Due to the large number of reports we’ve received about recent posts, we’ve added Rule 7 stating “No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.”
In general, we allow a post’s fate to be determined by the amount of downvotes it receives. Sometimes, a post is so offensive to the community that removal seems appropriate. This new rule now allows such action to be taken.
We expect to fine-tune this approach as time goes on. Your patience is appreciated.
oh damm … I was enjoying seeing screenshots of everyone’s architecture …
This is a tough one. “Low effort” is where engagement metrics start dictating what kind of discourse we get. I think the real metric should be whether someone read what came before and actually responded to it.
We built a project trying to measure public opinion through thoughtful email replies instead of hot takes and quick reactions. The pattern I see is that most “engagement” is people pasting headlines, quoting selectively, or dropping one-liners. The good stuff happens when people actually wrestle with an idea.
Moderation works best when it focuses on whether a contribution adds new information or perspective. A short comment can be high effort if it synthesizes well. A long ramble is low effort if it adds nothing.
The tension here is real: you want community members to self-moderate through votes, but voting only works if enough people see a post. Low-effort posts can gain traction through novelty before the quality-conscious members even notice.
The “subjective” part is honest, at least. That beats pretending there’s an objective standard. Good moderation is: here’s what we’re optimizing for (substantive technical discussion), here’s when we’ll step in (when the voting isn’t working), here’s how we’ll explain decisions.
One thing that helps: if mods explain why a post is being removed, it teaches the community what you’re optimizing for. Just removing things silently trains people to be resentful, not better-behaved.
Would you agree that a post written by a LLM is “low effort”?
This is a good point. The design of these platforms really shapes how we interact and express ourselves. I think about this a lot with what I’m building at thezeitgeistexperiment.com where we’re trying to use AI to understand public opinion from text, rather than just rely on engagement metrics. It’s an interesting challenge.
Didn’t downvote, tho I see someone downvoted both of your duplicate comments. Hilarious. That’s a rather interesting project. Is this a local LLM or commercially available?
This is a good point. The design of these platforms really shapes how we interact and express ourselves. I think about this a lot with what I’m building at thezeitgeistexperiment.com where we’re trying to use AI to understand public opinion from text, rather than just rely on engagement metrics. It’s an interesting challenge.
I’ve seen slightly offtopic posts deleted here, even after some interesting conversation in the comments. I think Lemmy is small, and it could help the platform if conversations and posts are preserved even if they are not 100% on topic. But I respect the work of mods, it’s their decision how they run a community, even if I don’t agree with them all time.
But just as a backup, if things take an unexpected turn, here are some similar, but much less active communities:
- !selfhosted@sh.itjust.works
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net
- !homelab@selfhosted.forum
- !selfhosting@eviltoast.org
- !SelfHosted@europe.pub
This is also to the “low effort” posters, if you disagree with your post’s removal you can post it to other similar communities.
Does this include Youtube videos? Or at least Youtube videos without a clear description and summary?
Those constant ad money farming posts really lower the quality of this sub.
Seems there are 2 kinds - video links with almost no text, just farming visits, and video links with a wall of text.
Both suck. Videos, in general, suck.
So much of what goes on here needs text, lots of it. Video is slow and cumbersome.
