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

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All


bandycoot


Aug 18, 2010, 9:08 PM
Post #101 of 217 (5322 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 (5318 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 (5311 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 (5306 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 (5300 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 (5298 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 (5295 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 (5274 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 (5263 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 (5259 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 (5257 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 (5251 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 (5235 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 (5219 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 (5214 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 (5202 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 (5193 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 (5186 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 (5161 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 (5148 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 (5119 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 (5116 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 (5104 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 (5092 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 (5087 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

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : General

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook