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

[Michael Myers]

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                                 

Got embarrassed by a high post count, decided to use a new account. How pathetic and fat is that move, son?

[starvingniglet]

Got embarrassed by a high post count, decided to use a new account. How pathetic and fat is that move, son?

I will slap you with a piece of bologna and ruin your afterlife

[Slave of the Beast]

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.

That would suggest I'm trolling; the calculations are a load of bollocks and I just look at someone's recent post history and feel my way to 'Meh, your posts are sub substandard mate.'.

That would be incorrect. I'll get round to yours later this evening.

I'll also post category criteria later this eve'.

[-SpectraL]

It all depends on the community's actual mission statement. If the community's mission statement is to have an ICQ-chat-lite platform, then even the very subject of off-topic and immature posting becomes irrelevant.

[helladamnleet]

According to Arnox the mission statement is to do exactly what he says, nothing more, nothing less, unless you ask him first, then he'll just send you extremely rude PMs.

[crazzyass]

I think trying to use percentages devoid of context isn't incredibly helpful for figuring this out.

For me, it always depends on context. If it's a shit thread with a shit OP and a shit topic, a top-notch poster posting shit doesn't bother me at all, and if it's a funny/light thread then the shitty posts are actually appropriate. Likewise, if they are always contributing good things to serious threads, that's spot on. 

So I would retool the test to say: "how often does a poster deviate from the context, theme, or spirit of a thread?" If they rarely deviate, then they are probably a great poster in my mind.

[helladamnleet]

I think trying to use percentages devoid of context isn't incredibly helpful for figuring this out.

For me, it always depends on context. If it's a shit thread with a shit OP and a shit topic, a top-notch poster posting shit doesn't bother me at all, and if it's a funny/light thread then the shitty posts are actually appropriate. Likewise, if they are always contributing good things to serious threads, that's spot on. 

So I would retool the test to say: "how often does a poster deviate from the context, theme, or spirit of a thread?" If they rarely deviate, then they are probably a great poster in my mind.

But what if they are constantly making shit tier threads? Technically they aren't deviating from the thread, so by that theory they would be great posters.

[starvingniglet]

yeh, the more complicated and numerous the rules are, the more holes will be in them.  We should simplify this process by reducing the number of 'categories' and then assign them simple numerical values.  Then we can work from there.

For example:  We should just have three 'categories':  Good, bad, and N/A.  They should have values of 1, -1, and 0 respectively. 

[crazzyass]

I think trying to use percentages devoid of context isn't incredibly helpful for figuring this out.

For me, it always depends on context. If it's a shit thread with a shit OP and a shit topic, a top-notch poster posting shit doesn't bother me at all, and if it's a funny/light thread then the shitty posts are actually appropriate. Likewise, if they are always contributing good things to serious threads, that's spot on. 

So I would retool the test to say: "how often does a poster deviate from the context, theme, or spirit of a thread?" If they rarely deviate, then they are probably a great poster in my mind.

But what if they are constantly making shit tier threads? Technically they aren't deviating from the thread, so by that theory they would be great posters.

Again, it depends. If there are enough good threads to keep me engaged and interested in the site, I don't care about the shitty ones floating around. If you can't figure out which ones suck by title alone at this point, then a quick glance of the OP usually does the trick.

If there are nothing but shit threads, then take it upon yourself to create ones you think are good. I'm trying to spit out two or three good threads per day, and so far it has worked out well.

My point is only that if we spent more time focusing on creating good content, then the shitty content would be irrelevant.

[helladamnleet]

I think trying to use percentages devoid of context isn't incredibly helpful for figuring this out.

For me, it always depends on context. If it's a shit thread with a shit OP and a shit topic, a top-notch poster posting shit doesn't bother me at all, and if it's a funny/light thread then the shitty posts are actually appropriate. Likewise, if they are always contributing good things to serious threads, that's spot on. 

So I would retool the test to say: "how often does a poster deviate from the context, theme, or spirit of a thread?" If they rarely deviate, then they are probably a great poster in my mind.

But what if they are constantly making shit tier threads? Technically they aren't deviating from the thread, so by that theory they would be great posters.

Again, it depends. If there are enough good threads to keep me engaged and interested in the site, I don't care about the shitty ones floating around. If you can't figure out which ones suck by title alone at this point, then a quick glance of the OP usually does the trick.

If there are nothing but shit threads, then take it upon yourself to create ones you think are good. I'm trying to spit out two or three good threads per day, and so far it has worked out well.

My point is only that if we spent more time focusing on creating good content, then the shitty content would be irrelevant.

I wish we could still preview the thread by hovering our cursor over the link.

[crazzyass]

I think trying to use percentages devoid of context isn't incredibly helpful for figuring this out.

For me, it always depends on context. If it's a shit thread with a shit OP and a shit topic, a top-notch poster posting shit doesn't bother me at all, and if it's a funny/light thread then the shitty posts are actually appropriate. Likewise, if they are always contributing good things to serious threads, that's spot on. 

So I would retool the test to say: "how often does a poster deviate from the context, theme, or spirit of a thread?" If they rarely deviate, then they are probably a great poster in my mind.

But what if they are constantly making shit tier threads? Technically they aren't deviating from the thread, so by that theory they would be great posters.

Again, it depends. If there are enough good threads to keep me engaged and interested in the site, I don't care about the shitty ones floating around. If you can't figure out which ones suck by title alone at this point, then a quick glance of the OP usually does the trick.

If there are nothing but shit threads, then take it upon yourself to create ones you think are good. I'm trying to spit out two or three good threads per day, and so far it has worked out well.

My point is only that if we spent more time focusing on creating good content, then the shitty content would be irrelevant.

I wish we could still preview the thread by hovering our cursor over the link.

Agreed. That'd be a nice perk.

[Slave of the Beast]

I'm tempted to do Equanimity next.

Go for it!  This is starting to get fun now

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 Equanimity's last 50 posts, excluding those made in (or transferred to) B&M, HB and NIMF:

Exceptional QPs               : 0
V.high QPs                       : 0
High QPs                          : 1
Upper Medium QPs           : 13
Lower Medium QPs           : 27
Low QPs                           : 8
Extra Low QPs                  : 1                             
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 = 0pts
V.high QPs                       0.875pts x 0 = 0pts
High QPs                          0.75pts   x 1 = 0.75pts
Upper Medium QPs           0.625pts x 13 = 8.125pts
Lower Medium QPs           0.5pts     x 27 = 13.5pts
Low QPs                           0.375pts x 8 = 3pts
Extra Low QPs                  0.25pts   x 1 = 0.25pts                     
Shit QPs                            0.0pts     x 0 = 0pts

Total (x2)                         : 51.25

Therefore the Slave Equation suggests that overall you are a poster in the Lower Medium quality category. As you can see you're in fact almost perfectly average. Do not take that as an insult.  Your score has been somewhat influenced by the number of simple answer-question responses you have to deal with as a mod. Even so, both you and Obbe would still roughly occupy the same region; average to slightly above average.

This is to be expected. The system is weighted towards the average. Given the general nature of the conversations, you'd have to try quite hard to be classed as a very good poster, or a very bad one, if you don't post a great deal outside SG (i.e. post predominantly in the specialist forums). People like Rust, Lifejunkie and a small handful of ex-Totse and Zoklet mods, would score highly in this system. Unfortunately their calibre of posts are largely non-existent at this point in time.

I've run out of time to post anymore this evening, so detailing the way I grade posts and responses to other posts (including yours Risir) will have to wait 'till tomorrow.

The scores so far:

Obbe:          51.7
Equanimity: 51.25
RisiR:           37

[RisiR]

The scores so far:

Obbe:          51.7
Equanimity: 51.25
RisiR:           37

[equanimity]

I'm average!  Thanks, Beast.

[Michael Myers]

Got embarrassed by a high post count, decided to use a new account. How pathetic and fat is that move, son?

I will slap you with a piece of bologna and ruin your afterlife

Implying you can even stand up you fat greasy fuck.