• 0 Posts
Joined duela 2 urte
Cake day: uzt. 10, 2020


Most people on Lemmy seem to think that this is just fine, because you can vote however you want, and as soon as you think that people should vote after a certain system or idea, you’re for some reason a Nazi.

Thanks for your comment! I agree with your view on growth through discussion.

Keep in mind nexusmods has a blanket ban on all US sociopolitic commentaries.

Interesting. I didn’t know that. Though, it may be difficult to decide what is a sociopolitic commentary, and what is not. As far as I can see, there are lots of mods that exchange the original flags of a game with LGBQT+ flags. I’m not arguing for the removal of those, but I fear some kind of double standard.

By the way: I think the mod that was banned was a troll attempt… and it succeeded. This was what the troll intended: Internet drama. If we would have just leave it be, and I think almost nobody is actually interested in that mod, it would have been a fairer and less troll feeding solution.

This isn’t a public service though.

I know. Maybe this was badly phrased on my side.

On the one extreme, you have tens of thousands of communities for a very narrow and small community. There, you can only talk about certain things, but not about other things.

On the other extreme, you have one community where everybody can talk about everything, and everyone can see what others write and comment.

Both are not okay, because it’s a good idea to prohibit content that is about harming human beings, like calls to violence. This is already covered by laws in most countries. I argue that this is a good thing. So according to the law, you can’t talk about literally everything on online forums.

Having the above in mind, I argue that it is best to have lesser numbers of communities, and have less narrow limits. That way, we can see what the people are thinking and saying, and we lessen the chance of creating filter bubbles.

I personally would rather want to see what people are thinking and saying, even when it is about things I disagree with. For example, I rather have a talk about capitalism, and why I think it is a bad idea and has problems, with someone who thinks it is a good idea. I wouldn’t like if that user is prohibited to talk about it.

I could also talk about this with people who already agree with me, but… you know? That’s not quite the same.

On one hand, everybody can 100% dictate what happens on their site. On the other hand, it would be nice if a public service would accept all kinds of ideas and thoughts without dictating anything.

Imagine you would be prohibited to talk about socialism for example, or post socialist memes. Would you be in favor of any instance forbidding this, so that you have to set up your own? Or would you rather have as many instances as possible allowing this kind of content?

Read further, I explain it further down. I guess you voted down, despite not reading if you even agree or not. Did I guess correct? If yes, do you see that as a problem, or is that completely okay?

Interesting idea. How can you automatically decide who the intended users are? Maybe a mix of having the community subscribed, and having a certain amount of comments, or a certain amount of upvotes within that community?

What some people do is to vote based on the relationship with the author. Some people always downvote any comment by a person they hate. The opposite also exists.

I agree with everything you said. But for me, it’s an argument FOR trying to create an useful system for everyone, instead of not trying. We all would have benefits.

It doesn’t really matter whether you design a perfect system or not, if it doesn’t account for human behavior.

I agree. That’s why the system should account for that, which is the core of the reason for the system. It’s not something that should exist “despite” human behavior. It should exist because of it. For me, this is the reason for the system.

The best you can get is an approximation, and you have to understand that people will ultimately use the system differently than you expect or designed them to.

Some people will ignore the information. But if we come up with a good and clear user interface, and the rules are simple and actively encouraged and explained, then hopefully more and more people will use it - and create a benefit for everyone.

Reddit sadly didn’t do that - for their benefit, because they sell data, and gut reactions and one-liners are worth more than informed and well written discussion.

Alright, you don’t want to talk about it. So please do stop. You repeating already answered questions doesn’t do anyone any good.

They could have done a way better job at communicating this idea via the user interface. The arrows suggest that the two voting options are opposites of each other, but according to the Reddiquette, they are not. Calculating the upvotes and downvotes to a simple number at a later time made it even worse. Originally, you had seperate counts for both vote options.

I could work, if you encourage the correct usage and educate your users about it. Also, a better user interface should communicate the intention and meaning.

If you ask me, if most users would use the system like that, it would be a very strong encouragement for everyone to participate in a quality discussion, writing well thought arguments and voting on who had done this, so everyone can see the comments with the highest merit at the top.

You don’t even have to agree with the user in order to vote the comment up. If someone writes up a very good argument for atomic energy, I should acknowledge that and feel encouraged to come up with an equally well written argument against it, ideally touching the topics the user used as arguments, and enriching the discussion.

It’s like a lot of things: It would be good if everyone would be doing that, but many don’t, so most give up… and here we are. I would really love if we would at least try.

It’s sadly the reality. The original Reddiquette is a really good idea, though. Encouraging well written arguments, and sorting them by quality, would help a lot of topics. Emotional gut reactions on the other hand are not really helping.

There is no meaning to the vote numbers here on Lemmy, yet they are used to rank comments and posts. Doesn’t make sense to me. Any metric that is the result of an unknown process shouldn’t be used to sort comments.

Example: The 5 star rating at Amazon. Imagine if everyone would use it however they see fit? Some use a 5 star rating for simply receiving a non-damaged product. Some use a 4 star rating for a broken product, but the return process was okay. Some use a 3 star rating for receiving a non-damaged product. Some use the stars to rate the movie, some to rate the visual quality of the release (which can differ), some because their language wasn’t included, some for the delivery, some for the packaging (which can differ), and so on.

As long as the people who feed the system use it for completely different reasons and by different rules, the resulting metric is… useless.

Sadly, we all are just human beings. I really hope that something emerges that tries to actually make things better for everyone, instead of creating even more division.

I’m sorry, but I think you are avoiding to talk about the merits of such a system based on the fact that you can’t dictate how users use a system. Your solution is to simply stop caring about it, my solution would be to encourage the correct usage of the system and educate everyone about it.

You argue for a good system, while at the same time you argue that no system can be good, because you can’t dictate anyone, and there are bots.

So… why even talk about this, if there is no reason for you that any of this makes sense?

How do you dictate how people use preference buttons?

Why do you want to dictate it?

They’re going to use them however they see fit, and that’s a good thing.

If that’s a good thing is the very thing we argue about right now. I disagree that this is a good thing. Especially if you mean that everybody should any system however they like, instead of how it is supposed to be used. If everyone uses any system differently, be it a 5 star system, or upvotes/downvotes, the system is not going to show what people think it shows, but a mix of all interpretations mangled into a number.

If half of the people use “3 stars” for an average product, but the other half uses “5 stars” for an average product, the rating is off for both halfs. It’s the same with rating the delivery. If the rating system is meant for the product only, using it for other reasons distorts the result of that system.

I hope you can see what I mean.

And how do you find good content without some sort of collective preference?

As I said elsewhere in this thread: By having a metric that shows how well written and thought through an argument is. You don’t have to “like” what is written or said, but you can acknowledge the quality of the argument.

what’s the best way to sort them so that users don’t have to read every comment?

Depends on what your goal is: Do you want users to read what they LIKE to read? Then you go for likes/dislikes, so what people want to read most is always at the top, creating a filter bubble, also called an echo chamber.

If you want to encourage quality discussion, where arguments are higher rated than emotional replies, then you should not do that.

That’s not at all what I’m talking about. I argue that using votes as “likes”, instead of how the Reddiquette originally meant it, is a bad idea for the very reason you are stating. Sorting by popularity is not going to highlight the best solution or argument, but the most popular one.

to find something decent.

What does decent mean? Something popular? Or something with quality content and comments?

I agree. I don’t like the aspect that votes are seen as “lol internet points” by the devs and admins of Lemmy. I don’t even understand why it was implemented if they see it like that. If the votes are of no meaning, then… why take the time and implement a system for something that should be without any use?

The original “Reddiquette” was really well written in regards to voting. It was humane and about quality discussion. But… the new owners of Reddit, whoever it is, don’t care for quality discussion. If you want to sell data, you want votes and comments to be emotional gut reactions. So they actually are A/B testing to replace votes with literal “likes” and “dislikes”.

I think the “up” and “down” arrows suggest something that doesn’t easily align with the original Reddiquette. The upvote is not really the opposite of the downvote. It has different meanings, and should be two different buttons that do not look like opposites. That would help users to understand the Reddiquette. Also, that the final number is a simple “upvote-downvote” calculation contributes further to that problematic user interface communication.

It’s just imaginary internet points, relax.

Honest question: Then why are we having these points? If they are of no actual use, and nobody should care about them, why are they implemented? For what reason?