this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2026
45 points (97.9% liked)

PieFed Meta

4771 readers
47 users here now

Discuss PieFed project direction, provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics.

Wiki

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
rimu@piefed.social
45
Improvement for the vote quota implementation (cake.kobel.fyi)
submitted 3 days ago by squirrel@cake.kobel.fyi to c/piefed_meta@piefed.social
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

After a couple days of discussions about the newly implemented vote quota, I'm kinda exhausted. It seems like a situation we won't ever agree on. Me personally, I don't want to argue like this over a piece of software that I have high regards for. It tears us apart, where we should work together.

It's okay if there is a quota on piefed.social the instance.
It's not okay if there is a default quota of 240 on PieFed the software - and thus for all instances.

I suggest it should be implemented like this:

  • It should not be a default value
  • It should be an empty input in the admin interface, where instance admins can set a vote quota if they want to, or leave it empty to disable the vote quota.
  • The /about page should display the set vote quota.

That way all instances can decide for themselves and users can see the instances' vote quota transparently.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jakylla@jlai.lu 2 points 3 days ago

Unfortunately, Tournesol association is working on a Bluesky algorithm. But their actual main goal is to make a mathematically good model, they will implement it as a demo on bluesky, but we will be able to use it to work with Mastodon. (The same way the actual Tournesol app for youtube videos is a "demo" of their mathematical model to sort stuff reducing people biases compared to usual notation methods)

As far as I understood, for now, their algorithm uses a mix of Timeline and "Upvotes/Downvotes". Only that up and downvotes would work differently (Massive downvoters will have less credibility for example). To my eyes, it looks like they are trying to make the "Scaled" filter of Lemmy, with more rigorous mathematicalities inside it