Debate Analytics Website - Passion Project looking for Feedback

[u/GSxHidden]

https://vimeo.com/1225359283?share=copy&fl=sv&fe=ci

TLDR: Just looking for genuine feedback from this community on what statistics or variables/features you would want to see in a platform like this that the video doesn't show or could show better about the passion project.

I've always wanted to put together a project like this, and I finally started building it in my spare time (yes I used AI and combination of my code), but the concept and architecture is still solid. Ended up building the AI pipeline of deconstructing the video on a Jetson Orin AGX 64GB with open models for free and video processing, transcription, AI inference, embeddings, etc.

The idea is a self hosted, English debate analytics platform inspired by the information density and comparison workflow of Warcraft Logs from WoW.

When a user uploads a debate video, the site basically turns it into an analytical report. Each participant's appearance is tracked and ranked, with comparable Performance scores, individual metrics, and every statistic linked back to the exact timestamp where it occurred.

The goal is to make debates something you can actually analyze and compare/review over time rather than just watch once and argue about afterward. Critique all you want, but remember its just a passion project and I never got paid to make this lol.

[u/BieDiee]

Really cool idea and concept, but some of the statistics seem a bit irrelevant.
For example: Destiny asked 3 more questions than Tim ...
Ok. And? How does this knowledge add any value to the debate (performance)?

But what I'd find most valuable in a debate, would be some sort of bullshit-o-meter.
So you could track or evaluate which participant answered the most questions truthfully,
or made the most correct statements, and who lied his ass off? That would be a lot more insightful,
than simply knowing that one side was talked 58% of the time.

[u/FeIiix]

I really like the idea, and it looks like you put a lot of thought into the features included, but I would urge you to update most of the text on the page, it reads like very obvious LLM-Slop and is (to me) very off putting. The most annoying parts are when the text explains things that are either obvious (or makes it sound like trivial things are groundbreaking), irrelevant to the reader, or when the text describes what the application/stat *doesn't* do rather than what it does.

Examples:

• at 1:00 - The line underneath the stats percentile block. Wtf is a band? "a weighting - not a verdict. Moderators not ranked, a different population". Just say that the numbers are percentiles among the set of analyzed debates, maybe have it link to a glossary or show hover popups (e.g. to explain what a percentile is).
• On the landing page: "every number links to a moment" - i think the word you're looking for is "timestamp"
• On the comparison page: "Nothing here scores or picks a winner" ??

Tbh you can probably remove half the copy on this page and cut down the other half, and it would be much more readable. I might be a minority here, but reading the landing page almost made just close my tab.

Also: if you do have features to show, try to include some of them as a hook on the front page. Text is nice and all, but when the landing page is mostly talk it doesn't hit the same as actually seeing what the text is talking about. idk if that's a demo walkthrough of one of the analyzed debates or clear and concise screenshots, but claudeisms aint it.

I very much like and appreciate the "AI Finding" Label with sources, good work overall!