1 was not to introduce a stronger reaction than facepalm but to express a plain factual disagreement which is not drivern by sentiment.

I just expressed a preference for what I see and explained why I feel that way. That's all I've got to share on the subject. Thanks.

[softworkz 3335]

2 minutes ago, roaku said:

I just expressed a preference for what I see and explained why I feel that way. That's all I've got to share on the subject. Thanks.

Yea thanks for that. All in all it was valuable input because it's an indication that the -1 reaction might go into a direction that wasn't intended.

[speechles 1919]

17 minutes ago, softworkz said:

The idea of -1 was not to introduce a stronger reaction than facepalm but to express a plain factual disagreement which is not drivern by sentiment.

Then the -1 should not be red or orange or any shade there of. It should be blue. Both the -1 and the +1 should share the color used if that were true. The blue is the least aggressive of all colors. That would alleviate the aggressive use of it since without colors they become simply what they are a - or + attached to a number. It also shouldn't be at the end. As at the end suggests the -1 is stronger than the face palm. It should be right next to the other.   -1 +1 at the front. The first things in the list should be positive or negative. Then all the thanks and emoticon stuff. That way you drive the engagement first with those. If people want to use emotions then use the emoticons.

Edited February 24 by speechles

[softworkz 3335]

4 minutes ago, speechles said:

Then the -1 should not be red or orange or any shade there of. It should be blue. Both the -1 and the +1 should share the color used if that were true. The blue is the least aggressive of all colors. That would alleviate the aggressive use of it since without colors they become simply what they are a - or + attached to a number. It also shouldn't be at the end. It should be right next to the other. -1 +1

You might be right about the color. The original options were:

But blue might be a better idea overall indeed. It's meant to be more for a kind of "voting", like on GitHub where you often see thumb-up/thumb-down and can compare the counts of both, and I think we all agree that we didn't want to introduce just a stronger negative reaction. 

[speechles 1919]

Exactly like on Reddit where they have two icons to suggest thumbs up or down. The top comment becomes the top and everything is engagement related. Since people are used to these types of systems it would make sense to make them identical in color. It doesn't mean you hate the thing when you click -1. It means you want to offset any +1 people have put and move that comment down in rank as accurate. The same way all these work on other websites.

There isn't really a need for negative engagement emoticons. If people want to do that they have to put on their big boy pants and make a post with that diatribe.

@softworkzI agree. Negative posts drive engagement down. It causes a higher "Bounce Rate" for the Emby forums. As users see negative sentiment all over and stop engaging. It isn't worth investing in something that promotes decay. It should be the same color blue used to highlight nicknames. With the same exact shade/hue.

Edited February 24 by speechles

[roaku 795]

I feel the need to clarify that all I meant by 'sentiment' was a spectrum of disagree/agreement.

I was not intending to introduce an emotional element when explaining my preference, but I imagine that's irrelevant by now.

And just preemptively, I don't need to see any links to online dictionaries.

Edited February 24 by roaku

[softworkz 3335]

@speechlesReally good idea, I think that's much better:

 

 

 

disagree_blue.zip

[GrimReaper 3294]

We already have color blue for Like, IMHO Disagree should have its own distinct color. 

[softworkz 3335]

There's no much room in the color space in-between. In the other direction we're getting where we've been before (orange, brown). Also I think we should avoid the purple/red area because that would make it even worse. Staying closer to the tone of +1 better expresses the intention that it's not meant to be a strong negative reaction. 

Here are a few more variations:

 

 

[GrimReaper 3294]

To me those tones - as close to Agree - simply don't convey the intention (which is sometimes "strong"), current color works just fine: it ain't "in-your-face" fiery red while very distinct from "+1".

[softworkz 3335]

3 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

To me those tones - as close to Agree - simply don't convey the intention (which is sometimes "strong"), current color works just fine: it ain't "in-your-face" fiery red while very distinct from "+1".

I think the current color is very wrong, because it has turned out that it is not being perceived or used in the way that it intended. It wasn't intended to introduce a reaction that would be "more negative" than "Face Palm".

It's not meant for "denouncing" or "branding" posts in a negative way. And it appears that users started to using it as such, which means that the countdown for a full removal of this reaction has started running already.

Making the color difference small, requires taking a closer look for distinction and makes it unattractive for misusing.

IMO, any outcome, where "facepalm" wouldn't remain to be the strongest negative reaction would mean a failure of this experiment.

[softworkz 3335]

42 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

We already have color blue for Like, IMHO Disagree should have its own distinct color

16 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

To me those tones - as close to Agree - simply don't convey the intention (which is sometimes "strong"), current color works just fine: it ain't "in-your-face" fiery red while very distinct from "+1".

PS: I knew that your concern wasn't about color similarity to "like". I posted the other variations to make you say it  

I rather prefer the ones from the post before. It's still not the same color as "like", and "like" is mostly white anyway.

[softworkz 3335]

Bottom line is: It's NOT meant to be a strong reaction!

So far, I think we failed to convey this. My original color choice was not thought out well and the ordering wasn't ideal either.