Author: Steven Schwartz
Date: 17:16:48 10/07/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 1998 at 18:57:20, Alessio Iacovoni wrote:
>On October 07, 1998 at 18:26:45, Steven Schwartz wrote:
>
>>On October 07, 1998 at 13:35:24, Alessio Iacovoni wrote:
>>
>>>On October 07, 1998 at 12:02:24, blass uri wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>On October 07, 1998 at 11:49:20, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>A couple of days ago, Amir posted a brief description of his 1/2 ply
>>>>>search. I found some information in my old "Cray Blitz" file about this
>>>>>subject and was going to initiate a discussion about the idea, as I am
>>>>>in the process of running some interesting tests on Crafty using this idea
>>>>>at present.
>>>>>
>>>>>However, when I tried to find Amir's post, it is *not* there that I can
>>>>>see. I even tried "filter", last 7 days, by author, and only found 3
>>>>>posts by him, none of which was the one in question.
>>>>>
>>>>>Did it get deleted by accident or intentionally or am I confused in what
>>>>>the "filter" command should show? I even manually scrolled back thru
>>>>>"next group of messages" for a week, but couldn't find the post in question.
>>>>>
>>>>>Do we have a technical problem, a moderator problem, an operator problem,
>>>>>a Netscape problem (I use Netscape to access CCC) or what?
>>>>>
>>>>>Bob
>>>>
>>>>I think that it was more than a week ago so you could not see it by "filter"
>>>>last 7 days
>>>>
>>>>Uri
>>>
>>>I think this thread has become unaceptably small.. If ICD could did not have
>>>enough money for it to work properly why did it have to advertise and advertise
>>>and advertise on alt.rec.computer.chess to make people swap over to it? If it
>>>cannot run a decent thread then I don't see why not using alt.rec.computer.chess
>>>(those annoying "sean" I don't know what messages apparently have ceased
>>>bugging).
>>
>>
>>Messages stay on CCC without being archived for AT LEAST 7 days. Once
>>a week we move all posts that are over a week old to the readily available
>>archive. We understand that the archive does not have a search engine,
>>but that is one of our future projects. So the actual length of active
>>posts is 7 to 14 days.
>>
>>98% of threads die within the course of a week. 99.5% of threads
>>end within 2 weeks. And in almost every instance, more recent
>>threads incorporate the older thread's text within them. We used
>>these statistics to help us make our decision to shorten the thread
>>length.
>>
>>Bob's difficulty in finding Amir's post appears to be a function of
>>a technical problem that occurred wherein 6 hours of posts wound up
>>in hyperspace and had nothing to do with our shortening the length
>>of active posts. This problem had never happened before, and we have
>>taken measures to ensure that it will never happen again.
>>
>>As far as ICD "advertising and advertising and advertising" in the
>>newsgroup and then not "running a decent thread", I beg to differ
>>with you. We have worked very hard to create the layout of the
>>CCC, and we have worked even harder to make sure that it has worked
>>smoothly. You have no idea of the hundreds of man hours devoted
>>to this project - not to mention at least an equal amount of
>>work from the Founders and moderators.
>>
>>Just like every other legitimate company in the world, everything
>>ICD does is not open-ended, but I believe we have offered CCC members,
>>still offer CCC members, and will continue to offer CCC members a
>>tremendous value for their dues to CCC which, as you know, are zero.
>>
>>Today is our one year birthday, and if you check the hit count at
>>the bottom of the message board, you will see just how popular this
>>project has become. I do not know if your feelings about ICD, the CCC,
>>and our behavior in rgcc are shared with other CCC members, but I
>>would be curious to find out.
>>
>>- Steve (ICD/Your Move)
>
>Steve.. I'm pretty used to this kind of "complex", diplomatic language since
>italian is for 99% pompous and diplomatic. But.. your language is English.. so
>let's try to be direct and clear as much as possible. Ok. Probably my feelings
>are not shared by others.. (do you really want to start a thread on that! On
>finding out who shares my feelings or not!.. It's not worth it!)... I may be
>wrong, So please excuse me.. I just wanted to point out that just one short page
>popping up when clicking on CCC does not allow proper discussion. It's too
>short.. messages get out too early and there is very little choice in the topics
>of interest.. that's all.. As to the fact that CCC is free, CCC members and I
>cannot but thank you very much for that, but maybe you should avoid reapeating
>it too often.. people might uncorrectly think that your "diplomatic" option is
>still turned on and that what you're actually meaning is that you want money
>from them.. which is not absolutely true.
>
>Sorry for not having explained myself better in the previous post.
>
>Bye.
>
>Alessio
Allesio,
Some quick responses to your points above...
1) I only want other's opinions because I really do not know what
the majority in CCC feel about this issue. We have found out that, if
memory serves me correctly, over 90% of members read but never write.
2) You cannot be wrong because you gave your opinion. My opinion
happens to be different. That does not necessarily make me right.
3) I have no difficulty with your opinion that the thread length
was too short. In fact, I will ask Tim to lengthen it a bit at a time
to see how far we can push the envelope. However, keep in mind that
this lengthening also slows everything down (and some people have
complained in the past about THAT as well). And if we crash again,
we need to cut off the length again.
4) As far as my repeating that the CCC is free... I have only said
this in response to false attacks that we ask for credit cards when
people sign up (which of course is an outright lie). And when a post
is made in the newsgroups promoting the CCC, it only makes sense to
say that it is free.
5) I have never asked money from anyone for CCC. I simply suggested
that if CCC is to be everything to everyone, the expenses will
grow substantially and SOMEONE has to pay the bills. This is why we
have attempted to cut back on the size of the thread and the default.
As it turns out, the default was the primary culprit for the problem
that lost Amir's post (and 6 hours of other posts) that Bob was
searching for (when this particular thread began).
- Steve (ICD/Your Move)
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.