Beehaw Support

2794 readers

13 users here now

Support and meta community for Beehaw. Ask your questions about the community, technical issues, and other such things here.

A brief FAQ for lurkers and new users can be found here.

Our September 2024 financial update is here.

For a refresher on our philosophy, see also What is Beehaw?, The spirit of the rules, and Beehaw is a Community

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Penguincoder@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

Removed threads should still be reachable and interactive (beehaw.org)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by debanqued@beehaw.org to c/support@beehaw.org

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I posted an apparently off-topic post to !foss@beehaw.org. The moderator removed it from the timeline because discussion about software that should be FOSS was considered irrelevant to FOSS. Perhaps fair enough, but it’s an injustice that people in a discussion were cut off. The thread should continue even if it’s not linked in the community timeline. I received a reply that I could not reply to. What’s the point in blocking a discussion that’s no longer visible from the timeline?

It’s more than just an unwanted behavior because the UI is broken enough to render a dysfunctional reply mechanism. That is, I can click the reply button to a comment in an orphaned thread (via notifications) and the UI serves me with a blank form where I can then waste human time writing a msg, only to find that clicking submit causes it to go to lunch in an endless spinner loop. So time is wasted on the composition then time is wasted wondering what’s wrong with the network. When in fact the reply should simply go through.

(edit) this is similar to this issue. Slight difference though: @jarfil@beehaw.org merely expects to be able to reply to lingering notifications after a mod action. That’s good but I would go further and propose that the thread should still be reachable and functional (just not linked in the timeline where it was problematic).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Penguincoder@beehaw.org 8 points 7 months ago

don’t be shy about joining the discussion.

I think you're arguing in bad faith. We aren't powerless when it comes to Beehaw, but certainly when it comes to Lemmy software overall. That is in fact, part of the problem. We aren't shy, we collectively have identified, fixed, contributed to and organized a ton of Lemmy shortcomings and bugs. Yet other bugs/requests and solutions go ignored or 'closed' due to the Lemmy devs not agreeing that certain things are a problem, or inline with what we need for community standards or administrative controls.

It gets very very tiring trying to improve a product you use constantly, just to be told to GTFO "We don't see it as a problem"

Go look at the PRs and issues we've raised for Lemmy. In addition, observe the attempts at solving the identified problems, not just complaining about them.