Recent searches
Search options
@mitka@hachyderm.ioMy most significant feedback about the Mastodon network:
1) Classifying servers by a topic, profession or organization attracts excessively large numbers of people to a relatively small number of servers.
2) Servers should drastically limit their active user count. Ideally less than 100 but at worst case 500.
To that end, a different classification (likeness of mind & location) and forking/merging processes (similar to cellular division in life, but also backwards) would help it thrive.
@mitka Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this :)
I don't see 1) as being necessarily true. Some topics would attract lots, some will attract few. Some organizations are small some are large.
I think that 2) misses the point. I feel like you should find the place that feels right for you and not hope that all servers size themselves the way you want. I personally want MORE people in my local timeline not less.
Can you help me understand why you want server sizes to be limited?
@stewoconnor Hi, two reasons.
First, we're human. We tend to thrive in small tribal groups and struggle with identity and relationships in larger groups.
Second, operating a server with 100 users avoids the scaling challenges we witness with the servers that are quickly growing to accommodate the influx of new users.
Downsides
- more "admins
- need a people "routing" process to get them to the right place (experimenting with this now)
- need moar instances
@stewoconnor If the routing service is build correctly the "that feels right for you" should be the most common outcome.
I agree that we exist in small tribal groups, though my desire for the local feed is that it's not just my small tribe. I want it to be a place where I still find new people to interact with