Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ryan J. Shaw
@rjs
FID vs. OpenRank "Engagement" Ranking: - https://dune.com/queries/3901607 - *ridiculously heavily* skewed towards the earliest users of Farcast - Why? Because the algorithm starts off by selecting a trusted group of core users based on metrics heavily biased in favor of early users (see https://docs.openrank.com/integrations/farcaster/ranking-strategies-on-farcaster). - early users receive multiple boosts to engagement due to similar algorithms being used everywhere (e.g. Power Badge, Degen Tips), which results in a positive feedback loop. FID vs. Follower Count: - https://dune.com/queries/3901623/6557858 - nearly impossible for users who registered after a certain point to create the mega followings of the earliest users Why not use first cast or registration date? Dune's Neynar data doesn't have this <= 2023-09. If anybody has an alternative data source I can use on Dune, it would be much appreciated. Next: I investigate the degree of cliquiness in early users, if anybody is interested?
30 replies
14 recasts
70 reactions
gill
@gill
The thing is, follower count is not engagement. @itsbasil made a really good cast regarding this the other day, where their account is just too cluttered with a high following with nowhere near engagement from that number. This chart shows it well. Some aberration on the auto follower function that ended up cluttering early fids with all sorts of bots and 1 day life span users etc. In the end, a high following count on a low fid doesn’t mean much engagement wise. Just a meaningless number.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Ryan J. Shaw
@rjs
I agree that in isolation the follower count is meaningless. But I think we *can* compare follower counts if we assume the caveats you mentioned apply equally across all users. Then we can say there's a strong inverse relationship between FID and follower count and start asking what could explain that, is it fair or unfair...
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
