IIRC, PF-dev Rimu recently explained exactly why he was trialing such limits in a recent software update post. I.e., to create a more efficient internal & external software / HW backbone, for us users, AFAIK. Based on network / host / server loads etc, as I read the updates.
But yeah… the amount of recent negative reaction so far upon that seems… weirdly outsized?
(like, WTF?)
Like-- who the heck comes here exhausted upon corporate social media, and expects a free, open-source community of devs not to tinker with the road-posts and such…?
Pardon my puzzlement here, but I’m a happy PF contributor, and love @PugJesus@piefed.social. Both the dev here and PJ are friends of a sort, and some people I will always try to support.
Honestly, my opinion is that any vote quota that applies universally is unreasonable and development effort would be better spent identifying the small percentage of accounts that may be abusing the system / manipulating votes and applying a quota to those accounts specifically or making it easier to deal with those identified accounts in some other way.
Like, looking at the modlog, you’ll often see bans with “vote manipulation” as the reason, so that seems to be working fine for everyone else. Maybe put development effort into making those easier to identify rather than arbitrarily limiting everyone who interacts with your instance.
And I’m not convinced that the underlying reason(s) for having the quotas holds water, so if I have a bias here, that would be it.
Well the vote quota is set above average normal human reaction. How it is not a tool to identify bot ?
Once they switch to their alt account, can’t we detect more easily bot ?
Anyway since the beggining that’s how piefed was crafted. It was against bot, vibe coding…it hasn’t changed.
240 votes in a day is not above ‘average normal human reaction’.
That’s a lot. How it is limiting your activities as you told us earlier ?
If you stop posting, that’s just the choice you made, that’s not due to the voting quota. You may claim it limit your activity because you disagree with this, but there is only yourself there.
I said, multiple times, that I hit the vote quota before it was even announced.
“It only enshittifies one part of your experience! It’s your fault if that makes your overall experience not worth it!”
🙄
Fuck me if I know, mate, but my takeaway was that such was the plan…?
That’s supposedly part of the justification for the quota, but it hasn’t been shown or proven those top 3% or whatever are engaging in any malicious behavior. And it brings me back to "why not just investigate that 3% and deal with them individually? Or make reporting/tools to examine the behavior of those “problematic” 3% of users?
I’ve been outside working in the heat, so the best comparison I can come up with at the moment is how ISPs use the top 3% of power users to justify data caps for everyone.
*3% used as a “low percentage of users” since I don’t remember the exact numbers from the explanation post about this.
Mate, what “Iced Raktajino” level of anything possibly matches that level of hostile insecurity…?
PugJesus already shared with you a link from Rimu - https://piefed.social/comment/12082419 - showing that Rimu knows precisely who those people are. They aren’t bots, they are humans who contribute to the Threadiverse in the form of votes.
If they are acting nefariously… then I would not know, bc we are not told who they are. But in theory, if they were, then yeah, just ban them? Or honey pot them I guess?
What exactly are you trying to say…?
You said that it was already the plan to go about:
I was pointing to a post showing that such had already been done, and the results of an analysis of such. There really is a lot of information about this subject, if you want to read about it - the link I sent, authored by Rimu himself - is a great place to start.