Jump to content

Need a HUG reaction button STAT!


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 102 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

Are you telling me you'd be happy to skim and scroll through an additional 7.8 feet of material? 

I dont have any problems scrolling by or skimming through what others say to see if it was worthwhile. The time it takes to do so is inconsequential to me. But then again I read fairly fast so it doesn't take time to read even the longest of replies here.

Plus I use a desktop computer where as I can see a lot more per inch. So is not the same for me. You must have a pretty small screen on your laptop to only be able to view so little. Even on my older laptop I could still see more than that.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not sure which Linden to address this to but:   A hug button would not only substitute for the sad one, but it can be used for either sad or happy, depending on the context. Double duty.   

Can I get a "...sets you on fire" button?

Pfft this forum doesn't even have a RuPaul reaction button. That is a ridiculous oversight.

Posted Images

3 hours ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

I dont have any problems scrolling by or skimming through what others say to see if it was worthwhile. The time it takes to do so is inconsequential to me. But then again I read fairly fast so it doesn't take time to read even the longest of replies here.

Plus I use a desktop computer where as I can see a lot more per inch. So is not the same for me. You must have a pretty small screen on your laptop to only be able to view so little. Even on my older laptop I could still see more than that.

It's 8.5 inches, not small. We can do the calculations by the minimum post size on your screen if you fancy. It will still be a doubling of thread lengths for no extra content.

What I'm really struck by in this whole conversation is how your experience is the only thing that matters to you, and if someone has a different point of view or way of doing things, then there's assumption and judgement. You've done it with vanity threads, reputation points, why people react, my screen size, your reading speed.

That's getting in the way of your understanding the points I'm trying to make. We don't have to agree, but it would be nice to be understood at least. Any chance of that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/4/2020 at 4:05 AM, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

Yes there are a lot of people on these forums obsessed with vanity...

Often i wonder how they get around in real life ....with that big mirror they keep in front of them😄

 

Edited by Sassy Kenin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2020 at 4:41 PM, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

Then if it matters so little the why doesnt LL just remove the reputation system all together and just have the reactions be reactions with no reputation points for them. Simple because there are some very vain people on these forums even if some members do not want to admit to it or accept it and LL panders to them to keep them happy, to keep them here.

Vanity/reputation systems should not be pandered too in any community, it doesnt help the community grow or stay together, in the end it just cause more problems than good.

I think they should get rid of them all too, It only creates a Facebook Syndrome that help's foster tribalism while promoting a toxic environment for linden labs paying customers. I also believe time limits on posting in threads and the amount of posts in one thread should be explored.

an OP should also be allowed to close a thread as "Issue Solved" something along those lines.

Many get a 'High' off up votes then attempt to maintain that even if it's at the detriment of others . get rid of reaction buttons as it creates social exclusion and animosity among residents.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I wouldn't have a problem with them totally getting rid of the Reputation points that you get from the reactions, but I'd prefer to keep the reactions.  I don't want to always have to quote something just to indicate sorrow for the person or to indicate that their comments were good or funny, etc...

Edited by LittleMe Jewell
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

I wouldn't have a problem with them totally getting rid of the Reputation points that you get from the reactions, but I'd prefer to keep the reactions.

Agreed that might be a good compromise Little🙂

 

Edited by Sassy Kenin
Removed/Created a seperate topic
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sassy Kenin said:

I think they should get rid of them all too, It only creates a Facebook Syndrome that help's foster tribalism while promoting a toxic environment for linden labs paying customers. I also believe time limits on posting in threads and the amount of posts in one thread should be explored.

an OP should also be allowed to close a thread as "Issue Solved" something along those lines.

Many get a 'High' off up votes then attempt to maintain that even if it's at the detriment of others . get rid of reaction buttons as it creates social exclusion and animosity among residents.

I have to agree with you completely reputation systems never work out on most forums that have them. And yes I do know this for I have been a member of dozens if not hundreds of different forums over the years I have been online. There is always one group or another of people that will abuse them or try and use them to boost their vanity or ego. Something that has no positive effect for any community ever and should not be pandered to in any way shape or form. 

I agree the OP of a thread should be able to close it or lock it after they think its served its purpose and if anyone wants to say anything new they can create their own new thread and reference the original but many would complain that adds 'more' space for them to have to read.

I also agree with time limited replies to any specific thread or limited posts per day in general. This would reduce post hogs from being able to clutter the forums to inflate their post count quickly. Or maybe limited responses per post based upon time from last reply aka 'must wait x hours before can post again in the same thread'.

Or even limit the number of posts per person per day over all. You get x number of posts for the day, after used must wait until the next day to post again. This would give other users more a chance to get a word in edgewise on some of the threads on these forums that explode out of control in just a few short hours.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

I wouldn't have a problem with them totally getting rid of the Reputation points that you get from the reactions, but I'd prefer to keep the reactions.  I don't want to always have to quote something just to indicate sorrow for the person or to indicate that their comments were good or funny, etc...

Little, your suggestion would be the best in between result. Or at least remove the reputation point and post count from the public display under each users name. force a curious user to have to go to their profile to see it instead.

There is no reason to show the post count or reputation on each thread except for vanity reasons. high post count or high reputation doesn't mean the person knows what they are talking about or should be considered any more important than someone with a lower count.

Its easy to manipulate the system if someone really wanted to eg; create a dozen alts/sock puppets and have them respond in various manners to each post made.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/7/2020 at 12:18 PM, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

It's 8.5 inches, not small. We can do the calculations by the minimum post size on your screen if you fancy. It will still be a doubling of thread lengths for no extra content.

What I'm really struck by in this whole conversation is how your experience is the only thing that matters to you, and if someone has a different point of view or way of doing things, then there's assumption and judgement. You've done it with vanity threads, reputation points, why people react, my screen size, your reading speed.

That's getting in the way of your understanding the points I'm trying to make. We don't have to agree, but it would be nice to be understood at least. Any chance of that?

8.5 tall or 8.5 corner to corner as most displays would be measured. if its only 8.5 corner to corner. that 'is' a really small monitor even for a laptop. My 9 year old laptop is 15'' corner to corner. if yours is only 8.5 corner to corner thats not a laptop but a netbook/notebook pc.

My desktop is a  4:3 display. or about 14" tall. which would be nearly double in height just about. meaning a lot more retail space for reading web pages even at 100% zoom.

Edited by Drakonadrgora Darkfold
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

8.5 tall or 8.5 corner to corner as most displays would be measured. if its only 8.5 corner to corner. that 'is' a really small monitor even for a laptop. My 9 year old laptop is 15'' corner to corner. if yours is only 8.5 corner to corner thats not a laptop but a netbook/notebook pc.

My desktop is a  4:3 display. or about 14" tall. which would be nearly double in height just about. meaning a lot more retail space for reading web pages even at 100% zoom.

Oh pardon me for my faux pas :D:D My laptop screen is 8.5 inches tall, which is what matters to me on how much of a forum page I can see. Width and diagonal don't, because I find it harder to read when the width of the text area goes over 9 inches.

But screen height, or width, or diagonal measurement really doesn't change how much extra material we'd all have to scroll through if you had your way. The minimum post size here is fixed by the identifying information at the side, not how much retail space is on your screen.

It's been fascinating to get this glimpse into how your mind works, but I think this has run its course. All the best :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

But screen height, or width, or diagonal measurement really doesn't change how much extra material we'd all have to scroll through if you had your way. The minimum post size here is fixed by the identifying information at the side, not how much retail space is on your screen.

There is a change in size of both. If you have a wider screen you can see more per inch, the post is changed in how it appears on a larger screen. It doesn't end the end of the line at the same place.  Meaning what once took 2-3 lines for some people to read on a smaller screen, takes less for someone on a larger screen. plus it does matter at what resolution you screen displays as to how much can be seen per inch both width and height wise. It is not the same on all monitors.  So yes there would be a difference in total screen content that has to be scrolled over by different individuals.

Someone with a 15" monitor would see less than someone with a 17" or larger monitor. Meaning they would have to scroll more in comparison to what the other person has to see. The forum software adapts the size of the post to your screen size, its not a one set size for all. So a wider screen will show more  per line while taking up less space per height.

28 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

Oh pardon me for my faux pas :D:D My laptop screen is 8.5 inches tall, which is what matters to me on how much of a forum page I can see. Width and diagonal don't, because I find it harder to read when the width of the text area goes over 9 inches.

Again a larger monitor would show more per height as well as more per width which makes the software change its view size on how many words are show per line and thus effects how much scrolling a person would have to do. Which means I 'can' see more and read more easier, so would not have to scroll as much as you. per post or per reply. So its less of a problem for me so the added size or number of posts or replies would be inconsequential. It does 'not' take up the same space for me or time

Plus depending upon resolution of the monitor that makes changes to what can be seen as well individually. At higher resolution on a larger monitor it shows even more per line and per height compared to a smaller monitor at the same resolution or lower resolution. Which means less to scroll by.

So saying it would add more for every user to have to read or scroll by its not really true. Only true for those using a smaller monitor or one at a lower resolution or higher zoom level. This entire reply is only 19 lines on monitor to read. On a smaller monitor it will be more.

Edited by Drakonadrgora Darkfold
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

There is a change in size of both. If you have a wider screen you can see more per inch, the post is changed in how it appears on a larger screen. It doesn't end the end of the line at the same place.  Meaning what once took 2-3 lines for some people to read on a smaller screen, takes less for someone on a larger screen. plus it does matter at what resolution you screen displays as to how much can be seen per inch both width and height wise. It is not the same on all monitors.  So yes there would be a difference in total screen content that has to be scrolled over by different individuals.

 

You remarked before that you read quickly. Could you perhaps be reading a bit too quickly and it's getting in the way of comprehension?

The minimum post size is set by the name, title, avatar, post count info on the left of the post. It's the same regardless of your screen size. The comparison was between the efficiency of reaction buttons, which condense a lot of response into a very small area, and what the minimum size would be if they were all conveyed as posts per your preference.

Sorry, but your lecture's been wasted as it's on something else 🤷‍♀️

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

You remarked before that you read quickly. Could you perhaps be reading a bit too quickly and it's getting in the way of comprehension?

The minimum post size is set by the name, title, avatar, post count info on the left of the post. It's the same regardless of your screen size. The comparison was between the efficiency of reaction buttons, which condense a lot of response into a very small area, and what the minimum size would be if they were all conveyed as posts per your preference.

Sorry, but your lecture's been wasted as it's on something else 🤷‍♀️

Actually the minimum size is not set by the side bar at all, its set by your monitor size and resolution and zoom level. On larger monitors that side bar information takes up less space per inch viewed if the user has changed the zoom level or resolution. Not everyone keeps their view at 100, some go larger some go smaller. And it depends upon what you have your mouse scroll settings at. Some scroll more per roll of the mouse some scroll less, meaning more or less time to scroll by content. So there is a lot more factors involved. 

I also disagree that the emoticons add much or any value to any post or thread for every person has a different opinion on what each means or is used for. Which can lead to a lot of discrepancies about what was being meant by the reaction. Where as a reply is harder and less likely to misconstrued about what the user was wanting to imply or say.

Edited by Drakonadrgora Darkfold
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

Actually the minimum size is not set by the side bar at all, its set by your monitor size and resolution and zoom level. On larger monitors that side bar information takes up less space per inch viewed if the user has changed the zoom level or resolution. Not everyone keeps their view at 100, some go larger some go smaller. And it depends upon what you have your mouse scroll settings at. Some scroll more per roll of the mouse some scroll less, meaning more or less time to scroll by content.

Yeah, I know about changing zoom level. Use it frequently myself :D

Sorry, got turned around by your insistence on changing topic and didn't word it correctly myself. Oops :D I did ask what the minimum size of a post was on your screen so we could use your numbers after you dismissed mine. Anyway, my rough calculation on an example page with a relatively small number of reactions per post was that it would double the amount of material to be scrolled through (without adding much, if any, significant content) regardless of screen size, resolution, etc.

I'd rather not have to do that, whether I'm on my desktop (I think that's about 21") or the laptop. It's fine if you don't care for yourself. Any chance you might care about others in this? Or is your experience the only one that matters to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record

I use LIKE  when I like what someone has said

I use HAHA if someone made me laugh.  If I laughed at you or with you is up to you to decide

I use Confused because I didn't understand you

I use Thanks when someone said something that I wanted to say but there was no need to as they got it covered OR if I learnt something from their post OR if they answered my question.

and I use Sad because your post made me feel sad.  I would much rather there be a hug reaction alongside the sad so I can show empathy in some cases.  I don't need to up my post count by creating another post to say I get it, I care when a reaction will do.  Same as all the other reasons I have used a reaction to acknowledge someone when theres absolutely no need to make a post when the reaction said it for me. Again, if you don't like the reactions just don't use them.  I can't see the problem with them.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

Yeah, I know about changing zoom level. Use it frequently myself :D

Sorry, got turned around by your insistence on changing topic and didn't word it correctly myself. Oops :D I did ask what the minimum size of a post was on your screen so we could use your numbers after you dismissed mine. Anyway, my rough calculation on an example page with a relatively small number of reactions per post was that it would double the amount of material to be scrolled through (without adding much, if any, significant content) regardless of screen size, resolution, etc.

I'd rather not have to do that, whether I'm on my desktop (I think that's about 21") or the laptop. It's fine if you don't care for yourself. Any chance you might care about others in this? Or is your experience the only one that matters to you?

Every reply has value to a thread, there is no unimportant or insignificant replies.

Again double the replies is inconsequential you scroll by what you dont want to read. you dont have to read every single reply. If you see its just a reaction reply you scroll on, it takes maybe a few seconds to decide that and move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cindy Evanier said:

For the record

I use LIKE  when I like what someone has said

I use HAHA if someone made me laugh.  If I laughed at you or with you is up to you to decide

I use Confused because I didn't understand you

I use Thanks when someone said something that I wanted to say but there was no need to as they got it covered OR if I learnt something from their post OR if they answered my question.

and I use Sad because your post made me feel sad.  I would much rather there be a hug reaction alongside the sad so I can show empathy in some cases.  I don't need to up my post count by creating another post to say I get it, I care when a reaction will do.  Same as all the other reasons I have used a reaction to acknowledge someone when theres absolutely no need to make a post when the reaction said it for me. Again, if you don't like the reactions just don't use them.  I can't see the problem with them.  

Thanks for sharing your view on what each means to you. For it does make a difference in how others feel or respond when someone uses one of them and intends them to mean something different that what others might think or assume it means for everyone else.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 2/2/2020 at 5:43 PM, Pamela Galli said:

Not sure which Linden to address this to but:  

A hug button would not only substitute for the sad one, but it can be used for either sad or happy, depending on the context. Double duty. 
 

 

(Puts on her Mass Effect voice) "My name is Kira Shepard, and I approve of this suggestion."

Edited by kiramanell
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I'd definitely vote for a hug button in SL, especially because we can't do hugs in RL right now. Scientists talk about how important physical contact is for social animals like us, and that isolation (or self isolation during quarantine) has negative effects on our mental health. So yay to the hug button!  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Waiomao said:

I'd definitely vote for a hug button in SL, especially because we can't do hugs in RL right now. Scientists talk about how important physical contact is for social animals like us, and that isolation (or self isolation during quarantine) has negative effects on our mental health. So yay to the hug button!  

Only if it has no reputation affect. 

In fact I don't think the laugh should affect reputation either. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lillith Hapmouche said:

In reverse, old and dry bread should serve the same purpose as the frying pan.

Oh sweet irony!

Cast iron Pan, irony, I see what you did there! So..pummel the poor and hungry with old, dry bread? Irony!

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 102 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...