I checked some of the forums in the link (https://nodebb.fediverse.observer/list) you posted, but it’s hard to tell what most of those NodeBB instances are actually for: many lack descriptions and the forum names don’t say much. I would have to read a few posts in each forum to figure out what each one is for. I found a literature forum but it only has three posts, I don’t want to make an account just to shout into the void, so I’m trying to post to it from Lemmy.

I tried posting to the literature community I found via Lemmy but the post never showed up on the NodeBB instance. I used Lemmy’s search with the target community URL (https://community.darkscribes.com/category/2/general-discussion), it found the community, and I created a post from Lemmy (https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/54997372). I can see the post on Lemmy but not on the target NodeBB instance. Any idea why that might be or how to get Lemmy posts to appear on federated NodeBB forums?

I think moderating tags is the same as moderating any other content. If there’s a brigade, you can revert all tag changes made by the brigading users the same way you remove content posted by a user when banning them. That said, the moderation system could be improved. Reddit-style moderation is one of the biggest jokes on the internet.

You don’t seem to get my point. For a platform to let me reliably filter a whole topic, the majority of posts need to be tagged with that topic first. Reddit/Facebook don’t do that, they have communities and loose categories, not consistent topic tags across all posts. Twitter only partially does it with hashtags, and hashtags are neither comprehensive nor applied consistently. I’m talking about platform-level, booru-style or collaborative tagging so blocking a tag actually removes the tagged content without me having to unsubscribe from dozens of communities or build giant keyword lists.

There must be some reason why private messaging on this platform is unencrypted. Maybe it’s required by law in some countries, or it’s too difficult to implement.

this was something I loved about slashdot moderation. When voting, people had to specify the reason for the vote. +1 funny, +1 insightful, +1 informative, -1 troll, -1 misleading, etc.

That way you can, for example, set in your user preferences to ignore positive votes for comedy, and put extra value on informative votes.

Then, to keep people from spamming up/down votes and to encourage them to think about their choices, they only gave out a limited number of moderation points to readers. So you’d have to choose which comments to spend your 5 points on.

Then finally, they had ‘meta moderation’ where you’d be shown a comment, and asked “would a vote of insightful be appropriate for this comment” to catch people who down-voted out of disagreement or personal vandetta. Any users who regularly mis-voted would stop receiving the ability to vote.

I don’t think this is directly applicable to a federated system, but I do think it’s one of the best-thought-out voting systems ever created for a discussion board.

edit: a couple other points i liked about it:

Comments were capped at (iirc) +5 and -1. Further votes wouldn’t change the comment’s score.

source

For me, it would mainly be a blend between Tumblr and booru-style image boards, allowing users to follow people and tags, with filtering by tags and collaborative tagging. A trust-based moderation system akin to Discourse. I’d also want the ability to block tags and a Reddit-style tree-like comment system for better discussions. A nuanced voting system similar to Slashdot’s could help finding quality discussions by differentiating between types of content and allowing sorting by these different types.

How is the fediverse software innovating? Lemmy feels just like Reddit and Mastodon seems like Twitter but it doesn’t have algorithms so in practice it feels more like a chat.

Honestly, I wouldn’t recommend adding the feature to mark comments as solutions. Websites like StackOverflow often have many answers that aren’t the best marked as solutions, and I believe platforms like Codidact have learned from those mistakes.

Reputation is a key factor that motivates people to contribute answers. However, StackOverflow suffers from over-moderation due to the reputation gained from moderating. I’m curious about how Codidact has addressed this issue.

Instead, consider allowing users to mark questions as solved rather than comments. Implementing a voting system similar to Slashdot, where users can categorize responses as helpful, funny, or other descriptors, might be more effective. This way, contributors are incentivized to help, as they can gain reputation points. Then a leaderboard showcasing the most helpful contributors on a weekly or monthly basis could further encourage participation.