Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:58:58 07/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2000 at 07:23:04, Chris Whittington wrote: >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. > I don't buy that argument. IE I believe that many here read (or scan) most everything posted here. On many occasions I do this. Just clicking on a link will bump the 'read counter'. And checking the counter won't tell you a thing about (a) whether the post was really read, or did the reader look at the first line and toss it? (b) was it read out of curiousity about the argument going on? (c) was it read because of the poster's name, or because the topic is actually interesting? If you use a "read counter" you might conclude that automobile license plates are more popular than current literature. Using a "read counter" in a newspaper might produce equally skewed results. >>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 > Probably so. At times Rolf can be talked to with no problem. At other times, he is just "Rolf" and nothing will change his overall behavior over time. >> >>bruce
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.