-The numbers will be off as often the kind of post that will fit the standard of empty rhetoric is deleted. Is there any way I can find out how many
posts are deleted for that?
-This will be a very fine line in between the two kinds of replies. The most integral part of this thread is to decide (with the help of board
rules?) what is a contribution.
-It can also be noted that this type of reply is not necessarily bad for ATS. Although it is bad for real discussion; it is traffic, it is eyes on
adds, it is money for ATS. At the same time, it is also bandwidth that could be used more efficiently. After the study, a conclusion looking further
into the economics of the issue and the total gain/loss for the community could be arranged.
-If this works out well I plan in the future to do more studies on different thread topics so as to see which issues bring out these kind of replies
versus which do not.
Sooooooo...
Thoughts? Opinions? Plausible? Crazy?
[edit on 29-1-2008 by WuTang]
ATS and Empty Rhetoric: A Study of Replies?, page 1
privacy
reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 05:37 PM by bobafett1972
reply to post by WuTang
I would say no standards.
Who are you or anyone else to say what is, as you say, empty rhetoric?
Everyone has something to add. Not everyone has the same thought process, so therefore, not everything reads the same to everyone. Also, what is wrong with injecting humor into this sometimes over-serious board? People have a tendency to take themselves and what they are saying way to serious.
Again, who decides what is rhetoric? I took 5 minutes out of my night to respond, you don't like it, it is then to be labelled rhetoric?
Just my two cents.
5-What standards should I use to define a post as empty rhetoric or a contribution?
I would say no standards.
Who are you or anyone else to say what is, as you say, empty rhetoric?
Everyone has something to add. Not everyone has the same thought process, so therefore, not everything reads the same to everyone. Also, what is wrong with injecting humor into this sometimes over-serious board? People have a tendency to take themselves and what they are saying way to serious.
Again, who decides what is rhetoric? I took 5 minutes out of my night to respond, you don't like it, it is then to be labelled rhetoric?
Just my two cents.
reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 05:51 PM by WuTang
reply to post by xpert11
Although I like you idea, the whole point is to analyze the rhetoric of replies, whereas a flag is a measure of the thread as a whole. At the same time it wouldn't take much time to record that as data, which would be pretty cool to plot against empty rhetoric in a graph.
Although I like you idea, the whole point is to analyze the rhetoric of replies, whereas a flag is a measure of the thread as a whole. At the same time it wouldn't take much time to record that as data, which would be pretty cool to plot against empty rhetoric in a graph.
reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 06:14 PM by bobafett1972
reply to post by WuTang
Yes I did read your entire post. I do not post in threads that I have not read.
I was not trying to sound like I was looking to call anyone out.
I guess I just do not see the point. It is a message board. It is not life. It is not school. When you boil it down, it should mean nothing at the end of the day. If one is overly concerned with the goingson on a particular website, that in it self is a problem.
There are rules in place and it seems to me that they work just fine. If those that run this site see something that is out of line it is taken care of. If someone adds something completely inane to a topic, I for one, completey disregard what was said. How hard is that?
Like I said before, people around here tend to take themselves way to serious as well as over think things. Sometimes a spade is just in fact a spade but that is another topic for another day.
Again, I meant no disrespect, I was only adding my thoughts on the matter.
~B
[edit on 1/29/2008 by bobafett1972]
Yes I did read your entire post. I do not post in threads that I have not read.
I was not trying to sound like I was looking to call anyone out.
I guess I just do not see the point. It is a message board. It is not life. It is not school. When you boil it down, it should mean nothing at the end of the day. If one is overly concerned with the goingson on a particular website, that in it self is a problem.
There are rules in place and it seems to me that they work just fine. If those that run this site see something that is out of line it is taken care of. If someone adds something completely inane to a topic, I for one, completey disregard what was said. How hard is that?
Like I said before, people around here tend to take themselves way to serious as well as over think things. Sometimes a spade is just in fact a spade but that is another topic for another day.
Again, I meant no disrespect, I was only adding my thoughts on the matter.
~B
[edit on 1/29/2008 by bobafett1972]
reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 06:36 PM by WuTang
reply to post by bobafett1972
Once again I am not here to judge ATS. I am using ATS as a tool to study how often the average member takes the effort to make a comment that doesn't contribute. Your right that it is not real life, but its the best tool available to feasibly do this. I don't have the means to do a study of thousands of peoples comments in real life. I do have that here. If you know a bigger discussion site where I can do this, or even compare to here, by all means suggest it.
This message board does not mean nothing to everyone at the end of the day just because it does to you. Do think that these peoples opinions are worth nothing to the 3 Amigos? How about the ATS personalities who spend hours on their contributions? It means something different to everyone. I guess this study could be a tool to indicate what percentage of members do respond in certain ways?
Either way if you do not agree or find it interesting then I guess don't participate. But for those that do find this interesting what would you do to define a post?
LOAM:
I think providing outside materials/sources should be included in a list of qualities that define a contributing post.. Good suggestion. I think i might either do a list of requirements where if one or more is satisfied than it counts as contribution.
Everyone:
Any ideas as to the system? List of positives satisfied to be contributing? Negatives to be empty? Both on some sort of point system? Either way it is very true that defining the standards is going to be the hardest part.
Once again I am not here to judge ATS. I am using ATS as a tool to study how often the average member takes the effort to make a comment that doesn't contribute. Your right that it is not real life, but its the best tool available to feasibly do this. I don't have the means to do a study of thousands of peoples comments in real life. I do have that here. If you know a bigger discussion site where I can do this, or even compare to here, by all means suggest it.
This message board does not mean nothing to everyone at the end of the day just because it does to you. Do think that these peoples opinions are worth nothing to the 3 Amigos? How about the ATS personalities who spend hours on their contributions? It means something different to everyone. I guess this study could be a tool to indicate what percentage of members do respond in certain ways?
Either way if you do not agree or find it interesting then I guess don't participate. But for those that do find this interesting what would you do to define a post?
LOAM:
I think providing outside materials/sources should be included in a list of qualities that define a contributing post.. Good suggestion. I think i might either do a list of requirements where if one or more is satisfied than it counts as contribution.
Everyone:
Any ideas as to the system? List of positives satisfied to be contributing? Negatives to be empty? Both on some sort of point system? Either way it is very true that defining the standards is going to be the hardest part.
reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 06:51 PM by WuTang
reply to post by Buck Division
Very good post, and if you haven't read much into the subject it seems foreign, unfeasible, and surely subjective. But it can be done, exactly as you (almost sarcastically
) postured! Often you pick words, or issues, and count! I have myself done a couple of studies on rhetoric for
university classes, mainly only newspaper editorials regarding political issues. I suggest you read some William Riker if you are interested in the
analysis of rhetoric. He spent his entire life counting words in editorials, but produced brilliant results in the context of the American
constitutional conventions.
Basically, you define what it is you are looking for. We are looking for empty rhetoric. We need a system, and then standards for that system. The all it takes is a bit of counting and reading!
I will be thinking about this and brainstorming for a bit, I will return with my basic structure and maybe people can critique from there. My thread needs more substance itself!!!
Very good post, and if you haven't read much into the subject it seems foreign, unfeasible, and surely subjective. But it can be done, exactly as you (almost sarcastically
) postured! Often you pick words, or issues, and count! I have myself done a couple of studies on rhetoric for
university classes, mainly only newspaper editorials regarding political issues. I suggest you read some William Riker if you are interested in the
analysis of rhetoric. He spent his entire life counting words in editorials, but produced brilliant results in the context of the American
constitutional conventions. Basically, you define what it is you are looking for. We are looking for empty rhetoric. We need a system, and then standards for that system. The all it takes is a bit of counting and reading!
I will be thinking about this and brainstorming for a bit, I will return with my basic structure and maybe people can critique from there. My thread needs more substance itself!!!
reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 07:03 PM by Buck Division
reply to post by WuTang
William Riker. Got it.
I suggest Steven Pinker: The Language Instinct -- it forms the basis of most of my understanding about semantics.
Thanks for the tip.
William Riker. Got it.
I suggest Steven Pinker: The Language Instinct -- it forms the basis of most of my understanding about semantics.
Thanks for the tip.
reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 07:26 PM by WuTang
reply to post by Buck Division
Unfortunately I dropped linguistics, but I may still have the textbook. I'll have a rummage around and see. Linguistics is a crazy field, but it wasn't my cup of soup.
I'll give you an example of my methods for one of my previous studies, as I think it might help in developing methods for this.
I was studying the rhetoric in a serious of argumentative editorials regarding whether or not Nova Scotia should join in the Canadian confederacy. I basically took a bunch of photocopied microfiche's (from 1812) and retyped them in word. I then highlighted, in different colours, paragraphs and at times sentances regarding different issues (such as defense, economy, railroad, religion, etc.). I then counted the words of each colour, charted it, and studied the change over time. This was to study Riker's theory of dominance and dispersion (which is a whole other thread).
That was relatively simple as there were two sources, two sides.
Here at ATS there are a millions sources with a million sides. However I am confident that a more broad method can be developed through community interaction that can classify replies into our two sides: empty posturing v insightful content.
Unfortunately I dropped linguistics, but I may still have the textbook. I'll have a rummage around and see. Linguistics is a crazy field, but it wasn't my cup of soup.
I'll give you an example of my methods for one of my previous studies, as I think it might help in developing methods for this.
I was studying the rhetoric in a serious of argumentative editorials regarding whether or not Nova Scotia should join in the Canadian confederacy. I basically took a bunch of photocopied microfiche's (from 1812) and retyped them in word. I then highlighted, in different colours, paragraphs and at times sentances regarding different issues (such as defense, economy, railroad, religion, etc.). I then counted the words of each colour, charted it, and studied the change over time. This was to study Riker's theory of dominance and dispersion (which is a whole other thread
). That was relatively simple as there were two sources, two sides.
Here at ATS there are a millions sources with a million sides. However I am confident that a more broad method can be developed through community interaction that can classify replies into our two sides: empty posturing v insightful content.
reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 07:30 PM by bobafett1972
reply to post by Buck Division
Either I did not explain myself enough or I can't speak in full sentence form, either way, my remark wasn't meant as a slam in any way to any one. Heck, I come pretty much everyday. But when I go to bed at night, what was said and what people write on here, mean nothing in my actual day to day life. Does that come across any better?
Either I did not explain myself enough or I can't speak in full sentence form, either way, my remark wasn't meant as a slam in any way to any one. Heck, I come pretty much everyday. But when I go to bed at night, what was said and what people write on here, mean nothing in my actual day to day life. Does that come across any better?
reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 07:32 PM by Buck Division
reply to post by WuTang
Hey -- I see what you are saying. There are in fact a lot of good metrics and ways of counting words. I am satisfied that you can look at just the statistical layer and make some measurements of whether a person is just filling up space. It would be just a guess, but good enough to make some predictions, especially if you analyzed large amounts of data.
I stand corrected. (Didn't take much to flip me over, did it?
)
It seems like you could take a look at the number of times that words and phrases are re-used in posts. Here is one reference and I see plenty of others also.
In paricular, here is another article on the Flesch-Kindaid Readability Test which might be interesting. I would like to see whether there is some correlation with regard to readability and pertinence. (I bet there is. People who want to make there point will write more carefully. The same goes with spelling, perhaps.)
You might be able to create some sort of ATS "grade" for any response, which would help you make your graphs. This might be useful for ATS moderators and administrators.
I'm glad I did the research you suggested! Good thinking. This might be very interesting!
(Edit to fix emoticon...)
[edit on 29-1-2008 by Buck Division]
Hey -- I see what you are saying. There are in fact a lot of good metrics and ways of counting words. I am satisfied that you can look at just the statistical layer and make some measurements of whether a person is just filling up space. It would be just a guess, but good enough to make some predictions, especially if you analyzed large amounts of data.
I stand corrected. (Didn't take much to flip me over, did it?
) It seems like you could take a look at the number of times that words and phrases are re-used in posts. Here is one reference and I see plenty of others also.
In paricular, here is another article on the Flesch-Kindaid Readability Test which might be interesting. I would like to see whether there is some correlation with regard to readability and pertinence. (I bet there is. People who want to make there point will write more carefully. The same goes with spelling, perhaps.)
You might be able to create some sort of ATS "grade" for any response, which would help you make your graphs. This might be useful for ATS moderators and administrators.
I'm glad I did the research you suggested! Good thinking. This might be very interesting!
(Edit to fix emoticon...)
[edit on 29-1-2008 by Buck Division]
reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 07:37 PM by Buck Division
Originally posted by bobafett1972
reply to post by Buck Division
Either I did not explain myself enough or I can't speak in full sentence form, either way, my remark wasn't meant as a slam in any way to any one.
I was playing with you buddy. I knew what you were saying. (Only too well, actually.)
I see we are no longer "Above" top secret. (The thread must have been moved by the Moderators?) I'm getting loose now.
reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 07:53 PM by WuTang
reply to post by Buck Division
Wow your hitting the journals before I am! For your first link I can't find the actual article, and my university only has it in print, at the library, so I am not sure if its worth my time (economically of course, thats a lot of OC for that little amount of utility). The readability test
is a nice standard, I agree would be interesting, but that is a lot of work; almost staggering for this amount of data. Perhaps in th e future if
more are on board.
I am thinking more like: search for topic word(s) in post title. Take posts within time period 1 month. Read all threads and count X number of replies. Count "empty replies" (good name?) according to whatever system decided upon, as Y number of Empty replies. Y/X = % of ERs basically. Could do that for several forums to find out what different crowds are like. Two different time periods to find out how it changes. % of stars to ERs v Substance. Lots of possibilities here, I need to unwind and think it over.
[edit on 29-1-2008 by WuTang]
Wow your hitting the journals before I am! For your first link I can't find the actual article, and my university only has it in print, at the library, so I am not sure if its worth my time (economically of course, thats a lot of OC for that little amount of utility
). The readability test
is a nice standard, I agree would be interesting, but that is a lot of work; almost staggering for this amount of data. Perhaps in th e future if
more are on board. I am thinking more like: search for topic word(s) in post title. Take posts within time period 1 month. Read all threads and count X number of replies. Count "empty replies" (good name?) according to whatever system decided upon, as Y number of Empty replies. Y/X = % of ERs basically. Could do that for several forums to find out what different crowds are like. Two different time periods to find out how it changes. % of stars to ERs v Substance. Lots of possibilities here, I need to unwind and think it over.
[edit on 29-1-2008 by WuTang]
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
The mocking of Steve Jobs. Insensitive, Funny or Who cares?
General Chit Chat, Posted 44 minutes ago
General Chit Chat, Posted 44 minutes ago
Iceland River Worm Caught on Video? (and the dragon in China)
Other Current Events, Posted 56 minutes ago
Other Current Events, Posted 56 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 15 hours ago, 54 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 15 hours ago, 54 flags
Biggest Conspiracy of 2012 : FACEBOOK ... It is time you close your account
US Political Madness, Posted 17 hours ago, 35 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 17 hours ago, 35 flags
Mass-arrest attempt on video - proof that CA riot police are the ones inciting violence
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 14 hours ago, 29 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 14 hours ago, 29 flags
Are you a Fundamentalist Christian? Top ten signs!?
Jokes, Puns, & Pranks, Posted 8 hours ago, 15 flags
Jokes, Puns, & Pranks, Posted 8 hours ago, 15 flags
What do you get when you cross an accelerator with a nuclear reactor?
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 10 hours ago, 12 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 10 hours ago, 12 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
The Chinese have seen the dragon in the sky !!
Other Current Events, Posted 12 hours ago, 145 replies
Other Current Events, Posted 12 hours ago, 145 replies
BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 15 hours ago, 100 replies
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 15 hours ago, 100 replies
Biggest Conspiracy of 2012 : FACEBOOK ... It is time you close your account
US Political Madness, Posted 17 hours ago, 97 replies
US Political Madness, Posted 17 hours ago, 97 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.892 seconds
Page processed in: 0.866 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.892 seconds
Page processed in: 0.866 seconds
