We upgraded the forums! And broke things!

[ChB 18,557]

5 hours ago, Jeric said:

I think the frown descriptor might be changable to something more empathy driven, the sad face is still salvageable, especially useful if someone posts something rather poignant or sad. 

Fair enough. I’m glad we at least don’t have an angry face, like they do on Facebook.

[Mercury 455]

As far as I've thought about the implementation I'm a bit nervous about attaching more numbers to the system as I've watched brigading happen on reddit far too often. So I'm hesitant to let the new ones have any meaning beyond positive/neutral. Hence why the 'worst' is just a frown, and I've put that in just in so that there's a valid response in case someone posts something legitimately sad, or something that'd feel downright awkard having a smileyface attached to it. I'm hoping what I have added so far is used in the right light as I'm giving the community a chance to prove we're good people  

[Jeric 46,854]

3 minutes ago, LadyMercury said:

I'm giving the community a chance to prove we're good people

An optimist after one's own heart! Yo you aren't allowed to go anywhere M'lady. 

[Music Chart Fan 819]

I'm also not a fan of the list of reactions. I agree with the previous concerns that the reactions can be confusing and frustrating. To give perhaps the most obvious example, if someone reacts "Teacup" to a post, what is that supposed to communicate to the poster, or to other readers? Is it just wacky and random, with no further meaning? If so, I'm also not really a fan of adding wackiness and randomness just for the sake of it.

Furthermore, I would rather the forums focus on encouraging discussion and explanation among members. And I would be concerned that having an expanding list of wordless reactions will result in more cases of people just clicking a reaction and doing nothing else - potentially leading to the above-mentioned confusion or frustration when engaging posters in a back-and-forth process could, in many cases, be more informative and prevent misunderstandings.

[Jeric 46,854]

42 minutes ago, Music Chart Fan said:

Is it just wacky and random, with no further meaning?

Yep, that's the purpose. Just like the scene in the show it came from. At the end of the day this is a My Little Pony fan forum, and it should embrace the occasional whimsical elements. It's also why I'm a proponent of the Awards system. 

As far as cultivating more engagement -- check my post count and my brohoof count. The sheer volume of users here that react to my posts with the old system far outnumbers their post response engagement. I would never assume that their interaction was somehow less than adequate. There are many ways to engage others on MLP, and not everyone here is conferrable in engaging in discussion. 

The best way to increase textual engagement is something the staff can't do through software modifications. Fear not, because while they lack the power, you can weird it yourself ... and so can I. Create threads. Contribute more in posts. Create new interesting topics. You are one of the more seasoned and interesting members here. 

If creating a great conversation topic is a big concern, turn them wheels!

[Mercury 455]

As it is, I've fixed the CSS preventing us from seeing the brohoof image, for some reason it was filtered out with a grayscale and over saturation. That's been dealt with so please continue to bring us your issues!

[Mercury 455]

No, I've already made it clear that brohoofs will be the only ones actually counting towards the reputation count going up. We weren't actually intending to implement this feature but IPS was kind enough to introduce it in this patch so I figured I might as well give the community some more icons to play around with in the meantime. 

As for the issues you've listed, the missing icons should be fixed, that was a CDN issue so it could be cached incorrectly in your browser so clearing your cache might help. 

I'll look into the post count colliding with the post date, it shouldn't be that hard of a fix. 

Thank you everyone for bringing forward some of the issues, it's been very helpful in getting us through this upgrade  

[PinkiePie97 913]

When I scroll through the unread posts, the content of the post doesn’t cut off at a certain point like it did before. I didn’t mind that at first, but I just scrolled past a pretty long one. Would it be possible to fix this?

[Music Chart Fan 819]

1 hour ago, LadyMercury said:

No, I've already made it clear that brohoofs will be the only ones actually counting towards the reputation count going up.

Since the list of reactions is apparently staying for the time being, then I'm glad for this, at least. If the non-brohoof reactions are just supposed to be whimsical/wacky/random, then I think it makes sense for brohoofs to remain as (and to be incentivized as) the strongest signal of agreement, with the most long-term impact.

[SparklingSquirrels 21,349]

1 hour ago, LadyMercury said:

No, I've already made it clear that brohoofs will be the only ones actually counting towards the reputation count going up. 

If that's the case, then I'm sure members would like to know when their reputation count is going up vs when someone is just using a "wacky" reaction. Any chance the "So-and-so brohoofed a post" could be brought back for when people give brohoofs?

Plus, as Cerberus said, it makes the place feel more pony-like  

[Mercury 455]

Just now, SparkliciousSwirls said:

If that's the case, then I'm sure members would like to know when their reputation count is going up vs when someone is just using a "wacky" reaction. Any chance the "So-and-so brohoofed a post" could be brought back for when people give brohoofs?

Plus, as Cerberus said, it makes the place feel more pony-like  

Unfortunately I don't think so, since it's now the reactions module, and anytime anyone 'reacted' it'd just tell you that they brohoofed you, which isn't exactly true.

I did just check the configuration for the module, and it does not allow for each reaction to have specific notification verbage unfortunately. 

[Sparklefan1234 172,088]

2 minutes ago, LadyMercury said:

Unfortunately I don't think so, since it's now the reactions module, and anytime anyone 'reacted' it'd just tell you that they brohoofed you, which isn't exactly true.

 

 That's a bit of a bummer but I understand.

[Sovereign Leader Rarity 12,007]

Sadly I am admittedly not a fan of the changes that have been made to the forums recently. I can commend them for attempting to improve things and to keep the site fresh, but it did more harm than it did good in my opinion. It's only that all of these new "react" features are a somewhat deterrent from giving people brohoofs, but none of the other reactions actually do or mean anything in the long-run. It feels like an idea that has potential, but that potential was never realized and the feature feels somewhat only half-finished as a result.

I don't want to come across as ungrateful, and I realize that quite a lot of work and effort must go into whatever alterations are made to the forums, but it honestly seems to me like whoever is in charge of this area jumped the gun slightly and broke something that was never broken to begin with.

[Mercury 455]

2 minutes ago, Rarity the Supreme said:

Sadly I am admittedly not a fan of the changes that have been made to the forums recently. I can commend them for attempting to improve things and to keep the site fresh, but it did more harm than it did good in my opinion. It's only that all of these new "react" features are a somewhat deterrent from giving people brohoofs, but none of the other reactions actually do or mean anything in the long-run. It feels like an idea that has potential, but that potential was never realized and the feature feels somewhat only half-finished as a result.

Thank IPS, not us 

We were not prepared for this and the only reason it's been enabled is to provide something a bit more than what we had to play around with. More changes will come in the future as we figure out what we want to do with the feature and how it effects user engagement. 

To clarify, we were not the ones to make the new reactions system, this is a part of the new update and one of the several changes that came with it.

[Sovereign Leader Rarity 12,007]

1 minute ago, LadyMercury said:

Thank IPS, not us 

We were not prepared for this and the only reason it's been enabled is to provide something a bit more than what we had to play around with. More changes will come in the future as we figure out what we want to do with the feature and how it effects user engagement. 

To clarify, we were not the ones to make the new reactions system, this is a part of the new update and one of the several changes that came with it.

That's why I never used any specific names or occupations. I'm a little inept when it comes to the technical inner-workings of the forums and therefore I'm unfamiliar with who makes all the technical adjustments. 

To clarify, I am not thanking or blaming anyone in particular.

[Mirage 24,771]

6 hours ago, LadyMercury said:

Thank IPS, not us 

We were not prepared for this and the only reason it's been enabled is to provide something a bit more than what we had to play around with. More changes will come in the future as we figure out what we want to do with the feature and how it effects user engagement. 

To clarify, we were not the ones to make the new reactions system, this is a part of the new update and one of the several changes that came with it.

The CMS allows you to control this rather easily. So perhaps this is then a 'social experiment' to see how it is received. That's fair, as long as the leadership is considerate of members who make a good case.

So here is mine:

The brohoof system is a sort of social reward for posting content that others enjoy or agree with. This reward system alone can be very effective in influencing how people post and what they post. And like any social reaction, it can enable good or poor behavior, depending on one's goal, whether it be seeking attention or genuinely offering positive/useful content. In consideration of this, it's important that we all realize that any reaction system has the potential to cause emotional stress, and bliss. Studies show that notifications and 'likes' release dopamine in the subject - that happy chemical that also happens to be addictive. The upside is it makes you feel really good to get likes, the down side, it is makes you feel really bad if you get nothing. Now, everyone is different and I don't want anyone to think that what I'm presenting here is black and white - it isn't. Some people don't care at all, while others care more than we think - we just don't really know. However, over time, we learn about the sorts of things other like and don't like, and this hopefully aids us in becoming more sociable and genuine, rather than exploitative.

We hope.

Therefore, what will various reactions do? Already, some have revealed they just don't like it. Complication seems to be the most obvious shared concerned, and I have to agree. They are like frosting on top of frosting - brohooves already have the power of sugar, no reason for more. Forum interactions are complex as it is. For those that are effective at getting their point across, maybe less so. But even during my short experience here, I've noticed many are quite sensitive to how they are reacted to. And so I personally believe that whatever can help people communicate is a good thing, as long as those tools are used for that intent and are easily understood. And so we have emoji's. 

Do I like emoji's or not? Apparently I like them because I gave a big smile at their mention. So emoji's already work. They are effective, and for the most part, almost never cause stress because they assist words. Sometimes they can be effective alone, it all depends on the context and familiarity of those involved. I tend to use more emoji's with people I don't know because it helps them understand where I'm coming from (hopefully). What would a one-click reaction do? I have no idea...and that's kinda the problem.

The conclusion is this. Are multiple reactions necessary since we already have emoji's? And which is more effective in communicating - emoji's or reactions? Which is more readily received and understood? Will multiple reactions complicate an already emotionally charged apparatus?

Would anyone know where I stood about this issue if I just reacted to the posts in this thread or if I took a little extra time and explained it? Do you see the danger here? Providing reactions could take the place of genuine, revealing and dynamic communication. Already I've seen posts with several different kinds of reactions and I have to say, I don't care to examine what they are. I've even posted some obtuse reactions like the 'confused' and the 'crazy' just to see what would happen and...nothing. Nothing happened. I don't even know if the receiver understood what I meant. At least I can brohoof a reply with an emoji or a short sentence like 'duh! ' just to acknowledge that I 'get it'. And so reactions feel like feedback that get no feedback - and they do almost nothing to incentivize good communication. Kinda awkward if you ask me.

In short, communicating is more important than reacting.

[Libra 11,691]

3 hours ago, Mirage said:

The CMS allows you to control this rather easily. So perhaps this is then a 'social experiment' to see how it is received. That's fair, as long as the leadership is considerate of members who make a good case.

So here is mine:

The brohoof system is a sort of social reward for posting content that others enjoy or agree with. This reward system alone can be very effective in influencing how people post and what they post. And like any social reaction, it can enable good or poor behavior, depending on one's goal, whether it be seeking attention or genuinely offering positive/useful content. In consideration of this, it's important that we all realize that any reaction system has the potential to cause emotional stress, and bliss. Studies show that notifications and 'likes' release dopamine in the subject - that happy chemical that also happens to be addictive. The upside is it makes you feel really good to get likes, the down side, it is makes you feel really bad if you get nothing. Now, everyone is different and I don't want anyone to think that what I'm presenting here is black and white - it isn't. Some people don't care at all, while others care more than we think - we just don't really know. However, over time, we learn about the sorts of things other like and don't like, and this hopefully aids us in becoming more sociable and genuine, rather than exploitative.

We hope.

Therefore, what will various reactions do? Already, some have revealed they just don't like it. Complication seems to be the most obvious shared concerned, and I have to agree. They are like frosting on top of frosting - brohooves already have the power of sugar, no reason for more. Forum interactions are complex as it is. For those that are effective at getting their point across, maybe less so. But even during my short experience here, I've noticed many are quite sensitive to how they are reacted to. And so I personally believe that whatever can help people communicate is a good thing, as long as those tools are used for that intent and are easily understood. And so we have emoji's. 

Do I like emoji's or not? Apparently I like them because I gave a big smile at their mention. So emoji's already work. They are effective, and for the most part, almost never cause stress because they assist words. Sometimes they can be effective alone, it all depends on the context and familiarity of those involved. I tend to use more emoji's with people I don't know because it helps them understand where I'm coming from (hopefully). What would a one-click reaction do? I have no idea...and that's kinda the problem.

The conclusion is this. Are multiple reactions necessary since we already have emoji's? And which is more effective in communicating - emoji's or reactions? Which is more readily received and understood? Will multiple reactions complicate an already emotionally charged apparatus?

Would anyone know where I stood about this issue if I just reacted to the posts in this thread or if I took a little extra time and explained it? Do you see the danger here? Providing reactions could take the place of genuine, revealing and dynamic communication. Already I've seen posts with several different kinds of reactions and I have to say, I don't care to examine what they are. I've even posted some obtuse reactions like the 'confused' and the 'crazy' just to see what would happen and...nothing. Nothing happened. I don't even know if the receiver understood what I meant. At least I can brohoof a reply with an emoji or a short sentence like 'duh! ' just to acknowledge that I 'get it'. And so reactions feel like feedback that get no feedback - and they do almost nothing to incentivize good communication. Kinda awkward if you ask me.

In short, communicating is more important than reacting.

I could not agree any more. Reactions i feel like are more invalidating emojis and communication. Reactions are more or less a hinderance to communication. Id rather have a 50 page essay id have to read then a simple "reaction" whidh makes things confusing. The older system worked amazing, mirage. Why cant we bring that back?

[Jeric 46,854]

6 hours ago, Mirage said:

Studies show that notifications and 'likes' release dopamine in the subject - that happy chemical that also happens to be addictive. The upside is it makes you feel really good to get likes, the down side, it is makes you feel really bad if you get nothing.

A study in 2014 Titled One click, many meanings: Interpreting paralinguistic digital affordances in social media found that only 16% reported a motivation related to likes on Facebook. It rises slight with women. 

As far as dopamine, you have to understand that their release is dependent on shifting perception. There is inherently nothing chemically intrinsic about a button on the internet other than how interpret it. Over time the same effect would apply to reactions if the person interprets reactions positively. 

To be completely fair, the only way to avoid the negative effect related to likes/reactions would for staff to remove the brohoof counter and remove any ability to 'like' a post. This was something discussed by an Admin back in 2014, though it was under less than honest posturing. 

I actually would not be inherently opposed to the idea of elimination of the counter and likes, though it would invalidate the contributions interactions that some active users take who tend to prefer to read and not respond. Those who respond and create content are not the only members of this site who are extremely active. 

The biggest root cause of any complaints may be the underlying principle regarding the psychology of an aversion to many things which are dynamic. The reaction system is based on the current implementation of popular chat and social media platforms, which remained popular after their implementation. 

[SparklingSquirrels 21,349]

@Jeric I think the main issue here is that some members will just use "smiley" or "yay" and assume that it increases reputation, since it means pretty much the same thing as a brohoof - that you like the post. And most members here aren't going to read this thread to find out that these reactions don't make their friend's counter go up. So how do we get the word out about this new reaction system...?

Maybe I can try to make it the next meme 

Personally I think we should remove these duplicate options, since... well they're duplicates  

[Mirage 24,771]

17 minutes ago, Jeric said:

A study in 2014 Titled One click, many meanings: Interpreting paralinguistic digital affordances in social media found that only 16% reported a motivation related to likes on Facebook. It rises slight with women. 

As far as dopamine, you have to understand that their release is dependent on shifting perception. There is inherently nothing chemically intrinsic about a button on the internet other than how interpret it. Over time the same effect would apply to reactions if the person interprets reactions positively. 

To be completely fair, the only way to avoid the negative effect related to likes/reactions would for staff to remove the brohoof counter and remove any ability to 'like' a post. This was something discussed by an Admin back in 2014, though it was under less than honest posturing. 

I actually would not be inherently opposed to the idea of elimination of the counter and likes, though it would invalidate the contributions interactions that some active users take who tend to prefer to read and not respond. Those who respond and create content are not the only members of this site who are extremely active. 

The biggest root cause of any complaints may be the underlying principle regarding the psychology of an aversion to many things which are dynamic. The reaction system is based on the current implementation of popular chat and social media platforms, which remained popular after their implementation. 

First I would like to clarify my intent with the psychology of 'liking' and reactions - my intent was to illustrate that it is an important matter, not to box anyone into a statistic. That is why I concluded with a disclaimer that 'we are all different'. Of course it depends on perception. But like so many other things, the apparatus has a deliberate, if not always obvious intent, as with advertisers using bikini girls to sell beer. So my point is to urge thinking about this - from as many angles as possible.

As far as dopamine and the social media culture, consider this Article. I first realized the dopamine effect in social media after listening to Simon Sinek, a business consultant who expounded on why millennials tend to be selfish brats who seek instant gratification in just about everything. They are the Social Media generation, and so much of their identity it drawn from the social structures of the internet with its 'click for thrills' strategy. 

I don't agree with removing a social reward system - but I do promote that people educate themselves on what it means - both to themselves and to others.

Of course it's natural to resist change, and to form skepticism of things which were not conceived of on one's own terms. I would hope therefore that we can simply discuss this before writing off opposition as 'simple minded' people who can't handle complexity (re-written as 'dynamic').

So we should implement this reaction system because it's popular in other places? Makes me even more suspicious...  

What I would really like to see is someone demonstrate why this reaction system is better for this forum.

[Jeric 46,854]

58 minutes ago, Mirage said:

What I would really like to see is someone demonstrate why this reaction system is better for this forum.

They create the same subtle benefit that emoji do. They add flavor within their natural granularity. For instance, if I made a joke that someone found hilarious, a laugh react adds additional context than a standard like. If I say something amusingly absurd, a crazy reaction also adds more context beyond the default. This creates a deeper connection between the respondent similar to the difference between a smile and a nod if you acknowledge someone. On Facebook they have the heart react. If someone used that it sends a signal that they were more affected by your post or reply, enough to warrant a higher degree of reaction. 

Ever seen something devastatingly sad, say a blog or post where a loved one passed away, and felt that hitting like or brohoof was somehow inappropriate? This is why the sad or crying reactions exist. It again creates a unique layer of communication between the communicator and respondent. 

 

[SparklingSquirrels 21,349]

9 minutes ago, Jeric said:

They create the same subtle benefit that emoji do. They add flavor within their natural granularity. For instance, if I made a joke that someone found hilarious, a laugh react adds additional context than a standard like. If I say something amusingly absurd, a crazy reaction also adds more context beyond the default. This creates a deeper connection between the respondent similar to the difference between a smile and a nod if you acknowledge someone. On Facebook they have the heart react. If someone used that it sends a signal that they were more affected by your post or reply, enough to warrant a higher degree of reaction. 

Ever seen something devastatingly sad, say a blog or post where a loved one passed away, and felt that hitting like or brohoof was somehow inappropriate? This is why the sad or crying reactions exist. It again creates a unique layer of communication between the communicator and respondent. 

 

But again... what's the difference between "yay", "smiley", and "brohoof"?  

[Prospekt 11,019]

After a few days, I'm starting to get used to the system. The only thing that annoys me is the fact that notifications refuse to specify how exactly the user reacted to your post, but I guess there's nothing wrong with getting up off your lazy flank and checking the actual post. 

[Jeric 46,854]

6 minutes ago, SparkliciousSwirls said:

But again... what's the difference between "yay", "smiley", and "brohoof"?  

What's the difference between a fist pump and a clap? What's the difference between a nod and a smile? 

If someone posts good news, like they got accepted into a graduate program they applied to, a yay seems more affecting than a smile. It's a degree of celebration, and adds nuance. 

[Mirage 24,771]

4 hours ago, Jeric said:

They create the same subtle benefit that emoji do. They add flavor within their natural granularity. For instance, if I made a joke that someone found hilarious, a laugh react adds additional context than a standard like. If I say something amusingly absurd, a crazy reaction also adds more context beyond the default. This creates a deeper connection between the respondent similar to the difference between a smile and a nod if you acknowledge someone. On Facebook they have the heart react. If someone used that it sends a signal that they were more affected by your post or reply, enough to warrant a higher degree of reaction. 

Ever seen something devastatingly sad, say a blog or post where a loved one passed away, and felt that hitting like or brohoof was somehow inappropriate? This is why the sad or crying reactions exist. It again creates a unique layer of communication between the communicator and respondent. 

 

Thank you for that.

I would liken this to sending a card. There are neutral cards and then there are specific cards. Which is more meaningful - a neutral card with added, personal writing or a specific card with only a signature? Which feels more organic? This is similar to how I feel about the reactions being nuanced - tailored reactions seem like a good idea, but it replaces an organic, personal element that would be more fitting. I think it's worth thinking about how a culture turns from personal, rather laborious traditions to convey respect and admiration, to one that buys something out of convenience to ostensibly replace these 'old' traditions. Christmas 'Cards' used to be formal letters and works of art. Now they are just pictures with a stamp.

I have found that in topics and posts which are particularly serious, that using a brohoof is either too generic to be on point or inappropriate. In such cases I'm practically forced to tailor a response, as opposed to a one-click. I think this creates a more well received forum of communication - even if one's response is awkward - at least one can convey some effort it trying to relate and reach out.

Not to say that one can react AND respond, but there is this whole thing about routine and 'ease of use'. It could change the dynamics of communication in an even more distant, anonymous way, as illustrated above.

So, with all due respect, a brohoof is kinda like a plastic banana. Whether that banana is by itself or among a bowl of plastic fruit - it's all still just plastic.