Author: blass uri
Date: 03:06:04 07/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2000 at 05:21:45, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On July 02, 2000 at 03:21:57, blass uri wrote: > >>On July 02, 2000 at 00:19:57, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On July 01, 2000 at 15:40:21, Chris Whittington wrote: >>> >>>>On July 01, 2000 at 15:09:47, Steffen Jakob wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi Chris! >>>>> >>>>>>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'm sure the moderators then have enough non-Artificial Intelligence to >>>>>>interpret the bean counts before jumping into contentious actions. >>>>> >>>>>The filter at the moment supports "thread", "author" and "date". It would be >>>>>nice to have "number of accesses", too. >>>>> >>>>>Greetings, >>>>>Steffen. >>>> >>>>I think this won't happen. It's an obviously good idea. >>>> >>>>But. >>>> >>>>Moderators, potential moderators and those who work behind the scenes here to >>>>control things want to be quite free to interpret posts and threads and posters >>>>their own way. >>>> >>>>A readcount contstrains their freedom to act arbitrarily. >>>> >>>>That's one reason why my posts got no comments from any moderators or 'senior' >>>>programmers. >>>> >>>>Even technical solutions are political, you see. >>>> >>>>I think forget this place. It is beyond redemption. >>>> >>>>Chris Whittington >>> >>>A hit counter on each post would produce data that would be interesting, but >>>wouldn't support any conclusions other than that people are reading some stuff >>>and not reading some other stuff. It doesn't say anything about why they are >>>reading it or whether they are bothered about the topicality of what they read. >>> >>>We have people moderate for six months at a time. They are voted in and they >>>get to run the show. If they want to try to be strict about off-topic stuff, >>>fine, although if they get too strict they might get some backlash from group >>>members, which seems like a fine feedback mechanism to me. >>> >>>bruce >> >>The meaning of on topic is not clearly defined and there are cases when the >>moderators can know that people may disagree about the question if something is >>on topic(for example books on C++). >> >>I think that in this case read count can help to decide if the subject is on >>topic. >> >>Uri > >Nobody is going to sit down and do psycho-statistical analysis of a thread's hit >count drop-off rate. If the data were recorded with intent to use it as an aid >in helping out with moderation decisions, all that would happen is that 1) The >moderators would use the data (any data) to bolster their existing opinions >about topicality, I do not think that the moderators have a clear opinion about everything. I believe that there are cases when they are not sure if to say if something is on topic or off topic and if they have not clear opinion than data can help them to decide. and 2) People who aren't moderators would use it in order to >bolster complaints: "You said my C++ post is off-topic but the page was >refreshed 13 times." People can always complain but the moderators have the right to decide that the C++ post is off topic if they had a clear opinion about it but I think that not everybody has a clear opinion about it. The people who complain can choose different moderators in the next time. > >Sorry, but I don't agree that the intended purpose of this feature is necessary >or desirable. I disagree. Uri
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.