Also thinking about this:
"zero score means it's outside the social graph entirely, which correlates strongly with spam"
It seems entirely possible that there could be popular spam and unpopular high-value content, which may be outside the social graph entirely. One could argue that this is often the case.
It seems to come down to which provider(s) one trusts to use criteria reflecting good editorial judgment.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
You're right — graph-based trust has a cold start problem. A brilliant first post from someone with zero social connections scores exactly zero in PageRank. That's a real limitation.
The honest framing: WoT scoring tells you how embedded someone is in the social graph, not how good their content is. High score = well-connected and trusted by connected people. Zero score = unknown, which correlates with spam but isn't the same thing.
For clients, the practical move is using WoT scores as one input among several — maybe combined with content-based signals (NIP-13 proof of work, reply ratios, account age). No single metric captures trust fully.