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.
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.
Disagree. You should politely state why you disagree. Engagement is good for newer websites like lemmy and you don’t need to be rude or combative to disagree. One of my issues with reddit is when people would get downvoted for making a fair point or observation.
I really should have clarified this because it seems like a contradiction for me to state that down voting is bad, and to say that when you see something worthy of a downvote, downvote and move on.
When I say worthy of downvote, I don’t mean a disagreement. I’m talking about people being obviously toxic. If malicious people want a reaction, giving it to them is not productive.
For example, if I see a post about plant based meals, and a comment states “I’m not convinced that this is really helping the planet, I don’t see a problem with eating meat” - then engage politely.
But a post like “fucking vegans lol, I’m going to eat 2 steaks tonight” is not worth replying to. Downvote and move on.
Showing the reason you edit a post isn’t dumb, its to give a valid reason so people don’t think you edited to make someones response look bad. Saying its for context, adding a word or whatever just shows you didn’t edit it maliciously.
The whole “edit: thanks for gold and I can’t believe my most upvoted comment was about editing!” can go away for sure though
This argument never really made sense to me. Anyone who is being deceptive is not going to tell people they’re editing their comments.
It’s the result of nothing more than a moral panic. There aren’t roving bands of keyboard warriors rolling around making comments and then editing them to make others look stupid.
And even if there were, they could just include “edit: typo” and get away with it. Unless someone takes screenshots.
I think it says more about the community that everyone is expected to prove their innocence. Let’s have a little faith in each other, we’re better than that.
It makes sense to me and I’ve been editing comments this way since the early 2000’s. For some, it’s a cultural practice that’s probably decades old.
If the platform didn’t state the comment was edited, I probably wouldn’t bother but if it does, there is always a thought at the back of the reader’s mind about what happened. Leaving a note about editing negates the thought. Leaving pointless edits less so.
I find it more ethical and transparent, particularly in discussion threads where debates are being held.
I get it as a cultural thing, but it makes no sense epistemologically.
An unethical person would not state they changed their comment, and a malicious person would state their edit was mundane. Those two factors alone render the practice of proving your innocence in advance moot.
I think it’s sad that people reflexively assume the worst. I used to engage in some heated debates on Reddit, but I was never accused of, or assumed the other person edited their posts to make me look bad. It seems like paranoid behaviour to me.
Strangely enough, if it became the norm to correct typos without stating it, the default assumption would be that the edit was a typo correction.
My take for the fediverse would include:
-
Again, downvote not for disagreement but for content that clearly does not contribute to the discussion. Reason should not be given, as downvoting should be done sparingly and should not require a reason (for most sane human beings).
-
Be aware when interacting cross-instances. Culture, norms, and rules may differ.
-
Unless the instance operator is fine with it, limit your self-content sharing and self-promotion.
-
Remember that most of the fediverse instances are independent and they owe you nothing. The instance operator’s decisions are final.
-
Do not squat names on multiple servers unless it’s what you generally have been using.
-
Cats are still the supreme beings. The fediverse resides on the Internet (assuming that it runs on TCP/IP), so the cat supremacy rule applies.
-
I only agree with two rules: be awesome to each other (if in kind) and downvote is not a disagree button, it’s a troll button.
Dictating other rules, like the use of the edit keyword or how to measure scale of something… Is not awesome.
I like the “edit:” append if I edited something, just to make it clear for whoever comes later.
What’s the problem with it?
I’m very curious as to what people’s view on etiquette is regarding submitting your own content. I write a weekly newsletter about the fediverse which is pretty relevant to this community for example. But I’m also quite aware of reddiquette thats pretty hesitant on submitting your own stuff, as it can get spammy really fast. Would love to hear.
I rate this post 0.5
bannanasbananas. edit: typoWe don’t need to append “edit: typo” to edited posts and comments.
I didn’t do that because it was reddit etiquette. I did it because people can see I edited my post, and I would like them to be able to see why
Why tell them you fixed typos? What’s the point?
I’ve edited my comments for years to fix typos and clarify statments, and I never once had anyone accuse me of being disingenuous.
And even if they did, that’s their, and their conspiratorial mind’s problem.
Because otherwise people don’t know why I edited the post. Did I change my opinion? Did I add some context or detail I missed the first time around? Or did I just fix a typo? A reason just makes it easy for people to have more context
That’s the thing though, it’s a paradox.
Anyone who is considerable enough to use “edit:” for legitimate reasons would not be the people who would be deceptive and change their posts to reflect a new opinion.
“edit: typo” is essentially just a defense against an imaginary accusation that you were being malicious.
By all means, edit posts to include extra information as an appendage, but closing with “edit: added info” is not very helpful.
You misunderstand. I’m not doing it so that people know that I made a legit edit, I’m doing it so people know what the legit edit I made is.
but closing with “edit: added info” is not very helpful.
Who is doing that or arguing for that? Vague edit descriptions aren’t terribly useful, and I’m not claiming otherwise…
Okay I get you. I thought you were literally typing “edit: typo”, as opposed to something like “edit: she was my sisters friend”
I guess we both misunderstood each other lol. I wasn’t implying that was your argument, it’s just something I find annoying.
I mean, it depends on the context.
Did I make a post, have a lot of people get upset because I worded my post poorly? In which case, a I might make a clarifying edit like “edit: she was my sisters friend” so that future people that see my post don’t get confused.
Did I accidentally type “there’s” instead of “theirs”? I’d probably just edit it with “edit: typo”. Not because people care if I made a typo, but because I want people to know that it wasn’t the first type of edit
I agree the context is important, and the examples of rewriting large paragraphs justify clarification, both for new people and returning.
But the original point I made was that you don’t need to post “edit: typo” here on Lemmy. We don’t have edited post/comment tags, so nobody would know if it’s just typos
It’s really not that big of a deal anyway, I was just thinking of redundant examples of Rediquete to drum up the conversation.
To be honest building a edit history views makes more sense to me. This project is opensource we can do more than work around.
Listen, I’ll measure with a fucking banana if I feel like it, okay. Don’t tell me what to do pal.
deleted by creator
I’m an old age redditor, and that was may reddiquette, “don’t downvote just because you don’t like the topic, maybe other people find it interesting”.
Mostly I don’t downvote at all, only on some rude or spam posts.
Reddit just become something where everyone downvote everything for no reason, even if just say “OK” ou “that’s cool”!
On Lemmy (ate least for now), not so much or I don’t see it.If you see a post “orange is the best color”, don’t downvote just because you don’t like orange, leave a comment and express your opinion instead
PS: There’s an old Reddiquette song, the same can be applied to fediverse
https://youtu.be/4fLpktf2jYwDownvoting breeds toxicity. It’s regrettable that we are wired to feel validated and rejected by numbers, but if we admit that, we should understand that unnecessarily putting someone into the negative numbers ultimately hurts everyone.
I really want Lemmy to cultivate a community which epitomises virtues of civility. Reserve down votes for uncivil behaviour.
Seems like kinda a toxic way to start that. Why are you trying to dictate who should post what and how they do it? Maybe someone wants to measure in bananas. Maybe someone wants to clarify their edit. I don’t see the point of the post if you’re not looking to tease out anything but an unnatural result.
Lemmy will be whatever the humans that make it will be.
This reply triggered an unhealthy emotional reaction in me. I interpret the tone as accusatory and leaves little room for a charitable interpretation of what I said. I don’t feel like I can respond to your criticism without arguing.
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.
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.
What’s so wrong about using bananas for scale?
That’s their thing. You don’t take your new partner to the spot where you fell in love with your ex. That’s just weird.
That seems like a weird comparison…
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).
If you add more context to your comment then sure mention it. But I don’t think it’s required for typos.
