iirc, the way it is now, every action e.g. vote counts as a single event, and is sent out across the Fediverse at a rate limited to one event per second. In 0.19.6 there was chatter about expanding the implementation of the ActivityPub protocol to allow parallel sending of activities. It could cause mayhem, or perhaps be only optional? https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/pull/4623
That’s so odd - here my own comment immediately got displayed as having 2 vote counts. IMMEDIATELY. Other times when I post that doesn’t happen, and still other times I see my replies from minutes, hours, and days older but still with =1 vote count. It seems random?
The vote count for comments is something I’ll work on next. The idea is that if you have a high reputation (your stuff if upvoted more than downvoted), then you get an extra one (your comments start at 2, because it’s one from you, and one bonus one). But you’re not the first person to question it, and find it counter-intuitive. So I’ll probably change it so that a high reputation effects the internal score (which is used for ranking) but not the visible upvotes.
p.s. Lemmy’s changes re: batching are to fix its own problems with queues over long geographical distances. It’s unrelated to backfilling content from other instances: that’ll stay the same - every instance on every software platform will have some stuff missing compared to where it’s originally hosted (if it’s not because the content pre-dates the federation, it’ll be because of de-federation, or bans, or timeouts, or some activitypub mystery (someone was asking the other day about why a post from feddit.org hadn’t made it to lemmy.world and there was no real satisfactory answer to my mind)).
re: batching - ah, that makes sense:-(. About the scenario of the post not showing up - perhaps nobody on Lemmy.World was subscribed to that community? I see my replies instantly on Lemmy.World, so indeed there seems to be no real “problem” between it and piefed.social, except all you say the high amount of complexity via what is vs. is not federated.
BUT, that is why I was thinking: if people were prevented from forcibly bringing in posts, then that actually solves a lot of the issue. As it is now, if I go to https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/yepowertrippinbastards there are… well I don’t want to count them but there are an awful lot of posts there - multiple pages at least. Whereas here on piefed.social, at !YePowerTrippinBastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com I see… well there are some, though not all, and the most recent is a day, while the one furthest back is from 2 months ago. At first glance, without getting into the details, I deluded myself into thinking “this community seems to have all the posts until about 2 months ago, though it may have none before that” (b/c this is the chief explanation that would have been true on Lemmy). In actual fact though, it is missing many posts from that timeframe, it is missing votes for those exact posts, and also those posts all have zero comments from them. So these “ghost” posts aren’t really there, not really, or at least not “fully”, and others from the same timeperiod also are not there, however, posts from now on likely will show up there, b/c I subscribed to it - so as long as I keep my account active here, new posts, along with all of their votes, and all of the comments associated with such, should show up? This is happening with that “So I was just banned from starcitizen@lemmy.ml for no apparent reason?” post, with 49 comments and 43 overall votes, which on the original server shows… yup, 49 comments and 42 overall votes.
So my idea here is that if there were no posts prior to this one (not that I am advocating for actively removing them - that seems to take effort and anyway it’s a corner case that doesn’t really matter), then people would not get confused by these “ghost” postings - there would simply be all the posts that are “real”, and there would be no such “ghosts”. And to enact such in the future, the “Retrieve a post from the original server” would have to be disabled. But, it’s just a thought, and like I have no idea what all that would “break” in terms of other functionality, so it’s just something that we are enjoying talking about here - unless you want to take it forward somehow, or eventually I’ll put it as a suggestion into the meta community. But do you see what I mean, especially why that would help avoid confusion, by keeping things simple? The community would contain only one post, the one from yesterday, which reveals that “hard” cutoff between posts that are actually there vs. only partially so, and it matches the existing behavior of Lemmy, not that we need to always follow that as a guide, but when possible that does help ease transition as people come here from there, e.g. significantly lessening the need for a FAQ or meta post providing an explanation.
Although hopefully we can get more mainstream people here that have or would never even used Lemmy before, b/c of all the toxicity and extremist postings that turn away literally everyone that I’ve ever mentioned Lemmy to irl, but here, we can dare to be different, and hold ourselves to a higher standard! (which many people WILL like, I am certain of that:-D - though ofc not all, and ironically that will help too, by keeping those who do enjoy such “disruption” out).
I hope I am not barraging you with too much text! Rather, it is a lot but I hope it helps to have a sounding board for those ideas of yours, and to see some other alternatives that probably you’ve already considered as well but perhaps in a new light or at least fresher due to potentially different verbage:-).
What caused me to start questioning it is when I went to another instance and saw a different vote count, so it was the mismatch, plus this behavior where it occurred too quickly to be due to human intervention, thus not matching my naive “expectations”.
That doesn’t make it “bad” imho, though it does take some getting used to. Now that you’ve explained it I even like the idea - I’ve had similar thoughts in the past, like Wikipedia and “web of trust” that weights more highly those who contribute more whereas those who contribute the opposite of more (not just less but fully anti) could get downweighted. Obviously all the notes of due caution apply, where you don’t want like a mod to outweigh 100 normal users, but you’ve considered that I’m certain:-). And just 1 extra I don’t feel like is excessive at all.
Another alternative as you said would be to have the sorting algorithm use it without displaying the individual voting differently. I am not sure I would like that though - the way it is now provides transparency, whereas that would “hide” it. Perhaps if there’s a FAQ that explained it, that would help people get over the counter-intuitiveness of it all? Even if writing that might be better saved for another day.
Still another alternative would be to not change the individual vote counts (not even just how they appear but the actual underlying counts, as affecting sorting) but display the “high value” badge next to the name. I’ve seen the low value badges, even doubled ones. Mine has a non-spinning in-progress one so I presume that means that it is still assessing, with it being so new. Edit: oh wait, no this is not well-thought-out, sorry - this would only work to identify posters/commenters with a high reputation score, but it would do nothing to help their votes on other posts/comments. So ignore this.
But the idea that immediately pops out of my head that I already like the best is to display (1) the user valuation badges next to the name, and (2) show the up & down-vote counters separately (b/c it’s information - ah, and I see the hover effect now, on my laptop! though it does take nearly a whole second to appear, so most people aren’t likely to find that just by poking around I would guess; therefore thanks again to cluing me in on it!:-)), plus possibly also (3) the combined score - and the latter could take into account all the various “weighting” factors. e.g. if I were an account that is high-value, yet I received 2 downvotes from likewise high-value accounts, plus 2 more from normal, plus 10 upvotes from normal, then it would put it all into the algorithm that could spit out a score closer to zero than to 7. The reason I like it is that while it did not immediately dawn on me, coming from Lemmy, before that Kbin, and before that Reddit, that an “upvote” would be anything other than an “upvote”, yet it doesn’t seem counter-intuitive to me at all that a “weighted total score” would not be a simple sum of the up and down votes. This provides full transparency, full consistency with other servers and approaches (Lemmy, eventually Sublinks, etc.), and also the exact number that is used in the sorting, with the algorithm that generates that explainable elsewhere. The downside is that it is the busiest display of all - though for those of us who enjoy “information”, we will love it! Perhaps a Theme or other Setting could hide a great deal of it for those who do not enjoy such.
I hope you like the idea to think about, whatever you end up doing!:-)
And I seem to have hit a text limit. Oops. Well, I will need to hold myself back in the future but for now, if you are okay with it, this will be part 1 of 2.
What’s happening with 0.19.6 ?
iirc, the way it is now, every action e.g. vote counts as a single event, and is sent out across the Fediverse at a rate limited to one event per second. In 0.19.6 there was chatter about expanding the implementation of the ActivityPub protocol to allow parallel sending of activities. It could cause mayhem, or perhaps be only optional? https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/pull/4623
That’s so odd - here my own comment immediately got displayed as having 2 vote counts. IMMEDIATELY. Other times when I post that doesn’t happen, and still other times I see my replies from minutes, hours, and days older but still with =1 vote count. It seems random?
The vote count for comments is something I’ll work on next. The idea is that if you have a high reputation (your stuff if upvoted more than downvoted), then you get an extra one (your comments start at 2, because it’s one from you, and one bonus one). But you’re not the first person to question it, and find it counter-intuitive. So I’ll probably change it so that a high reputation effects the internal score (which is used for ranking) but not the visible upvotes.
p.s. Lemmy’s changes re: batching are to fix its own problems with queues over long geographical distances. It’s unrelated to backfilling content from other instances: that’ll stay the same - every instance on every software platform will have some stuff missing compared to where it’s originally hosted (if it’s not because the content pre-dates the federation, it’ll be because of de-federation, or bans, or timeouts, or some activitypub mystery (someone was asking the other day about why a post from feddit.org hadn’t made it to lemmy.world and there was no real satisfactory answer to my mind)).
Part 2 of 2 - again, oops.
re: batching - ah, that makes sense:-(. About the scenario of the post not showing up - perhaps nobody on Lemmy.World was subscribed to that community? I see my replies instantly on Lemmy.World, so indeed there seems to be no real “problem” between it and piefed.social, except all you say the high amount of complexity via what is vs. is not federated.
BUT, that is why I was thinking: if people were prevented from forcibly bringing in posts, then that actually solves a lot of the issue. As it is now, if I go to https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/yepowertrippinbastards there are… well I don’t want to count them but there are an awful lot of posts there - multiple pages at least. Whereas here on piefed.social, at !YePowerTrippinBastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com I see… well there are some, though not all, and the most recent is a day, while the one furthest back is from 2 months ago. At first glance, without getting into the details, I deluded myself into thinking “this community seems to have all the posts until about 2 months ago, though it may have none before that” (b/c this is the chief explanation that would have been true on Lemmy). In actual fact though, it is missing many posts from that timeframe, it is missing votes for those exact posts, and also those posts all have zero comments from them. So these “ghost” posts aren’t really there, not really, or at least not “fully”, and others from the same timeperiod also are not there, however, posts from now on likely will show up there, b/c I subscribed to it - so as long as I keep my account active here, new posts, along with all of their votes, and all of the comments associated with such, should show up? This is happening with that “So I was just banned from starcitizen@lemmy.ml for no apparent reason?” post, with 49 comments and 43 overall votes, which on the original server shows… yup, 49 comments and 42 overall votes.
So my idea here is that if there were no posts prior to this one (not that I am advocating for actively removing them - that seems to take effort and anyway it’s a corner case that doesn’t really matter), then people would not get confused by these “ghost” postings - there would simply be all the posts that are “real”, and there would be no such “ghosts”. And to enact such in the future, the “Retrieve a post from the original server” would have to be disabled. But, it’s just a thought, and like I have no idea what all that would “break” in terms of other functionality, so it’s just something that we are enjoying talking about here - unless you want to take it forward somehow, or eventually I’ll put it as a suggestion into the meta community. But do you see what I mean, especially why that would help avoid confusion, by keeping things simple? The community would contain only one post, the one from yesterday, which reveals that “hard” cutoff between posts that are actually there vs. only partially so, and it matches the existing behavior of Lemmy, not that we need to always follow that as a guide, but when possible that does help ease transition as people come here from there, e.g. significantly lessening the need for a FAQ or meta post providing an explanation.
Although hopefully we can get more mainstream people here that have or would never even used Lemmy before, b/c of all the toxicity and extremist postings that turn away literally everyone that I’ve ever mentioned Lemmy to irl, but here, we can dare to be different, and hold ourselves to a higher standard! (which many people WILL like, I am certain of that:-D - though ofc not all, and ironically that will help too, by keeping those who do enjoy such “disruption” out).
I hope I am not barraging you with too much text! Rather, it is a lot but I hope it helps to have a sounding board for those ideas of yours, and to see some other alternatives that probably you’ve already considered as well but perhaps in a new light or at least fresher due to potentially different verbage:-).
What caused me to start questioning it is when I went to another instance and saw a different vote count, so it was the mismatch, plus this behavior where it occurred too quickly to be due to human intervention, thus not matching my naive “expectations”.
That doesn’t make it “bad” imho, though it does take some getting used to. Now that you’ve explained it I even like the idea - I’ve had similar thoughts in the past, like Wikipedia and “web of trust” that weights more highly those who contribute more whereas those who contribute the opposite of more (not just less but fully anti) could get downweighted. Obviously all the notes of due caution apply, where you don’t want like a mod to outweigh 100 normal users, but you’ve considered that I’m certain:-). And just 1 extra I don’t feel like is excessive at all.
Another alternative as you said would be to have the sorting algorithm use it without displaying the individual voting differently. I am not sure I would like that though - the way it is now provides transparency, whereas that would “hide” it. Perhaps if there’s a FAQ that explained it, that would help people get over the counter-intuitiveness of it all? Even if writing that might be better saved for another day.
Still another alternative would be to not change the individual vote counts (not even just how they appear but the actual underlying counts, as affecting sorting) but display the “high value” badge next to the name. I’ve seen the low value badges, even doubled ones. Mine has a non-spinning in-progress one so I presume that means that it is still assessing, with it being so new. Edit: oh wait, no this is not well-thought-out, sorry - this would only work to identify posters/commenters with a high reputation score, but it would do nothing to help their votes on other posts/comments. So ignore this.
But the idea that immediately pops out of my head that I already like the best is to display (1) the user valuation badges next to the name, and (2) show the up & down-vote counters separately (b/c it’s information - ah, and I see the hover effect now, on my laptop! though it does take nearly a whole second to appear, so most people aren’t likely to find that just by poking around I would guess; therefore thanks again to cluing me in on it!:-)), plus possibly also (3) the combined score - and the latter could take into account all the various “weighting” factors. e.g. if I were an account that is high-value, yet I received 2 downvotes from likewise high-value accounts, plus 2 more from normal, plus 10 upvotes from normal, then it would put it all into the algorithm that could spit out a score closer to zero than to 7. The reason I like it is that while it did not immediately dawn on me, coming from Lemmy, before that Kbin, and before that Reddit, that an “upvote” would be anything other than an “upvote”, yet it doesn’t seem counter-intuitive to me at all that a “weighted total score” would not be a simple sum of the up and down votes. This provides full transparency, full consistency with other servers and approaches (Lemmy, eventually Sublinks, etc.), and also the exact number that is used in the sorting, with the algorithm that generates that explainable elsewhere. The downside is that it is the busiest display of all - though for those of us who enjoy “information”, we will love it! Perhaps a Theme or other Setting could hide a great deal of it for those who do not enjoy such.
I hope you like the idea to think about, whatever you end up doing!:-)
And I seem to have hit a text limit. Oops. Well, I will need to hold myself back in the future but for now, if you are okay with it, this will be part 1 of 2.