Content pfp
Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/farcasterunion
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Njal pfp
Njal
@cryptonjal
Is the new spam labelling system then the old one? Let's first dive into the figures of active FIDS in the last 21 days: Label | old system | new system 0 | 87,945 | 82,379 1 | 22,508 | 0 2 | 26,002 | 59,695 no label | 14,912 | 9,293 Total | 151,367 | 147,897 I don't know where the difference in total active FIDs, between the two datasets came from, tbh. Interestingly: - with the new dataset there are 3,470 active FIDs missing(?) I dive into that when I have time. - the change was only in favour of spam label 2. - Disappearance of label 1 suggest that all outcomes of the system are (considered) valid. - Less no labels suggest that they need less data, so the outcome of the LLM seems to have stronger signals.
4 replies
1 recast
9 reactions
Pichi pfp
Pichi
@pichi
https://farcaster.xyz/mvr/0x9777c49b He did pull some numbers. I didn’t add them.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Njal pfp
Njal
@cryptonjal
Interesting: - 1/2 no label, 1/4 label 0, and 1/4 label 2. Imo the unitial ratios where and are to neat https://warpcast.com/cryptonjal/0x4338e36e - Total FID label changes are in favour of label 2, but this change is bigger in active FIDs then in all FIDs in the dataset. 39.4% (was 17.2%) of all active FIDs are label 2, and only 25.8% of the dataset has label 2. Could be the same ratio active/total label 2 FIDs in the old system, but I'm not behind my computer atm (if I remember well it was 12-14%). If that ratio apply it would be an incentive to get label 2 numbers as high as reasonable accountable because the most important figure, active FIDs, changes 2x more in favour of label 2.
1 reply
1 recast
1 reaction