The NFL season is about to start and it would be nice to have as many people as possible participating on the communities from https://nfl.community. Being a topic-specific instance with closed registrations, I’m aware that it is harder to be discovered, so I’m writing here with the intent of both promoting a bit and to find enthusiasts joining in.
If you’d like to help the instance and the team communities grow, there are two ways to help:
-
Join https://fediverser.network, find the Lemmy community you want to help and apply to become a Community Ambassador. Community Ambassadors can add different sources of content and also send invites to “good” reddit users to migrate.
-
Become a moderator of your team community. The communities are still all low in traffic, so I guess the hardest part for the moderators will be in finding and posting the type of content that you’d like to see in the community, in order to set out its tone.
As always, if you have any questions don’t hesitate to ask!
The issue is that it recommends a single community when there are many on popular or generic topics. Having a single option as an alternative just showcases the issue of dominant instances breaking the Fediverse.
Community on the same topic can have widely different rules. From content they allow to simple things like preferred post structure. Why not have all of them that match the criteria?
What amount of activity is considered enough?
“poor moderation” can mean many things and will differ based on the person who has the power to decide it. Basic things like spam, illegal content and alike everyone can agree on, but more specific etiquette based rules are in the eye of the beholder, no?
I’m not for removing any recommendation, I’m for adding more of them.
Don’t forget, the main goal of Fediverser is not to create a comprehensive map, but to help people who are migrating from Reddit and are not familiar with how the Fediverse works to get started. For them, it’s better to have one entry point for most of their topics, then to give them a bunch of different communities with the same name but slightly different mechanics.
Ideally, something proportional to the corresponding subreddit and with more than one single person dominating the posting.
That seems enough for now. But there were also cases of communities that were on smaller instances with poor uptime or seem abandoned. I removed them.
I’m confused.
Seems counterproductive. I thought we want people to embrace the Fediverse because it’s Fediverse and not to create a clone of enshitified platforms. Funneling people to a few instances just amplifies the issue of big instances being the only place to grow any new community.
So it’s better to promote the same popular communities and create a doom-loop of no new community ever-growing in activity because it never gets recommended?
We seem to have a different philosophy of what Fediverse is. Embracing diversity and federation are the fundamental principles behind Fediverse to me, not just trying to increase statistical numbers.
You are right. The wording needs to change, it should read as something like “comprehensive map of alternatives to Reddit”, which is only in the subheader.
Baby steps. go take a look at /r/RedditAlternatives right now and see how many people are telling how difficult it is to migrate. We are not getting them out of enshittified platforms if they are thrown into a whole new paradigm. We need to ease them into it.
Yes. The paradox of choice is real. You and I might prefer to have absolute control, but the large majority of people are simply looking for a straightforward solution to their immediate needs. Just last week I was arguing with someone on [email protected] because it was the 5th community in a month created to talk about TV shows and movies.
If the recommended alternative is bad somehow, then sure let’s move on. But if it is good enough, then please just let it be flexible and accept it.
The code is open source, and you are welcome to run your own instance of Fediverser, and the recommendation database can be cloned or forked however you see fit.
How is it comprehensive if it only lists singular alternatives? Seems contradictory.
Proposed service doesn’t solve the issue, just delays it. Explained in https://lemmy.zip/comment/12893935
Then they are not interested in the Fediverse, but like I mentioned they are looking for a clone of whatever enshitified platform they left. You will never keep these type of users, as they will just go back to where they came from and complain how shitty that different place is. The goal should be to attract lurkers and convert them into posters.
To elevate Reddit user confusion about migration, we should have multiple Fediverser sites? If your primary goal is really to migrate Reddit users, then that is a horrible way to go about it. That would mean multiple Ambassadors, different recommendations and lack of any consistency between added communities, subreddits, recommendations and probably even instances.
The criteria also seem to not be applied universally. https://fediverser.network/subreddits/playstation lists a community with 0 interactions over several bigger and more active ones, same with https://fediverser.network/subreddits/xbox.
[email protected] was rejected as a first alternative to subreddit after I expressed my hesitation in a private message to migrate the community to
gearhead.townat this point in time.It’s comprehensive for the point of view of subreddits, not of the Lemmy communities. The idea is to have one recommendation for each subreddit, not of all communities that can theoretically be related to a given subreddit.
That was also my argument when Reddit content was automatically mirrored on alien.top. That’s also one of the reasons that I’m giving preference to topic-based instances. If someone sets up a Fediverser instance to mirror Reddit content and sends them to a topic-based instance, there will be less complaints than if the they are pointing out to a community on an instance that happens to host one relevant community.
Multiple fediverser sites is not a problem. Actually, there are already other deployments and I’m actively looking for other admins willing to deploy it on their servers.
I get that. And that’s why I say it’s not trying to help people understand Fediverse or ease them into it, but just to find a clone of the enshitified platform.
There is 0 value in that. What’s the point of mirroring Reddit and then asking Reddit users to join here, instead of staying where they are, if the content is the same?
How does this help with easing users into Fediverse? You object to the idea of listing multiple alternatives because it’s confusing, but you are fine with multiple sites for the same recommendations. Seems contradictory.
Also, can you give me a reason for rejecting [email protected]? And explaining why communities with 0 activity (e.g. [email protected] and [email protected]) are chosen over active ones?
Upvoted and following
Getting people out of Reddit and into the Fediverse is the goal. If that happens though different Fediverser instances, it’s fine.
Because Reddit’s content is not the problem, the rent seeking is. Their shitty client is. Their closing of the API is.
The people that are still on Reddit are not there out of loyalty, they are just there because that is where they find the content.
Because it is a community that is not on a topic specific instance with 3 posts, all by yourself.
That is my mistake. I was setting these communities for Reddit mirroring. What alternatives do you think should be in its place?
I feel like you are purposely avoiding the question. You previously said:
So how does multiple instances help with that? From my point of view, it makes it much more difficult and more confusing.
That is a false fallacy. We know that is not true from failed blackout. There were multiple platforms that people could have gone to, but didn’t. Even outside Fediverse, where complexity of usability is not an issue. A very small minority of people left due to 3rd party clients being killed.
[email protected] is identical to [email protected]. I’m the only poster, but it was approved.
I’m just trying to understand what are the criteria. Does criteria from https://communick.news/comment/2934810 also apply to first recommendation or all recommendations? Because there are plenty of recommended communities with solo posters.
Is it better to have no recommendation until some threshold is reached?
All that matches the criteria, whatever they are from the above, but clearly we are in disagreement here.
While I agree that (in theory) more choice for the user is better, I’m not sure that this is necessarily the best in practice.
Already, two main roadblocks to fediverse growth are “it is confusing” and “there is insufficient activity in any given community”. Presenting new users with too many options exacerbates both of these issues.
To attract Reddit users, the bar is higher than one might think. I’d say at least 10% of the activity of the corresponding subreddit at the bare minimum, preferably closer to 30%.
Would you be able to provide some examples? I’ve heard this before, but no examples come to mind. If anything, I’ve found the reverse to be much more common: A bunch of communities on the same topic splintered across different instances, none of which have enough activity on their own to maintain an active community.
I don’t disagree in general, but from practical standpoint it’s a technical barrier that is already being partially addressed with mobile clients and is actively supported on platform level Support for grouping communities / multi-communities.
And confusion around Fediverse doesn’t get solved by this. It doesn’t help them understand how instances work or why there are different domains for various communities. And those users that migrate would still be confused when they navigate to All feed.
I fundamentally disagree. You won’t move over established posters. It’s partially due to the sunk cost fallacy, but primarily they just don’t want to move. They like where they are. People should have learned that lesson after the failed blackout. What the goal should be is to convert lurkers into posters.
Both are true to some extent.
Take Tesla communities, as an example.
There is [email protected] and [email protected] one is focused on strictly Tesla, another allows general political posts that involve Tesla CEO in non company capacity. There is also a divide between the type of user that interacts in each of them based on what gets actively downvoted.
Then there is also federation aspect. Some instances have aggressive defederation policies that cut off large chucks on the users. Are those users not entitled to have a community where they can interact just because their instance have an issue with someone? And yes, they can move or create 20 different accounts across the Fediverse, but that would go against your point of usability and accessibility.
Or various World News communities (some allow US posts, while others categorically don’t). Some only allow posts from certain sites, while others are more open. Some enforce specific post formats, while others don’t.
But the rule that has the biggest number of disagreements seems to be social media posts. Some communities gets flooded with screenshots or links to social media, and then an alternative community pops up that doesn’t allow that.
There are also many cases where bad moderation decision lead to alternative communities being created. Star Trek (moderators of popular community had strong opinions about a particular season and starting removing user that disagreed), Science Fiction (main moderator was removed for disagreeing with instance admins for comments unrelated to the community), there is also a strong sentiment that
lemmy.mlcommunities removes differing point of view which leads to alternative communities, and many more cases.[email protected] doesn’t have the media bias fact checker bot from [email protected] for instance
Edit: they removed the bot 3 hours ago
I include SpinScore link for my own post. Generally random ratings are useless without context, and they depend on human methodology which is potentially consciously biased and definitely unconsciously biased.
Interesting