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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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 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.
Marking edits with “edit” is fine by me, just don’t use ETA for that…
I rate this post 0.5
bannanasbananas. edit: typodownvoted edit: wait I think I pressed the wrong button
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
You said its more of an issue for the individual than the community, how much more?
I see this as a shared responsibility. The main reason is I’m convinced there’s not much people can do about the issue of validation.
I see the validation as a double edged sword. Lots of people do legitimately need validation from strangers online, and I’m glad they have communities to go to, to feel better about themselves.
On the other side of it, is it can form into unhealthy comparison. It’s the reason Instagram stopped showing the number of likes a few years back.
I think some reddit communities had a good idea for limiting the karma counter to 0, because negative karma definitely contributes to how people feel about themselves and the community.
I understand many people see it as self-policing, but if you ever visit r/vegan, you will see an extremely gatekeepy community which breeds toxicity. People who step in any direction are taking a step over the line, and it forces compliance via mob instead of allowing mods to handle bad actors.
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?
deleted by creator
Listen, I’ll measure with a fucking banana if I feel like it, okay. Don’t tell me what to do pal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/4fLpktf2jYwDownvoting 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.
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
I like the “edit:” append if I edited something, just to make it clear for whoever comes later.
What’s the problem with it?
