2025-12-24 04:21:02

Seeing that 8-point rating, to be honest, it seems a bit underestimated. One must understand the professionalism and activity level of this group, and such a rating does not seem to truly reflect the actual heat of the community. The rating mechanism on Twitter can sometimes lag behind, especially for communities with high participation and deep discussions. From the dimensions of community heat, discussion quality, and number of participants, we should be able to produce more impressive numbers. This also reminds us that when looking at platform ratings, we must judge them in conjunction with the actual activity level of the community, and not be constrained by a single metric.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

15 Likes

Reward
15
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CryptoSurvivor

· 2025-12-27 03:22

8 points? Laughs. The depth and popularity of this group's discussions are far beyond just 8 points. --- Platform ratings are really lagging behind. With such high activity, being underestimated is a bit frustrating. --- Honestly, judging by the ratings alone can be very misleading. You need to look at the actual community engagement. --- There’s a problem with this rating system, giving only 8 points for so many in-depth discussions? --- You can't just focus on the ratings; it's more reliable to consider community popularity for a comprehensive assessment. --- A typical platform metric lag, the discussion quality in this community is obviously underestimated. --- With such high engagement, yet only 8 points, Twitter's rating system really needs optimization.

View OriginalReply0

ThreeHornBlasts

· 2025-12-27 03:14

8 points? That's funny, the activity level in this community is definitely not just that. --- The lag in the scoring mechanism is really annoying; the data can't keep up with community enthusiasm. --- You can't just look at the score; you need to consider the actual discussion quality. These people are very professional. --- It's that same single-metric approach again; a comprehensive assessment is really necessary. --- A community with such high engagement only scores 8 points; the platform's scoring system is a bit weak. --- By the way, these platform scores are indeed prone to lag, especially in more active communities. --- If both quality and popularity are present, the score should have gone up long ago. What are we waiting for? --- Don't be fooled by that 8 points; you still need to look into the community itself.

View OriginalReply0

DaoResearcher

· 2025-12-24 04:51

8 points is indeed an underestimate, but have you considered the issue of the token-weighted voting mechanism behind it? According to governance proposal data, this single metric scoring system is fundamentally flawed in a highly decentralized community.

View OriginalReply0

SleepyValidator

· 2025-12-24 04:47

8 points? Laughing, this scoring mechanism is really a pump.

View OriginalReply0

ShamedApeSeller

· 2025-12-24 04:46

8 points? Pumped down, the community's heat rating system really can't keep up.

View OriginalReply0

RektRecovery

· 2025-12-24 04:30

nah, 8's generous honestly. seen this play out a hundred times—platform metrics are theater, numbers lag reality by weeks. the "actual engagement" argument? classic cope. real activity would've already moved the needle, but it didn't. tells u something.

Reply0