this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
453 points (94.0% liked)

Fediverse

32676 readers
406 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I was playing around with Lemmy statistics the other day, and I decided to take the number of comments per post. Essentially a measure of engagement – the higher the number the more engaging the post is. Or in other words how many people were pissed off enough to comment, or had something they felt like sharing. The average for every single Lemmy instance was 8.208262964 comments per post.

So I modeled that with a Poisson distribution, in stats terms X~Po(8.20826), then found the critical regions assuming that anything that had a less than 5% chance of happening, is important. In other words 5% is the significance level. The critical regions are the region either side of the distribution where the probability of ending up in those regions is less than 5%. These critical regions on the lower tail are, 4 comments and on the upper tail is 13 comments, what this means is that if you get less than 4 comments or more than 13 comments, that's a meaningful value. So I chose to interpret those results as meaning that if you get 5 or less comments than your post is "a bad post", or if you get 13 or more than your post is "a good post". A good post here is litterally just "got a lot of comments than expected of a typical post", vice versa for "a bad post".

You will notice that this is quite rudimentary, like what about when the Americans are asleep, most posts do worse then. That's not accounted for here, because it increases the complexity beyond what I can really handle in a post.

To give you an idea of a more sweeping internet trend, the adage 1% 9% 90%, where 1% do the posting, 9% do the commenting, and 90% are lurkers – assuming each person does an average of 1 thing a day, suggests that c/p should be about 9 for all sites regardless of size.

Now what is more interesting is that comments per post varies by instance, lemmy.world for example has an engagement of 9.5 c/p and lemmy.ml has 4.8 c/p, this means that a “good post” on .ml is a post that gets 9 comments, whilst a “good post” on .world has to get 15 comments. On hexbear.net, you need 20 comments, to be a “good post”. I got the numbers for instance level comments and posts from here

This is a little bit silly, since a “good post”, by this metric, is really just a post that baits lots and lots of engagement, specifically in the form of comments – so if you are reading this you should comment, otherwise you are an awful person. No matter how meaningless the comment.

Anyway I thought that was cool.

EDIT: I've cleared up a lot of the wording and tried to make it clearer as to what I am actually doing.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Ah nice, I encountered a Poisson-distribution in the wild today. I shall recount this encounter to my children.

[–] ArtificialHoldings@lemmy.world 5 points 22 hours ago

Goodhart's Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

Not entirely sure how this applies to the discussion, it just came to mind lol

[–] Pamasich@kbin.earth 3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I disagree that commenting for the sake of commenting is a good idea. Quality over quantity, a single meaningful discussion is superior to a sea of low effort garbage. I also want the fediverse to take off, but not at the cost of adopting modern Reddit culture.

a “good post”, by this metric, is really just a post that baits lots and lots of engagement

Baiting anything is bad.

[–] Agosagror@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 23 hours ago

Well exactly, that was kind of the point of this post. Hence "good post" being in air quotes. It being a silly idea as well.

Completely agree with you on that last point.

[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Add a TLDR or this post won't get a lot of traction either

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 day ago

Confirmed. I see "Poisson distribution" I start skimming lol

[–] Minnels@lemm.ee 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I comment very seldom and only if i think that I can contribute. I see no need to write anything if I got nothing of significance to add.

Maybe I should. Add comments that is uplifting and kind more often.

I try to be positive, but my way of life are very different from other people's; and i end up doing more harm than good, if i'm forcing myself to be friendly and nice.

[–] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I comment a shit ton and often with absolute banalities. Especially on posts with 0 comments.

My reasoning is twofold: first of all I want to encourage posters by engaging with their content so they don't stop posting. Second I want to invite others to comment and it's much more inviting to do so if a post has at least one comment. People tend to think it's dead otherwise and not bother.

I think at the current level of MAUs there is no comment too small, and every little bit helps just by virtue of breaking the silence.

[–] Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 2 points 23 hours ago

My meagre contributions pale in comparison to your efforts, but I do what I can.

[–] Minnels@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago

I feel guilty now. Yes, everything you just said is true.

I shall become a better... Lemming(?) and comment a few times every day.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 149 points 2 days ago (2 children)

We had the chance to upvote this heavily without leaving any comments, but we blew it

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 35 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

post is too [good] unfortunately

[–] riot@lemmy.world 32 points 2 days ago (3 children)

post is too unfortunately

they don't think it be like it is but it do

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Average Fediverse Experience:

Post comment

Waits 24 hours

zero replies

zero votes

not even a downvote

check post viewed from other instances

can't find the comment

realizes that the comment never federated

now too much time has passed since the original time of the post, and the joke you commented is no longer funny anymore

😭

[–] tja@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

Or other people created the same joke without ever seeing your post

[–] JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This comment will be sad if you don't engage with it.

This comment is part of a tree-datastructure that represents the branches of discussion.

[–] S_H_K@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Ohhh poor thing here have an upvote and a comment.

[–] JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 5 hours ago

The comment is very happy to be a good comment with 8 updoots and two replies.

10/9.5 🥳

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 32 points 2 days ago

You need a factor for niche communities. A post with 4 comments in a backpacking community with 20 subscribers is way "gooder" than 40 comments in a 5k subscriber news community.

I.E. add a community size factor.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 69 points 2 days ago (1 children)

that could be because it is an AMAZING post – it covered all the points and no one has anything left to say

Finally, I know why.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 24 points 2 days ago

This does happen with comments sometimes. I go into a post and someone has already eloquently said what I would have said (often better than I would have). So I upvote it and move along

[–] ocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.com 52 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Fun break down! More comments is more interesting than more posts for me

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Doing my part to make this a good post, cause it was.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] diffusive@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

A post by fediversechick

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 2 days ago (8 children)

In my mind, that shows that "copying reddit" was not the best idea and people should really have copied things like phpBB or SMF for the flagship "community-based" fediverse platform, at least to start out.

On traditional forums, even relatively small communities cause interesting content to appear all the time, by thread bumping and back-and-forth discussion that can go over many pages. However it is obvious that this structure doesn't scale well to communities with thousands of active users writing thousands of comments in one thread. The reddit structure works better for such communities, but most communities we have here on the threadiverse just aren't that big yet.

I grew up with traditional forums and discovered other structures for "social media" much later; I still consider traditional forums way superior to any "social media" structure that is nowadays popular.

[–] Pamasich@kbin.earth 2 points 1 day ago

by thread bumping

Thread bumping is still possible on Reddit-like social media too. Just use a sort that responds to activity, like the Active sort on Mbin or Piefed.

[–] cron@feddit.org 16 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I think meaningful commenting only works in trees, for example the old mailing lists.

With classic linear forums, I quickly loose track of different discussions. Good luck finding replys to a comment on page #3 when the post has 300 comments.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I was also a very active user of traditional forums but, in my experience, small niche subreddits (when I was on Reddit) were a decent substitute in terms of content, since posts could stay on their front page for several days. Lemmy isn't big enough to have those yet but I hope it will be. The thing I miss most about forums isn't the format but rather the community. The forum I posted on the most had only a few dozen regulars and I knew them.

There was the guy with a kind, insightful take on controversial issues and a fetish for women with more than two arms. The active duty marine who reliably posted harsh truths. The feminist I didn't get along with at all despite agreeing with her about most things. The dedicated father who bought real razor wire for his daughter when she wanted a UN-peacekeeper-base themed birthday party. The very determined conservative who defended his position no matter how outnumbered he was and once bragged that he had given his wife several dozen orgasms in a row...

I suppose I was the young man with strange views about what was or wasn't fair and a great deal of anger over any perceived unfairness. (I don't think I was particularly well-liked.) The internet is so much less personal now.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Maiq@lemy.lol 14 points 2 days ago

Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think one needs to include parameters like how soon after the topic was created the comment was made and how deep is it in the comment tree. If you for instance consistently comment on 1 month old topics or reply on comments ten levels deep you will get very few interactions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RideAgainstTheLizard@slrpnk.net 16 points 2 days ago (10 children)

I've happily found that there is much more interaction here than on Mastodon :)

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago

It's a different model.

Mastodon, like Twitter, is a person-centered setup. You can use hashtags, but most people don't. You follow people not communities. As a result it's basically microblogs, where most people are just posting into the void. Celebrities are followed more, so they get more replies, so there are more conversations. But, fundamentally it's not really inviting interactions.

Lemmy, like Reddit, is a topic-centered setup. It has a bunch of communities and people post something because they think it might be interesting for people who are also interested in that community. Every post is basically an invitation to have a discussion about something.

I think the friction to posting something on Lemmy is slightly higher, but when you do, it's more likely to generate comments.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

No, you did your math wrong

Also, something about politics.

(Just kidding. This is neat 😎)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The other chance that you got no comments on your post for is that you are banned from the remote instance/community, or federation is broken (still happens intermittently).

Lemmy will still allow you to post from your home instance since you are not banned there, but your content will simply get black-holed by the remote instance if you're banned there. Sometimes you have to check the remote instance directly to see if your post was federated or not.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (4 children)

So I modeled that with a Poisson distribution, and I learnt that to a 5% significance level, if your post got less than 4 comments, that was statistically significant. Or in other words – there is a 95% probability that something else caused it not to get more comments. Now that could be because it is an AMAZING post – it covered all the points and no one has anything left to say. Or it’s because it’s a crappy post and you should be ashamed in yourself. Similarly a “good post”, one that gets lots of comments, would be any post that gets more than 13 comments. Anything in-between 4 and 13 is just an average post.

So, like, I do have a background in stats and network analysis, and I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

if your post got less than 4 comments, that was statistically significant.

Statistically significant what? What hypothesis are you testing? Like, how are you setting this question up? What is your null?

Because I don't believe your interpretation of that conclusion. It sounds like mostly you calculated the parameters of a poisson and then are interpreting them? Because to be clear, thats not the same as doing hypothesis testing and isn't interpretable in that manner. Its still fine, and interesting, and especially useful when you are doing network analysis, but on its on, its not interpretable in this manner. It needs context and we need to understand what test you are running, and how you are setting that test up.

I'm asking these questions not to dissuade you, but to give you the opportunity to bring rigor to your work.

Should you like, to further your work, I have set up this notebook you can maybe use parts of to continue your investigations or do different investigations.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] FancyLad@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

goes back to lurking in the shadows

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 days ago

I think the community matters a lot more than the instance. Hexbear has a bunch of coping bubble communities but they keep posting the same low-quality comments, so that's probably why the threshold of 20 comments is so high. Another example, I make posts to my own blog community !dginovker_blog@lemmy.ml, but there's no subscribers so there's never gonna be any comments.

Basically I'm saying you should do this same analysis across a sample of random communities ^^

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago

Similarly a “good post”, one that gets lots of comments, would be any post that gets more than 13 comments.

By my count, this comment will take your post from one with 12 comments to one with 13 comments, therefore I'm conferring on you the title of "good post". Congratulations!!

However, I'm assuming that you're including your own comments in the comment tally. If you're not, then your 2 comments so far to this post don't count, and you'll only be at 11, and therefore "not good".

If you are counting your own comments on your own post, can you juice the numbers by adding lots of comments? In other words, can you make a post good by interacting with the people who are interacting with the post? Like some kind of um... conversation? Sounds like cheating to me.

load more comments
view more: next ›