I would not expect to see any individual users in the All feed, which is why I was curious to learn what you might expect. I don't really browse All, and I am often surprised by what folks who browse All expect, and how they choose to express those preferences.

I don't browse all, either. I'm just pointing out that it's a valid question. It's a new feature and nobody has much time to explore the inner workings. PieFed is made by people, and people often have different opinions on what software should do.

this is great! it says followed users posts will appear in Subscribed but will they also appear in All? some of us only browse All

I cannot recall the last time that I downvoted something - I do it exceedingly rarely, and only as you said to indicate irrelevance; although technically for rule-breaking content, shouldn't reporting+removal be more of a consideration? (for e.g. disinformation removal would seem preferable, whereas for misinformation mere downvoting may be sufficient)

To give a specific example, I was looking recently at the posts in !lotrmemes@piefed.social and noticed how over the last week several posts have <10-20 upvotes (I can't easily tell how downvotes factor into this), and keep in mind this community has existed for 11 months already. New posters will stop bothering to contribute content unless they receive positive feedback, which puts the burden of content generation upon the most prolific posters who are able to specialize in doing so, having optimized their procedures. This leads not only to lesser activity overall, but a heavily concentrated set of posters and seems naively to me like it would trend towards encouraging people to lurk more rather than engage, both by sending the subtle message that voting is not desirable while also causing content to receive fewer upvotes than it otherwise would.

If true, then this affects the entire network - even Lemmy + Mbin & now Mastodon (+nodeBB, etc.). Of course I could be very wrong: perhaps votes being a limited resource could encourage people to vote MORE than they otherwise would, or to vote differently, like with greater intentionality (rather than merely smashing a "like" button, sending a signal that it would be desirable to see more of similar content in the future in that community). Though... I would have thought the opposite actually? In the past, in communities that I help moderate or want to see grow, I have upvoted every single comment within them, not to signal "agreement" in that case but "this comment is welcome, it is good for it to have been added here". If it makes people feel good to feel welcomed, then why not upvote MORE?

But perhaps this is a different model for upvoting - a more "feels good' social media one than a news aggregation one? I actually have quite a few thoughts about that!! One being that you can't really trust votes from unvetted accounts in the first place, so for certain situations where votes actually matter beyond merely sorting within the various Feeds (Subscribed, Local, All, Topics, etc.) then we would really need a whole new type of vote class than a mere "standard upvote", which can be botted and also influenced by drive-by non-community members who browse there by All. I am so enthused to see Piefed moving in what I consider great directions there!! Allowing a community to restrict voting to solely members helps with both of those aforementioned effects (nothing will ever entirely be a defense, but by placing a barrier it does help, and the barrier could always be raised further if the need arises, e.g. introducing a delay of one week before someone who signals intent to join a community before they can begin voting in it, to prevent drive-by All browsers from joining for the explicit purpose of influencing a specific vote than they would lack the proper context for anyway).

So here I just meant the standard, social media-esque upvote, of posts and comments. Though without numbers or the context to compare them, I am just thinking in terms of general principles here.

It helps that this will be able to be set by an environmental variable, so that different instances can tune it towards however they want, although then my concern turns towards transparency - how could someone know what this variable is set to, as they consider which instance they want to join? Or if the thought is that this number is SO exceedingly high that a normal human would not likely reach it, then... well no, because it's already been stated that this definitively overlaps with the range of human interactions right now, and will most definitely impact some people - 2% of them, to be precise.

Did I miss something - is this not an instance setting but something that the users can opt-out of by changing their personal account settings, hence is a measure to help curb someone's social media addictive behaviors?

Thank you for your feedback.

I don't know if I'm the only one, but I was one that asked for Favorites in the Community tab. I've got it working, and I'm really grateful to Rimu for implementing it! I'm still loving PieFed and appreciate all his hard work on it. I also put my money where my mouth is and donate a few dollars every month to support him. It's not much, but if everyone that uses it gave a little, he'd be in great shape.

Not currently. But that could change!

I'm pretty sure that on shared instances with more than a few dozen users All would become swamped with trash from Mastodon and basically unusable. But maybe the Hot sort would cope, if Mastodon posts had few likes...

This is one of those things that can only be found out once it's in production and the feature is being used a bit. So far https://piefed.social/c/microblogs?sort=new is pretty tame but it could become a flood, easily.

Sometimes development is like feeling your way through a dark room.

Would you expect all fediverse users to appear in All?

@rimu@piefed.social Okay, I'm missing something trying to follow someone from Mastodon. I went to their profile using my Mastodon instance, but I'm already following them there, so there's no option to follow them on PieFed. I went to my PF instance and searched for instances, and I found mastodon.social. I clicked on "Users" to look for the person I want to follow, but I couldn't see a way to search users, so I would have to go manually page after page looking for one person. There's hundreds of thousands of users on mastodon.world, so I would never find them!

What am I missing?

Yes, I haven't made it easy to find people yet, intentionally.

Mastodon is 20x bigger than Lemmy, in terms of the amount of people using it. So once they start sending us their toots in earnest, we could be looking at a 2x increase in federation load, easily. Could be 10x within a few weeks.

So I'm not keen to unleash that flood all at once. I'll adjust PieFed to cope with it as it builds up slowly.

• Send a DM to a user asking them if they are a bot, with 1 click. If they do not respond their account is automatically flagged as a bot

This is dumb, I don’t respond to my DM’s at all, especially if someone is asking me if I am a bot out of no where.

We have rate limits (a quota by another name) on posting and commenting. Why not on votes? Casting a vote causes as much network activity as posting a comment.

On everyone's profile is a bar showing how much of their quota has been used. I'll be monitoring this to see what happens. If it's cramping everyone's style too much then it'll be removed.

for e.g. disinformation removal would seem preferable, whereas for misinformation mere downvoting may be sufficient

This is what I half-suspected as the reason for why some feel so attacked by this change. What is disinformation is quite ephemeral in this post modern era and in the end it means that you’re downvoting things you disagree with. And unfortunately that usually means things that don’t match people’s pre-existing beliefs.

According to Rimu this voting quota will affect 2% of users. To me it looks to be high enough that it will mostly serve as a way to discourage voting warfare (upvote everything you agree with, downvote everything you don’t like). If you limit your downvotes to things like offtopic, rule breaking content and bad faith actors I doubt you’ll run out of votes and I hope that was the intention behind implementing it.

Rule breaking and bad faith actors / trolling should instead be reported and handled via moderation. Downvotes should simply be the opposite of an upvote.

There’s a follow button on each account’s profile. So first find one of their posts/comments and then go to the author of it.

Okay, I'm trying to figure out how to specifically get that done. My first idea was to cruise Mastodon and find someone I wanted to follow, hover over their name, then click that "follow" button.

Then I get taken to an M sign-in box which wouldn't accept my PF login.

So I figured I'd paste their M-user's ID address in to PF search, but it couldn't find it. And now I'm all out of idears...

There's a follow button on each account's profile. So first find one of their posts/comments and then go to the author of it.

Also if you go to https://piefed.social/instances, find the instance you like and then go to the people in that instance, there are Follow buttons everywhere.

I'm not making this slick and easy to use, yet. I don't want everyone to suddenly follow tons of people and cause the server to melt or whatever. This following functionality could increase the federation work the server needs to do in unpredictable ways so I'll be monitoring things and dealing with issues as they arise for a while, before going big on it.