Author: blass uri
Date: 02:51:27 07/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 2000 at 21:37:29, Bruce Moreland wrote: >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 I believe that there is a correlation between the topicality of the post and the hit count. I also do not say to use only hit count to decide and in more than 90% of the cases I am sure without using hit count if the post is on topic or off topic. Uri
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.