6 ms·

I used to think that it was not only this, but the rate at which a group grows. Lobste.rs used to be interesting, but it either grew too much or the rate excee

by _k9eq 4y ago

I used to think that it was not only this, but the rate at which a group grows. Lobste.rs used to be interesting, but it either grew too much or the rate exceeded some point, but it has been moderation issue for a while now. I don't know if a more complicated moderating system would help (having some kind of a priority invite system, limiting the number of invitations per month).

dredmorbius 4y ago
Failure to grow, or at least to turn over users with time, is also a problem. Ultimately you end up with a dominant cohort which ages through the system. For various reasons, Diaspora* seems quite prone to this. I have a number of suspicions as to why, though stagnent development and either intentional or incidental decisions which have made the platform almost perfectly opaque to general web search seem to be likely factors. Mastodon, by contrast, seems to acquire a new major group of new adopters every year or two, that I've noticed. (I'm active on both platforms.)
- daptaq 4y ago
  > Mastodon, by contrast, seems to acquire a new major group of new adopters every year or two, that I've noticed. Could you give an example?
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    I came on board with the April 2017 contingent. There was another group that showed up ~July/August 2018. Notable amongst those was the actor Wil Wheaton, who discovered Mastodon had trolls too, and left shortly after. (Mastodon's anti-abuse practices and tools evolved as a result. Sorry, Wil.) There was a group of Indian users who came aboard following oppression of opposition groups in that country, a few years ago. Musk's Twitter bid has initiated yet another. There may be others, and there seems to be a general secular growth trend. Retention amongst new adopters varies --- there's definitely a fall-off curve. But on balance, the trend for now seems to be growth, and the result is an evolution of participants rather than a static set.

by _k9eq 4y ago

dredmorbius 4y ago

Failure to grow, or at least to turn over users with time, is also a problem. Ultimately you end up with a dominant cohort which ages through the system. For various reasons, Diaspora* seems quite prone to this. I have a number of suspicions as to why, though stagnent development and either intentional or incidental decisions which have made the platform almost perfectly opaque to general web search seem to be likely factors. Mastodon, by contrast, seems to acquire a new major group of new adopters every year or two, that I've noticed. (I'm active on both platforms.)

daptaq 4y ago
> Mastodon, by contrast, seems to acquire a new major group of new adopters every year or two, that I've noticed. Could you give an example?
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  I came on board with the April 2017 contingent. There was another group that showed up ~July/August 2018. Notable amongst those was the actor Wil Wheaton, who discovered Mastodon had trolls too, and left shortly after. (Mastodon's anti-abuse practices and tools evolved as a result. Sorry, Wil.) There was a group of Indian users who came aboard following oppression of opposition groups in that country, a few years ago. Musk's Twitter bid has initiated yet another. There may be others, and there seems to be a general secular growth trend. Retention amongst new adopters varies --- there's definitely a fall-off curve. But on balance, the trend for now seems to be growth, and the result is an evolution of participants rather than a static set.