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.
@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.
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.
I really would wish discoverability would be improofed.
This my proposal to it:
and at least this proposal is not about follow metrics or entertainment.
> 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.
>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).
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.
Scholar Social is meant for: researchers, grad students, librarians, archivists, undergrads, academically inclined high schoolers, educators of all levels, journal editors, research assistants, professors, administrators—anyone involved in academia who is willing to engage with others respectfully.
We strive to be a safe space for queer people and other minorities, recognizing that there can only be academic freedom where the existence and validity of interlocutors' identities is taken as axiomatic.
"A Mastodon profile you can be proud to put on the last slide of a presentation at a conference"
(Participation is, of course, optional)
Scholar Social features a monthly "official" journal club, in which we try to read and comment on a paper of interest.
Any user of Scholar Social can suggest an article by sending the DOI by direct message to @firstname.lastname@example.org and one will be chosen by random lottery on the last day of the month. We ask that you only submit articles that are from *outside* your own field of study to try to ensure that the papers we read are accessible and interesting to non-experts.