The Primal trending algorithm uses exclusively post interactions counts with

10 for replies, 5 for reposts, 2 for zaps, 1 for likes or something like that.

To this day I do not understand why replies are a good metric as it primarily brews controversy

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Primal sucks.

Replies indicate genuine interaction and user investment. Thoughtful or frequent commenting can signal virality.

Whereas other engagements can be done in a single click.

I can understand that, but I have regularly found that GM posts, and controversial content tends to acquire more replies than high-quality content.

Taking any interaction at face value in a recommendation system is going to cause issues, over and over. Context matters.

Alternative approach?

Analyzing content based on context.

I had worked on a Nostr content recommendation system about 2 years ago, and it was pretty accurate.

I’m considering eventually resuming this after I finish more important stuff.

Eventually we’ll need to use a system like this. In the meantime, on our Web app we provide alternative trending feeds including a trending w/o “GM” messages

They still use the same metric value system but we‘ve found them to be less spammy