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


LostinMaine


Aug 18, 2010, 11:51 PM
Post #126 of 217 (4467 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 (4435 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 (4422 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 (4405 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 (4402 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 (4387 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 (4384 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 (4383 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 (4378 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 (4360 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 (4351 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 (4348 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 (4335 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 (4330 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 (4322 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 (4310 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 (4304 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 (4287 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 (4259 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 (4252 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 (4241 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 (4209 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 (4194 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 (4188 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 (4167 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)

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