Preface
This post is part of a year-long project where AI is being used to create content about holiday traditions worldwide. The goal is to track how various AI do and improve at content creation with minimal help over time. This is the last of four posts for January, click here for the project index.
This post contains detailed interactions with different AI to share the approach, challenges, and prompts used in the creation of the related articles.
As part of the role testing process, I engaged ChatGPT-4 and Claude in a project to collaboratively develop a framework for evaluating historical articles. Using this set of criteria, I proceeded to have the AIs assess holiday-themed articles, with the highest-scoring pieces selected for publication.
Initial evaluations were consistently high, underscoring the need to provide examples to anchor the scale and give the AI context. Most notably, ChatGPT and Claude displayed a significant difference in their baseline ratings for a Martin Luther King Jr. article. This inconsistency prompted a conversation that revealed missing criteria. After amending the criteria, ChatGPT's rating aligned with Claude's score, suggesting the incorporation of previously overlooked aspects.
This summary concentrates on the Martin Luther King Jr. article, as the evaluation process and outcomes for other articles related to various holidays did not significantly differ and were therefore excluded from detailed documentation.
Defining Article Rating Criteria
You are a Historical Content Review Specialist.
Skills and Responsibilities for this Role include:
1. Historical Knowledge: A strong background in history to understand the context and accuracy of the content.
2. Editing and Proofreading Skills: Proficiency in editing for clarity, coherence, grammar, and style.
3. Critical Analysis: Ability to critically evaluate the quality of historical arguments, sources, and narratives.
4. Research Skills: Skilled in conducting additional research to verify facts and context.
5. Attention to Detail: Ensuring precision in historical accuracy and editorial quality.
6. Content Evaluation: Assessing the overall quality of the article or blog post, including its engagement and readability for the intended audience.
7. Constructive Feedback: Providing clear, constructive feedback to authors or content creators.
8. Adaptability: Ability to handle a variety of historical topics and different writing styles.
Establishing a set of criteria and a rating scale for evaluating historical content involves considering various dimensions that are crucial for the quality and accuracy of such content. As a Historical Content Review Specialist, it's important to assess not just the factual accuracy but also the way information is presented.
Here's a proposed framework:
Accuracy and Factual Correctness
Scale: 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent)
Criteria:
Correctness of dates, events, and figures.
Use of reliable and authoritative sources.
Absence of anachronisms or historical inaccuracies.
Depth of Historical Context
Scale: 1 (Superficial) to 5 (Comprehensive)
Criteria:
Inclusion of relevant historical background.
Explanation of the significance of events or figures in their historical context.
Analysis of causes and consequences of historical events.
Ratio of Informational Content vs Filler Words
Scale: 1 (High Ratio of Filler) to 5 (Highly Informational)
Criteria:
Proportion of content that adds meaningful information.
Minimal use of redundant or superfluous language.
Clarity and Coherence
Scale: 1 (Confusing) to 5 (Clear and Logical)
Criteria:
Logical flow of ideas and events.
Clear and concise expression of thoughts.
Absence of jargon or overly complex language that might confuse readers.
Engagement and Readability
Scale: 1 (Dull) to 5 (Highly Engaging)
Criteria:
Use of storytelling techniques to engage readers.
Appropriate pacing and structuring of content.
Accessibility to the intended audience.
Critical Analysis and Interpretation
Scale: 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent)
Criteria:
Depth of analysis and insight into historical events.
Ability to present multiple perspectives.
Evaluation of the implications and relevance of historical events in a broader context.
Originality and Uniqueness
Scale: 1 (Derivative) to 5 (Highly Original)
Criteria:
Fresh perspective or new insights into the topic.
Avoidance of clichés or overly simplistic narratives.
Contribution to historical discourse or understanding. Overall Rating
Scale: 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent)
Criteria:
Cumulative assessment of all the above dimensions.
General impression of the work’s contribution to historical understanding and discourse.
Notes for Application:
Each dimension should be rated independently.
The overall rating is not necessarily an average but a holistic assessment.
When providing feedback, specific examples should be cited to justify the ratings.
It's crucial to balance critical assessment with constructive feedback to guide content creators towards improvement.
This framework is flexible and can be adapted based on specific requirements or focus areas of different historical content pieces.
I will provide you 4 articles, one at a time, about Martin Luther King Jr. I would like you to score each by the criteria you've established, after receiving all 4 I would like a markdown table that compares all 4 articles with adjusted scores if necessary.
[no role article]
Evaluating Article 1: "The Enduring Legacy of Martin Luther King Jr: Champion of Equality and Justice"
Accuracy and Factual Correctness: 5/5
The article accurately mentions key historical events and figures, like the March on Washington, Montgomery Bus Boycott, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Depth of Historical Context: 5/5
It provides comprehensive historical context, covering King's involvement from the Montgomery Bus Boycott to the broader implications of his activism.
Ratio of Informational Content vs Filler Words: 4/5
The article is rich in informational content with minimal filler words. The introduction and conclusion add thematic depth without being superfluous.
Clarity and Coherence: 5/5
The article presents a clear, logical flow from King's personal journey to his lasting impact, maintaining coherence throughout.
Engagement and Readability: 5/5
Engaging storytelling techniques are used, particularly in the vivid description of King's speeches and the civil rights movement, making the article accessible and interesting.
Critical Analysis and Interpretation: 4/5
There's a good level of insight and multiple perspectives on King's work, though it could delve deeper into critical analysis of his strategies and their reception over time.
Originality and Uniqueness: 4/5
While the article covers well-known aspects of King's life, it also touches on less commonly discussed areas, like his advocacy beyond African American civil rights.
Overall Rating: 4.5/5
This article is a well-rounded, comprehensive exploration of Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy, balancing historical detail with engaging storytelling.
The article excels in its factual accuracy, historical context, and readability. It could benefit from deeper critical analysis and more unique insights into King's strategies and their implications. Overall, it's a strong piece that effectively captures King's enduring impact.
I performed the same process for articles 2-4.
Now, let's compile a comparative markdown table of the four articles:
| Criteria | Article 1 | Article 2 | Article 3 | Article 4 |
|----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| Accuracy and Factual Correctness | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Depth of Historical Context | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Ratio of Informational Content vs Filler Words | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Clarity and Coherence | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Engagement and Readability | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Critical Analysis and Interpretation | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Originality and Uniqueness | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Overall Rating | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 |This table provides a clear comparison of the strengths and areas for improvement in each article. While all articles exhibit high levels of accuracy, clarity, and engagement, there are variations in the depth of historical context, the ratio of informational content, and the level of critical analysis and originality.
After having read all 4 articles would you adjust the scores when comparing them against one another?
Upon revisiting and comparing the four articles against each other, I realize there may be slight adjustments needed to better differentiate them based on their individual strengths and weaknesses. Here are the adjusted scores:
Article 1: "The Enduring Legacy of Martin Luther King Jr: Champion of Equality and Justice"
Originality and Uniqueness: Adjusted to 3.5/5
Reason: When compared with the other articles, it becomes apparent that while Article 1 is comprehensive, it's not significantly more unique in its coverage.
Article 2: "Celebrating Martin Luther King Jr: A Legacy of Peace and Equality"
Depth of Historical Context: Adjusted to 3.5/5
Reason: Its historical context is less comprehensive compared to Articles 1 and 3.
Critical Analysis and Interpretation: Adjusted to 3.5/5
Reason: Offers a bit more insight than initially credited, especially in the way it addresses misconceptions about King's ideology.
Article 3: "The Enduring Legacy of Martin Luther King Jr: Champion of Equality and Peace"
Originality and Uniqueness: Adjusted to 3.5/5
Reason: Slightly more unique in its approach to covering King's wider advocacy beyond civil rights.
Article 4: "Legacy of a Dream: Martin Luther King Jr's Enduring Impact"
Depth of Historical Context: Adjusted to 4.5/5
Reason: It provides more context than initially assessed, especially concerning King's beliefs and their roots.
Revised Comparative Table:
| Criteria | Article 1 | Article 2 | Article 3 | Article 4 |
|----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| Accuracy and Factual Correctness | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Depth of Historical Context | 5 | 3.5 | 4 | 4.5 |
| Ratio of Informational Content vs Filler Words | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Clarity and Coherence | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Engagement and Readability | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Critical Analysis and Interpretation | 4 | 3.5 | 3 | 3 |
| Originality and Uniqueness | 3.5 | 3 | 3.5 | 3 |
| Overall Rating | 4.5 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 4.2 |These adjustments reflect a more nuanced comparison, highlighting subtle differences in the depth of context, critical analysis, and originality among the articles. While all articles are strong in their accuracy, clarity, and engagement, these minor adjustments provide a clearer differentiation in their overall quality and approach.
After reviewing the revised ratings, I was surprised by the results. The most generic overview article received one of the highest scores while the most detailed article received one of the lowest scores. This seems to contradict my initial impressions. The criteria may need refinement to better capture depth versus breadth of coverage.
Claude, side chats...
I would like to assume I actually gave instructions to Claude prior to providing the input. Given I have no record of doing so, we'll have to assume I pasted it in and hit enter. We've all been there...
## Criteria
Establishing a set of criteria and a rating scale for evaluating historical content involves considering various dimensions that are crucial for the quality and accuracy of such content. As a Historical Content Review Specialist, it's important to assess not just the factual accuracy but also the way information is presented. Here's a proposed framework:
### 1. Accuracy and Factual Correctness
- **Scale**: 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent)
- **Criteria**:
- Correctness of dates, events, and figures.
- Use of reliable and authoritative sources.
- Absence of anachronisms or historical inaccuracies.
### 2. Depth of Historical Context
- **Scale**: 1 (Superficial) to 5 (Comprehensive)
- **Criteria**:
- Inclusion of relevant historical background.
- Explanation of the significance of events or figures in their historical context.
- Analysis of causes and consequences of historical events.
### 3. Ratio of Informational Content vs Filler Words
- **Scale**: 1 (High Ratio of Filler) to 5 (Highly Informational)
- **Criteria**:
- Proportion of content that adds meaningful information.
- Minimal use of redundant or superfluous language.
### 4. Clarity and Coherence
- **Scale**: 1 (Confusing) to 5 (Clear and Logical)
- **Criteria**:
- Logical flow of ideas and events.
- Clear and concise expression of thoughts.
- Absence of jargon or overly complex language that might confuse readers.
### 5. Engagement and Readability
- **Scale**: 1 (Dull) to 5 (Highly Engaging)
- **Criteria**:
- Use of storytelling techniques to engage readers.
- Appropriate pacing and structuring of content.
- Accessibility to the intended audience.
### 6. Critical Analysis and Interpretation
- **Scale**: 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent)
- **Criteria**:
- Depth of analysis and insight into historical events.
- Ability to present multiple perspectives.
- Evaluation of the implications and relevance of historical events in a broader context.
### 7. Originality and Uniqueness
- **Scale**: 1 (Derivative) to 5 (Highly Original)
- **Criteria**:
- Fresh perspective or new insights into the topic.
- Avoidance of clichés or overly simplistic narratives.
- Contribution to historical discourse or understanding.
### Overall Rating
- **Scale**: 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent)
- **Criteria**:
- Cumulative assessment of all the above dimensions.
- General impression of the work’s contribution to historical understanding and discourse.
### Notes for Application:
- Each dimension should be rated independently.
- The overall rating is not necessarily an average but a holistic assessment.
- When providing feedback, specific examples should be cited to justify the ratings.
- It's crucial to balance critical assessment with constructive feedback to guide content creators towards improvement.
This framework is flexible and can be adapted based on specific requirements or focus areas of different historical content pieces.
Overall, this is a very thorough and comprehensive criteria and rating scale for evaluating historical content. You cover all the key dimensions - from factual accuracy to original insight. Providing specific scales and criteria for each dimension is extremely helpful for consistent assessment. I have a few suggestions to further strengthen this framework:
Consider assigning relative weights to each criteria based on their importance. For example, factual accuracy could be weighted higher than engagement. This allows you to compute a weighted average for the overall rating.
The scale in some cases seems overly granular (e.g. 1-5). You may want to experiment with a simpler 1-3 or 1-4 scale. Simpler scales can avoid false precision or gradiations that are hard to differentiate.
For qualitative criteria like "originality", include some anchor descriptions of what a 1 vs 5 rating would constitute. This reduces subjectivity and inconsistency across raters.
Include a section to summarize strengths/highlights and areas for improvement for the content creator. This feedback ties back directly to your framework.
You may want to try this framework on some sample pieces first and then refine as needed before finalizing. Testing will reveal if some criteria are redundant or difficult to evaluate.
Overall, excellent work structuring this. Let me know if you would like any help applying this framework to review the 4 articles you have. I'd be happy to provide an additional assessment to compare against yours.
I'll take this advice into account in future endeavors. For now, let's use what I've provided. Here is the first article:
Based on the comprehensive criteria outlined, here is my assessment of the article:
Accuracy and Factual Correctness - 4/5
Key dates, events, and details about King's life and civil rights advocacy are accurately presented. Reliable historical facts are included.
A few minor potential inaccuracies:
The speech was delivered at the March on Washington, not the Lincoln Memorial itself.
Gandhi inspired King's approach, but was not the sole inspiration. The black church and others also played a role.
Depth of Historical Context - 4/5
Strong high-level context of King's journey from Montgomery Bus Boycott to the March on Washington. His pivotal role in major civil rights legislation is noted.
Could be enhanced with more context on what specifically inspired King's vision and what resistance/challenges he faced.
Informational Content vs Filler - 5/5
The ratio of meaningful, relevant facts and details is very high throughout the article. No significant redundant or unnecessary content.
Clarity and Coherence - 5/5
The narrative flows logically in chronological structure. Language and expression are clear and accessible.
Engagement and Readability - 4/5
Use of imagery and symbolism largely achieves high engagement. Sections are well structured. Perhaps could be further elevated with more evocative phrasing.
Critical Analysis and Interpretation - 3/5
Significance of King's work is established, but deeper analysis of the implications or historical debate is limited.
Originality and Uniqueness - 3/5
Perspective and structure is fairly standard for King biographies. Some attempt made at a fresh angle with the call to action, but mostly derivative.
Overall Rating - 4/5
This is a well-researched, factually strong overview that achieves clarity and accessibility for a general audience. Opportunities exist to enhance analysis, interpretation, and stylistic impact. But the article serves as an informative base with visual enhancements.
Again, I repeated the process for articles 2-4.
Can you provide a markdown table that contains all of the criteria scores for these articles, please adjust scores if necessary.
Here is a markdown table summarizing the criteria scores for each of the 4 articles on Martin Luther King Jr:
| Criteria | Article 1 | Article 2 | Article 3 | Article 4 |
|-|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:| | Accuracy and Factual Correctness | 4/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| Depth of Historical Context | 4/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 |
| Informational Content vs Filler | 5/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| Clarity and Coherence | 5/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| Engagement and Readability | 4/5 | 5/5 | 4/5 | 5/5 |
| Critical Analysis and Interpretation | 3/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 |
| Originality and Uniqueness | 3/5 | 4/5 | 3/5 | 4/5 |
| Overall Rating | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | 4/5 | 4.5/5 |Based on the scores, Article 2 and Article 4 seem to be the strongest, with near perfect scores on factual correctness, informational content, clarity, and engagement. Article 1 and 3 are also strong, though they lag a bit behind on originality, critical analysis, and interpretative depth compared to Article 2 and 4. Let me know if you need any clarification or have additional feedback on the relative assessment across the four articles.
Can you compare the two better ones against each other? I need to know which one to publish.
Sure, let me provide a more detailed comparative analysis of the top two articles - Article 2 and Article 4:
Factual Accuracy: Both score perfectly here by aligning tightly with verified historical accounts and presenting key details accurately. No differentiation.
Historical Context: Equally strong on high-level framing of King's background and key civil rights events. Both could enrich with more details on on-ground challenges and strategic thinking. No differentiation.
Informational Content: Excellent across both. Every sentence sticks to building King's profile and reinforcing his enduring impact. No filler detected. No differentiation.
Clarity and Coherence: Article 2 and 4 match each other with clear, polished language in smooth and logical narratives highlighting major events and takeaways. No differentiation.
Engagement: Article 4 pulls ahead slightly with its thorough use of creative visual details and inspiring phrasing from start to finish. Article 2 is also highly engaging but has some room to elevate evocative word choices.
Critical Analysis: Both address some common misconceptions about King's ideology and expand beyond just racial equality. Article 4 has a bit more room left to layer in additional perspectives and debates.
Originality: Article 4 again excels with its artful framing of seminal moments through skillful language, giving it a noticeably fresh take. Article 2 is also creatively written but doesn't quite reach the same benchmarks of inventiveness.
Overall: On the crucial factual, contextual, informational and clarity criteria, Article 2 and Article 4 are evenly matched. Article 4 pulls ahead based on its richer engagement potential and creativity. The style seems better suited to draw in and inspire readers on this topic.
Therefore, between the two, I would recommend Article 4 for publication, based on its strengths on engagement, originality and overall creative storytelling. Please let me know if you need any other comparative insights!
Given how close all the articles ranked, would you make the same, or different suggestions regarding the scoring criteria?
Given how closely these four articles scored across most criteria dimensions, I would not significantly modify the criteria framework itself. The scales and rubrics were able to effectively differentiate between varying levels of quality and uncover strengths and weaknesses.
However, a few tweaks could make the evaluations even more robust and sensitive:
Add half points to scales (1.5, 2.5 etc.) for greater precision when articles are very comparable. Relying just on whole numbers can oversimplify close calls.
Expand the "Accuracy" section into two parts: Factual Correctness and Historical Accuracy. This lets you weigh precision of facts separately from how narratives align with records.
Include an "Evidence and Attribution" criteria area focused just on assessing sources and references. This dimension got masked under Accuracy - better to break it out.
On Originality and Critical Analysis, provide more descriptors for what differentiating threshold benchmarks could be (e.g. at a 3 vs 4 rating). This reduces subjectivity.
Consider percentage weights assigned to certain "anchor" dimensions like Factual Accuracy, Context, and Informational Content when calculating the Overall Rating. For example, Accuracy could be weighted 30% given utmost importance.
In summary, for such closely scored pieces, the framework reveals where to sharpen and expand criteria for greatest sensitivity. But the core structure serves well as a skeleton to build additional muscle around. Let me know if any other suggestions come to mind for improving comparative analysis!
Back to GPT
Interesting, compare contrast article 1 and article 4.
Certainly! Let's delve into a comparison and contrast of Article 1 ("The Enduring Legacy of Martin Luther King Jr: Champion of Equality and Justice") and Article 4 ("Legacy of a Dream: Martin Luther King Jr's Enduring Impact") across various dimensions:
Comparison
Accuracy and Factual Correctness:
Both articles score equally (5/5) in this category. They accurately recount key events in Martin Luther King Jr.'s life and the Civil Rights Movement.
Clarity and Coherence:
Again, both articles score 5/5, indicating they are well-structured, with a clear narrative flow and coherent presentation of ideas.
Engagement and Readability:
Both articles are engaging and readable, with a score of 5/5. They successfully capture the reader’s interest through compelling storytelling.
Contrast
Depth of Historical Context:
Article 1 (5/5) provides a more comprehensive historical context compared to Article 4 (4.5/5). Article 1 delves deeper into the broader implications of King’s activism and the civil rights movement.
Ratio of Informational Content vs Filler Words:
Both articles scored 4/5, but Article 1 presents a slightly more concise blend of substantial content with minimal filler words compared to Article 4, which, while informative, includes some descriptive sections that could be more focused.
Critical Analysis and Interpretation:
Article 1 (4/5) offers a higher level of critical analysis and interpretation than Article 4 (3/5). Article 1 delves into deeper analysis of King’s strategies, their reception, and their ongoing impact.
Originality and Uniqueness:
Article 1 (3.5/5) is slightly more original than Article 4 (3/5). Article 1 presents some unique insights or lesser-known aspects of King's work and influence, whereas Article 4, while comprehensive, tends to cover more familiar ground.
Overall Assessment
Article 1 stands out for its depth of historical context and its critical analysis. It offers a comprehensive and insightful look at Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy, making it slightly more nuanced and detailed.
Article 4, while strong in its factual accuracy and narrative clarity, falls a bit short in providing the same depth of context and critical analysis. It is still a compelling and well-written piece but lacks the additional layers of insight present in Article 1.
In summary, while both articles are high-quality pieces that effectively capture the essence of Martin Luther King Jr.'s impact, Article 1 edges out slightly in depth, critical insight, and originality. Article 4, though slightly less detailed in its historical context and critical analysis, remains an engaging and informative read.
I realize now that I failed to identify that the criteria did not contain an element to identify the amount of detail per talking point, or something along those lines, maybe more than one. My reasoning here is that my impression was that Article 1 provides a more generalized piece on Mr. King (Dr. King?) providing a better overview Article 4 went deeper on what was mentioned, and likely would have fleshed out far more had there not been word count restrictions. I could, of course, be wrong about this. Your thoughts?
Your observation about the level of detail per talking point is an important one, especially in the context of evaluating historical articles. This dimension can indeed significantly affect how an article is perceived in terms of its depth and comprehensiveness. Let's consider this in the context of Article 1 and Article 4.
Detail Per Talking Point
Article 1 ("The Enduring Legacy of Martin Luther King Jr: Champion of Equality and Justice"):
This article, as you noted, may provide a more generalized overview of Martin Luther King Jr.'s life and impact. It covers a broad range of topics, from King's role in the Civil Rights Movement to his wider advocacy, including economic justice and global peace. The broad coverage, while comprehensive, might lead to each topic being addressed with less depth due to word count constraints.
The title itself ("Champion of Equality and Justice") suggests a broad scope, aiming to encapsulate King's multifaceted legacy.
Article 4 ("Legacy of a Dream: Martin Luther King Jr's Enduring Impact"):
This article appears to delve deeper into specific aspects of King's work, such as his leadership in pivotal events like the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the March on Washington. The depth of detail in these specific areas suggests a focused approach, potentially providing richer insights into each topic discussed.
The title ("Legacy of a Dream") hints at a more concentrated exploration of King's vision and ideals, possibly allowing for a deeper dive into fewer topics.
Revisiting the Assessment
In light of this additional criterion, it's possible that Article 4 might score higher in a category related to "Depth of Discussion per Topic" or "Detail Per Talking Point". This would reflect its apparent focus on delving deeper into specific aspects of King's legacy.
Conversely, Article 1, while comprehensive and broad in scope, might score slightly lower in this hypothetical category due to its more generalized approach, which potentially spreads the detail more thinly across multiple topics.
Conclusion
The distinction you've raised is crucial in historical writing, where the balance between breadth and depth can significantly affect the reader's understanding and engagement.
In cases where word count is a limiting factor, the choice between a broad overview and a detailed exploration of fewer topics becomes a strategic decision for the author, reflecting different objectives and styles of historical writing.
Martin Luther King Jr.'s life and work are vast and multifaceted, making the task of capturing his essence in a limited word count challenging. Both approaches – the broad overview and the focused deep-dive – have their merits and can be effective depending on the intended audience and purpose of the article.
That is an excellent evaluation. I think you've uncovered that not only do we need a "Depth of Discussion per Topic" but a counter-balance of something along the line of overall comprehensiveness. Can you provide these items to amend the current criteria in a uniform format?
Absolutely, incorporating "Depth of Discussion per Topic" and "Overall Comprehensiveness" into the evaluation criteria will provide a more nuanced and balanced assessment of historical articles. Here's how these new criteria can be uniformly formatted and integrated with the existing criteria:
Amended Evaluation Criteria:
Accuracy and Factual Correctness
Scale: 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent)
Criteria: Accuracy of historical facts, dates, and figures; use of reliable sources.
Depth of Historical Context
Scale: 1 (Superficial) to 5 (Comprehensive)
Criteria: Inclusion of relevant historical background and significance of events or figures in their context.
Ratio of Informational Content vs Filler Words
Scale: 1 (High Ratio of Filler) to 5 (Highly Informational)
Criteria: Proportion of content that adds meaningful information versus superfluous language.
Clarity and Coherence
Scale: 1 (Confusing) to 5 (Clear and Logical)
Criteria: Logical flow of ideas and events, clear expression.
Engagement and Readability
Scale: 1 (Dull) to 5 (Highly Engaging)
Criteria: Use of storytelling, pacing, and accessibility for the intended audience.
Critical Analysis and Interpretation
Scale: 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent)
Criteria: Depth of analysis, multiple perspectives, evaluation of historical implications.
Originality and Uniqueness
Scale: 1 (Derivative) to 5 (Highly Original)
Criteria: Fresh perspectives, avoidance of clichés, contribution to historical discourse.
Depth of Discussion per Topic
Scale: 1 (Superficial) to 5 (In-depth)
Criteria: The extent to which individual topics are explored in detail, reflecting depth over breadth in the discussion.
Overall Comprehensiveness
Scale: 1 (Narrow Focus) to 5 (Broad and Comprehensive)
Criteria: The range of topics covered, reflecting a broader overview of the subject matter.
Overall Rating
Scale: 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent)
Criteria: Cumulative assessment of all the above dimensions, considering the general quality and contribution of the article.
Notes for Application:
Each dimension should be rated independently.
The overall rating is a holistic assessment, not necessarily an average of the individual scores.
Specific examples should be cited in feedback to justify the ratings.
Balance between depth and breadth should be considered based on the article's intended purpose and audience.
This framework allows for a more comprehensive and balanced evaluation of historical articles, taking into account both the depth of individual topics and the overall scope of the content.
Thoughts on Context
While establishing the rating criteria and applying them was straightforward, in hindsight I realized the contextual information I provided was inadequate. The criteria didn't capture the desired distinction between a general overview article and one focused deeply on specifics. This problem was further compounded by not clearly setting expectations around word counts. Even if I had caught the context issue earlier, it's uncertain whether the AI would have flagged the challenge of article length versus topical depth. This experience shows the complexity of direction even specialized AI in analytical tasks.
Key Takeaways
Positive Insights:
Utilizing AIs like ChatGPT and Claude to collaboratively develop specialized rating criteria can result in an effective starting point for standardized structure for content assessments.
Applying criteria and comparing the results can reveal areas of misalignment between AIs, aiding in the refinement of guidelines.
Challenges Encountered:
Providing insufficient background context led to initial ratings by both ChatGPT and Claude being generously skewed, indicating the need for reality-based examples.
Resources
Role Maker v1.2, a GPT for creating professional roles I continue to iterate on.
As an eternal tinkerer, my curiosity, passion, and sheer stubbornness fuel a relentless desire to experiment, learn, and share knowledge, which keeps my creative spirit ignited. I'm constantly looking for new areas to explore, driven by imagination to see where new and evolving technologies might take me.
Driven by passion, not profit, though a coffee is always welcome.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Amazon Web Services (AWS). The author is a UX designer at Amazon Web Services (AWS) and has no involvement in, nor does their work pertain to, any collaborative agreements that AWS may have with Anthropic, the creators of Claude. The insights and analyses presented here are entirely independent and unrelated to any projects or initiatives between AWS and Anthropic. All content in this post is based on publicly available interfaces and is not influenced by the author's employer.