PDA

View Full Version : Forum research



DianaS
9th-March-2005, 01:08 PM
I have just received a PM from El Salsero Gringo and wasn't aware that our forum was being used for research purposes. I have copied my response to his enquiry below, for your information (sorry Franck I know this may cause a stink, but I don't feel that I can keep quiet here :flower: ). Can I ask what other peoples views are?



Dear friend,

I am conducting some research on the Forum with a view to indentifying how well it acts as a snapshot of the 'average' MJ'ers opinion on a range of topics. Obviously this is something we can all have an opinion about, but some hard data would be useful I feel.

You have been identified as one of the top (elite?) few posters according to the criteria I have used - and I would now like to include the quantity of your contributions in one of two categories - 'Average', or 'non-Average'.

in 'category 1' I am including Venue owners, franchisees, teachers, taxi-dancers, DJ's, promoters, commercial Forum members or anyone with a remote connection to running a venue or dance company - and also anyone who has four or more years of dance (not necessarily MJ) experience.

in 'category 2' I include everyone else.

I would be very grateful if you could confirm for me the two following things:

In which category you see yourself (let us call them 1 or 2)

That you have no objection to your name featuring on the list. (If you do have an objection please still tell me which category you fit into, but your name will be replaced with Anon)

I should also add that unless you have an affiliation listed in your Forum profile, the default category is '2' unless you let me know to place you otherwise!

Many thanks

-ESG
My resposnse to El Gringo cc'd to Franck
I suppose you have had one of these emails!

I'm unsure whether you were approached for consent or what your position is here but I 'm summarising my thoughts for you below.
It is good manners and ethical to approach the list owner to ask permission to conduct research prior to starting. It is also ethical to advise people that the forum is being used for research purposes by an email and also to continuously restate this during the course of the research until the research has been completed.
This ensures that people are aware and that by continuing to contribute to the forum they consent to their comments which are in a public space being used in this context. The forum however is not a public space. It is for use by MJers who are registered. I object to being approached in this manner and will place this message in the sphere of forumites to register my objections publically!
Research has to be conducted within an ethical framework and I would like to have further information regarding the time frame, purpose and nature of this research, including possible publications and the names of supervisors of regulatory bodies. Some researchers do use this lurk and capture method, so not to prejuduce their findings however this method is not one I am personally comfortable with and I am not happy for my contributions to be used in this context.

What a cheek! We are not a zoo..
and this seems like very poorly supervised research. :rofl:

azande
9th-March-2005, 01:15 PM
snip


Haven't received anything (obviously with only 300 post I'm not elite!! :wink: ) but

:yeah:

Graham
9th-March-2005, 01:25 PM
obviously with only 300 post I'm not elite!! :wink:
How do you know it was number of posts which dominated his criteria? It might have been good looks, charm, or dancing ability. :wink:



(Yes, I did receive one as it happens :na: )

azande
9th-March-2005, 01:31 PM
How do you know it was number of posts which dominated his criteria? It might have been good looks, charm, or dancing ability. :wink:



(Yes, I did receive one as it happens :na: )

wher it says....
You have been identified as one of the top (elite?) few posters

and I'm not disputing DianaS good looks, charm, or dancing ability. :wink:

stewart38
9th-March-2005, 01:33 PM
Now its in the public domain thats fine

philsmove
9th-March-2005, 01:35 PM
How do you know it was number of posts which dominated his criteria? It might have been good looks, charm, or dancing ability. :wink:



(Yes, I did receive one as it happens :na: )

I got one too _ so good looks, charm, and dancing ability are clearly the criteria :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Gadget
9th-March-2005, 01:36 PM
{my reply to the PM...}

I am conducting some research on the Forum with a view to indentifying how well it acts as a snapshot of the 'average' MJ'ers opinion on a range of topics.
This has been discussed before, on many an occasion: what you will find is that most folk who are on here are ones with a passion for MJ - these folk tend to be more advanced than average and have been doing it long enough to form an opinion. Obviously, there is a high proportion of commercial opperators because to become one, you have to have a passion for MJ in the first place!

Those with a passion are also more likley to enter competitions, so you will also find that the cross section of the MJ community is not well balanced in this area either.


You have been identified as one of the top (elite?) few posters according to the criteria I have used - and I would now like to include the quantity of your contributions in one of two categories - 'Average', or 'non-Average'.
I would hope that everyone's contribution is based on it's own merrits: I have seen some sparkling insights from folk who post mainly drivel, and some real drivel from folk who are normally quite lucid and informative.
"Elite" I would dispute - in fact I would condone the whole thing of trying to cattegorise people - it leads to segregation, division and an "us vs them" philosophy that is detrimental to the whole forum community.


That you have no objection to your name featuring on the list. (If you do have an objection please still tell me which category you fit into, but your name will be replaced with Anon
I have every objection to anyone's name being on any list. If you are curious about the quality of postings: that's what the "rep" system is an indication of. If you are curious about the commercial operators: that's why they are in italics.

In summary: the forum is not a balanced representation of the MJ community, however they all have the community at heart and are generally thinking on serving it rather than themselves.

DianaS
9th-March-2005, 01:39 PM
think I'll add
But "don't quote me on this" to my signature!
Sorted! :rofl: :rofl:

If you don't agree to your stuff being used just add a signature! THat will clarify things!

Minnie M
9th-March-2005, 01:39 PM
I have just received a PM from El Salsero Gringo and wasn't aware that our forum was being used for research purposes ........../snip/......What a cheek! We are not a zoo ..:

:yeah: :angry: :yeah:
Only good thing about it - I AM ELITE !!! (You have been identified as one of the top (elite?)) however

I am not a number :mad: I am real MOUSE :flower:

azande
9th-March-2005, 01:44 PM
This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and permission is not given to quote or use the content outside the ceroc scotland forum

:rofl: :yeah: :rofl:

That should be added to the terms of use of the forum!

Lynn
9th-March-2005, 01:48 PM
I have every objection to anyone's name being on any list. Though as this was sent via PM and people will reply via PM - each person can decide if they want to be on a list or not.

And 'top' probably refers to either number of posts, rep or a combination of both. (I thought the 'elite' was a bit tongue in cheek as there was a ? after it, rather than actually a 'quality' description.)

stewart38
9th-March-2005, 01:50 PM
Though as this was sent via PM and people will reply via PM - each person can decide if they want to be on a list or not.



I dont think i was given that option :sick:

El Salsero Gringo
9th-March-2005, 01:57 PM
In light of the fact that this matter is already in the public domain, I think it might clear up any misunderstandings if I post a PM I have just sent to Diana and by cc to Franck, in response to the one from her that begins this thread:




Hello Diana (and cc to Franck too.)

Thanks for your response. I suspect that if I give you some more details of what I have done and what I hope to do that will allay many of your concerns, and we can then address (with Franck and any other interested people) whether I should continue or not.

My intention is to start a new thread to discuss whether the forum is representative of the MJ 'average customer' . It's very easy to have an opinion on the matter but I wanted to provide a little data to base an opinion on.

I have surveyed, (by computer, but could have done it by hand) the 100 most recently updated threads in the "Let's talk about dance" forum. I have counted the number of contributions by each contributor. This is all information that is available not only to each forum member - but to the general public - since that forum is open. (Indeed, Diana, if you go to www.google.com and search for the two words DianaS and Ceroc you may get a surprise...)

I note that of the 4192 postings included, 75% come from just 50 contributors - each of whom I have asked by PM to tell me in which of the two categories in my email they consider themselves.

It was my original intention, depending on whether people wished for anonymity, to publish the data as to whether most posts came from people who were simply, and by their own admission, more 'connected' to MJ than the average customer.

No one is obliged to answer either question that I asked, and it was always foremost in my mind that without explicit permission to include the name I should not do so - despite, as I say, the information already being in the public domain.

I have no formal qualifications in statistics, research - other than a scientific background (nor any interest in statistics outside this Forum) and I totally agree it would be quite improper to use the Forum for any purpose other than to provide some interesting data for other forum members.)

Could I ask you (and Franck, although at the time of writing I've not heard from him) to consider your opposition in the light of this information and let me know your position?

Best wishes

ESG



With this information, perhaps anyone with a continuing objection would wish to comment further? Or I am happy to be PM'd privately if they prefer.

I should add, that the vast majority of the responses I have received so far have been enthusiastically positive to the inclusion of names.

Northants Girly
9th-March-2005, 02:10 PM
Sure Stewart it IS a PUBLIC forum but . . . .
Though as this was sent via PM and people will reply via PM - each person can decide if they want to be on a list or not.

:yeah:

David Franklin
9th-March-2005, 02:17 PM
I have surveyed, (by computer, but could have done it by hand) the 100 most recently updated threads in the "Let's talk about dance" forum. I have counted the number of contributions by each contributor. This is all information that is available not only to each forum member - but to the general public - since that forum is open. (Indeed, Diana, if you go to www.google.com and search for the two words DianaS and Ceroc you may get a surprise...)The line where 'data mining' becomes unacceptably intrusive will vary depending on the individual. Personally, at the point where I get PM'd because of it, you've crossed the line.


I should add, that the vast majority of the responses I have received so far have been enthusiastically positive to the inclusion of names.Given the responses on this thread, that should probably tell you something about the validity of your survey...

Dave

drathzel
9th-March-2005, 02:21 PM
How do you know it was number of posts which dominated his criteria? It might have been good looks, charm, or dancing ability. :wink:



(Yes, I did receive one as it happens :na: )


Naw.... I recieved one too!

TheTramp
9th-March-2005, 02:23 PM
I responded. It took a minute to scan the PM, and about the same to succinctly reply.

It wasn't really asking anything that anyone who's been on here for more than 5 seconds didn't know about me anyhow.

I didn't really find it particularly obtrusive.

I'm really quite laid back.

Northants Girly
9th-March-2005, 02:27 PM
I responded. It took a minute to scan the PM, and about the same to succinctly reply.

It wasn't really asking anything that anyone who's been on here for more than 5 seconds didn't know about me anyhow.

I didn't really find it particularly obtrusive.

I'm really quite laid back.
:yeah: It dosn't take much to wind some folk on on here though :rolleyes:


So you got one too eh Trampy?

That throws a spanner in the works then as far as possible selection criteria are concerned ;)

El Salsero Gringo
9th-March-2005, 02:29 PM
Sorry to be so dull, but the selection criteria were simply the 50 most prolific (read: mouthy) posters in the 100 most recently updated threads in the 'Let's talk about dance' forum.

Actually, I think you're all gorgeous.

TheTramp
9th-March-2005, 02:31 PM
That throws a spanner in the works then as far as possible selection criteria are concerned ;)
Probably sent to me out of sympathy, since no-one else ever sends me any PMs :tears:

Graham
9th-March-2005, 02:32 PM
Given the responses on this thread, that should probably tell you something about the validity of your survey...
Whether or not people like being surveyed doesn't necessarily affect the validity of the survey one way or the other. Perhaps he wasn't clear enough in his PM about what he was doing and why, but we will be able to judge for ourselves the quality of his data when he publishes his results.

Gadget
9th-March-2005, 02:35 PM
Though as this was sent via PM and people will reply via PM - each person can decide if they want to be on a list or not.

And 'top' probably refers to either number of posts, rep or a combination of both. (I thought the 'elite' was a bit tongue in cheek as there was a ? after it, rather than actually a 'quality' description.)
Yes, it was sent Via PM - and Salsero has explaind above what he should have explained in that initial PM. The reason for objecting to "anyone" being on the list is that these people are then branded as "Elite" - above average - better than the rest of us... So this forum now has 79% of the contributers an 'elite' status. (eg) These are the only ones worth listening to. If you are anyone else (not on the list), why bother posting? why bother joining? it's obviously not for you. :mad:
Have a look at the "hotshot" (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3740)thread for my views about eliteism.

I like it here. It's one of the least segregated and most welcoming places you will find. I object to people trying to draw lines and shunt some people in one area ond others in another. The lines are never that clear.


I do not object to the statistics, or the collection of them - numbers and quantity from various posters. What I do object to is trying to put opinions into the statisitcs: especially when you are asking people "do you consider yourself to be above average?" :rolleyes:

If he had use some method of getting "average/not average" numbers from the rep system and commercial status I would be a lot more comfortable with it.
As it stands, I will be casting doubt on any results or conclusions it attempts to draw from this supurious information.

drathzel
9th-March-2005, 02:35 PM
Sorry to be so dull, but the selection criteria were simply the 50 most prolific (read: mouthy) posters in the 100 most recently updated threads in the 'Let's talk about dance' forum.

Actually, I think you're all gorgeous.

Hey i resent that!!! :whistle: I am just opinionated! :innocent:

Clive Long
9th-March-2005, 02:39 PM
Probably sent to me out of sympathy, since no-one else ever sends me any PMs :tears:

Rubbish

We crossed swords a couple of days ago out of public gaze (via PM) over one of my alcohol-fuelled postings. Perhaps I don't count - or you don't care anymore.

Warning: Don't be seduced by Trampy's blatant attempt to solicit PMs.

Clive

David Franklin
9th-March-2005, 02:40 PM
Whether or not people like being surveyed doesn't necessarily affect the validity of the survey one way or the other. Perhaps he wasn't clear enough in his PM about what he was doing and why, but we will be able to judge for ourselves the quality of his data when he publishes his results.I was obviously unclear. I question his data, because he says the vast majority of responses were positive, while many on this thread are not. I would expect a high correlation between non-respondants and people who do not want to be associated by name with his survey. (His PM does not have an opt-out option). Thus we have a case of selection bias...

Dave

Lory
9th-March-2005, 02:42 PM
I don't find it particularly intrusive :confused:

And it's nice to know that although I'm in the lowly of category's '2', I can still be elite! :waycool: :D

Clive Long
9th-March-2005, 02:42 PM
<< snip >>
Actually, I think you're all gorgeous.

... and where is your statistical evidence to back that up?

I think you should conduct a survey to find out :whistle:

Clive

Lory
9th-March-2005, 02:52 PM
The reason for objecting to "anyone" being on the list is that these people are then branded as "Elite" - above average - better than the rest of us... So this forum now has 79% of the contributers an 'elite' status. (eg) These are the only ones worth listening to. If you are anyone else (not on the list), why bother posting? why bother joining? it's obviously not for you. :mad:

:confused:

bigdjiver
9th-March-2005, 02:58 PM
One of my motives in using this forum is to learn, so, in that sense, I too am using it for research. One way I do that is to present my opinions here. If the take a beating I am "smarting, but smarter".
Postings here can be read by anybody, anywhere in the world, if they are able to join the forum. It does not take a passport and 17 references to do that.

CJ
9th-March-2005, 03:04 PM
I don't find it particularly intrusive :confused:

And it's nice to know that although I'm in the lowly of category's '2', I can still be elite! :waycool: :D

Is ALWAYS better to be a category 2 than a number 2!!! :what:

:D

CJ
9th-March-2005, 03:06 PM
Rubbish

We crossed swords a couple of days ago out of public gaze (via PM) over one of my alcohol-fuelled postings. Perhaps I don't count - or you don't care anymore.

Warning: Don't be seduced by Trampy's blatant attempt to solicit PMs.

Clive

Well, he is a TRAINEE solicitor!! :rolleyes:

DianaS
9th-March-2005, 03:07 PM
In light of the fact that this matter is already in the public domain, I think it might clear up any misunderstandings if I post a PM I have just sent to Diana and by cc to Franck, in response to the one from her that begins this thread:




Hello Diana (and cc to Franck too.)

Thanks for your response. I suspect that if I give you some more details of what I have done and what I hope to do that will allay many of your concerns, and we can then address (with Franck and any other interested people) whether I should continue or not.

My intention is to start a new thread to discuss whether the forum is representative of the MJ 'average customer' . It's very easy to have an opinion on the matter but I wanted to provide a little data to base an opinion on.

I have surveyed, (by computer, but could have done it by hand) the 100 most recently updated threads in the "Let's talk about dance" forum. I have counted the number of contributions by each contributor. This is all information that is available not only to each forum member - but to the general public - since that forum is open. (Indeed, Diana, if you go to www.google.com and search for the two words DianaS and Ceroc you may get a surprise...)

I note that of the 4192 postings included, 75% come from just 50 contributors - each of whom I have asked by PM to tell me in which of the two categories in my email they consider themselves.

It was my original intention, depending on whether people wished for anonymity, to publish the data as to whether most posts came from people who were simply, and by their own admission, more 'connected' to MJ than the average customer.

No one is obliged to answer either question that I asked, and it was always foremost in my mind that without explicit permission to include the name I should not do so - despite, as I say, the information already being in the public domain.

I have no formal qualifications in statistics, research - other than a scientific background (nor any interest in statistics outside this Forum) and I totally agree it would be quite improper to use the Forum for any purpose other than to provide some interesting data for other forum members.)

Could I ask you (and Franck, although at the time of writing I've not heard from him) to consider your opposition in the light of this information and let me know your position?

Best wishes

ESG



With this information, perhaps anyone with a continuing objection would wish to comment further? Or I am happy to be PM'd privately if they prefer.

I should add, that the vast majority of the responses I have received so far have been enthusiastically positive to the inclusion of names.
You should had said this in the first place!
Seriously, do you think you need to get out more?? :rofl: :rofl: :wink: :flower:

Minnie M
9th-March-2005, 03:11 PM
Sorry to be so dull, but the selection criteria were simply the 50 most prolific (read: mouthy) posters in the 100 most recently updated threads in the 'Let's talk about dance' forum.

Actually, I think you're all gorgeous.

gorgeous and mouthy :rolleyes: yep.... that could be me :whistle:


Seriously, do you think you need to get out more??
:yeah:

Graham
9th-March-2005, 03:16 PM
I like it here. It's one of the least segregated and most welcoming places you will find. I object to people trying to draw lines and shunt some people in one area ond others in another. The lines are never that clear.


I do not object to the statistics, or the collection of them - numbers and quantity from various posters. What I do object to is trying to put opinions into the statisitcs: especially when you are asking people "do you consider yourself to be above average?" :rolleyes:

If he had use some method of getting "average/not average" numbers from the rep system and commercial status I would be a lot more comfortable with it.
As it stands, I will be casting doubt on any results or conclusions it attempts to draw from this supurious information.
I may be wrong, but I think you are drawing the opposite conclusion to the one intended. I do not believe that the intention was to mark category 1 people as more "worth listening to" than anyone else, but to mark them as unrepresentative of the average dancer. I have a subjective view on the extent to which this forum is representative of the average dancer, but I will certainly be interested to see the results of the survey.

Sheepman
9th-March-2005, 03:20 PM
I responded. It took a minute to scan the PM, and about the same to succinctly reply.

It wasn't really asking anything that anyone who's been on here for more than 5 seconds didn't know about me anyhow.

I didn't really find it particularly obtrusive.

I'm really quite laid back. :yeah:
I suppose the initial pm should have explained a bit more, I made the assumption that it was to do with a new thread, but even if it was for "external" use, there wasn't going to be information there about me that isn't already available. I thought the use of the term "elite" was OTT, but accepted the explanation that it related to numbers of posts.

Am I too laid back, am I likely to get duped into revealing too much to "outside agents"? I don't think so!

Greg

Minnie M
9th-March-2005, 03:30 PM
I think a lot of you are loosing the point - it was not what or why it was done it is the way it was done

Zebra Woman
9th-March-2005, 03:37 PM
I may be wrong, but I think you are drawing the opposite conclusion to the one intended. I do not believe that the intention was to mark category 1 people as more "worth listening to" than anyone else, but to mark them as unrepresentative of the average dancer. I have a subjective view on the extent to which this forum is representative of the average dancer, but I will certainly be interested to see the results of the survey.

Yeah I thought the same as you Graham. I thought ESG was intending to try identify the contributors to this forum who are not representative of the average MJ dancers.

Rather than being treated as some kind of elite I was assuming the opposite. That the non-average people's views /votes would be taken with a pinch of salt cos they're not representative of the average.

Not sure where it's all leading :confused:

TheTramp
9th-March-2005, 03:50 PM
I think a lot of you are loosing the point - it was not what or why it was done it is the way it was done
Not at all....

My comments (which several people have agreed with) were designed to say that it took a miminal time to read and respond (far less than this thread!). I didn't find it offensive or obtrusive, or seeking any 'secret' information.

And given that I don't like filling in this sort of thing usually, didn't mind the way it was done (although, I too did wonder at the use of the word 'elite', but flattery will get you everywhere (I'm told)).

That's just my view. Other people didn't appreciate it. Which is just as valid as my view. Anyhow, moving on...

CJ
9th-March-2005, 03:54 PM
Not sure where it's all leading :confused:

Doomed....

We're ALL dooooomed...

CJ
9th-March-2005, 03:56 PM
but flattery will get you everywhere

Franck, you're the best.

Fancy a shag?!?

Andy McGregor
9th-March-2005, 04:00 PM
I was honoured to receive a PM from El S G. I'm very laid back about the whole thing. There's not enought real statistics on here. Even bigdjiver was going to post a spreadsheet peppered with assumptions to do with health, dancing and smoking. Something based on real data will be nice :flower:

TheTramp
9th-March-2005, 04:01 PM
Franck, you're the best.

Fancy a shag?!?
He's getting himself ready.

Asked me to tell you to pop on over. You know the address.

Take flowers and chocolates, so that he doesn't feel too cheap though :flower:

DianaS
9th-March-2005, 04:16 PM
He's getting himself ready.

Asked me to tell you to pop on over. You know the address.

Take flowers and chocolates, so that he doesn't feel too cheap though :flower:

Er Trampy how is it that NG and I were courted with crumpets, and Franky warrants the full works??
What does that say about us then eh?? :whistle:

TheTramp
9th-March-2005, 04:21 PM
Er Trampy how is it that NG and I were courted with crumpets, and Franky warrants the full works??
What does that say about us then eh?? :whistle:
Ah. The crumpet. That most magnificent beast of a food item. In my book, a single crumpet is worth far more than measly chocolates or flowers.

(You may not understand this until you have seen DavidB and Tiggerbabe sharing crumpet on my bed!) :whistle:

TheTramp
9th-March-2005, 04:21 PM
Ah. The crumpet. That most magnificent beast of a food item. In my book, a single crumpet is worth far more than measly chocolates or flowers.

(You may not understand this until you have seen DavidB and Tiggerbabe sharing crumpet on my bed!) :whistle:
Okie. So I know that I'm reaching here :blush:

El Salsero Gringo
9th-March-2005, 04:21 PM
So this forum now has 79% of the contributers an 'elite' status. (eg) These are the only ones worth listening to. If you are anyone else (not on the list), why bother posting? why bother joining?
With respect Gadget - the word elite was used ironically. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, in what was, after all, not a public communication. (Besides which if you want to encourage a reply, a little bit of flattery goes a long long way, as The Tramp pointed out.)

I'm not sure where your 79% figure comes from - not from me, certainly. The only thing I've said is that 75% of the posts in the sample came from 50 people. That's a pretty neutral statement of fact, and hiding it makes it no less true.


What I do object to is trying to put opinions into the statisitcs: especially when you are asking people "do you consider yourself to be above average?" :rolleyes:
I deliberately didn't use the word above average, for that reason. I have acknowledged to you, privately (and I'm happy to do so here) that with hindsight I should have chosen another word. What I *did* say was average or non-average. Nor was the word "average" used in connection with dancing skill, where it might be taken as perjorative, but in relation to position within the MJ scene.


If he had use some method of getting "average/not average" numbers from the rep system and commercial status I would be a lot more comfortable with it.
The rep system is useless in this case - because all it tells is how highly rated the poster is on the Forum, and has no bearing on the outside world. What I wish to do is to examine a possible correlation between the number of posts on the Forum and to what extent, measured by some arbitrary metric, the poster represents an "average MJ'er".

Yes, my choice of metric - being 0 or 1 based on the criteria listed - is arbitrary. I have already acknowledged one omission, that competitive dancers are not 'representative' and should have been included in my category 1. But I will stick with my original choice, and If you think that error alone invalidates the study - so be it. No one would be more delighted than I if, after reading whatever results I can produce, someone turns around to say - "ESG - that's a load of b*ll and what you should have done is..." - and -it's a big 'and' - goes on to show me how it should have been done.

As for using the commercial status - yes, that is part of it. But I didn't feel that that simple distinction alone examined the question I am interested in. I drew *my* dividing line with some care, acknowledging that it is a judgement call. Having made my choice, the only way to find out which side of that line people lie was to ask them - not for their opinion of their 'averageness' but for a fact-based decision based on the criteria I had already set. Hence the PM.


As it stands, I will be casting doubt on any results or conclusions it attempts to draw from this supurious information.
In other words, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts"??

DianaS
9th-March-2005, 04:26 PM
With respect Gadget - the word elite was used ironically. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, in what was, after all, not a public communication.




The rep system is useless in this case - because all it tells is how highly rated the poster is on the Forum, and has no bearing on the outside world. What I wish to do is to examine a possible correlation between the number of posts on the Forum and to what extent, measured by some arbitrary metric, the poster represents an "average MJ'er".


As for using the commercial status - yes, that is part of it. But I didn't feel that that simple distinction alone examined the question I am interested in. I drew *my* dividing line with some care, acknowledging that it is a judgement call. Having made my choice, the only way to find out which side of that line people lie was to ask them - not for their opinion of their 'averageness' but for a fact-based decision based on the criteria I had already set. Hence the PM.

Hi El Gr
If you're still interested, I'm a definate number 2-er and my full unabridged story can be bought for the price of a coupla crumpets or the odd muffin -
Plus a night with Franck :whistle:

Gadget
9th-March-2005, 04:55 PM
I'm not sure where your 79% figure comes from - not from me, certainly. the (eg) after the statement was a clue that it was an example. I suppose if I had put it after the number it would have been clearer, but it would spoil the flow of the sentance. :rolleyes:


I deliberately didn't use the word above average, for that reason. I have acknowledged to you, privately (and I'm happy to do so here) that with hindsight I should have chosen another word. What I *did* say was average or non-average. Nor was the word "average" used in connection with dancing skill, where it might be taken as perjorative, but in relation to position within the MJ scene.??
In that case I'm even more inclined to doubt any results: who is "average"? Mathematically, you are either above average, or below average. In percentage terms only 1% of people are "average".
In objective terms, you have to rely on people first conjecting what they consider "average" to be, then comparing themselves to it. Two variables that have no common baseline between one person and another.


What I wish to do is to examine a possible correlation between the number of posts on the Forum and to what extent, measured by some arbitrary metric, the poster represents an "average MJ'er".
Well, define an "average MJ'er" and we can all have this common base-line. What about people that fit into one or two of the criteria and not them all? What about people that fit into most of the criteria but not them all?


I drew *my* dividing line with some care, acknowledging that it is a judgement call. But you havn't! you've asked everyone to make their own line and then said that all the lines are the same.


In other words, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts"?? no: in otherwords "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

CJ
9th-March-2005, 05:29 PM
Ah. The crumpet. That most magnificent beast of a food item. In my book, a single crumpet is worth far more than measly chocolates or flowers.

(You may not understand this until you have seen DavidB and Tiggerbabe sharing crumpet on my bed!) :whistle:

See....

Tiggerbabe WOULD BE the crumpet on MY bed!! :wink:

:yum: :devil: :yum:

El Salsero Gringo
9th-March-2005, 06:10 PM
you've asked everyone to make their own line and then said that all the lines are the same.

Categorically, no. While I see and regret the ambiguity in my phraseology that might lead you to your erroneous interpretation, the facts are: the line was drawn arbitrarily by me. Having been so drawn, the decision as to which side of that line an individual falls is to be made on the criteria as listed:

Venue owners, franchisees, teachers, taxi-dancers, DJ's, promoters, commercial Forum members or anyone with a remote connection to running a venue or dance company - and also anyone who has four or more years of dance (not necessarily MJ) experience - in one category

Everyone else in another.

In the cases where an individual has explained that they feel that the criteria wrongly placed them in a particular category I insist on a strict interpretation of the (arbitrary) rule.

In one case an individual has requested anonymity on the basis that the strict interpretation places him or her in the same category as teachers, an association with which they don't feel comfortable. While I'm sorry that they feel this way, the criteria stay as they are.

Following on from this discussion, I think it would focus discussion on the more interesting points *not* to include *any* names at all, so everyone may now rest assured that all categories, and posting counts will be anonymized.

Lynn
9th-March-2005, 06:23 PM
I dont think i was given that option :sick: You must have got a different PM from the rest then - mine said
I would be very grateful if you could confirm for me ... That you have no objection to your name featuring on the list. (If you do have an objection please still tell me which category you fit into, but your name will be replaced with Anon

Oh, just noticed the post above. Anyway, my point was that permission was being asked from each individual.

Clive Long
9th-March-2005, 06:26 PM
Categorically, no. While I see and regret the ambiguity in my phraseology that might lead you to your erroneous interpretation,

etc. etc. etc.


... and what exactly is the point of all of this persiflage ????

Northants Girly
9th-March-2005, 06:28 PM
You must have got a different PM from the rest then - mine said
:yeah: mine said that too


you must be elite Stewart ;)

Northants Girly
9th-March-2005, 06:30 PM
... and what exactly is the point of all of this persiflage ????It's a competition of course . . . to see who knows the most long words . . . :whistle:

El Salsero Gringo
9th-March-2005, 06:32 PM
... and what exactly is the point of all of this persiflage ????
It whiles away a quiet afternoon.

By the way, don't use words that you need to look up on the Net to know if you've spelt them right (and used them right, for that matter.) Now go play, and leave the adults to discuss such weighty matters.

(Coming soon to a thread near you, a Forum Poll: "How many angels can Ceroc on the head of a pin?")

Andy McGregor
9th-March-2005, 06:37 PM
There's been so much, seemingly deliberate, misunderstanding about who said what to who. Anyone remember what the original proposal was? :confused:

Clive Long
9th-March-2005, 06:40 PM
<< quote >>
By the way, don't use words that you need to look up on the Net to know if you've spelt them right (and used them right, for that matter.) Now go play, and leave the adults to discuss such weighty matters.
<< snip >>

In case you missed it, that was ESG trying to be witty and provocative - and failing

But how did you know I checked? Spooky.

Northants Girly
9th-March-2005, 06:41 PM
(Coming soon to a thread near you, a Forum Poll: "How many angels can Ceroc on the head of a pin?")Well it twas you who started it ESG ;)

Clive Long
9th-March-2005, 06:42 PM
<< snip >>
Anyone remember what the original proposal was? :confused:

To which the obvious answer is ...

Does anyone care?

El Salsero Gringo
9th-March-2005, 06:46 PM
There's been so much, seemingly deliberate, misunderstanding about who said what to who. Anyone remember what the original proposal was?

No one could possibly remember the original proposal, because I haven't written it yet.

In what might be considered a perfect example of "getting your retaliation in early", everything said on this topic so far is a result of just one PM I sent this morning.

I believe it's traditional to attack any kind of research *after* it's been published (or at least written) - but then if we stuck to tradition we'd all be dancing Pavannes to the sound of a lute, (wearing shoes so pointy they have chains from the toe round our ankles) rather than Modern Jive.

Magic Hans
9th-March-2005, 06:57 PM
In case you missed it, that was ESG trying to be witty and provocative - and failing

But how did you know I checked? Spooky.


I know the feeling!!! :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:

Oh so very well!!! :tears: :tears: :tears: :tears:







:wink:

Lou
9th-March-2005, 07:12 PM
wearing shoes so pointy they have chains from the toe round our ankles
Hey! Don't knock it till you try it! :wink:

DianaS
9th-March-2005, 07:28 PM
There's been so much, seemingly deliberate, misunderstanding about who said what to who. Anyone remember what the original proposal was? :confused:
I DO! I started it!
There were two proposals:-

Does:-
1 Ceroc Jock has his wicked way at the price of a few measely flowers and a coupla chockies
or
do NG and Dianas get to have tea and crumpet with Franckie and then tell all?

With a poll to indicate level of:-
anonymousless (webcam or no webcam)
elitistism (why are we the chosen few)
or
whether we would be better off devouring ZW's muffins :clap: :yeah:

Now, take that upstairs!

Magic Hans
9th-March-2005, 07:37 PM
I think a lot of you are loosing the point - it was not what or why it was done it is the way it was done

:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

I agree ... to a point. Personally I see nothing sinister in what is being done/asked for, but feel it might have been done better.

Maybe starting up a thread with a statement of intent, and I certainly have addressed any "mailshot" type letter "Dear Dancer/MJer/Forumite" (or something) unless it was to Quakers .... where "Dear Friend" is fairly standard

Still, it seems that the original intent has been clarified, even if it does not have entirely universal appeal.

I do hope, however, that nothing is blown out of proportion!

Cheers ... Ian

Tiggerbabe
9th-March-2005, 07:41 PM
See....

Tiggerbabe WOULD BE the crumpet on MY bed!! :wink:

:yum: :devil: :yum:
:kiss: Thanks petal,

- actually, they were mini Danish pastries but no-one seemed to notice
:wink: :wink: :drool:

Minnie M
9th-March-2005, 08:06 PM
It's a competition of course . . . to see who knows the most long words . . . :whistle:
:yeah: was trying to think of a big word to replace the above, somebody was have borrowed my dictionary & theosorus (that's why the spelling is bad too) :rofl:


anonymouseless (webcam or no webcam)
:innocent: don't bring my cousin into this argument please :flower:

TheTramp
9th-March-2005, 08:07 PM
:kiss: Thanks petal,

- actually, they were mini Danish pastries but no-one seemed to notice
:wink: :wink: :drool:
Hey. That's not true. You had both. Ate all my food.... :D

Tiggerbabe
9th-March-2005, 08:20 PM
Hey. That's not true. You had both. Ate all my food.... :D
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: crikey - you were paying attention!!!!!! :hug:

Franck
9th-March-2005, 08:42 PM
No one could possibly remember the original proposal, because I haven't written it yet.

In what might be considered a perfect example of "getting your retaliation in early", everything said on this topic so far is a result of just one PM I sent this morning.Hi Salsero.

Just to give my perspective on all this, I love the idea that we work out the composition of the Forum, and whether its members are 'elite' or not, we could have a thread about it, even a Poll...

I do however dislike the use of mass private messages as it smacks of SPAM! Private messages are intrusive, as most people will receive an email notification (often at work) and assume the message comes from someone they know / trust.

Anyway, I obviously don't post enough these days as I wasn't sent a PM, but if it's relevant, I would be in category 1 :wink:

TheTramp
9th-March-2005, 09:04 PM
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: crikey - you were paying attention!!!!!! :hug:
Only to ensure that you received the best possible service, and everything that your heart desired.

Okie. Someone pass the bucket now!!

Tiggerbabe
9th-March-2005, 09:16 PM
everything that your heart desired.
next time, bring Nutella :wink:

TheTramp
9th-March-2005, 10:20 PM
next time, bring Nutella :wink:
Does she dance in Dundee?? :confused:

Mary
9th-March-2005, 11:42 PM
Think I now understand why ESG has that avatar! :wink: :D :D

M

stewart38
10th-March-2005, 02:51 PM
:yeah: mine said that too


you must be elite Stewart ;)

I’m actually illiterate

But option was with or without name no option to be excluded ?

But who cares I've responded a good idea me thinks.

The forum 'obviously' isnt representative of your standard Jiver. Lets see how that 'obvious’ stands out.

me

Wendy
16th-March-2005, 12:43 AM
Jeez !!!! I'm amazed people have taken this so seriously .. but then I'm a laid back naive poppet with nothing to hide.. :innocent:

I got a PM and answered... I didn't find it intrusive and let's face it we could just ignore it and not reply if we wanted... and I wasn't flattered by the elite thing...it was clearly tongue in cheek ...

I imagine 20% of the members will make 80% of the posts.. isn't that always the answer ???

And what is an average cerocer ???.... possibly one of the hundreds of people who only come once and don't even get to hear about the forum perhaps ???? Clearly those of us with more experience are going to have more to say and contribute more often and over a longer period than those who drop out after 6 months... and maybe cos we are addictive types we'll get addicted to the sound of our own typing too ???? :eek:

IMO everyone's opinion is valid here ..whether you have been dancing for 6 months or 6 years.... I think it's a great place !!!!

I speak less here than I used to and I dance less too.. I eat more chocolate though.. damn !!!!!!

Looking forward to the results... although what I'd really like to know is why people don't come back.... they disappear so we'll never really know...

Wx

azande
16th-March-2005, 01:03 AM
next time, bring Nutella :wink:

I will, but only if we share!!!! :drool: :wink:

Dreadful Scathe
16th-March-2005, 10:41 AM
You have been identified as one of the top (elite?) few posters according to the criteria I have used - and I would now like to include the quantity of your contributions in one of two categories - 'Average', or 'non-Average'.

I think this reads like a Readers Digest prize winner letter 'You have been indentified...' :). I took the elite literally, I assumed it was mainly to do with number of posts. (For anyone who doesnt know, the steps below 'elite' are 'deadly' and 'dangerous' :) ).

Apologies ESG for never replying to this, Ive been busy :) According to your criteria though, I'm catagory 1 as I'm a taxi dancer and have also been dancing longer than 4 years, not that it shows :)

This thread is further evidence that the people on this forum could see a conspiracy theory surrounding Mother Theresa! WHY did she devote her life to ease suffering ? What was her real agenda ? ;) I think we should have a poll on who believes the Apollo moon landings were faked. :)

DianaS
16th-March-2005, 12:07 PM
Hi DS
it's interesting how the context that you read something affect the way that you respond! It seems like a storm in a tea cup, but El gringo whatsit pushed a few buttons and I felt that it was only appropriate to raise the issues in the forum.

Unfortunately I opened the PM and responded the way I would do at work, unsolicited emails presuming that I was happy to be included in some sort of research asking me how (not if) I want my contributions to be included and credited.
A damn cheek! But I have never met El gringo whatsit and wasn't made clear on the context for the research that it was just a bit of fun and not for external publication. Within this context I have no issues at all!

My remaining reservations about would be researchers are that I am aware of how data can be mined appropriated and misued.

Yes I know of people who conduct highly questionable research and publish it. And I know of at one anthropologist in the Milton Keynes area who is a dancer and uses his position in the community to take field notes analyse other peoples behaviour in order to extend his own publishing capability. Its something that I'm rather uncomfortable with as I feel its an invasive and intrusive and I question his motivation, highly voyeristic and focusing on the sexual dynamics of dance.

Its probably not an issue or will ever be an issue, but it may be helpful if to avoid potential exploitation of this group we decided whether we are happy for our contributions to this forum to be quoted outside the forum.

I don't know if people are aware that forum data can be turned into publised research so here are a few examples that may be of interest:-

1993 Dibbell, J. The Village Voice pp. 36-42 December 21
A Rape in Cyberspace or How an Evil Clown, a Haitian Trickster Spirit, Two Wizards, and a Cast of Dozens Turned a Database into a Society

Erickson, T 1997 Social Interaction on the net:Virtual Community as Participatatory Genre 2000

Noriko Hara Rob Kling 2000 Students’ Distress with a Web-based Distance Education Course

stewart38
16th-March-2005, 01:14 PM
Jeez !!!! I'm amazed people have taken this so seriously .. but then I'm a laid back naive poppet with nothing to hide.. :innocent:

I got a PM and answered... I didn't find it intrusive and let's face it we could just ignore it and not reply if we wanted... and I wasn't flattered by the elite thing...it was clearly tongue in cheek ...


Wx

The whole point of it was ... if you ignored it you would still be included in it

Ill do research into Taxi dancers in scotland, ill ask you to take part if you dont want to no worries. I will still use you and go through all the post you have done :sick:

I dont care about the pole now its been explained and 'el grego' can use my stats but it is odd how people react to things i agreed.

El Salsero Gringo
16th-March-2005, 01:38 PM
Actually, you didn't have an option *not* to take part. It wasn't *you* that was taking part, it was the postings you had already made on a public forum, and not the content of them, only their quantity. If they weren't identified as coming from you (and that was the option you were given) you didn't have the right to ask me not to count them. Not once you'd posted them where anyone could read them.

stewart38
16th-March-2005, 01:48 PM
Actually, you didn't have an option *not* to take part. It wasn't *you* that was taking part, it was the postings you had already made on a public forum, and not the content of them, only their quantity. If they weren't identified as coming from you (and that was the option you were given) you didn't have the right to ask me not to count them. Not once you'd posted them where anyone could read them.

Do you see my point :whistle:

El Salsero Gringo
16th-March-2005, 02:02 PM
I do very much see your point. I just don't think it has any merit. Sorry.

CJ
16th-March-2005, 02:09 PM
I just don't think it has any merit.

And your little project does?!?

DianaS
16th-March-2005, 02:10 PM
Actually, you didn't have an option *not* to take part. It wasn't *you* that was taking part, it was the postings you had already made on a public forum, and not the content of them, only their quantity. If they weren't identified as coming from you (and that was the option you were given) you didn't have the right to ask me not to count them. Not once you'd posted them where anyone could read them.

Hmmm El Salsero Gringo you occupy an interesting position here. There have been some stimulating and vigourous debates on the use of public forums. A couple of texts you may be familliar with are below...

Jones, S., Ed. (1999). Studying the net:Intriciacies and issues. Doing internet Research. London, Sage.
Sharf, B., F, Ed. (1999). Doing Internet research. Beyond Netiquette: The ethics of Doing Naturalistic Discourse Research on the Internet. London, Sage.

El Salsero Gringo
16th-March-2005, 02:31 PM
And your little project does?!?

I think it has some small merit, yes. That might be more apparent if it's read for the fairly limited conclusions it contains, rather than the grandiose and overblown ones that a few people mistakenly or deliberately read into it - the bigger and better target that they might have for their rocketings.

Of course, I'm happy for you to make up your own mind.

CJ
16th-March-2005, 02:33 PM
Of course, I'm happy for you to make up your own mind.

I revel in your happiness: thank you.

stewart38
16th-March-2005, 03:17 PM
Jones, S., Ed. (1999). Studying the net:Intriciacies and issues. Doing internet Research. London, Sage.
Sharf, B., F, Ed. (1999). Doing Internet research. Beyond Netiquette: The ethics of Doing Naturalistic Discourse Research on the Internet. London, Sage.

Can I borrow these on my flight to Las vegas on saturday, i need a light read :sick:

DianaS
16th-March-2005, 03:57 PM
Can I borrow these on my flight to Las vegas on saturday, i need a light read :sick:

NAh Practice your line dancing mate! This stuff is for saddoes

stewart38
16th-March-2005, 04:01 PM
NAh Practice your line dancing mate! This stuff is for saddoes


Did you know you can go line dancing in las vegas and the one time i went I enjoyed it

I use to line dance a lot (yrs back) but it got popular was taken over by women and put in big leisure centres by teachers who only knowledge of line dancing was of a CD (thats just an opinion)

Back on thread when is the results of this research likely to be published ?

El Salsero Gringo
16th-March-2005, 04:05 PM
It was, a few days ago.

How representative is the Forum: results (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4902)

Northants Girly
16th-March-2005, 04:08 PM
Did you know you can go line dancing in las vegas and the one time i went I enjoyed it

I use to line dance a lot (yrs back) but it got popular was taken over by women and put in big leisure centres by teachers who only knowledge of line dancing was of a CD (thats just an opinion)

Back on thread when is the results of this research likely to be published ?No no Stewart please carry on talking about the line dancing :)

It sounds so much more interesting than this thread is now getting . . . yawn yawn

El Salsero Gringo
16th-March-2005, 04:09 PM
This thread actually died a few days ago. You're only imagining that there's anything new to read.