I actually disagree with that. It’s theoretically possible to have quality and quantity at the same time. But to do so, it can’t be based on an engagement algorithm, because engagement typically correlates with low quality posts.
This is why you’ll never see quality and quantity together from a profit-seeking platform - they are incentivized to shovel you low quality stuff that’s highly engaging.
Algorithms doesn’t change much. Back in the days when we used mostly forums, and chats, and… all without algorithms, we had the same trend with quality and quantity. The quality went lower with the number of people using them. The small niche forum maintained the quality and for some are still up. The biggest quickly shrink.
The same applied to the first social media and the newer.
You’re pretending what not the same as facts. I can pretend a lot. It’s how I built general statement fitting the majority.
In fact, it doesn’t work like this. Whatever you use, the quality shrink with the quantity. You will have an equilibrium at some point but even with algorithms targeting quality, it will shrink.
The algorithms will continually serve something, low are high quality doesn’t matter. If I use an algorithm priorizing high quality content on a poop emoji platform, it will give me poop emoji. What’s matter the most is what is posted. And, you can’t control the quality of the post.
It’s how mainstream algorithm based social medias actually work. You have farms of content adapting themselves at each algorithm change.
So, it’s why the quality depends of how difficult it’s to use the social media.
I think you’re confusing what the word “algorithm” means. It could be literally anything! You could even write an algorithm that serves you the single most interesting, high quality, perfectly relevant piece of information found on the internet that day.
Yes obviously mainstream algorithms are designed like you said. But there’s no reason why they have to operate like that.
I actually disagree with that. It’s theoretically possible to have quality and quantity at the same time. But to do so, it can’t be based on an engagement algorithm, because engagement typically correlates with low quality posts.
This is why you’ll never see quality and quantity together from a profit-seeking platform - they are incentivized to shovel you low quality stuff that’s highly engaging.
Algorithms doesn’t change much. Back in the days when we used mostly forums, and chats, and… all without algorithms, we had the same trend with quality and quantity. The quality went lower with the number of people using them. The small niche forum maintained the quality and for some are still up. The biggest quickly shrink.
The same applied to the first social media and the newer.
An algorithm that prioritizes quality (instead of engagement) DOES change it though. Let’s not pretend that all algorithms are the same.
But if we don’t, how can we act superior to people who use algorithm based platforms? /s
You’re pretending what not the same as facts. I can pretend a lot. It’s how I built general statement fitting the majority.
In fact, it doesn’t work like this. Whatever you use, the quality shrink with the quantity. You will have an equilibrium at some point but even with algorithms targeting quality, it will shrink.
The algorithms will continually serve something, low are high quality doesn’t matter. If I use an algorithm priorizing high quality content on a poop emoji platform, it will give me poop emoji. What’s matter the most is what is posted. And, you can’t control the quality of the post.
It’s how mainstream algorithm based social medias actually work. You have farms of content adapting themselves at each algorithm change.
So, it’s why the quality depends of how difficult it’s to use the social media.
I think you’re confusing what the word “algorithm” means. It could be literally anything! You could even write an algorithm that serves you the single most interesting, high quality, perfectly relevant piece of information found on the internet that day.
Yes obviously mainstream algorithms are designed like you said. But there’s no reason why they have to operate like that.