Comment

Comment on **Simplest solution for fragmented communities:** Redirect comments to one post (by asking or with new functionality)

Zaktor@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

This kind of defeats the purpose of having multiple federated communities. Politics on lemmy.world and politics on Beehaw are different communities with different rules and different people who can even see them. Some people are subscribed to individual communities because they like that community, not because they want to join in a free for all with the entire fediverse. They don’t want to go to lemmy.world because the first poster liked lemmy.world traffic or moderation better, they chose the community they subscribed to because they liked it better.

I think the better solution is collecting comments for a particular link in a front-end from all the communities you subscribe to. If you subscribe to three different politics subs and they all post the same link, then all the comments could be displayed at once, either interspersed (with some method of considering traffic when comparing vote totals) or in collapsible sections (effectively like a top level comment for each community).

source

Sort:hotnew top

tvbusy@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
I feel the same too.

I think the merging can be part of the federation process as well. Since I’m going to receive posts from the same server, it can combine these posts and give me back the combined view. There will be some kind of repost ID/link so that the server knows how to combine them.

source
cynber@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
This works for viewing all the comments so far, but it doesn’t solve the discussion aspect since commentors from each community won’t be seeing or responding to the other comments. This is a bigger issue with smaller communities, where they’d mostly be top level comments / chains with minimal depth from each smaller community. Yes you can see all the comments, but the discussion quality is poor.

It’s also not as helpful when the automation fails. Something I’ve found is that the ‘crosspost’ field starts to get crowded on posts that link to a popular website. Combining comment sections from ALL of those posts isn’t as useful as having some intentional action from the OP.

A key aspect about this proposal is that it requires the OP to do something. If it doesn’t make sense for a community (ex. different intents behind the Politics communities), then OP shouldn’t lock their post. If OP does it anyway, then you can downvote that post.

source
- Zaktor@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Everyone who’s subscribed to the same communities will see all of each others’ comments. The ones that won’t be seen are those in communities a user intentionally doesn’t subscribe to, which is a good thing.
  
  And putting the choice of where conversation takes place in the hands of the OP isn’t good. There’s already issues with the first poster in a “no duplicate submissions on the same topic” community getting to set the tone for conversation through title and text. This just makes it worse. Downvoting a bad link still means the conversation is being denied in the community of users’ choice and the solution to that is allowing duplicates, which is just the status quo plus extra spam.
  
  source
  - cynber@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    Everyone who’s subscribed to the same communities will see all of each others’ comments.
    
    This still relies on everyone using the same app/front-end.
    
    I guess I’m thinking about how it would be helpful in more general cases. If someone has an issue with a FOSS app, and they ask about it in two small communities, it would be much better to have the troubleshooting discussion in one place rather than have both communities missing part of the context.
    
    Ultimately in your example, the user can still make both posts, this doesn’t change that. It just directs the comments to one post’s comment section rather than having it spread out.
    
    Still it’s good to think about. Would a good middle ground just be the first implementation then? To link to the post that OP intends to be the main discussion thread, but people are free to ignore that if they want.
    
    source