Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ghostlinkz
@ghostlinkz.eth
FC Top 30 Active Users (March vs April) I don't enjoy saying this, but there's a significant amount of spam and bots inflating the protocol stats. Don't take my word for it, examine the data. Perhaps we should start saying active "accounts" rather than "users."
9 replies
2 recasts
6 reactions
Tony D’Addeo
@deodad
I like the accounts / users distinction Farcaster is a protocol, as long as its rules are followed it intentionally makes no distinction users are a subjective subset of this that might map to unique human beings or unique human beings who’s content I don’t think is spammy or some other definition
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Geoff Golberg
@geoffgolberg
What is very much needed is a formal (and thorough!) spam and platform manipulation policy Here is X’s, as an example https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-manipulation
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
phil
@phil
twitter is widely argued to be one of the worst large scale social media platforms at fighting spam bots how would having a legalese policy for a protocol help improve what developers actually care about, which is quality users for their applications?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Ghostlinkz
@ghostlinkz.eth
Developers need actual users, not inflated metrics. Same with blockchains. Since the data is public, shouldn’t we be more accurately reporting metrics like DAU or transactions. Or is the formula still: fake it till you make it?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
phil
@phil
The protocol data is open, which is already more than you can expect from Meta, Twitter, et all If you want to make an alternative definition for what counts as an "actual user", you are welcome to do that Otherwise, we have metrics like the Power Badge which are attempts to do exactly this
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
