In-Network vs Out-of-Network Recommendations

What the source says

Code factThe current repository documents separate retrieval paths and an out-of-network adjustment. Recommendations outside the follow graph need stronger evidence of relevance.

How to interpret the signal

In-network candidates already have a relationship path through the follow graph. Out-of-network candidates need other evidence that they fit the viewer. This does not mean new accounts are invisible; it means relevance and contextual evidence matter when the relationship is absent.

A practical example

Decision exampleTranslate the mechanism into a testable choice

A developer who consistently discusses databases can become relevant to people outside the follow graph through topical conversations and genuine peer interaction. A reply to an unrelated viral topic offers weaker evidence even when the author is large.

Action for builders

CompoundX recommendationNew accounts should build topical consistency and genuine peer interactions so the system and readers have clearer context. Large-account replies are not the only discovery path.

Build a recognizable topic, interact repeatedly with relevant peers, and publish owned ideas that confirm what the account is about. Use large-author replies selectively rather than treating account size as the discovery strategy.

Evidence boundary

This page explains the public repository and official documentation as verified on 2026-09-29. Production experiments and configuration can change, so no recommendation here guarantees distribution.

What the source says

How to interpret the signal

A practical example

Action for builders

Evidence boundary

Every claim should be traceable

Turn understanding into action