Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:12:30 07/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2000 at 15:38:27, Chris Whittington wrote: >On July 02, 2000 at 09:58:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. >> > >Yes. I understand your model. Hans Gerber = Rolf Teuschen. > >I am not party to any proof you may have, but, just for the sake of argument, >let's say that your model is correct. > >Was your objection that "Rolf" was posting, per se? > >Or that he was hiding behind an alias? > > >Chris Whittington The "alias" was the problem to me. I would like to be able to choose whether to converse with someone or not... If I have had prior bad experiences, I may well choose to "not". In this case, it takes a week of wasted effort before the light flashes on, and recognition occurs... I don't mind if he posts here at all. I'd just like to see him post as himself, just as I do. Then if someone doesn't like what I have to say, they can ignore me easily. Same for him. It was just like this with all the Sean incarnations that we had a couple of years ago. Except for obvious abusive cases, I don't mind who posts where, but I would like to see them use their real name.. for reasons already given. This place would not be worth anything if _everybody_ wanted to remain anonymous. > > >> >> >> >>>> >>>>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.