Establishing a new Fediquette
Old habits die hard, but there's Reddiquette which needs to be revived, and some which needs to die.
Many "golden-age" redditors remember a time when downvoting was reserved for hostility, not a different opinion. For the sake of our growing community I would like to implore everyone to be awesome to each other.
However, this place is not Reddit.
- We don't measure in bananas here.
- We don't need to append "edit: typo" to edited posts and comments.
- if you see something which is worthy of a downvote: down vote and move on! Don't engage with it and feed the algorithm/engament machine so other people are exposed to it when sorting by active.
Showing the reason you edit a post isn't dumb, its to give a valid reason so people don't think you edited to make someones response look bad. Saying its for context, adding a word or whatever just shows you didn't edit it maliciously.
The whole "edit: thanks for gold and I can't believe my most upvoted comment was about editing!" can go away for sure though
Holy shit agreed. The “thanks for le kind gold stranger” shit makes me want to fucking cut my throat. Some shit im begging to stay on leddit. All the shit on /r/circlejerk for example.
Edit: le thanks for the gold kind stranger
This argument never really made sense to me. Anyone who is being deceptive is not going to tell people they're editing their comments.
It's the result of nothing more than a moral panic. There aren't roving bands of keyboard warriors rolling around making comments and then editing them to make others look stupid.
And even if there were, they could just include "edit: typo" and get away with it. Unless someone takes screenshots.
I think it says more about the community that everyone is expected to prove their innocence. Let's have a little faith in each other, we're better than that.
It makes sense to me and I've been editing comments this way since the early 2000's. For some, it's a cultural practice that's probably decades old.
If the platform didn't state the comment was edited, I probably wouldn't bother but if it does, there is always a thought at the back of the reader's mind about what happened. Leaving a note about editing negates the thought. Leaving pointless edits less so.
I find it more ethical and transparent, particularly in discussion threads where debates are being held.
I get it as a cultural thing, but it makes no sense epistemologically.
An unethical person would not state they changed their comment, and a malicious person would state their edit was mundane. Those two factors alone render the practice of proving your innocence in advance moot.
I think it's sad that people reflexively assume the worst. I used to engage in some heated debates on Reddit, but I was never accused of, or assumed the other person edited their posts to make me look bad. It seems like paranoid behaviour to me.
Strangely enough, if it became the norm to correct typos without stating it, the default assumption would be that the edit was a typo correction.
I didn't downvote you.
I agree but like the premise of the argument is that there is trust issues, a edited reason makes it more trustworthy on a scale rather than nothing. I agree with that usually typos don't require a reason but reddit? gave you 5? mins before an edited notification was placed on the comment for that reason.
Bad actors are always going to act bad.
I don't even think downvotes need to exist to counter other aspects of the OP. I would rather a statement as to why this was a bad comment or post so as to make it a learning experience, an educational tool rather than a down arrow that could mean anything. I've been downvoted for adding relevant posts to the community I manage. What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Was it the content? Someone holding a grudge? What?
As I just replied to another user, paraphrasing this: downvotes might be perceived as the community self-policing, but if you visit r/vegan you'll see how that can make a community hostile. I'm a vegan and I can't fucking stand that place. If you have an alternative opinion, prepare to wind up on the top of controversial, where the mob has a field day.
I think some sub's had the right idea by limiting the lower voting karma to 0. Another downside is it essentially paints a target for the community before an individual has formed an opinion. It generate the hive mind we should be avoiding.
In that case, downvotes should be invisible. The sorting algorithm can see them but people can't.
I don't believe that tiny communities and instances should have them on until a threshold is reached and they become "sortable".
Being visible is an aggressive moderation tool. It doesn't foster discussion. reddit devolved into downvote heavy as time went on and I hated it, most of the time it didn't make sense why things were downvoted. They work better for memes and pics, not comments (unless they are horrible) and discussions. Bad actors use the downvote for bad acting.
I got nothing more to say, you hit the nail on the head.
It reminds me of grading movies. If someone says to me its an 8/10, that is useless information. If they tell me it has some action, I'm intruged. Then they tell me it's a Marvel movie, and I lose all interest.
However, I will say that it was entertaining as fuck to see /u/spez's comment karma tank - but he's not really a member of the reddit community, just the warden hearing the prisoners shout "fuck you!" before starting a riot and a partial breakout.
You're being really thoughtful and this is a good discussion.
I read through all the other comments and I'm disagreeing with a few other viewpoints from others pretending like aggressive downvoting/brigading is an individual's problem.
Perhaps a feature request to Lemmy could be an option. Rather than a binary choice.
Votes as is, upvotes visible/downvotes not visible but measured, up/down not visible but measured, no downvotes, no votes at all.
Discussion instances could work around what works best for sorting and discussion, general could work what's best for them etc.
Forums didn't have upvotes for years and it worked just fine.
Its a much better discussion than the one I'm having elsewhere, that's for sure. I sure do love being strawmanned. I was hoping it would be more than a week before I encountered this lol.
That's the problem with having an opinion.
Are you bring downvoted heavily? That's the only way I know to know if I agree with you or not.
I'm only slightly in the negative numbers. So you're completely justified in starting from a place of skepticism.
Come back later. Once I reach -5 you can be vindicated in knowing that you were right all along.
I like the "edit:" append if I edited something, just to make it clear for whoever comes later.
What's the problem with it?
I didn't do that because it was reddit etiquette. I did it because people can see I edited my post, and I would like them to be able to see why
Why tell them you fixed typos? What's the point?
I've edited my comments for years to fix typos and clarify statments, and I never once had anyone accuse me of being disingenuous.
And even if they did, that's their, and their conspiratorial mind's problem.
Because otherwise people don't know why I edited the post. Did I change my opinion? Did I add some context or detail I missed the first time around? Or did I just fix a typo? A reason just makes it easy for people to have more context
That's the thing though, it's a paradox.
Anyone who is considerable enough to use "edit:" for legitimate reasons would not be the people who would be deceptive and change their posts to reflect a new opinion.
"edit: typo" is essentially just a defense against an imaginary accusation that you were being malicious.
By all means, edit posts to include extra information as an appendage, but closing with "edit: added info" is not very helpful.
You misunderstand. I'm not doing it so that people know that I made a legit edit, I'm doing it so people know what the legit edit I made is.
Who is doing that or arguing for that? Vague edit descriptions aren't terribly useful, and I'm not claiming otherwise...
Okay I get you. I thought you were literally typing "edit: typo", as opposed to something like "edit: she was my sisters friend"
I guess we both misunderstood each other lol. I wasn't implying that was your argument, it's just something I find annoying.
I mean, it depends on the context.
Did I make a post, have a lot of people get upset because I worded my post poorly? In which case, a I might make a clarifying edit like "edit: she was my sisters friend" so that future people that see my post don't get confused.
Did I accidentally type "there's" instead of "theirs"? I'd probably just edit it with "edit: typo". Not because people care if I made a typo, but because I want people to know that it wasn't the first type of edit
I agree the context is important, and the examples of rewriting large paragraphs justify clarification, both for new people and returning.
But the original point I made was that you don't need to post "edit: typo" here on Lemmy. We don't have edited post/comment tags, so nobody would know if it's just typos
It's really not that big of a deal anyway, I was just thinking of redundant examples of Rediquete to drum up the conversation.
Posts show as edited in many 3rd party apps and on other platforms
Edit - And in Lemmy too!
/c/TIL
FYI, I can also see an edit to your previous post too, directly in Lemmy!
Oh shit.
PLEASE DON'T TELL ANYONE WHAT I CHANGED.
It was a really embarrassing mistake and I'm sorry I ever said it.
I think it's polite to tell what you have changed when you edit a post as long as the platform does not have edit history visible (which as far as I can tell Lemmy does not).
If you add more context to your comment then sure mention it. But I don't think it's required for typos.
I rate this post 0.5
bannanasbananas. edit: typodownvoted edit: wait I think I pressed the wrong button
The algorithm?
I wondered the same. There are "Hot" and "Active" categories on the front page but I'm not sure how they work. Perhaps commenting pushes a post further up the "Active" feed?
This is my impression too. I see day-old posts with new comments on refresh, so I'm assuming you're right. Maybe algorithm isn't the right word, but you get what I mean.
https://join-lemmy.org/docs/contributors/07-ranking-algo.html
That's very interesting, thank you!
Disagree. You should politely state why you disagree. Engagement is good for newer websites like lemmy and you don't need to be rude or combative to disagree. One of my issues with reddit is when people would get downvoted for making a fair point or observation.
I really should have clarified this because it seems like a contradiction for me to state that down voting is bad, and to say that when you see something worthy of a downvote, downvote and move on.
When I say worthy of downvote, I don't mean a disagreement. I'm talking about people being obviously toxic. If malicious people want a reaction, giving it to them is not productive.
For example, if I see a post about plant based meals, and a comment states "I'm not convinced that this is really helping the planet, I don't see a problem with eating meat" - then engage politely.
But a post like "fucking vegans lol, I'm going to eat 2 steaks tonight" is not worth replying to. Downvote and move on.
Marking edits with "edit" is fine by me, just don't use ETA for that...
My take for the fediverse would include:
Again, downvote not for disagreement but for content that clearly does not contribute to the discussion. Reason should not be given, as downvoting should be done sparingly and should not require a reason (for most sane human beings).
Be aware when interacting cross-instances. Culture, norms, and rules may differ.
Unless the instance operator is fine with it, limit your self-content sharing and self-promotion.
Remember that most of the fediverse instances are independent and they owe you nothing. The instance operator's decisions are final.
Do not squat names on multiple servers unless it's what you generally have been using.
Cats are still the supreme beings. The fediverse resides on the Internet (assuming that it runs on TCP/IP), so the cat supremacy rule applies.
Cats are corner-pissing vermin. Fite me.
Wrong!
HISSSSSSSSSSS
To be honest building a edit history views makes more sense to me. This project is opensource we can do more than work around.
It's hard to understand your stance on downvoting, but from what I can tell, you think everyone who downvotes should just downvote and move on without commenting. It's funny because every post I have seen about downvoting has said the opposite; "Don't downvote just because you disagree" or "If you downvote, post a comment as to why"...
I say everyone should stop trying to dictate how other people use their software and stop complaining that "everybody else is doing it wrong"™️. If you have a problem with downvoting, I think you can join an instance that has it disabled.
negative numbers = negative person.
Negative person + negative person = negative people.
Negative people * negative people = Reddit
It's less about telling you how to use your software, and more about understanding what it takes to cultivate a healthy community.
It's too late for reddit, but it's not too late for us.
Numbers are not indicative of an emotion. It doesn't matter why someone downvotes. If they are going to be a "negative person" then they will do that regardless. I agree that everyone should make an effort to be kind and avoid being toxic, but saying that downvotes or "negative numbers" have such power is just people putting too much thought into it... Good luck with your crusade. Downvotes can be disabled by an instance admin. I would recommend anyone who cannot handle the negative numbers to consider joining one of those instances.
I think you might be underestimating how personal these numbers can be to some people. I'm glad they don't impact you, but many people, especially the upcoming generation, equate these numbers with their value.
Big numbers can make people feel validated, that their opinions are valued, or they're funny.
Negative numbers may result in disappointment or feelings of rejection.
I don't think negative people are "just negative". Toxicity pervades cultures which allow it to spread. Down voting is sometimes enough to act as a nucleation point. I've seen heated arguments start over accusations of down voting, which isn't isolated to their thread.
Exactly, as I said, people should stop taking the numbers so seriously... To say that "it's just the way it is" doesn't help address the underlying issue and it won't stop "negative people" from being negative.
I've seen some of your replies to others on here as you've tried to defend your stance and you have resorted to claiming that it's their problem because of their "conspiracy mindset". I could just as easily make that same counterargument here but it is offensive and isn't productive.
You clearly don't want to discuss the real issues and just want to shove your opinions down people's throats.
I don't know how anyone is supposed to rationalise an intuitive emotion to themselves, let alone to other people. So saying people should just stop taking numbers so seriously is comparable to telling someone they should stop being shy.
Negative people will be negative for sure, but it really doesn't take much for an irrational person to become upset. Evidently, you're a rational person. It is often the case that rational people don't intuit irrationally minded people (curse of knowledge bias).
The conspiratorial mindset comment was not directed at anyone here. My point was that people feel that they need to prove their innocence in advance of by explaining why there's an asterix next to their comment. This is an extremely paranoid behaviour. I was being fallacious by saying it was a conspiratorial mindset, forgive me for being flamboyant.
As far as defending my opinion and shoving it down peoples throat, I don't think that's a charitable interpretation. I simply haven't been persusuaded, and I think its fine to explain why I don't see it that way.
On a similar note, if people should stop taking numbers so seriously, shouldn't they also stop taking seriously the implications of a stranger who assumes people are editing mundane comments maliciously?
Okay, I just typed up a much better response and then lost it into the Lemmy void, so sorry this will be much more to the point.
You are arguing two sides of the same issue based on your own personal opinions on each one. The issue being that people have certain psychological or behavioural issues. One: people who feel the need to leave a note on edited posts are paranoid. Two: people get upset by the number of downvotes.
First, I think your assessment about why people leave a note about their edits is incorrect. Even if they are doing it because they are paranoid, they should try to overcome that and possibly seek real world help. It is also such a minor thing that we should not try to create some "internet law" to justify criticizing them.
Second, if someone is getting that upset over downvotes, they should try to overcome that, and definitely seek real world help if they cannot cope. Being their gatekeeper will not solve any of these underlying problems and will not stop people from being negative. Again, instance admins can disable downvotes, so this is a non-issue with Lemmy.
The differences between these two things are people are people are either doing it to themselves, or others in the community are responsible.
All I was saying in the OP is that people don't need to clarify that they edited for typos because there's no way for people to know you edited your post.
It's all well and good to say "these people need help", they surely do, but the point I'm making is that there is also something we can do, if not for them, for the community generally.
In any case, this is not a petition to dictate anything, it's an appeal to be better to each other, because downvoting everyone who has a different opinion contributes to a bitter community. How much it contributes is speculative, but the value cannot be less than 1.
So, according to you, the people who are adding the notes to their posts are paranoid and it's not okay because it's apparently not, as you say, an "intuitive emotion" response that they don't need to justify. Instead they are doing it to themselves...
Yet, the people who are getting upset about downvotes simply have no control over their emotional reaction. Furthermore, you say that it is everyone who downvotes people that are being negative and directly causing their emotional response and it is everyone else's responsibility to only do things your way...
Great logic... I can see that you refuse to acknowledge that this line of reasoning is contradictory and flawed. As I said, good luck on your crusade against the big mean numbers. 👋
By the way, it does show when a comment has been edited.
This is very unproductive. Your comments started out well but this comment is laden with strawmen.
I'm saying that people who edit their posts to specifify that they have only edited grammatical mistakes stems from a perception that others may be skeptical about whether they have edited their post to trick people about what they originally wrote, is paranoid behaviour.
The intuitive emotion I was referring to was the feeling of rejection from the community for having a different opinion.
Difference being one is percieved, the other is evidently real, as I can see every time I reply to you.
I never stated that it is directly causing their emotional response (though in some small cases it is), but I did say it was a contributing factor on a greater scale.
Again, I'm not dictating anything, I'm merely trying to explain the correlation between community input and community output. There are communities on reddit where you can see both in full swing. Positive communities foster positive communities.
It is your assertion that my reasoning is contradictory, yet, I feel no cognitive dissonance and have no difficulty clarrifying my position.
You can choose how long we argue for, you can say goodbye whenever you want, but I'm always free to reply.
Sure, try to dismiss my responses as simply being unproductive now. It's obvious you are intentionally trying to run me around in circles to wear me down.
As I have pointed out in every response, you are just contradicting yourself; making assumptions and judging one group of people for their (inconsequential) reactionary behavior while trying to gatekeep for others because of their emotional reactions... You are only proving my point that you are either unwilling or incapable of acknowledging that your reasoning is flawed and you have not made a good argument for your case.
I will repeat it again: One: Consider treating everyone equally, not just because you agree or disagree with them or because you sympathise more or less with their specific situation. Two: Downvotes can be disabled. This is not a concern for Lemmy or it's users; everyone gets a choice.
All of your opinions are your own, just stop trying to act like you are holier than everyone else when you have already been proven to stoop down to being a negative and offensive person yourself.
Im not dismissing all your responses, just the previous one. You're getting worked up over nothing.
You are making more assertions as time goes on. You don't get to just declare that I'm "obviously trying to wear you down" or that you "have pointed out in every response that I'm contradicting myself" or that "unwilling or unable to acknowledge my reasoning is flawed", (which also presupposes my reasoning is flawed, something in don't agree with you on).
You don't get to just declare you're right about all this stuff, you have not demonstrated your claims. I'm more than happy to concede the failures of my epistemology, there's no shame in it, I'm just not convinced that you are right (except that I was under the impression edited posts weren't known, whoops!).
I agree with your first consideration, but not your second. This isn't about the individual (though I do care that they're respected), this is about the community as a whole. It goes beyond one persons feelings. A self policing community sometimes works great to keep away bigots, but I believe when that's the job of moderators, it creates hostile environments, whether obvious or subconscious.
I don't believe I'm better than anyone else, after all, I wasted long enough entertaining this conversation, as you pointed out, I stooped to rolling in the mud with you.
See my response here.
Wasn't sure how to tag you.
Well if someone constantly has opinions that are very disliked by other people... maybe they just are a negative person and they should be called out for it?
Listen, I'll measure with a fucking banana if I feel like it, okay. Don't tell me what to do pal.
You are going to have to come up.with an alternate unit of measurement then. An easily available one too, as I am not keeping a lemming handy for the purposes of scale. Unless it was stuffed... I'm off to eBay, back in a mo.
I use my Lemmy for architectural blueprints.
Wait what? People have those? A lemmy is a real animal? So many new things at once for me
A lemming is a real animal.
There's a misconception that they commit mass suicide by jumping off cliffs.
Smaller than I thought but it does have the potential to be a standard.
Metric.
I'm very curious as to what people's view on etiquette is regarding submitting your own content. I write a weekly newsletter about the fediverse which is pretty relevant to this community for example. But I'm also quite aware of reddiquette thats pretty hesitant on submitting your own stuff, as it can get spammy really fast. Would love to hear.
Personally, if it's good content I don't mind a little self promotion. People won't see what you made if you don't share it. Just don't post it to dozens of communities, that's when it gets way too spammy. Find one or two you think it would a good fit for and users would find relevant and share it there, as long as that community doesn't have any rules against promoting your own content.
I don't see any problem with that, and posting a weekly update is far from spammy behavior anyway.
It's not really an algorithm, you see posts based on the type and sort order you select. Sorting by "hot" counts votes, sorting by "active" counts posts. My default is Subscribed and New. When I get through all the new stuff I check Active and Hot.
In any case, yeah there's stuff I hope not to see here. So far so good and hopefully it will stay that way for a while.
I mean, a sorting algorithm is still an algorithm, just a very straightforward one. The good kind of algorithm.
Fixed it to be more precise.
I suppose whether it's an algorithm comes down to which definition you use.
I think the colloquial definition is something which is user-dependant and very complicated.
However, the dictionary definition is "a finite set of unambiguous instructions", which fits my initial usage.
Strangely though, the colloquial definition doesn't fit the dictionary definition, because the YouTube/Twitter/Facebook algorithms are so ambiguous that the people designing them don't really know what they're doing, since they are evolving by themselves.
Yeah it's semantics, but to me an algorithm includes some kind of code to do something I'm not aware of or have control over, like a section of code that does a job in the background. In this case I think of something that pre-selects which content to put on my front page based on some logic I have no control over.
So... Elsewhere in this thread you keep stating that explaining why something is edited is not useful. But here I have no idea what your previous statement was or what you edited, and because you didn't explain why you edited, I'm left guessing what your previous statement was.
This is precisely why people explain why they edit, otherwise the conversation loses context as edits occur. Hopefully you can step back and see why explaining edits is useful?
You actually don't need to know what my previous statement was, because it's totally boring.
I changed "algorithm" to "algorithm/engagement machine" because the first posts were about how the word algorithm is used.
To clarify, my gripe was not with edits, it's to state that you edited for typos specifically.
I'm an old age redditor, and that was may reddiquette, "don't downvote just because you don't like the topic, maybe other people find it interesting".
Mostly I don't downvote at all, only on some rude or spam posts.
Reddit just become something where everyone downvote everything for no reason, even if just say "OK" ou "that's cool"!
On Lemmy (ate least for now), not so much or I don't see it.
If you see a post "orange is the best color", don't downvote just because you don't like orange, leave a comment and express your opinion instead
PS: There's an old Reddiquette song, the same can be applied to fediverse
https://youtu.be/4fLpktf2jYw
Downvoting breeds toxicity. It's regrettable that we are wired to feel validated and rejected by numbers, but if we admit that, we should understand that unnecessarily putting someone into the negative numbers ultimately hurts everyone.
I really want Lemmy to cultivate a community which epitomises virtues of civility. Reserve down votes for uncivil behaviour.
Seems like kinda a toxic way to start that. Why are you trying to dictate who should post what and how they do it? Maybe someone wants to measure in bananas. Maybe someone wants to clarify their edit. I don’t see the point of the post if you’re not looking to tease out anything but an unnatural result.
Lemmy will be whatever the humans that make it will be.
This reply triggered an unhealthy emotional reaction in me. I interpret the tone as accusatory and leaves little room for a charitable interpretation of what I said. I don't feel like I can respond to your criticism without arguing.
I only agree with two rules: be awesome to each other (if in kind) and downvote is not a disagree button, it's a troll button.
Dictating other rules, like the use of the edit keyword or how to measure scale of something... Is not awesome.
What's so wrong about using bananas for scale?
That's their thing. You don't take your new partner to the spot where you fell in love with your ex. That's just weird.
That seems like a weird comparison...
Hey, when a banana is involved with love, there is nothing weirder, and more beautiful.
Not so sure about nothing weirder...
I'd most certainly do that if that spot was simply a romantic location I enjoyed, and it wouldn't be weird unless I also kept talking about my ex.
"Look, honey, I know a spot that's great, but we can't go there because I used to go with my ex and I don't like bringing up my ex everytime like my ex did, you don't deserve that because you're more than her"
I think I'd feel weird even if she doesn't know about it. I'd also probably avoid calling her by her name just in case.
Alright, a question for you all about down voting. Is the platform, or the apps made for it take it into account for feeds?
ie, if I down vote everything I don't like seeing does it get removed from my feed? If so I'd just down vote and move on. If not, I'd probably not down vote, but even if I did, I'd feel like I need to give a reason behind it for the poster to know.
It's not as personal as that. Down voting just means that the post/comment will be further down if you're sorting by 'top'. The more upvotes the closer that thing will be to the top of the page. It's not just for you, it's for everyone. If that makes sense?
Right, got it, thanks a lot. I'll stop downvoting in that case, except if something is really offensive.
I don't believe there's any instance with an algorithm, so no. In the future someone might launch an instance with an algorithm like that.