> how does HN keep the level of quality so high? Is it because we share an interest? Because of the quality control?
My guess is that dang's moderation is a large part of it, and I think dang moderates (creates moderation policy and executes it) based on things that are "human-assessed" and not quantifiable....
> But if you are the size of Facebook, Instagram, Tiktok, etc. it is too risky (and expensive) to let individuals define what success looks like
You're probably right, but I think it's worth challenging this conventional wisdom. (Not necessarily here, we're not going to work it out, but still, I'll ask some rhetorical questions) Why is it too dangerous? Even if you have quantitative metrics, are you _sure_ this isn't still "letting individuals define what success looks like", since individuals decided how the metrics were defined and measured? So then, what's the difference? Why, specifically, is it too "dangerous" to have non-quantitative metrics defining what success looks like? Danger of... what? I would say facebook as it is, is actually incredibly dangerous to, like, human society. So... what kind of danger are we talking about? Danger to facebook's profits instead? Or what?
> So the question should be what metric(s), if not engagement in itself, should we measure for to create a healthy online community?
Sure. I don't know! I think that's the question the OP is meaning to ask too, if not completely answer. The OP suggests:
> At the start of this, I said that people join your community for support, connection, opportunities to give back, and meaningful relationships. Those are the things they value, and those are the things you should value. And if you value them, you should measure them.
> They’re not as easy to measure as engagement, sure, but they can be measured. The best part is that maximizing these metrics is always going to be good for your community.
My point is that i'm not certain this should be short-circuited with "Well of course whatever metrics these are, they need to be quantitative and have the appareance of "objectivity".
My guess is that dang's moderation is a large part of it, and I think dang moderates (creates moderation policy and executes it) based on things that are "human-assessed" and not quantifiable....
> But if you are the size of Facebook, Instagram, Tiktok, etc. it is too risky (and expensive) to let individuals define what success looks like
You're probably right, but I think it's worth challenging this conventional wisdom. (Not necessarily here, we're not going to work it out, but still, I'll ask some rhetorical questions) Why is it too dangerous? Even if you have quantitative metrics, are you _sure_ this isn't still "letting individuals define what success looks like", since individuals decided how the metrics were defined and measured? So then, what's the difference? Why, specifically, is it too "dangerous" to have non-quantitative metrics defining what success looks like? Danger of... what? I would say facebook as it is, is actually incredibly dangerous to, like, human society. So... what kind of danger are we talking about? Danger to facebook's profits instead? Or what?
> So the question should be what metric(s), if not engagement in itself, should we measure for to create a healthy online community?
Sure. I don't know! I think that's the question the OP is meaning to ask too, if not completely answer. The OP suggests:
> At the start of this, I said that people join your community for support, connection, opportunities to give back, and meaningful relationships. Those are the things they value, and those are the things you should value. And if you value them, you should measure them.
> They’re not as easy to measure as engagement, sure, but they can be measured. The best part is that maximizing these metrics is always going to be good for your community.
My point is that i'm not certain this should be short-circuited with "Well of course whatever metrics these are, they need to be quantitative and have the appareance of "objectivity".