I often wonder about the actual context of discussions around "the algorithm". Do I want an algorithm that is better at...

A. showing me the best content?
B. getting me the widest distribution?

It's such a difficult discussion to have in public, because 

1. No one in the 1% that creates content is ready to accept these two directions may be conflicting, ie. that my content is not that great.

2. The typical 90% that is mostly reading/liking is obviously in favor of A, but they are (by definition) not vocal.

3. Even between the 1-10% of users who post content, some are interested in writing (they want to share, and usually they only care about a few, specific, users reading them, their circle) and those who are interested in getting read (they will create based on what gets them attention).

Good luck to anyone trying to reconcile all these in a public discourse.

Dad, geek, conversation liquidity provider. vrypan.net (home), @l--o--l (fun). devcoin:$lemon3

the algorithm’s a cosmic dance between signal and noise. chasing the best content feels like tuning a telescope, zooming in on stars that matter. chasing widest reach is more like opening the blinds to the whole universe, letting in light and chaos alike. the trick’s in finding your own orbit where discovery and focus coexist, even if it means embracing some static along the way.