On 6/6/02 8:11 AM, "Kurt Jansson" jansson@gmx.net wrote:
But is there any way to judge/measure/monitor the quality of the contribution as volume grows?
The more page views an article got in the last x months, and the less it has been edited in the same time, the better is the article?
I'd be skeptical about this metric being equivalent to quality, since there are so many factors that influence the ratio of views to edits. Quality is certainly one, but so is: *) ease of editing *) nature of the visitor to the page
That is, if the interface makes it difficult to edit the article, people won't edit it whether or not it's of inferior quality. E.g. slowdowns.
I'd rather say that the above metric measures something like "article stasis", which has both good and bad qualities. Most of the time stasis is good, but it's important to remember it's not perfection.
I feel like I'm taking way to philosophical a tone here by speaking in generalities--all I mean is that everything bears improvement.
Also, sometimes a high edit-to-view ratio is an excellent metric of quality, in particular (of course) in the case of current-events articles.
--tc