|
|
#51
03-10-2005, 03:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: \"Noise Filtering\"
We have no plans yet. And keep in mind, if we do start this it would be only one new forum encompassing all topics at first. A reversible experiment as was pointed out earlier.
We have no intention of making drastic changes that may not be productive. Mat 
|
|
#52
03-10-2005, 03:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"Noise Filtering\"
I only listen to Wrong Forum Man. You sir, are no Wrong Forum Man.
|
|
#53
03-10-2005, 03:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"Noise Filtering\"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Josh and I talked about this for a little bit today, and this is pretty much exactly what I said. Rob [/ QUOTE ] You always confuse me when you call thief by my name. [/ QUOTE ] There are quite a few josh's that post here too. But i've gotten used to ignoring the usage of 'josh' on this forum.
|
|
#54
03-10-2005, 04:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"Noise Filtering\"
Matt,
[ QUOTE ] Avid posters can't be effective moderators. With increased growth we'll need more moderation, but the moderators will have not only to be objective, but be seen as such. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree with this assumption. I have seen two very succesful (large volume of posts and members)online communities that have active-posting voluntary moderators. www.reefs.org and www.reefcentral.com are the sites I am refering to. You may wish to reach out to them and find out more information on their policies and moderating standards. Posters flame, posters sometimes get personal, posters on occassion step over the line and get warned or banned. Most arguments are kept healthy, and passion has not been stifled by excessive moderation. The vast majority of members genuinely want to learn and give / get sound advice. The moderators are some of the most knowlegeable people on the site, and their comments/participation are appreciated. I think as long as there were guidelines and review of moderation actions, it would be very reasonable and effective to share the moderation burden with active respected members.
|
|
#55
03-10-2005, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"Noise Filtering\"
How many messages do you delete per day? Is it becoming an insurmountable task? The forums look like they have a high signal/noise ratio, but that's after moderation.
You could just try a Bayesian filter. If you have to look at every post anyway, you might as well look through ones suspected to be spam and rely on posters to alert you to others that get through.
|
|
#56
03-10-2005, 04:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"Noise Filtering\"
Was the green chip section accessible to read by anyone? Meaning, did it just restrict posting and not lurking? Just wondering.
The real key on that site, status-wise, was to get to the black chip section. If they still have it. I also agree that the noise to signal ration, while growing, isn't up to that point yet. I just got done searching the archives a bit. It takes a bit to get used to looking for stuff, but it really isn't as hard as you may think. Hell, if I can do it... [ QUOTE ] 2) Improve the archives. If need be, make a pay site for access to the archives. Archive significant threads not by date, but by subject matter (playing overcards, bankroll considerations, loose games, etc...). This to me would be well worth the price you would charge for accesss to such worthy advice. [/ QUOTE ] The problem with this is sorting it. Someone would have to go through every thread. That'd take forever. Most of the time the actual question, or subject of the question, is not in the subject line. Not to mention there are some threads that go off on a tangent with good info on things other than the posters question. Good idea in theory, though. b
|
|
#57
03-10-2005, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"Noise Filtering\"
[ QUOTE ]
Mabye a good idea would be to allow posters with more than 2500 posts to continue to post for free. This would insure that we don't lose some of our best posters. [/ QUOTE ] Then you'd get people just posting 1 word posts to get their numbers up so then they can get the free ride. We've already seen this, and that wasn't even for any real reward. If anything, that would really up the noise ratio in the free part, imo. b
|
|
#58
03-10-2005, 05:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"Noise Filtering\"
[ QUOTE ]
But casinos in the last 15 years are turning more towards the "bottom line" mentality, rather than trying to keep customers coming back for more. [/ QUOTE ] I think they've always had the bottom line mentality. First and foremost. If anything, given the widespread gambling that is becoming available in other states, I think it's leaning more to the opposite of the above. Super Casino is a great book in going behind the scenes. b
|
|
#59
03-10-2005, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"Noise Filtering\"
horrible idea, for a number of reasons. I actually fail to imagine anything positive comming from a 'pay' forum. the idea in itself is ridiculous.
also, i find it rather ironic you chose to post this thread in this particular forum...
|
|
#60
03-10-2005, 05:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: \"Noise Filtering\" - let the posters filter for you?
[ QUOTE ]
This poll comes as a result of people asking me to charge everyone for access to the site because they feel that there is too much non-serious information to sift through. [/ QUOTE ] Really? I thought this forum had a pretty good signal/noise ratio compared with others. How about adding a flag to a thread or perhaps each message indicating if it does or does not have "content"? Don't supply a default value, so that the poster must consciously decide. People already try to do this by including it in the message header sometimes (e.g. "warning: no content"). When you log into the site, you could set your preference for seeing "no content" messages or not. cheers, -jj
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
