The Librarian is a user on scholar.social. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse. If you don't, you can sign up here.
The Librarian @thelibrarian

I've seen a number of posts complaining about discovery, like it's all about follow metrics and entertainment -- but here's the thing, how hard is it to make connections IRL? With Mastodon setup in a way as to not force social context collapse, why shouldn't it be similar here? Building community takes work and lots and lots of patience.

Β· Web Β· 8 Β· 20

@thelibrarian I reviewed the code.

The proposed discovery here really is just enhanced discovery. The more you interact with people, if you haven't followed them, they reach a threshold and get put on a list for you to consider following.

It's about as harmless as it could be.

@TheGibson
I wasn't commenting on any proposed discovery mechanism. I was commenting on whiners who are complaining that federation makes discovery too difficult.

@thelibrarian my mistake, we just had a huge blowout here a few days ago over the inclusion of "suggested follows".

I assumed that was the topic.

My apologies.

@thegibson @thelibrarian I read some code for Mastodon follow recommendations. It didn't look especially concerning, although it did contain a global blacklist of users. That gives someone quite some power to exclude, although at least the list is open. My main concern about such things is that they will tend to generate celebrity cults.

@thelibrarian
I really would wish discoverability would be improofed.
This my proposal to it:
hub.libranet.de/channel/paulfr

and at least this proposal is not about follow metrics or entertainment.

@paulfree14 @thelibrarian Scoring fediverse posts then ranking the timeline by score would be a really bad idea imho. You only need to see other sites with similar mechanisms to see what this produces.

@bob
>You only need to see other sites with similar mechanisms to see what this produces.

Can you describe your concerns a bit more. I'm not aware of an plattform that does scoring/rating with the proposed mechanism. So I'm not shure what problems you think it will/could cause.

@thelibrarian

@paulfree14 @thelibrarian For programming sites it tends to work better, because often there is one best answer, but for news or social sites using that mechanism I've never known the top ranking posts to be any good. Even things like lobste.rs. when social becomes a game of scores you have gamification. Bots or campaigns to upvote things. People posting stuff purely with the intention of increasing their score, or paying others to increase their rank.

@bob
aah, i get what you mean. That would be a problem, ideed.

But I can't see how this issue would acure in the feature I proposed (or wasn't your coment related to that?)

@thelibrarian

@bob
> when social becomes a game of scores you have gamification. Bots or campaigns to upvote things. People posting stuff purely with the intention of increasing their score, or paying others to increase their rank.

The idee is to *only* let the author score their own posts.
The resiever can then filter based on the authors choise.
Reason for doing this is writen within the linked blogpost.
@thelibrarian

@paulfree14 @thelibrarian It might be ok if it's optional, but I'm wary of any kind of scoring system which turns popular users into "taste setters" giving them disproportionate influence.

@bob
>which turns popular users into "taste setters" giving them disproportionate influence.

me too. The proposed scoring/filter is counterin this.
Currently, those with more followers will get the best visability. In the local timeline and federated timeline users are more equal. Yet, the federated timeline isn't much of a joy to read (for me).

@thelibrarian

@bob
If the author could score their post, I could choose to only few those which the authors declared as high score.
This would bring more visability to posts that matter more for the authors indipentend from their amount of followers.

It will be optional. If bots abuse it, they simply get blocked.
Also could be possible to agree on designing it so that everyone can only rate 1-2 the highest score per day.
@thelibrarian

@bob
had you read the blogpost? I'm wondering if I would need to rewrite it, as it seems their was some major missunderstanding.
@thelibrarian

@paulfree14 @thelibrarian

I don't think this would work, because users trying to monopolize attention will just rate all of their posts as top priority, whereas others using that system as intended will have a variety of priorities which ensures they would always be lower ranked than the egoists.

It's a bit like the priority ratings attached to emails in some corporate environments. Managers always rate all of their emails as URGENT priority.