• 4 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 2nd, 2024

help-circle



  • 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

    Slashdot moderation

    this was something I loved about slashdot moderation. When voting, people had to specify the reason for the vote. +1 funny, +1 insightful, +1 informative, -1 troll, -1 misleading, etc.

    That way you can, for example, set in your user preferences to ignore positive votes for comedy, and put extra value on informative votes.

    Then, to keep people from spamming up/down votes and to encourage them to think about their choices, they only gave out a limited number of moderation points to readers. So you’d have to choose which comments to spend your 5 points on.

    Then finally, they had ‘meta moderation’ where you’d be shown a comment, and asked “would a vote of insightful be appropriate for this comment” to catch people who down-voted out of disagreement or personal vandetta. Any users who regularly mis-voted would stop receiving the ability to vote.

    I don’t think this is directly applicable to a federated system, but I do think it’s one of the best-thought-out voting systems ever created for a discussion board.

    edit: a couple other points i liked about it:

    Comments were capped at (iirc) +5 and -1. Further votes wouldn’t change the comment’s score.

    User karma wasn’t shown. The user page would just say Karma: good. Or Excellent, or poor, or some other vague term.

    https://beehaw.org/comment/208569









  • 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.



  • 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.





  • The_Lemmington_Post@discuss.onlineOPtoLemmy@lemmy.ml*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.