-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add reaction counts to reports? #267
Comments
Prof. Roosen actually brought this idea up a couple of months ago; we mentioned that this should be feasible to execute as implementation-wise, this will work in largely the same way as messages are counted. I agree though that in some cases it would make more sense to react to a post than to reply to it with a two-worder, since it does make actually important posts/good points harder to reach. Though this brings up the question, how would course staff receive reports for reactions and messages? Would you like them added to the message count (maybe as a decimal if not a whole number) or supplied in a separate column? |
Personally, I think that another column would be the simplest solution. |
You could also have it only track certain reactions. If you add a specific set of emoji that cover a few common things (me too, I agree, I disagree, etc.), you could only count those and avoid people getting points for reaching with 😂 whenever someone makes a joke. |
Ben is smart.
…On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 8:32 PM Ben ***@***.***> wrote:
You could also have it only track certain reactions. If you add a specific
set of emoji that cover a few common things (me too, I agree, I disagree,
etc.), you could only count those and avoid people getting points for
reaching with 😂 whenever someone makes a joke.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#267 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACXZZD772IQEYULQJXYJ2ITVFX5IFANCNFSM5TWWI73Q>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
That's why they pay me the big bucks. |
Ben does have a good point, though there are two potential caveats here:
|
Also, good points.
Would we tell the students what emojis count for reaction points? Keep in
mind that students may A) have Nitro and thus use custom emojis that we
definitely won't be able to actively keep track of, and B) they may use
emojis to express agreement that aren't typically used to express agreement
(we had someone last semester who used the 🍞 emoji to express agreement).
It could lead to some students realizing they aren't being scored for their
reactions and then coming to us about it
That's true, and also true more generally: every additional feature will
cause some confusion, which will add to the burden of those whose jobs it
is to clarify these issues. It's always worth evaluating whether the
additional bells and whistles are worth the extra work.
However, there is some of this extra work that could be put on the
students. After all, failing to read the instructions is grounds for
getting fewer points. More to the point, we want Discord to be used to
communicate. If I use a breadloaf emoji to suggest that we should invade
upper Latveria, but nobody understands what I'm suggesting, the
invasion's failure is probably at least in part my fault. That over-wrought
analogy works on a couple of levels to say that communicating clearly is
better than communicating poorly. If someone expects points for
communicating, they should probably communicate clearly.
So, yes: I would tell students which emojis count for reaction points. But
this would not stop students from using other emojis. They can react more
than once to a given post, and they are not penalized for doing so.
A bit less important, but one could say we could explicitly define what
emojis will add to one's reaction points, but with this, that could mean
abuse of the valid emojis. (Then again, students can spam messages, but
hey, we've got the /resetlevels command. Perhaps we could have a similar
thing for reactions?)
I don't know how much of an issue this will be. I would personally give
fewer points for reacting than I would for posting (maybe 1/5 of a post's
worth of points?), so you'd have to react a lot to make it worth your
while. Also, it would be relatively hard to distinguish which reactions
were spammed from the "legitimate" ones.
My inclination is to wait until someone witnesses this to be an actual
problem, and *then* brainstorm the solution. A problem for our future
Discord overlords, who I, for one, have always welcomed.
…On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 7:46 AM Simon Brugel ***@***.***> wrote:
Ben does have a good point, though there are two potential caveats here:
- Would we tell the students what emojis count for reaction points?
Keep in mind that students may A) have Nitro and thus use custom emojis
that we definitely won't be able to actively keep track of, and B) they may
use emojis to express agreement that aren't typically used to express
agreement (we had someone last semester who used the 🍞 emoji to
express agreement). It could lead to some students realizing they aren't
being scored for their reactions and then coming to us about it
- A bit less important, but one could say we could explicitly define
what emojis will add to one's reaction points, but with this, that could
mean abuse of the valid emojis. (Then again, students can spam messages,
but hey, we've got the /resetlevels command. Perhaps we could have a
similar thing for reactions?)
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#267 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACXZZDYDEEXV6Q7V4FDDAZTVF2MK7ANCNFSM5TWWI73Q>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Another potential issue I see with this in terms of exploitation would be scrolling really far back in the channels and reacting to a bunch of old messages that no one will ever see to spam with no repercussions. I guess just checking how far back reactions should count would be mitigation enough, but we'd have to decide how old is too old. |
The reaction counter would only update for any reactions sent in the last week, so it would make sense to only count reactions on messages sent from the start of the counting period (so Sunday @ 0000) to the end (Saturday @ 2359) ̶n̶o̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶'̶s̶ ̶g̶o̶n̶n̶a̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶n̶d̶ ̶h̶o̶u̶r̶s̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶c̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶m̶e̶s̶s̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶r̶s̶e̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶n̶e̶l̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶h̶e̶y̶,̶ ̶w̶e̶'̶r̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶l̶l̶e̶g̶e̶ ̶s̶t̶u̶d̶e̶n̶t̶s̶,̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶s̶?̶ |
Re Nazim:
All fair. I reckon that along with Ben's 👍 and 👎 suggestion, I think ☝️ and 👆 should also be counted for the "me too" part. They can be used to show that a student has a problem, or as another way to express agreement. Not too sure what else can be used here, but I'm fully open to ideas. And yes, probably best to wait for the feature to actually be abused instead of worrying about if/how it would be abused. |
A thought actually popped up in my head, I was thinking we can do the reactions Simon and Ben suggested track certain reactions. I'm not sure if this was mentioned but it could be possible for sage to ignore reactions from people with nitro that have their own emotes since it would be unfair to those who do not have nitro. Its possible that we can use the coding language emojis in the server provided but as long as it is not abused. Further another suggestion was for sage to possibly ignore people's reactions only in the announcements suggestion if possible. That's what I am thinking. |
They would only count in course channels like academic messages do, so this will not be a problem. |
This seems way beyond what's currently being reported, but I'm wondering how much effort it would take to trake reaction emoji use, and how complicated it might be to report it.
A somewhat day-dreamy implementation would be to try to encourage folks to use reaction emojis to convey the "Me too" or "Same problem" or "I agree" posts, which tend to water down the more valuable content. It would actually synergize pretty well with #265 .
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: