Post by @lloyd • Hey
🔗 I’ve spoken about this “link” issue before. 🔗
☢️TLDR: competing front ends making decisions for the betterment or detriment of their users.
I’m not
Comments
- WOW😃
- indeed, standardization is necessary especially for a decentralized platform.
- Good
- Thank your for sharing
- Buttrfly😆
- dxgfdh
- hi @lloyd.lens ,
Thank you for taking the time for this detailed explanation.
I agree, currently Lens Share disrupt the user flow, especially if one comes from a mobile app. There's 2 things worth nothing.
1. the redirect links apps registered on Lens Share provides could be native app deep links and universal links. None of the mobile app registered in Lens Share currently leverage those. They instead use URLs of web counterpart apps.
2. the showing of a UI that let you chose an app is not and hard constraint. For example if one mobile app were to use a deep link the code could be change very easily to perform an immediate redirect (no web UI shown).
Further improvements can be done to Lens Share to help user stay on their favourite app, it's a tool part of the Lens ecosystem and it's opensource. PRs are very welcome!
WDYT?
- it is so informative. thanks a lot
- good
- I totally get where you're coming from! As a fellow SEO (though, I believe there might've been some misunderstanding with Buttrfly because they typically don't alter links).
Perhaps the solution might be within Lens Share itself: rather than prompting a 'choose your app' page, it could directly redirect based on the initiating app.
Another concern I've noticed is the Orb communities x DiverseHQ communities. Ideally, communities should be standardized at the protocol level.
In my view, what should set different front-ends apart is their curation and presentation methods. If I'm on DiverseHQ, I'm looking for content sorted by topics and communities, and I don't want to be distracted by unrelated posts. On Lenstube, my focus is videos. Meanwhile, on Pinsta, I'd be expecting an algorithm with robust image recognition and pattern discerning capabilities.
- What about content synchronization?
I understand if it was an additional feature, like a poll. That feature may not be available in some apps.
But here's a link.
It turns out that someone can replace a custom link with any other link, and the reader will end up in the wrong place.
Am I understanding this correctly?
- This is incorrect. Buttrfly doesn't edit what links you paste in your post at all. For example, here's me pasting the share.lens.xyz link to your post:
https://share.lens.xyz/p/0xe7a6-0x0492
If your post included the buttrfly.app link that means you shared the post and copied the link from buttrfly. Or you quoted the post.
- This is on point. I was thinking about the issue as well. A deeper protocol level solution is needed for unifying internal Lens links.
There's another aspect you touched that somewhat concerns me. Currently, Lens frontends have full power to post anything on user's behalf, if user gives in-wallet approval at some point, as there's no easy way to see what you are approving exactly. We assume apps will honor user's inputs, because otherwise we would not use the apps that misbehave, but the example with @buttrfly.lens single handedly editing links shows grey areas are forming already. This can easily start with a genuine try to solve a specific issue (which is, I believe, what @0xmoe.lens was doing here) and end up with the kind of #lenswars we would really not like.