Revert Reactions back to Ratings

[nara~kavi]

I think we can all agree that this was a completely unnecessary change. The idea of "reacting with Agree" is completely nonsensical and it just makes the rating system feel memey and lame. The system was completely fine before and most other forums refer to them as ratings. Calling them reactions just confuses people and doesn't make any sense.

This was a change made without any sort of feedback from the community, made completely on a whim by the previous administrator as per his posts that indicate that.

Under Ajdin's leadership, this will be a new era of community involvement in the site and I hope that we can all agree that decisions such as this one should be reverted.

 

[K3Feedz]

"I reacted with a "Funny" emoji"
That sounds stupid.
"I rated your post "Funny".
That sounds better & i'ma be honest here. I have terrible grammar, even ask Mick Coco.

 

[Produce]

Please revert them Ajdin , but don't break them when you do XD

 

[Ajdin]

The big question is, why should we reverse it now?

I confirm that I disagreed with the change but is it really worth changing back now?

I feel like it'll only cause confusion and questioning.

 

[montyburly]

The big question is, why should we reverse it now?

I confirm that I disagreed with the change but is it really worth changing back now?

I feel like it'll only cause confusion and questioning.

How would changing the word 'reaction' back to the word everyone uses already to describe them be confusing lol

 

[nara~kavi]

Also for the sake of record, this thread had 30+ agrees before the agree thingy was changed. Kind of lame that those don't show up now.

 

[Satan]

I think they changed it to reactions due to the word 'ratings' being misleading causing new users to believe that someone with high 'ratings' is reputable and trustworthy.

At the end of the day, they are the same thing, ratings sounded nicer to me though.

Though their statistics are the same, their denotations/definitions of each word was altered. Ratings implied that if someone had lots of ratings that they're a high rated person, and therefore trustworthy/reputable. However reactions implies that this person is simply active on the forums and gets alot of reactions to their post.

For the sake of not confusing people that ratings are reputation, I'd disagree with this suggestion and leave it the way it is.

 

[montyburly]

Though their statistics are the same, their denotations/definitions of each word was altered. Ratings implied that if someone had lots of ratings that they're a high rated person, and therefore trustworthy/reputable. However reactions implies that this person is simply active on the forums and gets alot of reactions to their post.

For the sake of not confusing people that ratings are reputation, I'd disagree with this suggestion and leave it the way it is.

No lol nobody sees it that way. People who think ratings=rep still think reactions=rep and everyone still calls them ratings anyway. New people who come here will still consider "reactions" rep because they are rep. This argument is so pointless. Most people want them reverted to ratings, only the minority doesn't. I don't understand why they can't be reverted already.

 

[Satan]

No lol nobody sees it that way. People who think ratings=rep still think reactions=rep and everyone still calls them ratings anyway. New people who come here will still consider "reactions" rep because they are rep. This argument is so pointless. Most people want them reverted to ratings, only the minority doesn't. I don't understand why they can't be reverted already.

Its true that many people come here with that mindset, but its clearly a negative one to have that a numbered system of points based on how many people rate your post on these forums makes you reputable... I just can't see how that connects. Vouches can be counted, but I highly discourage people to count 1 worded vouches and instead look for more detailed descriptions so that people cant just "vouch 4 vouch" where 1 person just vouches the other, and gets 1 in return because they got a vouch....

 

[Ivain]

the amount of retards in this thread that still think ratings are rep is sickening. If they're "rep" anyway, why the fuck does it matter what they're called?

 

[Adrenalize]

When shitposters think they are all reputable with hundreds of ratings and only have been here for a few months

Eh I don't know if this is good

 

[montyburly]

Just so everyone (including Bosny) knows, there have been countless polls and posts about this issue where the overwhelming majority has agreed that they'd like reactions reverted to ratings, so don't base your decision off of the 3 people who disagree.

 

[Ivain]

you mean 9?
Also, some links to said countless polls would be great.

 

[montyburly]

http://www.mc-market.org/threads/86992/ In this thread Bosny himself and Doge, a moderator, say they don't like the change.

http://www.mc-market.org/threads/85370/ Here's a poll with a 60:18 ratio and loads of comments in support of the reversion.

I was either mistaken about the amount of threads that were made, can't find others, or they've been deleted but the poll on the thread I made where 60 people voted in support of reactions being reverted back to ratings should speak for itself. You can disagree all you want, and I know Bosny has every right to not revert them if he doesn't want to, it's his forum. Nobody can argue that the majority of members want ratings back, though, and if this is truly a forum that listens to its community's input, they should revert them. That's all I have to say on the matter because I've already commented my view too much on this website.

 

[Ivain]

ah well, guess I don't care enough about the actual name of the things. people will always believe a stupid green number is equal to reputation anyway, no use fighting it if it does happen.

 

[Ac3dUd3]

As ivain has said, people will fight regardless. You can name them 'fruitloops' and people will still try to have the most because humans are competitive by nature. its in our DNA to be the better male to lead the pack (or female). the name doesnt matter people will still automatically judge it as the higher the number the better it is.
As we are arguing over the NAME of this i personally like 'ratings' over 'reactions' however we should rename them 'fruitloops' so people can see how ridiculous it all is lol

 

[montyburly]

As ivain has said, people will fight regardless. You can name them 'fruitloops' and people will still try to have the most because humans are competitive by nature. its in our DNA to be the better male to lead the pack (or female). the name doesnt matter people will still automatically judge it as the higher the number the better it is.
As we are arguing over the NAME of this i personally like 'ratings' over 'reactions' however we should rename them 'fruitloops' so people can see how ridiculous it all is lol

What exactly is your point here? Most people want the name reverted. If it gets reverted, people will be happy. If it got changed to fruitloops no shit people would bitch, just like people bitched about the change to reactions. It's unnecessary and only causes problems.

 

[Ac3dUd3]

What exactly is your point here? Most people want the name reverted. If it gets reverted, people will be happy. If it got changed to fruitloops no shit people would bitch, just like people bitched about the change to reactions. It's unnecessary and only causes problems.

The point i was making is its just a name. your fighting over the name not the idea of what it does. I agree that the majority would prefer it to be changed back to ratings. I agree it is a good decision to go with what the community wants. Dont get upset with someone because they dont share your exact views. I think it should be reverted back to ratings to keep the community happy, But i also think its just a name and the name ratings is better than reactions.
The purpose of what it does is the same regardless of the name