this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2026
40 points (97.6% liked)

PieFed Meta

4771 readers
150 users here now

Discuss PieFed project direction, provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics.

Wiki

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
rimu@piefed.social
40
Improvement for the vote quota implementation (cake.kobel.fyi)
submitted 4 days ago by squirrel@cake.kobel.fyi to c/piefed_meta@piefed.social
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

After a couple days of discussions about the newly implemented vote quota, I'm kinda exhausted. It seems like a situation we won't ever agree on. Me personally, I don't want to argue like this over a piece of software that I have high regards for. It tears us apart, where we should work together.

It's okay if there is a quota on piefed.social the instance.
It's not okay if there is a default quota of 240 on PieFed the software - and thus for all instances.

I suggest it should be implemented like this:

  • It should not be a default value
  • It should be an empty input in the admin interface, where instance admins can set a vote quota if they want to, or leave it empty to disable the vote quota.
  • The /about page should display the set vote quota.

That way all instances can decide for themselves and users can see the instances' vote quota transparently.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] INeedMana@piefed.zip 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Maybe threadiverse UIs should start having "mark as seen and hide", so we don't get "upvote to hide" behaviour?

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 days ago

Summit has "hide read posts"

[–] BevsDad@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago

Mark read on scroll and hide has been an option on Boost from the start. I wouldn't consider a reader without it at this point.