|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 20, 2010, 4:16 AM
Post #176 of 217
(4081 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
jt512 wrote: curt wrote: perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed? It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive. Jay Similarly, the amount of moderator activity required to enforce a "high signal-to-noise" policy would be far too excessive. Too excessive for me, certainly - and, I suspect, too excessive for you. The only way that the culture of rc.com is going to change is via a grassroots movement.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 20, 2010, 4:19 AM
Post #177 of 217
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
macherry wrote: curt wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed? It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive. Jay What? I would only require a notarized birth certificate, finger prints, retina scan, blood sample and, of course a completed DISCO security application. Don't make this sound more complicated than it really is. Curt AARP card perhaps? Sure, if you also want the discounts at IHOP. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Aug 20, 2010, 4:29 AM
Post #178 of 217
(4069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: After the recent drama between adatesman, management, and others (who shall not be named), something was brought up that I was curious about. I can't remember who said it, but a point was made about long time, knowledgable climbers don't bother to post on here any more. With the exception of rgold, I am not sure that is incorrect. There are a whole lot of n00bs, trolls and gumbies, but I have to believe that there is also a large collection of climbers who contribute to quality content here on rc. I have intentionally mentioned rgold and left out other long time climbers who are just as well known, because unlike them, each of rgold's post are with the intention of being helpful. What I would like to know is twofold. How long have you been climbing?(if you have been climbing x amount of years but you only go once in a while, let that be known) and what percentage of your posts you believe to be helpful, of good quality and relevant to actual climbing threads? I have no interest in your number of weird campground posts, inflammatory soapbox posts or other such drivel you create to up your post count. I will start: Climbing 8 1/2 years. Although I like the witty and sarcastic remarks as much as the next guy, I prefer to be involved in informative, well thought out, climbing threads. I am going to be conservative and say that about 60% of my posts are quality (at least I hope so). I started climbing in 1985. I enjoy sport, trad, aid, and big Walls. I average between 140 to 180 days of climbing outside a year. I have bouldering wall in the garage, but I don't use it as much as I should. Maybe once or twice a week for up to one hour. I don't bother reading 99% of what gets posted on this site. Of what I read, 90% of it is crap, the other 10% is useful. A few people here like to talk like their way is the only way, when in reality, .......
|
|
|
|
|
macherry
Aug 20, 2010, 4:39 AM
Post #179 of 217
(4060 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848
|
curt wrote: macherry wrote: curt wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed? It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive. Jay What? I would only require a notarized birth certificate, finger prints, retina scan, blood sample and, of course a completed DISCO security application. Don't make this sound more complicated than it really is. Curt AARP card perhaps? Sure, if you also want the discounts at IHOP. Curt pancakes!!!
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 20, 2010, 5:58 AM
Post #180 of 217
(4034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
blondgecko wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed? It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive. Jay Similarly, the amount of moderator activity required to enforce a "high signal-to-noise" policy would be far too excessive. Too excessive for me, certainly - and, I suspect, too excessive for you. When I was a Senior Moderator, I initiated some pretty strict policies in an attempt to improve the SNR: locking threads with non-descriptive subject lines (if I'd have had my way, I'd have deleted them); adding "moderator notes"—clearly labeled as such—to posts; and locking threads asking repeat questions. In spite of the fact that these very practices are what I have observed ensure like 9.5:1 SNR in some forums much larger than this one, users rejected them. Like I said, most users here actually want a low SNR.
In reply to: The only way that the culture of rc.com is going to change is via a grassroots movement. It's taken me years to realize it, but this site will always just be a playpen for the subantz's of climbing. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
Aug 20, 2010, 9:50 AM
Post #181 of 217
(4008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
jt512 wrote: blondgecko wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed? It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive. Jay Similarly, the amount of moderator activity required to enforce a "high signal-to-noise" policy would be far too excessive. Too excessive for me, certainly - and, I suspect, too excessive for you. When I was a Senior Moderator, I initiated some pretty strict policies in an attempt to improve the SNR: locking threads with non-descriptive subject lines (if I'd have had my way, I'd have deleted them); adding "moderator notes"—clearly labeled as such—to posts; and locking threads asking repeat questions. In spite of the fact that these very practices are what I have observed ensure like 9.5:1 SNR in some forums much larger than this one, users rejected them. Like I said, most users here actually want a low SNR. While such measurements would be disastrous in many subsections (mainly campground), for some of the more specialized subforums they could be beneficial. But then you need -more mods -strict policys about what they can do/ have to do -and users that accept that rules. A systems like this was already in place (in the lab), but due to unclear rules and butthurt users and mods this lead to threads like this ...
In reply to: In reply to: The only way that the culture of rc.com is going to change is via a grassroots movement. It's taken me years to realize it, but this site will always just be a playpen for the subantz's of climbing. Its always nice to have a few idiots around you, if only to make yourself feel smarter or to laugh at their stupidity. But yes, at the moment it seems like the bums are winning ... qwert
|
|
|
|
|
jaablink
Aug 20, 2010, 10:54 AM
Post #182 of 217
(3998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537
|
If a noob has a question about whatever, you either answer it if you have something useful to add, or don’t. You do understand that you do not need to give a poor answer or make some ass comment. Then maybe the poster will get some useful information and the post will pass through quick …. There is no reason for you to be rippen on anyone. That is unless you think you are better than everyone else. I am sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there are children who behave better and climb harder than you. You are not the shit, so get over your self. As an old guy, you should be contributing in an encouraging and positive way, to mentor or guide the next generation who will no doubt be smarter and stronger than the last if you influence the correctly . Doubt you ever taught anyone, but if you did you would notice that every client asks similar if not the same questions. We all did the same in the beginning too. If a good leader should lead by example? you are off to a very poor start. John the Greek
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 20, 2010, 12:44 PM
Post #183 of 217
(3974 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
jt512 wrote: When I was a Senior Moderator, people disliked you even more then they do now. I edited this post. DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Aug 20, 2010, 12:45 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
subantz
Aug 20, 2010, 1:37 PM
Post #184 of 217
(3945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2007
Posts: 1247
|
jt512 wrote: It's taken me years to realize it, but this site will always just be a playpen for the subantz's of climbing. Jay I will agree with that
|
|
|
|
|
NoSoup4U
Aug 20, 2010, 5:15 PM
Post #185 of 217
(3899 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2009
Posts: 7
|
LOL ! Dude, that just makes you a freaking Tartuffe. Pseudo-science, pseudo-engineering... I got such a kick out of your *calculator*! If I add your strong convictions... self-entitled air of authority on all matters... arguing to no-end in pointless threads... post count suggesting that there is more posting than climbing in your life... you seem a field case for the DSM. Wondering how your dinner conversations unfold...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 20, 2010, 5:19 PM
Post #186 of 217
(3896 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jaablink wrote: If a noob has a question about whatever, you either answer it if you have something useful to add, or don’t. [...] Then maybe the poster will get some useful information and the post will pass through quick. Even if the same question gets asked day after day? In even a modestly, but well-moderated forum, the poster would be informed that his question has already been answered and that he should go look for the answer; then the thread would be locked. In the most strictly moderated forums, his post would be intercepted by a moderator, and simply never be approved for posting. That's how you defend a forum's signal-to-noise ratio. Your post is further evidence for my point that the majority of users (including you) actually want a low signal-to-noise ratio. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 20, 2010, 5:32 PM
Post #187 of 217
(3877 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
jt512 wrote: jaablink wrote: If a noob has a question about whatever, you either answer it if you have something useful to add, or don’t. [...] Then maybe the poster will get some useful information and the post will pass through quick. Even if the same question gets asked day after day? In even a modestly, but well-moderated forum, the poster would be informed that his question has already been answered and that he should go look for the answer; then the thread would be locked. In the most strictly moderated forums, his post would be intercepted by a moderator, and simply never be approved for posting. That's how you defend a forum's signal-to-noise ratio. Your post is further evidence for my point that the majority of users (including you) actually want a low signal-to-noise ratio. Jay We certainly don't want you to control the signal, that has been made abundantly clearly about 1,000 times over. DMT
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Aug 20, 2010, 6:13 PM
Post #188 of 217
(3842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
dingus wrote: jt512 wrote: jaablink wrote: If a noob has a question about whatever, you either answer it if you have something useful to add, or don’t. [...] Then maybe the poster will get some useful information and the post will pass through quick. Even if the same question gets asked day after day? In even a modestly, but well-moderated forum, the poster would be informed that his question has already been answered and that he should go look for the answer; then the thread would be locked. In the most strictly moderated forums, his post would be intercepted by a moderator, and simply never be approved for posting. That's how you defend a forum's signal-to-noise ratio. Your post is further evidence for my point that the majority of users (including you) actually want a low signal-to-noise ratio. Jay We certainly don't want you to control the signal, that has been made abundantly clearly about 1,000 times over. DMT Aye.
|
|
|
|
|
yanqui
Aug 20, 2010, 6:53 PM
Post #189 of 217
(3825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559
|
Started climbing (I think) in 1979 and it's been one of the main things in my life ever since. My wife and daughter both climb and basically all my friends are (or have been) climbers. I generally tend to avoid the serious, technique related climbing threads like the plague, although once I got involved in a bowline thread that turned out pretty good. I like rgold's posts OK and usually take the time to read them, if I see them. But I think this site would be worse than boring if there was some kind of attempt to get all the "experienced" climbers to emulate the rgold style. I might have made a couple of helpful posts, who knows? But I really don't think it's such a good idea to come to internet forums (like this one) to try to learn something important about climbing. The best you can hope for is maybe some kind of connection, or maybe something you can recognize as meaningful from your own experience. That's the nature of the forum beast. I don't think agressive moderation can fix that. Plus you gotta love those threads that go like this: "I might be traveling to South America. Is there any place to climb there?" On the other hand, when people have contacted me (through this site) with a sincere interest to climb in my area, I've had no problem taking them out and showing them around, and even inviting them to sleep in my climbing gym, if they have nowhere else to stay. So I guess I've been helpful in that way. I come here more for the human drama, the humor, the fights, the gossip. That's what interests me. I like the different personalities and the tensions that can occur. After not looking in for a few days, is it any wonder then, that I lost a whole day of work today, catching up? Every now and then (not too often) someone (dingus comes to mind) actually does say something about climbing that surprises me and that can I recognize as true from my own experience. Those moments are great, but I don't see any recipe for making this happen more than it does now.
(This post was edited by yanqui on Aug 20, 2010, 7:10 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Aug 20, 2010, 6:56 PM
Post #190 of 217
(3822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
dingus wrote: jt512 wrote: jaablink wrote: If a noob has a question about whatever, you either answer it if you have something useful to add, or don’t. [...] Then maybe the poster will get some useful information and the post will pass through quick. Even if the same question gets asked day after day? In even a modestly, but well-moderated forum, the poster would be informed that his question has already been answered and that he should go look for the answer; then the thread would be locked. In the most strictly moderated forums, his post would be intercepted by a moderator, and simply never be approved for posting. That's how you defend a forum's signal-to-noise ratio. Your post is further evidence for my point that the majority of users (including you) actually want a low signal-to-noise ratio. Jay We certainly don't want you to control the signal, that has been made abundantly clearly about 1,000 times over. DMT I for one welcome our new jt512 overlord.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Aug 20, 2010, 7:51 PM
Post #191 of 217
(3799 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
jt512 wrote: curt wrote: perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed? It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive. Jay When I was blue I considered that very thing. And nixed for that reason among others. There's also virtually no way to enforce it on pre-existing members shy of requiring everybody to re-register. I also felt that, even if it were feasible, to put it into practice midstream would be so traumatic to the userbase that it would negate any usefulness it could provide... and then some.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Aug 20, 2010, 8:14 PM
Post #192 of 217
(3781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
j_ung wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed? It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive. Jay When I was blue I considered that very thing. And nixed for that reason among others. There's also virtually no way to enforce it on pre-existing members shy of requiring everybody to re-register. I also felt that, even if it were feasible, to put it into practice midstream would be so traumatic to the userbase that it would negate any usefulness it could provide... and then some. I think the "use your real name" rule on P is more of a courtesy, rather than an actual rule. I am not using my real name on there.
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Aug 20, 2010, 8:35 PM
Post #193 of 217
(3756 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
yanqui wrote: Started climbing (I think) in 1979 and it's been one of the main things in my life ever since. My wife and daughter both climb and basically all my friends are (or have been) climbers. I generally tend to avoid the serious, technique related climbing threads like the plague, although once I got involved in a bowline thread that turned out pretty good. I like rgold's posts OK and usually take the time to read them, if I see them. But I think this site would be worse than boring if there was some kind of attempt to get all the "experienced" climbers to emulate the rgold style. I might have made a couple of helpful posts, who knows? But I really don't think it's such a good idea to come to internet forums (like this one) to try to learn something important about climbing. The best you can hope for is maybe some kind of connection, or maybe something you can recognize as meaningful from your own experience. That's the nature of the forum beast. I don't think agressive moderation can fix that. Plus you gotta love those threads that go like this: "I might be traveling to South America. Is there any place to climb there?" On the other hand, when people have contacted me (through this site) with a sincere interest to climb in my area, I've had no problem taking them out and showing them around, and even inviting them to sleep in my climbing gym, if they have nowhere else to stay. So I guess I've been helpful in that way. I come here more for the human drama, the humor, the fights, the gossip. That's what interests me. I like the different personalities and the tensions that can occur. After not looking in for a few days, is it any wonder then, that I lost a whole day of work today, catching up? Every now and then (not too often) someone (dingus comes to mind) actually does say something about climbing that surprises me and that can I recognize as true from my own experience. Those moments are great, but I don't see any recipe for making this happen more than it does now. +1 - or what ever you are supposed to do when you like and agree with a post
|
|
|
|
|
subantz
Aug 20, 2010, 10:12 PM
Post #194 of 217
(3721 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2007
Posts: 1247
|
I BRING THE FUCKING NOISE!!!!!!!!!! RAHR
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 20, 2010, 10:29 PM
Post #195 of 217
(3712 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
Did anyone else just hear a faint buzzing sound?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 20, 2010, 10:48 PM
Post #196 of 217
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
I thought it was a fart. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 20, 2010, 10:49 PM
Post #197 of 217
(3691 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
^^^^ Signal or noise? You decide. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 20, 2010, 10:49 PM
Post #198 of 217
(3687 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Postcount ++ Curt
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Aug 20, 2010, 11:10 PM
Post #199 of 217
(3673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
blondgecko wrote: Did anyone else just hear a faint buzzing sound? Nope. Better get that hearing checked. Josh
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 20, 2010, 11:54 PM
Post #200 of 217
(3644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
jt512 wrote: dingus wrote: jt512 wrote: LostinMaine wrote: jt512 wrote: I have one high-signal comment to make: High signal-to-noise ratios don't happen on their own. The signal strength has to be defended. It can be defended by management or it can be defended by popular consent. But neither of those things happens here to any significant degree. If you want a high SNR, you have to reduce the noise. You have to stop the repetitive questions, have a FAQ, insist that it be consulted, insist that answers be googled for before questions are asked, etc. This is what every web site I know of that has a high SNR does. But the culture here is a noise culture. Look at what happens whenever a long-time user asks a n00b who has started a shoe thread for the 100th time in a month, to do a search. Who gets attacked: the experienced user. You want a high SNR? Well, you can't have it while continually rewarding noise. Jay While this is true to some degree, there is a lot to be gained by closer to real-time discussion than an FAQ can provide. Models change, perspectives change, and the dynamics of a user group change. Each of these can turn a tired subject into a meaningful discussion. Having said that, I tend to simply ignore clearly uneducated and poorly thought out questions all together. If someone really puts effort and thought into a "simple" question simply because it is outside of their typical realm of understanding, it is worth a genuine response. That, to me, is the advantage of a useful forum rather than an FAQ or static gear review. Edited to add: I guess to use your point above, I'm arguing that a high SNR can happen by increasing the signals rather than reducing the noise. No one is suggesting that a FAQ take the place of a forum. But the purpose of the forum should be to supplement the FAQ. It's not that hard: 1. Check the FAQ first. 2. Do a search. 3. Then, if your question still isn't completely answered, post the question. I've answered thousands of programming questions for myself by doing searches and reading FAQs, only to seem the exact same question later posted by someone to a forum. In high-SNR forums, such questions are rejected, either by the moderator or the user base. Jay Over and over this forum has rejected your version of internet Utopia. DMT I've conceded that elsewhere. The majority of users here have gotten not only what they deserve, but what they actually prefer: garbage. Jay I'd put it a bit differently. Seems to me you want rc.com to be a climbers' library, while pretty much everyone else wants it to be a climbers' bar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|