RE: People Rank - Using Page Rank Algorithm for Better Curation and Rewards by edgeland

steem · @edgeland · Aug 12 '16

$0.05

I feel skeptical about using Dunbar's number as a standard for online interactions.  

It was originally observed in connection with things like nomadic tribes and sections of the Roman military.  There's a study that shows that it may be applicable to online social networks, but if we purposely use it to limit ourselves  when creating new types of social network, then that choice affects the network's growth.  It could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

How do we know what network size is selected for by "natural" evolution in social network structures that haven't been conceived of before?

I haven't done that much research on this yet.  Just a thought.

👍 edgeland, anonymint

`author`	edgeland
`permlink`	re-dantheman-people-rank-using-page-rank-algorithm-for-better-curation-and-rewards-20160812t054515416z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"]}
`created`	2016-08-12 05:45:15
`last_update`	2016-08-12 05:45:15
`depth`	1
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2016-09-10 19:32:42
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.042 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.003 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	660
`author_reputation`	14,648,354,466,714
`root_title`	"People Rank - Using Page Rank Algorithm for Better Curation and Rewards"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	760,008
`net_rshares`	135,973,381,578
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (2)

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
edgeland	0 B		88,796,504,585	100%
anonymint	0 B		47,176,876,993	100%