Skip Navigation
Fediverse @lemmy.world
PumpkinDrama @reddthat.com

Lemmy User Feedback and Improvement Thread: Share Your Complaints, Suggestions, and Ideas

I'd like to invite you all to share your thoughts and ideas about Lemmy. This feedback thread is a great place to do that, as it allows for easier discussions than Github thanks to the tree-like comment structure. This is also where the community is at.

Here's how you can participate:

  • Post one top-level comment per complaint or suggestion about Lemmy.
  • Reply to comments with your own ideas or links to Github issues related to the complaints.
  • Be specific and constructive. Avoid vague wishes and focus on specific issues that can be fixed.
  • This thread is a chance for us to not only identify the biggest pain points but also work together to find the best solutions.

By creating this periodic post, we can:

  • Track progress on issues raised in previous threads.
  • See how many issues have been resolved over time.
  • Gauge whether the developers are responsive to user feedback.

Your input may be valuable in helping prioritize development efforts and ensuring that Lemmy continues to meet the needs of its community. Let's work together to make Lemmy even better!

146 comments

  • A mute community in addition to block community. There are communities i may not want to see in my feed, but I might want to look at them. Currently my only option is to block and then offi want to check them out i have to unblock.

    • One thing you can do there is to take advantage of federation and jump to an instance where you are not logged in, which will then display all of the comments. On the web UI, the multicolored Fediverse icon works fantastic for this purpose, as it will jump straight to the comment that you want to see (although the hidden ones would be below that, or perhaps you would rather go to the post itself).

      e.g. for me, I am reading your comment at https://discuss.online/post/12642239/11643668, but the multicolored button would take me to https://sopuli.xyz/comment/12447782, which I do not have an account on hence nothing under that would be blocked for me there.

  • I will suggest filtering, by term and by source URL. I think it would help customize individual feeds, making it easier and perhaps more comfortable navigating the news.

    Example A: term filtering: This should be fairly obvious. Say I'm a Linux user who could care less about KDE. But people keep gushing over it in the Linux subs I subscribe to, and the damn developers keep pushing new releases that also get posted. Argh! Filter out posts (maybe even comments) that mention KDE, Bob's your uncle. And I can still enjoy all those delicious GNOME posts. Definitely not a real world inspired scenario.

    Example B: URL filtering: Simply(!) filtering out link posts by source URL. Not a fan of Fox News and/or WaPo? Filter out one site or the other by root URL, like *.foxnews.com or *.washingtonpost.com. Me, I'd gladly filter out all and any YouTube links unseen by default. That's a constant noise generator I could genuinely live without. But I digress.

    I hope the examples illustrate my point because I could clearly never explain a feature request succinctly nor to the point.

  • Actual functional user blocking. I don't want users being able to see my comments and reply to them when I have blocked them and I was totally surprised when they did.

    • It's concerning how this happened to you before…

      • Yep, and it wouldn't be very far back in my history if you want to see it. My last comment in that convo started with "ugh". I was talking about transgender issues with someone who was extremely argumentative and kept strawmanning my beliefs so I told them in no uncertain terms that I was done with the conversation and blocked them. Later I decided to unblock them and discovered that they had replied not only to that final comment continuing to tell me I'm a bad person for their strawman interpretation of what I said, but to another comment I made in a different thread.

        So this person who is actively insulting me also has the ability to follow me around and continue insulting me, and blocking them just makes me unable to defend myself.

  • I would like to have the ability to follow a Lemmy user, in the sense of seeing their posts in unblocked communities.

  • We need an RSS feed for saved posts, but the Devs seem to think it would be a privacy issue. Now idk what kinda Fucked up porn They're saving on Lemmy but I just want to read the articles I save on here in my RSS reader.

    • Just implemented it for fun on my instance (lemmings.world). Sadly you need to be a user of that instance for it to work. When logged in you go to https://lemmings.world/rss/init, afterwards a link is shown (among other information) that looks something like https://lemmings.world/rss/4e6490fe0613f6e2e03cd420f71df14476e769b57604652921c1a7b2150f0888 - that is your personal RSS feed of stuff you saved with a URL that cannot be guessed automatically (the hash is entirely random).

      It could be made to work for all instances, but that would take me a while. You can also ask the admins to install the app on their website (it's open source and can be found at https://github.com/RikudouSage/LemmyPersonalRss).

  • Help promote longer discussions by using the sidebar to display comments initially sorted by "New". Give options to filter comments by Community, Local, Subscribed, Mod View or All.

  • I think by default bots should not be allowed anywhere. But if that's a bridge too far, then their use should have to be regularly justified and explained to communities. Maybe it should even be a rule that their full code has to be released on a regular basis, so users can review it themselves and be sure nothing fishy is going on. I'm specifically thinking of the Media Bias Fact Checker Bot (I know, I harp on it too much). It's basically a spammer bot at this point, cluttering up our feeds even when it can't figure out the source, and providing bad and inaccurate information when it can. And mods refuse to answer for it.

  • Downvotes are an inherently unequal proposition, as they are now implemented. This allows everything from near and dear friends who respectfully disagree to randos with day-one accounts who don't even know what a community is all about, to brigading events organized in a larger community (possibly on Reddit or in Matrix or Discord or such). e.g. iirc I can user-block someone or even an entire instance, but in retaliation they can see my profile and downvote everything I have ever done, or have a bot do so within seconds of new material coming out. Which would affect its discoverability.

    Potential solutions would be to make them no longer anonymous, and/or when you block a user or an instance then they can no longer downvote that content - just like a user-level defederation. As it is now, user-level blocks are extremely weak and even notifications can be delivered by simply tagging someone's username.

    • There are instances where downvotes are disabled, if you don't like them you can just use an instance like that.

      Downvotes are public and not anonymous, but they are hidden in Lemmy ui. Afaik you can see who downvotes your posts from Piefed or Mbin. See this thread: https://lemmy.world/post/18805474 or this: https://piefed.social/post/205362

      • MBIN makes upvotes visible, but PieFed doesn't. The thread you linked to is about PieFed anonymising votes, so they aren't revealed on instances like MBIN.

      • Lemmy: exactly - so you can either have all of downvotes or none of them, by picking such an instance, but there is really nothing in-between. Yet another example of "in-between" could be to show like downvotes from only members already subscribed to the community.

        Mbin iirc doesn't allow downvoting at all and instead has its own system of "reduces", which does not federate at all with Lemmy, but instead acts as just another form of it. And yes those are publicly visible, which puts it ahead of Lemmy in this respect.

        Piefed does the exact opposite of what I'm suggesting, even going so far as to hide the identity of downvoters from remote admins, who may need to know such things in order to ban someone who is being consistently abusive. I don't think this is a good experiment. Anonymous polling results would be awesome though, so it depends on which type of "voting" we are talking about here.

        Mostly what I mean is that someone who posts content to the Fediverse has to expose themselves in order to do that. Whereas downvoting goes against that principle, allowing someone to do what looks to 99.99% of Fedizens as an entirely anonymous procedure.

        Also, a viewer can block a poster whose content they dislike and thereby never have to hear from them again, but not vice versa - the recipient has no choice but to receive votes (up or down). Except, as you mentioned, by going to an instance that disables them entirely. Which does not help all the enormous number of members already in instances such as Lemmy.world.

        Hence the roles of content creator vs. viewer are unequal, skewed in favor of the downvoters having more power than the posters. Which can inhibit content creation, and given how lack of content (especially niche) is the primary issue with the Fediverse, it seems like making the roles more equal would help.

    • A more robust approach could involve combining multiple user engagement metrics like votes, reading time and number of comments, along with a system that sorts posts depending on how they compare to their community averages. This system would be less susceptible to manipulation by new accounts or brigading, as it would require genuine engagement across multiple factors to influence a post's ranking.

      Incorporating User Engagement Metrics in Lemmy's Sorting Algorithms

      • In general I find that the comments that tend to contain the highest proportion of batshit insanity across the entire Fediverse - I'm talking reminding me of what it was like to argue with Magats on Reddit - are those from lemmygrad.ml, hexbear.net, and lemmy.ml. e.g., ignoring 90% of what I say while hyper-focusing on a single thing, which they manage to twist into sounding as if I said the exact opposite, while demanding that I provide proof of all of my points, and ofc offering none of their own proof in return, plus what "proof" is offered ends up supporting my own point rather than theirs... It's fucking exhausting.

        And moreover it's relentless. So it would seem that my options are to either move to Lemmy.cafe - the only one who has defederated from all of the big 3 - or block such people one by one, or just put up with it, since user blocking those instances does virtually nothing. Also, they could easily create an alt, on let's say lemmy.world, to accomplish their anonymized downvoting fetishes.:-P

        Do you recall if people are allowed to vote on your content after you've blocked them? Even if so though, those user blocks of instances (as compared to user blocks of users) would not block downvotes (they don't even block showing of content, plus notifications can even still be sent just by tagging the recipient's username), so someone who downvotes but never speaks up by commenting would go unnoticed.

        Anyway, my own preferences aside, I'm trying to think of what would encourage people to post content more often, and reducing the overall level of toxicity present in the Fediverse seems like it would greatly help with that (even if that ends up being something that you have to curate yourself via blocklists, with mods and admins being unwilling and unable to keep up with such).

  • Displaying profile bios more prominently and encouraging the display of them would help everyone know if the user shared links to their other accounts or other SNS links and whatnot

    This would also help fellow moderators and admins know if the newly created user is a real admin/mod that created a duplicate account or is just an impersonator

  • We are currently missing the ability to report user accounts.

    • Can't you report a comment for that?

      • Not really. A reported comment rarely even gets evaluated in the context of what it's replying to, let alone a long history. It might make sense to allow a user report to link comment/post examples of why a user is toxic to the user report. I know there are a couple of users I would've used that for.

  • The decentralized nature of Lemmy, while appealing in theory, creates significant frustration in practice due to widespread instance blocking. Finding an ideal instance becomes a daunting task, as users must navigate a complex web of inter-instance politics and restrictions. This challenge is further compounded for those who prioritize factors like low latency or specific content policies. Lemmy's architecture heavily favors instance-level configurations, leaving individual users with limited control over their experience. The only reliable solutions seem to be either hosting a personal instance—a technical hurdle for many—or simply hoping that your chosen instance's admins align with your preferences and don't block communities you enjoy. This politicking ultimately undermines the platform's potential.

    • I agree, one thing that should be available when choosing an instance is to be able to easily tell the blocks from instances.

      Also, IMHO, 90% of instance blocks are childish drama. Lots of instances with the same world view block each other because of admins fighting, and this problem is not exclusive to Lemmy, all activitypub platforms suffer from it.

      The ideal model would be instances be more tolerable and use instance block as last resort only for SPAM or Crimes. And the user itself ban what they don't want to see.

    • I'm not sure on the technical aspect but I think "instance blocking" should be an OPT-IN message sent to users of the instance. For example, say lemmy.world wanted to block lemmy.ml, hexbear, and reddthat. Each instance is added to a "Suggested blocked instance" setting in your profile and a message is sent to the user notifying them the opt-in option is available. Could have a whole list with descriptions besides the instances for why the suggested block option is there. Users would be informed with an actionable option and not automatically opted in. Could just be a toggle-able switch list in user settings.

      • That just won't work. First and foremost, I won't be hosting illegal stuff, just so you can have your freedom. Think child porn and stuff. Happened multiple times on Lemmy and probably will happen again. If you haven't seen it, your admin most likely has and dealt with it.

        And with stuff like Hexbear and other troll instances, I just don't want to deal with tens of reports a day, I simply block them because they're trolls.

        If you want that kind of freedom, you have to create your own. I'm not gonna spend a significant amount of time on reports that can be avoided. And definitely not going to prison.

    • Example 1: when one side wants to bully the other, but the latter does not wish this, how do you solve this problem? Defederation it is then.

      Example 2: when someone claims that the Tiananmen Square massacre did actually happen, that user gets blocked from all communities, including those they have never heard of, on lemmy.ml. This is not so rare - and this is straight from the Lemmy developers themselves, i.e. a feature not a bug. It does no good to pretend otherwise.

      Example 3: when people refuse to label their kiddie porn properly, others must label it for them, or risk getting into trouble themselves, bc regardless of what some other website chooses to host, the federation model says that if your instance federates with it, then it is content that you are sharing as well. Though actually, I find the Fediverse mostly friendly in how it labels NSFW content, yet it refuses to label toxicity in a like manner - e.g. the brigading attempts organized on hexbear against other communities on different instances. If only a label could be affixed to Chapotraphouse, like "beware ye who choose to enter here...":-).

      I find your comment extremely biased towards your own POV and desires, but overall there is much more subtlety and nuance in interpersonal connections, e.g. sometimes women choose the bear, and rather than say that it is "silly", it might behoove people to listen to why that choice may have been made?

146 comments