Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Comments improvements to indicate assent or dissent with previously posted comments

Post

Comments improvements to indicate assent or dissent with previously posted comments

+10
−0

Often I'm looking over a post and feel that I have what to add as a comment. But as soon as I look at the comments, I find that someone's already written exactly what I would have said. At that point, it would just be adding noise to write my own comment saying essentially the same thing, as it would be to write my own comment saying that "I agree with @NumericallyUnchallenged." Somewhere Else I might have upvoted the comment, but that's not an option here.

For contrast to the proposals below, here's an example of a user saying a comment (actual comment of mine), with two (fictitious) users responding — one in agreement, one in dissent:[1]

DonielF: "I feel bad for the users who found hundreds of notifs waiting for them." SRU: "Me too." NC: "NoU"

Proposal One: "Me Too!"

In lieu of having someone post a new comment just to say "me too," let's give them a button to click. In this example, SomeRandomUser no longer has to agree with me; he can instead click "me too!":

Let me just pop my name on in there behind yours

And if multiple people all give their agreement, let the system show simply "X other users," and clicking on that will expand out the user list:[2]

It's memes all the way down. I can still see you rubocop.

Proposal Two: Vote on Comments

We could always implement Somewhere Else's system of upvoting comments, but it's only right that if you can upvote a comment to indicate assent, you should be able to downvote to indicate displeasure. Sample mockup:

Just one comment. Nice and tidy. +1/-1 score balances out back at 50% Wilson Score.

Notice that these options are not mutually exclusive. We can always implement the upvote/downvote system and add "me too!" votes; we can always add the proposed reactions feature to comments as well.


  1. Courtesy of a Paint application. Thank you for using Arial; it made this a lot easier to work with. ↩︎

  2. Dropdown was cropped out and edited based on the existing dropdown menu for the Sefaria Link suggester on Judaism Codidact, if that helps for whoever would be coding this in. ↩︎

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

General comments (5 comments)
General comments
luap42‭ wrote over 3 years ago

Is there a rubocop hidden?????

DonielF‭ wrote over 3 years ago

@luap42 There we go. I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that.

luap42‭ wrote over 3 years ago

@DonielF, well... it's better when it's hidden, right, @ArtOfCode ? :D

Olin Lathrop‭ wrote over 3 years ago

This should have been two questions since you made two separate proposals. I don't know how to vote on the question now since I agree with the first proposal, but not the second.

DonielF‭ wrote over 3 years ago

@Olin The intention was more to draw attention to the issue, with these proposals being spitballs on how to solve them. Maybe upvote to agree that it’s an issue, with an answer explaining why you like the one proposal and disagree with the other?