Would it be feasible to expose the metadata for posts in such a way that search queries could be customized to sort a front page any way a user wants to see it?

There is already such an API endpoint which is available for mods and admins.

@[email protected] in https://discuss.online/comment/6718715

Yeah, it would definitely be feasible to expose post metadata for customized search queries. Currently, the data is restricted to admins and mods, but having an API endpoint for users could enhance the sorting options without significant strain on the server. It could lead to more tailored and engaging user experiences on the platform.

https://discuss.online/comment/6718201

Perhaps even a sentiment analysis would be interesting to see: serious discussion, jokes and memes discussion, informative posters, political conversation left or right, etc.

This reminds me of Slashdot moderation and Media Bias Fact Check Integration

I’d understand using new activity sorting for small communities but for large communities you can’t keep up with it.

I don’t understand platforms like Mastodon that mimic Twitter without incorporating the features that contribute to its popularity. If I were looking for a most recent sorting algorithm I would use a chat.

Well, that would only be implemented if it were offered by the API; otherwise, just use what is available right now, which are votes and the number of comments. I find it more invasive that other users can see the post history in my profile than admins being able to see the amount of time I spend reading each post. Revealing my feed feels akin to exposing my browsing history.

The number of sorting algorithms needs to be much more limited than that; otherwise, it puts too much load on the server calculating all those combinations. It’s important to strike a balance between customization and system performance to ensure smooth operation and optimal user experience.

I thought the ‘hot’ ranking was a mixture of votes and comment engagement?

Hot: Like active, but uses time when the post was published

https://join-lemmy.org/docs/users/03-votes-and-ranking.html

I do feel like there needs to be some further tweaking, controversial should have a time falloff so it shows recent controversy instead of something 6 months old for example.

Yeah, I believe the “Most Comments” sort should have a time limit too. There is an issue opened about it: Controversial post sort should have time limit

This is not possible because sorting is done in the database, so adding a new sort option requires a database migration with new indexes, columns and updated queries. Not something that can be done with a simple plugin.

@[email protected] in https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3936#issuecomment-1738847763

An alternative approach could involve utilizing an API endpoint that provides metadata for recent posts, allowing users to implement custom sorting logic on their client side using JavaScript. This API endpoint is currently accessible only to moderators and administrators

There is already such an API endpoint which is available for mods and admins.

@[email protected] in https://lemmy.ml/comment/9159963

I did read the links, and I still strongly feel that no automated mechanical system of weights and measures can outperform humans when it comes to understanding context.

But this is not a way to replace humans; it’s just a method to grant users moderation privileges based on their tenure on a platform. Currently, most federated platforms only offer moderator and admin levels of moderation, making setting up an instance tedious due to the time spent managing the report inbox. Automating the assignment of moderation levels would streamline this process, allowing admins to simply adjust the trust level of select users to customize their instance as desired.

There has to be a way to federate trust levels otherwise all of this just isn’t applicable to the fediverse. One of the links I posted talks about how to federate trust levels. So the appeal is processed by a user with a higher trust level.

A system like this rewards frequent shitposting over slower qualityposting. It is also easily gamed by organized bad faith groups. Imagine if this was Reddit and T_D users just gave each other a high trust score, valuing their contributions over more “organic” posts.

You are just assuming that this would work similarly to Reddit based on karma. I don’t know why you would assume the worst possible implementation just so you can complain about this. If you had read the links, you would know that shitposting wouldn’t help much because what contributes most to Trust Levels in Discourse is reading posts.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Having AGI as moderators would be a futuristic dream come true. However, until that becomes a reality, it’s crucial to consider the well-being of human moderators who are exposed to disturbing content like CSAM and graphic images. I believe it would be important to provide moderators with the ability to decrease their moderation levels to avoid such content.

Why would anyone contribute? Would you pay someone to work for you if they don’t want to listen to anything you have to say? When they close issues without allowing the community to provide input, that’s exactly what they are doing. If they were too busy to engage with the issue tracker, I wouldn’t mind. However, if they simply appear to close issues with numerous upvotes and no downvotes, it frustrates me.

I think an appeal process to punish moderators abusing power would help with that.

You are probably thinking about StackExchange, I don’t see anybody saying anything about popularity when talking about Discourse. It’s a matter of doing it like Discourse and not like StackExchange.

I have the same right they have to ask for contributions and support for something they are going to do their way.

I don’t really care all that much about any particular issue. I enjoy copying the ideas suggested by others in the fediverse and transforming them into new issues, as many individuals do not take this initiative.