This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).
As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.
These are mostly chronologically ordered, but I have in some cases tried to cluster comments by topic so if there is something you are looking for (or trying to avoid), this might be helpful.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That post of mine wasn't very quality. Could have been made ~30% shorter without any real issue, and it wasn't very original (might even be wrong in parts; it was largely educated guesswork rather than direct knowledge).
I'm half-suspecting I got the QC precisely because of the length, which is discouraging.
I'm often a bit baffled as well - posts I write that I dash off in five minutes and think are relatively uninteresting sometimes get QCs, whereas posts that I invested a lot of effort and care into and think might be QC candidates don't make it. It's strange.
In this particular case I'd also like to raise my eyebrow a bit at the framing:
This framing makes it look like my post was about gender, which... it wasn't? It happened to be in a thread whose top-level post was about gender, but it was part of a tangent about religion.
Maybe one day I will write a big post about gender, but that day is not today, and was not nine days ago either.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm often as surprised by which of my posts get nominations, as which do not. This seems to be a running theme with many quality posters; the deeply researched effort post gets ignored, while the drunken schizo-post you tossed off at 2am pulls ten nominations and spawns a dozen quality replies.
I expect there's no single reason for this, but nominations tend to predominantly cluster on novelty, insight, authenticity, thoroughness, eloquence, and effort. Length correlates with several of those. In this case I expect the combination of thoroughness and eloquence on a topic of interest was a driver of nominations. But that is only a guess; those who nominated you are welcome to elaborate, or not.
I believe people are most persuasive when they're passionate and authentic. That doesn't mean every nutter shouting in the street is convincing, but there's something about a true believer that compels acknowledgement. The best reasons to believe in something are the reasons why the people who actually believe it, believe it.
Also, and this is just an aside... but is the best line of my comment here really the part where I'm qualifying my point?
If you think there's a better single-sentence(ish) quote that should be there, feel free to say so. I'm happy to update.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link