ArticlePloS one2026
What gets Redditors talking? Predicting discussion initiation and size on Reddit.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding which posts spark conversation, and how large those conversations grow, is vital for moderation, resource allocation, and anticipating information cascades on Reddit and other social platforms. We study discussion initiation and growth on Reddit by modelling whether a root post receives any comments and how large the resulting thread becomes. Using reconstructed threads from r/politics, r/CryptoCurrency, and r/Conspiracy, we extract compact textual, semantic, temporal, domain, and author features from each post. We train subreddit-specific classifiers with small, transparent feature sets and use SHAP for interpretation. Across communities, the external domain a post links to, and, in news ecosystems, the domain's centrality, consistently emerge as predictors of both the start and scale of discussion. Author activity is also predictive: posts from highly active users are more likely to receive comments. Simple textual cues help too: longer subjects and fewer question marks are associated with a higher likelihood of eliciting replies. Community context moderates these effects: in r/politics, linking familiar mid-tier but well-connected news sources is associated with larger threads, while the r/Conspiracy and r/CryptoCurrency communities prefer novel sources. Predicting whether a discussion will start is notably easier than forecasting its eventual size, as adjacent size classes are often confounded. Still, a concise, interpretable feature set captures a substantial proportion of the predictive signal. Our results suggest practical applications for triage: flagging posts likely to trigger substantial discussion could support targeted, pre-emptive moderation and fact-checking without relying on complex, opaque models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.