Yes, "Top Scientists" is a bit of an over-promise. As for that one outlier, that might be me. I study networks for fun, but don't engage much in social media myself. The many follows are part of the experiment; I bulk follow or unfollow from time to time. Hope nobody minds.

Yes, we considered many variations of the metric. It's hard to come up with something that's simple, standard, easy to implement, etc. Suggestions more than welcome

Nice. From the docs, I was convinced that you would only ever get 100. So that a second requests would just get you the same 100 posts again. But if you got 500 unique posts, I was wrong. Working in R too, btw. github.com/bluesky-soci...

Maybe I should put everybody on a list. (Haven't tried lists before.)

"Mutually comment relationship" -- is that if two users both comment on each others post? There's a limitation in the API, you can (I think) only get 100 posts and replies per user, so that complicates things a bit.

I don't disagree. Maybe the list name is a bit off; full name is "Influential Members of the Science Community", but when that gets awkward, sometimes we do "Top scientists" or similar.

Good observation. Posting activity and post content are not criteria for the algo, imperfect as that might be

Sorry no, for this to work, we really need an hard, rule based algo, imperfect as it may be

No, the full thing is not available, sorry. I'm considering if it should be, somehow.

Hi @joehodson.bsky.social, you made it to list of the science community, because the algo included you. Likely because you follow or are followed by people in academia, and include a few terms that are sometimes associated with academia/science/research. Full methodology is explained at the site.

Thank you for the kind words @johnbohannon.bsky.social

Love this bit: "He had adjusted tariffs like a DJ spinning knobs in the booth, upsetting the rhythms of global trade and inducing vertigo in the financial markets."

@whysharksmatter.bsky.social 👆

Great question, thanks for asking. Both biologist and physicist are in the list of keywords, but that doesn't mean the list is perfect. This note has a description of how we expanded the list in the latest iteration. It's all work in progress. lassehjorthmadsen.github.io/blueskyanaly...

Good point, will add archaeology as a key term for next iteration. 🙏

Ingen eksplicit skelnen mellem "scientific" og "academic". Det afgørende er, om man bliver fulgt af tilpas mange fra det videnskabelige miljø, OG har en beskrivelse der smager af videnskab/akademia/research