Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 04:00:45 07/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2000 at 12:15:05, Bruce Moreland 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 think the data would be useless. The interpretation is everything, and it's >likely that the data would support any interpretation. There is no such thing as 'useless' data. As you point out, it is all in the interpretation. I think what you actually mean is that the interpretation would be 'useless'. Actually, you don't even mean that, since 'useless' is an inappropriate descriptor. You mean that the data would be interpreted _unscientifically_ and that such an interpretation would be not 'useless' but 'unhelpful'. To whom? Presumably you would not attempt to argue that a _scientific_ interpretation of the data would be 'useless'? Probably 'contentious' from your viewpoint, but not 'useless'. > >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. I don't object. I was mildly counter-mocking you. > >>>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. Who-whom? I expect you to challenge my motivation for the idea. Obviously you are suspicious. But such thoughts can be turned to face at yourself, I think. To repeat: "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:" Have you become so cynical that group (1), the moderators would _unscientifically_ abuse the data; and that group (2) the not-moderators would do the same? Group (1) plus group (2) equals everybody, doesn't it? Are there any 'good guys' here, in your view? Chris Whittington >> >>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.