Just like Reddit, PieFed keeps track of how many upvotes and downvotes your posts receive and the net value of all the votes received is called your “reputation” (Reddit calls it “karma”). This is not shown in the UI anywhere (except to administrators), to dissuade the karma-farming behavior common on Reddit. Reputation is not a game or status symbol, it is a mechanic for enhancing trust and safety on PieFed.
Some people have criticized PieFed for this, calling it a “social credit system” similar to the one in China so I thought it’d be good to explain exactly what it does so people don’t need to guess or rely on hearsay.
I think the attitude system is insane when the fediverse is filled with so many people who deserve every downvote they get.
I think that there is a lot more content worthy of upvotes than there is worthy of downvotes in the fediverse.
Both things are true.
Shit. What do I do now.
One day altruism and hope will fail you and you will become a jaded curmudgeon like me.
i read your comment with the voice in w40k mechanicus trailer
Yes although if you’re only here to downvote bad content then perhaps your focus is in the wrong place.
I introduced some friends to piefed, and told them about the attitude system. They said they only downvote because remembering to upvote is too hard for their ADHD. So they said on piefed, they just won’t vote.
Yeah if someone can’t tell the difference it’s probably better if they don’t vote?
They can tell the difference. What they’re saying is, good posts don’t elicit a strong enough emotional reaction to get them to upvote. It’s not part of their workflow.
Reading insightful conversations and giving them a little ⬆️ gives me a positive dopamine rush.
Not naming any names coughfrongtcough
FWIW I looked at your Attitude rating and can say that unless you were trying to juice the numbers somehow, you fall well within what I’d consider normal patterns of upvote/downvote. The algorithm considers you to be far less negative than you may think you are.
On the flip side, the fediverse tends to have a pretty strong monoculture. You can collect down votes just by disagreeing with someone respectfully or stating your view point here.
Maybe it it’s numbers grow, it will become a bit less of an echo chamber.
I found that out the fun way by having the unpopular opinion of “we shouldn’t encourage 4chan-style doxxing threats over server drama”. The admin of lemmy.zip banned me from the server, presumably because it was somebody from that server pushing for that behavior.
Attitude system?
I mean it’s all relative right? Sure we all get downvoted sometimes but if you’re getting downvoted way more than the average person you might be doing something the community doesn’t want you to.
The attitude system is how many times you downvote other people.
Oh thanks I felt like I was missing something.
The reputation is the hidden score that if you’re below whatever threshold it displays the red triangle(s) by your name.
The attitude system is about the downvotes somebody gives, not the ones they receive.
And I think it’s a good thing. If downvoting is disincentivized, then downvotes themselves are more significant.
I… Know. I read the post. And thatsl’s what I’m saying.
Guess I’m confused about why you brought up the Attitude rating then.
A profile’s attitude (votes given ) has no correlation to a “low reputation” status (votes received ).
Saying people have a bad attitude because other people suck is rude.
Attitude only affects people who only downvote. Let’s say there’s a community with 100 people. 99 of them participate in good faith and make good content and the final one participates in bad faith and makes bad content. One day, all of them make a post and vote on everybody else’s posts.
The result: 99 good faith community members have posts with score of 98 and an Attitude of ~98%. 1 bad faith community member has a post with a score of -98 and an Attitude of -100% (or 0% because I forget how this works exactly)
Those sound like fightin’ words!
I think it might be fine? I like systems that reinforce trust and dissuade bad behavior as long as they aren’t draconian.
We use it that way, we want to disuade bad behaviour. As it is explained, there is very few users that reach veny low score.
Yeah I saw people freaking out over it like it was the end of the world, or even a bad thing really. Thanks for the clear explanation.
That said, I wish I could at least see my own, of nobody else’s.
I wish “votes” were multi-dimensional. “Yes/No”, “Good/Bad”, etc. is just too simple for the amount of nuance that exists. For example I could agree with somebody’s statement, but disagree with their tone.
That’s why i think we can find something else. The tone should be managed by mod
I always thought the two red triangles were a UX bug. Looks weird.
If you move you mouse over, or finger, you can obtain the reason :)
They mean the fact there’s two instead of one
Oh i get it, thank :)
deleted by creator
I think I get Grail’s point. One red warning makes sense, but most of the time I see one, there will be a second with a nearly identical description.
