I think there's more involved than just an aversion to a simplistic "I agree." People will only spend time and effort writing a comment if they feel strongly enough. If I've seen someone's comment...
I think there's more involved than just an aversion to a simplistic "I agree."
People will only spend time and effort writing a comment if they feel strongly enough.
If I've seen someone's comment and I agree with it, that's not going to raise my passions. I'll give them a vote because they've already said what I wanted to say, but I won't add to it because it's redundant to just repeat what someone else already said.
However, if I disagree with someone's comment, that's going to make me passionate enough to want to spend some time and effort expressing that disagreement. And my comment isn't redundant because noone else has (yet) said what I'm saying.
I also believe that redditors and tilders would likely consider a comment saying simply "I disagree" to be just as low quality as a comment saying simply "I agree". And, "go fuck yourself" is going to fall foul of Tildes' lack of tolerance for arseholes.
If the users of tildes are called tildoes does that mean that non users are called tildoesn'ts? But I'm wondering what @Deimos calls us, and if he had a plan to implement that, or if he's just...
If the users of tildes are called tildoes does that mean that non users are called tildoesn'ts?
But I'm wondering what @Deimos calls us, and if he had a plan to implement that, or if he's just going to let the community fight it out and stick with that. Personally I like tilders most but I'm fine with tildoes too.
I don't really have a term that I use, I usually just say "users" when I'm talking about it. I hate "tildoes", but trying to tell people which term to use or not use is pretty futile.
I don't really have a term that I use, I usually just say "users" when I'm talking about it. I hate "tildoes", but trying to tell people which term to use or not use is pretty futile.
Meanwhile, here in Australia, a sitting Prime Minister can call a voter a "silly old bugger", and the resulting fuss is about his conduct rather than the language itself. Then, nearly 20 years...
“buggers” not really used in the US, but implies sodomy and is rather vulgar in the U.K.
Meanwhile, here in Australia, a sitting Prime Minister can call a voter a "silly old bugger", and the resulting fuss is about his conduct rather than the language itself. Then, nearly 20 years later, an ex-Prime Minister can say exactly the same thing about that original Prime Minister with barely an eyebrow being raised.
"Bugger" doesn't really have much impact here in Australia any more. Almost noone knows it used to refer to sodomy. These days, it's just a low-level colloquial generic insult.
A silly name based on a rubber penis might help maintain some level of bro repellant, too. I'd rather be a Tildoe than crush Alt right facts with Brad and Steve in r/T_D
A silly name based on a rubber penis might help maintain some level of bro repellant, too. I'd rather be a Tildoe than crush Alt right facts with Brad and Steve in r/T_D
I'm curios what would happen if there would be Agree/Disagree buttons and the Vote button would be renamed to something like "Quality Comment" button. Even if the functionality would remain the...
I'm curios what would happen if there would be Agree/Disagree buttons and the Vote button would be renamed to something like "Quality Comment" button. Even if the functionality would remain the same (quality comment button would be the same as vote button, agree/disagree buttons wouldn't do anything), people might actually use the buttons to do what they are supposed to do.
The important thing is to make people feel like their actions affect something - if they agree with something, they want to express it.
This seems like a wonderful way to make the vote button work as intended, while giving people an option to essentially comment 'I agree.' without having to make a low effort comment. The...
This seems like a wonderful way to make the vote button work as intended, while giving people an option to essentially comment 'I agree.' without having to make a low effort comment. The agree/disagree can give people an option to voice their support, and can show other users how the community feels about a post or comment without effecting sorting based on votes. I feel like this suggestion deserves its own thread in ~tildes.
I’ve often wondered something similar. What if there were two was to rate comments, a agree/disagree button (or maybe just call it like/dislike) and a separate contributes/doesn’t contribute...
I’ve often wondered something similar. What if there were two was to rate comments, a agree/disagree button (or maybe just call it like/dislike) and a separate contributes/doesn’t contribute button? I strongly suspect it wouldn’t work out, but I do miss old Reddit where votes where for judging a comment’s contribution to the discussion. When used as intended that was a decent way of fostering interesting discussion. And I could see some utility in people being able to show their agreement or disagreement without commenting.
As someone who used to comment a lot on reddit, I can say that it's very easy to beat the "low content" threshold when agreeing with another user on social media. Adding another element to a...
As someone who used to comment a lot on reddit, I can say that it's very easy to beat the "low content" threshold when agreeing with another user on social media. Adding another element to a conversation is what people do in any real life conversation that isn't an argument. Maybe your life experience is different, but I definitely don't spend most of my real life conversations arguing. You can also always give the reason why you agree. It's adding to the conversation, and it adds a wrinkle to whatever discussion you're having. Qualifying your agreement adds new sub-topics to talk about.
For instance if I'm at work and someone says:
"I think the Texans could have a real shot this year."
I would probably respond with:
"Yeah, especially if everyone stays healthy through the season."
Now we have a broader range of topics to continue discussing, without disagreement.
For this budding community though, I have already seen a lot of effort to try and make sure that everyone feels welcomed. Beside the fact that if you are currently here you had to be invited, there is a lot in what Tildes is that allows for open conversation.
That said, I get a reticence to comment or post. This is a very small group, and everyone is trying very hard to create a "quality" community. I'd say that we all have to be aware that in going after high-quality discussion we don't scare off new users.
But think about it as if you're in a face-to-face conversation with a group of people. Someone states an opinion, and you just say "I disagree," and stand there. The group isn't exactly going to...
Sometimes it's okay to simply (dis)agree. It might be noise, but it contributes to the conversation, just like in an IRL one.
But think about it as if you're in a face-to-face conversation with a group of people. Someone states an opinion, and you just say "I disagree," and stand there. The group isn't exactly going to have any idea why you disagree, or if your position on the topic is based on any real facts or research, and are likely to move the conversation elsewhere, or question you about it. So you might as well be ready with your counter argument if you're going to bother stating your position in the first place. We'd like to hear that argument here (or anywhere online you choose to state it), because simple raw opinion means little without providing any support, unless it's religion. Then, all bets are off and arguments break down.
That's true with saying "I agree" and just standing there. Usually you're expected to expand on your views, otherwise you'll have nothing to talk about.
But think about it as if you're in a face-to-face conversation with a group of people. Someone states an opinion, and you just say "I disagree," and stand there.
That's true with saying "I agree" and just standing there. Usually you're expected to expand on your views, otherwise you'll have nothing to talk about.
There's less requirement to state your views when you're agreeing with someone else's views. "I like ice-cream because it's sweet and it's refreshing on hot days." "I agree." "Really? Don't just...
There's less requirement to state your views when you're agreeing with someone else's views.
"I like ice-cream because it's sweet and it's refreshing on hot days."
"I agree."
"Really? Don't just stand there. Please expand on your views: why do you like ice-cream?"
"Well... I like ice-cream because... umm... it tastes sugary... and... umm... because it's cold when the weather is hot."
That's just repeating what the first person already said.
I mean, people won't push you to do more than just agree, but no one is going to think you're contributing particularly. Saying "yeah" to everything is gonna end up with people finding someone...
I mean, people won't push you to do more than just agree, but no one is going to think you're contributing particularly. Saying "yeah" to everything is gonna end up with people finding someone else to talk to.
Also, in real life that convo would go like:
"I like ice-cream because it's sweet and it's refreshing on hot days."
"Yeah definitely, also I know it's nuts but my favorite flavor is rum raisin."
or
"Ice cream is the best, have you been to the place off Center Street? I don't know why, but their ice cream is soooo much better than anywhere else."
or
"No shit ice cream is sweet and refreshing. Are you a goddamn robot or something? Are you high?"
Your example plays out almost exactly the same when the person says "I disagree" and nothing more as when they say "I agree" and nothing more. Inevitably the first question someone is going to ask...
Your example plays out almost exactly the same when the person says "I disagree" and nothing more as when they say "I agree" and nothing more.
Inevitably the first question someone is going to ask you when you say "I disagree" is "why?".
It's an extra step, but the conversation will reach that point either way, regardless of whether it takes more time or clutters the conversation.
Yes, it does. I never meant to imply otherwise. Whether someone simply says "I agree" or "I disagree", it puts the onus on the other person to draw them out. That's why both replies are fairly...
Your example plays out almost exactly the same when the person says "I disagree" and nothing more as when they say "I agree" and nothing more.
Yes, it does. I never meant to imply otherwise. Whether someone simply says "I agree" or "I disagree", it puts the onus on the other person to draw them out. That's why both replies are fairly shallow and basically tend to just be clutter in a thread.
However, asking someone to expand on "I agree" is much less likely to produce something we don't already know than asking someone to expand on "I disagree".
This depends heavily on what is being discussed. If we are talking personal preferences, there's likely more discussion on the disagreement side than the agreement side. If we're talking politics,...
However, asking someone to expand on "I agree" is much less likely to produce something we don't already know than asking someone to expand on "I disagree".
This depends heavily on what is being discussed. If we are talking personal preferences, there's likely more discussion on the disagreement side than the agreement side. If we're talking politics, or something with a more formalized debate and common or well-known arguments, then there's likely more discussion on the agreement than disagreement side.
I think there's more involved than just an aversion to a simplistic "I agree."
People will only spend time and effort writing a comment if they feel strongly enough.
If I've seen someone's comment and I agree with it, that's not going to raise my passions. I'll give them a vote because they've already said what I wanted to say, but I won't add to it because it's redundant to just repeat what someone else already said.
However, if I disagree with someone's comment, that's going to make me passionate enough to want to spend some time and effort expressing that disagreement. And my comment isn't redundant because noone else has (yet) said what I'm saying.
I also believe that redditors and tilders would likely consider a comment saying simply "I disagree" to be just as low quality as a comment saying simply "I agree". And, "go fuck yourself" is going to fall foul of Tildes' lack of tolerance for arseholes.
Ugh. I hate both! Good-naturedly.
I like “squiggles” personally. Still has the problem of not relating back to the name of the site though.
Terms that people have used to describe users:
-Tilders
-Tildoes
-Tilderinos
-Tildites
-Tildians
If the users of tildes are called tildoes does that mean that non users are called tildoesn'ts?
But I'm wondering what @Deimos calls us, and if he had a plan to implement that, or if he's just going to let the community fight it out and stick with that. Personally I like tilders most but I'm fine with tildoes too.
I don't really have a term that I use, I usually just say "users" when I'm talking about it. I hate "tildoes", but trying to tell people which term to use or not use is pretty futile.
Tildees maybe?
Account-owning members of the internet web site https://tildes.net ?
No but seriously, I like "tildes users"
That's the first one I've actually liked!
Tildees.
I agree.
I agree, except I love 'tildoes'. Anybody who talks to strangers online is at least part dildo.
Meanwhile, here in Australia, a sitting Prime Minister can call a voter a "silly old bugger", and the resulting fuss is about his conduct rather than the language itself. Then, nearly 20 years later, an ex-Prime Minister can say exactly the same thing about that original Prime Minister with barely an eyebrow being raised.
"Bugger" doesn't really have much impact here in Australia any more. Almost noone knows it used to refer to sodomy. These days, it's just a low-level colloquial generic insult.
Canada, too.
A silly name based on a rubber penis might help maintain some level of bro repellant, too. I'd rather be a Tildoe than crush Alt right facts with Brad and Steve in r/T_D
I agree.
I'm curios what would happen if there would be Agree/Disagree buttons and the Vote button would be renamed to something like "Quality Comment" button. Even if the functionality would remain the same (quality comment button would be the same as vote button, agree/disagree buttons wouldn't do anything), people might actually use the buttons to do what they are supposed to do.
The important thing is to make people feel like their actions affect something - if they agree with something, they want to express it.
This seems like a wonderful way to make the vote button work as intended, while giving people an option to essentially comment 'I agree.' without having to make a low effort comment. The agree/disagree can give people an option to voice their support, and can show other users how the community feels about a post or comment without effecting sorting based on votes. I feel like this suggestion deserves its own thread in ~tildes.
I've posted it. Let's see what @Deimos thinks :-)
~tildes thread
I’ve often wondered something similar. What if there were two was to rate comments, a agree/disagree button (or maybe just call it like/dislike) and a separate contributes/doesn’t contribute button? I strongly suspect it wouldn’t work out, but I do miss old Reddit where votes where for judging a comment’s contribution to the discussion. When used as intended that was a decent way of fostering interesting discussion. And I could see some utility in people being able to show their agreement or disagreement without commenting.
As someone who used to comment a lot on reddit, I can say that it's very easy to beat the "low content" threshold when agreeing with another user on social media. Adding another element to a conversation is what people do in any real life conversation that isn't an argument. Maybe your life experience is different, but I definitely don't spend most of my real life conversations arguing. You can also always give the reason why you agree. It's adding to the conversation, and it adds a wrinkle to whatever discussion you're having. Qualifying your agreement adds new sub-topics to talk about.
For instance if I'm at work and someone says:
"I think the Texans could have a real shot this year."
I would probably respond with:
"Yeah, especially if everyone stays healthy through the season."
Now we have a broader range of topics to continue discussing, without disagreement.
For this budding community though, I have already seen a lot of effort to try and make sure that everyone feels welcomed. Beside the fact that if you are currently here you had to be invited, there is a lot in what Tildes is that allows for open conversation.
That said, I get a reticence to comment or post. This is a very small group, and everyone is trying very hard to create a "quality" community. I'd say that we all have to be aware that in going after high-quality discussion we don't scare off new users.
But think about it as if you're in a face-to-face conversation with a group of people. Someone states an opinion, and you just say "I disagree," and stand there. The group isn't exactly going to have any idea why you disagree, or if your position on the topic is based on any real facts or research, and are likely to move the conversation elsewhere, or question you about it. So you might as well be ready with your counter argument if you're going to bother stating your position in the first place. We'd like to hear that argument here (or anywhere online you choose to state it), because simple raw opinion means little without providing any support, unless it's religion. Then, all bets are off and arguments break down.
That's true with saying "I agree" and just standing there. Usually you're expected to expand on your views, otherwise you'll have nothing to talk about.
There's less requirement to state your views when you're agreeing with someone else's views.
"I like ice-cream because it's sweet and it's refreshing on hot days."
"I agree."
"Really? Don't just stand there. Please expand on your views: why do you like ice-cream?"
"Well... I like ice-cream because... umm... it tastes sugary... and... umm... because it's cold when the weather is hot."
That's just repeating what the first person already said.
I mean, people won't push you to do more than just agree, but no one is going to think you're contributing particularly. Saying "yeah" to everything is gonna end up with people finding someone else to talk to.
Also, in real life that convo would go like:
"I like ice-cream because it's sweet and it's refreshing on hot days."
"Yeah definitely, also I know it's nuts but my favorite flavor is rum raisin."
or
"Ice cream is the best, have you been to the place off Center Street? I don't know why, but their ice cream is soooo much better than anywhere else."
or
"No shit ice cream is sweet and refreshing. Are you a goddamn robot or something? Are you high?"
Your example plays out almost exactly the same when the person says "I disagree" and nothing more as when they say "I agree" and nothing more.
Inevitably the first question someone is going to ask you when you say "I disagree" is "why?".
It's an extra step, but the conversation will reach that point either way, regardless of whether it takes more time or clutters the conversation.
Yes, it does. I never meant to imply otherwise. Whether someone simply says "I agree" or "I disagree", it puts the onus on the other person to draw them out. That's why both replies are fairly shallow and basically tend to just be clutter in a thread.
However, asking someone to expand on "I agree" is much less likely to produce something we don't already know than asking someone to expand on "I disagree".
This depends heavily on what is being discussed. If we are talking personal preferences, there's likely more discussion on the disagreement side than the agreement side. If we're talking politics, or something with a more formalized debate and common or well-known arguments, then there's likely more discussion on the agreement than disagreement side.
AFK not IRL. The internet is an extension of real life.