After using this method to block a user on here I can no longer see the number of votes a comment or a post gets.

I can see it fine when I switch to a browser without uBlockOrigin, but not on FireFox.

Any reason for this?

Edit: I also can't see anyone's username in the comments.

As a new member I am really hesitant to post this but I recently posted an article to ~news that was related to lgbt issues and it was moved to ~lgbt. I fully support a sub section devoted to lgbt but news should be news regardless.

Just because it has an lgbt angle does not mean it should be moved. I'm not even lgbt myself but I find it sort of hurtful that a news article was pushed off ~news. So I ask this, and once again not trying to make waves. But why?

Edit: I would love to be a member of this community as I am personally seeking a less asshole filled reddit alternative. But pushing a news article to another ~ just because it relates a bit more to them shouldn't be a thing. If you are tolerant it relates to us all. And yes I know I posted it in ~news because I was trying to participate and I'm a news junky.

Sorry.

Edit 2: This was a sad sorry way to come in to this community. I apologize.

The main reason I ask this is that, given these types of songs exist mainly to rile up a people in support or opposition to something, which leaves very little serious discussion to be had, other than the top comment offering some context. So what do you think? Given these songs are mostly more about nations, peoples, faiths, I'd probably post them in ~humanities inst of just ~music, but I want other opinions. I also generally make exceptions to sad music of this type, mainly because it's more meaningful.

Clicking a tag provides the search results for that tag in the local group. Since some topics appear across groups, I think it'd be useful to view site-wide results as well, optionally. Does that already exist?

Perhaps the post was posted in the wrong place and can be moved or deleted. But it's not entirely clear.

There is a page: https://tildes.net/groups

Where is it written:

Group name colors: subscribed / not subscribed. You can change your subscription status to a group in its sidebar when you are viewing it directly.

I decided to experiment and unsubscribe from some groups. However, there are no changes on this page. Perhaps it’s just me or I’m doing something wrong.

I don’t believe that there is a way for us to filter out or block comments from other users. Discord has, in my opinion, a decent way of approaching this.

Is there some mechanic like this on Tildes?

(Wouldn’t something like this alleviate our overlord @Deimos?)

Compliments are, technically, to be tagged as 'noise' and often also 'offtopic' for usually being only loosely related to the commment or post they're replying to. But the warm fuzzies empathy is pretty important in a community, and I don't remember seeing an unnecessary compliment anywhere so, unsurprisingly, people don't noise compliments. But they still might clutter space for a potential reply giving advice. So do you think the current arrangement is fine? I personally would probably make a label for compliments which would either be neutral or slightly positive, and maybe publically visible so everyone can (but don't have to) see the compliments of the receiver but I haven't thought about this too deeply.

There's been quite a bit of discussion lately about people don't want to see, but not that much about what sort of content we do want to see. What would you like to see more of?

For the official stance, I'll repost the instructions that most of us are probably skipping over by now.

Tildes prioritizes high-quality content and discussion
Please post topics that are interesting, informative, or have the potential to start a good discussion.
Please avoid posting topics that are primarily for entertainment or that don't have discussion value.

This seems vague, and we probably have different ideas of what's high-quality and what counts as good discussion?

I'm also wondering if we should be here more for the links or for the discussion. When I arrived, I was just happy to find a quiet place where I could post links to articles that I found elsewhere and were particularly interesting to me. (But I think I had gotten into a rut for a while after getting obsessed with the pandemic and politics.) Maybe we should try posting more links?

I've been handing out invites through subreddits such as r/tildes and r/RedditAlternatives. I've noticed, with each batch that @Deimos gives me, there are always a handful that go unused.

Does anyone have any idea why people would go out of their way to request an invite to Tildes but then not use it?

@Deimos has expressed some concern about political discussions in the future here and I'll quote some of it:

Personally, I'd like to try and reduce the amount of politics overall on the site in the near future. It's tiresome, exhausting, and the source of the large majority of the arguments and problems on the site in general. I don't know if I'll need to try to force that to happen or not—hopefully things will start going back to being relatively boring again.

I agree that some people have trouble discussing politics and that, in turn, this causes problems with moderating a space such as Tildes.

However, I believe that it is important for people to educate themselves and, in this case, discussion could be very helpful.

One way in which this could be accomplished here is that politics be discussed in a framework of academics. For example, we could discuss things such as constitutional law or parliamentary democracy.

This is much in the same way that r/AskBibleScholars approaches the Biblical texts in an academic fashion that examines the texts, archeology, etc.

Basically, discuss politics outside of pop culture.

I've skimmed through the Tildes docs and couldn't, specifically, find anything that would address this.

We've all seen what happens when people are misinformed about reality through platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.

Do we have any statistics on how many users have been banned and why they’ve been banned? What information should be or remain public? Some forum sites let you see the banned users post and comment history from prior to their ban; is there any value in that?

Unrelated; how many Tildes-ers are we up to now?

So what I'm talking about is stuff like this 10-video playlist or this 3 video playlist (Emp never actually made it a playlist unfortunately).

So how should we deal with multiple videos from the same person on the same subject?

Should the ability to make 10 link posts and wrap them under a single topic so people can comment on each video individually be a new feature (and if so should we be able to upvote the whole thing or each link individually?)

Should we upload a playlist of all the videos like this?

Should we make a text post with all the video links, like this but with videos instead of chapters?

Or should we do something else?

I've heard many people here like truereddit and the depthhub network and so would probably pop up a lot here but I wonder what other suggestions we might have.

I'd probably like r/imaginarymaps and a lot of related fantasy subreddits. It would probably also be interesting to call more hobby/social/'extravert' subreddits (or, odds are, any subreddit about anything that requires going outside, physical effort/tools or requires multiple people.)

It would probably also be interesting to bring some subreddits for minority/discriminated against groups like r/ainbow, r/TwoXchromosomes or r/transgender.

Lastly, there are namesake subreddits like r/hobbies.

I've found myself ignoring a lot of posts that are simply lifted and reposted from the front page of HN without any meaningful discussion on them.

I wish there was a magic filter that'd auto-ignore posts for me that are currently trending on HN or Reddit, as I only really come here for the niche topics and discussions.

This got me thinking: what does the rest of the community use the feature for?

Sometimes I get into a back-and-forth... heated interaction with someone, and it goes on for a while, and then they stop responding. Afterwords, I might wonder if it was worthwhile. Maybe they got tired of arguing with me, or maybe they just thought the conversation reached its natural endpoint? Rarely, the conversation might end with us explicitly agreeing it was a good discussion, but that's kind of formal and not the usual case online.

Just stopping is my habit as well. If I don't want to talk anymore, I upvote the last comment (if I thought it was good) but don't reply.

In the case of repeated interactions like this with the same person, sometimes I wonder if I'm annoying them by replying to their comments too much, particularly if we disagree often. I've never been explicitly told to go away, but people are often reluctant to say things like that, for good reason since you never know how people will react.

It seems to me that upvotes don't tell me this. Upvotes tell you whether your comments make sense to the crowd. They don't tell you whether the person you're talking to liked your reply. Which seems like it would be good to know. It would be valuable feedback if the goal is to be a better conversationalist. That seems like a good goal to aim for?

I guess we could get in the habit of saying "good point" and all that, and sometimes things can be inferred from what people say if you're good at taking hints, but not all of us are. But we are all trained to upvote things we like already, and it seems like it would be nice to take advantage of that.

To the extent that people like to gather internet points, I wonder what sort of conversation would be encouraged if you got them by writing a good reply from the perspective of the person being replied to? But I guess it could be gamed pretty easily if two people cooperate, so we probably shouldn't keep a total.

Also, think about how this looks from the outside: if you are reading a conversation by two other people in a heated back-and-forth, how do you know whether they're having a good time or not? Maybe it seems obvious, but in some cases a heated discussion might look worse to outsiders than participants. If you could see that they liked each other's comments then it would seem friendlier.

Note that Facebook does tell you who upvoted a comment, but since it tells you everyone who upvoted it, it's even more information, maybe too much.

(This is a followup to @NaraVara's previous topic, focusing on a particular aspect of it.)

It seems like there are not that many new topics posted on Tildes, and that we could post a lot more. But I sometimes find myself reluctant to do so. Don't I post too much already?

Recently there was a survey and apparently many people think Tildes is too tech-oriented. I don't think it's all that tech oriented, not like Hacker News or lobste.rs, but that makes me a little more reluctant to post tech links. (Though, really, other people should post more of the kind of links they want to see.)

I suspect it's not just me. Periodic topics sometimes get a lot of comments. Periodic topics have been started specifically to avoid having too many top-level topics on one subject.

But, why are we avoiding this? What's wrong with posting more links? If this were a social bookmarking site, I'd be saving more links. Maybe I'd save a bunch of accordion links, without any regard for whether people are interested?

It seems like we need something like folders. When new links are posted in a folder, they don't get listed individually at top-level. You could drop a bunch of links in a folder if you felt like it, without feeling like you're monopolizing conversation, because people would have to open the folder to see what's there. Or maybe instead of folders it would be something like creating a playlist. You could start a topic that's basically a list of links, and then anyone can add links to it if they want.

It seems like groups don't really do this, somehow? They feel a bit too open and exposed. Everything shows up on the front page regardless of group. (I mean, you can filter or unsubscribe from groups, but many of us don't. Partly because they're too broad. Who's going to unsubscribe from music just because they aren't interested in some music?)

So instead we use topics and post links as comments. It sort of works, but it's given me a lot of practice at writing markdown-formatted links on a mobile keyboard, and they appear differently in search and aren't tagged.

It seems like links posted within a topic and posted top-level should be more similar in the UI. Maybe if there's some conversation about a link within a topic, a moderator could promote it to top-level? Maybe a lot of topics would start that way, and then the site would feel a bit more full.

Based on replies to this comment there seems to be a decent amount of interest around the topic of reworking voting, so I thought I would start a thread to get some more input. We already had similar discussions about a year ago but it looks like some people's opinions may have shifted somewhat? and as was noted in the comment thread, 1 week wasn't really enough to accurately assess the value of something like making vote counts invisible.

Things to consider:

• Do you think how voting works changes your/other's behavior on this site? and if it does, is this change positive or negative?
• Would you support reworking/modifying voting? If so, how?
• How long should we test said modifications if they are made?
• anything else you consider relevant

I have set up a Microsoft Teams collaborative space very recently. I would love it if more people were involved with this discussion.

If you are interested in joining us, then please send me a private message with an email address that I can use to generate an invitation for you.

What I mean by this is:

Sometimes @Deimos posts something related to his mod/admin work, like saying he will be locking a thread or adding something new, but that's not all he does, he makes regular topics and comments about regular things, he doesn't have need to use an alt-account for that. I feel that when he's talking or posting about his mod/admin work and talking about anything else that interests him should be able to be viewed separately.

Thoughts?

TL;DR: I did not know each individual group had wikis and I find them pretty great (the LGBT and tech ones in particular). Do they get updated regularly, are they searchable via the site-wide search, and who can contribute to them exactly?

I was looking through the "note-taking" and "productivity" tags for recommendations on a new note-taking app when I came across the extension resources wiki article in "Tech". It hasn't been updated recently but it made me realize one of the reasons why I find places like reddit useful is that the "Pinned FAQs", "Beginner Guides to <Hobby>", and "Megaposts" on reddit are an excellent source of (for lack of a better term) "peer-reviewed" recommendations and are often the catalyst for fun discussions.

I have, through my time here on tildes, discovered so many excellent recommendations even by just using the search bar and browsing threads - to the point that if say, a reddit and tildes post give me conflicting recommendations, I would trust the tildes post 9 out of 10 times. The climate of posts here are less inflammatory and the discussion on pros/cons are more calm, friendly, and thought through. I admit they have impacted my views on a bunch of things (not least of which is trying firefox as my main browser).

Are resource dumps like that something that the community here find viable in general? Are there plans for updating their implementation to be more easily accessible or is it too far removed from the discussion-based fluidity of the site? I understand that there are other places online to find information, but rarely do I find it at this level of transparency of bias and (on average) free of any bloat.

I guess I'll end this little thought stream with a thank you for all the people who post here and a curiosity for the future discussions to come. I've lurked a lot and learned a lot.

364 days specifically, and it's 11 PM again, so admittedly it's kinda late to ask this question.

Usually I would pull-up the concerns over no user growth meaning more groups is just more division for less content but this Deimos reply implies otherwise?

These days I was thinking about making UPDATE posts for things I wrote about my personal life. So I typed "update" on the search bar and did not see anything of the sort. Are those discouraged? Was the question simply never asked before? Should I just add more information to the existing post, (without notifying any of the original commenters)?

(I'm tagging as ask.advice and ask.discussion because while my motivation to make this comes from my comments I'm not the only one who this could apply to and deleting coments is very much a general topic.)

So basically, I wrote this comment, noone agrees with it and the contrary takes all are upvoted, so should I delete it? If noone agreed with what I had to say and upvoted contrary answers, then what I said wasn't valuable to anyone, and so I should delete it, right?

This also applies to quite a few comments I have written that have 0 votes like this, this this and this.

In the other hand, measuring a comment's value by how many people voted on it isn't that great and leaving clarifications and tecnical/minor details and if someone replied, even if only to point out your comment as wrong or not so unlikely, so other than the third comment, you can argue they aren't entirely bad. (And leaving someone's answer without a question is pretty bad if someone comes later since they wouldn't know why that answer was there.) So where does one draw the line?

So much for being a privacy conscious site /s

Anyway, my default setting is activity for the last 7 days mainly for the weekly recurring threads, otherwise I'd probably use 3 days.

(Mildly offtopic but an option to separate recurring threads from normal threads might be nice, since if you're using a shorter period for stuff to show up on the homepage, the weekly recurring threads which should be used/active for the whole week kind of don't.)

One thing I'm uncertain about Tildes is how informative its posts are meant to be. I've been keeping myself from posting hype threads about upcoming movies (Dune, Ride Your Wave, etc.).
What type of balance is tildes trying to strike? I'm in favor of shitposting, but against images, since I think text encourages the type of discussion I'm looking for a community. So I'd like to see copypasta, but I'm not sure what the general consensus is.

Edit: I'm looking less for general examples than some sort of hard and clear rule. I'm seeing comments which disagree somewhat and leave ambiguities, but I believe the criteria should be better laid out.

I've been playing Destiny 2 and I have so many questions. I thought about reaching out to people who actually know what they are doing. Since I'm moving away from Reddit and other sites like that I thought about creating a D2 group here on Tildes. However, If it requires "work" as a moderator or something like that I would honestly pass.

So my questions are: can anyone create a group? As a creator do you have to do any "work" on that group?

Thanks

Some replies are directly going to previously read section. It happened couple of times now, I didn't get notification for these two replies, I thought may be I had my browser running in the background. But it happened again for these, replies. I did get notifications for the replies posted in between the mentioned replies.

I browse tildes mostly on mobile using Hermit. One can get notifications on your mobile from hermit lite apps by adding a url and a css selector, I used tildes.net/notifications/unread as the url and [div.logged-in-user-info:nth-child(4)] as the css selector. I did get notification (on my mobile) for couple of times but most of the time I didn't so I deleted the web monitor. It should be noted that I didn't know what I was doing. So how do I fix this? :(

For example, this topic's original title is:

How we monitor our services

I don't like this title because it's not clear who "we" is, so I changed it to:

How Sourcehut monitors its services

I wonder what the Tildes residents think of this and whether we should strive to do it more? And if there are cases where we shouldn't do this?

A little over two years ago Reddit was the obvious choice for me to create this community since I already had built a reputation with the moderators and scholars at r/AcademicBiblical.

At that time I was acquainted with around a couple dozen Biblical scholars. Now, the panel of scholars that I've helped to build at r/AskBibleScholars is well over two hundred and growing.

To be clear, our community is an academic one that is focused on education and learning. On the contrary, we are not religiously affiliated nor interested in espousing any particular dogma so on and so forth.

Recently, I had to implement even tighter restrictions (using AutoModerator; Thanks to @Deimos for this wonderful tool!) and you can read about it here.

Eventually, Reddit will shit the bed and I'd like to, at least, be prepared for when this happens.

Why is it that there is ~tildes and ~tildes.official? Why not just ~tildes and ~announcements? Why not just ~health and ~coronavirus? Why not just ~games and ~game_design?

I understand the appeal of hierarchical tags. However, if posts in subgroups don't collect into their parent groups, then why even have them at all?

https://tildes.net/~tildes/pia/can_someone_explain_subgroups_to_me#comment-55ml

This post has twelve tags

My intuition says that’s too much. I’ve noticing that most people use a lot more tags than I do, but I don’t really know how they work, hence the question: is there such a thing as too many tags? What’s the best practice?

I've noticed that there are certain topics (specifically political ones) that reoccur frequently on this site, which almost never contribute anything of value. These can derail threads, incite hostility between users, push away new users, etc. IMO it is rare that anything new is said, and even rarer that any opinions are changed. Examples include: socialism vs capitalism; should real leftists vote for Biden?; is Biden a rapist?; are Bernie supporters toxic?; etc. I'm not saying these aren't important things to discuss (I've done so myself), but is it really necessary for us to have the exact same arguments basically every day? I personally feel the site would be nicer to use and less toxic overall if these discussions didn't happen. Would there be any downside to simply banning them, at least temporarily? Perhaps until after the US presidential election?