this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023

1 points (100.0% liked)

Beehaw Support

2797 readers

1 users here now

Support and meta community for Beehaw. Ask your questions about the community, technical issues, and other such things here.

A brief FAQ for lurkers and new users can be found here.

Our September 2024 financial update is here.

For a refresher on our philosophy, see also What is Beehaw?, The spirit of the rules, and Beehaw is a Community

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Penguincoder@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

The rules for bots (docs.beehaw.org)

submitted 1 year ago by Lionir@beehaw.org to c/support@beehaw.org

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

After some discussions in !chat, we came up with the conclusion we should adopt rules surrounding bots.

We'll ban bots which we are aware of that currently don't follow these rules and contact their creators. Please report bots that don't follow these.

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Hi there!

I've been contacted regarding my @autotldr@lemmings.world bot. Currently it's disabled for beehaw.org as can be seen here.

I'd like to raise a discussion though as I think the bot is really useful.

Here are some global all-time stats:

 ---------- --------- ----------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------ 
  Comments   Upvotes   Downvotes   Negative comments count   Positive comments count   Neutral comments count  
 ---------- --------- ----------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------ 
  430        3096      82          0                         429                       1                       
 ---------- --------- ----------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------

These are per-instance stats (I stripped other instances than yours). If I'm not mistaken, downvotes are disabled on Beehaw, so the like ratio doesn't say much, but other numbers still could:

 -------------------- ---------- --------- ----------- ------------ --------------------- 
  Instance             Comments   Upvotes   Downvotes   Like ratio   Upvotes per comment  
 -------------------- ---------- --------- ----------- ------------ --------------------- 
  beehaw.org           28         236       0           100.00%      8.43

Edit: The stats are generated by this - while it's not the cleanest code I've ever written, I think it's pretty readable and everyone can see that the stats are not some weird numbers to make it look better than it is.

[–] lemann@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would it be possible for the bot to DM us instead when communities decide to ban/restrict them for whatever reason?

I've found this bot incredibly useful personally, and I assume the community does too, looking at various Lemmy posts where the TLDR bot upvotes closely follow the OP upvotes (sometimes exceeding it)

Note - I'm not a beehaw user, for anyone reading whose apps do not show my instance.

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well, I may try it, but it might drive the costs of running the bot significantly if a lot of users use the feature.

Edit: Done. Will see how it goes, might roll this back if it's too taxing on my wallet.

[–] d3Xt3r@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I liked the original autotldr bot on Reddit. The one here though seems to be producing a large summary instead of just TL;DR.

Here's an example: https://lemmings.world/comment/920986

This comment takes up most of the screen space on my mobile device. I don't consider this to be a TL;DR. At this rate, I'd opt to just read the article in question instead.

The other problem is that lengthy TL;DRs like this obstruct comments, making it annoying to scroll past for those of who are on mobile devices. I could block the bot of course, but I don't want to - I do want a legit TL;DR, not a reworded article.

Here's my attempt at generating a TL;DR of the mentioned article, using ChatGPT:

Two manuscripts published on the arXiv pre-peer-review repository claim to have synthesized a room-temperature superconductor, LK-99. This superconductor is a variation of lead apatite, and allegedly operates not only at room temperature but also above water's boiling point, at regular pressures. The synthesis process is complex, yielding potential variations in the final product. Early attempts to reproduce these findings have shown mixed results, adding to the intrigue and uncertainty surrounding the material's properties. While these claims could potentially revolutionize the field, their validation would give rise to further challenges about how to transform this material into a practical, high-current-carrying form. The upcoming period is likely to see intense activity from labs worldwide in their efforts to corroborate these results, which could significantly accelerate the emergence of a scientific consensus.

IMO, this is what a TL;DR should look like - a single paragraph and under 150 words.

[–] brie@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair, the TL;DR would be a lot shorter if the breaks between sentences were removed. I personally draw the line at around 200 words for a summary, so the 183 words in the summary is a bit long but still a reasonable TL;DR for an article.

Since Lemmy implements spoiler tags, I think wrapping the summary in a spoiler tag would be a way to solve the length problem.

[–] Zoop@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I love the idea of wrapping the summary in a spoiler tag! I think that would be a great idea to be implemented for bots like that and would solve a lot of this. That's a great idea you've had and I thank you for sharing it!

[–] Zoop@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think it'd be good to mention implementing the solution mentioned in the comments about wrapping lengthy bot comments (like the TL:DR; bot summaries) in spoiler tags in the section mentioning keeping bot comment lengths short.

I do like the TL:DR; bot overall and I hope, if we are allowing bots, that something can be figured out to where it can come back to posting here.

Hopefully I worded that in a way that makes sense. I feel like I worded it awkwardly, lol. I've got mega brain fog, sorry! Please let me know if you'd like me to try and reword it or explain anything :)

[–] GeneralRetreat@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'd just suggest that this is a defacto ban based on the current requirements.

If bots are going to be command triggered and require pre-approval by individual community moderators, I think it would be prudent to include an index of registered bots + commands in the community info pages.

Currently I can't think of any reasonable way for a Beehaw user to know which bots are operational and what their commands are. If bots need to be command triggered but there's no way to find out which ones are functional, why approve them to begin with?

[–] admin@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

On a personal note, when I was using Reddit, I greatly appreciated the TL;DR bot.

[–] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

There's been a similar one on Lemmy.