PDA

View Full Version : How representative is the Forum: results



El Salsero Gringo
10th-March-2005, 02:59 AM
Summary

A survey of 100 recently updated threads was taken and the number of contributions from individuals was tallied. Each contributor was assesed against given criteria for their eligibility to be included in a group of 'representative' MJ customers, and the number of their respective contributions summed by category of 'representative', 'non-representative' and 'unknown'.

Of the 4192 posts surveyed, 57.0% were from 'non-representative' posters, 15.7% from 'representative' posters and 27.3% from posters whose inclusion in either of the other two categories could not be determined.

The survey concludes that more than half of the postings on the Forum come from a non-representative group of highly-experienced dancers or dancers with connections to venues and operators. Care should therefore be taken in extrapolating from the consensus of opinion on the Forum to the wider MJ world.

Method

An automated web-bot analysed the 100 most recently updated threads (as reported at 10 am, 9 March 2005 in the Let's talk about Dance forum.

An a priori assumption was made based on the marketing of MJ and Ceroc in particular as an easy-to-learn dance for non-dancers that the 'typical' MJ customer has less than 4 years of dance experience, and no personal connection to running a venue or dance institution. (The author acknowledges that this could only be verified with access to commercially sensitive data held by venue operators, and that he has no such access.)

The 50 most prolific posters among the surveyed group were PM'd to to assess themselves and reply as to whether they fell into any of the following groups:

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.
From the replies received and from other postings on the Forum (in particular the threads How Long? (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4514) & By Way of Introduction (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=798)) along with personal knowledge of the author, the contributors were assigned to the category of 'representative of a median MJ dancer' (those not meeting any of the above criteria) or 'unrepresentative of the same' (those meeting at least one of the above criteria.)

Results

The 100 threads yielded 4192 posts written by 241 contributors. Of the 50 top contributors contacted, 28 replies were recieved returning the requested information, three replies explicitly declining to answer and, at time of writing, the Forum software reports that 4 more have not yet read the PM requesting the information. A further 15 are therefore judged to have declined to respond.

Overall, 90.3% of the posts came from the top 100 posters, and 73.5% from the top 50 posters. The single most prolific poster had written 315 messages, or 7.5% of the total, more than double the next highest contributor. 54 posters each contributed only one message.

After analysis it was determined that 57.0% of the posts were written by 'non-representative' posters, 15.7% by 'representative' and the categorisation of the authors of the remaining 27.3% of the posts analysed could not be determined.

A cumulative frequency graph of the results in all three categories is included as an attachment to this posting. The horizontal axis marks the rank of the poster arranged in order of number of posts, the vertical axis the cumulative percentage of posts up-to and including that poster. The blue area marks 'non-representative' posters, the yellow 'representative', and the white area is posts whose authors are of category unknown.

Conclusion

Relying on an assumption that the contents of the 100 surveyed threads are a representative sample of Forum postings, and noting that more than half of the total number of posts surveyed were provided by Forum members who are highly experienced or connected with running a venue or dance organisation, the author concludes that it cannot be claimed without a case-by-case justification that the consensus of opinion expressed on the Forum matches or is even indicative of the wider MJ scene.

While there is no bar to Forum members having the same breakdown of opinions on individual issues as all MJ dancers as a whole, the demonstrated disparity between the make-up of those writing on the Forum and what might be (reasonably assumed to be) a representative group of MJ dancers makes this anything other than a foregone conclusion.

The author also feels that amongst the 1320 or so currently registered Forum members are a significant number of less experienced but equally comitted dancers whose opinions on the wide range of topics on the Forum are equally valuable (or given their relative scarcity, more valuable) to maintaining a healthy debate than those of the 'old hands'. The author hopes that by seeing to what extent they are currently absent they will be encouraged to become "as mouthy as the rest of us."

Acknowlegements and thanks

It has been pointed out by ChrisA (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/member.php?u=555) and others that entering in MJ competition is also a 'non-representative' activity and that this should have been included as a relevant selective criterion.

The author would like to thank all those individuals who have taken the time to critique the methodology and motivation behind this study, most of which can be found in the thread Forum Research (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4896), and particularly Gadget (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/member.php?u=225), whose trenchant criticism considerably strengthened this work by demanding consideration and where necessary, clear-headed rebuttal. Thanks also to all those people who took the trouble to reply to the PM asking for their help, and my apologies to those for whom the receipt of a PM was an unwarranted intrusion. Errors and omissions are of course, entirely mine.

Chicklet
10th-March-2005, 03:08 AM
Anyone out there think this is telling them something they didn't already know? :flower:

El Salsero Gringo
10th-March-2005, 03:29 AM
Anyone out there think this is telling them something they didn't already know? :flower:
Yes; me.

But I'm obviously not as smart as you or else I wouldn't have needed to see the results before making up my mind.

( :flower: )

Simon r
10th-March-2005, 08:54 AM
Yes; me.

But I'm obviously not as smart as you or else I wouldn't have needed to see the results before making up my mind.

( :flower: )

For some reason i think you need to get out more ......

thanks for such an in depth report, but as previously replied i think as a group we were already aware thart those that new about the forum, posted on the forum and spent most evenings dancing were prehaps not the avarage MJ dancer.

Andy McGregor
10th-March-2005, 09:52 AM
The single most prolific poster had written 315 messages, or 7.5% of the total, more than double the next highest contributor. 54 posters each contributed only one message.
I so often find myself on the cutting edge of these graphs - or one edge or the other of a bell shaped curve.

I still remember my surprise at this when I was subjected to my first bank of psychometric and IQ tests. I wasn't surprised at myself, I know how I am - it was how different everyone else is that surprised me :blush:

Of course the people who post on the Forum aren't normal/average. My guess it that the regular Forum posters are people with a lot to say about MJ. That can't be average: most people let their dancing speak for itself :waycool:


And then there are some dancers who are too abnormal to even come here ...

.. did he have time to do her zip back up before the knee landed? :whistle:

Magic Hans
10th-March-2005, 10:12 AM
nice little analysis!!!

I can't say that I entirely know what to make of it .... but nice anyway!!

Kind of reminds me of my physics experiment write ups at school ..... or how they ought to have been!!!


:flower: :flower:
Ian

MartinHarper
10th-March-2005, 10:23 AM
Anyone out there think this is telling them something they didn't already know? :flower:

I had guessed this, though I'm a little surprised at exactly how unrepresentative we are. I believe that a few folks have expressed an opinion that the forum is representative of the MJ world as a whole. For example, regarding clapping (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=98044&postcount=25):


I think we are very representative

Stuart M
10th-March-2005, 10:26 AM
<all that statistician stuff>

One other factor to bear in mind is the number of Modern Jivers with no (or limited) internet access, of course. Still a significant portion I'll bet

Oh, and Graham, good luck with the job-hunting... :D

El Salsero Gringo
10th-March-2005, 10:41 AM
i think as a group we were already aware thart those that new about the forum, posted on the forum and spent most evenings dancing were prehaps not the avarage MJ dancer.
Up until this point, anyone who 'knew' that there was a link between postings and dance experience was making an assumption.

You might be happy with that; for the little difficulty involved I prefer to check. And now that I've done so, you don't need to assume any more. You know.

Anyone who claims to 'know' about a connection between how many evenings per week Forum members dance and how often they post is still making an assumption. Or else they've done their own research and not shared the results.

Simon r
10th-March-2005, 10:53 AM
Up until this point, anyone who 'knew' that there was a link between postings and dance experience was making an assumption.

You might be happy with that; for the little difficulty involved I prefer to check. And now that I've done so, you don't need to assume any more. You know.

Anyone who claims to 'know' about a connection between how many evenings per week Forum members dance and how often they post is still making an assumption. Or else they've done their own research and not shared the results.

As i have been on the MJ scene for quite a while i know most of those that do post so not assumption but knowledge of my fellow forumites. Well done but not sure how it helps us

Aleks
10th-March-2005, 10:55 AM
How many hours did this survey take to compile and interpret?

I would most certainly rather have spent my time dancing and enjoying the company of both representative and unrepresentative MJ'ers.....

ChrisA
10th-March-2005, 11:20 AM
I had guessed this, though I'm a little surprised at exactly how unrepresentative we are. I believe that a few folks have expressed an opinion that the forum is representative of the MJ world as a whole.

Be careful how you interpret this survey.

ESG's survey shows the relationship between level of postings and dance experience amongst those on the forum. It shows (given the definitions he's given us) that those that post most are relatively unrepresentative of the population of forum members at large.

It tells us nothing about how representative forum posters (or non-posters for that matter) are of the MJ world at large, because it gives no direct information about that - for that, we have only the sort of assumptions that ESG is talking about, or the sort of direct first hand knowledge that Simon is talking about.

Simon r
10th-March-2005, 11:40 AM
Be careful how you interpret this survey.

ESG's survey shows the relationship between level of postings and dance experience amongst those on the forum. It shows (given the definitions he's given us) that those that post most are relatively unrepresentative of the population of forum members at large.

It tells us nothing about how representative forum posters (or non-posters for that matter) are of the MJ world at large, because it gives no direct information about that - for that, we have only the sort of assumptions that ESG is talking about, or the sort of direct first hand knowledge that Simon is talking about.



:yeah:

Lory
10th-March-2005, 11:54 AM
From my own point of view, it was interesting reading and no harm done :nice: but will have no impact or change the way I look at the forum or interpret any threads. :nice:

As Simon Says, out of the top 50 posters I probably know most of them in one way or another and as for the faceless, postless 'guests' I'm still none the wiser as to who they are or what they make up it/us all! (although I sometimes have my suspicions :wink: )!

El Salsero Gringo
10th-March-2005, 12:05 PM
Simon, Chris,


It shows (given the definitions he's given us) that those that post most are relatively unrepresentative of the population of forum members at large.
With respect to you both, this is incorrect. There's no data included about the distribution of Forum members at large, and so few conclusions can be drawn about the sample of posters relative to Forum members as a whole.


It tells us nothing about how representative forum posters ... are of the MJ world at large It might not - but it was intended to. If you think it doesn't then it's up to you to be specific about which assumptions I've made are wrong, or how the conclusion that I've drawn is false.


we have only the sort of assumptions that ESG is talking about, or the sort of direct first hand knowledge that Simon is talking about.
These are two quite different things.

To judge the experience-level of who is is posting on the Forum, Simon favours the use of his own (hearsay and/or experiential) experience, which I prefer to replace with the results of a brief survey. At least then I can quantify the size of the gaps in my knowledge, whereas Simon won't know what he doesn't know - if you see what I mean.


To judge the 'average' MJ dancer, Simon and I both rely on assumptions of who that dancer is. I have at least identified my assumptions for others to criticize.

It may be that Simon, as an experienced teacher with more contact with punters, has an idea for a better benchmark of the 'average' dancer than the one I used - but if he has, he hasn't put it forward yet.

djtrev
10th-March-2005, 12:22 PM
For what its worth, regardless of ESG's findings I still think the members on this forum are representative because thats what I want to think!!!
Apart from that the whole thing passed over my head at a great height and at great speed which is where it will stay.

As somebody has already said - get out more :wink: :wink:

Simon r
10th-March-2005, 12:27 PM
So from the minority of replies recieved you have based your entire theory on the structure and make up of the forum, lets be honest your representation of the forum and the manner you have collected your data is completely flawed.
I do not feel you have any basis on the data that you have collected to give a true or unbiased representation of the forum.
My question still stands what are you trying to achieve, show, as i still see no real conclusion.
I am not being argumentative but the tone of your mail seems aggresive.
As a fairly new member to the forum and to the MJ scene i am sure you have only the best intrest's at heart, but the tone you are setting will put peoples backs up.

Lynn
10th-March-2005, 12:28 PM
Hmm, could you look at this the other way - not just the contribution to the forum of 'non-representative' dancers - but the contribution of the forum and association with it to making dancers more 'non-representative'??

(OK, probably only applies in my case I know!)

David Franklin
10th-March-2005, 12:44 PM
It tells us nothing about how representative forum posters ... are of the MJ world at large
It might not - but it was intended to. If you think it doesn't then it's up to you to be specific about which assumptions I've made are wrong, or how the conclusion that I've drawn is false.I think the big flaw is weighting the survey by number of posts. That most posts are made by experienced dancers does NOT imply most posters are experienced dancers (your survey says nothing at all about the 80% or so of posters who fell outside the top 50 and were not questioned).

I understand why you feel some kind of weighting is important, but I think what you've done goes too far the other way. Consider 2 people arguing over something for 200 posts, and then a 3rd party steps in with a single post that makes everything clear, and discussion stops. Your analysis would have the 2 bickerers being far more influential on "forum consensus" than the 3rd party, when that clearly isn't the case. That's an extreme example, but not entirely without basis IMHO.

Not that I have experience in this area, but for a formal study I think you would also need to be a lot clearer about how you assigned people to one category or another. My impression from what you wrote is that you both occasionally put people in a different category from what they said themselves, and that you also categorised the non-respondants based on other information on the forum. I suspect either action would be hard to justify in a more formal scenario.

On the other hand, in a lot of ways this is nitpicking. I would agree we're not representative in the statistical sense - because the most representative MJer is probably the person who went twice and gave up. But nearly everyone here went twice and thought about giving up, so I'd like to think we can represent even that person's views - at least a little bit...

Dave

ChrisA
10th-March-2005, 01:17 PM
With respect to you both, this is incorrect. There's no data included about the distribution of Forum members at large, and so few conclusions can be drawn about the sample of posters relative to Forum members as a whole.

Agreed, my apologies, I'd forgotten the PMs you sent were only to a selected few.



It might not [tell us anything about how representative forum posters ... are of the MJ world at large] - but it was intended to. If you think it doesn't then it's up to you to be specific about which assumptions I've made are wrong, or how the conclusion that I've drawn is false.

David F summed it up well, in a PM to me telling me (quite rightly, and very nicely) that I was talking cack :D...



The survey doesn't really say anything about "forum members at large", because he didn't send those people a PM. What he's done is arbitrarily define what is an unrepresentative dancer, and found that most of the heavy posters fit that definition.

All you've done is establish that most of the people that post a lot don't meet your definition of an average MJ dancer. You haven't measured anything about the quality of the posts, or whether they actually express opinions, or whether those opinions, where expressed, are shared by the average dancers, whether forum members or not.

So I don't see how the survey shows anything at all about how representative the opinions expressed here are of the MJ world at large.

Speaking for myself, when I wasn't any of the things that fitted your definition of 'non average' I didn't even have opinions on many of the things discussed here, since I didn't know there were opinions there to be had.



To judge the experience-level of who is is posting on the Forum, Simon favours the use of his own (hearsay and/or experiential) experience, which I prefer to replace with the results of a brief survey. At least then I can quantify the size of the gaps in my knowledge, whereas Simon won't know what he doesn't know - if you see what I mean.

I don't think this is true. You analysed the forum to find out who the top posters are, and asked them which category they were in. Simon (as do many of the top posters, of course) knows personally many of the top posters, and enough of their dance background to know which of your categories they fit into.

His experiential knowledge is at least as accurate as the survey results, I would surmise.

On a related note, I just hope this thread isn't going to be used as ammunition for what seems to me to be an increasing tendency for people that take things like technique, music, competitions etc, seriously, to be labelled as elitist.

Lou
10th-March-2005, 01:39 PM
.... and the number of their respective contributions summed by category of 'representative', 'non-representative' and 'unknown'. ....
Hiya,

Am totally confused by this whole thread (but that's not hard). Where's the research that determines what is "representative" or "non-representative" of a 'typical' MJ customer?

In your "Method" section, you've assumed:


based on the marketing of MJ and Ceroc in particular as an easy-to-learn dance for non-dancers that the 'typical' MJ customer has less than 4 years of dance experience, and no personal connection to running a venue or dance institution.

Now, maybe things are different in other parts of the MJ world, but the classes I regularly go to have 2 distinct demographics. For example, the Yate & St Bon's classes have a good proportion of new beginners, and also a large group of regular dancers who have been attending for many years. I think it's reasonable to class both types as "typical", based on my observations, however only the new beginners would be "representative" of a "typical" MJ Customer in your terms.

And that's without going down the route of examining the contents of posts to the forum in terms of "quality", which others have already highlighted as being essential.

Perhaps this is a daft question, but why do you need to determine whether the forum is representative of the MJ community as a whole? Maybe if we knew the answer to this, perhaps it would help determine how we should analyse the results?

El Salsero Gringo
10th-March-2005, 02:42 PM
I think the big flaw is weighting the survey by number of posts. That most posts are made by experienced dancers does NOT imply most posters are experienced dancers (your survey says nothing at all about the 80% or so of posters who fell outside the top 50 and were not questioned).

I understand why you feel some kind of weighting is important, but I think what you've done goes too far the other way. Consider 2 people arguing over something for 200 posts, and then a 3rd party steps in with a single post that makes everything clear, and discussion stops. Your analysis would have the 2 bickerers being far more influential on "forum consensus" than the 3rd party, when that clearly isn't the case. That's an extreme example, but not entirely without basis IMHO.

The reason for the weighting was that a disinterested observer who scans the threads would be influenced more by someone who had posted 50 times than by someone who had only posted once. I accept that the weighting could have been done differently, but that was my best effort approach.

I didn't want to show that most posters are experienced dancers - I did want to show that most posts were by experienced dancers. I think that was achieved. Not an earthshattering conclusion, but I was happy to demonstrate that there was fact behind it.

As for the 80% or so outside the top 50, even without questioning them I was still able to make accurate determinations of the category of a further 33 simply from their public postings. To have questioned everyone in the survey would have been even more of an intrusion, a point I think you yourself raised.




Not that I have experience in this area, but for a formal study I think you would also need to be a lot clearer about how you assigned people to one category or another. My impression from what you wrote is that you both occasionally put people in a different category from what they said themselves, and that you also categorised the non-respondants based on other information on the forum. I suspect either action would be hard to justify in a more formal scenario.


I don't think I could possibly be any clearer, but I will try to be now: There was no ambiguity whatsoever about how people were assigned to which category. Where someone said "I organise dances but I want to be in category 2" - I used the fact that they organised dances to put them in category 1, as per the criteria, rather than as they requested. Where someone had publicly posted on the Forum that they started dancing in 1998 - I put them in Category 1 since they have been dancing for more than 4 years. Where I had no reply from them, and I couldn't find very strong evidence for a decision - I recorded them as 'unknown'. Hence the large uncertainty about the precise result.



On the other hand, in a lot of ways this is nitpicking. I would agree we're not representative in the statistical sense - because the most representative MJer is probably the person who went twice and gave up. But nearly everyone here went twice and thought about giving up, so I'd like to think we can represent even that person's views - at least a little bit...
Dave

That's a fair point.

El Salsero Gringo
10th-March-2005, 02:55 PM
Hiya,

Am totally confused by this whole thread (but that's not hard). Where's the research that determines what is "representative" or "non-representative" of a 'typical' MJ customer?

In your "Method" section, you've assumed:



Thank you.

That is the big flaw. We're working on my assumption of what a 'typical' MJ customer is, and I have no factual basis for my opinion. I will do what I can to plug this gap, since I am genuinely interested in the demographic. But you are the only person to have picked up on it.



And that's without going down the route of examining the contents of posts to the forum in terms of "quality", which others have already highlighted as being essential.

I'm not brave enough to start ranking posts by quality! But I don't think it is essential....


Perhaps this is a daft question, but why do you need to determine whether the forum is representative of the MJ community as a whole? Maybe if we knew the answer to this, perhaps it would help determine how we should analyse the results?
...because I wanted to provide a counter argument to anyone who is tempted to say that because their poll or their thread on the Forum reveals a consensus on a particular issue that forms any kind of evidence that the whole MJ world feels the same way and that venue operators had better take note or else.

Thank you, Lou, for your critique. I appreciate it.

Lou
10th-March-2005, 03:23 PM
...because I wanted to provide a counter argument to anyone who is tempted to say that because their poll or their thread on the Forum reveals a consensus on a particular issue that forms any kind of evidence that the whole MJ world feels the same way and that venue operators had better take note or else.

:nice: Perhaps we should have a poll on whether we think the forum is composed of typical MJ dancers? Or, indeed, whether an operator is wise to make a business decision based solely on an opinion poll - and in particular one posted on an internet forum?

David Franklin
10th-March-2005, 03:23 PM
The reason for the weighting was that a disinterested observer who scans the threads would be influenced more by someone who had posted 50 times than by someone who had only posted once. I accept that the weighting could have been done differently, but that was my best effort approach.But would they really be influenced 50 times more? Given that your results crucially depend on the weighting system, I think you shrug this off too lightly. In particular, in your reply to Lou, you say:


I wanted to provide a counter argument to anyone who is tempted to say that because their poll or their thread on the Forum reveals a consensus on a particular issue that forms any kind of evidence that the whole MJ world feels the same way and that venue operators had better take note or else.Of course, in a poll, the important factor is the number of posters not the number of posts. You can only vote once, after all...

Dave

Chicklet
10th-March-2005, 05:50 PM
Yes; me.

But I'm obviously not as smart as you or else I wouldn't have needed to see the results before making up my mind.

( :flower: )
Ouch :what:
Two years of observation and participation here gave me an expectation of what the results would be, nothing to do with "smart" my friend.

Gadget
10th-March-2005, 09:59 PM
:D :devil:
I don't believe that I agree with ChrisA again :what:, but he and most of the other posters make very good points about the validity of the results and what conclusions can be drawn from them.

One small factor I think has been overlooked: all these category 1 (or is it 2?) people who have "influence over the MJ community" may not currently be classed as an "average dancer" - but they have been, and as the recent First time impressions (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4797) thread shows, we have never forgotton where we started or the path that led us to where we are now. The views held by the 'elite' have just as valid an opinion as the views held by someone just started or your target "average" dancer. In some topics more validity because of this experiance. (eg Martin Harper, ChrisA, Bill, David Franklin et all have all competed several times. The 'average MJer' could discuss competitions, but I would trust the affore mentioned people's opinions over theirs.)

"Unrepresentative of the 'average' MJer" may not be a complete falsehood - the "Average" MJer may let apathy dictate their involvment in the MJ community as a whole. The "Average" MJer may not be bothered what music is played by whom. The "Average" MJer may not care about the floor, the lighting, the crew, the moves taught, the state of the toilets,... It's only by the intervension and feedback from all these people you brand "elite" that the MJ community grows, expands and improves.
Why should we strive to be "average"? or feel guilty about not being "average"? I am glad for all the "Unrepresentative" people here, and I for one will always strive to be better than "average".

I think that the fact 90% of the posts are by the top posters is a curiosity, but one that could be surmised without spamming the top 50 posters on the forum.


...because I wanted to provide a counter argument to anyone who is tempted to say that because their poll or their thread on the Forum reveals a consensus on a particular issue that forms any kind of evidence that the whole MJ world feels the same way and that venue operators had better take note or else.
rather than go over old ground, see this thread: Modern Jive Dancers Association (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4363)

{PS: if the aim was to target those who have an "influence over the MJ community", then I submit that anyone who posts to this forum can have an impact.}

ChrisA
10th-March-2005, 10:36 PM
:D :devil:
I don't believe that I agree with ChrisA again :what:

Nope, nor me... I must have been wrong... :devil:

But then again, maybe a miracle has happened... cos I strongly agree with this:


Why should we strive to be "average"? or feel guilty about not being "average"? I am glad for all the "Unrepresentative" people here, and I for one will always strive to be better than "average".

A lot of my striving to be 'not average' includes looking up to those that are a lot more 'not average' than myself, and I know how sad it would be for me if they suddenly disappeared!!

Talking of which, Lily, if you're reading this, please persuade David to start posting here again, and ignore any eejits that might have ****ed him off... :hug: :flower:

El Salsero Gringo
11th-March-2005, 12:50 AM
Gadget,

There's a fair amount of implied criticism of what I've done in your last post, which I'm happy to take on the chin. You've made it very clear both by PM and public posting that you didn't want me to do the research, that you thought my methods were flawed, that my results would be meaningless, and that by publishing them I would cause harm - and that was before I had even written a word. And now, when I read what you write, it still feels like you're railing against issues I simply haven't raised.

And in return, I've put down your objections in a sledge-hammer kind of way. I suppose sometimes it's easy to forget that there's another person at the end of each post - and a fellow dancer, at that.

But I am curious about one thing: what did I (or anyone) write that leads you to ask:
Why should we strive to be "average"? or feel guilty about not being "average"? It's powerful rhetoric which will win you the nodding head of every reader - but what is it about this thread that made you feel it was a question that needed to be posed?

frodo
11th-March-2005, 01:11 AM
... I would agree we're not representative in the statistical sense - because the most representative MJer is probably the person who went twice and gave up. ...
DaveThe average most of interest is perhaps the average of those that turn up on a notional average night.

So experienced dancers may not be so unrepresentative, as Lou's post points pointed out.

bigdjiver
11th-March-2005, 02:53 AM
...Talking of which, Lily, if you're reading this, please persuade David to start posting here again, and ignore any eejits that might have ****ed him off... :hug: :flower:As I rercall I first saw David and Lily at the Le Jive Championships, and was blown away by their virtuso performance. I wished I could do 1/3 of what he did. (but no more that 1/3 - I have no ambitions on such an acrobatic performance.) I have no doubt that they have been inspirational to thousands of others, and are a great asset to the MJ community.

David upset me buy butchering one of my posts to ridicule me, and I was angry because I see that as dishonest tactics. I suggested that he posted accurately my comments that he had issue with. He responded doing another post which again misrepresented my views, again not posting my actual statements. This made me really angry. I have spent a lot of time on this forum trying to get serious debate on the real issues that affect us, based on facts. I am happy that this forum is a place to play, too, but just hope people will respect those of us who believe we just may be able to contribute something worthwhile to the MJ scene. David and Lily are just two that could contribute much, and I hope that they will do so.

I was at fault for posting in anger, going over thetop, and for not checking that what I posted accurately expressed my views. IMO this does not make me an eejit, just an upset human being. I was horrifiede when I realised that what I had posted could naturally indicate intent, which never entered my mind for a moment.

I met my wife at the Orchid Ballroom in Purley. Ray MacVay played a waltz, and the watltz and the quickstep were the only two ballroom dances I knew any steps to, the equivalent of 4 beginner moves at MJ. This after weeks of classes. I grabbed the nearest tall girl - and that was that ...

The point of that story is that I knew from then that dance can change peoples lives for the better (though my wife may not be so convinced) and, having seen how much easier MJ is to learn, and how much more useful it is as a dance form, has made me a preaching convert for a long time.

I have seen the drive to increase standards in ballroom, and how it became elitist, and has all but vanished from the common dance scene of the youngsters. Obviously there are many other complex factors in its decline. I believe in MJ for the muggles, not just for the MJ'ers. MJ is obviously working, just as it is. It needs the continual excitement of change, but it also needs a careful hand on the wheel to stay on the right road. The fact is we do not know exactly how MJ works, and just how important each element is.

The make up of the MJ population is very skewed and differentiated. Talk of "the average" MJ'er is almost meaningless. Letting the dancers decide is dangerous. example - :devil: There are 120 dancers, enough to fill the venue, and 8 beginners. Why devote 45 minutes to them? Why pay a teacher and taxi dancers for them? Why have an intermediate class? The vast majority of us know enough to enjoy themselves. If anybody wants to learn let them go to a workshop. :devil:
So we drop the classes and get 75 minutes more freestyle, and it costs us £1 each less. Good for us dancers, but probably disasterous for the long term future of MJ, and for the long term business interests of the franchisees.

There are many possible decisions and strategies, all done with the best intentions, that will make it less likely that the non-dancers will join us. I want the benefits of MJ spread as widely as possible.

comments between :devil: icons are not my view.

Robin
11th-March-2005, 05:47 AM
Gadget,

There's a fair amount of implied criticism of what I've done in your last post, which I'm happy to take on the chin. You've made it very clear both by PM and public posting that you didn't want me to do the research, that you thought my methods were flawed, that my results would be meaningless, and that by publishing them I would cause harm - SNIPPED

Hmm ... methinks that this is all getting to serious but ..... from a statistical point of view, ESG's results are accurate if you bear in mind the following:-

a) That the top 50 posters are your "population"
b) That the top 50 posters will know each other
c) That the top 50 posters by definition will be extremely opinionated (else they would not *be* a top 50 poster!)
d) Any results can not be extrapolated to the "real" world on the basis that it is from a relatively biased group - which therefore renders any statistical analysis inaccurate anyway !
e) Its time for a coffee
f) I know that (e) above has nothing to do with statistics, but I thought I'd get a cheap laugh

ChrisA
11th-March-2005, 10:18 AM
David upset me by butchering one of my posts to ridicule me, and I was angry because I see that as dishonest tactics.
I don't want to restart the whole 'clapping in classes' debate up again here, or indeed anywhere, but I can't stand by and let someone I like and respect get a public slagging when he might not be around to defend himself. You might not have liked what he said but you are describing your interpretation of what was said as fact, and impugning someone's motives on that basis.

Indeed on the same thread David made clear that he wasn't intending to ridicule you; you may not have agreed with him, or even believed him, but he did say:


It was not in jest. It was pointing out a very obvious contradiction in your post. I'm glad you went on to explain your position in more detail.
Pointing out the inconsistencies in someone's argument in (what I took as) a mildly humorous way, is a perfectly reasonable thing to to IMHO - I thought it was a very effective way of drawing attention to a poor line of reasoning :wink:

If you don't like someone's views here, you have two choices: argue with them by putting your position in as cogent a way as you can, or ignore them.

FWIW, my reading of the way you argue your position is much as David clearly did: I'm unconvinced by your arguments because they make (IMO) unrelated things look related in order to support the view you take.

Here's another example:



I have seen the drive to increase standards in ballroom, and how it became elitist, and has all but vanished from the common dance scene of the youngsters. Obviously there are many other complex factors in its decline.

Taken together, you seem to be implying by these statements that you believe that a drive to increase standards made ballroom elitist, which consequently made it vanish from the common dance scene of the youngsters - but this is complete nonsense, as, IMHO, is any suggestion that clapping in classes has anything to do with whether they 'work' or not, whatever that means.

The real reasons it doesn't appeal much to youngsters have nothing to do with elitism or increasing standards - it's because

(a) it's very easy to perceive it as dancing for old people
(b) it doesn't feel very nice until you're quite good at it, so you have to work much harder before it's enjoyable.

But most importantly:

(c) the music is a million miles from anything they can relate to.

If you're going to use what are perceived as nonsense arguments, you should expect people to come back on them. If you then don't agree with their contrary view, then the debate can be continued for as long as people have the energy to attempt to achieve a mutual understanding.

:flower:

MartinHarper
11th-March-2005, 10:21 AM
(eg Martin Harper, ChrisA, Bill, David Franklin et all have all competed several times. The 'average MJer' could discuss competitions, but I would trust the affore mentioned people's opinions over theirs.)

Heh. I've competed once, in a small DWAS competition consisting of three couples, in which I achieved a glorious result of second equal.

Clive Long
11th-March-2005, 12:17 PM
Gadget,

There's a fair amount of implied criticism of what I've done in your last post, which I'm happy to take on the chin. You've made it very clear both by PM and public posting that you didn't want me to do the research, that you thought my methods were flawed, that my results would be meaningless, and that by publishing them I would cause harm - and that was before I had even written a word.
<< snip >>
ESG,

I have poked a bit at what you have done.

I was suspicious of your motive behind conducting the research - although I think you have answered that.

I disliked being described as an "elite" poster - I felt that was cheap flattery to try to elicit responses - I preferred the adjective "regular" or even "compulsive" poster to describe my frequency of posting.

I think your responses have been forceful yet lacked traces of personal attacks on your detractors.

I found your analysis impressive, quite over-whelming and don't think I have the capacity to absorb.

What I have taken from your work is that some / most / a lot of what is written as fact is just opinion and that forum posters might think about data-based arguments - a point already made by Franck - although they are tedious to construct, and sometimes just as tedious to read.

Clive (who needs Daniel Craig or Clive Owen for the next James Bond anyway?)

El Salsero Gringo
11th-March-2005, 01:17 PM
I think Franck should run a workshop on keeping your thread on track. This one seems to have gone completely off the rails.



I don't want to restart the whole 'clapping in classes' debate up again here...Well, don't then. Your reluctance doesn't excuse you.

....or indeed anywhere...Quite!

but I can't stand by and let someone I like and respect get a public slaggingOooh, go on, give it a try. Work on taking quiet satisfaction from the eloquence of giving the other guy the last word.

And, Clive? you can poke at me as much as you want - especially when you wear that red dress. <wink>

ChrisA
11th-March-2005, 01:29 PM
I think Franck should run a workshop on keeping your thread on track. This one seems to have gone completely off the rails.

Well, don't then. Your reluctance doesn't excuse you.
Quite!
Oooh, go on, give it a try. Work on taking quiet satisfaction from the eloquence of giving the other guy the last word.

And, Clive? you can poke at me as much as you want - especially when you wear that red dress. <wink>

Thought you said you were going to get out more?

:D

El Salsero Gringo
11th-March-2005, 01:37 PM
I'm waiting for Clive to ask me.

Robin
11th-March-2005, 01:59 PM
I'm waiting for Clive to ask me.


well - he hasn't - so I will ....
[Adam Nathanson Plug Mode On] Will you come to CerocMetro's "Boys & Basques" do at Nortel on Saturday 19th ? [Plug Mode Off]

Ooerr .. did I really do that ... ohmigod I hijacked a very on topic thread
:wink:

El Salsero Gringo
11th-March-2005, 02:17 PM
well - he hasn't - so I will ....
[Adam Nathanson Plug Mode On] Will you come to CerocMetro's "Boys & Basques" do at Nortel on Saturday 19th ? [Plug Mode Off]

Ooerr .. did I really do that ... ohmigod I hijacked a very on topic thread
:wink:
I gather it's Ceroc Metro's new Inquisitional Marketing technique (*), pioneered and honed by Adam himself (Jivemasters DVDs still available, no doubt.)

By the way Robin, I think you've got the fear and surprise bit down pat - but there's a way to go on the ruthless efficiency and attention to detail. (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=110068&postcount=3)


(*) No-one expects etc. etc.

Gadget
11th-March-2005, 10:17 PM
There's a fair amount of implied criticism of what I've done in your last post,Sorry - I didn't intend to only imply it :devil:

when I read what you write, it still feels like you're railing against issues I simply haven't raised.
Erm... this is an open forum. It is also a discussion. Such is the nature of discussion that unless you specifically chain down the notion you are trying to put forward, every angle will be looked at - just because you did not intend for people to see in in one particular way does not mean that they won't. (and there are enough pedants here that just about every loop-hole will be explored. :rolleyes: )
In this case, when key areas central to your argument are left as implied, or given a strong outline defined by weak rules, even more so.


But I am curious about one thing: what did I (or anyone) write that leads you to ask: It's powerful rhetoric which will win you the nodding head of every reader - but what is it about this thread that made you feel it was a question that needed to be posed?
Your conclusion:
The survey concludes that more than half of the postings on the Forum come from a non-representative group of highly-experienced dancers or dancers with connections to venues and operators. Care should therefore be taken in extrapolating from the consensus of opinion on the Forum to the wider MJ world.
and perhaps
the contributors were assigned to the category of 'representative of a median MJ dancer' or 'unrepresentative of the same
and further postings where you repeat the above claim in different words.

I read this as more than half of the people who are posting regularly have a passion and drive for MJ. And so their opinion is invalid in the rest of the MJ world and should not be taken as either representative or for the benifit of the MJ community.
I could look at exactly the same figures and conclude exactly the opposite opinion:
Emphisis should therefore be given to any consensus of opinion on the Forum as it applies to the wider MJ world.
This conclusion IMHO has a lot more validity than yours.

What I am reading you as saying is that by putting in hard work, passion and a lot of their life into becoming "better than average", they are no longer able to represent the "average" MJer. They no longer see what can be done to improve or develop, and are out of touch with the "average" MJer.
If this is not your stance, then your statistics and all conclusions drawn from them are worthless because everyone is in "class1" (or 2).

Bangers & Mash
12th-March-2005, 12:15 AM
What a load of absolute codswollop!

I have always thought that the forum is totally unrepresentative of the MJ community and so some form of lame statistical analysis of this proves absolutely nothing.

What I do think is that this is one of many sub-communities that have evolved and I personally have gained a lot from hearing different people's perspectives on certain things - what people like and dislike about dancing and dance partners being a prime example.

There are a number of people on the forum who I personally rate as good dancers, people I respect and people I like to dance with and talk to at venues.

I rate the opinions and take onboard (sometimes with a pinch of salt) a lot of what is said by many people on this forum because I respect what they have to say.

I don't understand the motives for this analysis and don't really care. I do think, however, that some of the comments and justifications are lame and acid and that the general ambience of the forum has declined over the last few weeks.

If this is what this analysis has brought to this community, then roll it up and post it!

It's nice to see a bit more of the friendly banter going on again over the last couple of days and to echo others in this thread, perhaps those that need to will get a life!

p.s. my shrink says that my pleasant character classes are coming on well!

MartinHarper
12th-March-2005, 01:58 AM
absolute codswollop! ... perhaps those that need to will get a life!

Good to see you contributing to the general ambience of the forum there, Bangers... :wink:

Clive Long
12th-March-2005, 09:19 AM
I'm waiting for Clive to ask me.
well - he hasn't - so I will ....
[Adam Nathanson Plug Mode On] Will you come to CerocMetro's "Boys & Basques" do at Nortel on Saturday 19th ? [Plug Mode Off]

Ooerr .. did I really do that ... ohmigod I hijacked a very on topic thread
:wink:
I enjoyed the previous Nortel event and I don't have anything to offer that comes close to that except an early tea with my Mum at the local Harvester, a cup of Horlicks and a bag of Werther's old originals.

Clive

stewart38
16th-March-2005, 05:09 PM
Hmm, could you look at this the other way - not just the contribution to the forum of 'non-representative' dancers - but the contribution of the forum and association with it to making dancers more 'non-representative'??

(OK, probably only applies in my case I know!)

Or you could see it as the contribution from the non representative forum dancers association being really representative or at least be seen as associatied with the representive non standard Jivers forum ?? Just an idea ?

Dreadful Scathe
16th-March-2005, 06:10 PM
The survey concludes that more than half of the postings on the Forum come from a non-representative group of highly-experienced dancers or dancers with connections to venues and operators. Care should therefore be taken in extrapolating from the consensus of opinion on the Forum to the wider MJ world.

I can also conclude that a large percentage of the posts come from experienced dancers called Steve, but its no big surprise that the Steves are not in any way representative of any other Steves still at large in the community. So, is there a surprise here ? I'd be surprised if anyone was surprised, surprisingly.

I can however speak for all smurfs :)

Gadget
16th-March-2005, 09:45 PM
I can also conclude that a large percentage of the posts come from experienced dancers called Steve, but its no big surprise that the Steves are not in any way representative of any other Steves still at large in the community. So, is there a surprise here ? I'd be surprised if anyone was surprised, surprisingly.

I can however speak for all smurfs :)
I would be surprised:what:: the steve that posts here is only a beginner! It says so on the forum. It must be true!

MartinHarper
12th-December-2006, 03:55 PM
Here's an article on the general phenomenon:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html

Lory
13th-December-2006, 09:36 AM
Here's an article on the general phenomenon:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html

Interesting stuff! :cheers: