Facebook Reactions, the Redesigned Like Button, Is Here
wired.com
wired.com
And it was killed because no one used it correctly and it made things more difficult versus a simple like/dislike?
What makes things different now?
What's different now is the visual representation - reactions as emoji.
And speaking from experience (the TapestryMaker social network platform has had emoji-based reactions for a couple years) it really does change the quality of the discussion. Especially on phones, one-click responses are a lot easier; so giving people a big one-click vocabulary makes conversation much richer. And having it representable visually rather than textually changes the image/text balance which for many people really improves their overall experience -- even though people who prefer text may not see it that way.
Oh, and people would use those things 'correctly', it's just too embarrassing sometimes. A simple 'like' is much more diplomatic.
This was pretty much the case Zuckerberg presented for redesigning the button.
Link for those interested: http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/02/news-feed-fyi-what-the-r...
Let me know if I've got it wrong because I'm making this point to everyone I see.
Still, my first impression is that it seems like an awkward in-between size: not conspicuous enough to fit in with the current scale and not large enough to set itself apart well.
It looks atrocious. Like they didn't even care to make it look seamless—it's just a cobbled together add-on.
Or perhaps it speaks to a big UI-style refresh that they're going to roll out?
Honestly, it looks like shit. But it fits well with the stupid images in comments.
I'm really curious how the new additions will change those unwritten rules and our behavior.
The semantics of a button labeled "Like" are certainly a little bit weird. I obviously don't like the fact that a friend is diagnosed with cancer. But my friends also don't post "I've got cancer." and leave it at that. People tend to explain their feelings if they share things like that.
In any case, I'm not sure that Reactions are really much of an improvement. If my friend says, "I've got cancer, but my doctor says I can beat it. Thank you for all your support." I think I'd find this new feature confusing. Is it a "Like" because she has a positive outlook? Is it a "Sad" because cancer is difficult and stressful? Is it a "Wow" because it's unexpected? Or is it even an "Angry" because my deity of choice has shown itself to be capricious or vengeful?
Maybe there's a positive side to this. Maybe it will, unwittingly, encourage people to attempt to share their feelings and try to process them instead of just clicking a button.
With a slightly wider spectrum of instantaneous reactions, perhaps the content, tone, and nature of our posts will broaden as well.
To be honest, until I see how others use them most of the new options seem so blunt (or maybe so cute?) as to be almost embarrassing to use.
Maybe 'perplexed' or 'impressed' would be good options?
Because let's be honest... this is because it's awkward to "Like" something awful. I'm pretty sure there will be only one correct reaction for each post, that people spam as they do "Like" now. It's hardly an opinion poll.
"My cat died today" [10 sad, 3 angry, 1 haha]
The only appropriate response to such a post - which by the way is questionable to write in the first place - is to reply with actual words in a private context.
If people are posting their cancer news on Facebook, followed by reaction icons, shares, likes and notifications... I'm glad I'm not on Facebook.
And I use FB mainly for events around my area and chat. I'm not much for posting or resharing garbage. And it's not like my "Rah rah candidate" shitposting is going to make someone else vote differently.
I have poked fun previously at this very thing you alluded to - that a news story about a natural disaster or murder has a "like" button at all, is plain stupid.
Adding new reaction icons to better represent the more appropriate response could backfire in that even they are still trivializing and almost gamifying our responses. It might end up a tacky mess.
If I were running the show, I would've released 30 new ones covering wide spectrum of emotions, and many purposely ambiguous. And NO text labels.
1. Even though there are multiple reactions, they're counted in aggregate. So instead of see 6 smilies, 2 sadfaces, and 1 like, you'll see 9 interactions were given.
2. The most recent 3 reactions are shown. There's no way of telling who reacted in which way, and the reaction break down.
3. I was completely wrong with points 1 and 2. After testing out the feature, it's trivial to see the reaction breakdown by either hovering over the reaction counts, or by clicking it.
Realizing the hardest part of this change for me is that I have no idea how to refer to the "reaction counts". Should I say, "Hey, your video had so many reactions!"? I guess I'll have to feel it out. Sort of starting to feel that this was a strategic move by FB to capture any new "like" type interaction that a competitor tries to release. Github has stars, Twitter now has hearts, FB has always been likes, but soon can/will be everything.
EDIT: Realized that reactions don't work in comments.
https://xenforo.com/community/resources/post-ratings-taking-...
It's not a bad idea, the concepts worked pretty well on the forums I've used it on. It's gonna be quite handy for anything news related, like illnesses, crimes, etc.
But I think putting too much importance on "copy" is wrongheaded. Facebook's team seems smart to "copy" these things from other platforms that prove their worth, just like tons of other platforms "copy" original things that Facebook's team has vetted. Who cares.
[1]: http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/08/with-reactions-facebook-sup...
I remember reading on multiple occasions (most recently, about two or three months ago) that "Mark Zuckerberg is preparing a dislike button", when, in fact, he was referring to adding more buttons to use in situations where "liking" things is not appropriate. This change brings just that.
maybe i'm just getting too old to be hip like the fellow kids these days
When Mark Zuckerberg first started Facebook in his dorm room it was called Facemash. Facemash ripped pictures from Harvard's online registar and let other students rate their peers in a "hot or not" style game.
This rating of student's faces was quite successful and cut right to the core of what was to follow: Shitheads using the Internet to gather likes and dislikes of themselves and their "online friends" in a retarded game where creating an artificial pecking order was fun/amusing. Then marketeers saw this and thought, "Oh fuck yeah, free marketing and demographic data plus contact information. Push that shit hard."