reply on: Stacker Saloon \ stacker news

pull down to refresh

463 sats \ 35 replies \ @ek 12 Jan freebie \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon

Great write-up :)

However, regarding the trust scores: there isn't a single trust score per stacker. Trust scores are calculated between stackers.

If stacker A zaps what stacker B has zapped before, then B earned some trust from A (but not vice versa).

We do this to show everyone more of the content they like. If you use an inkognito tab, you should see that the items on the frontpage are ranked slightly different.

333 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 12 Jan

That's very interesting.

If we implemented the trust score idea from these cowboy hat ideas, then we'd have different colored hats depending on who's looking at us.

269 sats \ 1 reply \ @Natalia 12 Jan

indeed, but we don't really need the hat to tell us who do we trust? haha

I enjoy wearing no hat 😂

111 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 12 Jan

Yours would be so colorful, though!

510 sats \ 31 replies \ @Natalia 12 Jan freebie

deleted by author

505 sats \ 29 replies \ @ek 12 Jan freebie

really, but I think each stacker have their own trust score, but then in posts and comments ranking wise, then it's calculated among stackers?

Since gently personalized feeds, we use a matrix [0] so every stacker has a trust score from the PoV of another stacker. Before that, we all just saw content from the PoV of @k00b's account iirc.

I found these when I was writing for my new post - are they outdated?

Source? Is this from a comment from @k00b? Didn't find this formula in the FAQ.

However, I think it's good or at least very close [1]. The only "error" is maybe this:

zap_trust is your trust [from the PoV of another stacker] which is only earned by historically voting for things ~~other stackers deem are good~~ that stacker deems good.

Afaik, we didn't change the formula how content is ranked. Only how zap_trust is generated.

And I realized that what I wrote yesterday wasn't true:

I'm so bad when it comes to our own reward system. That's probably the part of the code base that I have the least experience with.

How you ranking works is the part of the code base that I have the least experience with. You always ask the best questions @Natalia! lol

When I have time, I'll look more into it today to give you an answer like here.

Also, thank you very much for writing these guides! They are very helpful, even for me who works at SN lol. SN is like an organism. It sometimes starts to do things even we, "the architects", didn't expect. And this is good and fun! SN lives from the community doing whatever it wants with SN. We just want to give you tools so you can do more awesome, weird, crazy stuff :)

And as you mentioned here:

Not gonna lie, it takes TIME to write good and original content!

It does take time. That's what I realized last time I wanted to write about ranking (but I guess I also took it way too seriously since I wanted to include the evolution of ranking, too).

And I think you are better at writing such guides than me. :)

[0] no, not that kind of matrix; this kind of matrix [1] code is the source of truth and I didn't check before writing this reply since else I might have disappeared for an hour or more.

51 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 12 Jan

The matrices are a very clever idea. This way we can have relative trust to other stackers. nice

1000 sats \ 1 reply \ @Natalia 12 Jan

deleted by author

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 12 Jan

😂

100 sats \ 25 replies \ @Natalia 12 Jan

deleted by author

211 sats \ 18 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 12 Jan

👀

https://github.com/stackernews/stacker.news/blob/master/worker/earn.js https://github.com/stackernews/stacker.news/blob/master/worker/trust.js

21 sats \ 16 replies \ @ek 12 Jan

What do you see? :)

Maybe you can explain it to me and then I only have to correct a few things which is indeed a lot easier than me trying to explain everything lol

I call this the StackOverflow Effect

100 sats \ 14 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 12 Jan

I don't have time to watch anything :) It was for Natalia to see, not me :)

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Natalia 12 Jan

damn, all the "cheat codes" are out there, and no one is reading them?!

😂

21 sats \ 12 replies \ @ek 12 Jan

Fair point!

@Natalia, how good is your SQL?

21 sats \ 11 replies \ @Natalia 12 Jan

deleted by author

view replies

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Natalia 12 Jan freebie

How earnings (used to) work: 1/3: top 21% posts over last 36 hours, scored on a relative basis 1/3: top 21% comments over last 36 hours, scored on a relative basis 1/3: top upvoters of top posts/comments, scored on: - their trust - how much they tipped - how early they upvoted it - how the post/comment scored

Now: 100% of earnings go to either top 33% of comments/posts or top 33% of upvoters

about this, I feel like it's still calculate over last 36 hours? I remember like there was one time, a post of mine got rewarded two days in a row. 🤔

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Natalia 12 Jan

the source of truth!

digging mode on.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 12 Jan

so if you zap the good stuff before others, you keep earning trust this way?

I think there is a ceiling at 0.9 but basically, yes.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 12 Jan

source: #98002 #222470

Yeah, those are still relevant but you missed the latest release affecting ranking (iirc) from October 2023:

most of us will see the same content but it'll be ranked to suit your zapping preferences ever so slightly

But not blaming you, our search is really bad. I am even surprised that you found those old release posts, lol

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Natalia 12 Jan freebie

But not blaming you, our search is really bad.

oh yes, much could be improved 🥸

And I need to do the diggings for my new posts, so I've tried different ways to search things - with certain filters, it gets better.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @quark 12 Jan

Very interesting. It seems trust score is important. One day we may have to do proof of trust and save the trust scores in the Blockchain (as inscriptions or something😅)