I read on reddit that on Lemmy you can see users' upvote/downvote history. I therefore expected to be able to see upvote/downvote breakdown by user for my own comments. But couldn't find this. Does this feature exist or is that a myth?

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

[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

[+] cwagner@lemmy.cwagner.me 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Also without identifying the user it becomes hard to know what's a unique like and what is a duplicate. I suppose a workaround would be for the user's instance to keep a record of who liked what, and then just issue just the unique like IDs (which can be traced back to the user only on their home instance).

It would need to be a bit smart. Say the same user toggles their upvote on and off. The upvote for a given topic I think would need to be a hash of the topic/comment ID + user ID so that the same ID would be re-issued to prevent the upvotes/cancels falling out of sync.

It's a lot of effort really for keeping something such as a like private.

[–] HamSwagwich@showeq.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What if the post is edited at a later time? Then all those votes become invalid. It's not practical with the way ActivityPub is designed. Honestly, it's designed the way it is for a reason... if you aren't willing to own your participation on a public forum, you shouldn't be on a public forum.

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would editing do that? I was talking about using the ids which wouldn't change on an edit.

In any case, I don't have a problem with this info being federated. Some people do, so it's worth talking about ways it could be done.

[–] HamSwagwich@showeq.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because using a hash based on elements in the post would change on an edit is why I said that

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 1 points 1 year ago

I was suggesting (I actually clearly said it in both comments) hashing the post/comment ID + userid NOT the content. Just enough info to get a unique ID. We don't need it not to be non-reversible. Just a unique ID for the like.

[–] HamSwagwich@showeq.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It would also open the door for rogue instances to send out massive downvote counts without any data to back that up. That's not to say you couldn't already do that with fake users, but it's much easier to identify a mass of fake users than it is to identify a mass of fake downvotes as a number.