On 6/6/02 8:11 AM, "Kurt Jansson" <jansson(a)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