Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 03:47:09 07/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2000 at 02:14:59, blass uri wrote: >On June 30, 2000 at 16:39:31, Chris Whittington wrote: > >>Why don't you just fix the board software to count reads and display them in the >>title field? Just as if they were beans. >> >>Then the evidence to declare on or off-topic would have objectivity. > >I disagree. > >If there is a long discussion about which team is going to win the football >championship then it is clearly off topic in this club and the number of readers >is not important. > >It is possible to use "count reads" in case that people have different opinions >if the subject is on or off topic(for example book on C++) but count reads does >not give an objective definition for subjects that are on topic. > >Uri I would also like to post the text from Jurgen's well-thought reply into here: "I fully agree. CCC is first of all a social institution in computer chess. It's a virtual club which satisfies communicative needs of socially deprived people like programmers often tend to be. Overmoderation suppresses healthy social interactions. I mean computer chess is really not nobel price science, it has no practical value besides creating some cool intellectual fun for the clever people doing it. So if members find intellectual fun in hot debates off-topic, why not?" Firstly, Uri, you are quite right in saying that 'readcount' does not give an objective definition of on or off-topic. You are also correct to point to an extreme case where football supporters build a thread on a board like this one - it would be incorrect to argue on readcount in that case also. Readcount, however, is data. It is readily available, the programming would take less than one hour. Data, or rather data interpreted intelligently, has to be better than no data. Data is primary source material. Data turns opinion into sensible argument. For example, one argument (there were others, of course) against the Gerber-Hyatt threads was that it has all been seen before - boring in other words. It was not deemed off-topic, it was deemed pointless and boring. Now 'pointless and boring' is an opinion. It could be a correct opinion, or it could be an opportunistic opinion created just to close the thread, because the thread was threatening. Each side can take their own view on the validity of the opinion, and no side has any data-backed argument in support; all they can say is, yes it is, and no it isn't. Which is yet another futile argument in itself. The Hyatt-Gerber threads were what, twenty posts long, or more. With readcount on each post, it is easy to see whether members were reading, interested, or ignoring, bored. If the thread degenerates down so that hardly anybody follows it anymore, then the evidence is there for moderators to say: "take this to email instead". Without this evidence, the moderators are just expressing an opinion. Their opinion could be wrong like any other, and, ultimately, their only defence is to say: "because we say so". With readcount you get a primitive foot-voting democracy. Primitive because readcount needs to be interpreted with a little intelligence. Uri, can you really have an objection to readcount helping moderators and members reach decisions on these very subjective arguments? Now, I would like to come to Jurgen's post. Jurgen points out the social nature of these forums. He encapsulates, IMO, the oft stated position of Fernando and others. The long running disagreement between 'compchess technical only' and 'social as well'. Again, a non-resolved argument fought out on the "tis-tisn't" basis; and resolved, usually by might. Someone just 'decides', and others just disagree. I believe Fernando resigned as a moderator over this issue. Again readcount tells you what members want. If they are reading 'social' posts, or 'off-topic' posts, then that is a strong argument that those specific posts are interesting to members. If readcount is relatively low, then there is an argument for stopping. Lastly, readcount has another advantage. It allows members to self-police. If a post or thread is relatively lowly read, then the posters themselves will see and feel this. IMO this will act as feedback to self-modify content in future. Chris Whittington
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.