Data Dumps yes or no?

[Yankeedave]

As the starter of the thread, I am not looking for legislation as much as advice and views of the members here.

Some of us have nothing else to do.

 

[Allie]

Good topic for a thread. I feel that something becomes a data dump when it's clearly designed to provide information that cannot be checked and rebutted. There's a difference between providing a lot of information for the sake of informing, and providing a lot of information for the sake of confusing. For example, cash often posts huge posts with many references, but his references are always clear and easy to look at, because his intention is for people to look at them and learn something. Wheras someone like 1st Vermont posted a lot of references without links to the originals or any information about the relevance or context, which was often the opposite of what was suggested by his quote, or a quote from a person allied to the **** movement and not regarded as an authority outside that movement.

 

[dlavin]

As someone mentioned before, consideration should be given to those who do not sign up on here, but read through the threads for information. As a product on the internet, that prides itself on accuracy, though with an asterisks since it is an open forum, people may be mislead. I wonder if there are people out there who have used CWT as a reference for a work? I'm sure the creators have thought of that already and have a disclaimer about the legitimacy of some of the information posted on here, and it is up to the individual to ultimately research the validity of said statements.

Whew...I'm no lawyer...

But then again, and speaking for the Life of a Slave thread, if there wasn't that level of information posted I wonder if there would have been the level of counter arguments, so could it be a good thing?

 

[Yankeedave]

At our best we jump on the chance to answer questions. i dont tend to see some people there. there was a time when this was a chat room and newbs got robbed. hence the lawyers.

 

[M.Warren]

As the starter of the thread, I am not looking for legislation as much as advice and views of the members here.

Understood. I just wanted to point out that many of the most informative threads here started with posts like the one in question. Sometimes its hard to differentiate between a troll post and someone that simply has a very unpopular view or opinion. I also think how these threads end up being viewed, many times depends on how other members choose to respond to them. Every member that replies contributes to the end result of a thread. I didn't think that blanket legislation was your answer, Jgoodguy. The idea of it just seems more harmful than helpful in most situations and I thought it was worth mentioning.

 

[CivilWarTalk]

Okay, here is an idea I'm floating.

What about adding a Thread rating system?

So we (and I still have to define who "we" is) would be able to vote on the quality of the thread. If a thread has 5 stars, it's a great thread. If the thread has 1 star, it's probably not worth your time.....

That might help the problem without creating new rules....

 

[John Winn]

Okay, here is an idea I'm floating.

What about adding a Thread rating system?

So we (and I still have to define who "we" is) would be able to vote on the quality of the thread. If a thread has 5 stars, it's a great thread. If the thread has 1 star, it's probably not worth your time.....

That might help the problem without creating new rules....

I think that's a good idea and seems easy (says me who knows nothing of web page design); not much different than the "like" tool it seems. After thinking about what others have said I wonder if somehow "we" might try to assemble thread links for some of the repeating topics of the sorts that generate all the data dumping. I don't know - black confederates, slavery as the cause of the war, Lincoln started it, was secession legal ... those sorts of subjects. A collection of thread references could be put under a list of subjects that have been addressed over and over, be assigned a sticky somewhere or even a new slot, and then when the subject comes up again one could simply say "go to the X forum and see item five for six hundred pages of discussion on that question/issue/position." It would be similar to some of the reference spots on the site.

In theory one could use the search tool but, frankly, I've not found that to be all that easy to use even when I know which thread I'm looking for. If we just started gathering and made a practice of such finding all those old threads would be easy for the new pilgrim.

And if one feels compelled to debate every "wrong" poster then they can do so but the rest of us could just refer to what's already been said, rate the "new" thread, and move on.

 

[CivilWarTalk]

I think that's a good idea and seems easy (says me who knows nothing of web page design); not much different than the "like" tool it seems. After thinking about what others have said I wonder if somehow "we" might try to assemble thread links for some of the repeating topics of the sorts that generate all the data dumping. I don't know - black confederates, slavery as the cause of the war, Lincoln started it, was secession legal ... those sorts of subjects. A collection of thread references could be put under a list of subjects that have been addressed over and over, be assigned a sticky somewhere or even a new slot, and then when the subject comes up again one could simply say "go to the X forum and see item five for six hundred pages of discussion on that question/issue/position." It would be similar to some of the reference spots on the site.

If one feels compelled to debate every "wrong" poster then they can do so but the rest of us could just refer to what's already been said (and rate the "new" thread).

That's a good idea as well, I'm going to mark it down, I'm working on a way to build a reference section for CWT, maybe even a small wiki just for CWT.

 

[Drew]

Okay, here is an idea I'm floating.

What about adding a Thread rating system?

So we (and I still have to define who "we" is) would be able to vote on the quality of the thread. If a thread has 5 stars, it's a great thread. If the thread has 1 star, it's probably not worth your time.....

That might help the problem without creating new rules....

This may lead to a rating system that indicates agreement with a thread's premise, rather than the quality and/or usefulness of sources presented in the discussion.

 

[Pat Young]

My one and only concern by NOT answering or challenging such posts is that many, lurkers/visitors/nonmembers who visit this forum and view such threads, will ultimately take our silence for consent of the views and misinformation presented by such a poster who "dumps" large volumes of bull.

Bingo!

I try to restrict myself to answering one such thread a month, and only if no one has raised the point I want to make or if there is an issue that is immigrant-related (Pat Cleburne, anyone?). But in doing searches for Civil War related research I often find that CivilWarTalk threads come up high in the search rankings, so I worry that high schoolers might get some really bad info if no one responds.

I think that 99% of the regular posters here, whatever their point of view, post in good faith. Those who don't stick out like a sore thumb, to us at least, but they may not to a young or inexperienced person.

 

[CivilWarTalk]

This may lead to a rating system that indicates agreement with a thread's premise, rather than the quality and/or usefulness of sources presented in the discussion.

That's why I stated that I wasn't sure yet who "we" would be defined as, because I don't really want "everyone" to go hog wild rating threads, per say. I'm not convinced yet that I am going to add said feature, but I am considering it as an option...

 

[M.Warren]

This may lead to a rating system that indicates agreement with a thread's premise, rather than the quality and/or usefulness of sources presented in the discussion.

Exactly. Good intention but historically opens the door for mob rule, a numbers game and a probability that popular opinion is possibly the only view accepted. When dealing with history which most times has two sides and then the truth, it doesn't feel like the best idea. Personally, I don't think it could be handled any better than the system in place now, in all honesty. This is just par for the course on the subject in my opinion.

 

[Schwallanscher]

Okay, here is an idea I'm floating.

What about adding a Thread rating system?

So we (and I still have to define who "we" is) would be able to vote on the quality of the thread. If a thread has 5 stars, it's a great thread. If the thread has 1 star, it's probably not worth your time.....

That might help the problem without creating new rules....

that we is the tricky part

[ ] posts
[ ] posts/likes
[ ] ordre de mufti
[ ] some sort of a voting system - everybody gets five votes to vote in true scholars (or whatever) - best x form the cwt rating counsel, will there be quotas for women, confederates, whatever?

i bet you get a bigger argument about that we than you have now with problematic threads

 

[diane]

Okay, here is an idea I'm floating.

What about adding a Thread rating system?

So we (and I still have to define who "we" is) would be able to vote on the quality of the thread. If a thread has 5 stars, it's a great thread. If the thread has 1 star, it's probably not worth your time.....

That might help the problem without creating new rules....

If it were open to all posters, would there be a way to keep one poster from bumping up/down the rating by numerous votes? Some folks would bang-bangity-bang away if not! I'm not sure how that would keep the agenda-driven, the trolls or the folks who need anger management sessions from lowering a rating on a good thread just because they got mad or just can, or doing the same to up a poor thread because it's about what they want to project. That said, a thread ratings system might be the fairest solution.

 

[jgoodguy]

Some observations

Sometimes I repeat things just because I was taught that repetition is a good form of communication.

Academic threads on a particular subject or refuting a book, idea or such takes a bunch of time and dedication.
Simple and cheap is likely to get done in a volunteer environment.

Voting has its goodness.

• Nothing beats it for simplicity.
• Will tell group sentiment not some 'truth'
• Depends on participation. ; 100 votes likely to be accurate representation of group sentiment, 5 not so much.

 

[67th Tigers]

If it were open to all posters, would there be a way to keep one poster from bumping up/down the rating by numerous votes?

Or cliques. I've seen many discussion groups destroyed by cliques developing and shouting down all opposition to their ideology. The worst I've ever seen were forums where a clique got one of their own made a moderator and hence started deleting contrary opinions and expelling the opposition, which won't happen here of course.

 

[CivilWarTalk]

If it were open to all posters, would there be a way to keep one poster from bumping up/down the rating by numerous votes? Some folks would bang-bangity-bang away if not! I'm not sure how that would keep the agenda-driven, the trolls or the folks who need anger management sessions from lowering a rating on a good thread just because they got mad or just can, or doing the same to up a poor thread because it's about what they want to project. That said, a thread ratings system might be the fairest solution.

If we added this ability, it wouldn't be open to everyone.

Here's how it would work, if 4 people give a thread 5 stars, and one person gave a 1 star to the same thread, it might bump it down to 4 stars total, and it would get 2.5 stars if there was a 50/50 split of 1 and 5 star votes. 2, 3, and 4 star votes would be weighted accordingly. The server is good at doing maths!

It's not that different to what most e-commerce sites use, like Amazon, but for threads.

It's possible that I might only open thread ratings for Hosts and Moderators, it's also possible I would make it a perk for Patrons if they don't abuse the privilege. I could even open it up to senior members of the forum with 2,500 or more posts, but again, I would revoke the privilege if it was abused.

The people who would have the ability to rate would need to agree to rate the overall discussion quality, rather than the topic itself.

And besides, this won't stop viewers from reading threads, it just suggests which threads have good content.

At least, that's the theory.

I can install the add-on, try it for a few weeks, and if we don't like it I can later remove it. So the technology is not a problem, it's putting the tool to it's proper use I'm concerned about.

Will it help to solve this problem without creating new rules? I'm not yet sure...

 

[John Winn]

I've given my thoughts but just wanted to say it's nice to get to discuss potential policy. By all rights the owners could just do what seems best to them or do nothing but instead we're getting to offer opinions and suggestions. It's nice that we're being given the opportunity and are being heard.

 

[CivilWarTalk]

Or cliques. I've seen many discussion groups destroyed by cliques developing and shouting down all opposition to their ideology. The worst I've ever seen were forums where a clique got one of their own made a moderator and hence started deleting contrary opinions and expelling the opposition, which won't happen here of course.

Yes, this is why I've stayed away from creating social groups. We should all be treated equally here. Hopefully whatever steps I decide to take, even if I do nothing, users will feel comfortable having discussions at CivilWarTalk.

That's the idea anyway.

 

[John Winn]

If we added this ability, it wouldn't be open to everyone.

Here's how it would work, if 4 people give a thread 5 stars, and one person gave a 1 star to the same thread, it might bump it down to 4 stars total, and it would get 2.5 stars if there was a 50/50 split of 1 and 5 star votes. 2, 3, and 4 star votes would be weighted accordingly. The server is good at doing maths!

It's not that different to what most e-commerce sites use, like Amazon, but for threads.

It's possible that I might only open thread ratings for Hosts and Moderators, it's also possible I would make it a perk for Patrons if they don't abuse the privilege. I could even open it up to senior members of the forum with 2,500 or more posts, but again, I would revoke the privilege if it was abused.

The people who would have the ability to rate would need to agree to rate the overall discussion quality, rather than the topic itself.

And besides, this won't stop viewers from reading threads, it just suggests which threads have good content.

At least, that's the theory.

I can install the add-on, try it for a few weeks, and if we don't like it I can later remove it. So the technology is not a problem, it's putting the tool to it's proper use I'm concerned about.

Will it help to solve this problem without creating new rules? I'm not yet sure...

That sounds reasonable. I could see how somebody could tell fifteen of his friends "hey, sign up over on CWT and give my thread a five" or other games that might get played if it's just a popularity thing. How to pick those who get to rate is a little dicey but not too far from deciding who gets to moderate. Clear labeling of the rating system would be essential too - i.e. make it clear it's not about agreement/disagreement but about quality of content.