Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarification on per caller topic eligibility condition #88

Open
stguav opened this issue Sep 19, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

Clarification on per caller topic eligibility condition #88

stguav opened this issue Sep 19, 2022 · 3 comments

Comments

@stguav
Copy link

stguav commented Sep 19, 2022

The explainer currently states

Not every API caller will receive a topic. Only callers that observed the user visit a site about the topic in question within the past three weeks can receive the topic.

Could you clarify if that should read the past three completed epochs? Or is it literally the past three weeks? In which case, the eligibility window won't align with the topics epochs being returned?

@xyaoinum
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @stguav ,
It’s literally the past 3 weeks, so it won’t 100% align with the epochs. But also note that:

  • The "past 3 weeks" is a fixed period applying to topics derived from each epoch: it’s the past 3 weeks from each epoch’s topics aggregation time, not the API calling time. This ensures that the returned topic is sticky to the epoch & top-level-site.
  • Since epoch topics aggregation occurs per week (+ flex time), the window won’t go beyond 3 epochs.
@stguav
Copy link
Author

stguav commented Sep 20, 2022

Thanks @xyaoinum ,

That makes sense. Just confirming: the eligibility period for each epoch is the three weeks prior to the epoch's completion? Is that correct?

@xyaoinum
Copy link
Collaborator

Just confirming: the eligibility period for each epoch is the three weeks prior to the epoch's completion? Is that correct?

Yes. This is correct.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
3 participants
@xyaoinum @stguav and others