Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
The spam filtering dilemma Sharing how we think about it so people can better understand: 1. Most people will only use social networks if they are fun 2. Casting something and getting dozens of spammy replies is not fun 3. If you get enough spammy replies, you'll just stop using the app 4. So, aggressively filtering for spam is necessary to keep your existing users happy 5. However, this means some good new users will hit spam filters. Understatement: this is a bad user experience for those people. It would be great to not have this happen. 6. But given the choice of who to make unhappy — an existing user who has invested a ton of time and energy into the network or a new user that is most likely to churn (top tier social networks lose 50% of users!), then you have to optimize for your existing users. 7. So does that mean you don’t care about new users? No! It’s existential to have new users be able to join Farcaster and find people to connect with — without being labeled as spam. 1/2
32 replies
48 recasts
270 reactions
Mikado
@mikadoe.eth
A report as not spam button could help you refine the algorithm. This could also weight the reports by the reputation of the person who reported.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
What happens if someone reports not spam but the user is objectively spammy? Should the person reporting / vouching get penalized?
3 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
aferg
@aaronrferguson
Yep. If you’re going to flag something as not spam you should be confident enough doing so to not fear a penalty. Otherwise not having a penalty will result in gaming the not-spam flagging.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Bingo.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
