I had a look at the top 10 threads currently on the front page (see below). For most threads (9) it's the same quick short comments you see all over Reddit. Some subs like that, but it's different from what AskHistorians (as a sub) likes. As /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov said in a recent META thread:

As any number of the flaired experts that frequent this sub can tell you, their interest in participating would decline considerably if their long, in-depth posts - which by their nature will only be posted after a thread has been up for a while - had to compete with short, incomplete responses that often are posted in the opening minutes of a thread's life.

Of the 9 threads mentioned above, one had a slightly longer response which resembled actual content (I can't judge if what the post says is correct). That response was nowhere near the top. The 10th thread has more of such longer responses, but none even coming close to the length of an answer one can expect here. Many of the responses also contain sweeping statements or speculation which would be avoided here.

To be clear, I'm not saying /r/ArtefactPorn is wrong in having/allowing such responses. It's just completely different from /r/AskHistorians. Such responses would not fit in here.

Threads:

• NSFW The mummified head of Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses V. You can still see his smallpox scars. Cairo's Museum of Egyptian Antiquities (d. 1145 BCE) [2266x2822] 36 comments
• Corynthian cylindrical pyxis and lidded lekanes with pellets of psimythion (white lead paint) used for makeup. From tomb of actor and poet Makareus. Mid 4th cent BCE. Kerameikos, Greece. [799x593] 6 comments
• Halberd from France. Dated 1611 [3000x1800] 23 comments ("10th thread" mentioned above)
• Swedish parade armour worn by nobleman Axel Oxenstierna. 1777 [735x900] 10 comments
• Confederate President Jefferson Davis' meerschaum eagle-claw pipe [1021x679] 6 comments
• Bronze statuette of a hoplomachus (a type of gladiator in ancient Rome, armed to resemble a Greek hoplite), 2nd century AD [3000x4000] 3 comments
• Tschinke (wheel-lock hunting rifle). Polish, about 1650–1675 [1200x1200] 1 comments
• NSFW Herculaneum skeletons of people who died in beachside boathouses, 79 AD [2300x1700] 2 comments
• Gold framed pendant from Assyyrian tombs of Nimrud, Iraq. 700 BC [500x700] 0 comments
• Pompeii mosaic emblem depicting marine fauna, Naples National Archaeological Museum. Pre 79 AD [1920x1080] 1 comment

I've onlt started contributing there recently, and I do greatly appreciate its existence. Thankfully, when I join discussions, I tend not to have to worry about the issue that /u/Polybios brings up. Things that are terribly basic about my field are usually enough to settle things:

• "How do we know this was for chocolate?" "It says it right there on the vessel."

• "How do we know these modified crania are human if they don't even look like each other?" "Well, I've excavated dozens of those, let me take five minute to tell you."

It certainly doesn't live up to /r/askhistorians standards. It's more of a place where you can joke about history, maybe get some mild thoughtful discussion. And that's ok. I'd prefer to have a place for some laughs, and when I want a serious answer I have this place to turn to.

I'm a pretty frequent commenter over there. It obviously isn't a purely academic sub, but I feel a lot of the posters do make an effort to post informative blurbs along with pictures. And the people there do seem genuinely interested. I have generally quite positive feelings towards the sub.