C O M P Ξ Z on Farcaster

Content pfp

https://warpcast.com/~/channel/farcasterunion

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Njal pfp

'High signal' love how they use this word. Everyone want to be a high signal user, and everyone want to read high signal content. I have no Idea what it means. Casters with Pro seems to be high signal, and who knows who else. If your high on the rewards board it will be considered high signal content. I can speculate, but it's still untouchable, a container concept. Love it. https://farcaster.xyz/dwr.eth/0x9a3bca77 https://farcaster.xyz/deodad/0x3fb1f8e9

2 replies

1 recast

3 reactions

Pichi pfp

It’s worrisome. Yes, many of the folks who subscribed are super supporters of Farcaster. But many are speculating on the NFT. So it’s a signal, but not THE signal.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Njal pfp

It is concealing. If pro subscribers are high signal users (regardless of the spam label) then it means that it is only about turnover, there isn't any other use for them than Pro subscription payments. Mini app use by spam label 0 does not hinder the rest of Farcaster (as far as I know), so there is no reason for FC to hinder them in that. In my opinion, high signal will be anything that (in)directly maximizes profits; being on the network longer, attracting new users, making more transactions (resulting in more swabs), etc.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Pichi pfp

I love that so many devs are looking at it closely and trying to add more data layers. It feels like we finally have enough legos. Neynar scores now include mini app usage to catch folks who are interacting differently. Spam algo is binary now. Pro badge shows who has money. OpenRank shows network connections @geoffgolberg is highlighting inauthentic accounts It feels like we should be able to Captain Planet this shit. I know @compez.eth has been working on this for months too. We don’t want to leave people out, but don’t want to reward our farmers and extractors. Feels so close.

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

C O M P Ξ Z pfp

I think there are many complex criteria that we can use for evaluation. But people don't like to get involved with multiple conditions! This is usually very overwhelming for accounts that are newbie! So we need to consider a general criterion. I'm not sure yet but I think I can introduce a general evaluation index in right time that don't just rely on FC! Tbh, playing with data is really time consuming! I would love for @rjs to help us with this.

3 replies

0 recast

3 reactions

Ryan J. Shaw pfp

In a couple of weeks I should have my life back and start participating more again! Right now every time I turn my head something new pops up to suck my time away 😭

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Njal pfp

Totally agree. It must be simple for a newbie. Could imagine an app where you can choose between loose, normal and strict spam labelling (there's always a grey area), and the possibility to trust followers from certain accounts, and if a certain account trusts other accounts them too (maybe 2 or 3 levels deep). I'm lacking the skills and time to make such a thing. But I'm missing personal judgement at this time in spam labelling.

2 replies

0 recast

2 reactions

Njal pfp

I researched @mvr's and my dataset about the 1st 10k pro subscribers in a slightly different way than before. Both FC and Neynar measures spammy behaviour, OpenRank doesn't. So, FC and Neynar could have consensus or disagreement about who's a spammer (in this case I simplified the Neynar score to: <0.3 = 0; >0.7 = 2; 0.3–0.7 = "no label") In the case of consensus, the outcome is clear. In other cases, OpenRank could help to give casters with a better OpenRank score the benefit of the doubt. Of course, it should be stricter on a no label | 0 combi than a no label | 2 combi. However, this could end up with more "no label" values than FC. In this case FC has 2,307 no label values (most of them new accounts btw); Neynar score has 6,416 times a score between 0.3–0.7. This is an arbitrary bandwidth btw, however making it smaller isn't satisfying (a 0.45–0.55 bandwidth change the consensus with a factor of 1.25). Imo consensus doesn't need further judgement (except from a trusted user), but the rest does.

1 reply

1 recast

3 reactions