Yeah. This .NET Blog post was not for me either, but I thought it would be on topic for the .NET community. I guess this community doesn’t want this kind of content, even if it’s the official dev blog. :) And not just to the point of ignoring, but actively down-voting.
It’s probably not subscribers to the community but people who insist on browsing all with no effort for curation of their feed. Many people complain of others polluting their feed as if they have no way to effectively filter by topic.
I’m sorry, but if people browse All, and are allowed to downvote what’s in there, how is that their fault? It’s an allowed use case of the Lemmy platform.
It’s like telling people not to use the chainsaw in Quake “because they’re too lazy to use other weapons.”
They complain that thier feed is being “polluted” while actively censoring the feeds of others that subscribe to communities. How is that not a self-centered and irrational thinking?
Is it self-centered if a lot of people do it, though? Is voting “a self-centered” action, or a community one?
But that’s besides the point.
My point is that it doesn’t matter why they do it. The platform allows it, so it’s fair game. If it wasn’t, then admins should have an option to disable voting from people who are (1) browsing All and (2) not subscribed.
Is it self-centered if a lot of people do it, though?
Everyone can be self centered at the same time. Not sure why you think that wouldn’t be possible.
Is voting “a self-centered” action, or a community one?
Depends on the voter.
My point is that it doesn’t matter why they do it. The platform allows it, so it’s fair game.
It hard to see why you expect that the “Admins” would be able to prevent anything they don’t prefer so casually.
It would be nice if the software allowed for many more things but it is limited, development is slow, and prioritizes what they get funding to work on. If you look at the issues list, you’ll see that there are many desired changes, so the current release is not how the developers intend it to function.
admins should have an option to disable voting from people who are (1) browsing All and (2) not subscribed.
I would really like this feature, but it doesn’t exist. If I were an admin a lemmy instance, I would not consider it fair game to downvote a post on a community that you’re not subscribed to. It would be a lot of work to enforce that. Just like there’s a lot of work to reduce SPAM. I wouldn’t call SPAM fair game because the developers haven’t created a perfect SPAM filter (currently, they don’t have one at all). I would consider SPAM self centered even if many people do it.
Everyone can be self centered at the same time. Not sure why you think that wouldn’t be possible.
I guess you’re right.
It hard to see why you expect that the “Admins” would be able to prevent anything they don’t prefer so casually.
Well, think harder. They’re admins, not peasants.
It would be nice if the software allowed for many more things but it is limited, development is slow, and prioritizes what they get funding to work on.
That’s a red-herring.
If you look at the issues list, you’ll see that there are many desired changes, so the current release is not how the developers intend it to function.
But then, this is a good idea, and I’ll do this.
If I were an admin a lemmy instance, I would not consider it fair game to downvote a post on a community that you’re not subscribed to.
But then, there would be admins who would be okay with it. As long as the platform allows it, it’s fair game. Unless admins use a workaround, like banning the users who do this - but they’re not doing this either, are they?
Voting for personal curation in an all feed is contrary to the shared nature of posts.
But where’s the evidence that there is “voting for personal curation” happening? Have you been DM’d by people saying “Stop posting this content to my All feed”?
The truth of the matter is, it’s an allowed action.
That’s like servers complaining about patrons going to a restaurant 10 minutes before closing time. They say “such inconsiderate people! Now we have to stay until they’re done!” When in reality, it’s not the patrons’ fault. It’s management’s fault. Personally, if I was a restaurant owner that closes at 10pm, I’d post a note saying “last time to serve walk-ins: 9:15pm. Patrons must leave by 10:15pm, no exceptions” out of respect for my employees.
Same deal. Don’t complain to people doing a perfectly valid action regardless of intention. Complain to the admins or Lemmy’s devs.
From what I can read in this thread, we had a discussion. We didn’t complain [to or about users]. We reasoned and speculated on what is happening and the effects of it.
The only one complaining directly and strongly is you. Telling us we shouldn’t be complaining.
Yeah. This .NET Blog post was not for me either, but I thought it would be on topic for the .NET community. I guess this community doesn’t want this kind of content, even if it’s the official dev blog. :) And not just to the point of ignoring, but actively down-voting.
It’s probably not subscribers to the community but people who insist on browsing
allwith no effort for curation of their feed. Many people complain of others polluting their feed as if they have no way to effectively filter by topic.I’m sorry, but if people browse All, and are allowed to downvote what’s in there, how is that their fault? It’s an allowed use case of the Lemmy platform.
It’s like telling people not to use the chainsaw in Quake “because they’re too lazy to use other weapons.”
They complain that thier feed is being “polluted” while actively censoring the feeds of others that subscribe to communities. How is that not a self-centered and irrational thinking?
Is it self-centered if a lot of people do it, though? Is voting “a self-centered” action, or a community one?
But that’s besides the point.
My point is that it doesn’t matter why they do it. The platform allows it, so it’s fair game. If it wasn’t, then admins should have an option to disable voting from people who are (1) browsing All and (2) not subscribed.
Everyone can be self centered at the same time. Not sure why you think that wouldn’t be possible.
Depends on the voter.
It hard to see why you expect that the “Admins” would be able to prevent anything they don’t prefer so casually.
It would be nice if the software allowed for many more things but it is limited, development is slow, and prioritizes what they get funding to work on. If you look at the issues list, you’ll see that there are many desired changes, so the current release is not how the developers intend it to function.
I would really like this feature, but it doesn’t exist. If I were an admin a lemmy instance, I would not consider it fair game to downvote a post on a community that you’re not subscribed to. It would be a lot of work to enforce that. Just like there’s a lot of work to reduce SPAM. I wouldn’t call SPAM fair game because the developers haven’t created a perfect SPAM filter (currently, they don’t have one at all). I would consider SPAM self centered even if many people do it.
I guess you’re right.
Well, think harder. They’re admins, not peasants.
That’s a red-herring.
But then, this is a good idea, and I’ll do this.
But then, there would be admins who would be okay with it. As long as the platform allows it, it’s fair game. Unless admins use a workaround, like banning the users who do this - but they’re not doing this either, are they?
You first.
I guess that’s the end of any sort of productive discussion from your end.
Also, you seem to be confused about what a red herring is.
Do enlighten me.
I’m not sure how you read a fault claim from their comment.
You can say the UI doesn’t support the mechanics of Lemmy, which is true. But that doesn’t change how the mechanics work.
Voting is curation. Communities theme topics. Voting for personal curation in an all feed is contrary to the shared nature of posts.
But where’s the evidence that there is “voting for personal curation” happening? Have you been DM’d by people saying “Stop posting this content to my All feed”?
The truth of the matter is, it’s an allowed action.
That’s like servers complaining about patrons going to a restaurant 10 minutes before closing time. They say “such inconsiderate people! Now we have to stay until they’re done!” When in reality, it’s not the patrons’ fault. It’s management’s fault. Personally, if I was a restaurant owner that closes at 10pm, I’d post a note saying “last time to serve walk-ins: 9:15pm. Patrons must leave by 10:15pm, no exceptions” out of respect for my employees.
Same deal. Don’t complain to people doing a perfectly valid action regardless of intention. Complain to the admins or Lemmy’s devs.
From what I can read in this thread, we had a discussion. We didn’t complain [to or about users]. We reasoned and speculated on what is happening and the effects of it.
The only one complaining directly and strongly is you. Telling us we shouldn’t be complaining.
And that’s a problem how? This is a discussion board after all.
And you can either take it or leave it. I’m okay with either.
P.S.
I’ve been downvoted when I’ve made actual factual statements (which should be upvoted!) - people do like to express their displeasure 😂
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt :-)