Yep, gotta make that tradeoff. with the intensity of these calculations (WOT, influence, or otherwise) i am concerned about it for the twitter clients.
Moving to (multiple) whitelist first communities/feeds and these scores are not only effective but only focus on the specialized community you belong to/curate. Its a nice second barrier that is enhanced by applying it to something hyper focused.
one thing i would also point out is that a WoT based filtering/weighting system will cost users with big follow lists (and follows with big follows, etc) a lot more computation and actually it would reduce the need to have such long lists because you could "trust" your network to help curate your feed better than you can all by yourself
this is also why there probably needs to be a distinction between mute and not interesting
mute means "this npub posts stuff i consider abusive"
whereas "ignore" - perhaps it could be expressed, or "not interested in this npub" would just mean you discount the weighting of their follow list
have to balance between intensive interrogation of users and make their data input meaningful to them, and i think that a distinction between these two would be helpful to improve the weighting
Distinctions like this will be made, but not until people start using the grapevine. Only then will there be a reason for the distinction to be made.
now this is interesting nostr:nprofile1qqsd6ejdteqpvse63ntf7qz6u9yqspp4z7ymt8094urzwm0x2ceaxxgprdmhxue69uhhg6r9vehhyetnwshxummnw3erztnrdakj7qguwaehxw309a6xsetrd96xzer9dshxummnw3erztnrdakj7qg3waehxw309ahx7um5wgh8w6twv5hshhq5j3 nostr:nprofile1qqs8qy3p9qnnhhq847d7wujl5hztcr7pg6rxhmpc63pkphztcmxp3wgpzemhxue69uhkwun9v4h8xmm4dsh8xurpvdjj7qgswaehxw309ahx7um5wghx6mmd9uq35amnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3ww35x2umpd4jkxct59e5k7tckquc5r
Alexandria "interests" over follows. Following being a "i want this in my feed", whereas "interests", not only follows but related individuals/content. Probably a more synchronistic "global" and perhaps good to find recs.
i think something that would help maybe with this, is where you have some short list of people you want to see everything, your "follows"
everyone else, you have two reaction buttons, one implies negative, the other positive, but you can put an emoji on both without any confusion about the value of it (so, it would be a tag along with the emoji in content)
as a user you react to gets more positive, they move into your web in proportion with your other reactions (otherwise how are you gonna evaluate the relative importance) over time, so people who you react positively to often, get more often selected to be visible to you, and become de-facto follows, without requiring any specific choice of that option
eventually you can even eliminate the explicit follow list and evaluate how to populate a person's feed based on the top 50% positively reacted, and whenever there is a marginal state (the lower 25% of your most positive responses) if there is a more preferred option it gets shown instead of a less preferred option
this would relate to the idea of how much you want to actually engage with, so there would be a "show me more" button that alters this threshold and thus will select more in total than if your demand for stimulation was lower
an interesting thing about this is it entails an easily tracked value scale that can be completely calculated one interaction at a time ONLY by your own personal events (reactions with a positive/negative sense)
these graphs are more predictable and static and can easily be thinned out for efficiency reasons because you can run the numbers so easily, and from this discover stuff easily as well
plus from a data intensive state change side, the giant fucking lists and race conditions problem, it doesn't require such a complete view of the events relative to you
also, from a UX perspective, i think you can do this with a simple 4 level scale
love, interesting, boring, hate
these create a 2d axis of responses that then go into the calculation, and you can even snapshot that state periodically in order to share more easily the state of your graph to others, who can then use your weightings to bias their weightings and discover/avoid things
The question is: who decides on all these details? does everyone agree it’s a 4 level scale? What if somebody wants a 5 level scale?
The answer: YOUR GRAPEVINE manages decisions like this. Yes, it can happen and it will happen.
But we’ll need the Grapevine AND the concept graph to manage ontology.
We build the grapevine first.
Baby steps.
well, i'm just boiling it down to the two axes i see as most visible to users... boring/interesting and love/hate
you can use more axes if you want but each new axis adds decisionmaking cost and reduces the chance of actually capturing that information
the majority of humans have been dumbed down to 2 years old territorial 2d mentality so asking for more than 4 cardinals is literally not gonna work
and you won't have a grapevine without two dimensions, so 4 is it
don't overthink it
How about believe / disbelieve?
hmmm... i think that is subordinate to love/hate
My point isn’t to say you’re right or wrong on this particular issue. It’s just to get you to ask yourself: on this issue, and on others like it, what happens when less than 100 percent of users agree? How do we arrive at consensus on a question which has no schelling point? This question is one conceptual entry point into the tapestry protocol, as overviewed at pgf.tech
objective is a delusion
don't build upon that
we can have an objective account of money
but everything else, this is the tippie toe towards totalitarianism
