Currently when you silence someone, it "hides" they post. Sometimes this generates a tooltip saying a post was silenced. The way this is set up is hugely problematic.
Because Cohost assigns a silenced post to a slot on the feed, it makes it where there's less posts in total to the feed as far as the end user is concerned. This can take on a very extreme form when one account floods the feed with so many posts that it shows only one post. I wish I came here 11 minutes sooner to see if I would be greeted with a blank feed.
Additionally, if I hit the next page, there's 2 different posts from the one on the front page. From there, I have to hit next 6 times to get a 3rd post to show up.
Like, look. I get that Cohost doesn't have a feature to suppress shares on your feed like mid-life crisis site, and that there are posts requesting such a feature. But the way this is implement is *still* absolutely absurd. This is making it where I can't follow someone's content at all because not only do I lack the controls to suppress their share spam, but having them on follow at all destroys my feed in the background.
I don't know the complexity of how such things are set up, but please, please make silenced posts never included in the feed to begin with. That's my request.
This is a problem with CW and tag muffling too. The way these things aren't cleanly suppressed is making the site unusable. I don't like that I can't follow people whose content I like because cohost can't exclude things properly.
whenever i see something like this, i'm always really confused. If there's someone who posts 200 things you don't like and then 1 thing you do, why do you follow them? If they're not curating their own output or using separate pages, if they're the one making it very difficult for others to find their stuff, why can't you just go "there's too much chaff here, it's not worth it"? If the desire to get to that 1 post out of 200 is making the site "unusable", it seems like the easy option is to unfollow that person until better controls exist (like turning off shares, which would mostly obsolete this request anyway). I don't get why that's not just the automatic response, it seems very easy and painless to me.
This is a genuine question because similar requests have popped up a lot, i'm not being snarky! I'm really confused about this mentality and i'm trying to understand it more. In the meantime if there's someone really important, you can ask them to put their self-posts on a different page, since the page system is pretty easy on this site.
"If there's someone who posts 200 things you don't like and then 1 thing you do, why do you follow them?"
I don't mean to be exceedingly rude, but the benefits and uses of a silence/mute function for users you follow are pretty clear-cut and shouldn't be a point of debate. Have you never followed friends on social media, only to find that you don't really like their posts? Friends can and do get upset when they see you've unfollowed them on social media (to say nothing of coworkers, professional connections, etc.). In those circumstances, muting/silencing is a convenient way to keep your feed clean of those posts, while still maintaining that connection without potentially complicating your interpersonal or professional relationships.
That's especially compounded on a site like Cohost, which (as far as I can tell) does not let you make different feeds or lists of users like Twitter does, so I can't make a feed that just excludes certain users.
(And I don't even want to get into the potential social anxiety and conflict that could come from
"ask them to put their self-posts on a different page", lol)
An issue I've seen that I believe is related to this bug: If an entire page in my feed is filled with posts from muted users, Cohost thinks that I'm at the "end" of my feed, and doesn't let me proceed tot he next page to see any posts further in the past. This renders the site almost unusable unless I unfollow or unsilence the offending user.