Thank you for taking a look at this project. I'm glad you like the concept. I am not sure I have understood your question accurately, but let me attempt a response anyway. If I get it wrong, please feel free to correct me or ask me again.

There is no need to re-download https://codeberg.org/susam/wander every few weeks. The setup is a one-time activity. From that repository, you copy exactly two files (index.html and wander.js) and place them on your web server, preferably within a /wander/ directory. After that, you only maintain the wander.js file.

You curate your own links and choose which other Wander consoles to link to as neighbours. The contents of wander.js are entirely yours to define. There is no need to diff or compare it with the version in the repository.

In fact, if you do not care about updating or curating links often, you can leave both files untouched indefinitely. The only downside is that some links may eventually succumb to link rot, which could affect the wandering experience. So it may help to review your links occasionally and remove dead ones, but beyond that no ongoing maintenance is required.

▲

punknight 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I get that, but right now, if you traverse each "console", you end up with a list of 28 trusted "small web" links. The project grows in value if that list gets bigger over time either by you personally adding nodes or the community adding nodes. I don't really have a way of knowing if you are intending to add more links to your console (thus growing the project) or this is a one and done type of system.

	▲	susam 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I get that, but right now, if you traverse each "console", you end up with a list of 28 trusted "small web" links. The project grows in value if that list gets bigger over time either by you personally adding nodes or the community adding nodes. Yes, all of this makes sense. > I don't really have a way of knowing if you are intending to add more links to your console (thus growing the project) or this is a one and done type of system. I personally do not plan to add too many page links to my console. However, I will add more console links, which has the effect of expanding my console neighbourhood and thereby increasing the pool of recommendations. That said, I am not sure why it matters whether I add more links to my console specifically. In my opinion, any single Wander instance should not matter much on its own. What matters more is whether the network as a whole grows, that is, more consoles being set up and more of them linking to each other. One of my design goals has been to avoid giving any particular console a special status. All consoles are equal participants in the network from a technical perspective. You should be able to pick any console from the network, perhaps one belonging to your favourite blogger, perhaps even your own and explore the neighbourhood from there. Yes, the neighbourhood would look different from each console but that's pretty much the point of this project. As long as the overall graph of consoles is connected, you could in theory reach any community recommendation from any starting point. Even if the graph is not fully connected, I do not see that as a significant issue. It just reflects how connections tend to form in a decentralised system. Please let me know if you think I have missed your point again.