How does PieFed improve voting compared to Reddit/Lemmy?
-
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’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?
A lot of that depends on the instance you're on. The one I'm on, for example, disabled downvoting, so you can only upvote. And to me, this has become an essential feature, and I refuse to go on an instance that allows downvoting.
Downvoting allows for passive aggressiveness and the shutdown of anything people don't want to see, which usually results in content about minorities being instantly buried without saying a word. Downvoting prevents meaningful engagement from happening.
On these kinds of instances, if something is wrong with a post or whatever, people will comment on it. Talk about it. And the culture of the community will do the rest. But if there is something you don't like, you have to face it, and you have to actually engage with it and express why you don't like it. You can't just throw your downvote and move on without expressing any form of criticism.
I genuinely think it's the best solution. I don't think you can re-fix the downvote button. Just get rid of it. :)
-
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?
Compared to PieFed, Lemmy devs look lazy as hell. I didn't even thought that such options could already exist in the Fediverse somewhere.
-
A lot of that depends on the instance you're on. The one I'm on, for example, disabled downvoting, so you can only upvote. And to me, this has become an essential feature, and I refuse to go on an instance that allows downvoting.
Downvoting allows for passive aggressiveness and the shutdown of anything people don't want to see, which usually results in content about minorities being instantly buried without saying a word. Downvoting prevents meaningful engagement from happening.
On these kinds of instances, if something is wrong with a post or whatever, people will comment on it. Talk about it. And the culture of the community will do the rest. But if there is something you don't like, you have to face it, and you have to actually engage with it and express why you don't like it. You can't just throw your downvote and move on without expressing any form of criticism.
I genuinely think it's the best solution. I don't think you can re-fix the downvote button. Just get rid of it. :)
Well, removing the downwoting option does not remove the option to just send thumb down emoji as a reply. Yes, this removes anonymity, but still it will be hard for someone to discuss a single emoji like 👎 or ⬇️ since anyone can express their likes or dislikes.
-
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?
Why would you downvote something you’re not even interested in without looking at it? You’re not feeding an algorithm here — your downvote doesn’t affect what content you’ll see in the future, it just makes it appear to others that the content had been downvoted.
Upvote content you like. Downvote content you actively don’t like.
-
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 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
It does. When you downvote too much the ability to downvote is removed. You can't downvote post from user's profile page.
There is some restriction.
But imo, the most important thing would be how to currate content so user can find the most revalent one. That's somerhing that vote can't achieve. We have hashtag and flairs, what's left is to expand them with search function :
Include, exclude, and, or... -
Why would you downvote something you’re not even interested in without looking at it? You’re not feeding an algorithm here — your downvote doesn’t affect what content you’ll see in the future, it just makes it appear to others that the content had been downvoted.
Upvote content you like. Downvote content you actively don’t like.
Do not display posts with which I have already interacted (opened/upvoted/downvoted)
To stop seeing the content with that setting. it's faster than opening the post.
Upvote content you like. Downvote content you actively don’t like.
That's pretty much what I do.
-
Do not display posts with which I have already interacted (opened/upvoted/downvoted)
To stop seeing the content with that setting. it's faster than opening the post.
Upvote content you like. Downvote content you actively don’t like.
That's pretty much what I do.
what setting? you don't stop seeing content by downvoting it. I don't know how that would work. Or do you mean the "hide content I have interacted with" setting?
-
Do not display posts with which I have already interacted (opened/upvoted/downvoted)
To stop seeing the content with that setting. it's faster than opening the post.
Upvote content you like. Downvote content you actively don’t like.
That's pretty much what I do.
To stop seeing the content with that setting. it’s faster than opening the post.
Downvoting won't achieve that. Just block the community its from if it is consistently a source of posts you're not interested in.
-
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?
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.
We did it everyone. We found the Reddit hivemind themself
-
A lot of that depends on the instance you're on. The one I'm on, for example, disabled downvoting, so you can only upvote. And to me, this has become an essential feature, and I refuse to go on an instance that allows downvoting.
Downvoting allows for passive aggressiveness and the shutdown of anything people don't want to see, which usually results in content about minorities being instantly buried without saying a word. Downvoting prevents meaningful engagement from happening.
On these kinds of instances, if something is wrong with a post or whatever, people will comment on it. Talk about it. And the culture of the community will do the rest. But if there is something you don't like, you have to face it, and you have to actually engage with it and express why you don't like it. You can't just throw your downvote and move on without expressing any form of criticism.
I genuinely think it's the best solution. I don't think you can re-fix the downvote button. Just get rid of it. :)
As a queer and nd entity, sometimes I see a post that's iffy, but I don't want to explain the issue to normies, so I just downvote. If downvotes are disabled, I have to comment and explain the microaggression, and expose Myself to hate if the mods don't want to remove it. In My experience spaces like that develop a culture that privileges mainstream voices for the specific subculture, but actually suppresses other minorities. For example, you could have a trans community that's very white dominated and features casual racism. Or an autism community where people use slurs that disparage people with ID or NPD.
-
Compared to PieFed, Lemmy devs look lazy as hell. I didn't even thought that such options could already exist in the Fediverse somewhere.
They're too busy banning anarchists to write code
-
They're too busy banning anarchists to write code
-
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?
@mindfulmaverick one of the big problems I have with lemmy is that it's slow and unresponsive. -
@mindfulmaverick one of the big problems I have with lemmy is that it's slow and unresponsive.
I had that same problem with PieFed until I realized it was an issue with the instance I was using. Lemmy is the same some instances are very slow and other fast.
Seems unrelated to the topic at hand though.
-
I had that same problem with PieFed until I realized it was an issue with the instance I was using. Lemmy is the same some instances are very slow and other fast.
Seems unrelated to the topic at hand though.
@mindfulmaverick probably unrelated yea -
To stop seeing the content with that setting. it’s faster than opening the post.
Downvoting won't achieve that. Just block the community its from if it is consistently a source of posts you're not interested in.
Every post I vote stops showing when I reload the page.
-
what setting? you don't stop seeing content by downvoting it. I don't know how that would work. Or do you mean the "hide content I have interacted with" setting?
Yes that setting. I stop seeing posts after I reload by voting them with that setting enabled.
-
Yes that setting. I stop seeing posts after I reload by voting them with that setting enabled.
in that case, you could simply upvote them instead of downvoting them ;)
-
Why would you downvote something you’re not even interested in without looking at it? You’re not feeding an algorithm here — your downvote doesn’t affect what content you’ll see in the future, it just makes it appear to others that the content had been downvoted.
Upvote content you like. Downvote content you actively don’t like.
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.
Ciao! Sembra che tu sia interessato a questa conversazione, ma non hai ancora un account.
Stanco di dover scorrere gli stessi post a ogni visita? Quando registri un account, tornerai sempre esattamente dove eri rimasto e potrai scegliere di essere avvisato delle nuove risposte (tramite email o notifica push). Potrai anche salvare segnalibri e votare i post per mostrare il tuo apprezzamento agli altri membri della comunità.
Con il tuo contributo, questo post potrebbe essere ancora migliore 💗
Registrati Accedi