david on Nostr: Sorry Alison I just saw this. You can try it out here: ...
Sorry Alison I just saw this.
You can try it out here:
https://grapevine-brainstorm.vercel.app
Although I have to apologize in advance if it’s buggy and freezes up for you. Been having some problems with neo4j settings. I’m thinking I may need to hire a neo4j expert to speed things along.
Right now the only variables are follows and mutes. Although in principle, the process of “interpretation” allows you to use any sources of data you want. Someone just needs to write a script to translate each new data source — zaps, for instance — into a format ready for digestion by the GrapeRank algo. That “interpretation” script assigns a meaning to each piece of data. In the current implementation, a mute is interpreted to mean “bot” and a follow is interpreted to mean “not a bot” (score 0 and 1, respectively). Interpretation also assigns a weight, a degree of confidence, to each piece of data. Example: Maybe a zap also means not a bot but you think it should carry more weight than a follow.
You can try it out here:
https://grapevine-brainstorm.vercel.app
Although I have to apologize in advance if it’s buggy and freezes up for you. Been having some problems with neo4j settings. I’m thinking I may need to hire a neo4j expert to speed things along.
Right now the only variables are follows and mutes. Although in principle, the process of “interpretation” allows you to use any sources of data you want. Someone just needs to write a script to translate each new data source — zaps, for instance — into a format ready for digestion by the GrapeRank algo. That “interpretation” script assigns a meaning to each piece of data. In the current implementation, a mute is interpreted to mean “bot” and a follow is interpreted to mean “not a bot” (score 0 and 1, respectively). Interpretation also assigns a weight, a degree of confidence, to each piece of data. Example: Maybe a zap also means not a bot but you think it should carry more weight than a follow.