this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
88 points (90.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43965 readers
1810 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Itβs always a good think imho (without further elaborating).
As an artist/content creator. No, it's not always a good thing. :/
That's why I said sometimes π€·.
Does it really benefit the whole bulk of artists or only the biggest ones?
All artists, the smaller ones especially. If you have a purely chronological feed (which is still an algorithm, just a very simple one) then your much more likely to only see the people who post the most and who posts right before you check the feed. With a more targeted algorithm, especially if it's being tuned to show the best content for you, not what'll get you addicted, can show you art you've missed from the artists that don't post very often. That tends to be people who don't do art full time or just take a long time on every piece. Statistics speaking, if you're following artists like me, who post just a bit more than once a month, you just won't ever see their work on a chronological timeline.
Lemmy's algo doesn't have the issue since post rank is based on votes & recent comments and you post to a specific community, but Mastodon does. I made the same post announcing a software project I'd spent ~3 days working on at that point. On mastodon, it stayed relavent for a few hours, but on Twitter the same post kept getting likes for ~3 days and it was mostly from people who'd actually be interested in the project, and not necessarily people who follow me.
That makes sense to me. Thanks for the explanation!
YouTube at least recommends really small content creators. I sometimes get video recommendations with just 1-10 views. With shorts itβs the same.