Hello everyone,
Opening this thread as a kind of follow-up on my thread yesterday about the drop in monthly active users on [email protected].
As I pointed in the thread, I personally think that having some consolidated core communities would be a better solution for content discovery, information being posted only once, and overall community activity.
One of the examples of the issue of having two (or more) exactly similar Fediverse communities ([email protected] and [email protected] ) is that is leads to
- people having to subscribe to both to see the content
- posters having to crosspost to both
- comment being spread across the crossposts instead of having all of the discussion and reactions happening in the same place.
I am very well aware of the decentralized aspect of Lemmy being one of its core features, but it seems that it can be detrimental when the co-existing communities are exactly the same.
We are talking about different news seen from the US or Europe, or a piece of news discussed in places with different political orientations.
The two Fediverse communities look identical, there is no specific editorial line. The difference in the audience is due to the federation decisions of the instances, but that's pretty much it, and as the topic of the community is the Fediverse itself, the community should probably be the one accessible from most of the Fediverse users.
What do you think?
Also, as a reminder, please be respectful in the comments, it's either one of the rules of the community or the instance. Disagreeing is fine, but no need to be disrespectful.
I'm subscribed to four communities named "fediverse@"something. Yes, it's a bit annoying. But it's also good to have backups, in the sense that I never know which instance might defederate from my own or from others who also use these communities.
Not sure what the point of this post is. Do you want people to vote on which to keep, and which to discard? They already do that. People subscribe and unsubscribe, post or don't, as they please. Apparently, we continuously vote on having four (probably even more) redundant communities.
I was trying to address a point that is frequently raised by people that gave Lemmy a try but are not planning to stay: seeing the same content posted across a few similar communities hinders content discovery, and just provides a worse browsing experience than centralized solutions like Reddit.
This seems to be an issue we should probably discuss, as it may prevent growth of the platform if most of the new joiners face it.
Not trying to be mean, but ... you're making a post about redundancy because other people make posts about redundancy? :D
In these other posts, a frequent answer is: Reddit isn't that much different. A popular example is /r/gaming or /r/games or whatever. Apparently there are multiple subs for the same topic, sometimes with little to no differences.
Then some people object "but that's not the same, they have different names", to which others reply "on lemmy, the full name includes the instance, so we don't have same name communities here, either".
I think, bottom line, the two platforms aren't very different in this regard. On both, users can create new subs/comms even if the exact same content already exists. And they do. Sometimes both survive, sometimes not. On both, users decide "with their feet".
One relevant difference might be that in the Fediverse, redundancy actually has value. It protects against defederation, unstable servers, servers disappearing.
I still see value in combining duplicates. When I see a new community popping up, and I know a very similar thing already exists, I might leave a note in the new community wether they might want to participate in the other community instead. Just in case they were not aware it exists.
But aside from the Fediverse-specific reasons for duplicates, there are additional general reasons, which is why we see the same phenomenon on reddit. For example, people might dislike the moderation in the 'original'. Or one might allow bots, the other not.
While this is my point of view ("it's a non-issue"), I also note it's a topic which is frequently brought up. Apparently, it's frequently seen as an issue. This may be rooted in perception (including the fact that reddit is monolithic, falsly leading to the misconception it would only have one sub for one topic, all while it still has plenty of redundant duplicates) and communication (I got the feeling the fediverse's federated structure is sometimes over-emphasized and creates more worries than necessary).
We probably will get technical solutions like grouping on a user-view level. Maybe some apps already have that. GitHub issues exist.
Aside from technical solutions, people can vote with their feet. It is of course perfectly fine to address and re-address the topic. This might help consolidate similar communities. Personally, I think having a few redundant communities is healthy for the nature of the fediverse.
I'm trying to prevent a scenario that I see could happen: Lemmy stays stuck in its current state for a while, most of the users are leaving because the content is hard to get to, partially due to the number of redundant communities.
Lemmy's userbase keeps focused on the usual 4 core topics: news, memes, tech, foss.
The userbase shrinks back to what it was before the Reddit API changes, hence under 5 thousands monthly active users, talking about this 4 core topics. Most of the enthusiasts go back to Reddit using Rrvanced apps or other tricks.
They can, but I'm always afraid they leave Lemmy altogether rather than just a few communities.