this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2023
597 points (98.4% liked)
Fediverse
27837 readers
128 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
More users is nice, but the real metric should be the quality of the content and discussions. And for me that's the real winner with Lemmy.
Quality over quantity.
Okay but how do we quantitatively and unambiguously devise a metric for quality? More importantly, how do we come up with a satisfactory approximation to that metric? I'm open to ideas.
How about a ratio of post upvotes to avg upvotes per post in a community? At least upvotes somewhat correlate with post quality.
I like this, but I think that upvotes correspond to things people enjoy, which may or may not be of high quality. I.e., shitposting subs would probably be rated "high quality" when, like... it's literally the point to post shitty content.
Also, as stated, that means we have to sum over the entire time history of the community. We would probably want to limit the time history of what is summed over, subject to a maximum for subs with high post counts (like the shitposting subs.
IMO it's a great suggestion, but I think it needs to be part of a weighted combination of factors.
Character count and thread depth (number of replies deep threads go) are interesting, while imperfect.
A language model could rate discussion quality.
User surveys…
Hard to think of anything perfect.