Ah yes, following in the steps of Gitlab which has had this for a while, the thumbs up / down and voting types are useful, everything is a distraction IMO
Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments
121–130 of 238 posts
Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
-1 ... If I left the above with no further explanation, it doesn't give you any signal as to why I disagreed with you. One the other hand, if we were having this conversation on GitHub, people who agreed with my counter-point could react with a +1, giving you a much stronger signal about what exactly the disagreement is about. And once someone provides a valuable counter-argument, it's no longer "rigged toward agreem…
Not everyone has to give a signal on why they disagreed with you as much as people don't have to give you a signal on why they agree with you. I don't get this argument. People may agree with 2 out of 5 things in a list and vote +1 because they don't care about the 3 other things. You still don't get that feedback from a +1, just like you won't get from a -1. There shouldn't be higher standards for disagreement based on reasons because the same doesn't exist for agreement.
Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
-1 ... If I left the above with no further explanation, it doesn't give you any signal as to why I disagreed with you. One the other hand, if we were having this conversation on GitHub, people who agreed with my counter-point could react with a +1, giving you a much stronger signal about what exactly the disagreement is about. And once someone provides a valuable counter-argument, it's no longer "rigged toward agreem…
Not everyone has to give a signal on why they disagreed with you as much as people don't have to give you a signal on why they agree with you. I don't get this argument. People may agree with 2 out of 5 things in a list and vote +1 because they don't care about the 3 other things. You still don't get that feedback from a +1, just like you won't get from a -1. There shouldn't be higher standards for disagreement based…
[deleted]
Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
-1 ... If I left the above with no further explanation, it doesn't give you any signal as to why I disagreed with you. One the other hand, if we were having this conversation on GitHub, people who agreed with my counter-point could react with a +1, giving you a much stronger signal about what exactly the disagreement is about. And once someone provides a valuable counter-argument, it's no longer "rigged toward agreem…
Not everyone has to give a signal on why they disagreed with you as much as people don't have to give you a signal on why they agree with you. I don't get this argument. People may agree with 2 out of 5 things in a list and vote +1 because they don't care about the 3 other things. You still don't get that feedback from a +1, just like you won't get from a -1. There shouldn't be higher standards for disagreement based…
> Not everyone has to give a signal on why they disagreed with you
On GitHub? They absolutely do. It's a platform for collaboration, not idle chatter. If you do not wish to support your disagreement, you probably shouldn't be posting anything there to begin with.
EDIT: I've also already explained to you why 'agreement' and 'disagreement' are held to different standards. I'm not sure why you keep repeating this point.
Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments
#125"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 reactio…
One more reaction just iterates a number next to an emoji. It doesn't add a comment and nobody gets a notification.
Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments
#126-1 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
There has to be some way to register negative feedback so that you can find out what is widely unpopular. The key is to lower the power of individual down-votes so that an idea can’t be easily trashed to the point where most visitors won’t even consider reading it. (I find myself doing this sub-consciously in review sites and app stores for instance, where once something falls to about 3 stars I don’t even want to see what the fuss is about, I just skip it.)
One thing I’ve never seen is a vote that accounts for the number of unique visitors, or the total time that visitors spend on a page, or even contributor status, before weighing feedback. An issue that isn’t immediately important to a lot of people should require some time to decide popular/unpopular status.
A page shouldn’t show up/down status to anybody* until a significant amount of feedback has been collected, either. This would prevent knee-jerk down-votes of ideas that seem unpopular to everyone based on a few early down-voters. A proposal should stand on its own, at first. After a certain time period, the page could reveal whether or not an idea has really turned out to be popular, and at that point the cost of up-vote/down-vote could change (e.g. maybe only comments are allowed at that point, and no simple clicks).
Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments
#127"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 reactio…
It reduces noise because a reaction is not a reply: it doesn't notify the issue author of a response and takes a lot less space visually, letting discussions about an issue take place without being intermixed with a bunch of :+1:.
Reactions let you know the impact an issue may be having. I suppose it may not be good for every project, but dismissing it as "providing little value" seems a bit too much considering it was among the most often asked features by maintainers...
Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, you’re making this point on a platform that has down-votes. And where I have made very unpopular statements around social issues that have been down-voted for being unpopular, so I appreciate how points that I know to be reasonable can be downvoted for being unpopular. Nevertheless, some people find them useful. I don’t think it’s 100% clear-cut that you should never ever implement downvotes. I’d say that do…
> And yet, you’re making this point on a platform that has down-votes. Yes. And if I was a HN developer, which I am not, I would immediately remove that functionality - but even then, my argument doesn't really apply here, because HN isn't really meant to be a constructive platform to begin with. > I don’t think it’s 100% clear-cut that you should never ever implement downvotes. For constructive platforms: absolutely…
What do you mean by constructive platform? In the general sense, HN is absolutely meant to be a constructive platform.
Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
on facebook they say "like if you want A and share if you want B" obviously this is a 'viral marketing' ploy, but something similar would be simple for github just write: thumbs up if you want A smile if you want B problem solved
Or they could just have a thumbs-down button, and expect a higher level of discourse than Facebook.
Or they could have trigger warnings for thumbs downs like tumblr. Best of all worlds.
Re: Add Reactions to Pull Requests, Issues, and Comments
#130-1 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
I think thoughtful comments with advice on how to refactor is a way better indicator than giving my PRs over to the mob. Ya thumbs down or any reaction with code is a mistake.