What defines a HQ post. What defines a LQ post?? have your say inside come and h

[annerl]

thank you
i sent you a privat message with all the links
id realy apriciate help in this case

[1714127791]

1714127791

[1714127791]

1714127791

[cryptohunter]

conversely though do you think we can put negative if the person is capable of a complex post that provides great insight but only to those at his level or above??  no perhaps we should not put this as negative because it still has great info for the more trained or capable in that area.

No, especially few things simply too hard to be simplified if it requires knowledge of specific topic beforehand. For example, explaining ECDSA/secp256k1 (which used by Bitcoin) to non-programmer/mathematician pretty much impossible.
And as you said, it's still useful for some people with same/higher level.

Yes, I agree, this makes sense.


@yeahpro

This is a reasonable point we can change the headings later. I guess there are varying degrees of usefulness or value and then those of 0 value. I have speculated before that you can actually have posts of negative value too. For now I am just trying to get a rough criteria from everyone on their opinions of good and bad posts. Negative value posts are actually worse than spam that can easily be spotted and disregarded. Other than scam promotion or outright scamming these are the worst kind of posts to me.

[r1s2g3]

4 - The opinion of a Proven and Recognised expert in that specific field/area being discussed in the topic however brief.

I think however brief  word is not required. Any reply from an expert is good enough. If they give detailed reply it will be cherry on top.

conversely though do you think we can put negative if the person is capable of a complex post that provides great insight but only to those at his level or above??  no perhaps we should not put this as negative because it still has great info for the more trained or capable in that area.

No,  I guess Einstein "Theory of Relativity"  is perfect example where very few understood it at that time but it does not decrease its importance.
Even for "bitcoin" we still have hard time to explain who already decided it as ponzi.

[cryptohunter]

4 - The opinion of a Proven and Recognised expert in that specific field/area being discussed in the topic however brief.

I think however brief  word is not required. Any reply from an expert is good enough. If they give detailed reply it will be cherry on top.

conversely though do you think we can put negative if the person is capable of a complex post that provides great insight but only to those at his level or above??  no perhaps we should not put this as negative because it still has great info for the more trained or capable in that area.

No,  I guess Einstein "Theory of Relativity"  is perfect example where very few understood it at that time but it does not decrease its importance.
Even for "bitcoin" we still have hard time to explain who already decided it as ponzi.

This I agree does make sense. I'll alter that now.

[cryptohunter]

I think perhaps another permutation of a LQ post is

A post that voices merely an opinion (no evidence nor corroborating events ) that a previous post stating facts or observable events is incorrect or unreasonable. In other words an  empty rebuttal.

Or

A post that voices a rebuttal based upon unrelated evidence or other factual evidence that is not actually in opposition or preventing the earlier post being correct. In other words a faux rebuttal.

there may be some actual real term for those things out there already




How about those?

[Coyster]

How about those?

They may be wrong or incorrect posts,but they may not be of low quality as the posts could be properly constructed and could have opposite views with the initial post.
Though such views may be wrong,and we've seen that happen numerous times here, when a member is vehemently arguing a wrong cause,but the way and manner in which he or she presents the case makes it worthy but doesn't make it correct

I think it doesn't make the post of low quality except of cause if the post is totally off from the initial or previous correct post as opposed to it being a slight difference in opinion

[suchmoon]

They may be wrong or incorrect posts,but they may not be of low quality as the posts could be properly constructed and could have opposite views with the initial post.
Though such views may be wrong,and we've seen that happen numerous times here, when a member is vehemently arguing a wrong cause,but the way and manner in which he or she presents the case makes it worthy but doesn't make it correct

I think it doesn't make the post of low quality except of cause if the post is totally off from the initial or previous correct post as opposed to it being a slight difference in opinion

Opinions are not statements of fact and by definition can't be right or wrong. What we often confuse with opinions is their factual basis (see below). This has nothing to do with quality though.

Statements of fact can be right or wrong. This also doesn't have much to do with quality. Someone could post an elaborate high-quality hoax and someone could post a poorly-expressed albeit true fact.

The problem is that this is rarely so nicely delineated. We don't start all our posts with "in my opinion" although that can be implied most of the time. In some cases the poster can abuse this implication and masquerade false statements as opinions or vice versa. In some cases the reader might abuse this implication and interpret one's opinion as a statement of fact or vice versa. But again, most of the time that doesn't have much if anything to do with quality. Not liking someone's opinion or even someone being flat out factually wrong doesn't mean they can't construct a high-quality post.

Where I would draw the line is a lie, i.e. knowingly making a false statement with intent to deceive, although there are some exceptions (lying to preserve privacy on an internet forum would be one such exception). By extension this may include logical fallacies. A fallacy is an error in argument/reasoning but once the error has been pointed out it may be considered a lie if it's repeated. I would probably not merit something that I know is a lie even if it's three paragraphs of impeccable Queen's English.

[yahoo62278]

Should we be looking for low/high quality posts or low/high quality users? This would be a good reason to bring in these "tags" i've seen mentioned.

If a guy is a bounty hunter who only posts to collect from a bounty, then IMO he would be tagged as a low quality user. If someone is always posting in mega threads only trying to get his post counts for their sig pay, they would be a low quality user.

If someone is posting all sorts of technical analysis or helpful threads trying to teach users of the forum about bitcoin or other technology available for bitcoin and altcoin users, they would be considered a high quality user.

Why separate them? Obviously so we aren't wasting our time reading useless threads/posts or reading the trash that a low quality poster might be posting in order to be paid. Of course we would need to devise a system in order to be able to change a users tag from low quality to high quality but if a person with a high quality tag is posting, it's more likely that their post will be read and possibly merited.

[suchmoon]

Why separate them? Obviously so we aren't wasting our time reading useless threads/posts or reading the trash that a low quality poster might be posting in order to be paid. Of course we would need to devise a system in order to be able to change a users tag from low quality to high quality but if a person with a high quality tag is posting, it's more likely that their post will be read and possibly merited.

I think it's time to change the merit display from total to earned merits. Or even to average per post.

[cryptohunter]

They may be wrong or incorrect posts,but they may not be of low quality as the posts could be properly constructed and could have opposite views with the initial post.
Though such views may be wrong,and we've seen that happen numerous times here, when a member is vehemently arguing a wrong cause,but the way and manner in which he or she presents the case makes it worthy but doesn't make it correct

I think it doesn't make the post of low quality except of cause if the post is totally off from the initial or previous correct post as opposed to it being a slight difference in opinion

Opinions are not statements of fact and by definition can't be right or wrong. What we often confuse with opinions is their factual basis (see below). This has nothing to do with quality though.

I guess you can look at it like that...however an opinion worth hearing (HQ that has value) you would expect would be grounded on some reason and logic. Reason and logic you would expect require some factual evidence or events/experiences to analyse. If you have opinions you have not thought about enough or one that is not derived from factual experiences or evidence or at the least has some corroborating material that you can present to make a reasonable case then it is likely not worth hearing and is probably dilution/pollution to a group attempt to find the optimal answer/action.

I mean as an example .... discussion on the earth being an oblate spheroid and people presenting evidence to support this and ways to demonstrate or confirm. So several people say their opinion is that is indeed a oblate spheroid for those reasons and present data. They are to me having an opinion worth listening to. Now another says in his opinion the earth is a cube and provides no supporting data or when pressed he provides data that is not related... like the ingredients of a bag of salt and vinegar crisps. I think if you got lots of those kinds of opinions on such a thread it is safe to call them LQ or low value. I guess opinions you can argue are right or wrong as they are not statements of fact.. but they are either valuable or not valuable or even of negative value through dilution and disruption.

I would not expect the cube earth crisps guy to get a high merit score above the guy that said oblate spheroid and presented a ton of valid fact based supporting data.

 Opinions can be sensible reasonable and logical or ...not i guess.. I mean if people are rewarded and encouraged to voice any opinions with no thought or regard to them at all then they will just be a dilution and pollution to the thread. Posters should start to be of the mindset that I should be ready to back up my opinions with sensible logical reasons for having such an opinion and why they are pertinent to the discussion.
 


Statements of fact can be right or wrong. This also doesn't have much to do with quality. Someone could post an elaborate high-quality hoax and someone could post a poorly-expressed albeit true fact.

Let's think about this. In most debates (like this one) you are trying to find the optimal or correct answer/action/outcome. The value of each post to me would be the positive contribution one makes towards that goal. If people voice an elaborate hoax that actually misleads or confuses some that do not have the capacity to see through it they are net negative because they are actually the faux rebuttals I am referring to. So in relation to merit. If these faux rebuttals fool people into believing they are a valuable post in reaching the optimal truth/action/outcome and receive merit this compounds the problem further because this reinforces to others that fell for this hoax that it was a valuable post.

You do not really want a system where you get high merit individuals posting convincing (to those that do not have the capacity to see the truth for themselves) hoax or for posting flawed logic and those posting valuable factual, logical and reasonable statements or answers that are contributing greatly to discovery of the optimal answer/solution getting low merit.

I mean that would make merit score almost and inverse correlation with actual value.
I would even say obvious spam is less negative because it can easily be discounted.





The problem is that this is rarely so nicely delineated. We don't start all our posts with "in my opinion" although that can be implied most of the time. In some cases the poster can abuse this implication and masquerade false statements as opinions or vice versa. In some cases the reader might abuse this implication and interpret one's opinion as a statement of fact or vice versa. But again, most of the time that doesn't have much if anything to do with quality. Not liking someone's opinion or even someone being flat out factually wrong doesn't mean they can't construct a high-quality post.

Well yes if they are factually wrong in one case they may be able to make a factually correct and positive contribution in another post.




Where I would draw the line is a lie, i.e. knowingly making a false statement with intent to deceive, although there are some exceptions (lying to preserve privacy on an internet forum would be one such exception). By extension this may include logical fallacies. A fallacy is an error in argument/reasoning but once the error has been pointed out it may be considered a lie if it's repeated. I would probably not merit something that I know is a lie even if it's three paragraphs of impeccable Queen's English.

Intent and motive are relevant when thinking about punishment. I do not think they are that relevant when assessing the true value of a post in it's relation to reaching the optimal truth/solution, only the content and it's contribution to reaching the optimal solution should be weighed.. The rest I can agree with.




Of course I am just here laying out my views as they are now. I remain open minded and hoping for more debate.

I can see no logical reason to reward and add merit (if merit scores are meant to ever correlate to value of the posters input) to either empty or faux rebuttals however elaborate and clever they may be to mislead those that do not have the capacity to find the trust through their own analysis. I mean even if they thought they were correct and not doing it to mislead.

I just can't see any value in a system that allows incorrect or misleading posts to gain more rewards than those that provide real value from contributing to the optimal solution via relevant and factual presentation.

Or maybe that is not what you are saying?

I am not intentionally trying to pick any holes in what people are saying. I simply want to drill it down so we get an optimal definition of HQ and LQ posts. Perhaps I need to rephrase to high value and low value.

Still good debate on this.

I hope after it is all thrashed out and we encourage all people that really want to see merit be a score that denotes a score derived from a real meritocracy to have their part in the debate then we can form some solid basis for what is low and high quality/value.


@yahoo

I think your post is something that could be generally accepted as a broadly correct view but..

Motive is a hard one. Motive can have no real bearing on post value sadly and I found it hard to add it on the LQ list. As much as I agree most paid2post loving shitposters are the issue there. When you bring motive into post quality or value then you are on the same lines as ad hominem attacks. We need to evaluate their central point not their motive for making it. I agree though broadly speaking paid2post junkies trying to max out their income are a big issue.  On the other hand if VB or GM lost all of their money and needed to get in on some bounties and would only post their great knowledge and experience here for btc dust we could not write their posts off as LQ until we evaluated the content.

Also what you suggest about finding HQ members ( they can not even be located until you have an objective system that allows them to surface over time.. except for known and proven experts in their field i guess) and then making sure their posts get more attention could create a more efficient and powerfully positive environment however you would then stop it being a fair and true meritocracy. I mean that is probably impossible but we should strive for it if you want merit system to have the highest value it can.

[cryptohunter]

bump

last chance for additions to either list before we try to create a criteria to match against to demonstrate good or bad post.

I guess they are exhausted already?

[stoat]

Spam has made this forum pointless and I unusable.  Give me mod powers for 24 hours and i’ll Ban all these sig spammers myself.

It’s obvious who’s doing it and it doesn’t go by account level. There are some of these spam accounts that have worked their way up to senior and even hero. BAN THEM ALL

[Findingnemo]

~snip~

~snip~

This also can be considered as spam and against the rule too,you can did that by single post too.

32. Posting multiple posts in a row (excluding bumps and reserved posts by the thread starter) is not allowed.

BTW I am not getting what you want to say,you are going to ban all people who is making post with 3-4 line length?

[suchmoon]

Ban any account that makes more than five 3-4 line posts in a row.

Let's start with this serial spammer: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=541928;sa=showPosts

[stoat]

~snip~

~snip~

This also can be considered as spam and against the rule too,you can did that by single post too.

32. Posting multiple posts in a row (excluding bumps and reserved posts by the thread starter) is not allowed.

BTW I am not getting what you want to say,you are going to ban all people who is making post with 3-4 line length?

Not really. I made a post. And then I replied to another post. I can make more than one post in a thread. In fact that’s actually a sign of being a legitimate poster. Oh look the spammer account farmers are ganging up on me. There are spam farmers in this thread ban them all.

[Findingnemo]

Not really. I made a post. And then I replied to another post. I can make more than one post in a thread. In fact that’s actually a sign of being a legitimate poster. Oh look the spammer account farmers are ganging up on me. There are spam farmers in this thread ban them all.

You can make multiple posts in a thread but,if you do multiple posts or replies (or whatever you call it as) in a row is not allowed.You are going to get ban if you didn't follow the rules.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Not really. I made a post. And then I replied to another post.

It's not up for debate. Posting multiple times in a row is against the forum rules: Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ. No one is ganging up on you for pointing out you broke the (widely known and well established) rules.

If you've made a post, and want to reply to another post, the edit your original post to contain the new information. Don't double post. Simple.

[cryptohunter]

Not really. I made a post. And then I replied to another post. I can make more than one post in a thread. In fact that’s actually a sign of being a legitimate poster. Oh look the spammer account farmers are ganging up on me. There are spam farmers in this thread ban them all.

You can make multiple posts in a thread but,if you do multiple posts or replies (or whatever you call it as) in a row is not allowed.You are going to get ban if you didn't follow the rules.

I'm sure nobody will get a ban for this now and then.

If someone did it in most of the threads they participated in then a warning, if then after they regularly did it again 3 month ban,...only after willful disobedience perm ban. We need a measured and sensible approach to genuine posters. Perm bans are to remove net negative members. The odd double post is not a huge deal.

Let's focus our efforts to doing what we can to improve the board and just make it easier for good conversations and debates to take place.

Now let's get back to defining a high and low value post.

After consideration I guess both empty rebuttal and faux rebuttal came under the no new relevant information heading anyway.

It seems we have almost exhausted our criteria ... I guess a few more days to see if anything new comes from anyone or any new reasons to remove anything that is already there.

[jeromix]

Assessment will depend on the one reading the posts. I do not think that a post should be distinguisged from high quality and low quality by just the information being presented. Others had gotten their merit by bashing other people showing that they are good lifting themselves so that they will be acknowledge and get some respect especially to the merit source. Take a look on every newbie posts. Many will not going to like and instead of helping that newbie from his/her mistakes on point of view some users will going to bash that user that will definitely deprived the other user to post again. If there is any diatinguishing attributes to quality post then probably theymos has set a guidelines on how to give merits.

[cryptohunter]

Assessment will depend on the one reading the posts.

That is how it is now. This will reduce that dependency on the varied and subjective opinion of what makes a good post and who they like or dislike.

 I do not think that a post should be distinguisged from high quality and low quality by just the information being presented.

Feel free to suggest more criteria that we can use objectively and fairly so all persons have a more equal chance of being part of a true meritocracy. If you have additional suggestions that will be great because it needs to be as comprehensive as possible that is why the entire board should add anything they can think of.


Others had gotten their merit by bashing other people showing that they are good lifting themselves so that they will be acknowledge and get some respect especially to the merit source.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

 Take a look on every newbie posts. Many will not going to like and instead of helping that newbie from his/her mistakes on point of view some users will going to bash that user that will definitely deprived the other user to post again.

Why would they not like being treated more fairly? and having criteria to ensure their posts are judged against the same criteria as anyone else.

 If there is any diatinguishing attributes to quality post then probably theymos has set a guidelines on how to give merits.

If there are? ....  give it more thought and start to realise this will help everyone who makes sensible, reasonable, logical contribution to reaching optimal answers/solutions and discourage ill thought out garbled word salad and bots

Thanks for your post. Think it all over a bit more then reply. This is better for newbies and well everyone else if you like things fair and transparent.