david on Nostr: GrapeRank is designed to use whatever data is available, for whatever context you ...
GrapeRank is designed to use whatever data is available, for whatever context you wish to calculate. You can use multiple data sources simultaneously for one context. If the data quality is low, you can weight it accordingly, bc GrapeRank explicitly keeps track of confidence which is a factor used in calculating weights.
Low quality, highly ambiguous doesn’t mean useless. For many potential contexts, high quality data may be sparse, but low quality data is abundant. I’d put follows and mutes in the “low quality but abundant” category.
For some contexts, high quality, unambiguous does exist. For other contexts, people would be willing to issue high quality data if devs built the tools to do so and if the data could be put to good use. GrapeRank is one such good use.
High quality, low ambiguity can be useful even if it’s not highly abundant. I don’t need every pleb to issue an opinion on topic X if I’m only going to listen to the experts and if there’s only a small handful of experts.
Suppose I want my grapevine to curate a list of NIPs. I might want one list curated by users and another list curated by nostr devs. GrapeRank can (in principle - I haven’t yet coded this up) curate a list of nostr devs right now using NIP-51 lists, filtered by Real Nostr Users. Is there currently a way for devs to indicate their preferences or their approval of NIPs? I don’t know — but if there were, GrapeRank could synthesize their preferences into a curated list, which would be useful even if we only had a handful of devs contributing to it. And if people started to rely on this system, it would incentivize more devs to use it to contribute their preferences, thus increasing the utility of the list. Positive feedback loop.
Low quality, highly ambiguous doesn’t mean useless. For many potential contexts, high quality data may be sparse, but low quality data is abundant. I’d put follows and mutes in the “low quality but abundant” category.
For some contexts, high quality, unambiguous does exist. For other contexts, people would be willing to issue high quality data if devs built the tools to do so and if the data could be put to good use. GrapeRank is one such good use.
High quality, low ambiguity can be useful even if it’s not highly abundant. I don’t need every pleb to issue an opinion on topic X if I’m only going to listen to the experts and if there’s only a small handful of experts.
Suppose I want my grapevine to curate a list of NIPs. I might want one list curated by users and another list curated by nostr devs. GrapeRank can (in principle - I haven’t yet coded this up) curate a list of nostr devs right now using NIP-51 lists, filtered by Real Nostr Users. Is there currently a way for devs to indicate their preferences or their approval of NIPs? I don’t know — but if there were, GrapeRank could synthesize their preferences into a curated list, which would be useful even if we only had a handful of devs contributing to it. And if people started to rely on this system, it would incentivize more devs to use it to contribute their preferences, thus increasing the utility of the list. Positive feedback loop.