Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    And do you have any proof for that at all or is that based on just your opinion and has nothing to do with objectivity at all? I can say the stats actually need nothing other than the median of all posts made between 13:04 and 16:42, in correlation with the stars and tide. But unless you explain why you don't have an argument....
    Lol. You should get that post framed. It's pure comedy.

    Do you honestly not understand the relevance of why incomplete raw data cannot produce a meaningful product?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samba)
    Lol. You should get that post framed. It's pure comedy.

    Do you honestly not understand the relevance of why incomplete raw data cannot produce a meaningful product?
    And yet you haven't actually said why it is incomplete, or how the data that has been suggested wouldn't actually help with transparency. Saying "IT WUDNT" doesn't cut it. I've said releasing statistics which could show strengths and weaknesses would unquestionably increase transparency, which has benefits with the community. How would that not work?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BurstingBubbles)
    Sounds a bit aggressive - and we want TSR to be a friendly and... transparent place
    You're about 14 right? (apologies if mistaken)

    100 white students take GCSE's. They average 7A's 2B's.
    100 black students take GCSE's. They average 2C's 8D's.

    Can we conclude from that data that black people are more stupid? Or that their parents push them harder as they take more?

    Here's another.

    Anna travels from Manchester to London. 7 people try to chat Anna up during her journey.
    Sophie travels from Manchester to London. 0 people try to chat Sophie up during her journey.

    Anna is more attractive.

    I don't see why he doesn't get this...
    • Section Leader
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by samba)
    You're about 14 right? (apologies if mistaken)
    Nah, I'm 12 - I'm just mature for my age

    (Original post by geoking)

    You've proven my point more so than any statistic could have, thanks
    Glad to help :hat2:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    And yet you haven't actually said why it is incomplete, or how the data that has been suggested wouldn't actually help with transparency. Saying "IT WUDNT" doesn't cut it. I've said releasing statistics which could show strengths and weaknesses would unquestionably increase transparency, which has benefits with the community. How would that not work?
    I did 2 for BurstingBubbles, I'll do one for you.

    using some of: mods activity times and hours, threads read, and a whole load of other semi-personal information. It also doesn't take into account that some mod more 'busy' forums than others, some forums are more trouble/trolly/contentious in general

    BurstingBubbles locks 26 threads, warns 80 users, and bans 12 people.1 warnings is rescinded. No bans are rescinded.
    ShadowDweller locks 6 threads, warns 14 people, and bans 1 person. 1 Ban is rescinded.

    We can conclude BurstingBubbles is a better mod than Shadowdweller.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by samba)
    We can conclude BurstingBubbles is a better mod than Shadowdweller.
    I'm sure we could have concluded this anyway

    But that made the point well, yeah - it's all dependent on the level of activity in the forum etc, which the stats wouldn't show.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    I'm sure we could have concluded this anyway

    But that made the point well, yeah - it's all dependent on the level of activity in the forum etc, which the stats wouldn't show.
    Shadowdweller is the better looking one though. 12 year olds have no boobs and manboobs > no boobs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samba)
    I did 2 for BurstingBubbles, I'll do one for you.

    using some of: mods activity times and hours, threads read, and a whole load of other semi-personal information. It also doesn't take into account that some mod more 'busy' forums than others, some forums are more trouble/trolly in general

    BurstingBubbles locks 26 threads, warns 80 users, and bans 12 people.1 warnings is rescinded. No bans are rescinded.
    ShadowDweller locks 6 threads, warns 14 people, and bans 1 person. 1 Ban is rescinded.

    We can conclude BurstingBubbles is a better mod than Shadowdweller.
    The problem with you is expecting a perfect answer. Real life isn't a science lab so your argument is pointless and short sighted.

    Also your examples don't have anything in relation to the stats I'm talking about, so your example is completely off the mark.

    Do you think that having no stats at all is better than having basic ones? If it shows chat has more people banned, at least it's a starting point for an investigation rather than living in ignorance.

    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    I'm sure we could have concluded this anyway

    But that made the point well, yeah - it's all dependent on the level of activity in the forum etc, which the stats wouldn't show.
    Oh look changing your argument, but it's too late, we've already concluded that releasing the stats would increase transparency which is a good thing :top: But I'm sure you'd rather eat your own foot then recanting what you've been arguing for the last several pages...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    The problem with you is expecting a perfect answer. Real life isn't a science lab so your argument is pointless and short sighted.

    Also your examples don't have anything in relation to the stats I'm talking about, so your example is completely off the mark.

    Do you think that having no stats at all is better than having basic ones? If it shows chat has more people banned, at least it's a starting point for an investigation rather than living in ignorance.
    No it doesn't; it could just show chat is a higher activity and more trolly forum than some of the others ones. It could be for any number of reasons. :confused:

    I've already explained, raw stats are worthless if you can't make a product from them. And I've shown why it obfuscates as opposed to adds transparency.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    Because giving a good well rounded argument is wasting time...? I am now seriously questioning the validity of you being a 28 year old manager...
    You're taking the piss with your argument though, hence why you're not getting any respect or traction; least of all from me. You're rehashing the same corporate transparency crap that might reassure customers of Tesco that their chicken eggs have been farmed in sustainable and humane ways, or that a government department hasn't spent 14% of its budget on Chateau Neuf, but what you're saying is that you want users to be able to draw inaccurate and misleading conclusions about individual moderators, not faceless departments, which would open them up to abuse and is frankly demoralising, especially when mods in the academic forums would appear like they are gods gift to mods, but that a mod in the religion forum is the worst person ever because of the sheer difference in the number of rule infractions, cards issued and the complexity of the cases. I don't want to sound unkind to the academic forum mods, but they get a ****ing easy ride in comparison to the team that manage D&CA, L&S and Community (and frankly their jobs are more fun because they get to spend the time with their forums, rather than dealing with hundreds of mandraulically processed reports complaining about whoooo said what too whooo.

    Your idea is idealistic and impractical. It's also pointless, which is why I've gone from being reasonable to downright direct with my frustration. You have virtually no support for this idea, and the mods and my fellow former mods (who have an enormous amount of collective wisdom on how the site works); the ones that actually have seen the other side of the coin, unlike you, unanimously do not support the idea. You refuse to answer simple questions like: "Provide examples of other forums that have implemented a similar proposal" and just keep repeating the same, illogical, ill-educated, inexperienced, near-sighted, utopian view of how you can probably get back at the mods and make their lives difficult as punishment for the "severe injustice" you P>0.95 received, that sparked this outrageous 250 post sado-masochistic assassination of your idea.

    (Original post by geoking)
    Okay well at least we've got ideas rolling, how about:

    Card Issued | Offense | Explanation | Date | Contested | Overturned
    Yellow Bullying Blah 200BC Yes No
    Except that because you know precisely **** all about this, you haven't realised that 2 of those fields don't actually exist in the DB. So no; this isn't a simple SQL query.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    And I don't think I've actually seen any valid reason for making our decisions plublic either.
    Well yeah of course. I'm just saying that IF we had this wed be only doing it for just..two people. Hardly seems worth the effort even if we said "OK. You're right"
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    .
    I love you, Vlad.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)

    Except that because you know precisely **** all about this, you haven't realised that 2 of those fields don't actually exist in the DB. So no; this isn't a simple SQL query.
    tbf it'd take approximately 45 secs to add/do, Completely pointless mind.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samba)
    No it doesn't; it could just show chat is a higher activity and more trolly forum than some of the others ones. It could be for any number of reasons. :confused:

    I've already explained, raw stats are worthless if you can't make a product from them. And I've shown why it obfuscates as opposed to adds transparency.
    "Do you think that having no stats at all is better than having basic ones? If it shows chat has more people banned, at least it's a starting point for an investigation rather than living in ignorance"

    Raw stats aren't worthless. The only thing more worthless is no stats at all. It could show chat as having higher traffic, or something that could be fixed. Arguing that because a stat doesn't give a direct answer there should be none at all makes no sense.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by geoking)
    Brace yourself, this is going to blow your mind:

    You said that the stats would show problem areas in the forum and problems in the moderation. Such stats, when released to the public, would certainly be considered as TSR being transparent. And we can agree that transparency helps user retention and loyalty. Therefore you have admitted that the stats, if released to the community, would be beneficial to the site.

    The problem is you don't actually know what your point is because you are now arguing with yourself. I guess you're taking lessons from Putin's confusion tactic?
    I said the stats would be useful to the CT, aka people who can see them in context. They'd be useless to the general users, and have thus no impact on retention or loyalty :yy:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    You're taking the piss with your argument though, hence why you're not getting any respect or traction; least of all from me. You're rehashing the same corporate transparency crap that might reassure customers of Tesco that their chicken eggs have been farmed in sustainable and humane ways, or that a government department hasn't spent 14% of its budget on Chateau Neuf, but what you're saying is that you want users to be able to draw inaccurate and misleading conclusions about individual moderators, not faceless departments, which would open them up to abuse and is frankly demoralising, especially when mods in the academic forums would appear like they are gods gift to mods, but that a mod in the religion forum is the worst person ever because of the sheer difference in the number of rule infractions, cards issued and the complexity of the cases. I don't want to sound unkind to the academic forum mods, but they get a ****ing easy ride in comparison to the team that manage D&CA, L&S and Community (and frankly their jobs are more fun because they get to spend the time with their forums, rather than dealing with hundreds of mandraulically processed reports complaining about whoooo said what too whooo.

    Your idea is idealistic and impractical. It's also pointless, which is why I've gone from being reasonable to downright direct with my frustration. You have virtually no support for this idea, and the mods and my fellow former mods (who have an enormous amount of collective wisdom on how the site works); the ones that actually have seen the other side of the coin, unlike you, unanimously do not support the idea. You refuse to answer simple questions like: "Provide examples of other forums that have implemented a similar proposal" and just keep repeating the same, illogical, ill-educated, inexperienced, near-sighted, utopian view of how you can probably get back at the mods and make their lives difficult as punishment for the "severe injustice" you P>0.95 received, that sparked this outrageous 250 post sado-masochistic assassination of your idea.

    Except that because you know precisely **** all about this, you haven't realised that 2 of those fields don't actually exist in the DB. So no; this isn't a simple SQL query.
    Oh no I'm not getting respect from a bunch of people who don't understand basic business. Wait there while I go cry a river and forget to give a ****. It's just quite hilarious and shows how the hiring system of the moderators has absolutely failed the site as they seem more worried about work load then improving the service. Good show by them.

    Oh pray tell where I said I want it to be about individual moderators? Or did you pluck that out of thin air to give your dictatorial tones some gusto?

    You were never reasonable, you were patronising, then tried **** swinging about your job which was quickly castrated. As I've said before, there's nothing impractical about showing stats that already exist. I have no support from a bunch of people whose idea of business seems to extend no further than watching The Apprentice. Just have a look at ShadowDweller's argument and how she was wrong, but she'll never admit it, which is the entire problem with the card system and lack of transparency. If you haven't noticed, but most of the arguments against the stats are based on petulant attitudes from people who genuinly don't understand what they are talking about. Stellar demonstration by some of the moderators on poor behaviour.

    The sad thing is, how many have gone "Yes the transparency is **** (it is nonexistant), while I don't agree with those stats, here's an idea of how to improve it". None. Literally none. And these are section leaders we are talking about. Not a single one has actually come up with a constructive idea but would rather be patronising instead. That's appauling behaviour.

    I refuse to answer what other sites do this because if you guys are willing to argue the point of transparency, then I'm sure you'll just use other sites as fallacial ammunition as why not to do it. I'm not taking the bait

    You can say my point is ill-educated but from what you've said about your workplace, I seriously beg to differ. Actually did you not notice how when a report is made, the moderator time stamps it when it is closed? No, you didn't because you were to busy making a psuedo-intellectual half-baked, full on rant about my post that failed to address anything of any use, like, I dunno, how to improve the moderation? :lol:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    I said the stats would be useful to the CT, aka people who can see them in context. They'd be useless to the general users, and have thus no impact on retention or loyalty :yy:
    And why could only the CT see them in context when they are given the exact same stats?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by geoking)
    And why could only the CT see them in context when they are given the exact same stats?
    Surely that's pretty obvious? They have access to community records, AAM etc. They can actually look into the stats too, the stats without context are useless.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    Surely that's pretty obvious? They have access to community records, AAM etc. They can actually look into the stats too, the stats without context are useless.
    But shouldn't the context be the title of the card and the explanation? If that's not enough context then surely the card system has failed?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by geoking)
    But shouldn't the context be the title of the card and the explanation? If that's not enough context then surely the card system has failed?
    ...Are you joking? :erm:

    Clearly the thread title and reason aren't enough, that doesn't show whether the post should/shouldn't have been overturned. Given how much of a big deal you were making over card contestings/overturns too, I'm not sure how you think it would be.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.