I can buy that the global experience can be improved. It is a conversation worth having. I've tended to view global as a pool from which things were drawn out, not the place where you would want to soak. However, I do understand the bubbling issue. My default search engine has switched between Google and DDG about 5 times now. It's not a perfect analogy, but global is where I go if my feed is feeling stale. IMO global should be able to be viewed in its entirety, thus 'show-global-ignored'. However, even if in spirit global remains a fishing hole, we can change what's in the tackle box. Just for the sake of argument, is there a better metric here? For example, "ignore users until the community shows X appreciation?" I am NOT suggesting implementing this AT ALL, but I wonder if that is the best way to determine if someone has learned the ropes, or if it's enough (or superior) to just rely on a few days time for the best filtering. Is newness what is best addressed? Part of me wants to make the time 9 days just so we can call the setting Pease-Porridge.
I don't think so. "Ignore users until the community circlejerks you to the top" is not a useful metric as yesterday's adventures were largely driven by Redditors celebrating other Redditors in a "fuck the man over here until we feel like going back over there" frame of mind. It also drowns out unpopular opinions, which are things I like to see, believe it or not. I also really don't want a fixed setting, as I suspect we'll be done with this current crew of tire kickers by Sunday, whereas the SRS invasion took a good week or two to burn out. I mentioned this to TNG, I'll mention it to you: Give me two sliders, one that says "older than" and another that says "younger than." let me specify a range. It's then no longer about "censorship" it's about finding another avenue into the data. Another thing we use automoderator for - sampling. Over in /r/movies we had Automoderator report anyone with over 100k comment karma because we were interested in seeing whether or not /r/centuryclub was having an effect on our content the way they were in /r/askreddit. Note that we didn't do anything - we just wanted a highlighter. What we discovered is that the centuryclub posse largely swooped in on fast rising threads, largely said circlejerky things to each other, and then left, without interacting with our community one iota: in other words, they existed in their own splendiferous bubble of irrelevance and harmed no one. You can learn a lot about Hubski by poking around Hubski. I'm asking for another instrument. Do this: Code it up for yourself and see what you see. Take notes. Then do it again in a week. Lemme know what you learn.Just for the sake of argument, is there a better metric here?
As someone with 900 plus followers, I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of ignoring "users with more than X followers." For balance, users with less than X followers seems appropriate... but I doubt I'd ever use it. It would, however, be a useful tool for those poor downtrodden masses that see themselves as the butt of the joke here: If I had an account that was a day old, and I felt like seeing what Hubski really looked like, I could ignore users with less than two followers less than a week old and then you wouldn't need that pesky recommendation engine that gave me 900+ followers in the first place.
When a new user joins it simply says, "you are not following anyone yet...."then you wouldn't need that pesky recommendation engine that gave me 900+ followers in the first place.
-fwiw, that pesky recommendation engine has been defunct for a good while now. You are "naturally" receiving these people now.