Upcoming Site Software Change

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Invision supports at least three more reactions (sad face, confused face, and laughing face) that I've seen on another forum that uses the software, so whatever the reason is that they are not on AU, it's a staff decision, not a software limitation.
 
Invision supports at least three more reactions (sad face, confused face, and laughing face) that I've seen on another forum that uses the software, so whatever the reason is that they are not on AU, it's a staff decision, not a software limitation.
Yeah. They were all available briefly after the upgrade. But I figured the urge to remove functionality to make it appear as dysfunctional as the previous version was strong. Juuust kidding :lol:
 
The current flow of river puns in the ViewSleeper thread also reminds me the need for a laughing reaction for everyone's funny jokes.
Would be nice, but I wouldn't bank on it happening.
 
How about...  Agree, Disagree, Thanks, Funny, Shocking, Sadness, Confusion. 

That's a nice mix of easily digested reactions that is flexible enough to respond to a wide range of topics without blending into one another.
 
How about...  Agree, Disagree, Thanks, Funny, Shocking, Sadness, Confusion. 

That's a nice mix of easily digested reactions that is flexible enough to respond to a wide range of topics without blending into one another.
I don't think we need seven different reactions. At that point we would literally have all the same reactions as Facebook, PLUS a "Disagree", "Thanks", and "Confusion".

I'm in favor of just having a "Like" reaction, and maybe the "Thanks" reaction. I said maybe because I think most uses for "Thanks" fall under "Like" anyway. I suggest "Like" instead of "Agree" because the former works for pretty much any post, while the latter only works for certain arguments. i.e, if someone posts a cute picture, you don't "Agree" with that post, but you do like it.

But I really don't think the rest are necessary. I agree with Bill that if you disagree with a post, it's best to communicate why than to just hit a button and move on. As to a "Funny" reaction, that would fall under "Like" anyway, and for a funny post the reason for that Like should be pretty clear. "Shocking" seems a bit ambiguous. Like, are you "shocked" that the post says something extreme that you disagree with, or are you shocked at how good/effective their argument is? Are you shocked because you're particularly concerned about something? "Sadness" I'm actually sort of neutral on, but when in doubt, I still think it's better to keep things simple. And I really don't see the role "Confusion" would play. If a member sees that their post got a Confused reaction, are they then obligated to tag said confused person and clarify it? If they don't understand something, isn't it just better to ask what you don't get than to react in an ambiguous way?

Also, this reminds me: does XenForo allow tagging members?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think we need seven different reactions. At that point we literally have the same reactions as Facebook, PLUS a "Disagree", "Thanks", and "Confusion".
I'm in favor of just having a "Like" reaction, and maybe the "Thanks" reaction. I say maybe because I think most uses for "Thanks" fall under "Like" anyway.
But I really don't think the rest are necessary. I agree with Bill that if you disagree with a post, it's best to communicate why than to just hit a button and move on. As to a "Funny" reaction, that would fall under "Like" anyway, and for a funny post the reason for that Like should be pretty clear. "Shocking" seems a bit ambiguous. Like, are you "shocked" that the post says something extreme that you disagree with, or are you shocked at how good/effective their argument is? Are you shocked because you're particularly concerned about something? "Sadness" I'm actually sort of neutral on, but when in doubt, I still think it's better to keep things simple. And I really don't see the role "Confusion" would play. If a member sees that their post got a Confused reaction, are they then obligated to tag said confused person and clarify it? If they don't understand something, isn't it just better to ask what you don't get than to react in an ambiguous way?
Also, this reminds me: does XenForo allow tagging members?
Where’s the disagree button?
 
Simply reading a post and clicking a “Dislike” button is lazy.  It adds nothing other than the fact that one poster for some unstated reason disagrees with a post but did not feel strongly enough to provide any counter information. Dislike an opinion by posting why, not just by saying “Dislike.” So, in my opinion, a “Dislike” feature adds nothing to the discussion of opinions.
A Dislike or Disagree button is no lazier or less relevant than a Like or Agree button.  We view these reactions differently for emotional rather than logical considerations.

I disagree that a dislike feature is necessary.
&

I don't think we need seven different reactions.
None of this is needed or necessary.  I'd be equally happy if we removed these reactions altogether.  I simply disagree with implementing thin-skinned half measures.  Either give both a thumbs up and a thumbs down, or don't bother.  That's my opinion anyway.
 
Is this discussion in danger of becoming a "tempest in a teapot"?

Personally, I see no reason to change from a software platform that works well to a different one.
 
HI all, I've not posted on the "have these emojis, have those emojis, No, do not have the emojis.     There will be some basic smileys that come with the software.  Like comes with the software.   Many thing XF can do that I've seen listed are add-ons.  Some are free, some cost.   We don't put a lot of them on the sites.  

I will be working to make the new version as much as I can to this one, and the developer that does the change will also.   

This may be like going from a Chevy to a Cadillac, but not a Porsche.
 
HI all, I've not posted on the "have these emojis, have those emojis, No, do not have the emojis.     There will be some basic smileys that come with the software.  Like comes with the software.   Many thing XF can do that I've seen listed are add-ons.  Some are free, some cost.   We don't put a lot of them on the sites.  

I will be working to make the new version as much as I can to this one, and the developer that does the change will also.   

This may be like going from a Chevy to a Cadillac, but not a Porsche.
So is it correct to say that the intent is to keep things as close to the current version as possible at first, and then once things are working well, maybe we'll expand from there and utilize new features the site offers?

Also, Invision 4.0 remembers what I've been typing if I reload or go to another page and back. Does XF also have that feature, or will I lose what I've been working on? And does XF support some sort of MultiQuote equivalent (beyond just copying and pasting the BBCode)?
 
1.   There will be a temp save for what you start to post and leave.   

2.   Reply, quotes the post you are replying to,  +Quote is the multiquote, and in the attachment, you will see both and the LIKE.

like quote  multiquote.JPG
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It works fine the way it's set up.     And this will probably stay as is.     
 
I disagree that a dislike feature is necessary. For pretty much any Amtrak-related post, there’s going to be someone who doesn’t like it, and I think that the ability to mark each post as such would just bury any likes/thanks. And even if we did restrict voting to members who have reached some sort of criteria, that still doesn’t really protect against people disliking posts out of sheer spite or in an effort to pass them in reputation points (as they are referred to in Invision).

I’m also thinking about the fact that the like feature was originally described by Bill as a way to show one’s agreement without just making a post that says that. If someone merely appreciates or agrees with a post, they don’t inherently have something to say of their that would add to the discussion, so it’s great to be able to put down that they agree without clogging up the conversation. Whereas if a person really doesn’t like a post, they do inherently have their own opinion and argument against it, and have the opportunity to put their argument out there and see the reaction it gets.

So my feeling is that it’s really best to just have the choice of reacting positively (through “likes” or “thanks”) or not reacting at all, since it focuses on the best content (and not the worst), avoids any sort of abuse, and naturally encourages people to put their own arguments out there and see how others respond to it.
Sometimes one is disagreeing with a repetitive argument and doesn't want to repeat the well known grounds for disagreement.
 
To put this more clearly, do you want me to repeat the same argument about the misleading term "long distance route" every single time it comes up, or to stay quiet the third time it happens in the same thread and hit disagree instead?
 
If an opposing argument that you agree with has already been made, then just like that post. 
Disagree.  The problem comes when zombie arguments which I have already debunked get repeated over and over.  I don't want to be drowned out by repetition without a new response, but I also don't want to commit that repetition.

Think of the response as "agree to disagree"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  This is not a thread about your views on how to disagree on the site.    It is where I can help you get ready for the new forum software.

I have answered about that.  No other fuss is needed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top