Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:16:34 07/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 04, 2000 at 05:51:27, blass uri wrote: >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 if you use this logic, you will conclude that automobile accidents are great things to happen. Just watch what happens in the south-bound lanes on a major interstate when there is a wreck in the north-bound lanes. Does the 'hit count' there mean a wreck is good, or bad? Bad things attract people just like good things. As bruce said, a hit counter is interesting, but a high one doesn't mean a thread should be kept any more than a low one means a thread should be deleted. I think that 'hit count' is independent of thread significance...
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.