hey @kenny the town pariah is fighting Dan on something you’ve casted about literally thousands of times in the last two years

incentivizing things @ poidh.xyz - come chill /poidh + follow @poidhbot

yes which is why everyone quote casts on here instead of replying

replies are so nuked it makes 0 sense to reply vs quote cast if it's something you think might be slightly interesting to your followers

is that good for the network? personally I think it's a bad move to fracture conversations but Merkle doesn't care

I’ve just thought that replying is good for having a conversation with the person who posted (if they’ll respond) and then quote casting is good for having a larger commentary that followers can engage with

problem for Farcaster though is generally some of the best content on the network occurs organically in those deep threads of back and forth conversations 

having those posts show up seamlessly in the following feed is one of the best parts about twitter... it's like being at a party and overhearing a great conversation happening then hopping in to join

on Farcaster that doesn't get a chance to happen and that's sad

friendly neighborhood shitcaster // working on @pinetree

1) even if someone is wrong, doesn’t make you right — but I take your point that being wrong should increase open-mindedness 

2) I’m not sure that I follow. Is the idea that top decile content creators want to see replies and engage? Or that their followers want to engage with them?

The latter encourages retention. But not sure how the former helps bring new content creators. Especially if the replies are low quality 

Putting my cards on the table, I think replies are the lifeblood of any non-performative network, which is what I think this is. IMO the issue comes from trying to make it a performative network. But trying to understand your view before I lead with my bias

1) they're obviously struggling with growth so I don't think they should be beyond criticism regarding what tactics drive growth

2) good convos bring people who are good at convos to the party

it's true that the majority of people suck at convos and are wallflowers at parties

and that's why this isn't the ONLY key to growth

but it's essential for attracting the power users who churn out good content

this is what Merkle is missing, they're focused on the fact that 99% of users don't give af about a following feed instead of the fact that the 1% of power users who create all the content the 99% consumes would love to have more visibility and reach with replies

The common response from Dan / Merkle is that replies and a community vibe are good for retention but not growth 

Per the party analogy, overhearing a good convo might encourage you to stay, but won’t bring new people to the party — it might actually disincentivize you from going if you think it’s going to be all inside jokes

Curious what your thoughts are on this logic

you see it if the algo serves it to you

and only if it's a shallow comment <2 replies deep from top level cast

that means a vast amount of the network's content can't be found in feeds (unless quote casted in)

I often see it if someone I’m following replies to another post