Author: KarinsDad
Date: 07:01:58 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. > >>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'? I think you first have to determine if there is a problem before you should fix it. From what I have read, there are 3 or 4 people who tend to complain about the moderators and during any given flap, it tends to be the same 3 or 4 people. Examples such as the Gerber-Hyatt threads indicate a few people who appear to be discussing an on topic subject. The perceived problem was that they beat the topic into the ground (I'm right. No, I'm right) without adding a whole lot of new information and they threw some insults in for good measure. The first is not against the charter, just annoying. The second is against the charter and the moderators stepped in. So, is there a problem? Probably not. If you do determine you have a problem, then you can attempt solutions. A hit count solution is meaningless since Robert Hyatt may have an average of 800 hits on his messages whereas Jeff Q. Public might have an average of 5 hits. So, hit counts are basically noise data when it comes to topicality. I think we already have a good solution to these types of problems with our current system of moderation. Whether you perceive that system to be the controlling of the forum by moderators and moderator wanna bes is really irrelevant to whether the system works. Either it does or it doesn't. I think it does. You may think otherwise. KarinsDad :) > >Chris Whittington > > >> >>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.