List of threads detailing the issue
Direct links:
- https://old.reddit.com/r/RedditAlternatives/comments/1frcdxs/it_looks_like_reddit_is_currently_trying_new_ways/
- https://old.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/1fqmwid/has_the_reddit_algorithm_recently_changed/
- https://old.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/1fmo04b/reddit_is_purposely_pushing_political_posts/
You must log in or register to comment.
This is kind of a huge turning point.
It would mean reddit is discarding the biggest thing that makes it different from all the other algo-driven “engagement”-fueled social platforms.
It would mean reddit is discarding the biggest thing that makes it different from all the other algo-driven “engagement”-fueled social platforms.
Yup. And it’s a bad trade in its case - because even if it leads to more engagement, it makes it too similar to considerably larger platforms, so there’s no point staying in Reddit instead of, say, Facebook.
Becoming more like the competition might make sense, if you completely blind yourself to the fact that the customers you do have are the people who don’t like the competition.
This looks like a way to ruin reddit in the long run, half the relevant content will make it half as attractive to visit.
Well, you can’t break something that’s already broken.
Linking directly to reddit makes them show up at the top of search results. You should use archive.org or archive.today links.
Feel free to provide the links, I’ll update the post
Thanks, just updated the post
Glad I could help.
Well you still have the direct links, so it doesn’t make a difference.
You can use the Wayback machine addon to easily get archived links https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wayback-machine_new/.
And a bookmarklet for archive.today:
javascript:void(open('https://archive.today/?run=1&url='+encodeURIComponent(document.location)))Well you still have the direct links, so it doesn’t make a difference.
It does, buy giving people choices?
It reminds me of people who added Invidious links back in the day, but over time the individious instances would go down, preventing people from knowing which content was initially linked.
https://moz.com/learn/seo/domain-authority https://moz.com/learn/seo/backlinks
The best way to influence the Domain Authority metric is to improve your site’s overall SEO health, with a particular focus on the quality and quantity of external links pointing to your site.
With the way this seems to works, can’t we just create thousands of links to let’s say Lemmy.world from all the other instances, to boost the LW domain authority? Shouldn’t all the crossposts links be taken into account in this calculation?
And if yes, then do 3 links here really make a difference?
It reminds me of people who added Invidious links back in the day, but over time the individious instances would go down, preventing people from knowing which content was initially linked.
Yes, the archive.today links have that risk, but not the archive.org ones. Also, you can manually modify archive.today links to show the original link.
With the way this seems to works, can’t we just create thousands of links to let’s say Lemmy.world from all the other instances, to boost the LW domain authority? Shouldn’t all the crossposts links be taken into account in this calculation?
That might be one reason lemmy.world has a relatively high domain authority.
And if yes, then do 3 links here really make a difference?
Your 3 links won’t make a difference. Starting a trend and spreading the word will.
That might be one reason lemmy.world has a relatively high domain authority.
Can this be improved? Can we post link to LW on every existing Lemmy instance to increase its authority?
In this case, what prevents Reddit from creating their own network of fake instances, with bots users, and posts Reddit links everywhere there to increase their own authority?
Why does it say BLOCKED in front of the link old.reddit.com?
The link works fine here btw.I think that Reddit blocked LW from automatically retrieving the info.
Ah yes the API shit probably.
Thanks.
Just new Redditors speculating with anecdotes
Just new Redditors speculating with anecdotes
That’s inaccurate given that 2/3 of the OPs and a lot of the commenters have really old (8yo+) accounts.
8 years is by no means “really old”!!
In this context it is - it means that the user saw how Reddit used to be, and is likely informed enough to have a good guess on what’s going on.
(Some accounts there are 12, 13, even 15yo.)
It’s all speculation and it been going on forever.
Every single every example is “hey has any anyone else noticed” With some speculation about the algorithm. No one knows anything, but it’s presented here fact.
Where’s your critical thinking ?
All I’m asking is for something a bit better than “I swear it’s true bro my cousin works at Nintendo”
You’re argument is that humans can’t discern patterns from noise?
If you were on reddit even for a brief period of time you can actually click through to reddit and see that the experience has changed.
People who want extraordinary evidence think that the claim is extraordinary but never question whether their own understanding is limited.
If requiring something more than “Hmmm seems strange” from a handful of Redditors is somehow “extraordinary evidence” to you - then yes, that’s what’s required to give this anecdote - offered to us as fact - a bit of credibility.
It’s not a big ask, and I didn’t expect you have such obvious difficulties, but there you go.
You’re deliberately ignoring a video link and talking past people trying to point that out. You don’t want to watch a video on youtube?
I was focusing mostly on your incorrect claim about account ages. The reliability of the information (speculation vs. solid info) is another can of worms.
The reason why you see mostly speculation is because nobody knows how the algo work, except people inside Reddit itself. The most that people can do is to analyse patterns, and come up with a hypothesis explaining it; and while doing so by subjective means is by no means optimal, it is better than nothing.
Where’s your critical thinking ?
Critical thinking is to neither change the goalposts once people contradict your claim, nor to conflate hypotheses with gullibleness-based argumentation (“I swear it’s true bro”).
Hello,
Hope you are doing well.
I wouldn’t worrying too much about this commenter, they seem pretty negative
No problem - I’ve seen worse. I’ve done worse.
(I’m fine, thanks! I hope you’re doing well too.)
I even set a different sorting but it still defaults to a weird sorting. Sort of like best/top
