You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Proposal for reactions feature: separating structured user opinion (both positive and negative) from reward-modifying upvotes/downvotes
I have to go against the grain and disagree. I think that adding non-voting "emotion" responses would be too complicated, detracting from the beautiful simplicity of what we have going on here. "Likes" are pretty much empty anyway - if one wants to react emotionally to a post, why not leave a comment?
First, I think we need to at the very least separate out an opinion from a reward adjustment. If a minnow doesn't have enough voting power to upvote content, they should at least be able to signal they "like" the content (or in some way view a post in some positive way) without having to spam the comments with lots of one word replies. And also, we need to separate out the notion of flagging (which has very negative connotations) from simply lowering an excessively rewarded post.
So that first reason alone may justify some of the UI changes discussed in this proposal (as well as the notion of a generic upvote reaction at least), but it alone does not justify why more than one positive reaction would be necessary (or why any non-flag negative reactions would be necessary). And obviously I do think more reactions are beneficial (although I admit that we should keep the number very small to avoid UI bloat and user cognitive burden).
So why do I think multiple reactions can be beneficial? There are very common reactions that many people will have to content but most may not have anything more meaningful to say. Without reactions, these users are forced to either leave a comment with just a handful of words (taking up more space in the UI, and even adding more computational burden on the Steem blockchain than the
custom_json_operationthat a reaction would entail) or avoid transacting with the blockchain at all (which I would say hurts social interaction of the platform).Furthermore, structuring these common responses allows us to aggregate them and display them in more compact and useful ways. It also allows client UIs to even use this meta-data to implement new ranking algorithms. For example, imagine a ranking algorithm that used the Worthwhile reaction given by a set of accounts you are following. You could discover the posts your friends thought were intriguing and maybe controversial (stuff that could expand your horizon and mind) while deprioritizing the stuff they all like and approve of (which likely is repetitive stuff you have seen many times before and that you may not be in the mood for at that time). Or maybe you have a ranking algorithm that considers the Funny reaction given by users weighted according to how often you have given them a Funny reaction; this could allow you to just focus on funny content (when you are in the mood for a laugh) ranked based on people determined to have similar senses of humor as you. I'm sure you can imagine more possibilities. All of this becomes much harder when people are forced to use unstructured ways of providing reactions such as comments; although machine learning could still do wonders there.
I think I understand the idea - but why not just let users with no Steem Power upvote without reward? So the "upvote" number goes up by one, but the reward does not change at all. Seems simpler.
I worry that reactions reduce actual interaction by reducing the friction too much. A user might leave a comment, but instead they just hit "worthwhile" and move on. It increases quantity but may reduce quality of interaction.
Being able to "flag" in a less aggressive way (to reduce payout w/o suggesting the content is terrible) DOES sound pretty good to me. That one part I do like.
Without getting into implementation, that would indeed be the simplest version of this proposal if it were decided that no negative reactions (not counting flagging which would be treated differently) are desired and no positive reactions other than the upvote which exists today are desirable.
That is interesting. Because I think without it we actually reduce interactions.
There are plenty of times I have seen posts on Steem that I absolutely do not agree with but raise somewhat interesting points that I think are worth bringing more attention to. If I have a lot to say on the topic and am in the mood, I will leave a comment (and likely leave a small upvote). But if I don't have much to say or at least not much to say at that moment (and if I leave it then I will likely not return to it later), I don't leave an upvote because I don't want others to mistake that as approval of the content. I can see how that could be seen as motivation to encourage me to just leave a comment, but we are all busy and lazy at times, so the reality is I would just likely skip it.
But if I had a Worthwhile reaction, I would almost surely click that since it is so easy. Now, if I had a lot to say and had the time at that moment to say it, I would still also leave a comment because a simple Worthwhile is not enough to express my full opinion. But not everyone has a lot to add all the time more than a simple reaction, and I don't think it is a good idea to put them in a situation where they feel the need to choose between not interacting at all or putting a spammy simple one or two word comment in the thread.
By the way, I upvoted your comment, but this is exactly the kind of comment to which I would give a Worthwhile reaction (along with a small reward with the slider) while intentionally avoiding to give an Approval reaction, had my proposal already been implemented.
@steemcleaners @ocd @ocdb #rewardpoolrape
https://steemit.com/steemcleaners/@boosta/pytjyp
https://steemit.com/@steemcleaners/comments