pull down to refresh

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

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.

reply

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