One of the advantages of a decentralized platform like Lemmy is the ability to create parallel communities on the same topic. “You don’t like how a community is being moderated? Go to another instance and start a new community!” (with or without blackjack and hookers)

However, I think this is also a double-edged sword. The creation of multiple communities on the same (or similar) topics can also fragment the userbase, leading to very sparsely populated communities.

Example: I am open to being wrong, but I don’t currently see a need for five distinct Harry Potter sublemmies with (nearly) identical names:

There are also some other miscellaneous HP related communities:

I suspect that many of these were created during the 2023 Rexxit, when instances were less stable, and there was a temporary period of massive growth.

Now that Lemmy is more stable, would the moderators of the above communities consider some form of cooperative consolidation? If not, what distinct purpose do the separate communities serve?

A couple arguments in favour of consolidation: (credits to @Ashyr@sh.itjust.works and @otter@lemmy.ca)

https://sh.itjust.works/comment/11171955

I think until there’s some tool or system that helps collate all the information out here, fragmentation is detrimental to growth.

I’m not going to copy and paste the same comment with every mirrored post.

So sometimes commenting feels like a waste of time.

Centralizing helps ensure that there’s vibrant, consistent discussion which is what Lemmy should be about.

https://sh.itjust.works/post/18388026

I like this because people showing up to those communities might think that topic doesn’t have activity on Lemmy, when it actually does.

I sometimes think that unmoderated communities should be closed, and just be left and locked with a pointer to the active one. In case an issue arises with the active one, they can still be unlocked and used as back up.

The next question is, of course “Which instance should we consolidate to?”

My hunch is that a stable, medium-sized instance would be best. What are your thoughts? Is consolidation worth a try?

If nothing else, the experiment could serve as a test for whether or not consolidation is effective in boosting engagement and discussion.

  • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’ve gone on before on how the idea of “consolidating” can be a problem because it leads to centralization. We already have a problem with instances like lemmy.world being too centralizing and taking people off a community and tossing them into another one with a different culture, or even worse into one where they are defederated from their instance, is not going to solve the issue.

    And I want to emphasize the point about culture. All those HP communities “might” be the same but they have every right to be different, and to conduct themselves differently, in various ways. !harrypotter@literature.cafe has one focus but !harrypotter@feddit.nl could have different focus or even be able to discuss subjects that literature.cafe can’t because of jurisdiction. We could even have !harrypotter@nsfw.it (for example) and certainly that can’t be clearly merged with either of the above.

    So, IMO, any “solution” for the idea of consolidation has to allow instances and communities to exist as they are, and does not have to norm that content that can be posted to one community has to be valid for all communities. Else, we’re returning to the Reddit and the Facebook that we left.

    • Blaze@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Hello,

      We indeed have a problem with LW centralization (that’s the topic of another post in this community), but we also have a problem of abandoned communities.

      There is no issue if all of those three Harry Potter communities you mentioned were active, but that’s clearly not the case.

      Consolidating communities in one community gets more activity, which Lemmy needs especially on niche topics.