PieFed Meta
Let's decide on some development priorities
CyberSage 5 months ago • 100%
I don't know which issues are urgent, I guess the ones preventing people from using the platform, but I don't know about any of those. These are just the ones I care about sorted by the importance I give them:
- The votes don't show after reloading.
- The markdown area where the posts are made seems a bit small.
- Subscribe to anything. I believe that many users appreciate the ability to follow other users, similar to Twitter or Mastodon, and have a feed of new posts for the things they follow instead of an inbox. However, I don't like this approach because if you follow a few people with diverse interests, you'll end up with a mix of many topics in your feed. When you want to see something specific, it can be difficult to find. I think a better solution is to use content tagging and custom feeds. This way, users can have multiple feeds and follow different topics in each of the feeds. While this may make things more complex, the simplest thing for people might be to just follow and see it in one feed. A possible compromise could be to have a custom feed as the default for everything followed, and provide a way to select a custom feed other than the default one when subscribing to something.
- Saved posts I think it could be better with collections of posts to have different saved lists for different topics. There could be a dropdown menu or popup to search or select a collection on a combobox with existing ones to add the post or comment to an existing collection or create it if it doesn't already exist. There could be a default collection to save things with a single click, like people are used to. This also gives the option to make some collections public and follow other users' collections.
- Videos #138, #147
As a community grows in popularity, it often shifts from hosting insightful discussions to attracting memes, funny, and low-quality content. This change appeals to a larger audience interested in such content, creating a vicious cycle where valuable discussions are overshadowed and marginalized by the platform's primary demographic. > > > It's the pendulum swing of pretty much every community on Reddit. > > > > * Community starts out with a small group of users dedicated to quality content related to the topic > * Community growth reaches a point where the most popular posts begin to trend outside of the community > * New users join the community after seeing popular posts show up in their own feeds. Growth accelerates > * Community becomes "popular" enough that posts regularly trend outside of the community > * New users flood in > * Users flood the community with low-effort content to karma farm > * Community now sucks. > > > > It happened to basically every big sub on Reddit once reaching a large enough size. > > > > [https://lemm.ee/comment/552579](https://lemm.ee/comment/552579) > > As the platform grows, it becomes increasingly important to have a system that differentiates between different types of content, such as insightful discussions and humorous posts. Without such a system, there is a risk that the platform could become dominated by low-quality content and memes, burying meaningful discussions and discouraging participation from users seeking more substantive interactions. To address this concern, I propose implementing a nuanced voting system inspired by Slashdot's approach > > > 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](https://beehaw.org/comment/208569) > > Normal, Offtopic, Flamebait, Troll, Redundant, Insightful, Interesting, Informative, Funny, Overrated, Underrated > > > Slashdot had this covered years ago, literally decades. > > > > 1. Upvotes limited to +5. > 2. Votes categorized: funny, informative, insightful, etc. > 3. Number of votes limited per time frame and user karma. > 4. Meta-moderation: your votes (up/down both) were subject to voting (correct/incorrect). good score == more upvotes to spend. > > > > It's a pity that Reddit and other sites didn't follow this model. > > > > [https://discuss.online/comment/65643](https://discuss.online/comment/65643) > > I'm thinking this seems pretty similar to [post tagging](https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/issues/119). Perhaps both could be implemented with the same feature? Post tagging usually needs to be objective but that's indicated in the guidelines, perhaps there could be some subjective tags users could vote to sort the posts based on those tags. [Wikipedia — Slashdot Peer Moderation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot#Peer_moderation) [](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Derek-Lackaff/publication/228736658/figure/fig1/AS:393705577041920@1470878132408/Slashdot-comment-moderation-options.png)