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.
More answer feedback -- Reactions are coming to Codidact
A bit over a year ago, I proposed to add a “reactions” like feature on Codidact, which would allow marking answers as “accepted”, “outdated” or “dangerous”, providing more detailed feedback to users seeing the answer than simple votes. For example, a upvote could mean “this works for me” or “this sounds plausible” or “I like the method used in this post”, and a downvote could mean “this didn’t work”, “this is dangerous”, “this is outdated” or “I just don’t like the method used in this post” or anything else.
Well, I’m happy to say that we implemented that proposal and built reactions as a way for more specific feedback. Here’s how it works:
When you look at a post for which reactions are enabled (which depends on the post type and community), you’ll see a little “react” button below the voting arrows. If you click on that button, a drop out panel will open, in which you can select the reaction you want to add and, required for some reactions, optionally for the others, a comment text. Click on the “Add reaction” button to apply the reaction and post the comment (if not there already, a new thread named like the reaction will be added).
Reactions added to a post are shown above it; the display includes a list of people who have added this type of reaction. If more than 3 people reacted in the same way, further names will be cut off. More details, including a full list of people using that reaction on that post, will be shown in a dialog window if you click on the reaction.
By default, all communities will have the following reaction types :
Works for me
Use this reaction on answers (or, for example, explanatory articles) that provide a solution you have tested and confirmed to work for you.
Use this reaction on answers which contain an outdated solution that is either not working anymore or which only works with older versions of a system used.
Use this reaction on answers that propose to do something which is dangerous and should either not be done at all or only by people with the necessary practice and experience. A comment is required explaining the danger.
Moderators on any community can configure these reaction types and also add more if deemed necessary. There are some things to consider though:
Reaction types, once created, cannot be deleted, only deactivated.
Reactions are designed as an addition to voting, not as a substitute; communities should therefore refrain from adopting reaction types that are not providing any substantial value aside from marking a post as “good” or “bad” (good example: difficulty reactions on a Cooking site, bad example: “I like that” or “I don’t like that” reactions).
Reactions, in order to be used effectively, need to be used sparingly. There is no good in thousands of “emoji reactions” that some other places on the Internet have (at least not for a Q&A site); hence only reactions that are absolutely needed should be added.
Therefore, Reaction types should only be added after some discussion in the community Meta category
Reaction types can be limited to a post type (such as Questions, Answers, Articles, Wiki, …) and post types can be limited to only specific reactions. This should provide enough flexibility while also preventing too much complexity. If mods need support with the configuration, we’re happy to help, please contact us via email or, preferably, in the mod lounge of the community chat server. If it’s nothing sensitive, you could also ask on Meta.
As always: Try it out and, if you find bugs or have feedback, reply in an answer to this post or write a new question. We’ll also observe how this affects comment and voting activity.
There's a rumor that someone added a secret reaction called “too many commas” in order to make fun of me. I’m neither confirming nor denying that rumor. ↩︎