Change Stage1_Unfollow to unfollow_relative

[lkettle]

Currently there is an absolute threshold for 'chattiness' after which an agent will be unfollowed, set in unfollow_tweet_rate.

Stage1_unfollow is when an agent is unfollowed based on its chattiness relative to the tweet rate of the other agents the receiving agent follows.

Can we change this name to unfollow_relative_chattiness or unfollow_relative ?

[itamblyn]

Agreed - are we sure this is an accurate description?

Why did we call it stage1? I don't follow (ha ha!!)

[lkettle]

ha!

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Isaac Tamblyn notifications@github.com
wrote:

Agreed - are we sure this is an accurate description?

Why did we call it stage1? I don't follow (ha ha!!)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#81 (comment).

Linda Kettle

[lkettle]

it is described correctly because unfollow_tweet_rate (which is an absolute
number applicable to all agents) takes a number as input and
stage1_unfollow (which is relative to each receiving agent) takes a
true/false.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Linda Kettle linda.kettle@uoit.net wrote:

ha!

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Isaac Tamblyn notifications@github.com
wrote:

Agreed - are we sure this is an accurate description?

Why did we call it stage1? I don't follow (ha ha!!)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#81 (comment).

Linda Kettle

Linda Kettle

[itamblyn]

@adam @kevin Yes?

• Isaac

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 6:32 PM, lkettle notifications@github.com wrote:

it is described correctly because unfollow_tweet_rate (which is an absolute
number applicable to all agents) takes a number as input and
stage1_unfollow (which is relative to each receiving agent) takes a
true/false.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Linda Kettle linda.kettle@uoit.net
wrote:

ha!

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Isaac Tamblyn notifications@github.com
wrote:

Agreed - are we sure this is an accurate description?

Why did we call it stage1? I don't follow (ha ha!!)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#81 (comment).

Linda Kettle

Linda Kettle

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#81 (comment).

[kryczko]

I called them stage 0 and stage 1 because stage 0 was very simple, and stage 1 kind of took it up a notch in terms of complexity. I guess I was thinking about it in a 'perturbation theory' way where the zeroth order unfollow is simple, and the first order correction is the more complex unfollow.

Just the physicist coming out in me. :-)

Feel free to make the changes to the names, I am not attached emotionally to them.

[lkettle]

I didn't even know stage0 existed

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Kevin Ryczko notifications@github.com
wrote:

I called them stage 0 and stage 1 because stage 0 was very simple, and
stage 1 kind of took it up a notch in terms of complexity. I guess I was
thinking about it in a 'perturbation theory' way where the zeroth order
unfollow is simple, and the first order correction is the more complex
unfollow.

Just the physicist coming out in me. :-)

Feel free to make the changes to the names, I am not attached emotionally
to them.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#81 (comment).

Linda Kettle

[nbuhagiar]

Stage 0 is just the unfollow tweet rate

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:08 AM, lkettle notifications@github.com wrote:

I didn't even know stage0 existed

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Kevin Ryczko notifications@github.com
wrote:

I called them stage 0 and stage 1 because stage 0 was very simple, and
stage 1 kind of took it up a notch in terms of complexity. I guess I was
thinking about it in a 'perturbation theory' way where the zeroth order
unfollow is simple, and the first order correction is the more complex
unfollow.

Just the physicist coming out in me. :-)

Feel free to make the changes to the names, I am not attached emotionally
to them.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#81 (comment).

Linda Kettle

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#81 (comment).

[itamblyn]

"Just the physicist coming out in me”

Nice.

Let’s rename these beasts

• IT

On Nov 5, 2015, at 6:34 AM, Kevin Ryczko <notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

I called them stage 0 and stage 1 because stage 0 was very simple, and stage 1 kind of took it up a notch in terms of complexity. I guess I was thinking about it in a 'perturbation theory' way where the zeroth order unfollow is simple, and the first order correction is the more complex unfollow.

Just the physicist coming out in me. :-)

Feel free to make the changes to the names, I am not attached emotionally to them.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/81#issuecomment-154077469.

[lkettle]

I don't know who is responsible for getting this done, but I think I can do
it.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Isaac Tamblyn notifications@github.com
wrote:

"Just the physicist coming out in me”

Nice.

Let’s rename these beasts

• IT

On Nov 5, 2015, at 6:34 AM, Kevin Ryczko <notifications@github.com<mailto:
notifications@github.com>> wrote:

I called them stage 0 and stage 1 because stage 0 was very simple, and
stage 1 kind of took it up a notch in terms of complexity. I guess I was
thinking about it in a 'perturbation theory' way where the zeroth order
unfollow is simple, and the first order correction is the more complex
unfollow.

Just the physicist coming out in me. :-)

Feel free to make the changes to the names, I am not attached emotionally
to them.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/hashkat/hashkat/issues/81#issuecomment-154077469>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#81 (comment).

Linda Kettle