How does PieFed improve voting compared to Reddit/Lemmy?
PieFed Meta
27
Posts
15
Posters
0
Views
-
I’m trying to understand how PieFed’s voting culture is different. I’ll admit, I usually upvote things I like and downvote the rest. Sometimes, if a post has a low score, I don't even read the title, I just downvote and move on. I suspect I’m not the only one who does this.
I know PieFed shows "Attitude" (the percentage of positive vs. negative votes you cast) on profiles, which is a nice touch. But aside from that metric, it doesn't seem to physically limit the act of downvoting.
Are there plans to make voting more meaningful? For instance, I've seen suggestions in the community about restricting votes to subscribers to prevent "drive-by" downvotes from people who aren't part of the community. How does PieFed plan to handle the issue of users reflexively downvoting without engaging with the content?
I don't even get why someone would want to vote on things especially with no real perspective like you describe. default donwn??? I upvote everything now but that is because of a quirk with a setting where I tell it not to show me things I have viewed or interacted with so upvoting removes stuff im not interested in. Previously I rarely if ever voted for something up or down and usualy only neder extreme circumstance. ie omg this is so aweful I need to do the community a service and down vote it or this is so great everyone really needs to see this. I personally don't really like community voting because everyone does it so many different ways its a useless metric. I would love rating to be used in a basic algorithmic view that only takes into account the ratings you give. trustcafe does this where verything can be rated (posts, users, comments, communities, domains, etc) and defaults to a value of 50 that the user can change to between 0 and 100. So like rather than blocking someone I can be like. This person is annoying but they are a real person (I think) and I don't want to totally discount them so I will drop them to 25 so their things go twice as far down my feed but then this other person I really jive with so I will rank them 75 so their stuff will be bumped up higher.
-
Yes that setting. I stop seeing posts after I reload by voting them with that setting enabled.
You need a client that marks a post as read as you scroll by. On Android I use Summit. In a browser Voyager should do. Maybe we get it with Lemmy 1.0 in Lemmy-UI, I don't know.
-
I don't even get why someone would want to vote on things especially with no real perspective like you describe. default donwn??? I upvote everything now but that is because of a quirk with a setting where I tell it not to show me things I have viewed or interacted with so upvoting removes stuff im not interested in. Previously I rarely if ever voted for something up or down and usualy only neder extreme circumstance. ie omg this is so aweful I need to do the community a service and down vote it or this is so great everyone really needs to see this. I personally don't really like community voting because everyone does it so many different ways its a useless metric. I would love rating to be used in a basic algorithmic view that only takes into account the ratings you give. trustcafe does this where verything can be rated (posts, users, comments, communities, domains, etc) and defaults to a value of 50 that the user can change to between 0 and 100. So like rather than blocking someone I can be like. This person is annoying but they are a real person (I think) and I don't want to totally discount them so I will drop them to 25 so their things go twice as far down my feed but then this other person I really jive with so I will rank them 75 so their stuff will be bumped up higher.
I would love rating to be used in a basic algorithmic view that only takes into account the ratings you give. trustcafe does this where verything can be rated (posts, users, comments, communities, domains, etc) and defaults to a value of 50 that the user can change to between 0 and 100. So like rather than blocking someone I can be like. This person is annoying but they are a real person (I think) and I don’t want to totally discount them so I will drop them to 25 so their things go twice as far down my feed but then this other person I really jive with so I will rank them 75 so their stuff will be bumped up higher.
That's an interesting take on feed curation
-
I would love rating to be used in a basic algorithmic view that only takes into account the ratings you give. trustcafe does this where verything can be rated (posts, users, comments, communities, domains, etc) and defaults to a value of 50 that the user can change to between 0 and 100. So like rather than blocking someone I can be like. This person is annoying but they are a real person (I think) and I don’t want to totally discount them so I will drop them to 25 so their things go twice as far down my feed but then this other person I really jive with so I will rank them 75 so their stuff will be bumped up higher.
That's an interesting take on feed curation
Its basically what was done with trust cafe which the wikipedia guy started. the thing is he did not make it federated and as much as I like the setup I like the decentralized nature of the fediverse betters. I like using the portal but if someone made an app with this type of function I would be tempted. well as long as I did not have to run it on a phone.
-
Every post I vote stops showing when I reload the page.
To warn you, downvoting is public on the forumverse, so if you are perceived as reflexively downvoting at scale in a community- you risk getting community banned.
-
I don't even get why someone would want to vote on things especially with no real perspective like you describe. default donwn??? I upvote everything now but that is because of a quirk with a setting where I tell it not to show me things I have viewed or interacted with so upvoting removes stuff im not interested in. Previously I rarely if ever voted for something up or down and usualy only neder extreme circumstance. ie omg this is so aweful I need to do the community a service and down vote it or this is so great everyone really needs to see this. I personally don't really like community voting because everyone does it so many different ways its a useless metric. I would love rating to be used in a basic algorithmic view that only takes into account the ratings you give. trustcafe does this where verything can be rated (posts, users, comments, communities, domains, etc) and defaults to a value of 50 that the user can change to between 0 and 100. So like rather than blocking someone I can be like. This person is annoying but they are a real person (I think) and I don't want to totally discount them so I will drop them to 25 so their things go twice as far down my feed but then this other person I really jive with so I will rank them 75 so their stuff will be bumped up higher.
> @hubertmanne@piefed.social said:
>
> I upvote everything now but that is because of a quirk with a setting where I tell it not to show me things I have viewed or interacted with so upvoting removes stuff im not interested in.Okay, I get the rationale behind it, but it seems like an improper extension of the voting mechanism, doesn't it?
(Not specifically singling you out, I'm just speaking broadly.)
One of those side effects that doesn't just affect you. Makes me wonder if this was added because it increases engagement metrics.
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
> @hubertmanne@piefed.social said:
>
> I upvote everything now but that is because of a quirk with a setting where I tell it not to show me things I have viewed or interacted with so upvoting removes stuff im not interested in.Okay, I get the rationale behind it, but it seems like an improper extension of the voting mechanism, doesn't it?
(Not specifically singling you out, I'm just speaking broadly.)
One of those side effects that doesn't just affect you. Makes me wonder if this was added because it increases engagement metrics.
-
To warn you, downvoting is public on the forumverse, so if you are perceived as reflexively downvoting at scale in a community- you risk getting community banned.
-
Its basically what was done with trust cafe which the wikipedia guy started. the thing is he did not make it federated and as much as I like the setup I like the decentralized nature of the fediverse betters. I like using the portal but if someone made an app with this type of function I would be tempted. well as long as I did not have to run it on a phone.
-
I would love rating to be used in a basic algorithmic view that only takes into account the ratings you give. trustcafe does this where verything can be rated (posts, users, comments, communities, domains, etc) and defaults to a value of 50 that the user can change to between 0 and 100. So like rather than blocking someone I can be like. This person is annoying but they are a real person (I think) and I don’t want to totally discount them so I will drop them to 25 so their things go twice as far down my feed but then this other person I really jive with so I will rank them 75 so their stuff will be bumped up higher.
That's an interesting take on feed curation
-
You need a client that marks a post as read as you scroll by. On Android I use Summit. In a browser Voyager should do. Maybe we get it with Lemmy 1.0 in Lemmy-UI, I don't know.
-
I don't even get why someone would want to vote on things especially with no real perspective like you describe. default donwn??? I upvote everything now but that is because of a quirk with a setting where I tell it not to show me things I have viewed or interacted with so upvoting removes stuff im not interested in. Previously I rarely if ever voted for something up or down and usualy only neder extreme circumstance. ie omg this is so aweful I need to do the community a service and down vote it or this is so great everyone really needs to see this. I personally don't really like community voting because everyone does it so many different ways its a useless metric. I would love rating to be used in a basic algorithmic view that only takes into account the ratings you give. trustcafe does this where verything can be rated (posts, users, comments, communities, domains, etc) and defaults to a value of 50 that the user can change to between 0 and 100. So like rather than blocking someone I can be like. This person is annoying but they are a real person (I think) and I don't want to totally discount them so I will drop them to 25 so their things go twice as far down my feed but then this other person I really jive with so I will rank them 75 so their stuff will be bumped up higher.
-
Some people have wild personal psychologies.
All I really do is post owl stuff, and I'll pick up a stray downvote here or there by accident I'm assuming. But I had one user downvoting near every post I made. No biggie to me, just a curiosity really. I wasn't sure why they wouldn't just block me or the community if they didn't like the content, but whatever. This went on for a couple months.
One day they left a comment finally and it was a positive one. I replied essentially "thanks, but I thought you hated my content or me myself." Their reply was "nah, I love all your posts, I just downvote everything from .world to lower them in the sort." My guy, it's one vote. The whole thing was funny, especially since learning they were actually a fan, but so confusing to attempt to penalize someone for such a random reason, especially someone you seemingly enjoy.
-
in that case, you could simply upvote them instead of downvoting them ;)
