Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 238 posts

Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments

#111

Post by Jormundir »

mrharrison wrote: post #103
gkoberger wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed 100% for Facebook or even Hacker News, however on GitHub it would be really useful for voting. If you ask "Should we add this feature?", it's hard to understand what favorites mean if you don't have an anchor. Does 10 thumbs-up mean unanimous support, or is it just a small minority? It'd be nice to say "Oh, 10 upvotes... but there's 90 downvotes, so we won't do it." FB and Hacker News are a marketplace of rela…

Commenting should be how people down vote. You should have to explain why it's not a good idea. Then if others agree with you, your comment will get up voted. Just as my comment is a downvote of github's downvote.

I agree with how you want to conduct the PR or RFC process, where it's annoying if people are being negative without providing an alternative. I do however agree with the parent where there are plenty of times when a simple yes/no vote is what you really want. The comments are there for people to provide alternatives still, removing the -1 would just be removing flexibility for a very common case.

Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments

#112

Post by sergiotapia »

jkire wrote: post #52

I wonder if this is too featureful? What is the difference between +1, heart, and hooray? Having just a +1 and -1 is unambiguous and probably covers the vast amount of use cases? Perhaps not, but I'd be very interested to know the reasoning between being choosing between "unambiguous" and expressive.

It's just for fun, don't read too much into it.

Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments

#113

Post by joeyespo »

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #69
joepie91_ wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to elaborate on this a bit more: Implementing a downvote button is inviting baseless disagreement . It makes it socially acceptable to say that you disagree, without ever providing an argument or being expected to do so - this is precisely what you don't want, on what is supposed to be a constructive platform. This will (indirectly and directly) lead to populism, where unpopular opinions get dismissed out…

>you never ever ever implement a downvote button of any kind. People who don't agree with something should have a way of expressing their views. Why is it acceptable to have a +1 button but not a -1 button? Why can people agree without giving any reason for their agreement but they can't disagree without giving any reason for their agreement? It's crazy that society works in this way and that people have such an irra…

> People who don't agree with something should have a way of expressing their views

What about a comment? Once someone elaborates why they disagree, others can trivially +1 it to show support of a specific disagreement.

On the other hand, you can disagree with both the original comment and someone's disagreement, prompting an additional "disagreement" reply.

Note that -1's don't carry as much information as you'd think. It could mean any one of these:

- Someone disagrees with you

- Someone doesn't like you

- Someone is angry or having a bad day

- Someone is retaliating or holding a grudge

Without any rationale, there's absolutely no way to tell the difference between a useful disagreement and juvenile aggression.

Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments

#114

Post by brbcoding »

dpflan wrote: post #9

I like the idea of adding more expressiveness, pictorially capturing sometimes fleeting moments of emotion or accurately representing an emotional state that can occur. These are the following reactions: 1. +1 2. -1 3. smile 4. thinking_face 5. heart 6. tada Do they capture the necessary expressiveness for the context? Facebook's reactions cover more emotions, but FB is trying to support reaction to anything that can…

I actually don't have :thinking_face: but have :confused: instead.

Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments

#115

Post by tylorr »

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #81
joepie91_ wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People who don't agree with something should have a way of expressing their views. Why is it acceptable to have a +1 button but not a -1 button? Why can people agree without giving any reason for their agreement but they can't disagree without giving any reason for their agreement? Because when you agree, that means the argument has already been presented - specifically, it's the argument that you are agreeing with…

>That is not the case for disagreement The reason why Github added these votes in the first place is so that people can give a signal of how welcome or not a certain change is to the project. If you only provide the signal for agreement but remove the signaling for disagreement and make it costly, then you'll get more people voting one way than the other. If it costs more to disagree then you're already rigging the g…

If you look at product reviews, people are more likely to write a comment if they have an issue with the product than if they don't. I'm not sure how much this applies to github topics but it could possibly provide it's own bias towards negative comments.

Also, as others have mentioned, it only takes one person to write a negative comment, then others could +1 that.

Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments

#116

Post by joepie91_ »

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #104
joepie91_ wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that is already the case - posting a :+1: costs much less effort than writing a counter-argument (and is already widely socially accepted, spammy-ness aside). The addition of an upvote button doesn't change this. That's not to say that I wouldn't like that bias resolved, but it's a bias that exists precisely because of the difference between 'agreement' and 'disagreement' that I described, and I'm not sure…

How does enhancing the bias solve the issue? By not adding the downvote button this bias is enhanced. By adding the downvote button this bias is diminished. It's not a perfect solution but it's better than doing nothing.

How do you see adding a button enhancing this bias? People already barely leave -1 replies without arguments.

Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments

#117

Post by WillAbides »

joeyespo wrote: post #113
adnzzzzZ wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you never ever ever implement a downvote button of any kind. People who don't agree with something should have a way of expressing their views. Why is it acceptable to have a +1 button but not a -1 button? Why can people agree without giving any reason for their agreement but they can't disagree without giving any reason for their agreement? It's crazy that society works in this way and that people have such an irra…

> People who don't agree with something should have a way of expressing their views What about a comment? Once someone elaborates why they disagree, others can trivially +1 it to show support of a specific disagreement. On the other hand, you can disagree with both the original comment and someone's disagreement, prompting an additional "disagreement" reply. Note that -1's don't carry as much information as you'd thi…

If you get a -1 from somebody whose opinion you value, you can always ask what's up.

Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments

#118

Post by joepie91_ »

Jormundir wrote: post #111
mrharrison wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commenting should be how people down vote. You should have to explain why it's not a good idea. Then if others agree with you, your comment will get up voted. Just as my comment is a downvote of github's downvote.

I agree with how you want to conduct the PR or RFC process, where it's annoying if people are being negative without providing an alternative. I do however agree with the parent where there are plenty of times when a simple yes/no vote is what you really want. The comments are there for people to provide alternatives still, removing the -1 would just be removing flexibility for a very common case.

Then such a vote should be opt-in - that is, it should only be possible on posts where the writer has explicitly chosen to make this a possibility. That would solve the issue.

Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments

#119

Post by choward »

developer2 wrote: post #95
choward wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still only see it for the comment and not the issue itself.

This is due to inconsistency from Github on the labeling of the issue text. That issue has no comments - the header shows "lostthetrail opened this issue 7 hours ago · 0 comments ". The first "comment" you see is meant to be the original issue text, not a comment. And yet... the header for that text says "lostthetrail commented 7 hours ago". Github repurposed the commenting system to stand in for the issue text itsel…

That makes a little more since. Pretty lame though. For example, I don't wouldn't want to upvote the top comment here: https://github.com/rolaveric/karma-systemjs/issues/35

Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments

#120

Post by donretag »

"So go ahead…:+1: or :tada: to your :heart:s content."

Or please don't. Part of the problem with the +1s is that they add noise. How are reactions going to cut down on the noise? Telling people to go ahead a +1 an issue (increase noise) is the opposite of what the "Dear Github" maintainers want.

Many projects do not use +1 or any other voting scheme to illicit priority from the general public. +1 comments and reactions provide little value. I have seen Github issues where people +1 already closed issues because they do not bother reading.

Post reply on HN