Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Why we gotta have this forum-on-forum hate?: Thread about okshooters on opencarry.org
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Werewolf" data-source="post: 2275539" data-attributes="member: 239"><p>The problem with Veggie's stats is that the data available to him - based on its nature - is highly subjective and not objective.</p><p></p><p>I have no doubt that Veggie defined his selection criteria and made a good faith effort to quantify the results. That said what he considerd as negative indicators and what we consider negative is undoubtedly different.</p><p></p><p><strong>For example:</strong> I would consider all those posts that use the, "I don't care if you OC or not - I prefer CC though", argument without additional elaboration to be negative. I doubt if Veggie did. But if he did then that 1% would be considerably higher. Why would I consider that negative - because those folks don't say why they prefer CC over OC. Why don't they explain further? In addition - forums being based on the written word and all - that short contrite statement with no follow on elaboration comes across to me as both condescending and dismissive. It's as if the writer considers his opinion to be superior to all others and is so self evidently correct that it needs no elaboration. Am I being overly sensitive. Possibly. Thus the subjectivity. </p><p></p><p>In short the human mind does not lend itself well to quantifiable measurement thus any statistics generated on subjective data without knowing the selection criteria are questionable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Werewolf, post: 2275539, member: 239"] The problem with Veggie's stats is that the data available to him - based on its nature - is highly subjective and not objective. I have no doubt that Veggie defined his selection criteria and made a good faith effort to quantify the results. That said what he considerd as negative indicators and what we consider negative is undoubtedly different. [B]For example:[/B] I would consider all those posts that use the, "I don't care if you OC or not - I prefer CC though", argument without additional elaboration to be negative. I doubt if Veggie did. But if he did then that 1% would be considerably higher. Why would I consider that negative - because those folks don't say why they prefer CC over OC. Why don't they explain further? In addition - forums being based on the written word and all - that short contrite statement with no follow on elaboration comes across to me as both condescending and dismissive. It's as if the writer considers his opinion to be superior to all others and is so self evidently correct that it needs no elaboration. Am I being overly sensitive. Possibly. Thus the subjectivity. In short the human mind does not lend itself well to quantifiable measurement thus any statistics generated on subjective data without knowing the selection criteria are questionable. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Why we gotta have this forum-on-forum hate?: Thread about okshooters on opencarry.org
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom