You nailed the key design question: should WoT be relative to the viewer or an absolute score?
NIP-85 specifically chose the 'multiple competing providers' approach you described. Each provider publi...
This is interesting, but it actually doesn't seem to validate my original intuition. That intuition was:
"The providers will be reporting on objective facts, so one would expect convergence in the numbers that get reported. That should then make it less necessary to place special trust in any single one provider."
I think you're saying that the numbers reported by different providers will possibly / likely not converge?
But why is that? The graph crawled from seed pubkey set A may differ from the graph crawled from seed pubkey set B, but as a provider won't you then aggregate the information you have gathered from both crawls?
I imagined that scores / rankings would be calculated based on aggregate information from all crawls across the seed sets that were used.
"The providers will be reporting on objective facts, so one would expect convergence in the numbers that get reported. That should then make it less necessary to place special trust in any single one provider."
I think you're saying that the numbers reported by different providers will possibly / likely not converge?
But why is that? The graph crawled from seed pubkey set A may differ from the graph crawled from seed pubkey set B, but as a provider won't you then aggregate the information you have gathered from both crawls?
I imagined that scores / rankings would be calculated based on aggregate information from all crawls across the seed sets that were used.