pull down to refresh

Great question. I would expect it to be treated separately by territory when you are specifically viewing posts in a territory but averaged with some weighting when you're viewing site-wide posts.

Currently, there is no trust. So, when you view the home page, you see all posts (minus any things you have muted) ranked by sats (which become half as "valuable" every 4 hours).

When you click in to a territory, you see all posts in that territory sorted by sats with the same time decay.

reply

I took the question as how trust would influence the rankings if we had trust based rankings again.

reply
69 sats \ 8 replies \ @k00b 8 Jan

I ignored trust per territory when I implemented crossposting because it wasn't relevant. If we introduce trust again, that's something I'll figure out then.

reply

That's a big if

I'd expect trust to matter more at scale but so far I don't feel like it's a major loss.

reply
193 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 8 Jan

From what I can tell, based on an eyeball test, things seem pretty healthy.

At scale, I suspect incentivizing downzaps would be most of what's required.

Scale is also usually a FUD-y thing. Evoking it sounds smarter than it is. haha, when the complexity of the system explodes and is relatively unpredictable, I predict xyz

reply

Fair enough. I'm not even thinking about complexity exploding, though. Any improvement to what's relevant to me matters more when there's more stuff to choose from.

reply
69 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 8 Jan

True. If content added and sats zapped/boosted do not scale proportionally, then seeing relevant stuff may suffer.

reply

It's not about sats zapped/boosted scaling proportionally. It's about the likelihood that an aggregation of more preference sets over more items will be less reflective of my own preferences.

Trust helps to apply my preferences to the things I haven't seen yet.

I think the trust score should matter more or less depending on the number of active users.

reply

From a reader's perspective, it seems like it matters more specifically when there are more posts, regardless of how many users there are.

reply

Good point, that makes total sense. I didn’t think too much about it, but having the trust score count more or less could be a formula with multiple inputs, calculated daily.

reply

ah, that makes sense.

reply

Daily rewards are still based on the trust score.

reply

It’s a possibility, maybe @k00b can clarify. The same question applies to earning trust score on crossposted posts/comments. It looks like we might be gaining trust score in multiple territories.
For example: a post/comment crossposted to two territories. If we receive a 100 zap, do we gain trust score in both territories? 100 | 100, or 50 | 50, or something else?

reply
reply

Just to be clear, we’re not earning trust score?

reply
80 sats \ 6 replies \ @k00b 8 Jan

you are earning or losing trust in all the crossposted territories currently, but trust has no impact on ranking.

reply

That was exactly my question, how are we gaining or losing trust score in each territory? Is there some kind of weighted formula behind it?

reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 8 Jan

it's the same as before but now in all of the territories

reply

So basically, are we gaining trust in multiple territories for the price of one?
Example: a 100-sat zap on a crosspost with 3 territories — does it count as 100 in each of the three territories, or is it split between them? 33 | 33 | 33

reply
22 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 8 Jan

No. Trust gained has never been proportional to the amount zapped.