After a couple days of discussions about the newly implemented vote quota, I’m kinda exhausted. It seems like a situation we won’t ever agree on. Me personally, I don’t want to argue like this over a piece of software that I have high regards for. It tears us apart, where we should work together.
It’s okay if there is a quota on piefed.social the instance.
It’s not okay if there is a default quota of 240 on PieFed the software - and thus for all instances.
I suggest it should be implemented like this:
- It should not be a default value
- It should be an empty input in the admin interface, where instance admins can set a vote quota if they want to, or leave it empty to disable the vote quota.
- The /about page should display the set vote quota.
That way all instances can decide for themselves and users can see the instances’ vote quota transparently.
I disagree: votes are whatever the recipient makes of them.
Sorting by New - even comments underneath a post - prevents the votes from controlling who sees what.
Again, that’s not up to you. Perhaps you meant that it “shouldn’t” be that way? But none of us get to decide how others actually feel about things.
More to the point, votes reflect an “engagement” - a post that people upvote is one that they are saying is relevant, whether they enjoyed the content or not, while a fantastic item of content that receives hardly any votes…
is content that will in the future go to other platforms.
I agree. I upvote just about anything that fits the community and I appreciate someone posting. I also post stuff explicitly hoping that other see it, and we have to face facts: many people just lurk and upvote, and there hasn’t been a good way to get around that.