Yet another federated digital space

This is a bonfire instance for testing purposes. Federation is disabled for this instance.

Recent activities

@ivan

With this entry, <1 day of engagement here. Enticed by some posts by https://xn--ocane-csa.fr/ on #Mastodon and their website. I've only just started to read https://bonfirenetworks.org/docs/ and https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/

See document: https://www.platformaccountability.com/proposal, then scroll to the bottom. It shows some suggested measurements and some objectives for those measurements. Some for within a post/thread and some situated elsewhere TBD. The white paper contains more detail.

So sorry to be commenting without completely reading the specs first. Understood this particular comment period was for 2 weeks, and unsure I could finish and grok the specs in time to have a worthy basis for comment. I couldn't find a reference to the platform accountability document anywhere in the #Fediverse yet (but that be my weakness in search skills here). Wanted to be sure this work was known. Seemed like there were at least overlapping goals in the bonfire measurement goals noted here and the platform accountability goals.

@CynthesisToday @mayel the White paper looks extremely interesting...thanks for sharing, will read it over the weekend and get back to you 馃槉

@ivan @mayel @edumerco

https://www.connectedaction.net/tag/threaded-conversation/

Perhaps there is an idea for an algorithm in this report.

Here's another example of quantifying elements of a thread with real world example: https://sites.dartmouth.edu/learninganalytics/2016/01/26/the-application-of-social-network-analysis-in-canvas-discussion/

From a data portability perspective, when an actor moves themselves (and their past posts) to a new instance, each post in a thread can contain a vector of the original posting "punch" based on metrics. When the actor's past posts are discovered by the actors of the new instance it may spawn a new thread graph. This implies these "punch" metrics are supported in the new instance. Maybe as a microsyntax?

At present, our discussion page lacks any statistical data about the thread, a feature that is pretty common in most of social networks or forums. These platforms typically display a total count of replies, boosts, likes, and participants.

Take Discourse as an example, a platform with a great UX for productive conversations. Discourse displays the list of links shared in a post and provides a statistical box that details thread engagement. This includes also an approximation of the time required to read through the entire thread, if significant.

What are some meaningful statistics we must/should incorporate for the Bonfire 1.0 release? We are seeking to find statistics that can effectively foster engagement in discussions without solely promoting addictive behaviors. Any thoughts or suggestions ? #bonifre_feedback

@ivan

With this entry, <1 day of engagement here. Enticed by some posts by https://xn--ocane-csa.fr/ on #Mastodon and their website. I've only just started to read https://bonfirenetworks.org/docs/ and https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/

See document: https://www.platformaccountability.com/proposal, then scroll to the bottom. It shows some suggested measurements and some objectives for those measurements. Some for within a post/thread and some situated elsewhere TBD. The white paper contains more detail.

So sorry to be commenting without completely reading the specs first. Understood this particular comment period was for 2 weeks, and unsure I could finish and grok the specs in time to have a worthy basis for comment. I couldn't find a reference to the platform accountability document anywhere in the #Fediverse yet (but that be my weakness in search skills here). Wanted to be sure this work was known. Seemed like there were at least overlapping goals in the bonfire measurement goals noted here and the platform accountability goals.

@ivan Maybe show the number of flagged/reported posts?

Usually when I see many posts being flagged it's a sign of the thread going wildly off-topic or even attracting bad actors. I then stay away from that discussion. However, e.g. in Discourse I won't know until I have read through the posts. Having that metric on the top post would help me spend my time and engagement elsewhere.

Thinking of risks, maybe showing flag stats would attract more of the same? I would hope not in an otherwise functional community, but some people seem to gather around car crashes or houses on fire.

@lne @ivan This does make me think though that maybe showing some metrics (like boosts and likes) as an aggregate for an entire thread (instead of for an individual post or comment) may be interesting indicator while being less connected to ego and addiction?

@ivan Maybe show the number of flagged/reported posts?

Usually when I see many posts being flagged it's a sign of the thread going wildly off-topic or even attracting bad actors. I then stay away from that discussion. However, e.g. in Discourse I won't know until I have read through the posts. Having that metric on the top post would help me spend my time and engagement elsewhere.

Thinking of risks, maybe showing flag stats would attract more of the same? I would hope not in an otherwise functional community, but some people seem to gather around car crashes or houses on fire.

@lne super interesting, wondering if it is a valid metric though and in which ways it may have privacy implication ? A thread may have a lot of flagged activities because it talks about a complex topic (covid, politics, religion, gender ...) and users want to properly moderate it, on the contrary a thread without flagged activities may be just not moderated at all and being full of trolls ?

Maybe we can show a label only when the amount of flags exceed a certain amount (eg. after 30 flags on the whole thread) - as an indication 馃

Hmm gotcha, I'm not sure if I did or not. They were green toggles. I see the new interface now for the custom roles and I no longer see the built-in roles.

fyi we're planning a round of user design session with @dajb to fine tune the current custom permissions and roles UX/UI - as they're still confusing ( and they're one of bonfire core features )

At present, our discussion page lacks any statistical data about the thread, a feature that is pretty common in most of social networks or forums. These platforms typically display a total count of replies, boosts, likes, and participants.

Take Discourse as an example, a platform with a great UX for productive conversations. Discourse displays the list of links shared in a post and provides a statistical box that details thread engagement. This includes also an approximation of the time required to read through the entire thread, if significant.

What are some meaningful statistics we must/should incorporate for the Bonfire 1.0 release? We are seeking to find statistics that can effectively foster engagement in discussions without solely promoting addictive behaviors. Any thoughts or suggestions ? #bonifre_feedback

@ivan Maybe show the number of flagged/reported posts?

Usually when I see many posts being flagged it's a sign of the thread going wildly off-topic or even attracting bad actors. I then stay away from that discussion. However, e.g. in Discourse I won't know until I have read through the posts. Having that metric on the top post would help me spend my time and engagement elsewhere.

Thinking of risks, maybe showing flag stats would attract more of the same? I would hope not in an otherwise functional community, but some people seem to gather around car crashes or houses on fire.

@smitten Did you try actually toggling them? The UI might not be clear but they're read-only. We've only just deployed custom roles and the editable toggles there have a different design.

Hmm gotcha, I'm not sure if I did or not. They were green toggles. I see the new interface now for the custom roles and I no longer see the built-in roles.