Incorporating User Engagement Metrics in Lemmy's Sorting Algorithms · Issue #3563 · LemmyNet/lemmy
github.com
Requirements Is this a feature request? For questions or discussions use https://lemmy.ml/c/lemmy_support Did you check to see if this issue already exists? Is this only a feature request? Do not p...

I’ve noticed that the current sorting algorithms prioritize posts based on votes, which can sometimes lead to posts with high votes but few comments dominating the feed. This may not accurately reflect user engagement. On the other hand, sorting by “Most Comments” disregards votes entirely. I believe Lemmy should consider taking into account multiple user engagement metrics in their algorithms like comments, votes, time spent on a post, etc. What are your thoughts on this? Would you prefer a new sorting algorithm that combines various metrics, adjustments to existing algorithms to include more metrics, or do you like the current sorting algorithms available the way they are?

  • The_Lemmington_Post@discuss.onlineOP
    4·
    8 months ago

    Would it be feasible to expose the metadata for posts in such a way that search queries could be customized to sort a front page any way a user wants to see it?

    There is already such an API endpoint which is available for mods and admins.

    @[email protected] in https://discuss.online/comment/6718715

    Yeah, it would definitely be feasible to expose post metadata for customized search queries. Currently, the data is restricted to admins and mods, but having an API endpoint for users could enhance the sorting options without significant strain on the server. It could lead to more tailored and engaging user experiences on the platform.

    https://discuss.online/comment/6718201

    Perhaps even a sentiment analysis would be interesting to see: serious discussion, jokes and memes discussion, informative posters, political conversation left or right, etc.

    This reminds me of Slashdot moderation and Media Bias Fact Check Integration

    Slashdot moderation

    this was something I loved about slashdot moderation. When voting, people had to specify the reason for the vote. +1 funny, +1 insightful, +1 informative, -1 troll, -1 misleading, etc.

    That way you can, for example, set in your user preferences to ignore positive votes for comedy, and put extra value on informative votes.

    Then, to keep people from spamming up/down votes and to encourage them to think about their choices, they only gave out a limited number of moderation points to readers. So you’d have to choose which comments to spend your 5 points on.

    Then finally, they had ‘meta moderation’ where you’d be shown a comment, and asked “would a vote of insightful be appropriate for this comment” to catch people who down-voted out of disagreement or personal vandetta. Any users who regularly mis-voted would stop receiving the ability to vote.

    I don’t think this is directly applicable to a federated system, but I do think it’s one of the best-thought-out voting systems ever created for a discussion board.

    edit: a couple other points i liked about it:

    Comments were capped at (iirc) +5 and -1. Further votes wouldn’t change the comment’s score.

    User karma wasn’t shown. The user page would just say Karma: good. Or Excellent, or poor, or some other vague term.

    https://beehaw.org/comment/208569