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

201–210 of 238 posts

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

#201

Post by jbrooksuk »

mrharrison wrote: post #91
mrharrison wrote: post #51

-1 or the thumbs down reaction, I think is a mistake. They aren't usually that constructive, because most of the time they are used as retaliation against a specific user, instead of constructive criticism. If someone downvotes you, you tend to downvote them. At the least, it should be a privilege to down vote, like SO and HN do. http://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges/vote-down

This comment is basically a down vote of github's down vote. Comments should be the down vote, because someone needs to explain why a suggestion, answer, code change, submission, etc... is not a good option. If that comment (down vote) is a good idea, it will then be up voted.

Why should you never have to explain why you're in agreement with something? What kind of culture do we have if you only have to explain why you disagree with something?

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

#202

Post by akie »

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.

Relatively sure they didn't follow as thorough a design process as Facebook did: https://medium.com/facebook-design/reactions-not-everything-...

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

#203

Post by gardano »

jahewson wrote: post #175
joeyespo wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is when you +1, you're publically expressing agreement with what they wrote. If someone you like writes something you don't agree with, you wouldn't +1 them. If you're having a good day, you still wouldn't blindly dish out +1's because if you +1 a controversial comment, it could hurt your reputation. Negation is different because it's entirely ambiguous. You can dish them out freely and retroactively r…

My experience of open source projects is that people dish out +1's freely and are reluctant to -1 as it signifies conflict. +1 is arguably the more ambiguous for that reason as it can mean "I didn't read the issue but I like you and what you're saying at a glance looks non-insane" or "meh" or "I love it". You're really underestimating the ammount of politics that can factor into these things, people will +1 something…

> what you're saying at a glance looks non-insane

That's like 90% of the PR's I look at.

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

#206

Post by zamalek »

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.

People have been using emoji comments to express not only reactions but also for voting. Even if you were to add voting features (which reaction emojis can be used for) you'd probably still get unbearable amounts of zero-value comments comprising of a single emoji, "+1" or gifs.

This is probably an attempt to break that "user habit" by providing a tempting alternative to the type of person who spams comments in issues.

Additionally, by using emojis for voting maintainers get slightly richer data about how users feel about something. A user story with 1000 thumbsups might fall lower in the backlog than a user story with 1000 hearts.

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

#207

Post by anantzoid »

gkoberger wrote: post #88
mrharrison wrote: post #51

-1 or the thumbs down reaction, I think is a mistake. They aren't usually that constructive, because most of the time they are used as retaliation against a specific user, instead of constructive criticism. If someone downvotes you, you tend to downvote them. At the least, it should be a privilege to down vote, like SO and HN do. http://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges/vote-down

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…

Also, it helps in taking the community point of view. Right now, if a newbie submits a PR, one of the project maintainer might just diss him and claim his PR to be irrelevant. But if there are already some 10 likes, the latter might give a second thought and might look at it from a different perspective.

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

#208

Post by b1449835 »

Karunamon wrote: post #153
rlidwka wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a professional context it is essential that people can express disagreement provided they write exact reasons why they disagree. You know, "+1" usually has only one meaning: - "I agree with whatever you're saying". "-1" has however two separate meanings: - "I disagree with whatever you're saying because I believe that blah-blah-blah (reasons here)" - "I disagree with whatever you're saying because fuck you that's…

You know, "+1" usually has only one meaning: Nonsense. - Agreement: "I agree with whatever you're saying" - Contributory : "I don't agree with what you're saying, but you elaborated your point *very* well and contributed to the discussion" - Mercy: "I don't agree with what you're saying, but the hivemind punished you for no good reason, have an upvote" - Popularity: "I like you and will +1 anything you write" - Thank…

So, how about tagging individual comments and then voting for the tags?

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

#209

Post by frigo_1337 »

jbrooksuk wrote: post #201
mrharrison wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is basically a down vote of github's down vote. Comments should be the down vote, because someone needs to explain why a suggestion, answer, code change, submission, etc... is not a good option. If that comment (down vote) is a good idea, it will then be up voted.

Why should you never have to explain why you're in agreement with something? What kind of culture do we have if you only have to explain why you disagree with something?

The "positive" things about the issue/pull request etc. is presumably already explained by the author.

"Issue 1234: We need this feature because reasons A, B and C."

If you don't think that A, B and C justifies the change, send a downvote and/or explain why A, B and C aren't good enough reasons.

An upvote is sufficient to say that "Yes, I agree with A, B and C. Do it."

Of course, if you agree with the change but for reasons other than A, B or C, you can leave a comment to start a discussion. It has nothing to do with culture. It's just a way to minimize the redundant "Yes, I agree with what you just said".

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

#210

Post by roryokane »

_qbjt wrote: post #185

That's cool. But what I'd really like is the ability to star comments so I can revisit them later.

As a substitute, you can click on a comment’s timestamp and then bookmark the current URL, which will be a permalink to that comment.
Post reply on HN