pull down to refresh

275 sats \ 13 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jan \ on: The SN home page is an auction meta

This seems like not quite the right implementation of a hot feed. The half-life part makes sense, but shouldn't it be based on when the zaps came in rather than when the post was created?

If a post blows up three days after it was made, it seems like it should show up in our hot feeds to let us know something's happening that we may want to pay attention to.

It would be cool to have some sort of trust toggle for each of these rankings that basically flipped them between global and personal ordering.

175 sats \ 10 replies \ @k00b 8 Jan

shouldn't it be based on when the zaps came in rather than when the post was created?

I've explored this some. Ranking works on item age and sats. To let new zaps on old items pull an item up in ranking, we'd replace item age with an effective_age that's influenced by the recency of zaps. Computing effective_age is where it gets tricky but I think I can figure it out.

1304 sats \ 9 replies \ @SimpleStacker 8 Jan

Rank_{i} = j \sum e^{- \frac{1}{σ} zap_age_{ij}} \times zap_amount_{ij}

$i$ is the item and $j$ is the zaps on item $i$

$σ$ controls the half life

67 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jan

Probably just drop the zaps that are older than some preset amount too

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 8 Jan

we can weight it by the exchange rate at the time ~lol

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 8 Jan

NONO

Because then the units of the rank would be in dollars not sats!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 8 Jan

~lol

69 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 8 Jan

the exponential decay pretty much zeros out old zaps contributions anyway, so the only different it'd make would be the computational speed of filtering out old zaps vs. extra calculations by including them

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jan

Computation is what I was thinking about, but I didn't think about the computation of filtering

69 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 8 Jan

Nice! That's roughly what I arrived at as an accumulator for making a resurface decision. When it exceeds a dynamic threshold, I'd move forward the effective_age.

I've been a little hesitant to give full control to recent zaps alone, but I'm probably just FUDing myself and it's worth experimenting with.

Edit: It also hadn't occurred to me to use it raw like this until your comment. I think this would make it worth being in the back catalog.

69 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 8 Jan

I've been a little hesitant to give full control to recent zaps alone, but I'm probably just FUDing myself and it's worth experimenting with.

I think the difference would be pretty marginal. 95% of zaps happen in the first 48 hours. At least this gives a chance of good old posts to resurface.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jan

We'll see. I think if posts are able to resurface and people can earn rewards for zapping them when they do, then we'll see more zaps on older posts.

69 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 8 Jan

(assuming I described how it works accurately) seems like it could lead to a way to deal with evergreen content, too. There might be a risk that the hot feed becomes less lively.

102 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jan

it could lead to a way to deal with evergreen content

Always one of my main concerns