Reader added context is nice because it averts drive by upvoting of titles that are misleading (and vice versa), as most voters do not dig through the comments.
Hence this very phenomenon of highly upvoted posts that probably wouldn’t be so with the missing context.
Tbf a substantial amount of voters did see the comment - at the time of writing, 297 upvotes on the comment vs 483 upvotes on the post, or ~61%. So actually most people do dig through the comments, if the upvote count is something to go by at least.
Anyone who doesn’t read comments is unlikely to read reader added context, so you’re probably not getting a large amount of the remaining 39% of people to get the context just because you add some extra UI feature.
Besides, explaining the context is a much longer affair than a title and just wouldn’t fit. It’s not like I would even say that the title of this post is misleading in the first place, it’s actually pretty to-the-point.
There’s also a chance that people will get the wrong idea about posts without the context - i.e. that posts without reader added context are super truthful somehow. I feel that people should rather accept that all titles of a few sentences are missing context. That is after all the point of a title - to summarize and bring only the most important information, which inevitably leads to a loss of context.
That doesn’t count views/impressions that didn’t vote, nor the initial voters that drove the comment to the visibility of the front page. It reminds me way too much of social media that goes viral before it has any chance to be refuted, and it’s already left its impact.
This is a UX “mistake” made by countless platforms (but also a feature if pure engagement is the goal). These kinds of attention flows are extremely important to Lemmy’s future health, lest it take the same trajectory as others.
It is implemented. It’s known as “comments”. You are looking at it. There’s no need for any particular UI feature for this stuff.
Reader added context is nice because it averts drive by upvoting of titles that are misleading (and vice versa), as most voters do not dig through the comments.
Hence this very phenomenon of highly upvoted posts that probably wouldn’t be so with the missing context.
Tbf a substantial amount of voters did see the comment - at the time of writing, 297 upvotes on the comment vs 483 upvotes on the post, or ~61%. So actually most people do dig through the comments, if the upvote count is something to go by at least.
Anyone who doesn’t read comments is unlikely to read reader added context, so you’re probably not getting a large amount of the remaining 39% of people to get the context just because you add some extra UI feature.
Besides, explaining the context is a much longer affair than a title and just wouldn’t fit. It’s not like I would even say that the title of this post is misleading in the first place, it’s actually pretty to-the-point.
There’s also a chance that people will get the wrong idea about posts without the context - i.e. that posts without reader added context are super truthful somehow. I feel that people should rather accept that all titles of a few sentences are missing context. That is after all the point of a title - to summarize and bring only the most important information, which inevitably leads to a loss of context.
That doesn’t count views/impressions that didn’t vote, nor the initial voters that drove the comment to the visibility of the front page. It reminds me way too much of social media that goes viral before it has any chance to be refuted, and it’s already left its impact.
This is a UX “mistake” made by countless platforms (but also a feature if pure engagement is the goal). These kinds of attention flows are extremely important to Lemmy’s future health, lest it take the same trajectory as others.