Who decides what you see on the fediverse? A look at voting patterns
-
I agree that most cases are going to just be active users, and such activity should be encouraged, not discouraged.
As a well-designed bot can mimic (to an extent) the activity of a real user, however, I think it’s still important to ensure that all such users aren’t interacting with others in an automated manner, or otherwise consistently engaging in mass-voting or brigading.
Yeah I mean any account with that much activity is gonna highlight itself on a platform this small. It should be easy enough for admins to look at them case-by-case to see if their activity is bot-like.
Instances can ban obvious bot accounts and brigadiers. If an instance refuses to address a problem account or is a sanctuary for problem accounts, other instances can defederate from those.
Overall this seems like a non-issue here. This isn’t reddit. Maybe in the future it’ll be a bigger problem though
-
That would just cause those 10 people to hate me. I don’t want to anger the people who determine what gets seen and what gets buried. That demonstrates the whole problem with having 10 people controlling everything - it’s a power imbalance.
Anyway you would not recognize most of them. The people who vote a ton are not the same people who comment and post a lot.
The way you presented this is as a kind of fight: what do YOU think of THEM that influence YOUR content (implied: without your CONSENT).
But… it’s just people voting, and commenting, and posting - all normal activities that people have done since before any of the Fediverse existed?
This all seems so incongruous, as in what two days ago was considered a virtuous activity all of a sudden is seen as “bad”, and already (not under discussion to maybe possibly potentially be done at some future date) throttled.
I would have preferred a greater rather than lesser amount of transparency and control. Like if a recipient does not like one of these top-10 voters, can they opt-out of that control by blocking them? And if so, how can an individual find out who these mass-vote-controllers are, short of spinning up their own instance thereby exposing themselves to all the frustrations that any public-facing interfaces have in the modern era.
But maybe we WANT these people to control what we see - if we like what they are doing and enjoy the work having been done for us already, each day before we even log in to check the content available on today’s feed?
That is part of my answer to your OP question btw: I don’t know what I think yet about someone else controlling my feed, unless I had the data to be able to make an informed decision? I already presumed that either people were doing so - for Popular feeds - or else I knew that I could bypass that anytime I wanted, simply by browsing All.
So I am uncertain what “new information” this post is adding to my previous understanding of how matters work on the Threadiverse? I suppose it definitively rules out anything remotely resembling a more even distribution, but I would have rather assumed a Power Law curve from the start. Do these accounts upvote any action taken by Russia and downvote any response by Ukraine? In that case I am VERY interested!! Though now that they are throttled, won’t they simply switch to multiple accounts and continue relatively unimpeded?
Things I would guess are upvoted: Linux-praising tech news, USA politics, memes, pictures of cats, calls for guillotining hundreds if not thousands of people world-wide, including even the janitorial staff at Meta who aren’t ideologically pure enough, unlike us here who use <correct answer> btw.
Things I would guess are ignored: anything requiring additional effort to parse rather than continuing to doomscroll mindlessly, like poetry.
But I thought all this a couple days ago too, so my thinking doesn’t seem to have changed in the slightest after seeing these graphs? Pulling the curtain back only this far isn’t enough for me to be able to DO anything with any of this new information?
Hence your rapid implementation of this new “feature” mainly comes across as having a “Just trust me bro” mindset behind it. Less “democratic” and more “authoritarian”? (From a process standpoint I mean.)
-
I signalled to the posters and commenters that I like what they shared and hopefully encouraged them to continue contributing to this place.
You can do that much more effectively by writing a comment. Even just “Cool, thanks for sharing!” would have more emotional impact on the author than receiving 100 upvotes.
I disagree. One comment means that one person really liked what I shared. 100 upvotes mean 100 different people are validating what I shared. A comment with 100 upvotes is a high quality comment most of the time. A comment with one answer is just two people talking to each other.
If the 100 top upvoters would always vote on the same posts and comments, it would be a problem. I don’t have that data, but I doubt this is the case here. In that hypothecial case, the best solution would not be limiting everyone’s threadiverse usage with a quota, but instead investigate the 100 top upvoters for vote manipulation.
Any quota, no matter how big, will have the effect that a lot of people (not just power users) will vote less because votes suddenly became sparse and thus more valuable. Which again isn’t good for a network that needs more participation, not less.
-
Out of the 37,000 people who voted for posts or comments in the last month, the 10 most prolific voters (0.02% of us) cast as many votes as the bottom 59%. Here’s how that looks, visually:
As you can see, a lot of people didn’t cast many votes. Someone cast 23k votes, with a group of 13 each casting at least 10k votes.
“But of course most people aren’t really engaged, most of those 37k people are just NPCs who don’t really matter” you say, “Rimu you’re just including them to make it seem worse than it is”, you might say. Ok, cool, let’s pretend the bottom 85% of us don’t matter and just look at the top 5000 voters. Here’s how the distribution looks among them:
Still super unbalanced. Let’s analyze this a bit.
Among those 5000, the top 147 (2.94%) cast as many votes as all the others (4853 people) combined. Among those 5000, the average number of votes cast in a month is 1142. Among the top 147, the average number of votes cast in a month is 6868.
How do you feel about a tiny group having this much influence over what news you receive?
I decide what I see by blocking what I don’t like, subscribing to what I do, and sorting everything by new/new comments where the votes don’t determine any kind of order.
-
The way you presented this is as a kind of fight: what do YOU think of THEM that influence YOUR content (implied: without your CONSENT).
But… it’s just people voting, and commenting, and posting - all normal activities that people have done since before any of the Fediverse existed?
This all seems so incongruous, as in what two days ago was considered a virtuous activity all of a sudden is seen as “bad”, and already (not under discussion to maybe possibly potentially be done at some future date) throttled.
I would have preferred a greater rather than lesser amount of transparency and control. Like if a recipient does not like one of these top-10 voters, can they opt-out of that control by blocking them? And if so, how can an individual find out who these mass-vote-controllers are, short of spinning up their own instance thereby exposing themselves to all the frustrations that any public-facing interfaces have in the modern era.
But maybe we WANT these people to control what we see - if we like what they are doing and enjoy the work having been done for us already, each day before we even log in to check the content available on today’s feed?
That is part of my answer to your OP question btw: I don’t know what I think yet about someone else controlling my feed, unless I had the data to be able to make an informed decision? I already presumed that either people were doing so - for Popular feeds - or else I knew that I could bypass that anytime I wanted, simply by browsing All.
So I am uncertain what “new information” this post is adding to my previous understanding of how matters work on the Threadiverse? I suppose it definitively rules out anything remotely resembling a more even distribution, but I would have rather assumed a Power Law curve from the start. Do these accounts upvote any action taken by Russia and downvote any response by Ukraine? In that case I am VERY interested!! Though now that they are throttled, won’t they simply switch to multiple accounts and continue relatively unimpeded?
Things I would guess are upvoted: Linux-praising tech news, USA politics, memes, pictures of cats, calls for guillotining hundreds if not thousands of people world-wide, including even the janitorial staff at Meta who aren’t ideologically pure enough, unlike us here who use <correct answer> btw.
Things I would guess are ignored: anything requiring additional effort to parse rather than continuing to doomscroll mindlessly, like poetry.
But I thought all this a couple days ago too, so my thinking doesn’t seem to have changed in the slightest after seeing these graphs? Pulling the curtain back only this far isn’t enough for me to be able to DO anything with any of this new information?
Hence your rapid implementation of this new “feature” mainly comes across as having a “Just trust me bro” mindset behind it. Less “democratic” and more “authoritarian”? (From a process standpoint I mean.)
This all seems so incongruous, as in what two days ago was considered a virtuous activity all of a sudden is seen as “bad”
This, exactly. At certain times of day, I’m the first upvoter on a lot of posts I see. But I’m also often the first person to downvote spam and report it to moderators, so people have less spam in their timeline. Moderators don’t instantly check reports, so it can take a couple hours for spam to be removed. Which is totally fine, all moderators are volunteers here. That’s why downvoting spam is important. And by doing this, I’m getting closer and closer to a vote quota that stops me from doing the thing I thought was good for the Threadiverse.
-
This all seems so incongruous, as in what two days ago was considered a virtuous activity all of a sudden is seen as “bad”
This, exactly. At certain times of day, I’m the first upvoter on a lot of posts I see. But I’m also often the first person to downvote spam and report it to moderators, so people have less spam in their timeline. Moderators don’t instantly check reports, so it can take a couple hours for spam to be removed. Which is totally fine, all moderators are volunteers here. That’s why downvoting spam is important. And by doing this, I’m getting closer and closer to a vote quota that stops me from doing the thing I thought was good for the Threadiverse.
I also mentioned elsewhere that the FIRST up- or down-vote carries car more weight than the hundredth or thousandth. You are doing a true service to the Threadiverse - as too does someone who makes 23k upvotes (over a one month timeperiod I would guess?), but the effect of each & every one of your votes is so much HIGHER than the other scenario there: they aren’t so readily comparable, you making perhaps 1k highly effective votes vs. someone else adding background by making >20 times more votes total, yet increasing the counts from 100 to 101 or negligibly decreasing from 100 to 99, rather than you altering the entire future trajectory of the content item from 1 to 2 (DOUBLING its score) or from 1 to 0.
So if I were to be “afraid” of voters “manipulating” the content that I see - ignoring for a moment how I could browse by All/New or Local/New and thereby entirely ignore any effect anyone (other than mods) has upon what I see - then shouldn’t I be much more afraid of YOU, whose votes are highly effective? More so than someone who merely votes a lot?
I suppose the two scenarios are not mutually exclusive - someone could vote a lot and also do so in a highly effective manner that even more greatly impacts how others view content, using the default Subscribed/Top sort, but in that case it’s the effectiveness far more than the amount that has by far the greater impact upon what I see than merely the total number of votes. And not enough information was given in the OP graphs to be able to understand the situation, or to find out more (unless someone runs their own instance and can look further).
Btw thank you for your service! The Threadiverse needs people like you:-), doing what you are doing!:-)
-
You can also downvote everything you don’t upvote, effectively making your voice count twice. I did that on Reddit when I was much more of a moron than I am today. I’m fairly certain there are more people like this.
When I took a look at lemvotes.org, I came to realise that there really are serial downvoters. Care to explain what goes on inside a head like that?
-
You are reading a post that is 2 hours old. Naturally you will see a lot of people who sort by New. Come back in a couple days and see how the discussion has changed.
Yup. I am currently sorting by active
-
Out of the 37,000 people who voted for posts or comments in the last month, the 10 most prolific voters (0.02% of us) cast as many votes as the bottom 59%. Here’s how that looks, visually:
As you can see, a lot of people didn’t cast many votes. Someone cast 23k votes, with a group of 13 each casting at least 10k votes.
“But of course most people aren’t really engaged, most of those 37k people are just NPCs who don’t really matter” you say, “Rimu you’re just including them to make it seem worse than it is”, you might say. Ok, cool, let’s pretend the bottom 85% of us don’t matter and just look at the top 5000 voters. Here’s how the distribution looks among them:
Still super unbalanced. Let’s analyze this a bit.
Among those 5000, the top 147 (2.94%) cast as many votes as all the others (4853 people) combined. Among those 5000, the average number of votes cast in a month is 1142. Among the top 147, the average number of votes cast in a month is 6868.
How do you feel about a tiny group having this much influence over what news you receive?
Assuming they are, in fact, human posters - I’d say this is a case of meritocracy. They made an effort to have their voice heard. This reminds me of that one story about people complaining that an union’s decisions are made by 10 people… and it turns out, that’s because only those 10 people bother to come to the union meeting.
-
When I took a look at lemvotes.org, I came to realise that there really are serial downvoters. Care to explain what goes on inside a head like that?
In the mind of that person they’re contributing to „correct” viewpoints being „on top” so that other people know what viewpoint is „correct”.
-
If they are real people manually voting, then by all means they shouldn’t be limited by built-in assumptions.
At the same time, at a rate of 750 votes a day, even someone spending 16 hours a day on Lemmy would only have 76.8 seconds per vote to read a headline, read the article (ideally), and interact with the post, before immediately going to the next one.
While many posts don’t need that much time for a complete interaction, much more likely under the scenario of such mass voting is many votes with minimal to no interaction. If someone is using Lemmy to that extent, I would encourage them to redirect some of their voting efforts into thinking of more things to post or comment, as interaction—beyond just voting—is the beating heart of any such platform.
Many votes are on comments, meme posts, etc. I know some people mainly use the threadi for articles but that’s just one use case. Averaging one vote every ~10 seconds doesn’t seem odd to me, and if you do that you reach your quota in 2 hours 5 minutes per day. Which for someone who spends half their day on here is nothing.
-
Oh yeah, piefed.zip is running an old version.
well thanks anyhow!
-
In the mind of that person they’re contributing to „correct” viewpoints being „on top” so that other people know what viewpoint is „correct”.
And there’s only one correct truth which deserves the upvote. Anything other than that should be downvoted so that the truth will rise higher, right?
-
Out of the 37,000 people who voted for posts or comments in the last month, the 10 most prolific voters (0.02% of us) cast as many votes as the bottom 59%. Here’s how that looks, visually:
As you can see, a lot of people didn’t cast many votes. Someone cast 23k votes, with a group of 13 each casting at least 10k votes.
“But of course most people aren’t really engaged, most of those 37k people are just NPCs who don’t really matter” you say, “Rimu you’re just including them to make it seem worse than it is”, you might say. Ok, cool, let’s pretend the bottom 85% of us don’t matter and just look at the top 5000 voters. Here’s how the distribution looks among them:
Still super unbalanced. Let’s analyze this a bit.
Among those 5000, the top 147 (2.94%) cast as many votes as all the others (4853 people) combined. Among those 5000, the average number of votes cast in a month is 1142. Among the top 147, the average number of votes cast in a month is 6868.
How do you feel about a tiny group having this much influence over what news you receive?
How do you feel about a tiny group having this much influence over what news you receive?
Imo, if people that don’t vote get bothered, they should start voting themselves.
-
I’m somewhat interested in these megavoters, mainly just in regard to if they’re real people or not and the personality of someone that seemingly votes on everything they come across. I’m curious if they interact otherwise or are just silently voting and nothing more.
I’m not really concerned as voting doesn’t seem to mean all too much here. I sort Top 6 Hr, but there’s a small enough pool of posts that I generally end up scrolling down to single digits as it is. Also, from the handful of times I used other instances, the vote totals don’t sync up anyway due to differences in federation details, so instance would still have an impact on what difference these votes have.
If anyone is also using a social media platform as their sole source of important information, I feel some potential vote manipulation is the least of that person’s problems with gathering reliable data.
Very cool stats though, I really enjoy posts like these.
I ‘won’ piefed.zip’s “biggest cheerleader award” (most upvotes) during their 1-year anniversary. I’ve only had an account with them for 8-months…
I post 2-3 a week now, and comment about once a day. I mod 2 communities (1 active, but the only poster: fedilytics).
I’ve been in the threadiverse since the Reddit 3rd party exodus. I heavily curate my feeds (viewed by “New”):
-
Subscribed feed: “I want to see everything that some one posts to the community” because I’m generally going to like all of it (lots of animal communities, but also some more niche tech communities and general fediverse information communities).
-
All feed: I block all the communities I’m not interested in and will never be interested in (a quick rough estimate is I’ve blocked ~1000 communities and ~20 instances, also the keywords “Slam”, “Slammed”, “Slams”, “Slamming”). This leaves me with a “I will often like some of what this community has” as a ‘second’ subscribed feed.
-
Just quickly looked in the past 24 hours I upvoted 70 posts in my subscribed feed, probably another 40 in the all feed. Then there’s the comment upvotes. I don’t have an estimate on that, but probably a bigger total. Basically, if someone is positively contributing, they get an upvote. I especially like moving people from “1” to “2” to show someone saw their contribution and liked it, in the hopes they will get encouraged to comment/post more.
-
Honestly, I would upvote more, but if someone posts a link, I have to read or at least skim the linked content before I will upvote them (some good comments don’t get upvoted because I don’t want to read or skim a bunch of links at the time).
I’m not in favor of the voting limit. I think OpenStars@piefed.social and squirrel@cake.kobel.fyi articulate the reasons well. I am a little biased in favor of squirrel though. They always upvote my fedilytics community posts and my posts don’t get many votes, so I appreciate that someone looked at the effort I made and signaled they appreciated it. Which I suppose does go to some of the points they are making in their comments.
Let me know if you have any follow up questions.
-
-
I ‘won’ piefed.zip’s “biggest cheerleader award” (most upvotes) during their 1-year anniversary. I’ve only had an account with them for 8-months…
I post 2-3 a week now, and comment about once a day. I mod 2 communities (1 active, but the only poster: fedilytics).
I’ve been in the threadiverse since the Reddit 3rd party exodus. I heavily curate my feeds (viewed by “New”):
-
Subscribed feed: “I want to see everything that some one posts to the community” because I’m generally going to like all of it (lots of animal communities, but also some more niche tech communities and general fediverse information communities).
-
All feed: I block all the communities I’m not interested in and will never be interested in (a quick rough estimate is I’ve blocked ~1000 communities and ~20 instances, also the keywords “Slam”, “Slammed”, “Slams”, “Slamming”). This leaves me with a “I will often like some of what this community has” as a ‘second’ subscribed feed.
-
Just quickly looked in the past 24 hours I upvoted 70 posts in my subscribed feed, probably another 40 in the all feed. Then there’s the comment upvotes. I don’t have an estimate on that, but probably a bigger total. Basically, if someone is positively contributing, they get an upvote. I especially like moving people from “1” to “2” to show someone saw their contribution and liked it, in the hopes they will get encouraged to comment/post more.
-
Honestly, I would upvote more, but if someone posts a link, I have to read or at least skim the linked content before I will upvote them (some good comments don’t get upvoted because I don’t want to read or skim a bunch of links at the time).
I’m not in favor of the voting limit. I think OpenStars@piefed.social and squirrel@cake.kobel.fyi articulate the reasons well. I am a little biased in favor of squirrel though. They always upvote my fedilytics community posts and my posts don’t get many votes, so I appreciate that someone looked at the effort I made and signaled they appreciated it. Which I suppose does go to some of the points they are making in their comments.
Let me know if you have any follow up questions.
Thank you for your (voting) service! I hope you get to continue doing such unabated on PieFed.zip.
-
-
I ‘won’ piefed.zip’s “biggest cheerleader award” (most upvotes) during their 1-year anniversary. I’ve only had an account with them for 8-months…
I post 2-3 a week now, and comment about once a day. I mod 2 communities (1 active, but the only poster: fedilytics).
I’ve been in the threadiverse since the Reddit 3rd party exodus. I heavily curate my feeds (viewed by “New”):
-
Subscribed feed: “I want to see everything that some one posts to the community” because I’m generally going to like all of it (lots of animal communities, but also some more niche tech communities and general fediverse information communities).
-
All feed: I block all the communities I’m not interested in and will never be interested in (a quick rough estimate is I’ve blocked ~1000 communities and ~20 instances, also the keywords “Slam”, “Slammed”, “Slams”, “Slamming”). This leaves me with a “I will often like some of what this community has” as a ‘second’ subscribed feed.
-
Just quickly looked in the past 24 hours I upvoted 70 posts in my subscribed feed, probably another 40 in the all feed. Then there’s the comment upvotes. I don’t have an estimate on that, but probably a bigger total. Basically, if someone is positively contributing, they get an upvote. I especially like moving people from “1” to “2” to show someone saw their contribution and liked it, in the hopes they will get encouraged to comment/post more.
-
Honestly, I would upvote more, but if someone posts a link, I have to read or at least skim the linked content before I will upvote them (some good comments don’t get upvoted because I don’t want to read or skim a bunch of links at the time).
I’m not in favor of the voting limit. I think OpenStars@piefed.social and squirrel@cake.kobel.fyi articulate the reasons well. I am a little biased in favor of squirrel though. They always upvote my fedilytics community posts and my posts don’t get many votes, so I appreciate that someone looked at the effort I made and signaled they appreciated it. Which I suppose does go to some of the points they are making in their comments.
Let me know if you have any follow up questions.
Instance admins can change the vote quota themselves in .env.docker (Docker environment) or .user.env. (YunoHost environment) by setting
VOTE_QUOTAto any number. In your case that’s on piefed.zip to decide.And thank you for your contributions. Fedilytics is a great tool for discovery.
-
-
Instance admins can change the vote quota themselves in .env.docker (Docker environment) or .user.env. (YunoHost environment) by setting
VOTE_QUOTAto any number. In your case that’s on piefed.zip to decide.And thank you for your contributions. Fedilytics is a great tool for discovery.
Thanks
Yeah, there was an announcement about the update being scheduled on .zip. I asked if they were going to implement the quota or not.
Haven’t heard back yet, but it could take some time if they are discussing it amongst themselves first.
-
Out of the 37,000 people who voted for posts or comments in the last month, the 10 most prolific voters (0.02% of us) cast as many votes as the bottom 59%. Here’s how that looks, visually:
As you can see, a lot of people didn’t cast many votes. Someone cast 23k votes, with a group of 13 each casting at least 10k votes.
“But of course most people aren’t really engaged, most of those 37k people are just NPCs who don’t really matter” you say, “Rimu you’re just including them to make it seem worse than it is”, you might say. Ok, cool, let’s pretend the bottom 85% of us don’t matter and just look at the top 5000 voters. Here’s how the distribution looks among them:
Still super unbalanced. Let’s analyze this a bit.
Among those 5000, the top 147 (2.94%) cast as many votes as all the others (4853 people) combined. Among those 5000, the average number of votes cast in a month is 1142. Among the top 147, the average number of votes cast in a month is 6868.
How do you feel about a tiny group having this much influence over what news you receive?
So… You’re saying you want me to wear more flair?
-
I ‘won’ piefed.zip’s “biggest cheerleader award” (most upvotes) during their 1-year anniversary. I’ve only had an account with them for 8-months…
I post 2-3 a week now, and comment about once a day. I mod 2 communities (1 active, but the only poster: fedilytics).
I’ve been in the threadiverse since the Reddit 3rd party exodus. I heavily curate my feeds (viewed by “New”):
-
Subscribed feed: “I want to see everything that some one posts to the community” because I’m generally going to like all of it (lots of animal communities, but also some more niche tech communities and general fediverse information communities).
-
All feed: I block all the communities I’m not interested in and will never be interested in (a quick rough estimate is I’ve blocked ~1000 communities and ~20 instances, also the keywords “Slam”, “Slammed”, “Slams”, “Slamming”). This leaves me with a “I will often like some of what this community has” as a ‘second’ subscribed feed.
-
Just quickly looked in the past 24 hours I upvoted 70 posts in my subscribed feed, probably another 40 in the all feed. Then there’s the comment upvotes. I don’t have an estimate on that, but probably a bigger total. Basically, if someone is positively contributing, they get an upvote. I especially like moving people from “1” to “2” to show someone saw their contribution and liked it, in the hopes they will get encouraged to comment/post more.
-
Honestly, I would upvote more, but if someone posts a link, I have to read or at least skim the linked content before I will upvote them (some good comments don’t get upvoted because I don’t want to read or skim a bunch of links at the time).
I’m not in favor of the voting limit. I think OpenStars@piefed.social and squirrel@cake.kobel.fyi articulate the reasons well. I am a little biased in favor of squirrel though. They always upvote my fedilytics community posts and my posts don’t get many votes, so I appreciate that someone looked at the effort I made and signaled they appreciated it. Which I suppose does go to some of the points they are making in their comments.
Let me know if you have any follow up questions.
Very interesting perspective. It seems like we have similar goals, opposite ways of getting there, but both somewhat rely on each other.
I’m pretty sure I’m somewhere in the top 2 dozen posters, and from scrolling .World’s top communities, I think I have the largest community having posts from primarily a single user, and it’s a topic I consider rather niche, owls. Nobody else here needs to know about owls. Most will not randomly encounter one or need to know any of the things I share about them.
I attempt to make other users ignore all that, not just to entertain or educate, but to make a mysterious creature most will never see feel like a part of your neighborhood, and one that they will value and want to protect.
It makes me a bit sad when I hear people block communities that they have no interest in. Maybe if it’s something political or vaguely/explicity sexual, I get blocking that stuff, but some of my favorite comments are from people who don’t consider themselves animal/bird people that end up enjoying what I do. I think that probably outweighs either upvotes or comments for me. Upvotes I think are fairly simple to get and can be games, comments require more effort, but getting someone to appreciate something for the first time feels like a milestone for both parties. I opened someone’s mind to a new perspective, and they either were moved by my passion on the subject or I found and shared something so unique it very mildly changed someone. I think that’s really special and if too many people just say “what do I care about some birds for?” and shut me out, I feel that’s a loss for them more than it is for me.
I used to block a few keywords, mostly trump, elon, and musk, but one day I noticed I couldn’t see my own post. Someone helped me figure out the keyword blocker wasn’t so smart, and my post contained something along the lines of “melons” and it saw the “elon” in there and blocked my own post. So I scrapped the keyword blocks after that. If you block “slam” and all variations, you might miss one of my favorite videos of a Great Horned Owl slamming into a Bald Eagle in a surprise attack over territory. Not saying you’re in the wrong for doing it, those “so and so slams whoshisface” are dumb, I just worry about missing the exceptions to the rules.
That’s the same reason I’m a Top 6 Hour scroller. I go pretty far down to see newer stuff. I used to browse New earlier on when we were much smaller and do like you do of trying to get people off the 1 mark. I’d try to leave a comment wherever I could, since I think an engaging comment is more powerful than a like.
I try to comment in places I think can get dialog going. If a post is just an article or headline with no commentary, I tend to pass by. I guess I’m here more to actually connect with other people. For actual news and information, I tend to just go to primary sources myself. For the Fediverse, I want to interact with you guys, so if someone just plops something down without adding something of themselves, it’s much less interesting for me. I typically reserve likes for things I interact with. Even if it isn’t something I have something to say about, if it makes me actually chuckle or makes me think deeper about a topic, then I vote. So I feel somewhat backwards with how your comment makes me see your method working.
It sounds like you upvote for participation that is fostering further activity. You seem less likely to react with in depth comments since they take time away from you upvoting other people’s activity. Finally, at least on this account, your post count looks low, so that seems to be your least used avenue of building up things.
I don’t disagree with any of that, even though it’s the opposite of my approach of sharing with you what I think you’d like of my interests first, sharing what I like about others’ interests second, and finally a few thumbs up for people that made me smile but I really have nothing to say about. It’s honestly most likely a good thing, as this way we’re complimentary to each other’s respective style. You’re doing what I’m not.
Maybe I feel we’re bigger than we are, as I tend to have people come to me here now, as I’m kicking off conversations. I’m pretty top-down these days, while you’re still building up folks from the ground up. That’s a more graspable concept for me that I hadn’t been considering. I do it for the people that are doing it for me, to show I appreciate them, but maybe I should be spreading that wealth a bit further. I had been picturing hue upvote counts as something that diluted the experience, but if you’re casting them far and wide, I do think that has the positive impact you mention. I’ll have to mind myself a bit better and make sure I’m doing my part to see your POV a bit more like I used to. After all, since my normal stance is upvotes are simple and low effort, I’d be a bit lacking if I wasn’t doing a good bit of it myself.
Thanks for reminding me a bit of the importance of small gestures!
-
