pull down to refresh
195 sats \ 45 replies \ @Undisciplined 23 Mar freebie \ on: Stacker Saloon
Two questions about trust scores:
- Many of us zap almost every reply we get, varying the amount to reflect quality. Oftentimes, these are comments that no one else zaps. Does that hurt our trust scores?
- Are those of us who like to zap newcomers' bios, as part of the welcome committee, hurting our trust scores in doing so?
The meta question is "Does SN want to incentivize those behaviors?"
Very good questions.
My personal feeling is that SN Saloon is not counted, is mostly shitposting, memes and offtopic discussions.
I mean, it should count for anything, only sats people are zapping.
The rest of comments inside a post, I think is counting and should count for reputation, because sometimes are very good discussions and even long threads.
Zapping back I think is just a method courtesy or like "hey, I read you comment, I agree)
reply
Zapping back I think is just a method courtesy
I agree, but as such it's a pro-social activity. It seems like it would not be ideal if it was negatively impacting people's SN reputation.
reply
Not sure if @k00b is aware of this, but I observed a lot many SN users behavior.
And some of them are using multiple accounts to zap themselves from different accounts.
Is quite easy to catch those if you browse SN without logging in (due to personal mutes or filters you will not see this from your account).
idk how this affect the reputation, I think is quite hard to control. The only thing that could help is stay vigilant. In then end only good content get attention anyways.
reply
I'm not nearly clever enough to solve that problem. As I understand the formula, you're right that you could have more influence as two accounts than as one. Two early zaps of 5k sats are going to be worth more than one early zap of 10k, provided the accounts have similar reputation.
I'm sure the team are well aware of that, though.
reply
deleted by author
deleted by author
reply
Why doesn't it hurt our trust scores?
These would not generally be categorized as "good" posts. My understanding is that "trust" is a measure of our likelihood to zap "good" content.
reply
deleted by author
reply
From the faq
and lose trust by zapping bad content.
reply
but then zapping bad ones is not equal to no one zapping your comments? I think bad content is like the ones got outlawed?
Many of us zap almost every reply we get, varying the amount to reflect quality. Oftentimes, these are comments that no one else zaps. Does that hurt our trust scores?
reply
Roughly: Person A trusts person B according the binomial proportion of their zapping. That is, roughly,
# A agreed with B / (# B zapped - # B agreed with A). (We construct a confidence interval so we can predict with smaller samples what this proportion is likely to be.)So if B is zapping a lot of stuff that A never zaps, A begins to trust B less. But, importantly, we normalize A's trust among everyone they trust, so if A isn't zapping at all for a period of time, and person B continues to zap as does everyone else, A will continue to roughly trust B the same.
When A downzaps things B has zapped,
# A agreed with B roughly becomes # A agreed with B - (10 * # A disagreed with B).Note: this is only a single link in the trust graph. A can never agree with B directly, but still end up trusting B, if A trusts C and D, and C and D trust B.
reply
I think I understand the trust graph concept. How is that converted into our effect on zaprank, though? It seems like we must also have something like a global trust score.
reply
deleted by author
I wasn't thinking about outlawed (or just net downzapped) content. That would make sense.
reply