What's an acceptable shitpost ratio for a good poster?

[Slave of the Beast]

It's difficult to standardize the "good poster scale".  Each individual has to be considered as such.

I think people can at the very least be broadly categorized. The poster's efforts should of course be considered as a whole; 20% shitpost/80% high quality post is probably better than 10% shitpost/90% mediocre post, but it's rare to come across a poster who produces high quality content intermixed with garbage. Usually it's the other way around, like Snoopy, whom I believe should not have been made a Zoklet mod for that reason (amongst others).

I believe the shitpost % is a reasonably sound overall indicator.

How would you categorize me?

Due to having far too much spare time on my hands, and seeing as it's you Obbe, I have devised a poster-scatometric calculation¹. It works as follows (excluding B&M and H&B posts):

Each type of post is assigned a value, where QP = quality posts:

Exceptional QPs                1pt
V.high QPs                        0.875pt
High QPs                           0.75pt
Upper Medium QPs            0.625pt
Lower Medium QPs            0.5pt 
Low QPs                            0.375pt
Extra Low QPs                   0.25pt                               
Shit QPs                             0.0pt       
                         
Categories based on the total number of point, are defined where QPer = quality poster:

Exceptional QPer*                  90-100pts
V.high QPer*                           80-89pts
High QPer*                             70-79pts
Upper Medium QPer**            55-69pts
Lower Medium QPer**            40-54pts 
Low QPer                                30-39pts
Extra Low QPer                       20-29pts                               
Shit QPer  ***                         10-19pts                                 

*Mod's should ideally fall in to one of these three categories.

** I've deliberately made the medium range quite large, such that there is a meaningful distinction between low and high quality posts, rather than having lots of finely sliced divisions in between. Most people will fall into one of these two Medium categories.

***Regarding banning, a shit poster would be pushing their luck. I'd expect them to be gone before they got below 10pts. Maybe there should be an informal <10pts 'Shit Goblin' category.

A sample of a user's post is then taken, for the time being let's call it the last 50 posts (the more the better), and they are categorized². In your case (IMO):

Exceptional QPs               : 0
V.high QPs                       : 0
High QPs                          : 3
Upper Medium QPs           : 8
Lower Medium QPs           : 32
Low QPs                           : 7
Extra Low QPs                  : 0                             
Shit QPs                            : 0

Calculating the number of posts by their respective weightings and multiplying by 2 to give a score out of 100 gives:

Exceptional QPs              1pts         x 0 = 0
V.high QPs                       0.875pts x 0 = 0
High QPs                          0.75pts   x 3 = 2.25
Upper Medium QPs           0.625pts x 8 = 5
Lower Medium QPs           0.5pts     x 32 = 16
Low QPs                           0.375pts x 7 = 2.625
Extra Low QPs                  0.25pts   x  0  =  0                     
Shit QPs                            0.0pts     x  0 = 0

Total (x2)                         :  51.75

Therefore the Slave Equation suggests you are a poster of lower medium quality, who is probably representative of a solid average user overall.

I hope you are pleased and impressed by my work... *SotB starts running*

...

1) The calculation describing how shit a poster is. Which, without a trace of humility, I hereby call the Slave Equation. Cut me some slack on this one. It's not as if anything else is ever going to be named after me.

2) I fully admit this it quite qualitative, but I think significant consistency could be achieved by someone/persons being appointed scatometric officer(s) and working by clear guidelines.

[DaGuru]

Long live The Slave Equation!!!!

You need to go patent, copyright, and trademark that bitch....because of all the 10's of thousands of BBS's out there, you might have just created a set of standards and practices that could turn the whole thing upside down!

Great job as always, Slave! Kudos!!!!

[Obbe]

It's difficult to standardize the "good poster scale".  Each individual has to be considered as such.

I think people can at the very least be broadly categorized. The poster's efforts should of course be considered as a whole; 20% shitpost/80% high quality post is probably better than 10% shitpost/90% mediocre post, but it's rare to come across a poster who produces high quality content intermixed with garbage. Usually it's the other way around, like Snoopy, whom I believe should not have been made a Zoklet mod for that reason (amongst others).

I believe the shitpost % is a reasonably sound overall indicator.

How would you categorize me?

Due to having far too much spare time on my hands, and seeing as it's you Obbe, I have devised a poster-scatometric calculation¹. It works as follows (excluding B&M and H&B posts):

Each type of post is assigned a value, where QP = quality posts:

Exceptional QPs                1pt
V.high QPs                        0.875pt
High QPs                           0.75pt
Upper Medium QPs            0.625pt
Lower Medium QPs            0.5pt 
Low QPs                            0.375pt
Extra Low QPs                   0.25pt                               
Shit QPs                             0.0pt       
                         
Categories based on the total number of point, are defined where QPer = quality poster:

Exceptional QPer*                  90-100pts
V.high QPer*                           80-89pts
High QPer*                             70-79pts
Upper Medium QPer**            55-69pts
Lower Medium QPer**            40-54pts 
Low QPer                                30-39pts
Extra Low QPer                       20-29pts                               
Shit QPer  ***                         10-19pts                                 

*Mod's should ideally fall in to one of these three categories.

** I've deliberately made the medium range quite large, such that there is a meaningful distinction between low and high quality posts, rather than having lots of finely sliced divisions in between. Most people will fall into one of these two Medium categories.

***Regarding banning, a shit poster would be pushing their luck. I'd expect them to be gone before they got below 10pts. Maybe there should be an informal <10pts 'Shit Goblin' category.

A sample of a user's post is then taken, for the time being let's call it the last 50 posts (the more the better), and they are categorized². In your case (IMO):

Exceptional QPs               : 0
V.high QPs                       : 0
High QPs                          : 3
Upper Medium QPs           : 8
Lower Medium QPs           : 32
Low QPs                           : 7
Extra Low QPs                  : 0                             
Shit QPs                            : 0

Calculating the number of posts by their respective weightings and multiplying by 2 to give a score out of 100 gives:

Exceptional QPs              1pts         x 0 = 0
V.high QPs                       0.875pts x 0 = 0
High QPs                          0.75pts   x 3 = 2.25
Upper Medium QPs           0.625pts x 8 = 5
Lower Medium QPs           0.5pts     x 32 = 16
Low QPs                           0.375pts x 7 = 2.625
Extra Low QPs                  0.25pts   x  0  =  0                     
Shit QPs                            0.0pts     x  0 = 0

Total (x2)                         :  51.75

Therefore the Slave Equation suggests you are a poster of lower medium quality, who is probably representative of a solid average user overall.

I hope you are pleased and impressed by my work... *SotB starts running*

...

1) The calculation describing how shit a poster is. Which, without a trace of humility, I hereby call the Slave Equation. Cut me some slack on this one. It's not as if anything else is ever going to be named after me.

2) I fully admit this it quite qualitative, but I think significant consistency could be achieved by someone/persons being appointed scatometric officer(s) and working by clear guidelines.

Nice work, but it doesn't seem like a very objective form of measurement.

[Slave of the Beast]

Nice work, but it doesn't seem like a very objective form of measurement.

The subject matter is inherently subjective, which does not help. As I said proper agreed-upon guidelines could be written down, rather than working by personal criteria. What would you do to improve the objectivity of this process?

And what do you think of the score I gave you?

[Obbe]

Nice work, but it doesn't seem like a very objective form of measurement.

The subject matter is inherently subjective, which does not help. As I said proper agreed-upon guidelines could be written down, rather than working by personal criteria. What would you do to improve the objectivity of this process?

And what do you think of the score I gave you?

I'm not sure it can be an objective process.   I don't really agree with my score,  I think I'm a decent poster.  At least above average.

[equanimity]

Nice work, but it doesn't seem like a very objective form of measurement.

The subject matter is inherently subjective, which does not help. As I said proper agreed-upon guidelines could be written down, rather than working by personal criteria. What would you do to improve the objectivity of this process?

And what do you think of the score I gave you?

The first step would be to find some way to quantify post quality. Decide on a system of measurement that is somewhat objective. An example:

PQ = (total words written / number of posts)

Average words per post isn't a good indicator of post quality, but it could be a good starting point for your system of measurement.

[Vulture]

This thread is a case study in sisyphean endeavors.

[millionsofdeadcats]

The first step would be to find some way to quantify post quality. Decide on a system of measurement that is somewhat objective. An example:

PQ = (total words written / number of posts)

Average words per post isn't a good indicator of post quality, but it could be a good starting point for your system of measurement.

according to your system, the top quality posters here would be RisiR, then me.  I think you need to rethink your system.

[Michael Myers]

OP suffers from severe autism.

[equanimity]

The first step would be to find some way to quantify post quality. Decide on a system of measurement that is somewhat objective. An example:

PQ = (total words written / number of posts)

Average words per post isn't a good indicator of post quality, but it could be a good starting point for your system of measurement.

according to your system, the top quality posters here would be RisiR, then me.  I think you need to rethink your system.

Not my system, though you two would definitely not top this list. My opinion is that it's pointless to try to quantify and rate post quality. Dunno why human intuition gets the bad rap it does.

But this whole thing reminds me of utilitarian ethics, with their attempts at quantifying and rating happiness.

In both cases, the point is missed entirely.

[helladamnleet]

I think people should stop worrying about what other people are posting and just worry about what they are posting.

[mojo4567]

Nice work, but it doesn't seem like a very objective form of measurement.

The subject matter is inherently subjective, which does not help. As I said proper agreed-upon guidelines could be written down, rather than working by personal criteria. What would you do to improve the objectivity of this process?

And what do you think of the score I gave you?

The first step would be to find some way to quantify post quality. Decide on a system of measurement that is somewhat objective. An example:

PQ = (total words written / number of posts)

Average words per post isn't a good indicator of post quality, but it could be a good starting point for your system of measurement.

If we take the number the slave equation comes up with and put it over the number this gives you then give a small margine of error we will have a pretty accurate SP predictor.

[LostStranger]

You are not a shitposter, LS.  I quite enjoy your posts.

Glad to entertain, millionsofdeadcats.

On topic, it really is hard to determine the quality of the post. Trying to automate it is as hard as creating perfect turing pass application while having another human to value the post will result in biased judgement. We can also try to have a vote power on every post but this will result in unpopular opinion to be disregarded as irrelevant while the post actually do have important message. Determining the quality of the post itself is not easy, we can try to calculate it using a few variables such as: Relevancy, Content, and Grammar.

In the end the best way to improve post quality is to post high quality post by yourself. People tends to gather in the community that shares the same ideals. By having an environment that are rich with meaningful post content and intriguing thread, a good culture will form and it will attract people that are interested with it.

[RisiR]

I absolutely need to know my Slave Equation score. Seriously.

[-SpectraL]

No, it's not hard to determine the quality of a post. That is just another feeble, misguided excuse to allow the shitposters to prosper and allow them to bring the place down, just like they've already done to not one, but two communities. I guess some people are so stupid they never learn, though.