Harsh but true, I remember telling my life story to sign up for text based message boards.

If that's the attitude on the other side, then I guess the feeling is mutual :).

From personal experience in running similar things, they aren't a good method of discerning quality of people.

I'm curious, what are the "good" methods for discerning/filtering quality of people? How are "good" and "bad" quality of people categorized? (binary? spectrum/distribution?) How can you estimate/measure the quality of the filter/method with precision?

I assume no filter is perfect and mistakenly filter out "good" quality people too, so if this method isn't good that suggest there's a metric and a more efficient method out there. In your personal experience what worked better?

> I'm curious, what are the "good" methods for discerning/filtering quality of people?

Observation is probably the best method. I rarely have found form options to be effective. A good chunk of 'good' people tend to get filtered out from my observation.

Generally the approach that has worked for me having a tier system. People who meet your criteria get greater access etc over time.

> How are "good" and "bad" quality of people categorized?

Generally, "good" is anyone that helps your community prosper. "Bad" are typically people who cause unwanted conflicts, create a toxic environment etc.

I've really liked metafilters $5 lifetime membership model. Seems to work