Old habits die hard, but there’s Reddiquette which needs to be revived, and some which needs to die.
Many “golden-age” redditors remember a time when downvoting was reserved for hostility, not a different opinion. For the sake of our growing community I would like to implore everyone to be awesome to each other.
However, this place is not Reddit.
- We don’t measure in bananas here.
- We don’t need to append “edit: typo” to edited posts and comments.
- if you see something which is worthy of a downvote: down vote and move on! Don’t engage with it and feed the algorithm/engament machine so other people are exposed to it when sorting by active.
The algorithm?
I wondered the same. There are “Hot” and “Active” categories on the front page but I’m not sure how they work. Perhaps commenting pushes a post further up the “Active” feed?
This is my impression too. I see day-old posts with new comments on refresh, so I’m assuming you’re right. Maybe algorithm isn’t the right word, but you get what I mean.
It is in fact an algorithm because it’s choosing what posts to put in front of you based on multiple criteria (time since it was posted, votes/number of comments/time since last comment). They are relatively transparent and well documented criteria, though.
However, it’s not a personalized feed based on your interests and unsolicited data collection, which is what people sometimes mean when they say “the algorithm.”
It’s not really an algorithm, you see posts based on the type and sort order you select. Sorting by “hot” counts votes, sorting by “active” counts posts. My default is Subscribed and New. When I get through all the new stuff I check Active and Hot.
In any case, yeah there’s stuff I hope not to see here. So far so good and hopefully it will stay that way for a while.
Fixed it to be more precise.
I suppose whether it’s an algorithm comes down to which definition you use.
I think the colloquial definition is something which is user-dependant and very complicated.
However, the dictionary definition is “a finite set of unambiguous instructions”, which fits my initial usage.
Strangely though, the colloquial definition doesn’t fit the dictionary definition, because the YouTube/Twitter/Facebook algorithms are so ambiguous that the people designing them don’t really know what they’re doing, since they are evolving by themselves.
Yeah it’s semantics, but to me an algorithm includes some kind of code to do something I’m not aware of or have control over, like a section of code that does a job in the background. In this case I think of something that pre-selects which content to put on my front page based on some logic I have no control over.
So… Elsewhere in this thread you keep stating that explaining why something is edited is not useful. But here I have no idea what your previous statement was or what you edited, and because you didn’t explain why you edited, I’m left guessing what your previous statement was.
This is precisely why people explain why they edit, otherwise the conversation loses context as edits occur. Hopefully you can step back and see why explaining edits is useful?
You actually don’t need to know what my previous statement was, because it’s totally boring.
I changed “algorithm” to “algorithm/engagement machine” because the first posts were about how the word algorithm is used.
To clarify, my gripe was not with edits, it’s to state that you edited for typos specifically.
I rate this post 0.5 bannanasbananas.
edit: typo
We don’t measure in bananas here.
You are going to have to come up.with an alternate unit of measurement then. An easily available one too, as I am not keeping a lemming handy for the purposes of scale. Unless it was stuffed… I’m off to eBay, back in a mo.
Wait what? People have those? A lemmy is a real animal? So many new things at once for me
I think it’s polite to tell what you have changed when you edit a post as long as the platform does not have edit history visible (which as far as I can tell Lemmy does not).
