Fopnu seems like the most similar alternative to eMule that is actively maintained. Unlike Soulseek, it can download a file from multiple seeders at the same time. However, the ed2k protocol still has around 100k users compared to barely 500 on Fopnu.

deleted by creator

26 TB where coming a few years ago, and yet I’m only recently seeing 20 TB drives.

Is this relevant for executables only or also movies, TV series, game ISOs, books, audiobooks, etc?

For watching movies and shows there is nothing simpler than Stremio with the Torrentio addon.

For other files I don’t like the BitTorrent protocol for sharing because it complicates file sharing, requiring files to remain in their original locations without renaming when creating a torrent. I prefer Nicotine+ and Fopnu as they allow me to easily select folders for sharing without any complications. These are the only programs I know of that are compatible with Windows and Linux and are actively developed. They are newbie friendly because searching for files inside the program is straightforward. I’ve also used eMule, Gnutella, DC++, Shareaza, MLDonkey but I don’t recommend them. Although eMule has good availability for old/rare content.

• https://nicotine-plus.org
• https://www.fopnu.com

Nice!

A quick suggestion. I personally would prefer if you mention what you will be working on rather than what you’ve completed. It creates more excitement to know what’s coming next. I also find it easier to understand issues than pull requests.

More critically, the proof-of-concept so far appears to lack any real work on moderation tools or implementing a web of trust system. These would be absolutely vital components for a federated encyclopedia to have any chance of controlling quality and avoiding descending into a sea of misinformation and edit wars between conflicting “truths.” Centralized oversight and clear enforced guidelines are key reasons why Wikipedia has been relatively successful, despite its flaws.

Without a robust distributed moderation system in place, a federated encyclopedia runs the risk of either devolving into siloed echo chambers pushing various agendas, or becoming an uncoordinated mess making it impractical as a general reference work. The technical obstacles around federating content policies, privileges and integrated quality control across instances are immense challenges that aren’t obviously addressed by this early proof-of-concept.

While novel approaches like federation are worth exploring, straying too far from Wikipedia’s principles of neutral point-of-view and community-driven policies could easily undermine the entire premise. Lofty goals of disrupting Wikipedia are admirable, but successfully replacing its dominance as a general reference work seems extremely unlikely without solving these fundamental issues around distributed content governance first.

Yeah, you are right. I’ve always remembered it this way because it makes more sense to me.

The idea of a federated, decentralized Wikipedia alternative is intriguing, but implementing it successfully faces major hurdles. Federating moderation policies and privileges across different instances seems incredibly complex. I believe it would also require some kind of web of trust system. Quality control is also a huge challenge without centralized oversight and clear guidelines enforced universally.

While it could potentially replace commercial wiki farms like Wikia/Fandom for niche topics, realistically replacing Wikipedia’s dominance as a general reference work seems highly ambitious and unlikely, at least in the short term. But as they say - shoot for the stars, and you may just land on the moon.

That said, ambitious goals can spur innovation. Even if Ibis falls short of usurping Wikipedia, it could blaze new trails and pioneer federated wiki concepts that feed back into Wikipedia and other platforms. The federated model allowing more perspectives and focused communities is worth exploring, despite the technical obstacles around distributed moderation and content integration. The proof-of-concept shows the core pieces are in place as a starting point.

Would it be feasible to expose the metadata for posts in such a way that search queries could be customized to sort a front page any way a user wants to see it?

There is already such an API endpoint which is available for mods and admins.

@nutomic@lemmy.ml in https://discuss.online/comment/6718715

Yeah, it would definitely be feasible to expose post metadata for customized search queries. Currently, the data is restricted to admins and mods, but having an API endpoint for users could enhance the sorting options without significant strain on the server. It could lead to more tailored and engaging user experiences on the platform.

https://discuss.online/comment/6718201

Perhaps even a sentiment analysis would be interesting to see: serious discussion, jokes and memes discussion, informative posters, political conversation left or right, etc.

This reminds me of Slashdot moderation and Media Bias Fact Check Integration

I’d understand using new activity sorting for small communities but for large communities you can’t keep up with it.

I don’t understand platforms like Mastodon that mimic Twitter without incorporating the features that contribute to its popularity. If I were looking for a most recent sorting algorithm I would use a chat.

Well, that would only be implemented if it were offered by the API; otherwise, just use what is available right now, which are votes and the number of comments. I find it more invasive that other users can see the post history in my profile than admins being able to see the amount of time I spend reading each post. Revealing my feed feels akin to exposing my browsing history.

The number of sorting algorithms needs to be much more limited than that; otherwise, it puts too much load on the server calculating all those combinations. It’s important to strike a balance between customization and system performance to ensure smooth operation and optimal user experience.

I thought the ‘hot’ ranking was a mixture of votes and comment engagement?

Hot: Like active, but uses time when the post was published

https://join-lemmy.org/docs/users/03-votes-and-ranking.html

I do feel like there needs to be some further tweaking, controversial should have a time falloff so it shows recent controversy instead of something 6 months old for example.

Yeah, I believe the “Most Comments” sort should have a time limit too. There is an issue opened about it: Controversial post sort should have time limit

Human bias is a pervasive element in many online communities, and finding a platform entirely free from it can be akin to searching for the holy grail. Maybe look into self-hosting an instance and punish moderators who don’t follow their own rules.

This is not possible because sorting is done in the database, so adding a new sort option requires a database migration with new indexes, columns and updated queries. Not something that can be done with a simple plugin.

@nutomic@lemmy.ml in https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3936#issuecomment-1738847763

An alternative approach could involve utilizing an API endpoint that provides metadata for recent posts, allowing users to implement custom sorting logic on their client side using JavaScript. This API endpoint is currently accessible only to moderators and administrators

There is already such an API endpoint which is available for mods and admins.

@nutomic@lemmy.ml in https://lemmy.ml/comment/9159963

Regrettably, complaining tends to be a common pastime for many individuals. I acknowledge your frustrations with certain users who may appear entitled or unappreciative of the considerable effort you’ve dedicated to developing Lemmy. Shifting towards a mindset that perceives complaints as opportunities for enhancement can be transformative. Establishing a set of transparent rules or guidelines on how you prioritize issues and feature requests could help turn critiques into opportunities for improvement. This transparency can help manage expectations and foster a more collaborative relationship with the users in your community. While not all complaints may be actionable, actively listening to feedback and explaining your prioritization criteria could go a long way in building trust and goodwill. Open communication and a willingness to consider diverse perspectives can lead to a stronger, more user-centric product in the long run.

The philosophy of Complaint-Driven Development provides a simple, transparent way to prioritize issues based on user feedback:

1. Get the platform in front of as many users as possible.
2. Listen openly to all user complaints and feedback. Expect a lot of it.
3. Identify the top 3 most frequently reported issues/pain points.
4. Prioritize fixing those top 3 issues.
5. Repeat the process, continuously improving based on prominent user complaints.

Following these straightforward rules allows you to address the most pressing concerns voiced by your broad user community, rather than prioritizing the vocal demands of a few individuals. It keeps development efforts focused on solving real, widespread issues in a transparent, user-driven manner.

Here’s a suggestion that could help you implement this approach: Consider periodically making a post like What are your complaints about Lemmy? Developers may want your feedback. This post encourages users to leave one top-level comment per complaint, allowing others to reply with ideas or existing GitHub issues that could address those complaints. This will help you identify common complaints and potential solutions from your community.

Once you have a collection of complaints and suggestions, review them carefully and choose the top 3 most frequently reported issues to focus on for the next development cycle. Clearly communicate to the community which issues you and the team will be prioritizing based on this user feedback, and explain why you’ve chosen those particular issues. This transparency will help users understand your thought process and feel heard.

As you work on addressing those prioritized issues, keep the community updated on your progress. When the issues are resolved, make a new release and announce it to the community, acknowledging their feedback that helped shape the improvements.

Then, repeat the process: Make a new post gathering complaints and suggestions, review them, prioritize the top 3 issues, communicate your priorities, work on addressing them, release the improvements, and start the cycle again.

By continuously involving the community in this feedback loop, you foster a sense of ownership and leverage the collective wisdom of your user base in a transparent, user-driven manner.

Having shared tags across communities allows for better content discovery and curation based on specific interests or preferences. Users could also easily filter out or avoid posts related to triggering content like their phobias, traumatic events, or other sensitive topics by specifying certain tags they wish to exclude.

stop browsing by all and only subscribe to the communities you are interested in

The issue with this is that subscribing to a large community results in seeing predominantly content from that community, overshadowing the smaller communities. All the communities I subscribe to would have to be about the same size.