Each 0–100 score is built from the current results. Every card shows the score and what's driving it.
Flags when the platform getting engagement is not the platform carrying most mentions.
Tracks whether SAF and RSF mentions are balanced or dominated by one side.
Combines overall negativity with atrocity, humanitarian, Darfur, and Kordofan keywords.
Shows how much the conversation is being pulled into diplomacy and outside-power framing.
Whether attention is spread across campaigns or concentrated in just a few.
Measures whether the feed is centered on armed actors and active fronts.
How much of what Sudan Watch tracks has no matching posts in the current window.
How the most recent day compares with the average of the days before it.
These are rough indicators, not measurements of the conflict itself. They show where attention and pressure concentrate in the current window.
Absolute gap between the top engagement platform share and its mention share
Absolute RSF–SAF mention gap divided by total RSF + SAF mentions
50% overall negativity + 35% harm-keyword density + 15% peak harm-campaign negativity
65% politics-campaign share + 35% foreign-keyword strength vs the top keyword cluster
60% top-two campaign share + 40% top-keyword share
35% war-campaign share + 65% armed-actor/frontline keyword density
80% quiet-platform share + 20% quiet-campaign share
Log-scaled latest daily volume compared with the prior daily average
