For comparison

21 during the day and at bedtime 15

I think the biggest difficulty would be able to figure out a scoring system that works for all platforms.

Eg. What does “being able to migrate users” mean?

Does it include followers? Content etc.?

And what about “sub-reddits” it’s important for it to be able to be migrated for Reddit/Lemmy but PeerTube doesn’t have something like that

Ability to migrate is definitely very important, In a newer version I’ll add it in.

What weight do you think it should have?

I’ll shrink the others so the score stays 100

Sure thing, I posted v1.2

Thanks this is a great idea.

I like the simplicity of that current scoring system (only 4 metrics)

Perhaps the same metric can be used, but applied for different cultures and languages.

Eg Lemmy would score high in English, but not in French.

I’ll keep refining it and listening to input.

Yea most services are basically fully controlled by one entity and score like less than 10.

So 50+ is really good, I think currently Email is the gold standard. Services should strive to be as decentralised as Email

Yea I made a mistake with that, I corrected it in v1.1

In version 1.1 I uploaded Email, it now has a score of 90

The source I used before was wildly inaccurate.

I think above 50 id acceptable, but that’s open for discussion.

Lemmy & Mastodon loses a lot of points due to one instance having ~40% of the users and content.

It’s motivation for us to make sure everyone doesn’t just end up on lemmy.world

How would you redefine this?

- **Very Easy**: One-command Docker, low resources, great documentation → **18–20 points**
- **Moderate**: Docker or manual setup, some config, active community support → **13–17 points**
- **Hard**: Complex setup, needs regular updates or custom config (e.g. DNS, spam) → **6–12 points**
- **Very Hard or Proprietary**: Little to no self-hosting support, undocumented → **0–5 points**```

Fixed in version 1.1 on GitHub

That’s very wrong yes. I fixed that in version 1.1 on GitHub.

Still not perfect, but I’ll work on it further after easter weekend

Thanks, I need to think about how to score that, but good idea.

You’re right, I’ll update the example data in the next version

That’s a mistake, I’ll update the examples in the next version

I’ll correct that in v1.1

You are 100% correct yes, As I said I didn’t put much effort into making sure the data in the examples are correct. This post is more about getting visibility on the idea. I will put more effort into better data and more examples.

I’d love to do that, there are existing Fediverse stats websites that should be able to implement this without too much difficulty.

Based on my brief searches yes, but I haven’t looked into the example data in great detail.

If you have a good data point for me I can update the examples.

Agreed, we need to find a way to take as much if not all subjectivity out of the calculation. And get reliable data.

This is just a starting point, it can be improved a lot.