Topic: The Definition of a Low Quality Post - page 3. (Read 2967 times)

I can't look into the specific case from my smartphone (ATM). However, you can not define a low quality post and thus this thread is obsolete. This is all subjective. One moderator might not delete your post while the other one might. You should also look if a previous low quality post was deleted and yours was a direct response to it. In that case yours will probably get deleted as well.

---

---

If you think that a post is of low quality then please report it and explain why.

In my opinion, both is not consider low quality post. The first one made by you may be short but it is useful. The second one made by pjsonowal may be off topic but we can see that he or she have made some effort* for the post.

* it is just my point of view - not really sure.

There is a mod/staff who answered the question on how the categorizing post works.
here is the link:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-to-categorize-post-quality-1189061
Well as he said, longer post doesn't mean a good quality one and also a shorter posts doesn't mean insubstantial becuase I've seen a lot of people here who does that to nake their post longer but then they are saying the same shit all over again.

I agree, but we all know campaign managers can't really check every post, so they go for length or just quick check at a glance. I'm not sure how they can improve on that, maybe they should pay more attention when accepting members and reject the ones with questionable past post history.

The problem with most is that, as long as you post short, they say it's low quality regardless of reading your text completely and to see if you addressed a problem or so with those few words... Your post could be few words only yet constructive to the topic yet still not counted of course and on top of that, wrongly be called to those posts a low quality one... On the case #2 (Although not the mentioned case exactly), Just because a post is long enough to trick the eye's of being a high quality post, doesn't mean it's constructive enough nor high quality and contributing post at all

Length really doesn't matter.

I would say that the length doesn't matter. If the post doesn't add anything of value to the discussion, then I consider it low quality. Short posts like your quoted one can be very helpful, and sometimes long posts don't add anything to the discussion. And I agree that many sig ad spammers will post long winded posts full of complete nonsense just so that it looks like they are posting something that contributes so that they get paid.

I think its subjective (no shit sherlock) and I also think its normal to post low quality, short and unless replies from time to time. The problem are never single comments you yourself would delete reading them a week or two later, but if the majority of your posts are low quality. I hardly ever report a single post as low quality, but seeing one I might decide to check the users post history. If the majority of the posts on the first (few) page(s) are similar I suspect a spammer and act accordingly.

Yours is definitely not. Some people think that the shorter post, the less quality it is (and most account pricers will calculate it like so since it's just a bot); I think otherwise. There are plenty of short responses (take a few of theymos's posts for example; most of his posts that are answering questions and doing updates are pretty short. Doesn't mean they're LQ! ) that are HQ.

TBH, though, if you report that post, it won't be deleted. Take the whole Off-Topic section; it is composed of those responses + LQ short posts, and if you try and report one all you'll achieve is lowering your report percentage. I can't speak for the mods, but I think it's because those replies can be "quality" to some people. I would say just ignore them, press down the feeling of disgust, and move on.

Alright, I believe that this is something that needs to be addressed. It seems that the norm of a low quality post is something that is short, usually in Off Topic or somewhere similar. However, there are several posts which I see to be low quality/unsubstantial and I am wondering if it is just me being overly picky.

Here's a few examples of posts which I question:
Let's start with a post from myself. This post is very short and is in a section which is spam ridden (Micro Earnings). This makes it fit in the definition I posted earlier. However, since I am helping someone with a problem they are having, is it still counted as low quality or with no substance? I am part of a signature campaign, would these sort of posts have me 'abusing' the system, even if they were not added to my overall paid posts for the period?

Another example, a different type of post:
This post is longer, which is obvious. It is in the same section as the previous post, however this one is significantly worse in my (may be it, slightly biased) opinion. This post achieves absolutely nothing in helping anyone or adding to the topic in any way. In my opinion, this longer post is much worse than the short post I quoted earlier. This user is also in a signature campaign, and is obviously just posting for the reward. However, I have been guilty of doing this in the past.

So, what is considered a low quality post? I see a lot of shorter posts removed, however longer posts like this tend to stay and clutter up the thread. Are they still reportable or am I simply overstepping the mark?