Forum Search Forum Posts matching all AND Creator is "msgman" In all forums :| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman  
| | #1 posted July 21, 2005 at 6:00pm (EST) |
I've avoided commenting on this before, but this seems an appropriate moment to join in the debate. Before I comment on these points specifically, I want to say that I entirely agree with the aim of getting rid of the "wees" effect and over-picky qualifiers. My comments that follow should be seen as observations and suggestions rther than criticisms.
bill wrote:
> This is complex issue. I'm not sure I can respond without rambling
> on about it for a page or so. I'll try to be concise.
>
> 1. I'm not sure if recent surveys are a fair measure of the effect
> the change in qual has had.
> a. There have been more than the usual new
> surveys (an increase of something like 50% from around 50 per week
> to around 75).
This bothers me somewhat. I don't have time to visit the site every day, and with the increase in quantity of new surveys I find that I get less pleasure from looking through new ones - it feels as though I'm being swamped. I'd prefer a smaller number of surveys that I can spend a bit of time debating in the comments than a large number which just need to be cleared out of the way.
> b. Most of the new surveys are coming from
> one person, whizkid.
> c. Most of the surveys on the "This Weeks'
> Worst" are by whizkid.
I suppose I could just filter these, in that case. Maybe I should, if one user is solely responsble for both the excess quantity and poor quality. But it somehow feels like that should be a last resort - rather like sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that someone isn't talking.
> 3. My Views on Qual
> a. Actually, when I made the recent changes,
> I didn't really think they would help that much. They seemed to have
> helped more than I thought they would, though.
> b. I think the "wees effect" has been eliminated
> and that's an accomplishment.
I agree, but I think there have been some unwanted side-effects. Wees has a postive aspect, where several people agree that there's something wrong with a survey but can't really express why, and then someone else manages to summarise the problems in a way that the creator can understand. Now, there's no way for someone to try and explain another qualifier's objection to the SC, and I can see that this could be frustrating.
> c. I think the quality of surveys has dipped
> a little, but this was expected and I think acceptable. I think this
> goes along with eliminating the "wees effect".
> d. I don't feel that attached to the way
> Qual is now. Though, I also don't want to just go back to the way
> it was either.
> e. On some level, I think the whole idea
> of Qual is flawed and I'd like to consider "outside the box" solutions
> in which Qual is replaced by something completely different.
I think some kind of rate-limiting would be a possible solution - make people's ability to create new surveys depend on their average ranking for ones they've already done (using some kind of weighted formula so that people aren't forever punished for their newbie errors) - the higher your average rating, the more surveys you are allowed to have active at any one time. Maybe combine this with having qualification open, but non-controlling - people can read each other's comments, but an SC can ignore them if they want and let the survey qualify anyway. But, of course, if they don't respond to comments in qual then it could affect their ability to create more surveys in future.
> f. I'd like to simplify things, in general.
> So, solutions in which I eliminate something are more appealing to
> me than solutions in which I make things more complex.
> g. I'd like to have a system that encourages
> people to create surveys.
> h. I'd like to see more of the regular users
> creating surveys.
Speaking for myself, I've been put off creating surveys because there always seems to be far too many in qual anyway, and I don't want to add to them. As a general rule, I only create surveys when things are a bit quieter - I do it as much to contribute to the site as to get my own questions out there, and if I feel that there isn't a need for more new surveys at the moment then I'm much less likely to make the effort to create one. At the risk of sounding a bit pompous, I think that I generally create pretty good surveys, but creating good surveys takes effort and I'm less willing to make that effort if I feel that by doing so I'm merely contributing further to an already over-long list of new ones. |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman
| | #2 posted June 17, 2005 at 12:48pm (EST) |
I got 11 right. But on one of the questions (Q10), all three answers are correct, depending on context, and I actually disagree with their answers to Q and Q7. |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman
| | #3 posted June 13, 2005 at 5:19pm (EST) |
And the verdict is.... not guilty |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman
| | #4 posted April 22, 2005 at 5:13pm (EST) |
Do you mean the one that's mostly in black and white and tells the "story" of a homeless ex-serviceman? I saw it on TV after the C4 news the other day - I thought it was interestingly different, for the BNP. Previously, their election broadcasts have been mostly mindless rants, but this one showed some attempt to be more subtle and appeal to more humanitarian motives - presenting themselves as caring for the disadvantaged rather than being a party of self-interest. |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman
| | #5 posted April 15, 2005 at 5:01am (EST) |
http://www.corporatecontact.info is a new website that I've been working on recently. To quote from the introduction...
| Ever needed to get in touch with an organisation, but just can't seem to find the right email address or telephone number? A lot of companies prefer to hide their contact details or try and force you to go via web-based forms when trying to get in touch, but that's no help when you really do need to speak to a human or send an email from your own account. |
The site has only been up a few days, and we need lots more people to contribute helpful phone numbers and email addresses. So, if you know some that we don't - add them to the list!
|
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman
| | #6 posted April 11, 2005 at 3:27pm (EST) |
Sometimes, comments can be interesting, and if it's interesting enough it might prompt me to go back and answer the survey. I don't like hiding surveys, because that denies me the opportunity of entering into an interesting discussion that might develop. I can skim read through new comments easily enough - all I need to do is click next, next, next, etc until I see one that grabs my attention - but repeatedly abstaining is a little more effort as it involves more clicks and a bit of scrolling each time.
I actually abstain more often than I vote, anyway! |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman
| | #7 posted April 11, 2005 at 10:39am (EST) |
Biggles wrote:
> Thanks for bringing back that bad memory 
What bad memory?
> I think it was a representation of Bacchus or Pan - not sure what
> the bull was for though.
The sculpture as a whole is based on the legend of Dionysus, the Greek god of the vines - the bull is Dionysus, and the other figures are Maenads, his followers.
> It was in the biodome containing plants we
> grow for certain purposes - food, drink (e.g. wine), tobacco etc.
It's in the Mediterranean Basin section of the "Warm Temperate" biome. The sections are arranged by geography, rather than usage, but the Mediterranean section has several crop plants in it, including a lot of vines. |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
msgman
| | #8 posted April 11, 2005 at 10:31am (EST) |
No, catch-up only works on comments. So it will make any surveys that I've voted on go away from the "What's new" list, because it will mark the comments read. But it won't affect any that I haven't voted on yet, as the survey status itself is still new. | msgman
| | #9 posted April 11, 2005 at 7:15am (EST) |
Is there any way to do a bulk abstain on all new surveys? I've been away from the site for a while, and there are now several hundred surveys that I haven't seen yet. I don't want to hide them, as they might be interesting if there are any new comments later, but I don't want to vote on them either - I haven't got the time! So what I'd like to do is change them all to be not new, without a vote - ie, abstained - but I can't see any easy way to do this other than going into each one and clicking the abstain button. |
|
|
