This is a tough one. “Low effort” is where engagement metrics start dictating what kind of discourse we get. I think the real metric should be whether someone read what came before and actually responded to it.

We built a project trying to measure public opinion through thoughtful email replies instead of hot takes and quick reactions. The pattern I see is that most “engagement” is people pasting headlines, quoting selectively, or dropping one-liners. The good stuff happens when people actually wrestle with an idea.

Moderation works best when it focuses on whether a contribution adds new information or perspective. A short comment can be high effort if it synthesizes well. A long ramble is low effort if it adds nothing.

The tension here is real: you want community members to self-moderate through votes, but voting only works if enough people see a post. Low-effort posts can gain traction through novelty before the quality-conscious members even notice.

The “subjective” part is honest, at least. That beats pretending there’s an objective standard. Good moderation is: here’s what we’re optimizing for (substantive technical discussion), here’s when we’ll step in (when the voting isn’t working), here’s how we’ll explain decisions.

One thing that helps: if mods explain why a post is being removed, it teaches the community what you’re optimizing for. Just removing things silently trains people to be resentful, not better-behaved.