zlacker

>>Imusta+(OP)
Very cool. I made the top 1,000 too.

It would be interesting to see karma-per-word, as well, as a kind of succinctness density factor. Although karma points are not equivalent to quality, and you’d need to also factor in average comment length and some other things.

To use myself:

31,273 karma / 351,012 words ≈ 0.0891 karma per word

>>keifer+kaa
You also get karma for submissions, so that metric will be highly skewed.

The submission karma is public, so you should be able to subtract it, but that karma doesn’t seem to be the same as the one for comments (i.e. I think one point in a comment gives you one point overall, but on submissions you need two or three points to earn one in your account).

>>latexr+Jda
Yeah, I started to think out what you'd need to actually get a "succinct but high-quality" score and it gets complex, fast. Karma will be bloated by popular hot takes and submissions, for starters. Then you have to determine the certain cut-offs to ensure that someone with 10 comments of 10 words each (with 100+ karma each) isn't "the most succinct."

I'm less interested in the idea as a ranking, and more as a way to evaluate my own writing, with the aim of being as succinct but high quality as possible.

>>keifer+Wda
I always wondered about metrics to measure things like: does the commenter generate positive discussion, flame wars, or plain old dead threads?