Author: Pete Galati
Date: 08:57:46 07/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2000 at 14:32:08, Chris Whittington wrote: >On July 01, 2000 at 13:34:05, blass uri wrote: > >>On July 01, 2000 at 12:56:39, Chris Whittington wrote: >> >>>On July 01, 2000 at 00:21:33, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On June 30, 2000 at 16:39:31, Chris Whittington wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>It has been very interesting to read all these posts going around in never >>>>>ending circles about what is and what is not on-topic or off-topic. >>>>> >>>>>IMHO the concept of on-or-off-topic is highly subjective, and is often used by >>>>>one group to bully another. >>>>> >>>>>Truth is you don't really know what is and what is not. >>>>> >>>>>This is a discussion board. >>>>> >>>>>It is composed of members. >>>>> >>>>>Members are all different. >>>>> >>>>>Some read some posts and some read others. >>>>> >>>>>If members read posts, and carry on reading posts in a thread, they must be >>>>>interested, no? >>>>> >>>>>If a thread gets long, and nobody reads it, then you can assume members are >>>>>voting with their feet, and expressing disinterest. >>>>> >>>>>Long threads which nobody wants to read, appear to 'piss people off', >>>>>terminology I am getting used to reading. >>>>> >>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>Chris Whittington >>>> >>>>I could not agree more with what you have said. >>> >>>Thinking about the moderation complaint procedure where member(s) send complaint >>>email(s) about a poster or a post or a thread to the moderators, this seems to >>>be a very _negative_ mechanism. One can assume it only happens when a member is >>>dissatisfied enough to complain. >>> >>>Member relationship to the moderators is based on this complaint process. >>> >>>This must be difficult for the moderators, always having to deal with >>>negativity. >>> >>>Readcount is a positive process. In fact a high readcount would be a _positive_ >>>reinforcement to posts and a positive signal to the moderators. >>> >>>A high readcount can be set positively against negative complaints. >> > >It is important not to treat the readcount as a decision maker. The readcount is >data. The data has to be intelligently interpreted. > There's the biggest problem right there. and whether the person reading is inteligent or not has nothing to do with how qualified he/she will be to interpret the data relative to the subject of the post. > >>I think that a low readcount can support deleting a subject if the moderators >>hesitate if to do it. >> >>I do not think that a high readcount will be against negative complaints. >> >>1)The people who complain do not know before they complain that they will >>complain. >> >>If somebody posts something off topic into an interesting topic it will have a >>high readcount because people know that it is off topic only after they read it. > >Correct. The readcount process becomes useful in this sort of case for a >_thread_ not an individual post. If the data showed a readcount fall away as a >thread expanded, then this is _evidence_ (only evidence) that members are >rejecting the thread for some reason. > >This still has to be interpreted by an intelligent human. > > >> >>2)The fact that many people read something does not say that it is legal to post >>it. >> >>If somebody post ways to get a commercial program for free then it is possible >>that many will read it because they want to get the commercial programs for free >>but it is not legal to do it. > >Correct. An intelligent moderator would see this, and treat the readcount as >irrelevant in this case. > >> >>3)If somebody says that someone is a lier then it is possible that many will >>read the response because they may want to know if the poster has evidence for >>it but it is wrong to post it with no proof. > >It is this type of contentious thread for which a readcount is most useful. For >threads that have become personal or political. You've seen these recently. > >There are arguments which board members want to see, but some members also want >to hurt some of the participants. Or take sides. Whatever. > >This can be done by enjoying reading the threads, and simultaneously complaining >about some or one of the posters. > >I should imagine their are also cases where fake accounts are used to make >complaints. Possibly even cases where fake accounts are used to flame a poster >and then fake accounts used to complain about that poster's response. > >I doubt that a readcount will solve all your problems on this board, but it can >indicate cases where the majority of the board is actually enjoying watching a >good fight, whilst simultaneously complaining about the participants behaviour. >A sort-of "News Of the World" effect, if you are familiar with that type of >newpaper and its readership. > >I have to say that ultimately how you run this thing here is your own affair. >This is not my board, nor is it my responsibility. I think it is pretty clear >however, that the state of the board and the relationships within it are verging >on the disastrous. Since I started the thing up back in 1997, I just thought >I'ld offer you a possible mechanism to try and improve things. Do with it what >you will. > > >Chris Whittington All this would do is provide interesting data. But the amount of reads that a post gets isn't very relavent to it's suitability to be in the forum. The real problem here is moderation for the sake of moderating. By _now_ I've come to realize that almost nothing needs to be moderated. The place basically moderates itself. In anther thread, I just asked James Robertson if he was going to release his program Insomniac, but blsss thought it sounded like I was attacking him about that, so he spoke up and said something. No moderator was needed, blass stepped in and said something. A _large_ percent of what these guys do isn't needed. If they'd do less, most of their problems would go away, and everything that was too off-topic to be here would just expire and sweep itself under the carpet. No bean counter needed. The last thing we need is an ego feeding or crushing bean counter so we can have people writing posts designed to get more read counts. Because I'm sure I could adjust the way I title the subject of my posts to get more people to read them if I wanted, that's not very hard to do. Pete
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.