site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   1688 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 11, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

META: Is it easier or harder to secure a Quality Contribution than it used to be?

I am a pathologically insecure person whose thirst for validation is omnipresent and unquenchable. It was for this reason that I shared the links to every Quality Contribution Roundup in the year to date with ChatGPT and asked it to build a leaderboard of Quality Contributions by user. Suffice it to say that it gave me the answer I was looking for.

Without showing the breakdown by user, here is a monthly breakdown of how many Quality Contributions there have been so far this year:

Month # AAQCs
January 2026 39
February 2026 30
March 2026 32
April 2026 32
May 2026 37
June 2026 25
July 2026 33
August 2026 34
September 2026 30
Sub-total 292

But I was curious, and asked it to do the same for all of last year's roundups:

Month # AAQCs
January 2025 44
February 2025 41
March 2025 39
April 2025 30
May 2025 39
June 2025 41
July 2025 43
August 2025 34
September 2025 35
October 2025 40
November 2025 36
December 2025 33
Total 455

As you can see, there has been a substantial drop in the volume of Quality Contributions year-on-year. The monthly average for 2025 was 38 AAQCs, which has fallen to 32 this year. 2025 saw five months with forty Quality Contributions or more, which hasn't happened even once so far this year. Similarly, last year's floor was 30 quality contributions in a month, while this year's is 25 (granted, that month was the only month with less than 30).

What could be the cause of this? A few possible explanations come to mind.

  • Lower volume of comments: Let's compare September 2026 with September 2025. The five Culture War Roundup threads* in September 2026 received a total of 6,812 comments, while the corresponding CWRs in the previous year received 9,221 comments, a fall of 26%. (Not every Quality Contribution originates in the CWRs, but they tend to be the busiest threads, making them a useful proxy for site activity.) If there was a perfect linear correlation between volume of comments and volume of Quality Contributions, a 26% decline in comments would predict only 26 Quality Contributions in September 2026. But in fact, there were 30 Quality Contributions in September 2026, suggesting that the site is selecting for quality over quantity. (The ratio of CWR comments:Quality Contributions in September 2025 was 0.003, while in September 2026 it was 0.004.) Alternatively, it could mean that (contra the next bullet), the mods are becoming less selective over time and it's actually easier to be included in a Quality Contribution roundup than it used to be.
  • Increased mod selectivity: Perhaps the decline in the number of Quality Contributions year-on-year is not indicative of a decline in the quality of the discourse. It could well be that the comments are just as good as ever, but the mods are more selective about those they think are deserving of being included in a Quality Contributions Roundup. Most of the top-level posts in the CWRs fall into one of a handful of familiar topics (AI, trans, Israel, Trump's latest antics, immigrant crime etc.) and many of the same arguments are rehashed and reiterated each time. (I'm as guilty of this as anyone, if not more so.) Over time, the low-hanging fruit gets picked, the mods see comments containing familiar arguments getting nominated for AAQCs, and they don't feel comfortable about including a comment in the Roundup which rehashes an argument previously expressed more eloquently by someone else. They expect more of us.
  • Regression to the mean: A boring and obvious explanation I'm including for completeness's sake. Maybe 2025 was an unusually high-quality year and 2026 is more typical. One would need to look at the volume of Quality Contributions in 2024, 2023 and so on to confirm.
  • Dean is not as active as he once was: Last year, @Dean made so many posts or comments which were included in Quality Contributions Roundups that many commenters independently made the facetious suggestion to rename the Quality Contributions Roundups to the "Dean's list". My analysis bore this out: he easily topped the 2025 leaderboard with one-third more contributions than the second-place contributor, and was the only person in either 2025 or 2026 to produce 5 distinct Quality Contributions in a single month. I guess real life got in the way because he hasn't been as active a commenter this year.

*Based on eyeballing the total comments for the CWRs for August 31, September 7, September 14, September 21 and September 28. Obviously these threads contain some comments posted before or after September, but I'm too lazy to go digging through them to identify which comments were posted in what period. It's a good enough proxy metric, nothing more.

I think it's mostly the first thing - we have had a gradual but inevitable decline in activity (and what activity there is in increasingly self-referential or just retreading old ground), and thus in QCs.

and what activity there is in increasingly self-referential or just retreading old ground

Or in other words, thoughts are not getting any more refined. My first comment here and my last comment here will likely be the exact same.

I still browse the threads as a time-sink and to properly order social dynamics I've been fixated on thinking about, but as for actually novel insights I'm still wholly dependent on others to make the top-level posts.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats