Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-02-06 15:29:30 UTC - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 5B89492946B9FD7B5A5E7D8E7E5E5C840A0D84A62365B5935C6F8F7BE1713DF4
Participant Details

Original Note:

In ISOLATION, this tweet doesn’t need a note but because it’s now being shared by some passing blame and suggesting that someone SHOULD have done something because they were warned, it must be noted that there is no scientifically accepted (or reliable) way to predict quakes.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1622502895022399488
  • participantId - 5B89492946B9FD7B5A5E7D8E7E5E5C840A0D84A62365B5935C6F8F7BE1713DF4
  • raterParticipantId -
  • createdAtMillis - 1675697370072
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 16225028950223994885B89492946B9FD7B5A5E7D8E7E5E5C840A0D84A62365B5935C6F8F7BE1713DF4