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
