Good luck with this!
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
19 points (91.3% liked)
Fedigrow
655 readers
3 users here now
To discuss how to grow and manage communities / magazines on Lemmy, Mbin, Piefed and Sublinks
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
I have no appreciable interest in 'murican "hand-egg", but am always happy to see fediverse growth! Good luck!
Not to worry, there are plenty of other segments that I could use some help:
fediverser.network seems to be another tool to promote big instances, or at least those that "claim" it first. Most popular subreddits are locked to single community recommendation and doesn't allow recommending any others.
Are the recommendations bad? In most cases, the ongoing criteria are:
- topic-specific instances over "generic" ones.
- Activity.
- No constant issues of downtime / poor moderation.
You are right though about the "locking" mechanism. I'm also not too happy about it. Maybe I remove the "locked" attribute and just hide the forms in case the recommended instances and communities are healthy.
In the meantime, please post on https://communick.news/c/fediverser_network in case you have any community recommendation that you think should be revised.
Are the recommendations bad?
The issue is that it recommends a single community when there are many on popular or generic topics. Having a single option as an alternative just showcases the issue of dominant instances breaking the Fediverse.
topic-specific instances over "generic" ones.
Community on the same topic can have widely different rules. From content they allow to simple things like preferred post structure. Why not have all of them that match the criteria?
Activity.
What amount of activity is considered enough?
No constant issues of downtime / poor moderation.
"poor moderation" can mean many things and will differ based on the person who has the power to decide it. Basic things like spam, illegal content and alike everyone can agree on, but more specific etiquette based rules are in the eye of the beholder, no?
In the meantime, please post on https://communick.news/c/fediverser_network in case you have any community recommendation that you think should be revised.
I'm not for removing any recommendation, I'm for adding more of them.
Don't forget, the main goal of Fediverser is not to create a comprehensive map, but to help people who are migrating from Reddit and are not familiar with how the Fediverse works to get started. For them, it's better to have one entry point for most of their topics, then to give them a bunch of different communities with the same name but slightly different mechanics.
What amount of activity is considered enough?
Ideally, something proportional to the corresponding subreddit and with more than one single person dominating the posting.
Basic things like spam, illegal content and alike everyone can agree on.
That seems enough for now. But there were also cases of communities that were on smaller instances with poor uptime or seem abandoned. I removed them.
<...> the main goal of Fediverser is not to create a comprehensive map <...>
I'm confused.
<...> are not familiar with how the Fediverse works to get started. For them, it's better to have one entry point for most of their topics, then to give them a bunch of different communities with the same name but slightly different mechanics.
Seems counterproductive. I thought we want people to embrace the Fediverse because it's Fediverse and not to create a clone of enshitified platforms. Funneling people to a few instances just amplifies the issue of big instances being the only place to grow any new community.
Ideally, something proportional to the corresponding subreddit and with more than one single person dominating the posting.
So it's better to promote the same popular communities and create a doom-loop of no new community ever-growing in activity because it never gets recommended?
We seem to have a different philosophy of what Fediverse is. Embracing diversity and federation are the fundamental principles behind Fediverse to me, not just trying to increase statistical numbers.
You are right. The wording needs to change, it should read as something like "comprehensive map of alternatives to Reddit", which is only in the subheader.
I thought we want people to embrace the Fediverse because it’s Fediverse and not to create a clone of enshitified platforms.
Baby steps. go take a look at /r/RedditAlternatives right now and see how many people are telling how difficult it is to migrate. We are not getting them out of enshittified platforms if they are thrown into a whole new paradigm. We need to ease them into it.
So it’s better to promote the same popular communities and create a doom-loop of no new community ever-growing in activity because it never gets recommended?
Yes. The paradox of choice is real. You and I might prefer to have absolute control, but the large majority of people are simply looking for a straightforward solution to their immediate needs. Just last week I was arguing with someone on [email protected] because it was the 5th community in a month created to talk about TV shows and movies.
If the recommended alternative is bad somehow, then sure let's move on. But if it is good enough, then please just let it be flexible and accept it.
Embracing diversity and federation are the fundamental principles behind Fediverse to me.
The code is open source, and you are welcome to run your own instance of Fediverser, and the recommendation database can be cloned or forked however you see fit.
<...> comprehensive map of alternatives to Reddit <...>
How is it comprehensive if it only lists singular alternatives? Seems contradictory.
Baby steps. go take a look at /r/RedditAlternatives right now and see how many people are telling how difficult it is to migrate. We are not getting them out of enshittified platforms if they are thrown into a whole new paradigm. We need to ease them into it.
Proposed service doesn't solve the issue, just delays it. Explained in https://lemmy.zip/comment/12893935
<...> the large majority of people are simply looking for a straightforward solution to their immediate needs.
Then they are not interested in the Fediverse, but like I mentioned they are looking for a clone of whatever enshitified platform they left. You will never keep these type of users, as they will just go back to where they came from and complain how shitty that different place is. The goal should be to attract lurkers and convert them into posters.
The code is open source, and you are welcome to run your own instance of Fediverser, and the recommendation database can be cloned or forked however you see fit.
To elevate Reddit user confusion about migration, we should have multiple Fediverser sites? If your primary goal is really to migrate Reddit users, then that is a horrible way to go about it. That would mean multiple Ambassadors, different recommendations and lack of any consistency between added communities, subreddits, recommendations and probably even instances.
The criteria also seem to not be applied universally. https://fediverser.network/subreddits/playstation lists a community with 0 interactions over several bigger and more active ones, same with https://fediverser.network/subreddits/xbox.
[email protected] was rejected as a first alternative to subreddit after I expressed my hesitation in a private message to migrate the community to gearhead.town at this point in time.
only lists singular alternatives?
It's comprehensive for the point of view of subreddits, not of the Lemmy communities. The idea is to have one recommendation for each subreddit, not of all communities that can theoretically be related to a given subreddit.
The goal should be to attract lurkers and convert them into posters.
That was also my argument when Reddit content was automatically mirrored on alien.top. That's also one of the reasons that I'm giving preference to topic-based instances. If someone sets up a Fediverser instance to mirror Reddit content and sends them to a topic-based instance, there will be less complaints than if the they are pointing out to a community on an instance that happens to host one relevant community.
we should have multiple Fediverser sites?
Multiple fediverser sites is not a problem. Actually, there are already other deployments and I'm actively looking for other admins willing to deploy it on their servers.
The idea is to have one recommendation for each subreddit, not of all communities that can theoretically be related to a given subreddit.
I get that. And that's why I say it's not trying to help people understand Fediverse or ease them into it, but just to find a clone of the enshitified platform.
If someone sets up a Fediverser instance to mirror Reddit content <...>
There is 0 value in that. What's the point of mirroring Reddit and then asking Reddit users to join here, instead of staying where they are, if the content is the same?
Multiple fediverser sites is not a problem. Actually, there are already other deployments and I'm actively looking for other admins willing to deploy it on their servers.
How does this help with easing users into Fediverse? You object to the idea of listing multiple alternatives because it's confusing, but you are fine with multiple sites for the same recommendations. Seems contradictory.
Also, can you give me a reason for rejecting [email protected]? And explaining why communities with 0 activity (e.g. [email protected] and [email protected]) are chosen over active ones?
Upvoted and following
Getting people out of Reddit and into the Fediverse is the goal. If that happens though different Fediverser instances, it's fine.
What's the point of mirroring Reddit if the content is the same?
Because Reddit's content is not the problem, the rent seeking is. Their shitty client is. Their closing of the API is.
The people that are still on Reddit are not there out of loyalty, they are just there because that is where they find the content.
a reason for rejecting [email protected]?
Because it is a community that is not on a topic specific instance with 3 posts, all by yourself.
why communities with 0 activity (e.g. [email protected] and [email protected]) are chosen over active ones?
That is my mistake. I was setting these communities for Reddit mirroring. What alternatives do you think should be in its place?
Getting people out of Reddit and into the Fediverse is the goal. If that happens though different Fediverser instances, it's fine.
I feel like you are purposely avoiding the question. You previously said:
Baby steps. go take a look at /r/RedditAlternatives right now and see how many people are telling how difficult it is to migrate. We are not getting them out of enshittified platforms if they are thrown into a whole new paradigm. We need to ease them into it.
So how does multiple instances help with that? From my point of view, it makes it much more difficult and more confusing.
Because Reddit's content is not the problem, the rent seeking is. Their shitty client is. Their closing of the API is.
That is a false fallacy. We know that is not true from failed blackout. There were multiple platforms that people could have gone to, but didn't. Even outside Fediverse, where complexity of usability is not an issue. A very small minority of people left due to 3rd party clients being killed.
Because it is a community that is not on a topic specific instance with 3 posts, all by yourself.
[email protected] is identical to [email protected]. I'm the only poster, but it was approved.
I'm just trying to understand what are the criteria. Does criteria from https://communick.news/comment/2934810 also apply to first recommendation or all recommendations? Because there are plenty of recommended communities with solo posters.
Is it better to have no recommendation until some threshold is reached?
What alternatives do you think should be in its place?
All that matches the criteria, whatever they are from the above, but clearly we are in disagreement here.
So how does multiple instances help with that?
They don't help, but they don't make it worse.
We can have people on fediverser.network trying to convince redditors to migrate. They will check the website, go through the instance selector, find an instance and register. Hopefully, they will be auto subscribed to the communities that are recommended and be satisfied with what they have.
Let's say we have another fediverser instance deployed by some admin from, e.g, Slovenia. This admin goes and promote their fediverser instance as the best one from Slovenians that want to migrate. There will be no "find my instance selector", because the fediverser instance is already has connected to a specific Lemmy server. The recommended communities has some overlap with fediverser.network, but for some communities they will prefer to recommend the completely local one.
Let's say one of the admins from lemmygrad/hexbear/tankie.social also deploys their own fediverser instance. They will be reaching out to a different subset of redditors, and those redditors will be expecting a different subset of communities.
Three different instances. Three different audiences, all of them with the common goal of getting people to migrate from Reddit to the Fediverse. It doesn't matter from the individual redditor point of view which instance they used to migrate, as long as the recommendations are sound. But if we try to get every redditor to through the same one instance, we will end up satisfying no one.
Hopefully, they will be auto subscribed to the communities that are recommended and be satisfied with what they have.
So you agree that the goal is not to ease people into Fediverse, but to create a clone like experience. Glad we finally got to that.
It doesn't matter from the individual redditor point of view which instance they used to migrate, as long as the recommendations are sound.
That's where we disagree. You think a single recommendation is sound and "less confusing" instead of helping people understand what Fediverse is and how it works.
I don't think it's productive, but good luck with the effort.
So you agree that the goal is not to ease people into Fediverse, but to create a clone like experience.
No, not at all.
- I do not want to force people to use an specific client that shoves ads on their faces.
- I do not want to collect and track user data
- I do not want to have any saying with the moderation teams.
- I do not want to sell and monetize UGC and claim copyright on them.
- I do not want to ban communities because they might scare off advertisers.
You believe that Lemmy is better Reddit because of the things that it can do. I believe that Lemmy can be better than Reddit because of the things that it can not. Do you understand the difference?
That is a false fallacy. We know that is not true from failed blackout. There were multiple platforms that people could have gone to, but didn’t.
Absolutely disagree!
- What platforms were available in June 2023?
- How many active users did they have?
- How ready were they to deal with the influx of users?
The blackout failed precisely because there were no alternatives that could provide the depth and breath of content to the hundreds of millions of users that Reddit still has.
The majority of people who tried Lemmy during the protests went back to Reddit, and the major reason is simply lack of content in the long tail of diverse interests.
The blackout failed precisely because there were no alternatives that could provide the depth and breath of content to the hundreds of millions of users that Reddit still has.
You just said content wasn't the problem:
Because Reddit's content is not the problem, the rent seeking is. Their shitty client is. Their closing of the API is.
It makes no sense that the blackout failed because of lack of content, since the content generation would have stopped on Reddit during the blackout. The backlash moderators got from their users for locking subreddits during the blackout was very telling. The reality is, people just don't care enough to switch if it doesn't affect them. And we know that % of people that used 3rd party clients was less than 5%, based on client download numbers it sat at around (6.9%, which counted users that just downloaded it once and never used).
Content can be a motivating factor in bringing in established posters, but even then it's more about the sunk cost fallacy than content. That's why converting lurkers into posters people is the way to grow new platforms. I'm the living proof of that, as I had 0 posts on Reddit.
And there were plenty of alternatives from established ones like Hacker News (founded in 2007) to new ones like Lemmy, Hive, Raddle, Saidit, who were all released before the Reddit changes were even announced.
I don't know if we are talking about the same thing when I say "content was not the problem".
What I mean is that people's objections to Reddit is not in the type of content that they could find there. Overall, people like the conversations they have there and they like the range of communities that were there. And none of the alternatives you mentioned stand on the same footing as Reddit, so there is no pointing in comparing them.
[email protected] is identical to [email protected].
latteart does not have an topic-specific instance that I would consider a better home. rivian does.
Is it better to have no recommendation until some threshold is reached?
It could be. My concern though is that this will lead to just a bunch of communities created around the top 3 largest instances. I strongly believe that one way to avoid network effects acting in favor of any particular instance is by establishing a more clean separation between "instances for people" and "instances for groups".
latteart does not have an topic-specific instance that I would consider a better home. rivian does.
Yet, now, it has none.
There is no constancy in how things are applied.
Has 3 recommendations and allows recommending more.
Has 1 and doesn't allow recommending more.
Both are generic topics, but are also broad enough to potentially have topic-based instance. But are treated differently.
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that having a gatekeeper for recommendations is not the right approach. It will always lead to uneven application. Allowing all matching ones eliminates that issue as well as your "top 3 largest instance" concern.
But it's clear that we are in fundamental disagreement here. Time will tell if your effort was successful. Good luck.
My concern though is that this will lead to just a bunch of communities created around the top 3 largest instances.
If I may, lemmy.zip isn't in the top 3 instances. According to https://lemmy.ca/post/26878531, they barely have 3 communities in the 100 most active communities.
And this is why I didn't hesitate to approve some of the recommendations there. Still, "topic-specific instances over generic ones" remains a primary guideline.
I'm not for removing any recommendation, I'm for adding more of them.
While I agree that (in theory) more choice for the user is better, I'm not sure that this is necessarily the best in practice.
Already, two main roadblocks to fediverse growth are "it is confusing" and "there is insufficient activity in any given community". Presenting new users with too many options exacerbates both of these issues.
What amount of activity is considered enough?
To attract Reddit users, the bar is higher than one might think. I'd say at least 10% of the activity of the corresponding subreddit at the bare minimum, preferably closer to 30%.
Community on the same topic can have widely different rules.
Would you be able to provide some examples? I've heard this before, but no examples come to mind. If anything, I've found the reverse to be much more common: A bunch of communities on the same topic splintered across different instances, none of which have enough activity on their own to maintain an active community.
While I agree that (in theory) more choice for the user is better, I'm not sure that this is necessarily the best in practice.
Already, two main roadblocks to fediverse growth are "it is confusing" and "there is insufficient activity in any given community". Presenting new users with too many options exacerbates both of these issues.
I don't disagree in general, but from practical standpoint it's a technical barrier that is already being partially addressed with mobile clients and is actively supported on platform level Support for grouping communities / multi-communities.
And confusion around Fediverse doesn't get solved by this. It doesn't help them understand how instances work or why there are different domains for various communities. And those users that migrate would still be confused when they navigate to All feed.
To attract Reddit users, the bar is higher than one might think. I'd say at least 10% of the activity of the corresponding subreddit at the bare minimum, preferably closer to 30%.
I fundamentally disagree. You won't move over established posters. It's partially due to the sunk cost fallacy, but primarily they just don't want to move. They like where they are. People should have learned that lesson after the failed blackout. What the goal should be is to convert lurkers into posters.
Would you be able to provide some examples? I've heard this before, but no examples come to mind. If anything, I've found the reverse to be much more common: A bunch of communities on the same topic splintered across different instances, none of which have enough activity on their own to maintain an active community.
Both are true to some extent.
Take Tesla communities, as an example.
There is [email protected] and [email protected] one is focused on strictly Tesla, another allows general political posts that involve Tesla CEO in non company capacity. There is also a divide between the type of user that interacts in each of them based on what gets actively downvoted.
Then there is also federation aspect. Some instances have aggressive defederation policies that cut off large chucks on the users. Are those users not entitled to have a community where they can interact just because their instance have an issue with someone? And yes, they can move or create 20 different accounts across the Fediverse, but that would go against your point of usability and accessibility.
Or various World News communities (some allow US posts, while others categorically don't). Some only allow posts from certain sites, while others are more open. Some enforce specific post formats, while others don't.
But the rule that has the biggest number of disagreements seems to be social media posts. Some communities gets flooded with screenshots or links to social media, and then an alternative community pops up that doesn't allow that.
There are also many cases where bad moderation decision lead to alternative communities being created. Star Trek (moderators of popular community had strong opinions about a particular season and starting removing user that disagreed), Science Fiction (main moderator was removed for disagreeing with instance admins for comments unrelated to the community), there is also a strong sentiment that lemmy.ml communities removes differing point of view which leads to alternative communities, and many more cases.
Or various World News communities (some allow US posts, while others categorically don’t). Some only allow posts from certain sites, while others are more open. Some enforce specific post formats, while others don’t.
[email protected] doesn't have the media bias fact checker bot from [email protected] for instance
Edit: they removed the bot 3 hours ago
I include SpinScore link for my own post. Generally random ratings are useless without context, and they depend on human methodology which is potentially consciously biased and definitely unconsciously biased.
Interesting