4 ms·
Are you willing to share or discuss some of the ways you're quantifying "quality"? It seems like an extremely difficult problem, and relevant to the problems m
by adrianpike 15y ago
Are you willing to share or discuss some of the ways you're quantifying "quality"?
It seems like an extremely difficult problem, and relevant to the problems many of us are trying to solve.
I can come up with plenty of simple metrics, but they all fall apart pretty fast, especially if the community quality starts to tank hard. Think of the sheer number of upvotes that most inane meme references get on reddit.
Situations like an inflammatory comment sparking an insightful debate are one of the things that initially seems like a poor quality comment (and it quite likely is), but overall might be a positive thing for the community.
- angstrom 15y agoThink of the quality constraints of /r/askscience Quality is discourse, not peanut gallery, vacuum sucking commentary that builds on puns, memes, insults and karma whoring. Inflammatory comments often devolve into nothing. No insights, no evocative call to action. However, constructive assertions backed by reason are not inflammatory and equally capable of evocative statements that can be challenged.
- adrianpike 15y agoAgreed on all your points. What I'd love to dig in around, though, is if there's a way to quantify the difference between an inflammatory comment vs. a constructive comment. Just thinking out loud: Source links/references perhaps? If it's a primarily English-speaking community, look for specific keywords? As a negative metric, look for an extended back-and-forth between two people? This is one of the things I'm struggling with - it's easy to come up with "dumb" metrics & ideas, but the false positives/negatives are a real problem.