I think this is a false choice, because I donât think the top karma posts are usually mediocre.
âMediocreâ was too strongâI shouldâve written âhigh qualityâ in scenario A versus âexcellent qualityâ in scenario B.
I think high karma is a good proxy for high quality, but low karma isnât a good proxy for poor quality, because some low karma posts are (as OP said) good, but too technical or niche for general readership, or perhaps just not many people have seen it. In other words, I think there are lots of false negatives with karma but few false positives (is that metaphor at all clarifying, lol).
I mostly agree, but I think thereâs some tendency for some of the best, most front-page-worthy posts to get stuck at âquite a lot of karma, but not the mostâ due to some combination of being (necessarily) long, specialized, technical, rigorous, difficult and/âor dealing with a non-topical subject matter.
I do think itâs a shame if good non-community-drama posts never even get seen; on going onto the Forum, Iâd love to see a front page featuring articles on a range of topics.
âMediocreâ was too strongâI shouldâve written âhigh qualityâ in scenario A versus âexcellent qualityâ in scenario B.
I mostly agree, but I think thereâs some tendency for some of the best, most front-page-worthy posts to get stuck at âquite a lot of karma, but not the mostâ due to some combination of being (necessarily) long, specialized, technical, rigorous, difficult and/âor dealing with a non-topical subject matter.
I agree!