You will be able to design rating templates where the things being rated is a piece of data, and the fields are whatever serves your purpose. Maybe the rating template is a flag that the data is true or false, or is (or is not) NSFW, or is / is not supported by randomized clinical trial data, etc. And you could attach a confidence rating so you can indicate how sure you are of your rating. And a comments field, if you like. And if the community likes your template and it gets a lot of use, the Grapevine will be able to compute weighted average scores, where the weight of each rating depends on the influence score of the rater in the appropriate context.
You mean could I make an attestation regarding a pseudonymous user account? Or an AI? Or a group? Yes to all!
The way the Grapevine works, trust is contextual, and contexts are categorized, with trust inherited from general to specific categories. Example: User A trusts User B in all contexts; B trusts C on medical topics; C trusts D on pulmonary topics; D trusts E on treatment protocols for pulmonary tuberculosis. Each of these links is an attestation stored in nostr, and this is how User A finds User E and benefits from E’s expertise.
Many. Here’s one:
The Grapevine calculates an influence score that is context based — eg, Alice’s Grapevine tells her that Bob is awesome at rating movies in the comedies genre, so he gets a high score in that context, which means if she’s looking for a comedy to watch tonight, his ratings of comedies are weighted heavily. Problem: how to calculate the Influence score in a way that doesn’t give undue influence to Bob just because he has a zillion followers? The Grapevine’s solution:
Ah, so: how do you find that one person who happens to have exactly the info that you’re looking for in some niche topic? Despite being on the other side of the world, multiple hops away from you in any given social graph, and with no more than a handful of followers?
How do you find the needle in the haystack?
By localize you mean how do you select them?
Which one line pitch is better:
v1:
The Grapevine enables your community to identify trustworthy content curators.
v2:
The Grapevine reduces spam, personalizes your online experience and delivers more trustworthy facts and information by enabling you and your community to select the who and the how of domain-specific content curation.
The earth's most rare mineral is grootfonteinite. The entire known supply of it fits inside of a thimble with room to spare. They exist as microscopic grains embedded inside other minerals.
There is an entire mineral database that is very well curated if you are so inclined. Here is the entry for grootfontenite: https://www.mindat.org/min-46809.html
I am Grootfontenite? 😂
The Grapevine may be what you’re looking for. The Grapevine enables you and your community to identify who is the most trustworthy, and in what context, so they can help you curate content, facts and information.
It revolves around the idea of a data model, which could be as simple as a list of nostr apps or a graph of a nostr app categories, but can be as complex as it needs to be.
Here is the walkthrough of a proof of concept for the decentralized curation of a simple list:
https://github.com/wds4/pretty-good/blob/main/appDescriptions/curatedLists/overview.md
Note that there is no single point of failure, bc you are always at the center of your Grapevine.
Does one communication method mean something like: only on nostr? Or do you mean: a single unified protocol or algorithm for extracting data of interest from your peer network?
My personal desktop app Pretty Good Apps has had a multi-account option for a long time. Also has a feature that shows you a list of relays used by your follows list, ranked by number of users of each relay. I may be the only person who uses it though. Still pretty buggy. I wouldn’t recommend it unless you want to play around with Curated Lists, which I think is pretty cool although it needs better UX. Which is why nostr:npub1p2uwv7qme2u92y2qcpqqvafhkkqsxfrrnz8m79lm60v4005s7vuqnexr0s is rebuilding it!
How about:
The Grapevine enables you and your trusted community to identify who is trustworthy, and in what context, so they can help you curate content, facts, and information.
Maybe “picking people” is too vague — it means to endorse someone as good (or bad) at some thing in some context. Alice may endorse Bob to rate comedies but not dramas.
The problem is that it’s getting harder and harder to know what sources of information (eg news sources) and recommendations (eg product or business recommendations) to trust, so the idea is that they’re not randos if you get to pick them. And picking the people who pick the people who pick the people gives you a wider net.
So how do I say this without it sounding like randos?
How about this:
“The Grapevine lets you pick the people, who pick the people, who pick the people, who curate your content, facts, and information.”
I’m brainstorming one line startup pitches. How’s this:
“Pretty Good Freedom Tech breathes life into the web of trust by giving it command over our digital tools of communication.”
Does it make you want to hear more? Or is it too vague and confusing?
#100aDayUntil100k
#100aDayTil100k
Day 35 ✔️
#100aDayUntil100k
#100aDayTil100k
25 x 4
Day 34 ✅
#100aDayUntil100k
#100aDayTil100k
Day 33 ✔️