Forums: Climbing Information: General:
Signal to Noise
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for General

Premier Sponsor:

 


blueeyedclimber


Aug 16, 2010, 7:07 PM
Post #1 of 217 (13456 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Signal to Noise
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

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).


IsayAutumn


Aug 16, 2010, 7:26 PM
Post #2 of 217 (13420 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Posts: 355

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

I have been climbing for only three years, but I take it very seriously. I think I have learned a lot from RC.com, but not from the "usual suspects" who have post counts in the multiple thousands and who think they are smarter than everyone else. I respect the fact that they have been climbing for a long time, but I'm not inclined to believe that their experience gives them license to be dicks, or even that it makes their answers any more relevant than others (most of the time). As far as I'm concerned, they have already contributed all that they can on this site. They are on record in the forums and their collective knowledge can be obtained using the search; this place would likely be better off without their inflammatory remarks.

I think if "they" left this site like adatesman (or just remained respectful), it would clear out some of the useless canopy in this jungle and allow the saplings to grow. I don't know much about adatesman. He did strike me as being power hungry and annoying, but at least he continued to contribute good content. Others...not so much.

There is also a lot of noise in this place that isn't generated by the know-it-alls, and I'm definitely not above it. I have contributed smart ass remarks, but I also love to participate in (or at least read through) the threads that actually discuss some aspect of climbing. I am mostly a lurker and don't post much, but when I do I reckon I bat about 50% with relevant posts that contribute something to the content on this site.


curt


Aug 16, 2010, 7:27 PM
Post #3 of 217 (13415 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
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've been climbing 30+ years, almost every weekend and on some vacations. I'm listed as a "local" on Todd Gordon's Joshua Tree website--and the definition there is someone who has done over 1,000 routes in the Park.

I've been posting at RC.com for 8 years and have noticed that each climbing website has its own "personality." It became obvious to me pretty early on that RC.com was not a rigidly structured and moderated site. Its function appears to be both for communicating meaningful information about climbing--and for mere entertainment.

Users like "rgold" choose to use the site only for the former and not for the latter. Some others take the opposite approach and post almost solely in "Community" where (let's face it) there isn't much value besides pure entertainment. For better or worse, I decided to participate in both types of interaction here. I won't speculate what percentage of my overall post count is "good content" but I hope that it is at least clear when I am posting seriously and when I'm not.

Curt


rangerrob


Aug 16, 2010, 7:27 PM
Post #4 of 217 (13409 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 8, 2003
Posts: 641

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Climbing 15 years. Wow, and I still suck this bad?? That's depressing. Anyway, most of my posts are drivel, and not meant to be helpful in any manner. The only reason I do it is to find that one rare gem who actually thinks I'm serious and then torment and needle them mercilessly.

Rgold has enough skill and experience to back up what he says, I don't. He's older than dirt though, and is the original rope musket. Guns weren't yet invented when he started climbing. Everyone had to stuff black powder in their barrels still. The sad thing is RGold can still climb better than me on any given day, and he's got at least 30 years on me. Shit, he was climbing better than me in 1967, with a few pins on his gear loop, and a swami belt around his waist.

RR


bill413


Aug 16, 2010, 7:48 PM
Post #5 of 217 (13375 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674

Re: [rangerrob] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

On the order of thirty years. 25%-60% serious & contributory. There are certain aspects that I am almost always serious about (belayer must not drop the climber; you are ultimately responsible for your own safety).

There was a point raised in another discussion that the presence of campground causes us to take the campground attitude to the other forums (a position refuted by others), and I know that I am somewhat guilty of that. But then, I was posting some in jest before I knew there was a campground, so that's just me, I guess.

I think part of the noise is brought about by the problem of repetitive threads. We all know that the search engine does not return immediately useful information, especially to the people that are inclined to post up the question that's just been asked (for the 45th time) last week. I don't have an answer to this, just the observation.


summerprophet


Aug 16, 2010, 7:54 PM
Post #6 of 217 (13356 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 17, 2004
Posts: 764

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

knowledgability (is that a word)
I have been climbing since 1991, and involved in technical ropework and guiding since 1997.
I have also been involved in Mtn. Rescue since 2007.

Quality
I would like to think that my posts are of fairly high quality. You will find they are usually longer than a few short sentences, and detail my knowledge to the best of my abilities. I would guess 70%ish are useful, likely 95% if I am the OP, or responding to an honest question.

The difference between myself and curt, jt512, majid and the like is while I still write all the furious, insulting and inflammatory remarks, I reread them before hitting the "post" button.

I imagine I delete about a third of what I type rather than posting it. It is called restraint, this would be a much better place if we all practiced it a little more.


Regarding knowledge, and those who use it as an excuse. I would rather climb a 5.6 with a attentive student than climb 5.12's with an experienced asshole.


silascl


Aug 16, 2010, 8:13 PM
Post #7 of 217 (13325 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 14, 2006
Posts: 225

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Been climbing for 4 years, more seriously for 2-3.

I'm not a knowledgeable or particularly experienced climber, so I don't post very often. When I do post it is about a topic I have some first hand knowledge of, and I would say 70-80% of my posts are of reasonably high quality. The other 20-30% are cheap jokes or silly arguments.

I don't know why there is such an emphasis about long time, knowledgeable climbers being the cornerstone of a climbing community.


hafilax


Aug 16, 2010, 8:26 PM
Post #8 of 217 (13292 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
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).
That about sums me up as well.

There's only so much that can be said about climbing so long time posters must have a high tolerance for repeated conversations.


johnwesely


Aug 16, 2010, 8:29 PM
Post #9 of 217 (13288 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5344

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I have been climbing for five years.

My noise to signal ratio is perhaps a little higher than I would like, but I wouldn't venture to guess at a percentage.

I have been making an honest effort to be nicer to others on this website lately, but I am not sure if it really matters.

I try to help people if it is an area that I am qualified to do so.

Don't ask me why my paragraphs are so short.


Partner drector


Aug 16, 2010, 8:41 PM
Post #10 of 217 (13272 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
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've been climbing for ten years sometimes a lot and sometimes just a few times per year.

About 1% of my posts are of good quality. Maybe 2%.

Dave


olderic


Aug 16, 2010, 8:55 PM
Post #11 of 217 (13245 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539

Re: [bill413] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Depending on how you compute the starting date it is ~40 years for me.


Except for the occasional injury I have stayed pretty active through out that span.

I'm sure most of my posts are not perceived as helpful but I think a lot of them are actully useful if people would get over being insulted.


This previous post partially sums up my feelings:

bill413 wrote:
I think part of the noise is brought about by the problem of repetitive threads.

It's hard to feel very helpful to those who expect instant gratification and won't take the initiative to do some basic research.

But I thiink there are a couple of other factors that are going to keep your signal to noise ratio down:

1. A lot of questions that come up have fairly static answers - things like how to choose shoes, ropes, harneses etc don't have drastically different answers today then they did a year ago or will a year from now. It's not really reasonable to post them in an interactive dynamic forum.

2. The questions that are fairly dynamic - that do have a "current" answer - are most often answered by the n00bs - as they are the most enthusiastic users and usually are of the form _what I did on my summer vacation" - they recognized one word in the question and went off on their experience with it.

3. Even when you get an answer from some one perhaps most qualified to answer (one of the gold standard responses) you are still getting something written off the cuff - stream of consciousness (sp?) style without a lot of proof rreading or fact checking. No matter how good the responder is their on the fly responses are likely not as good as something that was written for a book or some other professionally published article.


kennoyce


Aug 16, 2010, 8:58 PM
Post #12 of 217 (13239 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
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)

I've been climbing seriously (as in I try to make it out at least 2 or 3 times a week) for the last 13 years. During that time there have been time periods that I have climbed daily, and other time periods when I only make it out a couple of times a month, but I would think that on average it is at least once a week. I did my first climb probably 20 years ago and knew I would be a climber from then on.

blueeyedclimber wrote:
what percentage of your posts you believe to be helpful, of good quality and relevant to actual climbing threads?


I personally try to post helpful quality content most of the time, but I do occasionally post up random stupidness as well. I'd have to say that around 75% of my posts are trying to be helpful.

I do also want to point out that one of the reasons I prefer RC to some of the other sites is because of the humor mixed in with the good posts and would hate it if that were to go away.


onceahardman


Aug 16, 2010, 9:35 PM
Post #13 of 217 (13193 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Thirty-ish years of climbing, but I'm lucky to get out a few times a year these days. I have my name in a few guidebooks, and have climbed the classics at most of the major North American areas. Family and professional commitments, and very achy knees have limited my climbing time a lot.

Despite no longer climbing at my highest levels, I still have tried to contribute through my knowledge of exercise-based rehabilitation. I'd like to believe that ~80% of my posts are of the helpful variety. I unfortunately sometimes get drawn into snarky disagreements with others, but I try to keep it to a minimum. Even when I disagree, though, I try to argue in a rational manner, and avoid name-calling, ad hominem arguments, straw man arguments, and other logical fallacies.

I think the arguments can be especially interesting when the arguing is substantive, and when it doesn't just degenerate into something like, "your bio says you only lead 5.9, so your advice doesn't mean shit", and so on.


Gmburns2000


Aug 16, 2010, 10:01 PM
Post #14 of 217 (13169 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15253

Re: [onceahardman] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

11 years of fairly active climbing, particularly the first three years and the last five.

signal to noise? depends on if I'm feeling self-righteous or not. If so, then 100% quality. If not, then about 40%. I figure 140% isn't a bad percentage. Tongue

I browse MP sometimes and use MP's route database more than RC.com's for research, but I find the community here is more fun and feel that there is more climbing content on RC.com on a regular basis.

I've learned way more from the A&I threads than any other thread, and I find the logic-you-to-death thread drifts to be rather annoying. I used to get involved in more joking around in the regular threads (non-campground), but that has become rather boring the past year or so.


majid_sabet


Aug 16, 2010, 11:16 PM
Post #15 of 217 (13099 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

I have pretty long resume with many years in this business and I have posted tons of threads in I&A . 99.9% of my posts may be not useful to many of the wabbit haters but that 0.1 % could save a life and that is all I care.


summerprophet


Aug 16, 2010, 11:25 PM
Post #16 of 217 (13085 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 17, 2004
Posts: 764

Re: [majid_sabet] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
99.9% of my posts may be not useful to many of the wabbit haters but that 0.1 % could save a life and that is all I care.
Agreed


billcoe_


Aug 16, 2010, 11:27 PM
Post #17 of 217 (13079 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
After the recent drama between adatesman, management, and others (who shall not be named),

What the hell? Huh? I missed it.

Me: 37 years. Lately been doing new routes at a new area and my strength and skill have been dropping. I just quit after 3000 feet of bolting (easier) routes and probably will be back to 2 times a week after work laps and one or 2 weekend days (elsewhere) soon....hopefully.

As far as my posts goes, they do not compare with Rgold's, JT512's or Healyj's - but I'd go 80 percent good information, 20 percent bullshit....lets call it 21 bullshit if I add this post in there. Probably a grade within Curt, maybe more once his foot belay post gets added into the mix.

Ta ta all!


(This post was edited by billcoe_ on Aug 17, 2010, 2:11 AM)


blueeyedclimber


Aug 16, 2010, 11:41 PM
Post #18 of 217 (13061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Re: [curt] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Thanks, Curt. I agree that you participate in both forms, and yes, I can tell the difference.Wink

I'd like to type more and respond to more people but using the iphone for this is annoying Mad


cclarke


Aug 16, 2010, 11:43 PM
Post #19 of 217 (13059 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 25, 2003
Posts: 160

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

25 yrs climbing with various levels of enthusiasm.

I have done 50+ first ascents this year from 5.4 to 5.12 so enthusiasm is currently running high.

I prefer moderate trad climbing but respect all the disciplines.


Partner angry


Aug 16, 2010, 11:53 PM
Post #20 of 217 (13043 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

15 years.

I started as a troll, mellowed out, got serious and gave real content. I'm bored now, I mostly lurk averaging 5 posts a week or so, none of them with any content.

Overall, I'd say I'm at 50%. In the last 3 years, 1%.

Based on this weeks events, I have deleted the rc.n00b bookmark from the toolbar of my browser hoping that I stop visiting.

As someone who has been through all the generations of this site, all I have to say is that you're better off without it.


iamthewallress


Aug 17, 2010, 12:44 AM
Post #21 of 217 (12985 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 2463

Re: [angry] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

10ish years, but that only tells a little about my experience or lack thereof.

I used to be more involved in the site in general, especially the aid/walls forum. I now almost exclusively read and contribute to the Ladies' Room. The S/N is good in that forum although both S and N can be pretty low.

The moderating and ever-changing TOS turned me off. But the main reason why I only have a look at recent threads every month or two and post to them even less often is that better conversations are usually happening elsewhere. Or at least conversations that feel more relevant to me and my interests are happening elsewhere. I've aged out of the humor here, and I'm not really looking for technical advise most of the time. I do look at the routes db sometimes.

Edit: I just looked at the 9 people that I listed as my partners at some time in the sort-of-way-backs. Inoticed that on average, they haven't logged in for about 2 years. They all used to be at least a little bit active here and are knowledgeable/experienced climbers. Even if the S/N amongst experienced climbers is good, when enough leave, S becomes too small to be that interesting.


(This post was edited by iamthewallress on Aug 17, 2010, 1:07 AM)


johnwesely


Aug 17, 2010, 12:45 AM
Post #22 of 217 (12984 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5344

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
Thanks, Curt. I agree that you participate in both forms, and yes, I can tell the difference.Wink

I'd like to type more and respond to more people but using the iphone for this is annoying Mad

Iphone spray.


kriso9tails


Aug 17, 2010, 12:54 AM
Post #23 of 217 (12971 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7766

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I started climbing perhaps eighteen years ago as a kid. I'm going to estimate that eight years of that involved serious climbing, seven years was casual climbing, and three years in that period involved very little climbing.

What percentage of my posts offer helpful or quality content? I don't know. It's low, but from time to time I make it a point to post something with actual content. I have to say that I rarely feel all that good about it though. That's just me.

This site seems centred around the same sort of self-gratification of something like Twitter. That's cool. It is what it is. I read threads outside of community, but I find it harder and harder to post.


jaablink


Aug 17, 2010, 1:34 AM
Post #24 of 217 (12925 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

I have been climbing 10 years or so. I created an account here 5ish years ago to find out who was bolting up some of our local established trad lines. It did not take long… I do try to give helpful information more often than not.

Some of us, like that old curt guy are ball busters but they actually know something, others like jt are too aggressive and think they know everything but are actually clueless, and others hold a true line despite all the constant criticism like that mad sabbath kid.
We are all one big dysfunctional family here, you just have to learn to read between the lines. Sometimes there is useful and or important information found on the site, you just have to dig in look for it. More often than not there are just piles of shit dropped by some coward who does not even have a profile.

Well there is my 2cents…
John the Greek


johnwesely


Aug 17, 2010, 1:47 AM
Post #25 of 217 (12912 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5344

Re: [jaablink] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

We never climbed at the Gunks.


(This post was edited by johnwesely on Aug 17, 2010, 1:47 AM)


jaablink


Aug 17, 2010, 1:54 AM
Post #26 of 217 (4547 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537

Re: [johnwesely] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Come on up… I will have time to play the last 2 weeks of September before heading out on one of 2 back to back expeditions.the weather should be prime for the Gunks then.


(This post was edited by jaablink on Aug 17, 2010, 2:00 AM)


spikeddem


Aug 17, 2010, 2:05 AM
Post #27 of 217 (4532 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [angry] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

angry wrote:
15 years.

I started as a troll, mellowed out, got serious and gave real content. I'm bored now, I mostly lurk averaging 5 posts a week or so, none of them with any content.

Overall, I'd say I'm at 50%. In the last 3 years, 1%.

Based on this weeks events, I have deleted the rc.n00b bookmark from the toolbar of my browser hoping that I stop visiting.

As someone who has been through all the generations of this site, all I have to say is that you're better off without it.

:(


Bag11s


Aug 17, 2010, 3:18 AM
Post #28 of 217 (4496 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2009
Posts: 98

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I've been climbing with alot of energy for 22 years and have made contributions to this site since last spring. I am not sure how to rate my posts as to quality or helpfulness. Regardless of the subject, and with mixed success, I try to get across a sort of unbounded enthusiasm for pulling down. Climbing has been a source of ridiculous pleasure for me over all this time. Energy radiates out of my back from the moment I recover from my former session until I can get back at it again. I guess I post this way to encourage raw beginners in the hope they can also tap in to this deep source of sustained fun. For the rest of you I'm preaching to the choir, for sure, but there you go.


areyoumydude


Aug 17, 2010, 3:41 AM
Post #29 of 217 (4481 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 28, 2003
Posts: 1971

Re: [Bag11s] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I've been climbing fer 17 years or so and posting here fer about 7 years. I'd say about 99.9 % of my posts are sh!t.
Glug,glug... urrrp!


skyfurr


Aug 17, 2010, 6:03 AM
Post #30 of 217 (4444 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 21, 2010
Posts: 28

Re: [areyoumydude] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

I recently got back into climbing after many years away, and was only climbing for 3-4 years to begin with... so very much a relearning stage at this point; now I feel experience is something to look forward to for me:)
As such, this site is as good as any so far I've come across for online discussion in the sport.

I've browsed other climbing forums but have to say rc.com stands out with a certain vitality, not least of all because of the light natured -even sarcastic/joking tone often present here, forums always feel more natural when you can say what you want without feeling all "taboo" about it.
A big thing rc.com has going for it;)
Much prefer a forum that leans more to users navigation of discussion rather than the delicate tiptoeing around "what might happen if someone gets offended". This is often overtly the case here.

All the other main sites so far visited are stale in comparison.
Just my own observation/opinion of course.
I can't complain about the amount of quality advice and info obtainable here either.


skiclimb


Aug 17, 2010, 6:07 AM
Post #31 of 217 (4440 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1938

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Climbing for over 20 years. Though not so active the last 5 years. there are a few areas I am extremely knowledgeable in such as Alaskan mountaineering. Bigwalls i am mediocre but have enough experience to help newbies and aspirers.

The rest I have good general experience and knowledge.

Outside the soapbox I usually try to keep my posts useful and helpful. Most of them are.

I do occasionally troll Curt and bouldering..just for kicks..(secretly i am impressed by good bouldering) SHH...thats a secret


curt


Aug 17, 2010, 6:09 AM
Post #32 of 217 (4436 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [skiclimb] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

skiclimb wrote:
I do occasionally troll Curt and bouldering..just for kicks..(secretly i am impressed by good bouldering) SHH...thats a secret

Dammit. I knew it. Cool

Curt


skiclimb


Aug 17, 2010, 6:15 AM
Post #33 of 217 (4431 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1938

Re: [curt] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
skiclimb wrote:
I do occasionally troll Curt and bouldering..just for kicks..(secretly i am impressed by good bouldering) SHH...thats a secret

Dammit. I knew it. Cool

Curt

Sumbitch...

Still though it's the kind of impressed you can get by a person who does any freakish rediculous made up activity unusually well. .. like a guy who can disassemble an M-16 in 3 seconds or whatever..or a person who can tell you the MLB stats of some minor leaguer who got called up for 2 weeks 27 years ago.

Impressive but pointless..


curt


Aug 17, 2010, 6:18 AM
Post #34 of 217 (4427 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [skiclimb] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

skiclimb wrote:
curt wrote:
skiclimb wrote:
I do occasionally troll Curt and bouldering..just for kicks..(secretly i am impressed by good bouldering) SHH...thats a secret

Dammit. I knew it. Cool

Curt

Sumbitch...

Still though it's the kind of impressed you can get by a person who does any freakish rediculous made up activity unusually well. .. like a guy who can disassemble an M-16 in 3 seconds or whatever..or a person who can tell you the MLB stats of some minor leaguer who got called up for 2 weeks 27 years ago.

Impressive but pointless..

Oh, I agree with that.

Curt


jt512


Aug 17, 2010, 6:21 AM
Post #35 of 217 (4419 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [skiclimb] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

skiclimb wrote:
curt wrote:
skiclimb wrote:
I do occasionally troll Curt and bouldering..just for kicks..(secretly i am impressed by good bouldering) SHH...thats a secret

Dammit. I knew it. Cool

Curt

Sumbitch...

Still though it's the kind of impressed you can get by a person who does any freakish rediculous made up activity unusually well. .. like a guy who can disassemble an M-16 in 3 seconds or whatever..or a person who can tell you the MLB stats of some minor leaguer who got called up for 2 weeks 27 years ago.

Impressive but pointless..

Bouldering: Finding the hardest way up the smallest rocks.¹

Jay

¹ Paraphrased from a post by Dingus on rec.climbing a long time ago.


curt


Aug 17, 2010, 6:26 AM
Post #36 of 217 (4415 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
skiclimb wrote:
curt wrote:
skiclimb wrote:
I do occasionally troll Curt and bouldering..just for kicks..(secretly i am impressed by good bouldering) SHH...thats a secret

Dammit. I knew it. Cool

Curt

Sumbitch...

Still though it's the kind of impressed you can get by a person who does any freakish rediculous made up activity unusually well. .. like a guy who can disassemble an M-16 in 3 seconds or whatever..or a person who can tell you the MLB stats of some minor leaguer who got called up for 2 weeks 27 years ago.

Impressive but pointless..

Bouldering: Finding the hardest way up the smallest rocks.¹

Jay

¹ Paraphrased from a post by Dingus on rec.climbing a long time ago.

Which is a paraphrase of Yvon Chouinard from the 1960s:

"Bouldering is the hardest way of getting nowhere."

Curt


(This post was edited by curt on Aug 17, 2010, 6:28 AM)


jt512


Aug 17, 2010, 6:27 AM
Post #37 of 217 (4410 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [curt] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
jt512 wrote:
skiclimb wrote:
curt wrote:
skiclimb wrote:
I do occasionally troll Curt and bouldering..just for kicks..(secretly i am impressed by good bouldering) SHH...thats a secret

Dammit. I knew it. Cool

Curt

Sumbitch...

Still though it's the kind of impressed you can get by a person who does any freakish rediculous made up activity unusually well. .. like a guy who can disassemble an M-16 in 3 seconds or whatever..or a person who can tell you the MLB stats of some minor leaguer who got called up for 2 weeks 27 years ago.

Impressive but pointless..

Bouldering: Finding the hardest way up the smallest rocks.¹

Jay

¹ Paraphrased from a post by Dingus on rec.climbing a long time ago.

Which is a paraphrase of Yvon Chouinard from the 1960s:

"Bouldering is the hardest way of going nowhere."

Curt

Dingus's version is funnier.


curt


Aug 17, 2010, 6:30 AM
Post #38 of 217 (4406 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
curt wrote:
jt512 wrote:
skiclimb wrote:
curt wrote:
skiclimb wrote:
I do occasionally troll Curt and bouldering..just for kicks..(secretly i am impressed by good bouldering) SHH...thats a secret

Dammit. I knew it. Cool

Curt

Sumbitch...

Still though it's the kind of impressed you can get by a person who does any freakish rediculous made up activity unusually well. .. like a guy who can disassemble an M-16 in 3 seconds or whatever..or a person who can tell you the MLB stats of some minor leaguer who got called up for 2 weeks 27 years ago.

Impressive but pointless..

Bouldering: Finding the hardest way up the smallest rocks.¹

Jay

¹ Paraphrased from a post by Dingus on rec.climbing a long time ago.

Which is a paraphrase of Yvon Chouinard from the 1960s:

"Bouldering is the hardest way of going nowhere."

Curt

Dingus's version is funnier.

Perhaps, but it's only a knockoff of the original.

Curt


Toast_in_the_Machine


Aug 17, 2010, 12:12 PM
Post #39 of 217 (4354 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5206

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Climbing for 1/2 a year plus hanging out in the gym climbing for 3 years. Learned all I know about climbing and safety from RC.com + books. I read the I&A threads religiously and post to the soap box irreligiously ("chihuahua on meth").

I've probably had two or three posts worth anything, the rest are crap.

I don’t ask many n00b questions because I think there aren’t that many good ones to ask.


bill413


Aug 17, 2010, 12:55 PM
Post #40 of 217 (4338 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Learned all I know about climbing and safety from RC.com + books.

Yur gonna die!!!

Tongue

How's that for affecting my S/N ratio?


(This post was edited by bill413 on Aug 17, 2010, 1:09 PM)


ClimbClimb


Aug 17, 2010, 1:10 PM
Post #41 of 217 (4327 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 389

Re: [bill413] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

bill413 wrote:
I think part of the noise is brought about by the problem of repetitive threads. We all know that the search engine does not return immediately useful information, especially to the people that are inclined to post up the question that's just been asked (for the 45th time) last week. I don't have an answer to this, just the observation.

The answer is to install a search engine that works on the site servers, or do one of those Google or Yahoo things... Because the search engine is worse than useless for finding things, and sending new people off to "just search for it" is really one step short of telling them to go to hell.


Partner cracklover


Aug 17, 2010, 1:51 PM
Post #42 of 217 (4296 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Climbing pretty seriously for 12 years.

I try to keep most of my posts serious, and rarely involve myself in flamefests. I used to participate more in this site, though - submitting lots of photos, volunteering as a photo editor, creating new threads, trip reports, and giving out really good info when I had it to give. But a few years ago it became clear that this was not a site that really appreciated such things. I've scaled back since then.

Besides, who needs the huge time-suck involved in keeping current with everything here if most of the participants would rather you eat shit and die anyway?

GO


dynosore


Aug 17, 2010, 2:17 PM
Post #43 of 217 (4275 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768

Re: [cracklover] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Climbing for about seven years, not as much lately but that will change soon. In six years intermittently on this site i've seen some knowledeable people come and go, unfortunately a lot more goers in the last couple years than comers. That sounded better in my head. Anyways, I don't post too often but hope someone gets useful info or a laugh if I do.


blueeyedclimber


Aug 17, 2010, 3:36 PM
Post #44 of 217 (4231 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Re: [johnwesely] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

johnwesely wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
Thanks, Curt. I agree that you participate in both forms, and yes, I can tell the difference.Wink

I'd like to type more and respond to more people but using the iphone for this is annoying Mad

Iphone spray.

See how I did that?


blueeyedclimber


Aug 17, 2010, 3:37 PM
Post #45 of 217 (4228 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

So, Jay. Would you venture a guess to what percentage of your posts are helpful and of high quality?

Or should I just answer for you and say....100%? Cool

Josh


carabiner96


Aug 17, 2010, 3:39 PM
Post #46 of 217 (4227 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Climbing for 10 years now, and generally don't post much outside of the scummunity. When I do, it's usually for the sole purpose of antagonizing someone.


majid_sabet


Aug 17, 2010, 4:42 PM
Post #47 of 217 (4187 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390

Re: [angry] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

angry wrote:
15 years.

I started as a troll, mellowed out, got serious and gave real content. I'm bored now, I mostly lurk averaging 5 posts a week or so, none of them with any content.

Overall, I'd say I'm at 50%. In the last 3 years, 1%.

Based on this weeks events, I have deleted the rc.n00b bookmark from the toolbar of my browser hoping that I stop visiting.

As someone who has been through all the generations of this site, all I have to say is that you're better off without it.

I wish I had known you some 15 years ago. It would had made our RELATION MUCH STRONGER

You know what I mean dear ISLAND JUNGLE MAN


blueeyedclimber


Aug 17, 2010, 4:46 PM
Post #48 of 217 (4180 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Re: [majid_sabet] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:

You know what I mean dear ISLAND JUNGLE MAN

PLEASE DO NOT EXPLAIN!

Josh


Dip


Aug 17, 2010, 5:06 PM
Post #49 of 217 (4167 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 16, 2009
Posts: 270

Re: [dynosore] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

I've been climbing 2 1/2 years, and although i only get outside about twice a month, i climb four times a week.

Probably the first week i became interested in climbing i stumbled across this site, and like the OP, i do like the sarcasm and the occasional entertaining thread, although sometimes the pissing contests get old.

I have, however, found a lot of useful and helpful information on this sight, and i hate to see some of the more knowledgeable people checking out. It's my hope that as i learn and spend more time in the trenches, or in this case on the rocks, i can step in and help fill the void left by those who became discouraged, although that will take some time, as i would never post claiming to know anything about anything unless there isn't a doubt in my mind i know what i'm talking about.

So far, i'd say my posts are 50/50, although as you can see there haven't been many.


Partner camhead


Aug 17, 2010, 5:26 PM
Post #50 of 217 (4153 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939

Re: [Dip] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

climbing for 12 yrs. Mostly post in community, but try to post decent advice once in a while as well.

I've been on the site for 9, so I have seen it in all of its evolutionary stages. Gotta say that its present condition right now is terrible in terms of moderation, navigation, photos, routes, and layout.

Far and away the biggest plus from this site is the people that I have met through it. Met some very good friends and excellent climbing partners. This site is not as gumby as people think it is once you get below the surface.


curt


Aug 17, 2010, 5:31 PM
Post #51 of 217 (4639 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [camhead] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
I've been on the site for 9, so I have seen it in all of its evolutionary stages. Gotta say that its present condition right now is terrible in terms of moderation, navigation, photos, routes, and layout.

What's much better now, however, is that the site is not continually crashing and down/unavailable.

camhead wrote:
Far and away the biggest plus from this site is the people that I have met through it. Met some very good friends and excellent climbing partners. This site is not as gumby as people think it is once you get below the surface.

Agreed.

Curt


Partner cracklover


Aug 17, 2010, 5:35 PM
Post #52 of 217 (4635 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [camhead] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

See Curt's post ^^^

GO


(This post was edited by cracklover on Aug 17, 2010, 5:35 PM)


Partner camhead


Aug 17, 2010, 5:36 PM
Post #53 of 217 (4629 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939

Re: [cracklover] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
See Curt's post ^^^

GO

Definitely, this is true. In all my negativity I forgot the frequent crashes of a few years ago.


blueeyedclimber


Aug 17, 2010, 5:43 PM
Post #54 of 217 (4616 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Re: [camhead] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
See Curt's post ^^^

GO

Definitely, this is true. In all my negativity I forgot the frequent crashes of a few years ago.

I do miss the old design, though (no, not the monkey experiment Laugh)


Partner camhead


Aug 17, 2010, 5:46 PM
Post #55 of 217 (4612 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
See Curt's post ^^^

GO

Definitely, this is true. In all my negativity I forgot the frequent crashes of a few years ago.

I do miss the old design, though (no, not the monkey experiment Laugh)

sideways vag4lyfe!


Partner macherry


Aug 17, 2010, 5:47 PM
Post #56 of 217 (4611 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848

Re: [curt] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
camhead wrote:
I've been on the site for 9, so I have seen it in all of its evolutionary stages. Gotta say that its present condition right now is terrible in terms of moderation, navigation, photos, routes, and layout.

What's much better now, however, is that the site is not continually crashing and down/unavailable.

camhead wrote:
Far and away the biggest plus from this site is the people that I have met through it. Met some very good friends and excellent climbing partners. This site is not as gumby as people think it is once you get below the surface.

Agreed.

Curt

make that +2. met some great folks, also a few crazies. i've been climbing about 8 years. i don't have the experience to give advice, but i've pitched in on a few gear reviews..


blueeyedclimber


Aug 17, 2010, 5:55 PM
Post #57 of 217 (4597 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Re: [camhead] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
See Curt's post ^^^

GO

Definitely, this is true. In all my negativity I forgot the frequent crashes of a few years ago.

I do miss the old design, though (no, not the monkey experiment Laugh)


sideways vag4lyfe!

damn straight!

edit: to fix cheesetit!


(This post was edited by blueeyedclimber on Aug 17, 2010, 5:56 PM)


gmggg


Aug 17, 2010, 6:04 PM
Post #58 of 217 (4584 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099

Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Did anyone stop to consider that the noise is the signal?

Consider your minds blown.


Partner cracklover


Aug 17, 2010, 6:35 PM
Post #59 of 217 (4561 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [gmggg] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

gmggg wrote:
Did anyone stop to consider that the noise is the signal?

Consider your minds blown.

That's the trouble in a nutshell. Some folks like their signal as noisy as possible.

Kids these days with their "music". Get off my lawn!

Oh wait, this is *your* lawn now. Weird, I could have sworn it used to be mine. Okay, don't hurt me, just let me get my walker and I'll be moseying on.

GPirate


gmggg


Aug 17, 2010, 6:45 PM
Post #60 of 217 (4553 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099

Re: [cracklover] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
gmggg wrote:
Did anyone stop to consider that the noise is the signal?

Consider your minds blown.

That's the trouble in a nutshell. Some folks like their signal as noisy as possible.

Kids these days with their "music". Get off my lawn!

Oh wait, this is *your* lawn now. Weird, I could have sworn it used to be mine. Okay, don't hurt me, just let me get my walker and I'll be moseying on.

GPirate

Meh. I don't think it boils down to that. I'm sure that someone has done demographic research for this site and that some study of that would show little positive correlation between age and "constructive commenting".

As far as I've seen, the most butthurtz users are the teenage to early 20's n00bs who get chewed out for general inanity.

Genuine ignorance of climbing seems to be handled pretty well in the majority of situations.


Partner cracklover


Aug 17, 2010, 7:19 PM
Post #61 of 217 (4534 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [gmggg] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

gmggg wrote:
cracklover wrote:
gmggg wrote:
Did anyone stop to consider that the noise is the signal?

Consider your minds blown.

That's the trouble in a nutshell. Some folks like their signal as noisy as possible.

Kids these days with their "music". Get off my lawn!

Oh wait, this is *your* lawn now. Weird, I could have sworn it used to be mine. Okay, don't hurt me, just let me get my walker and I'll be moseying on.

GPirate

Meh. I don't think it boils down to that. I'm sure that someone has done demographic research for this site and that some study of that would show little positive correlation between age and "constructive commenting".

As far as I've seen, the most butthurtz users are the teenage to early 20's n00bs who get chewed out for general inanity.

Genuine ignorance of climbing seems to be handled pretty well in the majority of situations.

I think you're mistaken. I don't think it's mostly the ignorant being beaten down by the experienced here. If anything, it's more the other way around.

Most of those users, (particularly older ones) who care about content don't get 'butthurtz' when the noise gets high. They just leave.

GO


jt512


Aug 17, 2010, 7:23 PM
Post #62 of 217 (4529 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [cracklover] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
I think you're mistaken. I don't think it's mostly the ignorant being beaten down by the experienced here. If anything, it's more the other way around.

I liked that so much I just had to quote it.

Jay


gmggg


Aug 17, 2010, 7:34 PM
Post #63 of 217 (4511 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099

Re: [cracklover] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
gmggg wrote:
cracklover wrote:
gmggg wrote:
Did anyone stop to consider that the noise is the signal?

Consider your minds blown.

That's the trouble in a nutshell. Some folks like their signal as noisy as possible.

Kids these days with their "music". Get off my lawn!

Oh wait, this is *your* lawn now. Weird, I could have sworn it used to be mine. Okay, don't hurt me, just let me get my walker and I'll be moseying on.

GPirate

Meh. I don't think it boils down to that. I'm sure that someone has done demographic research for this site and that some study of that would show little positive correlation between age and "constructive commenting".

As far as I've seen, the most butthurtz users are the teenage to early 20's n00bs who get chewed out for general inanity.

Genuine ignorance of climbing seems to be handled pretty well in the majority of situations.

I think you're mistaken. I don't think it's mostly the ignorant being beaten down by the experienced here. If anything, it's more the other way around.

Most of those users, (particularly older ones) who care about content don't get 'butthurtz' when the noise gets high. They just leave.

GO

I think you misunderstood. I was pointing out the difference between inanity and general ignorance and the types of responses they engender. There is nothing wrong with ignorance (unless it's willful).

My point was that the questions of the ignorant, or uninformed if you like, are treated with a degree of respect and that inane, or moronic if you like, questions are most often not.


qwert


Aug 17, 2010, 8:02 PM
Post #64 of 217 (4486 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394

Re: [gmggg] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I am climbing since, i dont know, probably ten years? maybe 9, maybe 11 ...
and i just checked: I have been more or less active on this site since over 6 years.

My signal to noise ratio?

dont know either.

also that hugely depends on what you would consider noise. There are many stupid (not to say retarded) questions, on which to only usefull answers are of the "U R gunna dye" or "fuck off" variety. With some questions i simply do no see any value whatsoever in providing any well worded reply.

But other than that (and outside of the campground) i try to give a usefull reply, if i bother to reply. I am not always successfull, but i think i try.
And if something really interests me, or for whatever else reason warrants a thought out reply from me, then i might just do it. But that does not happen that often.

But also some of the stuff in campground cant really be considered noise. Sure, discussions about computers or science are not really about rockclimbing, but i often got (or sometimes maybe even provided) good information from such threads.

The main problems i see are the following:
- Idiots who are to lazy/ stupid to even get the basics.
How hard can it be to read a book and do a course first?
Also many folks totally lack any understanding of the fact that lifting your ass more than 2 meters above the ground does indeed pose some serious dangers if you are not taking care.
those folks never start any usefull threads, and thus never generate usefull answers

- Thin skinned people.
These are the people who do not understand the "tone" here at all. Mostly those seem to be the people who are new to the internet.
those seem to leave fast. some of those might have been really cool and knowledgeable people.

- The "assholes"
Personally i do not have a problem with them. I have been in the internet long enough to know how to handle "discussion". so i simply read over the bad parts, and get straight to their (sometimes availble) knowledge.
But many people do not seem to get so far, and simply ignore them/ their points, just because they started their reply in a sarcastic, or sometimes even just matching tone.
sometimes one maybe simply shouldnt post at all.

so my ratio?
50/50?

but mostly i am just Zee strange German and hope noone will notice my crap spelling

also i suck at long and good replys, because without any structure planned beforehand, my posts tend to get rahter confusing.h

qwert


blueeyedclimber


Aug 18, 2010, 3:01 PM
Post #65 of 217 (4412 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Re: [qwert] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Given the continued drama, I would like to keep this thread going. I have complained about lack of interesting content on here before. Whenever I think of something that might spur debate or discussion I post it. I know there are a few others like me (i.e. cracklover, acorneau, etc.) Although there are some decent climbers among us, we are not the ground breakers or pioneers. We are just regular climbers who try to get out whenever we can.

Why is good discussion on here so scarce? Is it because our users are too global, lacking any clear connection. Are we not specific enough, as far as discipline and geographic area? What?

Josh


atg200


Aug 18, 2010, 3:29 PM
Post #66 of 217 (4381 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317

Post deleted by atg200 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  

 


dingus


Aug 18, 2010, 3:46 PM
Post #67 of 217 (4356 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
curt wrote:
jt512 wrote:
skiclimb wrote:
curt wrote:
skiclimb wrote:
I do occasionally troll Curt and bouldering..just for kicks..(secretly i am impressed by good bouldering) SHH...thats a secret

Dammit. I knew it. Cool

Curt

Sumbitch...

Still though it's the kind of impressed you can get by a person who does any freakish rediculous made up activity unusually well. .. like a guy who can disassemble an M-16 in 3 seconds or whatever..or a person who can tell you the MLB stats of some minor leaguer who got called up for 2 weeks 27 years ago.

Impressive but pointless..

Bouldering: Finding the hardest way up the smallest rocks.¹

Jay

¹ Paraphrased from a post by Dingus on rec.climbing a long time ago.

Which is a paraphrase of Yvon Chouinard from the 1960s:

"Bouldering is the hardest way of going nowhere."

Curt

Dingus's version is funnier.

Leave me out of it.

DMT


Dip


Aug 18, 2010, 3:50 PM
Post #68 of 217 (4351 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 16, 2009
Posts: 270

Re: [atg200] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
the URL collects every idiot that wants to post about climbing.

+1.

I found this site before i ever touched skin to rock. I'm not trying to call myself an idiot, but when all you have to do is type that address in and this comes up, well, you're gonna get a lot of riff raff.

Maybe you have to take that with a grain of salt though. It is the internet after all, there's going to be idiots.

There was a thread a little bit ago discussing the comparisons between this site and MP and supertopo. Are the discussions really any more enlightened over there? i read MP a lot, and i've seen some dumb shit there too. Maybe not the same level of flaming that sometimes takes place over here, but the stupid threads and comments still exist.

I think no matter what site you go to, you're going to get retarded topics and retarded posts, you just have to sift through the bad stuff to find the good.


dingus


Aug 18, 2010, 3:52 PM
Post #69 of 217 (4349 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
Why is good discussion on here so scarce? Is it because our users are too global, lacking any clear connection. Are we not specific enough, as far as discipline and geographic area? What?

Josh

Its very simple - there are better conversations elsewhere.

Like here:

supertopo.com

DMT


notapplicable


Aug 18, 2010, 4:07 PM
Post #70 of 217 (4329 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771

Re: [atg200] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

First and foremost, I would just like to say that I have learned a lot from the discussions on this site, some I've participated in and some I've just lurked. The signal to noise ratio may be low, but the signal is there.

I've been climbing 6-7 years and active on here for right at 4 years. I've climbed pretty consistently over that time, with years 4 and 5 being the slowest. This last 8 months I've been climbing a lot, which has translated in to much less posting.

As far as my own signal noise....well, it comes and goes. I mostly post in Scummunity but sometimes an interesting thread will pop up and I'll get on a cycle of posting in the climbing forums. Maybe 10% signal / 90% noise.


(This post was edited by notapplicable on Aug 18, 2010, 4:14 PM)


bandycoot


Aug 18, 2010, 4:08 PM
Post #71 of 217 (4327 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
Why is good discussion on here so scarce? Is it because our users are too global, lacking any clear connection. Are we not specific enough, as far as discipline and geographic area? What?

Josh

I find it hard to believe that good discussion here is due to geographic distribution of users. I think it has to do with flamefests, ignorance, egos, trolls, and much much more.

I've been climbing for 11 years and have been pushing my limits for every one of them. The majority of my posts these days are "signal", but they're few and far between.

I used to post here more often. As I've improved with my climbing, so has the quality of my posts. I try to limit myself to primarily helpful constructive posts but even then I've been told that what I have to say is the "worst advice" someone has ever heard, which was ridiculous. While I took no offense, it's those kind of things that make you realize that taking the time to contribute is a waste of time.

The noise has grown so deafening, that those who seek a forum for decent discussion simply fade to the background and eventually disappear. This is why constructive discussion is lacking on this site.

I remember a while ago when almost the entire front page was almost exclusively trolls, bad enough that they weren't even funny. I stopped checking the site for quite a while. Good trolls are entertainment, but idiots posting for attention should get deleted. That's just my opinion though... It's obvious when it happens, but people just feed the trolls.

However, that's a characteristic of the internet. We can all theorize how to improve the site, but the reality is that the detatched impersonal and sometimes anonymous posting found in forums leads to more noise than signal. As a result, quality posters are lost. Is this a bad thing? Who knows. Maybe it's just a thing. I know that posting on here less frequently means more time for me to CLIMB!

Climb on everyone!

Josh


johnwesely


Aug 18, 2010, 4:11 PM
Post #72 of 217 (4321 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5344

Re: [dingus] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
Why is good discussion on here so scarce? Is it because our users are too global, lacking any clear connection. Are we not specific enough, as far as discipline and geographic area? What?

Josh

Its very simple - there are better conversations elsewhere.

Like here:

supertopo.com

DMT

I have never done a big wall and am afraid to post there.


bandycoot


Aug 18, 2010, 4:16 PM
Post #73 of 217 (4312 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028

Re: [dingus] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
Its very simple - there are better conversations elsewhere.

Like here:

supertopo.com

DMT

Supertopo is a bunch of 50+ year old men acting like 16 year old highschool girls who formed a click. If you're not circle jerking on the historical cookie, you're out. Unless you have breasts that is...

Josh


billl7


Aug 18, 2010, 4:22 PM
Post #74 of 217 (4301 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
Why is good discussion on here so scarce? Is it because our users are too global, lacking any clear connection. Are we not specific enough, as far as discipline and geographic area? What?
One person's impression ...

Most of the folks regarded here as "climbing authorities" seem to lack interpersonal skills. Absolute truth is wielded at the cost of throwing the baby (new climber) out with the bathwater. Richard Goldstone is an exception.

So we tend to end up being right but not very happy.

Me? I'm just an enthusiastic but thin-skinned weekend warrior. Been at it for six years now. Learned a lot through this site, mostly through threads where the "authorities" where scared to death someone else would give out too much information here and get some new person killed.

Bill L

Bill L


whipper


Aug 18, 2010, 4:26 PM
Post #75 of 217 (4288 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 241

Re: [billl7] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Well, I have been baned from the lab....
and the mods have deleted 2 of my topics about it. Why does JT and Curty boy get to say whatever they want, but I get banned and not even an explanation from the Mods.....its become very draconian around here, and I have had enough....out


wonderwoman


Aug 18, 2010, 4:28 PM
Post #76 of 217 (4632 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275

Re: [whipper] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

whipper wrote:
Well, I have been baned from the lab....
and the mods have deleted 2 of my topics about it. Why does JT and Curty boy get to say whatever they want, but I get banned and not even an explanation from the Mods.....its become very draconian around here, and I have had enough....out

Just so that you know, you aren't banned from the lab or any other forum.


Partner cracklover


Aug 18, 2010, 4:31 PM
Post #77 of 217 (4629 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [dingus] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
Why is good discussion on here so scarce? Is it because our users are too global, lacking any clear connection. Are we not specific enough, as far as discipline and geographic area? What?

Josh

Its very simple - there are better conversations elsewhere.

Like here:

supertopo.com

DMT

Yes, there are many good topics that start there. But they all wind up circling the drain of the political or the religious. Sometimes they go there quite quickly. It's like that's all anyone cares about. Kind of a bummer.

GO


billl7


Aug 18, 2010, 4:43 PM
Post #78 of 217 (4611 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890

Re: [cracklover] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
dingus wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
Why is good discussion on here so scarce? Is it because our users are too global, lacking any clear connection. Are we not specific enough, as far as discipline and geographic area? What?

Josh

Its very simple - there are better conversations elsewhere.

Like here:

supertopo.com

DMT

Yes, there are many good topics that start there. But they all wind up circling the drain of the political or the religious. Sometimes they go there quite quickly. It's like that's all anyone cares about. Kind of a bummer.

GO
I frequent ST as much as here. They do seem to have more political and religious threads which are easy enough to avoid. But I don't agree the other threads all wind up circling the drain of the political and the religious.

Bill L


Partner cracklover


Aug 18, 2010, 4:52 PM
Post #79 of 217 (4601 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
Given the continued drama, I would like to keep this thread going. I have complained about lack of interesting content on here before. Whenever I think of something that might spur debate or discussion I post it. I know there are a few others like me (i.e. cracklover, acorneau, etc.) Although there are some decent climbers among us, we are not the ground breakers or pioneers. We are just regular climbers who try to get out whenever we can.

Why is good discussion on here so scarce? Is it because our users are too global, lacking any clear connection. Are we not specific enough, as far as discipline and geographic area? What?

Josh

I appreciate you singling me out as someone who strives to create worthwhile content, although as of late I don't think I particularly deserve your praise.

To answer your question, first of all, there is a large, consistent group of n00bs who produce a lot of background noise. In and of itself, that's fine, and the more experienced climbers seem to have no problem cutting them slack. But on top of that, there is a significant proportion of the users here who treat the forum as a plaything and a joke, and anyone who provides thoughtful content is seen as a sucker. Whether they know it or not, (and in some cases, I'm sure they know it and enjoy it) these folks are disruptive.

Worse, the n00bs sometimes pick up on the energy of the slightly sadistic older posters, and the results aren't pretty.

Combine these two groups with sometimes bizarre and inconsistent moderation, and it just gets to be too much at times, and many of the more experienced users just don't need the grief.

I'd be happy to give concrete examples for any of the above. But most of you probably have a good idea about at least some of it.

GO


Partner cracklover


Aug 18, 2010, 4:56 PM
Post #80 of 217 (4598 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [billl7] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

billl7 wrote:
cracklover wrote:
dingus wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
Why is good discussion on here so scarce? Is it because our users are too global, lacking any clear connection. Are we not specific enough, as far as discipline and geographic area? What?

Josh

Its very simple - there are better conversations elsewhere.

Like here:

supertopo.com

DMT

Yes, there are many good topics that start there. But they all wind up circling the drain of the political or the religious. Sometimes they go there quite quickly. It's like that's all anyone cares about. Kind of a bummer.

GO
I frequent ST as much as here. They do seem to have more political and religious threads which are easy enough to avoid. But I don't agree the other threads all wind up circling the drain of the political and the religious.

Bill L

You're right, I exaggerated.

GO


dingus


Aug 18, 2010, 5:15 PM
Post #81 of 217 (4576 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [cracklover] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
dingus wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
Why is good discussion on here so scarce? Is it because our users are too global, lacking any clear connection. Are we not specific enough, as far as discipline and geographic area? What?

Josh

Its very simple - there are better conversations elsewhere.

Like here:

supertopo.com

DMT

Yes, there are many good topics that start there. But they all wind up circling the drain of the political or the religious. Sometimes they go there quite quickly. It's like that's all anyone cares about. Kind of a bummer.

GO

Don't read it then.

DMT


Partner macherry


Aug 18, 2010, 5:18 PM
Post #82 of 217 (4576 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848

Re: [bandycoot] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bandycoot wrote:
dingus wrote:
Its very simple - there are better conversations elsewhere.

Like here:

supertopo.com

DMT

Supertopo is a bunch of 50+ year old men acting like 16 year old highschool girls who formed a click. If you're not circle jerking on the historical cookie, you're out. Unless you have breasts that is...

Josh

hah, i've always thought that too


Partner j_ung


Aug 18, 2010, 5:28 PM
Post #83 of 217 (4563 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (10 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm going to post something a lot of people may not like, but in this thread it seems appropriate.

I've held almost every job on this site from articles editor, to gear editor, to "benevolent blue overlord," which was actually my full-time job, and back to articles and photo editor. As of a couple days ago (just BEFORE the adatesman blowup) I'm just a user again. In short (too late?), I think I have a unique perspective of this website, its idiosyncrasies and its userbase.

IMO, with a few exceptions, the users of Rockclimbing.com are a bunch of whining children, who take Internet discourse and themselves far too seriously. I have observed the obvious, namely that the people who claim to be right the loudest take things the most serious. But conversely, the people who claim to take themselves the least serious tend to be right up there with them.

I'll probably be back, but I think I'll check out for a few days, because I'm not having any fun here right now. In the mean time, take, or not, this one piece of advice: there's only one way to win an Internet argument, and that's not to participate. If we all followed that rule, the signal-to-noise ratio would be pretty amazing.


vegastradguy


Aug 18, 2010, 5:30 PM
Post #84 of 217 (4557 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919

Re: [macherry] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm something like 8 years in, both in climbing and on this site- and like bandycoot, my posts improved over time and i strived for a long time to make sure my posts were informative and not inflammatory- still do for the most part, although my patience has worn thin over time- especially over the last six months or so.

i'd say my signal is pretty high, noise is pretty low, mostly because i just dont care to wade into the fray both because its not really worth my time and my quasi-staff status kind of makes me think twice about throwing stones.


olderic


Aug 18, 2010, 5:50 PM
Post #85 of 217 (4533 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539

Re: [bandycoot] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

bandycoot wrote:
Supertopo is a bunch of 50+ year old men acting like 16 year old highschool girls who formed a click. If you're not circle jerking on the historical cookie, you're out. Unless you have breasts that is...

Josh

I don't know - I think the historical stuff is pretty significant and a lot of them do have the chops. The problem with the taco is when they go off climbing topics - which is the majority of the time - and try to offer what they think are profound insights into life, the universe and evrthing - then you realize that being shallow and not of the greatest intelligence has been a characteristic of climbers for quite a while.

There may even be an inverse correlation between climbing ability and deep thought.


majid_sabet


Aug 18, 2010, 6:10 PM
Post #86 of 217 (4515 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390

Re: [whipper] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

whipper wrote:
Well, I have been baned from the lab....
and the mods have deleted 2 of my topics about it. Why does JT and Curty boy get to say whatever they want, but I get banned and not even an explanation from the Mods.....its become very draconian around here, and I have had enough....out

The union boys got Aric kicked out of lab so do not mess with those hard-nailing dudes.


spikeddem


Aug 18, 2010, 6:24 PM
Post #87 of 217 (4499 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [vegastradguy] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

vegastradguy wrote:
I'm something like 8 years in, both in climbing and on this site- and like bandycoot, my posts improved over time and i strived for a long time to make sure my posts were informative and not inflammatory- still do for the most part, although my patience has worn thin over time- especially over the last six months or so.

i'd say my signal is pretty high, noise is pretty low, mostly because i just dont care to wade into the fray both because its not really worth my time and my quasi-staff status kind of makes me think twice about throwing stones.

I totally agree with your estimation of your signal to noise ratio, and I (therefore?) definitely expected you to be more than 8 years experienced. Interesting.


edge


Aug 18, 2010, 6:49 PM
Post #88 of 217 (4476 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120

Re: [olderic] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

olderic wrote:

But I thiink there are a couple of other factors that are going to keep your signal to noise ratio down:

1. A lot of questions that come up have fairly static answers - things like how to choose shoes, ropes, harneses etc don't have drastically different answers today then they did a year ago or will a year from now. It's not really reasonable to post them in an interactive dynamic forum.

2. The questions that are fairly dynamic - that do have a "current" answer - are most often answered by the n00bs - as they are the most enthusiastic users and usually are of the form _what I did on my summer vacation" - they recognized one word in the question and went off on their experience with it.

3. Even when you get an answer from some one perhaps most qualified to answer (one of the gold standard responses) you are still getting something written off the cuff - stream of consciousness (sp?) style without a lot of proof rreading or fact checking. No matter how good the responder is their on the fly responses are likely not as good as something that was written for a book or some other professionally published article.

For the most part I agree with this.

I currently have 33 years experience climbing all over the place in all the disciplines.

I spend most of my time posting in Campground, where everyone knows and expects that responses are 100% meant for entertainment purposes only.

Overall, if I post something in one of the other forums then it is a clue that I am trying to be helpful to the best of my knowledge. If someone wants to refute me outright, then I have recently taken the tact of just walking away and letting my post stand on it's own merit. I see no glory in winning an internet discussion by posting longer/louder/more frequently than the other viewpoint.

I do reserve the right to point out potentially dangerous advise with a follow up post in the future, however, and let the reader make up their own mind in the matter.

Loran


Partner cracklover


Aug 18, 2010, 7:07 PM
Post #89 of 217 (4457 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [dingus] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
cracklover wrote:
dingus wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
Why is good discussion on here so scarce? Is it because our users are too global, lacking any clear connection. Are we not specific enough, as far as discipline and geographic area? What?

Josh

Its very simple - there are better conversations elsewhere.

Like here:

supertopo.com

DMT

Yes, there are many good topics that start there. But they all wind up circling the drain of the political or the religious. Sometimes they go there quite quickly. It's like that's all anyone cares about. Kind of a bummer.

GO

Don't read it then.

DMT

Huh? It's a bummer when a good conversation circles the drain too quickly, and your response is "don't read it"? That would make sense if I said all the conversations there are tripe. But I said the opposite - that I think they're interesting, and wished they wouldn't circle the drain so fast.

At least it's better than when LEB was sucking down every thread (even some of the climbing-related ones) faster than you could say pee-ton.

Cheers,

GO


kriso9tails


Aug 18, 2010, 7:33 PM
Post #90 of 217 (4433 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7766

Re: [bandycoot] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

bandycoot wrote:
[...] even then I've been told that what I have to say is the "worst advice" someone has ever heard, which was ridiculous. While I took no offense, it's those kind of things that make you realize that taking the time to contribute is a waste of time.

I felt the need to look that up. In all fairness it was bustloose that said it, and I don't think he should be counted amongst real people or ever be referred to as 'someone'.


(This post was edited by kriso9tails on Aug 18, 2010, 7:34 PM)


jsh


Aug 18, 2010, 7:35 PM
Post #91 of 217 (4430 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 118

Re: [edge] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

edge wrote:
I spend most of my time posting in Campground, where everyone knows and expects that responses are 100% meant for entertainment purposes only.

Hello, my name is Julie, and I've been climbing since 17 years. All over, mostly trad, etc, etc etc.. I'd put a conservative estimate of my contributions as 0.3%.

I generally avoid this place like the plague mostly for the bunch of reasons that Gabe and Josh (bandycoot) mentioned. The as-yet-unmentioned reason is the Campground - it's not just for entertainment. It's almost explicitly a place to strut like a peacock for "inflicting butthurtz" (did I spell that rite?), to ridicule honest people and threads, and to determine who the king of the sandbox is by way of biggest insult.

(this post will be similarly treated in 3, 2, 1 .... but see below: I really couldn't care less. I am just noting the detrimental effect it has on adult conversation.)

So long as that is the case, and encouraged - this place will always be stuck in junior high school. I have little time nor any desire to revisit the politics of that era; I was never "in", and long since couldn't care less. All I want is to shoot shit about climbing while I'm stuck indoors.


(This post was edited by jsh on Aug 18, 2010, 7:37 PM)


dingus


Aug 18, 2010, 7:36 PM
Post #92 of 217 (4428 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [cracklover] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
dingus wrote:
cracklover wrote:
dingus wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
Why is good discussion on here so scarce? Is it because our users are too global, lacking any clear connection. Are we not specific enough, as far as discipline and geographic area? What?

Josh

Its very simple - there are better conversations elsewhere.

Like here:

supertopo.com

DMT

Yes, there are many good topics that start there. But they all wind up circling the drain of the political or the religious. Sometimes they go there quite quickly. It's like that's all anyone cares about. Kind of a bummer.

GO

Don't read it then.

DMT

Huh? It's a bummer when a good conversation circles the drain too quickly, and your response is "don't read it"? That would make sense if I said all the conversations there are tripe. But I said the opposite - that I think they're interesting, and wished they wouldn't circle the drain so fast.

At least it's better than when LEB was sucking down every thread (even some of the climbing-related ones) faster than you could say pee-ton.

Cheers,

GO

Whatever. Its not important.

DMT


Toast_in_the_Machine


Aug 18, 2010, 8:31 PM
Post #93 of 217 (4366 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5206

Re: [bill413] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

bill413 wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Learned all I know about climbing and safety from RC.com + books.

Yur gonna die!!!

Tongue

How's that for affecting my S/N ratio?

Any post in this thread is noise, anyone who thinks differently is fooling themselves.


bandycoot


Aug 18, 2010, 8:32 PM
Post #94 of 217 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028

Re: [kriso9tails] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kriso9tails wrote:
bandycoot wrote:
[...] even then I've been told that what I have to say is the "worst advice" someone has ever heard, which was ridiculous. While I took no offense, it's those kind of things that make you realize that taking the time to contribute is a waste of time.

I felt the need to look that up. In all fairness it was bustloose that said it, and I don't think he should be counted amongst real people or ever be referred to as 'someone'.

Have you ever trained a 30 year old female new to the sport from leading the occasional 10a sport to redpointing 13a trad in a couple of years? I have... The question in the thead was how to climb 5.13. I've lead a few 5.13s, including one on gear and was imparting reasonable knowledge that he was misconstruing and interpreting. I don't think it matters how knowledgeable you are if you're disagreeing with solid advice. That guy was spouting pure "noise." If you can't see that, I'm going to guess that you've never lead 5.13....

Josh


kriso9tails


Aug 18, 2010, 8:43 PM
Post #95 of 217 (4345 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7766

Re: [bandycoot] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Your response has absolutely noting to do with what I said. I don't know if you need to reread what I wrote or if it needs to be clarified, but you are way off the mark.


(This post was edited by kriso9tails on Aug 18, 2010, 8:44 PM)


gmggg


Aug 18, 2010, 8:46 PM
Post #96 of 217 (4338 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099

Re: [jsh] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jsh wrote:
edge wrote:
I spend most of my time posting in Campground, where everyone knows and expects that responses are 100% meant for entertainment purposes only.

Hello, my name is Julie, and I've been climbing since 17 years. All over, mostly trad, etc, etc etc.. I'd put a conservative estimate of my contributions as 0.3%.

I generally avoid this place like the plague mostly for the bunch of reasons that Gabe and Josh (bandycoot) mentioned. The as-yet-unmentioned reason is the Campground - it's not just for entertainment. It's almost explicitly a place to strut like a peacock for "inflicting butthurtz" (did I spell that rite?), to ridicule honest people and threads, and to determine who the king of the sandbox is by way of biggest insult.

(this post will be similarly treated in 3, 2, 1 .... but see below: I really couldn't care less. I am just noting the detrimental effect it has on adult conversation.)

So long as that is the case, and encouraged - this place will always be stuck in junior high school. I have little time nor any desire to revisit the politics of that era; I was never "in", and long since couldn't care less. All I want is to shoot shit about climbing while I'm stuck indoors.

I agree 100% with the bold section above.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Aug 18, 2010, 8:54 PM
Post #97 of 217 (4324 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5206

Re: [j_ung] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I go back to this comment from another thread:
jt512 wrote:
OutdoorReporter wrote:
I came across this company that makes unique chalk bags and thought I'd share it with the community. Its not like I make any money when someone buys one of them.

So you're just hoping to get laid, then.

Jay
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2373781#2373781

I think this gets straight to the heart of the matter. Why would anyone add any signal? With the 24 hour radio station WIIFM on, unless one is paid to produce content (and damn right I miss j_ung’s content), why would anyone take the time?

People are friendly and with an activity with as potentially severe consequences, there is a strong urge to keep each other safe. But why add a trip report? Does writing a good trip report lead potential hookups? Does it help me climb better?

I think the comment "All I want is to shoot shit about climbing while I'm stuck indoors" is incorrect. You don’t want to hear about my climb and I don’t want to hear about yours, unless something, well, epic happened. I would phrase it as "All I want to do is shoot shit with other climbers while I’m stuck indoors". If the conversation turns to climbing – great. If it never gets beyond “how do you make coffee while camping” – that is just fine as well.


bandycoot


Aug 18, 2010, 8:54 PM
Post #98 of 217 (4324 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028

Re: [kriso9tails] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kriso9tails wrote:
Your response has absolutely noting to do with what I said. I don't know if you need to reread what I wrote or if it needs to be clarified, but you are way off the mark.

OK, then what were you trying to say?

To me it seemed like you're saying an aggressive poster's noise is somehow switched to signal because they're "known". That's an invalid argument in my book.

Josh


Partner cracklover


Aug 18, 2010, 9:05 PM
Post #99 of 217 (4305 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [bandycoot] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bandycoot wrote:
kriso9tails wrote:
Your response has absolutely noting to do with what I said. I don't know if you need to reread what I wrote or if it needs to be clarified, but you are way off the mark.

OK, then what were you trying to say?

To me it seemed like you're saying an aggressive poster's noise is somehow switched to signal because they're "known". That's an invalid argument in my book.

Josh

How on earth did you get that out of what he wrote? He said the guy's opinion didn't count for shit, so you shouldn't take offense, since everyone ignores that guy's posts anyway.

GO


gmggg


Aug 18, 2010, 9:06 PM
Post #100 of 217 (4300 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
I go back to this comment from another thread:
jt512 wrote:
OutdoorReporter wrote:
I came across this company that makes unique chalk bags and thought I'd share it with the community. Its not like I make any money when someone buys one of them.

So you're just hoping to get laid, then.

Jay
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2373781#2373781

I think this gets straight to the heart of the matter. Why would anyone add any signal? With the 24 hour radio station WIIFM on, unless one is paid to produce content (and damn right I miss j_ung’s content), why would anyone take the time?

People are friendly and with an activity with as potentially severe consequences, there is a strong urge to keep each other safe. But why add a trip report? Does writing a good trip report lead potential hookups? Does it help me climb better?

I think the comment "All I want is to shoot shit about climbing while I'm stuck indoors" is incorrect. You don’t want to hear about my climb and I don’t want to hear about yours, unless something, well, epic happened. I would phrase it as "All I want to do is shoot shit with other climbers while I’m stuck indoors". If the conversation turns to climbing – great. If it never gets beyond “how do you make coffee while camping” – that is just fine as well.

I guess I understand shooting shit differently from, at least, you two.

In my mind that phrase conjures banter, jokes, casual discussion, and debate. It's an all encompassing conversation.

To be honest though I'm still not even sure what the "signal" is actually supposed to be. Serious answers to serious questions? In depth trip reports with great pics? Rigorous testing of systems and gear?

That sounds more like a magazine than a forum.


bandycoot


Aug 18, 2010, 9:08 PM
Post #101 of 217 (5354 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028

Re: [cracklover] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I don't lurk here enough to be familiar with everyone. When he put the quotes around "somone" I thought he was saying the guy was somebody to be listened to. My bad. I completely misunderstood. Oh well. I'll go back to work now and bail out of this tread with my tail between my legs.

Josh

Edit: I forgot to say: kriso9tails I apologize for the misinterpretation.


(This post was edited by bandycoot on Aug 18, 2010, 10:01 PM)


jt512


Aug 18, 2010, 9:10 PM
Post #102 of 217 (5350 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [gmggg] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

gmggg wrote:
To be honest though I'm still not even sure what the "signal" is actually supposed to be. Serious answers to serious questions? In depth trip reports with great pics? Rigorous testing of systems and gear?

That sounds more like a magazine than a forum.

And there you have it. Why is the signal-to-noise ratio here low? Because that is exactly what the majority of users here want.

Jay


Partner cracklover


Aug 18, 2010, 9:15 PM
Post #103 of 217 (5343 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
I think the comment "All I want is to shoot shit about climbing while I'm stuck indoors" is incorrect.

Incorrect? You think someone else stating what *they* like is factually incorrect. Who the fuck do you think you are that you know what she, or I, really like? I won't speak for Julie, but yeah, I'd rather talk about climbing, and not on a website where there's a roving gang of users with a club that says "keep out" on the door who'll gang up on anyone who says differently.

GO


kriso9tails


Aug 18, 2010, 9:18 PM
Post #104 of 217 (5338 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7766

Re: [bandycoot] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Ha. I see how you came to that conclusion now. That's the way of the internet. but yeah, cracklover had it right.


justroberto


Aug 18, 2010, 9:21 PM
Post #105 of 217 (5332 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [bandycoot] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bandycoot wrote:
kriso9tails wrote:
Your response has absolutely noting to do with what I said. I don't know if you need to reread what I wrote or if it needs to be clarified, but you are way off the mark.

OK, then what were you trying to say?

To me it seemed like you're saying an aggressive poster's noise is somehow switched to signal because they're "known". That's an invalid argument in my book.

Josh
I'm pretty sure that he was agreeing with you that the criticism of your advice was, indeed, pure noise. The implication being that any time certain users post, in this case bustloose, we can all summarily write it off as pure noise without even having to read the post in question.

It's apropos for this particular thread on this particular website that someone misinterprets a post that is sympathetic to his or her position and then gets argumentative with the perceived offending party.


Partner cracklover


Aug 18, 2010, 9:22 PM
Post #106 of 217 (5330 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
gmggg wrote:
To be honest though I'm still not even sure what the "signal" is actually supposed to be. Serious answers to serious questions? In depth trip reports with great pics? Rigorous testing of systems and gear?

That sounds more like a magazine than a forum.

And there you have it. Why is the signal-to-noise ratio here low? Because that is exactly what the majority of users here want.

Jay

And that vocal majority apparently feels sure enough about their place that they can claim to speak for what the rest of us wants, too. Even in direct contradiction of what we say.

What phenomenal gall.

GO


Toast_in_the_Machine


Aug 18, 2010, 9:22 PM
Post #107 of 217 (5327 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5206

Re: [cracklover] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
I think the comment "All I want is to shoot shit about climbing while I'm stuck indoors" is incorrect.

Incorrect? You think someone else stating what *they* like is factually incorrect. Who the fuck do you think you are that you know what she, or I, really like? I won't speak for Julie, but yeah, I'd rather talk about climbing, and not on a website where there's a roving gang of users with a club that says "keep out" on the door who'll gang up on anyone who says differently.

GO

my bold.

Seems like you like to come across with a club. It seems that coming across that strong while complaining that others come across that strong is inconsistent.

Sorry if my phrasing was incorrect, feel free to keep talking about climbing.

edit: (moved bold slightly)


(This post was edited by Toast_in_the_Machine on Aug 18, 2010, 9:24 PM)


Partner cracklover


Aug 18, 2010, 9:34 PM
Post #108 of 217 (5306 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
I think the comment "All I want is to shoot shit about climbing while I'm stuck indoors" is incorrect.

Incorrect? You think someone else stating what *they* like is factually incorrect. Who the fuck do you think you are that you know what she, or I, really like? I won't speak for Julie, but yeah, I'd rather talk about climbing, and not on a website where there's a roving gang of users with a club that says "keep out" on the door who'll gang up on anyone who says differently.

GO

my bold.

Seems like you like to come across with a club. It seems that coming across that strong while complaining that others come across that strong is inconsistent.

Sorry if my phrasing was incorrect, feel free to keep talking about climbing.

edit: (moved bold slightly)

Phrasing? What? Dude, read what I actually wrote, it's not what you think. I'm not complaining about you coming across strong. Maybe you don't know the meaning of the word club: A group of people organized for a common purpose, especially a group that meets regularly. Clubhouses may have signs on the door, such as You are not wanted here. Do you get it yet?

What I'm "complaining" about is your claim to speak for what JSH wants, in direct contradiction to what she said. You have no right to do so, and it's incredibly rude.

GO


LostinMaine


Aug 18, 2010, 9:41 PM
Post #109 of 217 (5295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2007
Posts: 539

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

I've been climbing since 1996 - mostly a weekend warrior with a sprinkled climbing trip here and there. I volunteered for a high angle rescue team in grad school and now teach basic and advanced climbing and rescue in the tower industry.

I don't know what my coefficient of variation is for hitting the mark with useful posts, but I do know that I prefer reading posts that are useful and entertaining at the same time. I also know that no matter the subject, watching someone try to get Jay to admit he is wrong is worth every wasted second spent reading.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Aug 18, 2010, 9:43 PM
Post #110 of 217 (5291 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5206

Re: [cracklover] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
I think the comment "All I want is to shoot shit about climbing while I'm stuck indoors" is incorrect.

Incorrect? You think someone else stating what *they* like is factually incorrect. Who the fuck do you think you are that you know what she, or I, really like? I won't speak for Julie, but yeah, I'd rather talk about climbing, and not on a website where there's a roving gang of users with a club that says "keep out" on the door who'll gang up on anyone who says differently.

GO

my bold.

Seems like you like to come across with a club. It seems that coming across that strong while complaining that others come across that strong is inconsistent.

Sorry if my phrasing was incorrect, feel free to keep talking about climbing.

edit: (moved bold slightly)

Phrasing? What? Dude, read what I actually wrote, it's not what you think. I'm not complaining about you coming across strong. Maybe you don't know the meaning of the word club: A group of people organized for a common purpose, especially a group that meets regularly. Clubhouses may have signs on the door, such as You are not wanted here. Do you get it yet?

What I'm "complaining" about is your claim to speak for what JSH wants, in direct contradiction to what she said. You have no right to do so, and it's incredibly rude.

GO

In the continuing thread of “lets misinterpret what others say”, I took “club” as in “A stout heavy stick, usually thicker at one end, suitable for use as a weapon; a cudgel”. As in using the phrase “who the fuck are you” is a linguistic club to beat another into submission.

The reason I apologized for the phrasing is that, if I had wanted to go back and re-write it, based on your feedback I would have said something closer to:

me-editing-in-the-past wrote:
I think that, for me, the phrase "All I want is to shoot shit about climbing while I'm stuck indoors" would be put as …

I never intended to speak for anyone but myself, I’m sorry you took it any other way. As I said, I apologize if my lazy phrasing struck a nerve.


jt512


Aug 18, 2010, 9:43 PM
Post #111 of 217 (5289 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

It's amusing to observe how much the signal-to-noise ratio in the signal-to-ratio thread has declined from page 1 to page 5.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Aug 18, 2010, 9:47 PM
Post #112 of 217 (5283 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5206

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
It's amusing to observe how much the signal-to-noise ratio in the signal-to-ratio thread has declined from page 1 to page 5.

It is the urge to quote and reply only to make a point that increases the noise.


curt


Aug 18, 2010, 9:51 PM
Post #113 of 217 (5267 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [cracklover] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

Most people seem to agree that this site could be "better" but few probably agree on what that actually means. Is signal to noise even a good measure? That's meant to be a rhetorical question--and I certainly don't have the answer.

As I posted earlier the various internet discussion sites for rock climbing have somewhat distinct "personalities" and I think that's good. If you favor a more structured and moderated environment, Mountain Project might be just your thing. If you favor even less structured and moderated sites, SuperTopo or even Boldering.com might be the place for you.

As much as people like to complain about this site, it seems to me that it can't be all that bad and still remain (by far) the most heavily viewed climbing site--with many times the number of users, threads and posts of any other site. It certainly isn't the quality of the "Routes" database that keeps people coming back, so it must be something about the overall RC.com experience that people find to be of value.

Just a little food noise for thought.

Curt


Toast_in_the_Machine


Aug 18, 2010, 9:59 PM
Post #114 of 217 (5251 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5206

Re: [curt] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Plus, here you can count on someone sooner or later linking to the youtube vid of public enemy and anthrax, which is always good for a laugh.


LostinMaine


Aug 18, 2010, 10:03 PM
Post #115 of 217 (5246 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2007
Posts: 539

Re: [curt] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
Most people seem to agree that this site could be "better" but few probably agree on what that actually means.
.
.
.

As much as people like to complain about this site, it seems to me that it can't be all that bad and still remain (by far) the most heavily viewed climbing site--with many times the number of users, threads and posts of any other site. It certainly isn't the quality of the "Routes" database that keeps people coming back, so it must be something about the overall RC.com experience that people find to be of value.

Just a little food noise for thought.

Curt

On the first part, that must mean rc is doing quite well. If both sides (old school goldliners and red-geared gumbies) are dissatisfied, something is going right. Isn't that the argument...?

I wonder if the second observation is an artifact of the name of the site? Googling "rock climbing" brings up rc.com as the first linked site. The gumbies can't help but click here and enter the arena before watching the game from the sideline to learn how it's played. That entertains both the regular field players and the pine riders enough to keep coming back.


curt


Aug 18, 2010, 10:08 PM
Post #116 of 217 (5234 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [whipper] Re:Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

whipper wrote:
Well, I have been baned from the lab....
and the mods have deleted 2 of my topics about it. Why does JT and Curty boy get to say whatever they want, but I get banned and not even an explanation from the Mods...

Maybe nobody likes you?

whipper wrote:
its become very draconian around here, and I have had enough....out

As they say: Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Curt


curt


Aug 18, 2010, 10:11 PM
Post #117 of 217 (5225 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [LostinMaine] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

LostinMaine wrote:
I wonder if the second observation is an artifact of the name of the site? Googling "rock climbing" brings up rc.com as the first linked site. The gumbies can't help but click here and enter the arena before watching the game from the sideline to learn how it's played. That entertains both the regular field players and the pine riders enough to keep coming back.

It could partly be that, but I don't personally think that would completely explain it. I could be wrong, though.

Curt


moose_droppings


Aug 18, 2010, 10:14 PM
Post #118 of 217 (5218 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
jt512 wrote:
It's amusing to observe how much the signal-to-noise ratio in the signal-to-ratio thread has declined from page 1 to page 5.

It is the urge to quote and reply only to make a point that increases the noise.

You might have a point there.


kennoyce


Aug 18, 2010, 10:32 PM
Post #119 of 217 (5193 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
It's amusing to observe how much the signal-to-noise ratio in the signal-to-ratio thread has declined from page 1 to page 5.

No Jay, it's not amusing at all. RC.com should be completely noise free.


(now I don't have time to continue this argument right now, but if someone would help me out by hashing it out with Jay, this thread would be perfect.Cool)


jt512


Aug 18, 2010, 10:46 PM
Post #120 of 217 (5180 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (12 ratings)  
Can't Post

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


(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 18, 2010, 10:49 PM)


rtwilli4


Aug 18, 2010, 11:23 PM
Post #121 of 217 (5151 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 14, 2008
Posts: 1867

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I've been climbing about 11 years with the last4 being full time, my job as a guide and life as a climbing bum.

Probably a quarter of my input here has any valid content and about a quarter of THAT has valid content w/o any insults or douchebaggery.

I like to be involved in informative, well thought out conversations, which is why I spend most of my time WITH REAL CLIMBERS IN THE REAL WORLD instead of bitching and whining and trying to learn how to climb 5.12 on the internet.


kennoyce


Aug 18, 2010, 11:25 PM
Post #122 of 217 (5148 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338

Re: [rtwilli4] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rtwilli4 wrote:
I like to be involved in informative, well thought out conversations, which is why I spend most of my time WITH REAL CLIMBERS IN THE REAL WORLD instead of bitching and whining and trying to learn how to climb 5.12 on the internet.

Wait, how else am I supposed to learn how to climb 5.12?


LostinMaine


Aug 18, 2010, 11:35 PM
Post #123 of 217 (5136 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2007
Posts: 539

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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.


(This post was edited by LostinMaine on Aug 18, 2010, 11:37 PM)


jt512


Aug 18, 2010, 11:44 PM
Post #124 of 217 (5124 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [LostinMaine] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

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


Partner cracklover


Aug 18, 2010, 11:48 PM
Post #125 of 217 (5119 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
I never intended to speak for anyone but myself, I’m sorry you took it any other way. As I said, I apologize if my lazy phrasing struck a nerve.

No problem.

GO


LostinMaine


Aug 18, 2010, 11:51 PM
Post #126 of 217 (4466 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2007
Posts: 539

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

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

Agreed. That is why I choose not to respond to poor questions. However, I have been on fairly good forums where simplistic questions garnered genuinely good responses. This, in turn, spurs more in-depth discussion on a positive cycle, rather than a negative feedback loop that kills noise.

Maybe I'm just a tree-hugging hippie who wants everyone to feel coddled.


ubu


Aug 19, 2010, 12:36 AM
Post #127 of 217 (4434 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1485

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

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

Right. I would only like to add that implementing a half-decent search function would go a loooooong way to reducing noise and limiting wasted effort by the handful of high-value RC contributors who take the time to generate real content.


blueeyedclimber


Aug 19, 2010, 1:22 AM
Post #128 of 217 (4421 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Re: [curt] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
As much as people like to complain about this site, it seems to me that it can't be all that bad and still remain (by far) the most heavily viewed climbing site--with many times the number of users, threads and posts of any other site. It certainly isn't the quality of the "Routes" database that keeps people coming back, so it must be something about the overall RC.com experience that people find to be of value.

Just a little food noise for thought.

Curt

That's exactly what I am trying to get at. I think there is quality content here and a good collection of climbers who just want to talk about climbing. I think what I am trying to say is, despite the noise, don't be discouraged from posting. I think someone else already said it. To increase ratio, increase the signal, not necessarily decrease the noise (although that wouldn't hurt either).

Josh


socalclimber


Aug 19, 2010, 2:08 AM
Post #129 of 217 (4404 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437

Re: [cracklover] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I've been climbing around 20 years. A lot of the time has been spent in Joshua Tree, but I've climbed in number of other areas. Working as a climbing guide here in Josh for one of the top schools in the park. I am very fortunate and honored to both be working and mentored by to legendary climbers/guides Steve Gerberdine and Donny Reid. Boy have they taught me tons.

As far as percentages go, I have no clue, but I do believe I have offered a lot good info on this site. Unfortunately I have also hammered the hell out of people on this sight in very harsh ways. Likely not the most supportive and nurturing approach, and no, I don't treat my clients like this. But the truth be told, this site has such a massive level of bad information flowing through it makes the shit fountain at a cockroach convention look clean.

I largely do first ascents. I've clocked around 500 or so in the past 5 years. I could really care less about the "Josh Locals" list as I find it utterly fucking pointless. I've lived and been involved in this community for over a decade and have far more a local status than 2/3 of the people on the "list".

I spent the better part of five years running the Joshua Tree Search And Rescue team for the park service as a volunteer and have loaded a number of rc.com members into ambulances and helicopters. I won't mention names.

I have also spent a number of years on the board of the Friends Of Joshua Tree working for climbers access issues.

That's my story, take it or leave it!


(This post was edited by socalclimber on Aug 19, 2010, 2:10 AM)


jt512


Aug 19, 2010, 2:09 AM
Post #130 of 217 (4401 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
I think what I am trying to say is, despite the noise, don't be discouraged from posting. I think someone else already said it. To increase ratio, increase the signal, not necessarily decrease the noise...

But it's the high amount of noise that discourages substantive posting. Just saying "increase the signal" isn't going to have any effect, since it ignores the very reason why the high-signal posts aren't being made. It's just an expression of wishful thinking.

Jay


blueeyedclimber


Aug 19, 2010, 2:20 AM
Post #131 of 217 (4386 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
I think what I am trying to say is, despite the noise, don't be discouraged from posting. I think someone else already said it. To increase ratio, increase the signal, not necessarily decrease the noise...

But it's the high amount of noise that discourages substantive posting. Just saying "increase the signal" isn't going to have any effect, since it ignores the very reason why the high-signal posts aren't being made. It's just an expression of wishful thinking.

Jay

And yet, you still post.

Josh


jt512


Aug 19, 2010, 2:21 AM
Post #132 of 217 (4383 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
I think what I am trying to say is, despite the noise, don't be discouraged from posting. I think someone else already said it. To increase ratio, increase the signal, not necessarily decrease the noise...

But it's the high amount of noise that discourages substantive posting. Just saying "increase the signal" isn't going to have any effect, since it ignores the very reason why the high-signal posts aren't being made. It's just an expression of wishful thinking.

Jay

And yet, you still post.

Meaning...?


johnwesely


Aug 19, 2010, 2:21 AM
Post #133 of 217 (4382 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5344

Re: [kennoyce] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

kennoyce wrote:
rtwilli4 wrote:
I like to be involved in informative, well thought out conversations, which is why I spend most of my time WITH REAL CLIMBERS IN THE REAL WORLD instead of bitching and whining and trying to learn how to climb 5.12 on the internet.

Wait, how else am I supposed to learn how to climb 5.12?




blueeyedclimber


Aug 19, 2010, 2:26 AM
Post #134 of 217 (4377 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
I think what I am trying to say is, despite the noise, don't be discouraged from posting. I think someone else already said it. To increase ratio, increase the signal, not necessarily decrease the noise...

But it's the high amount of noise that discourages substantive posting. Just saying "increase the signal" isn't going to have any effect, since it ignores the very reason why the high-signal posts aren't being made. It's just an expression of wishful thinking.

Jay

And yet, you still post.

Meaning...?

I think you know exactly what I meant by that. Tongue

Josh


socalclimber


Aug 19, 2010, 2:50 AM
Post #135 of 217 (4359 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I think this thread started out great, and now has descended into the sewer.


blueeyedclimber


Aug 19, 2010, 2:56 AM
Post #136 of 217 (4350 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Re: [socalclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

socalclimber wrote:
I think this thread started out great, and now has descended into the sewer.

I apologize. After the recent drama, I should no to just ignore him.

Now where were we?

Josh


curt


Aug 19, 2010, 2:57 AM
Post #137 of 217 (4347 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [socalclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

socalclimber wrote:
I think this thread started out great, and now has descended into the sewer.

This isn't the sewer yet. Hang around.

Curt


socalclimber


Aug 19, 2010, 3:05 AM
Post #138 of 217 (4334 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437

Re: [curt] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
socalclimber wrote:
I think this thread started out great, and now has descended into the sewer.

This isn't the sewer yet. Hang around.

Curt

Oh I'm well aware. I just think the thread started out nicely. Of course, I came in late in the game!


climbingtrash


Aug 19, 2010, 3:09 AM
Post #139 of 217 (4329 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 19, 2006
Posts: 5114

Re: [camhead] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
See Curt's post ^^^

GO

Definitely, this is true. In all my negativity I forgot the frequent crashes of a few years ago.

I do miss the old design, though (no, not the monkey experiment Laugh)

sideways vag4lyfe!



I've been climbing for 20 years. Only been on the interweb since '06. Most of my posts are useless, 'cause hell...I just want to fit in.


jt512


Aug 19, 2010, 3:22 AM
Post #140 of 217 (4321 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
I think what I am trying to say is, despite the noise, don't be discouraged from posting. I think someone else already said it. To increase ratio, increase the signal, not necessarily decrease the noise...

But it's the high amount of noise that discourages substantive posting. Just saying "increase the signal" isn't going to have any effect, since it ignores the very reason why the high-signal posts aren't being made. It's just an expression of wishful thinking.

Jay

And yet, you still post.

Meaning...?

I think you know exactly what I meant by that. Tongue

Josh

Well, thanks for the compliment, then. Yes, I'm still one of the few people to post substantive content to the site.

Jay


blueeyedclimber


Aug 19, 2010, 3:44 AM
Post #141 of 217 (4309 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
I think what I am trying to say is, despite the noise, don't be discouraged from posting. I think someone else already said it. To increase ratio, increase the signal, not necessarily decrease the noise...

But it's the high amount of noise that discourages substantive posting. Just saying "increase the signal" isn't going to have any effect, since it ignores the very reason why the high-signalm posts aren't being made. It's just an expression of wishful thinking.

Jay

And yet, you still post.

Meaning...?

I think you know exactly what I meant by that. Tongue

Josh

Well, thanks for the compliment, then. Yes, I'm still one of the few people to post substantive content to the site.

Jay

What's funny is that you actually believe that.

Damn, I did it again.


lvpyne


Aug 19, 2010, 3:57 AM
Post #142 of 217 (4303 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 7, 2005
Posts: 207

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
I think what I am trying to say is, despite the noise, don't be discouraged from posting. I think someone else already said it. To increase ratio, increase the signal, not necessarily decrease the noise (although that wouldn't hurt either).

[geeky Serenity reference]:

You can't stop the signal, Mal!!!

[/geeky Serenity reference]


jt512


Aug 19, 2010, 4:09 AM
Post #143 of 217 (4286 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
I think what I am trying to say is, despite the noise, don't be discouraged from posting. I think someone else already said it. To increase ratio, increase the signal, not necessarily decrease the noise...

But it's the high amount of noise that discourages substantive posting. Just saying "increase the signal" isn't going to have any effect, since it ignores the very reason why the high-signalm posts aren't being made. It's just an expression of wishful thinking.

Jay

And yet, you still post.

Meaning...?

I think you know exactly what I meant by that. Tongue

Josh

Well, thanks for the compliment, then. Yes, I'm still one of the few people to post substantive content to the site.

Jay

What's funny is that you actually believe that.

What's "funny" is that I am the only person ever to have: programmed an online impact-force calculator and posted a link to it for users to take advantage (it's had hundreds of hits); correctly summarized the scientific evidence for glucosamine supplementation for arthritis; write and link to a professionally written manuscript on how to lose weight to improve your climbing (it's had hundreds of hits); write and make available to users site enhancements like a killfile and website tweak program (which, together, have had over 1000 downlosds); etc. I'd continue, but I'm being called to dinner.

Jay


blondgecko
Moderator

Aug 19, 2010, 5:39 AM
Post #144 of 217 (4258 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
I think what I am trying to say is, despite the noise, don't be discouraged from posting. I think someone else already said it. To increase ratio, increase the signal, not necessarily decrease the noise...

But it's the high amount of noise that discourages substantive posting. Just saying "increase the signal" isn't going to have any effect, since it ignores the very reason why the high-signalm posts aren't being made. It's just an expression of wishful thinking.

Jay

And yet, you still post.

Meaning...?

I think you know exactly what I meant by that. Tongue

Josh

Well, thanks for the compliment, then. Yes, I'm still one of the few people to post substantive content to the site.

Jay

What's funny is that you actually believe that.

What's "funny" is that I am the only person ever to have: programmed an online impact-force calculator and posted a link to it for users to take advantage (it's had hundreds of hits); correctly summarized the scientific evidence for glucosamine supplementation for arthritis; write and link to a professionally written manuscript on how to lose weight to improve your climbing (it's had hundreds of hits); write and make available to users site enhancements like a killfile and website tweak program (which, together, have had over 1000 downlosds); etc. I'd continue, but I'm being called to dinner.

Jay

Stavros is standing on a hillside overlooking his village. He turns to his friend and says, "Look at that village down there. I was the mayor for thirty years, and brought it ever-increasing peace and prosperity. But do they call me Stavros the Great Mayor? No!

"Now look at that ship floating down there in the harbour. I built that ship with my bare hands, and it's brought in bountiful catches every day for twenty years. But do they call me Stavros the Great Ship-Builder? No!

"And look at that street full of houses. They're the most sturdy, luxurious houses in the whole village, and I designed them and oversaw their construction. But do they call me Stavros the Great Architect? No!

"But fuck just one goat..."



One nasty act can wipe out the effects of a lifetime of effort. Act like a fucking asshole all the time and nobody will ever notice the good stuff you do.


jt512


Aug 19, 2010, 5:49 AM
Post #145 of 217 (4251 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [blondgecko] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
I think what I am trying to say is, despite the noise, don't be discouraged from posting. I think someone else already said it. To increase ratio, increase the signal, not necessarily decrease the noise...

But it's the high amount of noise that discourages substantive posting. Just saying "increase the signal" isn't going to have any effect, since it ignores the very reason why the high-signalm posts aren't being made. It's just an expression of wishful thinking.

Jay

And yet, you still post.

Meaning...?

I think you know exactly what I meant by that. Tongue

Josh

Well, thanks for the compliment, then. Yes, I'm still one of the few people to post substantive content to the site.

Jay

What's funny is that you actually believe that.

What's "funny" is that I am the only person ever to have: programmed an online impact-force calculator and posted a link to it for users to take advantage (it's had hundreds of hits); correctly summarized the scientific evidence for glucosamine supplementation for arthritis; write and link to a professionally written manuscript on how to lose weight to improve your climbing (it's had hundreds of hits); write and make available to users site enhancements like a killfile and website tweak program (which, together, have had over 1000 downlosds); etc. I'd continue, but I'm being called to dinner.

Jay

Stavros is standing on a hillside overlooking his village. He turns to his friend and says, "Look at that village down there. I was the mayor for thirty years, and brought it ever-increasing peace and prosperity. But do they call me Stavros the Great Mayor? No!

"Now look at that ship floating down there in the harbour. I built that ship with my bare hands, and it's brought in bountiful catches every day for twenty years. But do they call me Stavros the Great Ship-Builder? No!

"And look at that street full of houses. They're the most sturdy, luxurious houses in the whole village, and I designed them and oversaw their construction. But do they call me Stavros the Great Architect? No!

"But fuck just one goat..."



One nasty act can wipe out the effects of a lifetime of effort. Act like a fucking asshole all the time and nobody will ever notice the good stuff you do.

Aside from the fact that I stand by what I did throughout Aricgate, it is ridiculously ironic that everybody and his brother is telling me to let it go.

Jay


skyfurr


Aug 19, 2010, 6:20 AM
Post #146 of 217 (4240 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 21, 2010
Posts: 28

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I don't think it's ironic at all the direction this thread's spun out into lol
Feeling for you now blueeyedclimber!Crazy


Toast_in_the_Machine


Aug 19, 2010, 11:38 AM
Post #147 of 217 (4208 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5206

Re: [socalclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

socalclimber wrote:
I think this thread started out great, and now has descended into the sewer.

What makes you say that? Since you were late to the thread and clearly read from the beginning, can you point to a post (even one of mine) that made you say "oh noz not again another great thread ruined"? I'm curious to know.


blueeyedclimber


Aug 19, 2010, 12:47 PM
Post #148 of 217 (4193 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
I think what I am trying to say is, despite the noise, don't be discouraged from posting. I think someone else already said it. To increase ratio, increase the signal, not necessarily decrease the noise...

But it's the high amount of noise that discourages substantive posting. Just saying "increase the signal" isn't going to have any effect, since it ignores the very reason why the high-signalm posts aren't being made. It's just an expression of wishful thinking.

Jay

And yet, you still post.

Meaning...?

I think you know exactly what I meant by that. Tongue

Josh

Well, thanks for the compliment, then. Yes, I'm still one of the few people to post substantive content to the site.

Jay

What's funny is that you actually believe that.

What's "funny" is that I am the only person ever to have: programmed an online impact-force calculator and posted a link to it for users to take advantage (it's had hundreds of hits); correctly summarized the scientific evidence for glucosamine supplementation for arthritis; write and link to a professionally written manuscript on how to lose weight to improve your climbing (it's had hundreds of hits); write and make available to users site enhancements like a killfile and website tweak program (which, together, have had over 1000 downlosds); etc. I'd continue, but I'm being called to dinner.

Jay

And I would be the first to congratulate you on that...

IF...

You weren't such a condescending ass in every single post you create.

How was dinner?


jt512


Aug 19, 2010, 1:00 PM
Post #149 of 217 (4187 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
I think what I am trying to say is, despite the noise, don't be discouraged from posting. I think someone else already said it. To increase ratio, increase the signal, not necessarily decrease the noise...

But it's the high amount of noise that discourages substantive posting. Just saying "increase the signal" isn't going to have any effect, since it ignores the very reason why the high-signalm posts aren't being made. It's just an expression of wishful thinking.

Jay

And yet, you still post.

Meaning...?

I think you know exactly what I meant by that. Tongue

Josh

Well, thanks for the compliment, then. Yes, I'm still one of the few people to post substantive content to the site.

Jay

What's funny is that you actually believe that.

What's "funny" is that I am the only person ever to have: programmed an online impact-force calculator and posted a link to it for users to take advantage (it's had hundreds of hits); correctly summarized the scientific evidence for glucosamine supplementation for arthritis; write and link to a professionally written manuscript on how to lose weight to improve your climbing (it's had hundreds of hits); write and make available to users site enhancements like a killfile and website tweak program (which, together, have had over 1000 downlosds); etc. I'd continue, but I'm being called to dinner.

Jay

And I would be the first to congratulate you on that...

IF...

You weren't such a condescending ass in every single post you create.

How was dinner?

It was good. Anna is an excellent chef.

Jay


gmggg


Aug 19, 2010, 1:36 PM
Post #150 of 217 (4166 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
gmggg wrote:
To be honest though I'm still not even sure what the "signal" is actually supposed to be. Serious answers to serious questions? In depth trip reports with great pics? Rigorous testing of systems and gear?

That sounds more like a magazine than a forum.

And there you have it. Why is the signal-to-noise ratio here low? Because that is exactly what the majority of users here want.

Jay

I'm afraid that I don't quite get what you're driving at.

Are you saying that the majority of users want the opposite of those things? That's surely not my point at all. I was trying to point out that we can't expect the same standards on a forum that you get with an edited, directed, and professional publication.

I was trying to steer the discussion towards what exactly the "correct" signal to noise ratio should be. I take it from your other posts that you would prefer a more magazine-like format. However to get to that a lot of sometimes-interesting often-tangential information would be lost (granted a lot of pure shit would be shoveled out too). Your chosen persona, for instance, would have to change considerably to mesh with some dictatorial information archive.

I for one appreciate your snark and ability to cut to the heart; but you'd have to agree that it would be tough for a mod in the magazine-paradigm to allow many of your own comments.(Not to single you out, the same would be true for virtually everybody)


gmggg


Aug 19, 2010, 1:41 PM
Post #151 of 217 (5138 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Oh, I forgot to include my info...

Climbing for ~10 (1-2 times a month) years "seriously" for 5(3-4 times a week).

Joined here very recently to find new partners in new lands.

I would estimate that my S/N is 45/65. I want to say 50/50, but I won't give myself the benefit of the doubt.


dingus


Aug 19, 2010, 2:40 PM
Post #152 of 217 (5111 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

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.

No one wants to live under your rule dude.

No one.

DMT


jt512


Aug 19, 2010, 2:42 PM
Post #153 of 217 (5108 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [dingus] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

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


(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 19, 2010, 2:44 PM)


dingus


Aug 19, 2010, 2:50 PM
Post #154 of 217 (5098 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

In the original vein, I have been climbing now (sheesh) 37 years.

I am not qualified to post authoritatively in the lab. I feel I have nothing to contribute there.

Further, I feel the vast majority and I mean like a super dee dooper majority, are also unqualified to post in the lab.

I would go so far as to say the reason I don't read the lab threads at all, including most all of Adatesman's work, in particular the 'steal a design' cam contest, is because of pedantic and argumentative posts from journeyman climbers who don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

Its a GEEK sub forum. Math geek, engineer geek, geek geek geek. There is very little content there of practical use to real climbers.

So turning the site upside down for the sake of 6 or so posters, is really really stupid. Make the lab a private club and let them go off geeking one another and leave the rest of the site to its own counsel.

DMT


dingus


Aug 19, 2010, 2:51 PM
Post #155 of 217 (5095 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [jt512] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

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

To complete your point, they (we) prefer garbage OVER YOUR VERSION OF UTOPIA.

DMT


blueeyedclimber


Aug 19, 2010, 2:56 PM
Post #156 of 217 (5084 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Re: [dingus] Signal to Noise [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)