I was playing around with Lemmy statistics the other day, and I decided to take the number of comments per post. Essentially a measure of engagement – the higher the number the more engaging the post is. Or in other words how many people were pissed off enough to comment, or had something they felt like sharing. The average for every single Lemmy instance was 8.208262964 comments per post.
So I modeled that with a Poisson distribution, in stats terms X~Po(8.20826), then found the critical regions assuming that anything that had a less than 5% chance of happening, is important. In other words 5% is the significance level. The critical regions are the region either side of the distribution where the probability of ending up in those regions is less than 5%. These critical regions on the lower tail are, 4 comments and on the upper tail is 13 comments, what this means is that if you get less than 4 comments or more than 13 comments, that’s a meaningful value. So I chose to interpret those results as meaning that if you get 5 or less comments than your post is “a bad post”, or if you get 13 or more than your post is “a good post”. A good post here is litterally just “got a lot of comments than expected of a typical post”, vice versa for “a bad post”.
You will notice that this is quite rudimentary, like what about when the Americans are asleep, most posts do worse then. That’s not accounted for here, because it increases the complexity beyond what I can really handle in a post.
To give you an idea of a more sweeping internet trend, the adage 1% 9% 90%, where 1% do the posting, 9% do the commenting, and 90% are lurkers – assuming each person does an average of 1 thing a day, suggests that c/p should be about 9 for all sites regardless of size.
Now what is more interesting is that comments per post varies by instance, lemmy.world for example has an engagement of 9.5 c/p and lemmy.ml has 4.8 c/p, this means that a “good post” on .ml is a post that gets 9 comments, whilst a “good post” on .world has to get 15 comments. On hexbear.net, you need 20 comments, to be a “good post”. I got the numbers for instance level comments and posts from here
This is a little bit silly, since a “good post”, by this metric, is really just a post that baits lots and lots of engagement, specifically in the form of comments – so if you are reading this you should comment, otherwise you are an awful person. No matter how meaningless the comment.
Anyway I thought that was cool.
Idk why you think this is slop. Hexbear uses a different algorithm than other lemmy instances which highly favors comments over upvotes. I've said that this is a bad decision for a long time. Bait posts with high engagement are always on the front page. This is why hexbear always has "struggle sessions", because more commments = more front page time = more comments.
Important news stories are buried under the constant engagement baiting if nobody comments on the news post.
This is an example of a story which I consider to be very important. It is a story which provided evidence that Meta/Facebook complied with 95% of requests from the Israel government to remove posts. The story was posted once and only received 20 upvoted and 0 comments. then the same exact url was posted the next day and received 60 upvotes and 1 comment. The same exact URL received 3 times as many upvotes when it had 1 comment vs 0 comments.
https://hexbear.net/post/4569726
My advice to people is stop commenting on engagement bait and if you see a very important news story, post a comment on it, not just upvote. I wish the devs would implement a better algorithm.
sort by new
Sometimes I get adventurous and sort by New Comments