Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 03:07:20 07/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2000 at 16:12:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. > I am inclined to agree with you on the question of anonymity. My take on the subject is to judge an anonymous poster by the content of his posts, perhaps you might like to comment on my examples: a) A well-known programmer who wishes to contribute on technical issues but is concerned about possible negative reaction to his posting. So he posts anonymously and keeps to technical only, and does not 'promote' his own commercial advantage. b) A chesscomp commercial (or academic, or whatever) person who anonymously promotes his own interests, and attacks competitors. c) Any anonymous who sticks entirely to technical issues such as hash tables. d) An anonymous who delivers opinions, often on contentious issues, often contentious opinions, appears to have an agenda, and you suspect he is a 'known' figure, but you can't work out who or why. e) An anonymous person who stands for moderation election and is elected. f) An anonymous person who appears to assist a known troller by feeding the trolling threads. g) A 'real name' person who, because he doesn't 'appear' in real life, and seems to perform some kind of 'trolling' function as in (f), you suspect of being a 'fake'. And so on. I find (a) and (c) acceptable. The remainder not. The reason being, IMO, that in cases of contentious, non-technical, political type posts, it is very important to be able to assess the post's content in conjunction with your historical knowledge of the poster. Only with this information can you form a view on motivation and so on behind the post content. For example, in this thread, you and Bruce are probably highly suspicious of my motivations. Why should I be advocating Readcounting? Do I have some secret disruptive or other reason for doing so? I would suspect that the reaction of both of you would be very different if the proposal came from someplace else. Presumably you consider Hans Gerber to be a case (g). What would have happened had the Hans Gerber posts appeared under the name Rolf Tueschen. Would you have reacted in the same way? Was there anything within the _content_ of the Gerber posts which could give cause for him being banned, or against the CCC charter? I ask, because, of course, some people might suspect that your attack on his _identity_ and his (temporary) banning, was just a cover for your dislike of the _content_ posted. Are you able to conclusively set minds at rest on this issue? 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.