Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 18:37:29 07/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 2000 at 07:00:45, Chris Whittington wrote: >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? Imagine you had suggested that we get a rock, and send it to Steve. Every time there is a new post, Steve is to lick the rock. If the rock tastes salty, Steve tells the moderators to delete the thread as off-topic. I would argue that there is any logical correlaction between the taste of the rock and the topicality of the post, so that any data produced by Steve is useless. I think your idea is similar to the rock-licking idea, only worse, because nobody would believe that rock-licking is a good idea, but Uri Blass thinks that hit counting is a good idea. 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.