If a post gets downvoted, it could be a geinuenly awful post. But another post that gets downvoted, but is actually empiracially scientifically true, then it is treated equivolent as the other even though they are the same.
I don’t think this is the answer but one idea is to add points to people, or products, who are verified to be awesome. So that would be a scientist or compassionate politician gets more votes or a healthy product gets a subsidy.
Uh huh… like web scraping? There seems to be some confusion-making
You don’t need to scrape. The votes made on one instance need to be propagated to the others. So the information “person X up/downvoted post Y” is openly transmitted as part of the defederation protocol.
The short answers are a bit infuriating for me. I am tempted to ask more questions, but this is becoming an unfun game for me. I guess one could see the votes, but the categorizing the types of topics per user and/or cluster of users sounds like a difficult, combinatorically complex job.
Ah ok, now I see the confusion. I thought you were enquiring how to gather the data.
There’s well known clustering algorithms for that. It’s a long time known and solved problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_analysis
These techniques have the benefit that you don’t have to inject your own biases into the score assignment, you can just let the data speak for itself.
I respect that you’re learned and an expert on this topic. I am getting frustrated how the comments are getting cut off prematurely each time. It keeps begging the question. I’m at a point like “ok great so just program the thing” because anything short of that feels like a waste of time
With a swift google I found this example: https://chrispaynehome.github.io/html/voters.html
The author uses such cluster algorithms to find clusters in British political voting behaviour.
One could do the exact same with lemmy up or downvotes. Find cohorts of similarly behaved voters. Then display each posts score per cohort, instead of the aggregate.
Perhaps it’s not a great thing that, so quickly, a topic feels like a waste of time, simply because you lack knowledge.
it’s not simply because I lack knowledge but rather the annoyance of having to query you over and over for this concept that lies in your head. I don’t have access to the patterns in your head, so it’d be more effecient if you laid it out instead of reeling me in with bits at a time.
That’s incorrect. It’s not a concept that exists solely in my head. It’s a long time known and well studied topic, that one can easily research.
I’m not an AI that exists to please your command. You have agency and a brain, you can interact with the world yourself.
I’m trying to give constructive advice on communication skills, but anyways, the concept of clustering as an alternative to or in addition to voting is an interesting concept that i’ll explore. Thank you for sharing