Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 09:15:05 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 think the data would be useless. The interpretation is everything, and it's likely that the data would support any interpretation. I don't see how you can object to the possibility of using math on numbers, but I doubt there is any math that would help, either. >>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'? Bob gets caught in personal conflicts every once in a while, and however you interpret this is up to you. I didn't think there was much of a problem with the Hans Gerber thing since I didn't read very much of it. I doubt any statistics would have been of any use other than as something additional to fight over. I can criticize the governance of this group, but mostly it works, and there isn't any need for new "political" features. If Tim is going to add more stuff, I think his time would be better spent enhancing his diagram stuff, perhaps something that would eat an entire PGN and let you examine a game in-line would be good. 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.