You also get karma for submissions, so that metric will be highly skewed.

The submission karma is public, so you should be able to subtract it, but that karma doesn’t seem to be the same as the one for comments (i.e. I think one point in a comment gives you one point overall, but on submissions you need two or three points to earn one in your account).

▲

keiferski 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, I started to think out what you'd need to actually get a "succinct but high-quality" score and it gets complex, fast. Karma will be bloated by popular hot takes and submissions, for starters. Then you have to determine the certain cut-offs to ensure that someone with 10 comments of 10 words each (with 100+ karma each) isn't "the most succinct."

I'm less interested in the idea as a ranking, and more as a way to evaluate my own writing, with the aim of being as succinct but high quality as possible.

▲

embedding-shape an hour ago | parent [-]

> with the aim of being as succinct but high quality as possible

You're assuming "high karma = high quality" which, isn't always correct :) I've had wildly incorrect claims be upvoted a lot, and correct ones downvoted, seems to be more about what the subject is about and what "side you're coming from" rather than anything else sometimes. Other times it goes exactly as expected.

End effect is, I wouldn't rely on karma as a signal for quality, just "agreement at large" or something.

	▲	keiferski 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No, I mentioned in the grandparent comment: > Although karma points are not equivalent to quality, But I don't think they are totally uncorrelated to quality, either. So you'd need a way to factor karma points in without over-valuing them. To really get specific, the only thing we're really measuring here is something like, well-written, succinct comments that are appreciated by HN users that are able to upvote. Which is not exactly super useful or insightful, but is a fun exercise.