89
God lord, can we get a bit of filtering on the bullshit of articles that get posted on this community? I apreciate anyone that spends their time filling this sub with content, but the quality of the content shared is just terrible
Then downvote and move on. No need to make people that actually post content feel unwelcome and unappreciated. That just leads to no content and thus no reason to even use Lemmy / the Fediverse.
Considering the massive push across multiple lemmy instances to completely remove downvotes, leaving a comment is actually becoming the only way to state you dont like or want specific content on a sub.
The fediverse actively disagrees with you on how to filter content quality.
And IMO a comment is far better than a vote. A vote says "I clicked a button," whereas a comment says, "I cared enough to express myself." I only downvote w/o commenting if another comment communicates what I wanted to, in which case I upvote that one.
Oh, heavily heavily heavily disagree. The fediverse is going to fall apart if it commits to getting rid of votes, because the website it is copying all of its formatting from was explicitly designed to self filter community content with votes.
Not being able to filter content without detailing expressly why will fill the site with garbage, because few people have the free time to waste commenting on every post, but quickly saying "yes this belongs here / no it does not" is much easier and doable while browsing.
Votes also help communities self moderate, a problem front and center on lemmy with the current situation of abysmal mod tools and worse average mod quality than reddit had. (No offense to passing mods.)
But the fediverse seems dedicated to learning this lesson the hard way, so we either need to hold on and hope the ship doesnt sink or start swimming to a better boat.
I never said we should eliminate votes, just that comments are more useful than votes alone. If you down vote, leave or upvote a comment that explains why.
The problem with votes on their own is brigading, as in people down vote stuff because it's unpopular (at least to a very mobilized and motivated group). The vote itself doesn't explain what's wrong with the content, only that a lot of people clicked the button.
So I'm in favor of requiring the user to either leave or upvote a comment for the down vote function to count.
I dont really agree that you need to explain what was wrong with the content. And brigading happens with comments too, arguably to a worse end.
Explaining every vote you make, or requiring a yes vote before you allow a no vote, also defeats the purpose of voting at all. I get it can feel bad to have a comment downvoted but... Like... Its really not a big deal. Especially in a system that has even less weight on karma. Sometimes the group didnt agree with you, and thats a normal part of community interactions. You shrug and move on.
feel bad
That's not the point at all though. The point is that it hides good content that a motivated group wants to silence. We had precisely this problem earlier in Lemmy's history where posts critical of China were heavily down voted, not because of quality, but because the group didn't like the message.
Requiring a comment gives context to the negative reaction. It's not a silver bullet, but it should increase the barrier to hiding content, hopefully enough that good, controversial content stays visible.
I'm actually working on a Lemmy alternative that uses a web of trust instead of votes to prioritize and moderate content. Reddit has shown the limitations of voting, and I'm more interested in interesting content than content the majority likes.
Comments do the same thing, by drowning the one opinion in a sea of alternate opinions, and is directly incentivizing only interaction via people with the time to type up a comment. You arent preventing brigades, you are reducing the number of users who arent capable of attempting to brigade at all.
Especially since your version of brigading is literally how communities work. If the group doesnt agree with an opinion, even opinions you do agree with, the opinion is going to be drowned out. You cannot police "opinion quality." Because such a subjective thing is good when it agrees with you and bad when it doesnt.
Good luck and I look forward to seeing it, but to be frank it sounds like you want to build a personal group chat, not a social media site. And like any web of trust, it relies on the integrity of the central member. Which isnt a defense against brigading, just a defense against brigading that doesnt come from the central member or their points of trust.
E: mind, not that theres anything wrong with crafting your own supported super chat. Just that its less social media, and more a hyper evolved chat among friends and friend-of-friends
Comments do the same thing
Maybe at a very high level, but comments have the very obvious advantage that they provide something that moderators can block. Lemmy does have open voting logs, but I highly doubt any decent moderator would feel comfortable blocking people based purely on how they vote, and they'd only actually look if there was an obvious problem (e.g. maybe they need to consider blocking an entire instance).
directly incentivizing only interaction via people with the time to type up a comment
This only applies to negative interactions, you would always be able to upvote a post.
I think there's an argument for hiding the voting buttons inside of the comment thread so users can't just drive-by vote without actually looking at the comments, much less the linked content, but that's not what I'm arguing for.
You cannot police opinion quality
You're absolutely right, but you can increase the effort needed to downvote something. A downvote tends to have more weight than an upvote, so it should require more effort as well (e.g. a post with 8 upvotes and 0 downvotes would probably be ranked higher than one with 20 upvotes and 12 downvotes).
it sounds like you want to build a personal group chat, not a social media site
No, I definitely want a social media site, I just want everything distributed, including moderation.
Basically, I want something like BitTorrent, but for social media instead of files. That way there's no central authority for pretty much anything, so moderation pretty much has to be opt-in (otherwise you'd pick a different client with different moderation). Ideally, you'd select a moderation team that would filter out bad stuff like CSAM, but not filter out high quality content that you simply disagree with. So you'd pick a diverse set of content moderators to trust, and content would only get filtered out if a certain number of them flagged it. You could use the tools to create an echo chamber for yourself, or you can use it to expose yourself to diverse, high quality content that may challenge your beliefs (my personal preference).
That said, things tend to work differently in practice. At the very least, I'm not going to release it until I have a way for users to review the quality of the moderators they pick.
If you bothered to read my comment, i said that before anything else, i apreciate the effort of generating content. But at the end of the day its not of much use for anyone flooding a community with shitty content.
This user posts a ton and seems to take the shotgun approach. I guess that's what we get if people aren't willing to post better content.
IMO, the problem is that there's not a log of good content being produced. The vast majority of it is vapid clickbait garbage. Some people eat that up, and they also share it. I don't think there's a way to stem the tide. Ever.
I don’t believe Sean Murray and I will not be buying this game at launch or even for several years.
I still don’t own No Mans Sky and it’s specifically because I’m pissed off that people think it’s some kind of great redemption story. It’s not.
It’s a hellish nightmare indicative of the current state of the gaming industry.
Small studios have to manufacture impossible hype in the hope their game sells, then they go about fixing it, even though they promised features at launch and all they are really doing is just giving you the product you already paid for.
What other product would people ever be happy with this arrangement?
Still unoptimized... i slogged 90hrs over multiple updates and years hoping that a quality of life patch would come. just got more skins and ships and aliens...cool.
Fr I went back and played a little bit of it after dropping it like a week after launch.
Still bugged asf
Dogfights still deteriorate to drones flying past you at mach 1 and landing one shot while you slowly try and keep them in frame, only for them to blow past you again.
I ended up in some town that was attacked by sentinels, fuckers were constantly healing each other through the wall.
If you want to play no mans sky dont, go play fucking Starfield which while not great atleast its fun at times.
Don't like how the enemies move too fast in NMS? Play Starfield where the enemies don't move at all!
I think I would prefer the untranslated gobblty guk of NMS to Bethesda writing.
While obviously subjective, this comment is hilarious to me because after trying to get into Starfield for a dozen hours or so I just couldn't enjoy it and started up a new NMS file.
I have yet to see anyone say starfield does better than no mans sky.
Most people started playing no mans sky because of starfield, usually.
Youre the first Ive seen who would suggest the opposite
I prefer the combat of Starfield, no mans sky is worthless gor that itch for me. But the difference comes down to prefering a space themed bethesda game over a space themed survival crafting game.
Has he even said anything yet about this game that sounds unbelievable? I feel like people are getting preemptively angry.
"The first real open world."
That's a rather hyperbolic statement, even if they're not just over-hyping.
Everything they showed in the trailer is already in NMS, but now it has fantasy skin. I'm willing to believe him this time.
(but still don't preorder)
Never preorder.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
If he plans on pulling a No Man's Sky 2.0 by overhyping and then fixing in post, I can only hope he finds a gaming community far less receptive to his bullshit this time around.
I don't think its genius and yes, I can blame them for doing it.
Fool me once, fool me twice. Fool me chicken soup with rice.
What a weird time in gaming, Bethesda trying to copy No Man's Sky with Starfield and Hello Games trying to copy what Bethesda is trying to sell what The Elder Scrolls 6 is supposed to be. Considering what Hello World has already proven themselves capable off, they are definitely going to be throwing some punches.
I'm sure not preordering and I will wait until plenty of detailed reviews and gameplay videos are out before I buy. As solid as NMS is right now, it was a steaming pile on release. I won't risk it again.
“This game MIGHT end up being controversial. We’re just going to act like it already is.”
this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
89 points (100.0% liked)
Games
16742 readers
665 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS