Yes, congrats to the top three! And to everyone else who made the list!

I love that you asked me for my analysis, @brittandjosie , thank you! Here are my thoughts:

>361 accounts earned a score this week (369 last week)

This may be related to number of people signed up to this project. Every human has 'a life' and sometimes 'life' gets in the way. But numbers can still go up if we keep getting *more* people involved in the project, to 'make up' for anyone who happens to be on hiatus this week. I call this the '100-for-1' rule, which you can see in the image below:

![100 For 1 RuleB.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/ryzeonline/AJbtdqGbyuNSNeAepiEY3fAvTgQpxd9JtETBh8bq9oQ5AA6D6EHUs43cAjpfafQ.png)

I hope this makes sense.

>The top 100 produced 9005 comments (9908 last time)

A similar thing applies here. People can only physically write so many comments, so having more people signed up to this project increases the chances of having someone with 'plenty of free time' being around to comment and bump the numbers.

>The top 100 produced over 1.93 million characters of text in comments (2.25 last time)

This is interesting, it could be related to my earlier point, but it may also relate to the quality of writing author's offer. A post that says "Do you believe in censorship & why?" will generally get longer written paragraphs than an article that says "Downvotes bad!" - I hope this makes sense.

>The top 100 cast 28601 votes (26965 last time), of these, 198 were self-votes (141 last time)

I'd look into how comment-votes are being encouraged. Are they encouraged at all?  If so, how? User interface? Incentives? Culture? Etc...

Of course, there are complex factors behind most data, and this is just a brief overview in a comment, lots more split-testing would likely be needed for stronger conclusions, but hopefully it gets the ball rolling. 🙏