Entirely unmoderated tags are not an option for lemmy as the moderation workload would be too much. Additionally users being able to type out tags themselves introduces splintering in the tag contents due to typos. A better solution is a curated list of tags users can attach to their posts
I vehemently disagree with the main idea behind this RFC. Just let users put arbitrary tags on their posts and other users can search for whatever tags they want. The rest of the fediverse has unmoderated hashtags and it works fine. I donât see a good reason hashtags should require moderation. And typos can be corrected by editing the post.
Adding those restrictions just makes this feature more complex than it needs to be and reduces compatibility with the fediverse. Users of any fediverse software can create a post in a lemmy community and those posts may have arbitrary tags. Why should lemmy users have less capability on lemmy than external users?
Finally, hashtags could be a useful way to filter posts within a community if these restrictions are dropped. I posted this in the github thread, but imagine a general programming community. Posts could be tagged with a language, paradigm (OOP, functional, etc), or whatever else to allow users to browse subtopics within a community. Having to request moderators add a tag is an unnecessary extra step.
I think it makes sense for a community to dictate what tags are allowed within that community. Itâs a similar system to tags on reddit. The programming community would probably have tags for each paradigm, you just wouldnât have to worry about people writing Vue, Vue.js, and Vue.JS as different tags.
I know thatâs how reddit works but this isnât reddit. We donât have to do things the same and we have a wider fediverse to integrate with, which necessitates different solutions.
Your argument about multiple tags for a single topic seems to be the biggest benefit of managed tags, but I donât think thatâs even a bit deal. On other fediverse services, the same thing happens and users eventually settle on a single tag for a topic. Tags in a feed will also be truncated so not all of them will be displayed without interaction. Thatâll incentivize users to pick the right tag even more
If you intended RFC to be a reference to IETF RFCs you should now it originally stood for Requests for Comments before simply being referred to as RFCs. (link) I didnât have to read your document in detail, but it seems reasonable and well thought out.
Iâm not sure I understand the value of tags for Lemmy (or Reddit in a similar vein.)
Lemmyâs main (& sole?) dimension of organisation is the concept of âcommunity.â You subscribe to communities to automatically receive their updates on your feed.
Now, tags are going to add another dimension for organisation which allows one to curate their feed w/o subscribing.
The good thing about tags is that they simplify âlistening.â No need to keep searching for communities or keep scrolling through your feed to find the content youâre interested in.
The downside of tags, IMO, is that it fundamentally competes w/ the concept of âcommunitiesâ in the sense that, why would I bother w/ finding communities and âexploreâ, and consequently, potentially contribute to the content of a community where I can simply listen to tags Iâm interested in and forget about the rest.
IMO, the reason that tags (moderated or not) are working so beautifully on Mastodon is the lack of communities: listening is the only option.
I stand to be corrected, but it (tags and communities) very much feels like an either/or situation.
PS: Despite its quality and friendliness, Lemmyâs user base and the content they creates is still small. That means, for the time being, communities may work just fine. As we grow and so does our volume of content, weâd probably need new strategies to augment communities. Though I wouldnât call that a concern of now or near future.
Tags are useful for filtering out things. So if a post is tagged with âmemeâ, I donât need to see it, even when Iâm on a view thatâs wider than just my subscriptions. Meme is a good example for me, because at this point Iâve had to block several meme focused communities because itâs content I really donât care to see. I donât want to suggest that people who enjoy it shouldnât be able to, but I also am tired of blocking new communities as I run into them.
You see memes in your feed (despite not subscribing to memeây communities). Three things come to my mind, thinking out loud here:
(1) Could it be b/c the community is not granular enough? Remember weâre in the early stages of Lemmy w/ big âholisticâ communities. Iâd suppose as we grow, a overarching community will specialise and be split into several more specific ones?
(2) Creating âfiltersâ based on tag/content is a fair usecase and I would second the idea as long as the main dimension of organisation remains âcommunity.â Iâm a bit over-attached to âcommunityâ b/c I feel thatâs a defining element of Lemmy experience & am afraid that touching that balance may change the essence.
(3) Tags can be used to achieve (2) indeed but is the added complexity (â) to the codebase and UI/UX worth it?
I often like to browse the âAllâ view instead of just my subscribed communities. It helps me find new communities, as well as get information from communities I wouldnât normally be interested in. Unfortunately, the most popular communities are mostly meme communities. That content does well to grab users, get upvotes, and have comments. As a result, almost any way you sort âAllâ comes back with Memes at the top unless you block the communities.
OK, I think I see your point more clearly now. I suppose thatâs what many others do (apparently I donât represent the norm ever đ.)
So tags can be useful for not only listening but also discovery.
I guess my concern RE tag & community competing. But Iâve got no prior experience designing a social/community based application to be confident to take my case to the RFC.
I vehemently disagree with the main idea behind this RFC. Just let users put arbitrary tags on their posts and other users can search for whatever tags they want. The rest of the fediverse has unmoderated hashtags and it works fine. I donât see a good reason hashtags should require moderation. And typos can be corrected by editing the post.
Adding those restrictions just makes this feature more complex than it needs to be and reduces compatibility with the fediverse. Users of any fediverse software can create a post in a lemmy community and those posts may have arbitrary tags. Why should lemmy users have less capability on lemmy than external users?
Finally, hashtags could be a useful way to filter posts within a community if these restrictions are dropped. I posted this in the github thread, but imagine a general programming community. Posts could be tagged with a language, paradigm (OOP, functional, etc), or whatever else to allow users to browse subtopics within a community. Having to request moderators add a tag is an unnecessary extra step.
I think it makes sense for a community to dictate what tags are allowed within that community. Itâs a similar system to tags on reddit. The programming community would probably have tags for each paradigm, you just wouldnât have to worry about people writing Vue, Vue.js, and Vue.JS as different tags.
I know thatâs how reddit works but this isnât reddit. We donât have to do things the same and we have a wider fediverse to integrate with, which necessitates different solutions.
Your argument about multiple tags for a single topic seems to be the biggest benefit of managed tags, but I donât think thatâs even a bit deal. On other fediverse services, the same thing happens and users eventually settle on a single tag for a topic. Tags in a feed will also be truncated so not all of them will be displayed without interaction. Thatâll incentivize users to pick the right tag even more
deleted by creator
If you intended RFC to be a reference to IETF RFCs you should now it originally stood for Requests for Comments before simply being referred to as RFCs. (link) I didnât have to read your document in detail, but it seems reasonable and well thought out.
Iâm not sure I understand the value of tags for Lemmy (or Reddit in a similar vein.)
Lemmyâs main (& sole?) dimension of organisation is the concept of âcommunity.â You subscribe to communities to automatically receive their updates on your feed.
Now, tags are going to add another dimension for organisation which allows one to curate their feed w/o subscribing.
The good thing about tags is that they simplify âlistening.â No need to keep searching for communities or keep scrolling through your feed to find the content youâre interested in.
The downside of tags, IMO, is that it fundamentally competes w/ the concept of âcommunitiesâ in the sense that, why would I bother w/ finding communities and âexploreâ, and consequently, potentially contribute to the content of a community where I can simply listen to tags Iâm interested in and forget about the rest.
IMO, the reason that tags (moderated or not) are working so beautifully on Mastodon is the lack of communities: listening is the only option.
I stand to be corrected, but it (tags and communities) very much feels like an either/or situation.
PS: Despite its quality and friendliness, Lemmyâs user base and the content they creates is still small. That means, for the time being, communities may work just fine. As we grow and so does our volume of content, weâd probably need new strategies to augment communities. Though I wouldnât call that a concern of now or near future.
My 2 cents.
Tags are useful for filtering out things. So if a post is tagged with âmemeâ, I donât need to see it, even when Iâm on a view thatâs wider than just my subscriptions. Meme is a good example for me, because at this point Iâve had to block several meme focused communities because itâs content I really donât care to see. I donât want to suggest that people who enjoy it shouldnât be able to, but I also am tired of blocking new communities as I run into them.
Thatâs a fair use-case.
You see memes in your feed (despite not subscribing to memeây communities). Three things come to my mind, thinking out loud here:
(1) Could it be b/c the community is not granular enough? Remember weâre in the early stages of Lemmy w/ big âholisticâ communities. Iâd suppose as we grow, a overarching community will specialise and be split into several more specific ones?
(2) Creating âfiltersâ based on tag/content is a fair usecase and I would second the idea as long as the main dimension of organisation remains âcommunity.â Iâm a bit over-attached to âcommunityâ b/c I feel thatâs a defining element of Lemmy experience & am afraid that touching that balance may change the essence.
(3) Tags can be used to achieve (2) indeed but is the added complexity (â) to the codebase and UI/UX worth it?
I often like to browse the âAllâ view instead of just my subscribed communities. It helps me find new communities, as well as get information from communities I wouldnât normally be interested in. Unfortunately, the most popular communities are mostly meme communities. That content does well to grab users, get upvotes, and have comments. As a result, almost any way you sort âAllâ comes back with Memes at the top unless you block the communities.
OK, I think I see your point more clearly now. I suppose thatâs what many others do (apparently I donât represent the norm ever đ.)
So tags can be useful for not only listening but also discovery.
I guess my concern RE tag & community competing. But Iâve got no prior experience designing a social/community based application to be confident to take my case to the RFC.
Hopefully time will prove me wrong.