An account counted as active in a given day if it had posted or commented in previous 2 weeks
I think that it starts around 5-10k but that 20k is kind of the mostly hard limit.
It's been kind of fun to be in a community that isn't just growing to be honest.
There were some banned users who went back to brunch after the inauguration clearly
Meanwhile, chapotraphouse3 's traffic stats continue to impress.
Automod is on the job. Everytime someone posts it reminds them not to.
Did Tabula Rosa and Blanqui get banned from here? I remember them posting here
I feel like the site needs to figure out how to stop using it as an option. It's a real problem for those of us doing advertising, for 5 days now I've had people complaining at me on the TRCM threads and have had to remove it from the posts I make until it gets turned back on because people will just give up trying if they keep getting refused.
Registrations are still turned off. We need them back on.
I also think we need to stop turning registration off as a solution. It's bad. We need to figure out how to solve our problems without that option.
I think some of them will come back with time. Burnout is usually a temporary thing, and if the conditions that caused the burnout are improved then they're going to have all the more reason to feel alright about doing more.
All of them contributed to this project so I suspect they have an emotional connection to it too. As long as the social bridges aren't burned that connect them to people here.
This is honestly fairly positive to see.
The site is comfortably maintaining itself on essentially exactly the same features it launched with. Changes have been slow to really boost new-user acquisition but it is healthily not in any kind of concerning decline. I think that's a win.
I continue to believe that we need those watermark features if acquisition is going to boom.
I dont know, i dont have any way to track the amount of lurkers, though it may be assumed that it correlates with number of active users
Folks, Idk who needs to hear this, but to be successful we need a series of chud riots
I'd like to ask how people feel about keeping registration turned off and moving towards invites only? Maybe supplemented with clearly communicated sign up periods
That's kinda how private torrent trackers operate and I think that system is much more resilient to hostile actors b/c you can trace down who keeps inviting assholes, for example.
I'm just generally suspicious of prioritizing user growth too much - all that wanton expansion has had little effect anyway; maybe focusing inwards a bit more might do us some good, collectively.
Experimenting with this sort of system would need to be key, adjusting it to user feedback and general community mood. I fear that developer capacity might be a substantial hurdle to this, though.
I wouldn't be against invites-only if you provide me specific users with infinite invites for us to use.
Also put the number I've brought here on my profile lmao.
I'm not necessarily for limiting the amount of invites at all, though that's certainly an option to introduce even more friction if we need it.
I think you HAVE to have that in some sort of way otherwise spammers will invite themselves 300 times and the purpose of invites becomes shakier, although you can at least track who is inviting who via it. Something like 5 a week would be fine for most users, and then give trusted users more.
Really think that if this does get implemented it should be on the profile page though, incentive is good. There is absolutely no harm to the site that can come from incentivising people to invite people, in fact it would be extremely beneficial.
If someone uses the system maliciously, of course that should be grounds to cut any further invite privileges. Maybe some limit that no good-faith, actual user will ever hit as a precaution.
And yea, I'm not against implementing it on the profile really. It's probably a more healthy stat to track than most
Perhaps then have a system where admins can ban an account and every account that branches from their invite. For an obvious spam account you can ban it, ban every other spam account they invited, and investigate whoever invited the spammer originally. That way you cut out the root of the spammer tree and all the branching spammer inviting spammer inviting spammer dozens of layers in falls immediately. Admins could use this tool at their discretion, so a person who has previously participated in good faith but now needs to be banned doesnt have to bring down all the other good faith users they brought in.
Have both ways, vouched and unvouched users which are visible separate classes. Posts of unvouched users are always at the bottom and hidden unless clicked upon and upvoted by at least 1-2 vouched users. Unvouched users get a separate class which is established users which is functionally the same as vouched users after hitting some threshold (and honestly if only 2k people are online per day, we could even have a lottery system in which a random draw of the community (like 3 people which don't all have cis-"he" pronouns, and at least 1 user who is active in some transliberation subchapos or so) can look at a user and if the majority say yes, they become established).
My main point: let users do a lot of work, introduce barriers and reduce barriers.
I vibe with your main point and regard a certain level of self-regulation of the userbase as desirable. Not sure about classes though, what with that classless society we all want.
To become a classless society we have to have tools to keep pinkertons out.
I'm all for tools. They don't have to reify class society to be effective is all I'm saying
Completely share that view. We should also look for societal solutions for societal problems instead of technological ones. Though I would still use technological solutions to help societal ones. E.g. bright highlights on the ground of where to walk to find the rest room.
Yes. Just like with your affinity groups where people vouch for each other. The alternative is a lot of work moderating. I am for open websites with dank memes, that none the less are community policed.
I don't think that would actually do anything to reduce the number of wreckers. It might end up just creating a different set of problems especially if the invite system becomes self-reinforcing with people inviting others from the same places and whatnot. I don't really know any "theory" on moderating online forums but I doubt there's really a shortcut to creating a good forum. Just choose moderators very carefully based on proven commitment and have enough of them to deal with the size of the user base. The latest struggle session came from a stupid decision to onboard people from a non-left-wing online space, not because the site was too open. And wreckers (i.e. feds) are always going to have more time on their hands to circumvent whatever clever vetting systems is in place anyways.
Fair points all around, thanks for elaborating. I do think it would give us a bit more leverage but your point about potentially pathologic self-reinforcement is definitely something I worry about too.
As posters tire they rotate back, and fresh posters take their place on the front line allowing the first set to rest and recuperate.
Through this method, we can post infinitely without exhausting our finite supply of posters
I've been working on autowatermarking on and off. This is a bigger priority for me now
Again o7. This is great news. Thanks a ton for everything
Yeah, it's a bit of a pain cause I had it completely working, but we updated to a newer pictrs which outdated my previous implementation. Now after that weird exploit I want to try to move from imagemagick to a unified ffmpeg solution, and then if you're doing that why not support full video uploads?
