PieFed Meta

4772 readers

138 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

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

[+] rimu@piefed.social -11 points 4 days ago (2 children)

"The fediverse is good therefore everything in the fediverse is good therefore everything must be upvoted" seems to be their reasoning.

Naah, that ain't it.

Upvote my posts/comments if you want other people to also see the post, not because you want me to feel warm and fuzzy. If you want me to feel warm and fuzzy, comment with "Great post, thanks!" or "You are a fuckin genius rimu, always such insightful comments!".

Voting controls who sees what content, it's not kudos for content authors. If it was about the kudos we'd be designing the UX totally differently. Notifications when you get lots of upvotes on something, daily summaries of which if your comments got upvoted the most, who upvoted you the most, leaderboards of who got upvoted the most, etc etc. All of which sounds very toxic...

[–] mereo@piefed.ca 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

If you keep going in this direction, I'll quit Piefed for good and return to Lemmy. You can't force your ideas about how social media should be without considering its users. You don't live on an island.

There needs to be a compromise. I agree with the others. Make the feature an opt-in for admins.

[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I disagree: votes are whatever the recipient makes of them.

Voting controls who sees what content

Sorting by New - even comments underneath a post - prevents the votes from controlling who sees what.

it’s not kudos for content authors

Again, that's not up to you. Perhaps you meant that it "shouldn't" be that way? But none of us get to decide how others actually feel about things.

More to the point, votes reflect an "engagement" - a post that people upvote is one that they are saying is relevant, whether they enjoyed the content or not, while a fantastic item of content that receives hardly any votes...

is content that will in the future go to other platforms.

[–] univers3man@piefed.world 9 points 3 days ago

I agree. I upvote just about anything that fits the community and I appreciate someone posting. I also post stuff explicitly hoping that other see it, and we have to face facts: many people just lurk and upvote, and there hasn't been a good way to get around that.