|
|
|
|
|
by PaulHoule
1876 days ago
|
|
Those scores are not so interesting by themselves in that they were calculated based on votes at the time and aren't meant for comparing comments on different articles. (The top comment on a high-scoring article will automatically beat the top comment on a low-scoring article) I would rather like to see what Dan did scaled up 1000x or so: that is, have experts pick out a few of the best comments over the very long term with a number of quality criteria in mind. Like it or not individual people have characteristics that are mostly stable over time: they are more or less smart, mean, wordy, honest, loyal, interested in different things, make different mistakes, etc. Profiling the author is worthwhile. The article though is a problem not a solution in terms of sampling: consider that people talked about topic A in 200 articles that hit the front page in the last 5 years; if you put the comments from those 200 articles in pool B and rank the articles in pool B and pick up the top ten you would get the "pure gold". |
|
This sounds ... tempting...