And the long version is here. The reasoning is flawed because the impact of votes on the public discourse has diminishing returns, if someone is voting on so much content they’re most likely voting on stuff people wouldn’t see regardless of their vote; in the meantime I bet most of that “tail” of users who vote only a bit focus mostly on posts that show up in the front page.
I also think this is the wrong way to do it. It would be more sensible to encourage other users to speak their mind more often, than to arbitrarily limit how much is “too much voting”.
Or, it would be fine to discard people’s votes in the sense of a new scoring algorithm that discounts them. That would be opt-in to a new feature that those of us who don’t want it could simply ignore.
But to arbitrarily simply THROW VOTES AWAY? Damn that’s unfriendly. Especially when the culture on the Threadiverse has been absolutely begging for activity since before the Rexodus even, while now all of a sudden in less than a week that virtue turned sour and actively became a vice?
Tbf there may be stuff that I am unaware of - like a coordinated campaign to make Russia look good at Ukraine’s expense? THAT I think most people could agree with deserves shutting down. But upvotes of cat pictures? LET THE CAT-VOTES COMMENCE! i.e. a signal, conveying that…
Even if the top voters were a problem (I don’t think they are), there are multiple ways to address this than to stop them from voting past a certain limit. For example, a pop-up asking if you really want to issue yet another vote that day, if you voted past a certain limit; it would get old really fast, but not outright prevent you from saying what you want.
If votes were made public, then people could make informed decisions on whether to block the top voters - up or down. Votes are inherently public data anyway, just hidden from view by most interfaces.
Alternately, we already have an Attitude score, just add a new Engagement score to highlight people who engage more vs. less? If people want to block users who engage a ton with posts, they can again make an INFORMED DECISION as to whether they want to do so.
As it is now though, PieFed hides downvotes (merging them together with upvotes), blocks lemvotes.org to hide all voting data from PieFed.social, and now full-on throws these additional contributions into the garbage bin. All of which would be fine, if they had been transparently performed. However, I note the language of “Newbie friendly: Yes” for Piefed.social at https://piefed.social/auth/instance_chooser, which would seem to imply that someone coming in from Reddit could readily adopt this as their social media platform? The truth though is that they need to read a fair bit about the culture and various sub-cultures here, and most importantly read the unwritten rules, like how this is not aimed to be a social media replacement (which is HUGE news to me btw!!!), and instead… I dunno exactly, but maybe it’s aiming to become a Mastodon replacement? Or an old-school forum board one, just federated? It can be whatever it wants, but IMHO it needs to actually SAY WHAT THAT IS, or else risk immense disappointment when people find out the hard way.
As PugJesus did, though many others now will be spared that, by avoiding PieFed in the future?
And I need to face facts myself: we are a Linux forum, and we will never be anything else. I’ve gone back to Reddit over the last couple of days and rediscovered what having CONTENT is like!! Whole swaths of events happening in the world that you never hear so much as a whisper about here. Rarely - I could count on one or two hands - you see someone sharing true OC like a comic artist, but the vast majority of “content” in this place seems to just be circle-jerking. Do you think I am wrong in these musings? The ONE thing that (I thought) it had going for it was it being more open and welcoming. And maybe some instances - like blahaj - still are, but PieFed.social seems to be signaling HARD that it is not interested in “fluff”, and now wants to be serious (like Mastodon), despite having next to no actual content to offer in that regard? I desperately wish that I am wrong here…
You say that like it needed to happen. Sure some people may be too liberal with their votes. Perhaps though those little stray upvotes to people who otherwise wouldn’t have gotten much of anything might mean something. Might even mean a lot. Some people are always going to have an outsized influence in communities. And you cannot have a flourishing community by trying to eliminate that.
I’m all for eliminating coordinated Mass voting. But I think limiting your most active participants is a shooting yourself in the foot sort of move.
It’s probably true that the Threadiverse is run mostly by power users, but that’s not a flaw that should be addressed with technical limitations. It’s just a matter of general inactivity.
I set up my Epic Games community years ago, but it has attracted less than a handful posters. MeanwhileOnGrad gets a lot of engagement but many posts are from cm, and most are probably from just a few users, while goat was the only moderator until becoming inactive recently. Again, just a matter of the Threadiverse barely growing (as evidence by the total MAU number being the same as 3 years ago) and consisting mainly of lurkers rather than something to pin on the ones who are actually active.
There’s no question that PugJesus is not a bot, so if the limit hinders them, I’d have no reason to doubt that or want to tell them to just use the platform differently. If we are to talk disparity, people from Hexbear and the like tend to use alts, so they’re the ones to benefit from the change.
The short version - 10 people (0.02% of us) were casting 60% of all votes. I stopped it.
And the long version is here. The reasoning is flawed because the impact of votes on the public discourse has diminishing returns, if someone is voting on so much content they’re most likely voting on stuff people wouldn’t see regardless of their vote; in the meantime I bet most of that “tail” of users who vote only a bit focus mostly on posts that show up in the front page.
I also think this is the wrong way to do it. It would be more sensible to encourage other users to speak their mind more often, than to arbitrarily limit how much is “too much voting”.
Or, it would be fine to discard people’s votes in the sense of a new scoring algorithm that discounts them. That would be opt-in to a new feature that those of us who don’t want it could simply ignore.
But to arbitrarily simply THROW VOTES AWAY? Damn that’s unfriendly. Especially when the culture on the Threadiverse has been absolutely begging for activity since before the Rexodus even, while now all of a sudden in less than a week that virtue turned sour and actively became a vice?
Tbf there may be stuff that I am unaware of - like a coordinated campaign to make Russia look good at Ukraine’s expense? THAT I think most people could agree with deserves shutting down. But upvotes of cat pictures? LET THE CAT-VOTES COMMENCE! i.e. a signal, conveying that…
Even if the top voters were a problem (I don’t think they are), there are multiple ways to address this than to stop them from voting past a certain limit. For example, a pop-up asking if you really want to issue yet another vote that day, if you voted past a certain limit; it would get old really fast, but not outright prevent you from saying what you want.
If votes were made public, then people could make informed decisions on whether to block the top voters - up or down. Votes are inherently public data anyway, just hidden from view by most interfaces.
Alternately, we already have an Attitude score, just add a new Engagement score to highlight people who engage more vs. less? If people want to block users who engage a ton with posts, they can again make an INFORMED DECISION as to whether they want to do so.
As it is now though, PieFed hides downvotes (merging them together with upvotes), blocks lemvotes.org to hide all voting data from PieFed.social, and now full-on throws these additional contributions into the garbage bin. All of which would be fine, if they had been transparently performed. However, I note the language of “Newbie friendly: Yes” for Piefed.social at https://piefed.social/auth/instance_chooser, which would seem to imply that someone coming in from Reddit could readily adopt this as their social media platform? The truth though is that they need to read a fair bit about the culture and various sub-cultures here, and most importantly read the unwritten rules, like how this is not aimed to be a social media replacement (which is HUGE news to me btw!!!), and instead… I dunno exactly, but maybe it’s aiming to become a Mastodon replacement? Or an old-school forum board one, just federated? It can be whatever it wants, but IMHO it needs to actually SAY WHAT THAT IS, or else risk immense disappointment when people find out the hard way.
As PugJesus did, though many others now will be spared that, by avoiding PieFed in the future?
And I need to face facts myself: we are a Linux forum, and we will never be anything else. I’ve gone back to Reddit over the last couple of days and rediscovered what having CONTENT is like!! Whole swaths of events happening in the world that you never hear so much as a whisper about here. Rarely - I could count on one or two hands - you see someone sharing true OC like a comic artist, but the vast majority of “content” in this place seems to just be circle-jerking. Do you think I am wrong in these musings? The ONE thing that (I thought) it had going for it was it being more open and welcoming. And maybe some instances - like blahaj - still are, but PieFed.social seems to be signaling HARD that it is not interested in “fluff”, and now wants to be serious (like Mastodon), despite having next to no actual content to offer in that regard? I desperately wish that I am wrong here…
Guess the solution is to punish everyone else!
lol. lmao even.
(Also a short version.)
You say that like it needed to happen. Sure some people may be too liberal with their votes. Perhaps though those little stray upvotes to people who otherwise wouldn’t have gotten much of anything might mean something. Might even mean a lot. Some people are always going to have an outsized influence in communities. And you cannot have a flourishing community by trying to eliminate that.
I’m all for eliminating coordinated Mass voting. But I think limiting your most active participants is a shooting yourself in the foot sort of move.
It’s probably true that the Threadiverse is run mostly by power users, but that’s not a flaw that should be addressed with technical limitations. It’s just a matter of general inactivity.
I set up my Epic Games community years ago, but it has attracted less than a handful posters. MeanwhileOnGrad gets a lot of engagement but many posts are from cm, and most are probably from just a few users, while goat was the only moderator until becoming inactive recently. Again, just a matter of the Threadiverse barely growing (as evidence by the total MAU number being the same as 3 years ago) and consisting mainly of lurkers rather than something to pin on the ones who are actually active.
There’s no question that PugJesus is not a bot, so if the limit hinders them, I’d have no reason to doubt that or want to tell them to just use the platform differently. If we are to talk disparity, people from Hexbear and the like tend to use alts, so they’re the ones to benefit from the change.
Strange! Bots?
I don’t think so, they seem to be real.