welter
@fun
RE: the reputation score i just launched 1. i made it in less than an hour 2. it's strictly based on FC OG follows i agree it's a bad indicator, but i'm glad i launched it because now i have all this valuable feedback from a bunch of people, now i know what it should be and what it shouldn't be only up from here
18 replies
4 recasts
67 reactions
welter
@fun
for v2, i'm thinking 25% FC OG follows 50% cast quality 25% account history cast quality - negative points for any low quality casts (f4f, follow back, etc) - positive points for high engagement - etc account history - average # of casts per month/week - total days on farcaster - etc
3 replies
0 recast
6 reactions
J. Valeska 🦊🎩🫂
@jvaleska.eth
feedback on v2: so, replying someone with ty! would make reputation decrease? I think measure low quality casts is not as easy as it initially looks.. there are tons of situations where a "low" effort cast is not a low effort cast, and, there are some reasons for not casting high quality casts all the time.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
rphgrc.base.eth ↑🔵🎩😺
@rphgrc.eth
this is the best imho "account history - average # of casts per month/week - total days on farcaster - etc" + recast quote reply from the FC OGs, not only having the FC OGs follow
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
llamafacts
@llamafacts.eth
I don't think longterm FC OG follows makes sense. Why don't use a weight based approach and use the FC OGs as a seed? So let's say, they all have 100 reputation (the highest). Whatever interaction they have with other people (recasts, likes, comments, follows) will increase those people's reputation.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction