#Fediverse does this happen often to you too?
You found a great post, commented to it, only to find out later that a broad discussion was triggered ... but not on the thread branch you commented on.
So if you didn't bump into it coincidentally you'd be totally unaware of that.
I'd like a Watch Post feature that sends me notification of all activity on the thread.
See also: https://fediverse.town/t/what-features-should-a-community-driven-mastodon-fork-have/60/16
Would you like to have a Watch feature?
@humanetech I'd like a thread to be *a single thread* instead of the multi-branch mess it is now.
@tinyrabbit I can see why you would want that, & I'm sure I'm not going to say anything you haven't thought of already, but my thinking is this.
Suppose there's already a single thread, not too long, easy to read perhaps 10 or 20 toots. But one of the toots in the middle is something to which I'd like to reply. The existing system allows me to do that, whereas having a single thread would force me to tag my comment on the end, even though I'm replying to something further up.
CC: @humanetech
@tinyrabbit My wish is to be able to reply to multiple toots, thus drawing a sprawling conversation back together. Then, additionally, have the ability to render the discussions as graphs, like this:
https://www.solipsys.co.uk/Chartodon/106860815077351260.svg
I've written a discussion system that lets you do that. It's currently find for small numbers of users, and extremely helpful, but pig-ugly, and very parochial.
CC: @humanetech
@ColinTheMathmo @humanetech To me this sort of discussion tree looks quite horrible 😆 I can't imagine the effort it takes to follow that discussion in all its branches, or how frustrated I would be to see virtually the same discussion taking place along a number of different paths. To me it looks like a great way to *socialize*, but a horribly inefficient way to *discuss*.
> To me it looks like a great way to *socialize*, but a horribly inefficient way to *discuss*.
If you refer to #fediverse ( #pleroma, #mastodon et al) then I fully agree with you here. And it is very frustrating to see how much good information is lost in unobserved branches that immediately sink into history to be forgotten about.
@humanetech @ColinTheMathmo It's in the nature of social media to have low information density and short cycles, though. It's an ephemeral medium (and I don't really think we should hold on to posts forever).
I've never understood why people try to use facebook (even facebook groups) or twitter for serious discussions. Each to their own, I guess, but it doesn't work well for me.
@tinyrabbit @humanetech @ColinTheMathmo I've also observed the low density, the short cycles, and regularly consider the purpose of a conversation.
If it's for long-term policy discussions I definitely want that in a discussion forum, mailing list or issue tracker where it should exist for a decade or more. Mastodon I haven't decided about. It's in our power to retain discussions forever but it's not a norm and it's much harder to resolve retention policy on any piece of content than when dealing even with a corporation.
The poll however is about knowing where the action is so valuation comes down to how efficient the fedi should be about drawing attention to the best content (however each user defines best). I'd like it to be efficient without being game-able.
@weex @tinyrabbit @ColinTheMathmo
It is a bit of an issue with microblogging. I've sent numerous "Attention [this and that], contribute to the discussion [here]" with a link to a forum, or lemmy. But hardly anyone does that really. You get good discussion.. as toots, not where you want to have them.
Ppl have an interest to participate, but the external location just adds too much friction. So I end up putting a link to the toot in the forum post. But then people on the forum don't read that.
@humanetech What I've done in the past is to have the discussion spread over several platforms, but then aggregate it "by hand" into DiscDAG. Sometimes people have migrated and had the discussion there directly, others have continued tooting, tweeting, and posting elsewhere, and I've continued to add those under their name to the DiscDAG discussion.That has resulted in a really useful resource.
It's been work for me, but I've been slowly automating it to reduce the work.
CC: @weex @tinyrabbit
@ColinTheMathmo @weex @tinyrabbit
Yeah, that might help, but still.. a lot of work and discipline required.
If #fediverse had a true #forum software that could also federate with #microblogging apps, things might improve.
@humanetech Different people want different things and think in different ways. For example, @tinyrabbit thinks the "One True Way" for discussions is the purely linear forum (PLF), but I think the "One True Way" for discussions is the "Branch and Converge" DiGraph.
I can't cope with the PLF, but I appreciate that others will prefer that.
I have ideas, but not the skillz.
CC: @weex
@ColinTheMathmo @tinyrabbit @weex
As far as these ideas relate to the #fediverse I invite you to elaborate them on the #SocialHub brainstorming companion space on #Lemmy at:
@humanetech I appreciate that you have reasons for suggesting that, but it's yet another platform (YAP), and the mere idea of trying to become familiar on YAP just makes me feel tired all over.
I'm backing off and asking: What are you/we trying to achieve?
There's already large amounts of discussion out there, spread over multiple platforms with varying levels of visibility and accessibility. I can't help but feel that there's got to be a better way to make progress.
CC: @tinyrabbit @weex
@ColinTheMathmo @tinyrabbit @weex
In this case Lemmy is also a (rather new) federated platform. They just released a new version and will be extending the federation support. Interoperability with Mastodon, Pleroma and other microblogging apps is something that is likely to be added in some way or other.
Lemmy is also an example where stuff comes together. The communities you see on the server, may exist in entirely different servers, yet still can you interact with them, be a member and chat
@humanetech I'm happy to accept that it is all that, but I can't visualise the implications of, and opportunities afforded by, all you've said.
It just feels like yet more uncontrolled chaos.
I freely admit that I haven't given it a "fair go", it's just that I'm overwhelmed by "Platform Fatigue", and everything feels very samey.
I wonder if it's the discussion platform equivalent of the "Blub Paradox". I can't see the power because I've been using less powerful things.
CC: @tinyrabbit @weex
@ColinTheMathmo @humanetech @tinyrabbit
I must inquire about the CC:. Is that a feature of some software you're using? Seems one way to solve this kind of thing but like an cc'based email list, it can get a bit verbose and lacks any unsub feature. 😉
@ColinTheMathmo @weex @tinyrabbit
Using CC is nice for clarification, but not needed. The implicit rules are:
- When the mentions are at the top I reply explicitly to the first one
- When there's one at the top and the others below, then these are CC'ed
I sometimes use CC myself, but then to 'drag' some new person into the discussion, i.e. to make them aware of interesting stuff.
@humanetech It might not be necessary, but I find the existing convention of having all the IDs at the top is something that's constantly nagging at me, sucking attention, and creating work. It's like a stone in my shoe ... I can walk with it, but it's a constant low-level annoyance.
But I can't make other people work in a way that's convenient for me, so I just have to put up with it.
CC: @weex @tinyrabbit
@ColinTheMathmo @humanetech @tinyrabbit
Good to know.
My concern was that I was being automatically CC'd on branches of the tree which were not descendants of my reply.
@weex You can check on the chart, but in short, no, I'm just rearranging what's already there, and I'm not dragging you in to a conversation to which you were not already a party.
@weex I'm doing that by hand. When I hit "Reply" here, several IDs are inserted at the head of the toot, even though I'm actually replying to you. So I leave your name at the top, and move the others mentioned to the bottom, preceded by the CC to make it clear that I'm replying to you, although others have previously been involved.
CC: @humanetech @tinyrabbit