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

[mojo4567]

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.

I think you havr assburgers and killjoy syndrome

[-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.

I think you havr assburgers and killjoy syndrome

And I think you need a reality check.

[LostStranger]

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.

And like has been discussed, how do you qualify the quality of a post. Of course post that only contain 'you suck' or 'something something your mom' can be easily disregarded as low quality post. But something like your own post actually do have a message even though it contains of swearing and insults. The context of the post and the relevancy is not something that can easily be measured.

[starvingniglet]

'you suck' or 'something something your mom' can be easily disregarded as low quality post

But what if that poster really does suck, and other users really should know this, yet the post is dismissed as 'not a quality post'?

Yeah I know I am reaching here, but quality can never truly be objectively quantified.

[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?

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.

For the most part I excluded word count as a factor. Content and quality far outweigh quantity. 6 sentences of insightful, technical and referenced comment would score far better (very high quality)  than 6 paragraphs of how your dog was sick one morning because you fed it 1/4 lb of chocolate the night before (lower middle quality).

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.

Because consistent and quantifiable data, if not the final authority, is far more reliable than A. N. Other's self-important unjustified opinion. That's why some people don't like things being quantified; too much accountability when shit hits the fan.

[RisiR]

Quantify me.

[Slave of the Beast]

Quantify me.

Categories based on the total number of points, 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                                 

Analysis of RisiR's last 50 posts:

Exceptional QPs               : 0
V.high QPs                       : 0
High QPs                          : 1
Upper Medium QPs           : 3
Lower Medium QPs           : 17
Low QPs                           : 13
Extra Low QPs                  : 10                             
Shit QPs                            : 6

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 1 = 0.75pts
Upper Medium QPs           0.625pts x 3 = 1.875pts
Lower Medium QPs           0.5pts     x 17 = 8.5pts
Low QPs                           0.375pts x 13 = 4.875pts
Extra Low QPs                  0.25pts   x  10 = 2.5pts                     
Shit QPs                            0.0pts     x  6 = 0

Total (x2)                         : 37

Therefore the Slave Equation suggests that overall you are a poster of low quality material who has shown some capacity to post above average content.

You're an interesting case. Although the calculations don't directly take into account a user's post-rate, high-volume posting is its own penalty in terms of the post quality and this is reflected in the score. In particular you appear to have a fairly clear limit as to much time/effort you're prepared to put into any single post, hence the sudden drop-off from Lower to Upper medium posts. In contrast, Obbe's post analysis shows more of a (narrow-range) bell-curve, indicating he's more consistent and perhaps has more time, or inclination, to post better material.

Your thoughts?

I'm tempted to do Equanimity next. Can't do myself for obvious reasons. 

[starvingniglet]

Quantify me.

Categories based on the total number of points, 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                                 

Analysis of RisiR's last 50 posts:

Exceptional QPs               : 0
V.high QPs                       : 0
High QPs                          : 1
Upper Medium QPs           : 3
Lower Medium QPs           : 17
Low QPs                           : 13
Extra Low QPs                  : 10                             
Shit QPs                            : 6

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 1 = 0.75pts
Upper Medium QPs           0.625pts x 3 = 1.875pts
Lower Medium QPs           0.5pts     x 17 = 8.5pts
Low QPs                           0.375pts x 13 = 4.875pts
Extra Low QPs                  0.25pts   x  10 = 2.5pts                     
Shit QPs                            0.0pts     x  6 = 0

Total (x2)                         : 37

Therefore the Slave Equation suggests that overall you are a poster of low quality material who has shown some capacity to post above average content.

You're an interesting case. Although the calculations don't directly take into account a user's post-rate, high-volume posting is its own penalty in terms of the post quality and this is reflected in the score. In particular you appear to have a fairly clear limit as to much time/effort you're prepared to put into any single post, hence the sudden drop-off from Lower to Upper medium posts. In contrast, Obbe's post analysis shows more of a (narrow-range) bell-curve, indicating he's more consistent and perhaps has more time, or inclination, to post better material.

Your thoughts?

I'm tempted to do Equanimity next. Can't do myself for obvious reasons. 

do mine instead, because I fucking rule and stuff.

[RisiR]

This equation is clearly flawed and dumb and you are ugly.

[Obbe]

This equation is clearly flawed and dumb and you are ugly.

LOL

[RisiR]

I've just read my last 50 posts and yea....

Could you point out the 6 shit QPs, please?

[equanimity]

I'm tempted to do Equanimity next.

Go for it!  This is starting to get fun now

[starvingniglet]

We could do it ourselves if SOTB would tell us how exactly he determines 'post quality' and how to correctly categorize the results.

[equanimity]

We could do it ourselves if SOTB would tell us how exactly he determines 'post quality' and how to correctly categorize the results.

I think he's just reading the past 50 posts a person makes and decides himself how he feels about them.  Maybe one of us should do his.

[starvingniglet]

We could do it ourselves if SOTB would tell us how exactly he determines 'post quality' and how to correctly categorize the results.

I think he's just reading the past 50 posts a person makes and decides himself how he feels about them.  Maybe one of us should do his.

Yeah but look at all the 'categories'.  How does he decide with such precision?  I more imagine it like a multiple choice test than an actual way of quantifying post quality.

Exceptional QPer                 
V.high QPer                         
High QPer                             
Upper Medium QPer             
Lower Medium QPer               
Low QPer                             
Extra Low QPer                                                 
Shit QPer