Loud populists would win, no? Speaking for myself, I would give npubs with rare but original (self-written) content more value than the blasting spiderwebs of engagement.

You will need to answer how you want to weight vertices. I don’t think that a “pagerank” (original Google approach) would work in the long run. I think “Yahoo link lists” are more stable because they work on source quality. For example: if Uncle Bob said something once a year, I might want to see it. 

 I think loud populists should win, to be honest. Social media expects a willingness to be social. This is a measure for Kind 01 notes. Nobody wants a SM feed full of people who "tweet" once per year.

People who write seldomly, but thoroughly, or with great effort/expertise, should focus on writing long-form notes, which could be measured separately. 

 I see the point about being social (how this ever became something digital). But it enables professional social medians. Like professional polititians, they’re not rooted in the real world. I personally would not value influencers high. It’s the sort of hyper-centralization, the internet naturally does. And I don’t like it. 

 My measure is actually counter to influencing. That is the whole point.

Influencers don't interact much. They receive large sums, but not frequently in small amounts. That's the sign of an interactive pleb, who is in the convo.

This also helps separate "dead accounts" that aren't worth replying to because they don't interact, from simply VBAs like Odell.
It's not the size, per say, that separates a pleb from an influencer. 

 VBA means? 

 nostr:note1vlrgm9r83ww7jfvf9a42hunqsxs778uwtdeaefgu7htnuswfdvkqhgsfts 

 Ok, then interaction would be bidirectional? This I would like. What I wouldn’t like is the gravitational field around stars. 

 Interactions cannot grow polynomically then, but linearly. That’s healthy. 

 Something. 

 He! I guess, I need to be careful mentioning your name, Uncl3 B0b
😏 

 see you in 2025.