Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 04:23:04 07/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2000 at 05:21:45, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >Nobody is going to sit down and do psycho-statistical analysis of a thread's hit >count drop-off rate. Tres drole. Sorry about the lack of accents. Most persons, with half a brain even, would be able to instantly intuit sensible conclusions from readcount data. Quite why you would imagine it necessary to perform SSDF-like statistical analysis to several places of decimals presumably with degrees of confidance figures attached escapes me. Or are you arguing on a reducto absurbam basis? I thought I already made it clear the idea of having the data was just an aid to avoid the danger of being too arbitrary and subjective. >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, 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." Your point (1) shows a degree of cynicism to the moderators and their decision making processes. Your point (2) shows a degree of cynicism to members and their tendency to complain. Or their motivations for doing so. I share your frustrations. > >Sorry, but I don't agree that the intended purpose of this feature is necessary >or desirable. But clearly there is little shared agreement on how to 'fix' problems, such as those exampled by the Gerber-Hyatt threads. Are they 'unfixable'? Chris Whittington > >bruce
This page took 0.01 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.