For the unaware, is a alternative to platforms such as Reddit and Tildes.
I've been using Lemmy as one of my main social platforms for the past 6 months...
Duplicates are a minor issue. That said, solution #2 (multi-comms) is considerably better than #3 (comms following comms).
The problems with #3 are:
Topics are almost never as discrete as the author pretends them to be. Often they overlap, but only partially.
Different comms have different rules, and in this situation rule enforcement becomes a mess.
There’s no good solution for that. On the other hand, the problems the author associates with #2 are easy to solve, if users are allowed to share their multi-comms with each other as links:
a new user might not know which comms to follow, but they can simply copy a multi-comm from someone who does
good multi-comms are organically shared by users back and forth
Additionally, multi-comms address the root issue. The root issue is not that you got duplicate communities; it’s that communities in general, even without duplicates, are hard to discover. Also note that the root issue is not exclusive to federated platforms, it pops up in Reddit too; it’s a consequence of users being able to create comms by themselves.
About #1 (merging communities): to a certain extent users already do this. Nothing stops you from locking !pancakes@a.com with a pinned thread like “go to !pancakes@b.com”.
This is a minor part of the text, but I feel in the mood to address it:
I post once to gauge interest then never post again because I got choice paralysis
The same users who get “choice paralysis” from deciding where to post are, typically, the ones who: can’t be arsed to check rules before posting, can’t be arsed to understand what someone else said before screeching, comment idiotic single-liners that add nothing but noise, whine “wah, TL;DR!” at anything with 100+ chars… because all those things backtrack to the same mindset: “thinking is too hard lol. I’m entitled to speak my empty mind, without thinking if I’m contributing or not lmao.”
Is this really the sort of new user that we old users want to welcome here? Growth is important, but unrestricted growth regardless of cost is cancer.
Topics are almost never as discrete as the author pretends them to be. Often they overlap, but only partially.
Maybe I am not fully understanding your point here but from my point of view this is just not true?
A lot of the traffic is going to be on very general topics like “memes” or “technology” where posts are going to fit pretty much every other similar community.
Plus, in this case whoever has the authorities to follow communities can decide if the posts fit, so you’re not losing anything if posts from a more specific community like “wholesome memes” end up showing up in a more general “memes” community.
That said, solution #2 (multi-comms) is considerably better than #3 (comms following comms).
the problems the author associates with #2 are easy to solve, if users are allowed to share their multi-comms with each other as links
Additionally, multi-comms address the root issue. The root issue is not that you got duplicate communities; it’s that communities in general, even without duplicates, are hard to discover.
I respectfully disagree. In two minutes, I can easily find all the communities on a given topic and subscribe to them all. The problem is not discovery. The problem is fragmentation of the user base, as explained by popcar in their blog post:
Alright, time to post. But where? pancakes@a.com and pancakes@c.com are both somewhat active… Should I post in a and crosspost to c? Maybe there’s hope in other communities kicking off again, should I crosspost to b and d as well? Oh no, am I going to post 4 times just to find my fellow pancake lovers?!
Let me take this a bit further: After crossposting to all 4 pancake communities, I get three comments. One in a, b, and d. Each comment is in a separate post and none of them interact with each other unless the poster opens each crosspost separately.
I do not see how Proposal 2 (multi-communities) solves the issue of fragmentation of the user base, while Proposal 3 (communities following each other) solves this quite elegantly.
About #1 (merging communities): to a certain extent users already do this. Nothing stops you from locking !pancakes@a.com with a pinned thread like “go to !pancakes@b.com”.
If you aren’t already the moderator of n-1 communities on a multitude of instances, there are some pretty significant challenges:
Find all the communities on a given topic (easy)
Convince people that consolidation is a good idea (difficult)
Get people, many of whom are reluctant to see a community on their home instance locked, to decide on a which community to switch to (sometimes impossible)
Contact the moderators (or the admins, if the mods are inactive) of each of the n-1 communities and get them to lock each community, with appropriate links to the decided upon community (tedious)
It’s a right pain-in-the-ass to do properly, and I’ve had many more failures than I’ve had successes.
I’m sure plenty exceptions exist - that’s why I said “typically”, it’s that sort of generalisation that applies less to real individuals and more to an abstract “typical user”.
To me, choice paralysis happens to most of people, whatever their familiarity level with the platform. I would actually be worried if someone knew exactly where to post for any topic, because it would mean they probably just default to their home instance
I try to avoid posting to .world if there’s a viable alternative, personally, so I’d opt for lemdro.id consistantly. I do the same with the videos communities, where I’ve been trying to boost [email protected] instead of posting to videos at .world.
But if it wasn’t .world, the situation wouldn’t be ideal, and I’d support combining the communities if the mods were down for it.
Duplicates are a minor issue. That said, solution #2 (multi-comms) is considerably better than #3 (comms following comms).
The problems with #3 are:
There’s no good solution for that. On the other hand, the problems the author associates with #2 are easy to solve, if users are allowed to share their multi-comms with each other as links:
Additionally, multi-comms address the root issue. The root issue is not that you got duplicate communities; it’s that communities in general, even without duplicates, are hard to discover. Also note that the root issue is not exclusive to federated platforms, it pops up in Reddit too; it’s a consequence of users being able to create comms by themselves.
About #1 (merging communities): to a certain extent users already do this. Nothing stops you from locking
!pancakes@a.comwith a pinned thread like “go to!pancakes@b.com”.This is a minor part of the text, but I feel in the mood to address it:
The same users who get “choice paralysis” from deciding where to post are, typically, the ones who: can’t be arsed to check rules before posting, can’t be arsed to understand what someone else said before screeching, comment idiotic single-liners that add nothing but noise, whine “wah, TL;DR!” at anything with 100+ chars… because all those things backtrack to the same mindset: “thinking is too hard lol. I’m entitled to speak my empty mind, without thinking if I’m contributing or not lmao.”
Is this really the sort of new user that we old users want to welcome here? Growth is important, but unrestricted growth regardless of cost is cancer.
Maybe I am not fully understanding your point here but from my point of view this is just not true?
A lot of the traffic is going to be on very general topics like “memes” or “technology” where posts are going to fit pretty much every other similar community.
Plus, in this case whoever has the authorities to follow communities can decide if the posts fit, so you’re not losing anything if posts from a more specific community like “wholesome memes” end up showing up in a more general “memes” community.
I respectfully disagree. In two minutes, I can easily find all the communities on a given topic and subscribe to them all. The problem is not discovery. The problem is fragmentation of the user base, as explained by popcar in their blog post:
I do not see how Proposal 2 (multi-communities) solves the issue of fragmentation of the user base, while Proposal 3 (communities following each other) solves this quite elegantly.
If you aren’t already the moderator of
n-1communities on a multitude of instances, there are some pretty significant challenges:n-1communities and get them to lock each community, with appropriate links to the decided upon community (tedious)It’s a right pain-in-the-ass to do properly, and I’ve had many more failures than I’ve had successes.
Same experience here
I’m not so sure. I sometimes have choice paralysis again on a topic I’m not familiar with, and I’m sure quite a lot of other people do as well
I’m sure plenty exceptions exist - that’s why I said “typically”, it’s that sort of generalisation that applies less to real individuals and more to an abstract “typical user”.
@[email protected] , which is quite active as well, has a similar experience: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/39248886/17090166
To me, choice paralysis happens to most of people, whatever their familiarity level with the platform. I would actually be worried if someone knew exactly where to post for any topic, because it would mean they probably just default to their home instance
I’ve personally developed my system as:
That takes away the paralysis, at least for me.
What do you do when there are two similarly active communities?
Post on the one with the most recent post.
Hm, I can’t recall encountering that yet, but I can see how that would be a harder one to decide. I suppose I might cycle between them.
[email protected] and [email protected] comes to mind
I try to avoid posting to .world if there’s a viable alternative, personally, so I’d opt for lemdro.id consistantly. I do the same with the videos communities, where I’ve been trying to boost [email protected] instead of posting to videos at .world.
But if it wasn’t .world, the situation wouldn’t be ideal, and I’d support combining the communities if the mods were down for it.
I think it’s fair to choose the smaller instance then, in the interest of diversification.