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.
Post History
I was part of that conversation, so my input is mostly reflected in this proposal already. I want to add one thing, about community customization, which gets into philosophy. I don't want us to en...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
Monica Cellio
·
2020-09-07T22:02:15Z (about 4 years ago)
- I was part of that conversation, so my input is mostly reflected in this proposal already. I want to add one thing, about community customization, which gets into philosophy.
- I don't want us to end up with gazillions of emoji decorating posts. That way lies madness and Discord. A reaction should have to earn its place by answering the question "what useful information does the presence of this symbol convey to readers[^1] that voting alone doesn't convey?". By that measure, "works for me", "dangerous", and "outdated" are useful (especially if tied to comments, which we should probably require at least some of the time). If a post is dangerous it can be edited. If a post is outdated it can be either updated or annotated ("In Java 6, the way to solve this is..."). And knowing that people (including the OP) tried the solution and it worked is helpful.[^2]
- But -- and I realize it's just an example -- reactions like "I like this" and "I don't like this" don't convey useful information. Who cares if some users on Cooking like that stew recipe and others don't? On the other hand, a science site might have a "dubious sources" reaction for answers based on non-peer-reviewed work or junk science, which seems like useful signal that people can act on.
I want us to discourage communities from adding reactions that are (a) subjective and/or (b) not actionable. I suggest that, when considering specific reactions, people ask: "what can readers do with this information?".- [^1]: To readers, not just to the author. For the latter you can just leave a comment.
- [^2]: On some communities more than others, I grant.
- I was part of that conversation, so my input is mostly reflected in this proposal already. I want to add one thing, about community customization, which gets into philosophy.
- I don't want us to end up with gazillions of emoji decorating posts. That way lies madness and Discord. A reaction should have to earn its place by answering the question "what useful information does the presence of this symbol convey to readers[^1] that voting alone doesn't convey?". By that measure, "works for me", "dangerous", and "outdated" are useful (especially if tied to comments, which we should probably require at least some of the time). If a post is dangerous it can be edited. If a post is outdated it can be either updated or annotated ("In Java 6, the way to solve this is..."). And knowing that people (including the OP) tried the solution and it worked is helpful.[^2]
- But -- and I realize it's just an example -- reactions like "I like this" and "I don't like this" don't convey useful information. Who cares if some users on Cooking like that stew recipe and others don't? On the other hand, a science site might have a "dubious sources" reaction for answers based on non-peer-reviewed work or junk science, which seems like useful signal that people can act on.
- I want to discourage[^3] communities from adding reactions that are (a) subjective and/or (b) not actionable. I suggest that, when considering specific reactions, people ask: "what can readers do with this information?".
- [^1]: To readers, not just to the author. For the latter you can just leave a comment.
- [^2]: On some communities more than others, I grant.
- [^3]: Discourage, not prevent. Assuming we have customization, which I think we should, then communities *can* do whatever they like. But I think reactions will be more effective if communities follow these guidelines.
#1: Initial revision
by
Monica Cellio
·
2020-09-07T21:04:46Z (about 4 years ago)
I was part of that conversation, so my input is mostly reflected in this proposal already. I want to add one thing, about community customization, which gets into philosophy.
I don't want us to end up with gazillions of emoji decorating posts. That way lies madness and Discord. A reaction should have to earn its place by answering the question "what useful information does the presence of this symbol convey to readers[^1] that voting alone doesn't convey?". By that measure, "works for me", "dangerous", and "outdated" are useful (especially if tied to comments, which we should probably require at least some of the time). If a post is dangerous it can be edited. If a post is outdated it can be either updated or annotated ("In Java 6, the way to solve this is..."). And knowing that people (including the OP) tried the solution and it worked is helpful.[^2]
But -- and I realize it's just an example -- reactions like "I like this" and "I don't like this" don't convey useful information. Who cares if some users on Cooking like that stew recipe and others don't? On the other hand, a science site might have a "dubious sources" reaction for answers based on non-peer-reviewed work or junk science, which seems like useful signal that people can act on.
I want us to discourage communities from adding reactions that are (a) subjective and/or (b) not actionable. I suggest that, when considering specific reactions, people ask: "what can readers do with this information?".
[^1]: To readers, not just to the author. For the latter you can just leave a comment.
[^2]: On some communities more than others, I grant.