I treat social media as pure discussion platform to advance understanding or to know new stuff.
There had been something on my mind lately which I wanted to discuss as a way to improve the upvotes relevance to the quality of the post and the amount of discussion.
Let’s apply quality control on upvotes, so any post can get only 20 upvotes till it gets a specific amount of comments then the limit could be pumped up to 40 upvotes till it gets more comments, etc…
Why I am bringing this up, you might ask? The linked post by me is the peek proof of my point.
It’s pretty clear no one read the linked article and despite that, the post is the top post in the technology community. There is no comments discussing directly the story and from the face of it, There does not seem to be any indicator that any one benefited from this.
I skimmed over the story and shared it in the hopes to basically learn new stuff, get relevant recommendations or basically read some direct discussions.
In any way, I think my described system to handle upvotes would highly improve Lemmy, taking into consideration that numbers used are only for demonstration and the used numbers will need to be figured out separately.
Should this system be implemented into Lemmy?
Solutions should bring more freedom, not restrictions. Imagine not being able to upvote something you like.
I keep saying it in this thread, any solution would work better than no solution at all.
If anyone has a better system, let them lay it out and then we can discuss and improve it.
Otherwise, looking for perfect solutions without actually implementing any one of them is going to lead to unneeded analysis paralysis for fediverse developers without solving the issue at all.
I think it’s a matter of sorting. Do you know how does it work? I don’t. Would be interesting to know. Why exactly those posts are shown in the feed? Is it “sort all by upvotes count descending”? Probably not, because this way you will get popular post from previous year. Is it “same, but filtered to those posted within last week”? Probably not. I think interacting with lemmy’s api can shed some light on this topic. Probably you can use whatever sorting you like.
Im with you. I started using the active view but initially I thought it actually ordered like top but by number of comments. Still it gives it in order of what was last commented on. I like the idea of your system. I had thought it would be nice if you could only vote if you commented but then thought about how it would encourage garbage commenting in order to vote. Personally I rarely vote. Doing so only in the extremes (the wow this is incredible I want folks to see this or for something completely aweful). Honestly im a bit more likely to block than downvote. I would love the voting if everyone did it like this but I know many go through in sorta a I suport/ I don’t kind of way marking everything they scroll through.
So … you are basing you hypothesis on an article about Pedophile hunters written in German (or Swiss if you want to get frisky) that you linked using an English headline and summary in a software development community?
I’m surprised that your post wasn’t removed.
I’m mentioning this because it hardly seems like a genuine attempt to learn anything and any assertions you make about voting behaviour has to be suspect at best, not to mention that it’s based on a single example, hardly ever the hallmark of solid statistical analysis.
Let’s move on to the attempted “fix”.
You’re attempting to achieve what exactly?
A relationship between votes and comments?
How do you know how the users decide what to read, vote or comment on? You see a relationship with ordering by votes, I read whatever comes past on my “All feed” and vote when I think the pod warrants it. The two are not the same.
In other words, your proposal seems based on a very poor foundation and I’m voting accordingly.
Jordan Peterson? Is that you?
I sympathise and agree with the intent, but the proposed solution is not great. No, I don’t have a better solution in mind.
Upvotes without reading do suck but comments without reading are worse. I’ve been considering adding a highlight/boost on comments where the author has clicked the link.
Also we could weight the votes so votes after reading have 2x the effect.
You can’t do that with different clients.
Simply put, you can’t force all the clients which currently support piefed to respect that.
You can control the server, you can’t control the clients.
If clients want the get into an adversarial relationship with the project they’re piggybacking off, they will lose.
How would you be able to know that?
I have ways
A quick js + db change boom done.
But it may confuse users depending on the implementation. And federation would not be fun…
check the username
I know I’m talking to Rimu, I was just curious how Piefed would be able to track that
JavaScript. Attach a click handler event to the article link, save a cookie with the post id in it.
How would you know for remote users?
Federation, it’s magic.
But yeah, this means Lemmy comments would never be boosted or highlighted because it wouldn’t be federating the new data. Bit of a problem!
Wait, you’re going to federate whether a user clicked on a link between instances?
That seems kinda too far. I would not want other instances to know what I have or have not clicked. That’s a level of surveillance I’m not comfortable with and I fear how that data might be abused.
Tbh I wouldn’t even want my own instance to track what I click
The proposed solution assumes a linear relationship between number of votes and number of comments. But depending on the post there might not be much to say. Especially with bad content.
Any real examples?
Memes often dont need imput, not accounting if they are good or bad
One problem thou, threaded comments is no use in this use case.
In simpler terms, if you are using threaded comments social media to share memes, you are using the wrong tool/platform to view memes.
I read an article the other day about the woman who wrote that tell all book about Meta. Supposedly (according to the article) she faces a $50K fine every time she breaks the contract she agreed to when departing the company by defaming them. But she has not ever been charged that fine. But she is facing bankruptcy.
That’s an article that’s so poorly written that it literally doesn’t seem to have warranted any comment except mine which says literally “I do not understand the facts presented in this article and how they correlate”. Last I checked there were no other comments.
We see articles like this all the time.
I dont think this should be implemented because I dont see how that would improve anything. I think that people are burnt out right now with what’s going on in the world and it reflects in the comments. Compare comments now with this time last year and the energy is very different.
I read a lot of the articles that are posted and so many are complete garbage and it makes me not care about reading the article. Like do I really care about some idiot journalists opinion on how ai can’t answer how many Rs in strawberry or do I just want to shit on ai in the comments.
do I just want to shit on ai in the comments
Laudable honesty. The problem is that other people have to read the shit.
My point is there is nothing to read. Some of the articles posted are so low quality they add nothing more than the headline. But they are still worth commenting on became people want to talk about the topic generally
Let’s apply quality control on upvotes, so any post can get only 20 upvotes till it gets a specific amount of comments then the limit could be pumped up to 40 upvotes till it gets more comments, etc…
Ultimately this is just limiting ways that people can vote. Voting is the democratic way to sort posts. I don’t think you can limit without ultimately influencing the system in unintended bad ways, since that will restrict how people can vote. Just let people vote.
But to vote without engaging with the actual content is just to “sort” posts based on feelings. Who cares?
This is like requiring people to read a specific text book before they vote in real life elections. I hope you can see the problem with that.
As I said, this is not to control people upvotes, but rather to control the quality of upvotes.
The system I am laying down here is pretty simple and would need to be actually worked on to get it to a final implementation.
Something I did not talk about is the downvotes and how we can control it’s quality.
Simply put, I don’t care how you as a user vote, but I care about the sorting algorithm that sort posts based on upvotes and would be improved by the proposed change.
Honestly, I’ve begun to think the upvote/downvote model is a bad fit for the fediverse in general:
*Different instances have different rules around it, and in some cases (for example, an instance disabling downvoting) this might give a modest advantage in the sorting for content on that instance
*Instances have to trust votes by other instances, and while an obvious manipulation could be defederated, that has to be noticed first
*Votes are more publicly visible than on a place like reddit, potentially leading to something like a downvote being a catalyst for incivility towards the downvoter by whoever posted something
Honestly what I would do with Lemmy voting is just make vote counts mostly not federate. Have instances send a single up, down, or neither vote depending on if the net number on their insurance passes a certain up or downvote threshold, just so people on private instances have something to sort by, and have the score of a post or comment otherwise just go off of whatever the users within an instance vote. Then, an individual instance could have whatever rules or restrictions on voting it wanted, without worry over if that gets its votes drowned out by the wider network or seen as vote manipulation.
That means that most /all/ content on every single fediverse instance will be hugely biased in favour of local content.
If one wanted to ensure that external content is still easily visible, one could always have things set up so that posts on local communities only appears in local and subscribed, and only posts from outside appear in all (though it might need to be renamed to better fit such a layout I suppose)
Well, sure, that would stop that - but I don’t see what benefit this gives the fediverse really. You would actually be giving small privately hosted instances enormous voting power across the fediverse, so grants opportunity for manipulation in its own right.
thats fair I suppose, though in practice id assume that making a whole bunch of individual instances is probably more difficult than making a much of accounts on one instance that you control, and thus vote manipulation in this manner should have a higher barrier to entry?
I mean to be fair, a user could simply make accounts across the hundreds of tiny forgotten fediverse servers that exist and upvote and downvote from there, skewing results.
Hmm, that is fair. I would suggest making votes not federate at all in that case, except doing that would make single person or very small instances effectively be limited to sorting by new
Rather than hard-coding an upvote to comment ratio, changing the default sort to effectively put a ceiling on how raw upvotes per comment might be a better way of accomplishing the same goal. And lets it be optional.
An upvote is essentially a boost/re-post on mastodon which says I like this content and think it should be shared. Comments or discussion aren’t always needed for content to be good
I value freedom of choice way to much to enforce a rule like this- or any rule.
It’s pretty clear no one read the linked article
This is the root problem. Upvoting and downvoting headlines on the basis of vibes. It adds zero value. It’s a waste of everyone’s time, not least the upvoters and (especially) downvoters themselves, who get nothing out of it but the tiniest of vacuous dopamine hits. It’s the original sin of social media.
My preferred solutions:
- no voting at all without a registered click on the linked article
- no commenting at all without including a verifiable quote from the linked article
Deep-seated problems call for radical solutions. Both of these are technically feasible.
- no commenting at all without including a verifiable quote from the linked article
How is this feasible?
On posting, crawl the link and cache its content. Compare with quote on the basis of some generous threshold of similarity.
My dude, my main account server got down while I am posting and commenting and you want them to even invest more in crawlers.
Think simpler, the fediverse is suffering from lack of resources.
It’s back up
Thank you for alerting me.
I like Programming.dev, but they aren’t known for 100% uptime
Sure. But in theory, with (slightly) better resources, this would be my solution.
If viable either financially or logistically, this is just overly excessive and pushes people away from the Fediverse.
Sure. But social media is becoming a nightmare. It’s literally destroying democracy. As things stand, I’m not even convinced the fediversal version is an improvement. And if it’s not, then personally I don’t care how many people are pushed away. In as far as technical fixes are possible to the myriad problems of social media, I believe these might be a couple of them. That’s all I’m saying.
Pushing people aware from the Fediverse over crippling posting standards does nothing whatsoever for the wider negative impacts of social media.
So every comment would have a quote? lol
Something to be considered down-the-line when Piefed is the dominant site in the Fediverse given current Lemmy development. Otherwise all this has the impact of is suppressing Piefed posts on Piefed.
But if this is toggled at an instance level, a lot of instances will turn it off.
Would love this in piefed
Same. Could you create a ticket with that idea on https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/issues ?
alright will do
Thank you! https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/issues/1330
I feel like this would over complicate things. We are pretty small as is.
