update on the references experiment. references were on during this period. I got 17 requests. curves are remarkably stable. one highlight: first high scores with references on (2 8 scores). other than that, anyone requiring people to read their profile will effectively deny 75% of the people requesting, unless being hot is also a requirement. obviously, since I have no images on my CS system, I have no idea whether someone requesting is hot or not. data on that will be available once my "hit on" survey comes to fruition.





my method has successfully isolated people that play by the rules but don't really care where they stay, i.e., copy pasters don't even try, but if you stay long enough on the system, you will start to play by the book better, even though your motivation stays the same.

I am now considering hiding the references permanently to have a clearer decision threshold.
at the moment, all inductions on whether a guest is good or not based on request data is being questioned and data is inconclusive thus far. my scoring system is now being scientifically analyzed and tested. I continue to prefer smart people, and smart people fill out good requests. that seems to be the only thing that prevails. but every now and then, a smart person will send a shit request. so this needs further analysis.
if I do decide to hide my references, it will definitely bring an even bigger bias to the other statistical studies. but with almost 600 stays, data is statistically significant already.

sustainability seems to be correlated with intelligence. intelligence seems to be correlated with score. if 75% of the people score so low, I fear this gives a gloomy perspective on our future as a species.

by tuning the ratio of good/bad requests accepted, I have been able to get a sustainable house. but the simple fact that I am being selective is a tremendous political defeat. anarchy works but not with everyone. and that, in a way, is one of my biggest disappointing revelations.

godspeed starstuff ☆★☆☆★★★☆☆☆☆☆