Log in
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 |
That is averaged over all their posts.
I really don't think you'll guess it. It's Zom. He has us all beat. I bet even Zom didn't guess that one. Makes since though since he is a chad.
Though not to deminish the accomplishment, some of that may be a law of small averages result. A fewer number of samples is more likely to have an extreme average. He does happen to have the fewest posts in total of all the people considered. But we need more Zom in either case.
Here is the rest among some of the most notable users, with a few consolodations, based on the average comment count on posts.
| Avg | Poster |
|---|---|
| 4.5 | Zom |
| 3.6 | soundsituation |
| 3.5 | hfxB0oyA |
| 3.2 | Drewski |
| 2.7 | Larry |
| 2.7 | Neol |
| 2.1 | pumpkin |
| 1.5 | noshore |
| 1.3 | P-38 |
| 1.2 | RickSanchez |
| 0.5 | ArizonaPro/azgirl/atown/abc123/allgirl/et all |
| 0.4 | JasonCarswell |
| 0.3 | Tony |
I think we should show Tony some more love IMO. That one is on us. The dude actually records content.
What did we learn here today? I don't know. Maybe someone will have an idea in the comments.
A new badge just dropped as well.
Are we looking for more comments, or better content?
I've realized they are connected. Having seen comments be really good for a while, and then suddenly it all stop, I've realized some content just isn't easy to engage with. And it can all get posted on the same day.
But guess there are two kind of content that gets more comments. Really good content or slightly off content. If something is wrong it's more likely that someone says something. Baically the reason behind the classic trick of getting an answer to a question by claiming something you know is wrong about it. But I think for the most part it's better content getting the most content. And maybe content with a small flaw that merits someone chiming in has its own virtue.
The danger is the so so content that 20/20 people uniformly don't think worth commenting on. Not that that content is bad. Or would be bad in a different context. The reality is that for some reason we got heavy posters in the migration but not heavy commenters. The comments here are like a fire. Comments lead to comments. But if it gets blown out, it isn't guarenteed to re-ignite. And when this site goes quite on the comment front, we lose users who want converation. Well now the balance is permently worse. So to fix the balence we have to keep to comments ignited without exception for a really long time. Basically I'm doing anything I can to blow wind onto that part of the site till it can sustain itself.
So good content depends on context and for what. A log is good wood in general, but it's not the best kindling. And we can have logs. But at this stage it helps if they get fed with kindling too. So it's worth noting what that is, if only for the understanding.
How does a site go from a record number of unique commenters in a day, and 13 conversation starters in a day (highest ever), to doing a full collapse the next day to 5 and 3, lowest in months? All in one day. If I don't know why that happens I can't progress the health of the site. And the only way to try to answer it is to measure stuff, take note of the measurement, and decide if a useful theory came out of it or not. I might as well share the data.