What PieFed's "social credit system" actually does
-
Saying people have a bad attitude because other people suck is rude.
Attitude only affects people who only downvote. Let’s say there’s a community with 100 people. 99 of them participate in good faith and make good content and the final one participates in bad faith and makes bad content. One day, all of them make a post and vote on everybody else’s posts.
The result: 99 good faith community members have posts with score of 98 and an Attitude of ~98%. 1 bad faith community member has a post with a score of -98 and an Attitude of -100% (or 0% because I forget how this works exactly)
-
The attitude system is how many times you downvote other people.
Oh thanks I felt like I was missing something.
-
Oh thanks I felt like I was missing something.
The reputation is the hidden score that if you’re below whatever threshold it displays the red triangle(s) by your name.
-
I always thought the two red triangles were a UX bug. Looks weird.
If you move you mouse over, or finger, you can obtain the reason
-
I think it might be fine? I like systems that reinforce trust and dissuade bad behavior as long as they aren’t draconian.
We use it that way, we want to disuade bad behaviour. As it is explained, there is very few users that reach veny low score.
-
I think the attitude system is insane when the fediverse is filled with so many people who deserve every downvote they get.
On the flip side, the fediverse tends to have a pretty strong monoculture. You can collect down votes just by disagreeing with someone respectfully or stating your view point here.
Maybe it it’s numbers grow, it will become a bit less of an echo chamber.
-
I think the attitude system is insane when the fediverse is filled with so many people who deserve every downvote they get.
Yes although if you’re only here to downvote bad content then perhaps your focus is in the wrong place.
-
Yes although if you’re only here to downvote bad content then perhaps your focus is in the wrong place.
Not naming any names coughfrongtcough
-
Yes although if you’re only here to downvote bad content then perhaps your focus is in the wrong place.
I introduced some friends to piefed, and told them about the attitude system. They said they only downvote because remembering to upvote is too hard for their ADHD. So they said on piefed, they just won’t vote.
-
If you move you mouse over, or finger, you can obtain the reason
They mean the fact there’s two instead of one
-
I introduced some friends to piefed, and told them about the attitude system. They said they only downvote because remembering to upvote is too hard for their ADHD. So they said on piefed, they just won’t vote.
Yeah if someone can’t tell the difference it’s probably better if they don’t vote?
-
Yeah if someone can’t tell the difference it’s probably better if they don’t vote?
They can tell the difference. What they’re saying is, good posts don’t elicit a strong enough emotional reaction to get them to upvote. It’s not part of their workflow.
-
On the flip side, the fediverse tends to have a pretty strong monoculture. You can collect down votes just by disagreeing with someone respectfully or stating your view point here.
Maybe it it’s numbers grow, it will become a bit less of an echo chamber.
I found that out the fun way by having the unpopular opinion of “we shouldn’t encourage 4chan-style doxxing threats over server drama”. The admin of lemmy.zip banned me from the server, presumably because it was somebody from that server pushing for that behavior.
-
If you move you mouse over, or finger, you can obtain the reason
I think I get Grail’s point. One red warning makes sense, but most of the time I see one, there will be a second with a nearly identical description.
-
They can tell the difference. What they’re saying is, good posts don’t elicit a strong enough emotional reaction to get them to upvote. It’s not part of their workflow.
Reading insightful conversations and giving them a little
️ gives me a positive dopamine rush. -
Not naming any names coughfrongtcough
FWIW I looked at your Attitude rating and can say that unless you were trying to juice the numbers somehow, you fall well within what I’d consider normal patterns of upvote/downvote. The algorithm considers you to be far less negative than you may think you are.
-
Just like Reddit, PieFed keeps track of how many upvotes and downvotes your posts receive and the net value of all the votes received is called your “reputation” (Reddit calls it “karma”). This is not shown in the UI anywhere (except to administrators), to dissuade the karma-farming behavior common on Reddit. Reputation is not a game or status symbol, it is a mechanic for enhancing trust and safety on PieFed.
Some people have criticized PieFed for this, calling it a “social credit system” similar to the one in China so I thought it’d be good to explain exactly what it does so people don’t need to guess or rely on hearsay.
Yeah I saw people freaking out over it like it was the end of the world, or even a bad thing really. Thanks for the clear explanation.
That said, I wish I could at least see my own, of nobody else’s.
-
They mean the fact there’s two instead of one
Oh i get it, thank
-
I think the attitude system is insane when the fediverse is filled with so many people who deserve every downvote they get.
Attitude system?
-
Just like Reddit, PieFed keeps track of how many upvotes and downvotes your posts receive and the net value of all the votes received is called your “reputation” (Reddit calls it “karma”). This is not shown in the UI anywhere (except to administrators), to dissuade the karma-farming behavior common on Reddit. Reputation is not a game or status symbol, it is a mechanic for enhancing trust and safety on PieFed.
Some people have criticized PieFed for this, calling it a “social credit system” similar to the one in China so I thought it’d be good to explain exactly what it does so people don’t need to guess or rely on hearsay.
I wish “votes” were multi-dimensional. “Yes/No”, “Good/Bad”, etc. is just too simple for the amount of nuance that exists. For example I could agree with somebody’s statement, but disagree with their tone.
