Great way to analyze the data—really love this approach!
I don’t think the value of a post can be judged by word count alone. Too long, and you risk losing the reader’s attention; too short, and it can feel like a quick post just for rewards. That said, I’ve seen both sides: short posts with powerful insights, and long ones that feel like low-effort AI-generated filler.
Personally, I’m not a fan of autovotes. I really think manual curators deserve more recognition—kudos to them for putting in the time and effort to truly evaluate content. 👏
The thing I like about this analysis (and why I did it this way) - was to try and shine a light on what "has been" - and for people to look more closely at how they use their vote on content in the future.
I don't like autovotes either. Sometimes, however - if it weren't for autovotes, I don't think I'd get many votes at all! :P
Each post should be assessed on its own merits, against its peers. That is, a photography post should be compared to a photography post. A short fiction should be compared to other short fiction.
I am already working on a classifier to try and describe a post based on its content - once I've got these "categories" fleshed out, it will be a more insightful tool.
Can we have a list if manual curators as well.
I don't have a list, but I can do nothing but say good things about @acidyo and many of the curation services they've been a part of are very passionate about manual curation.
They've been banging on about manual curation and the weakness of autovoters for years and years.
The cruel irony is that a post like this isn't even a tool that curators can use. We can only look at it, look at the events of the past, and ask ourselves "should this post have gotten this reward?"
I will try do something about this. 🥰