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.
I like the “edit:” append if I edited something, just to make it clear for whoever comes later.
What’s the problem with it?
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
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.
My take for the fediverse would include:
-
Again, downvote not for disagreement but for content that clearly does not contribute to the discussion. Reason should not be given, as downvoting should be done sparingly and should not require a reason (for most sane human beings).
-
Be aware when interacting cross-instances. Culture, norms, and rules may differ.
-
Unless the instance operator is fine with it, limit your self-content sharing and self-promotion.
-
Remember that most of the fediverse instances are independent and they owe you nothing. The instance operator’s decisions are final.
-
Do not squat names on multiple servers unless it’s what you generally have been using.
-
Cats are still the supreme beings. The fediverse resides on the Internet (assuming that it runs on TCP/IP), so the cat supremacy rule applies.
-
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.
Listen, I’ll measure with a fucking banana if I feel like it, okay. Don’t tell me what to do pal.
To be honest building a edit history views makes more sense to me. This project is opensource we can do more than work around.
I rate this post 0.5
bannanasbananas. edit: typoI only agree with two rules: be awesome to each other (if in kind) and downvote is not a disagree button, it’s a troll button.
Dictating other rules, like the use of the edit keyword or how to measure scale of something… Is not awesome.
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.
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.
