We’ve had to create a new sidebar rule, we won’t be enacting it retroactively because that just doesn’t seem fair, but going forward:

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
  • ono@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    if this community has any hope of being anywhere near as comprehensive in coverage as the News Subreddits

    I left Reddit on purpose.

    I would rather have quality than volume.

    I would rather my news feed be diverse than dominated by one or two self-appointed influencers of discourse. (Even if they have good intentions.)

    I approve of this rule. Ten articles per person each day is more than enough at this stage, and the threshold for “too much” can always be adjusted as the community grows.

    • bamboo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The only reason they might dominate is because they do the posting. Anyone can make a post, if other people aren’t posting it seems silly to penalize the ones who are, spam excluded.

      • ono@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        if other people aren’t posting it seems silly to penalize the ones who are

        I suppose that’s an easy statement to agree with. However, a sensible rate limit is not a penalty.

      • Andy@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I understand your sentiment, but I think u/jordonlund is right.

        When someone posts nineteen articles, they’re likely posting everything that they’re seeing, and not even finishing articles. There’s no selection process. They’re not picking good articles, they’re just acting on reflex.

        Articles should be posted because a reader actually thought that they were uniquely valuable.

        • bamboo
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I don’t think the requirements should be so stringent. Anyone with an RSS reader knows you can at least skim hundreds of articles per day. They shouldn’t have to be the best or most valuable, the only hurdle an article must clear is that it is interesting enough that someone wanted to post it. Then it’s up to community voting to sift through and promote the best ones.

          • Andy@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I think we’ll just have to recognize that our opinions on this differ. Because i very much don’t want the product of someone skimming hundreds of articles a day. That sounds more like reading a firehose of headlines. I don’t think you can get the kind of nuanced, incisive information that I come to a place like this for.