Blushing wrote:
the same people complain about quality, yet refuse to post something of substance.
In terms of quality, there are a few things I find to stand out:
- Engagement
- The post needs to engage the reader in a way that makes them feel connected to the post or wanting to continue reading.
- This post needs to have a reason for the reader to engage (we can see an increase in engagement when its something like "comment and ill tell you how I feel about you", Potato man's post about the tier list, posts like this engage the user and offer a benefit to posting, rather than just reading.
- Substance
- There needs to be actual content in the post. Not just a simple one-liner that is "off-topic", mainly these one-liners are just shitposts just to post something.
- Tonality
- You don't always need to have a funny post. Yes, it is more than likely to get good engagement if it is genuinely funny, but we've seen serious posts get a lot of engagement, I mean look at this post. Something that didn't have a lot of engagement until recently and it blew up. The substance and engagement of the post matter more than the tonality, but the tone of the post can definitely help keep the readers and even sway them to comment underneath of it.
I very much disagree with this, this is a very textbook "what is a good thread", and while it may be logical in paper, does it really exist in reality?
"The post needs to engage the reader in a way that makes them feel connected to the post or wanting to continue reading."
is it really? when was the last time you felt "connected to a thread", also, this implies the thread is just a textdump, which in many cases it isn't
"This post needs to have a reason for the reader to engage (we can see an increase in engagement when its something like "comment and ill tell you how I feel about you", Potato man's post about the tier list, posts like this engage the user and offer a benefit to posting, rather than just reading."
A thread isn't better for having more responses, I feel AMA's are awful in that aspect, because yes, they get a lot of responses, but are they really that fun?, I don't think no one is saying "oh comment and I tell how I feel about you is my favourite ot thread". We should not optimize OT threads for engagement life if we are a company
"There needs to be actual content in the post. Not just a simple one-liner that is "off-topic", mainly these one-liners are just shitposts just to post something."
If we were to apply this rule, there would be like 30 good threads in OT history, we're not scholars discussing philosophy, all we post is banal, there really isn't anything really worth it in any thread, yet we post just because it's fun
You don't always need to have a funny post. Yes, it is more than likely to get good engagement if it is genuinely funny, but we've seen serious posts get a lot of engagement, I mean look at this post. Something that didn't have a lot of engagement until recently and it blew up. The substance and engagement of the post matter more than the tonality, but the tone of the post can definitely help keep the readers and even sway them to comment underneath of it.
"Yes, it is more than likely to get good engagement if it is genuinely funny"
again, you're meassuring quality by engagement, this is not how OT works, if a thread just happens to have a drama, that doesn't mean the tthread is better
if you REALLY want to try mathing out/finding the "correct" formula to make a quality post, check these two threads out. See what people ACTUALLY consider to be good threads.
community/forums/topics/1853225?n=1 (note, actually a lot of the green threads ended up failing, like my gd megacollab, or abraker's game, and my poster thread, even if it was high rated, barely got any responses)
community/forums/topics/1886044?n=1