I tried bookwyrm today and it feels quite polished already, like giving you a guided tour of it's features. Hopefully it takes off as well similar to mastodon and lemmy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CloverSi@lemmy.comfysnug.space 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Books, music, movies and so on all have big differences in how they're best presented, what sort of information they should have, how social features are best integrated. I don't really see a monolithic site that tries to do all of that being better than separate federated sites that can cater to their own unique focus.

[–] Izzy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't mean to make a single website do all of those things. I mean in the sense of making a federated website protocol that allows you to start an instance for whatever kind of thing you want. Maybe it wouldn't work, but it would save a lot of time on re-inventing the wheel every time you wanted a new type of tracking site.

[–] CloverSi@lemmy.comfysnug.space 2 points 1 year ago

That makes more sense. Still, I think the point stands; tracking different things is different enough that trying to fit all of them into the same framework wouldn't be ideal. Off the top of my head, one example is how a 'watched'/'read' list is needed for books and movies, but a 'listened to' list wouldn't make a lot of sense for music; while on the other hand an 'owned' list is important for music, but not as relevant for books and movies. There's plenty that would make sense to federate of course, like reviews, but if it was me making this I would be much more inclined to have separate backends with certain parts having ActivityPub integration.