|
Grex > Coop9 > #55: Motion: To allow unregistered reading of all conferences | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 367 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 207 of 367:
| 
Mar 5 03:00 UTC 1997 |
doing it with one conf even on an experimental basis serves no purpose. It
is only a way of avoiding the issue of mary's proposal for a while longer,
which is whetherb unregistered reading is is going to be available n all
confs. The previous vote was the defining moment in that debate. Having
unregistered reading in any variation of selected confs was emphaticaly
rejected. the only question now is all or none. The previous respojnses
and threats to make further proposals, has the effect of showing certain
people with their heads in the sand. Unregistered reading will either be
available universaly or not at all. Period. No subsequent votes are
going to change that sentiment.,
|
babozita
|
|
response 208 of 367:
|
Mar 5 14:18 UTC 1997 |
O.k., Richard, slowly then.
Let's say a BBS which requires one to run a free registration program attracts
100 people a day. Of those, 75% feel compelled merely by the fact that they've
spent 15 minutes running newuser to come back a few times. Of those, 33%
decide they like Grex enough to stay, but another 33% decide to screw around
since they've got this account to screw around on.
Results: 25 "quality" users, 25 "malicious" users
Let's say a BBS which allows guest access attracts 200 people a day. Of those,
only 25% are interested enough to run newuser a few days later. Of those, 90%
come back a few more times. 75% ultimately decide to stay, 5/6ths of whom
think Grex is wonderful and 1/6 of whom decide to screw around.
Results: 25 "wqulaity" users, 5 "malicious user
the "quality" user accrual rate is the same, the "malicious" user accrual rate
is lower. I honestly don't think that this will increase "quality" user
accrual rate, I think it will decrese "malicious" user accrual rate (i.e.,
it will keep the "riff-raff" out, to a degree).
these numbers are hypothetical, of course, but I don't think they're
unreasonable.
Math:
100 * .75 = 75. 75 * .33 = 25.
200 * .25 = 50. 50 * .90 = 40. 40 * .75 = 30. 30 * 1/6 = 5; 30 * 5/6 = 25
All right, cucumber?
|
richard
|
|
response 209 of 367:
|
Mar 5 19:25 UTC 1997 |
nope, your math is flawed...I dont know where you get this idea that 75% of
people who run newuser come back. the percentage is MUCH lower than that.
All you have to do is look at the average number of login reaps grex does
daily to figure that out. You have no basis theefore for aying the use
accrual rate would be the same. IN fact once this proposal ins implemented
and has had time to be fully utilized, it will bring many more users in, than
the current setup, therefore by simple math, increasing the aqccrual rate.
Maybe it wont increase it percentage wise, there is noway to tell. But in
terms of hard numbers, it is bound to.
|
pfv
|
|
response 210 of 367:
|
Mar 5 20:59 UTC 1997 |
Always counter numbers with numbers.. And better logic..
BTW, nice low Kerouac Rating there - thanks ;-)
hmm... How many Kerouacs per hour to light a 60 watt bulb..?
(Anyone have a handy conversion? ;-)
|
raven
|
|
response 211 of 367:
|
Mar 5 21:45 UTC 1997 |
re # 210 Gee you can use cucumbers to run light bulbs. Is that like the
battery you make in grade school with a lemon? :-)
<set drift=off>
|
adbarr
|
|
response 212 of 367:
|
Mar 5 22:31 UTC 1997 |
If the proposed change is imlemented, monitored, and evaluated, can't we then
make a judgement. Some opinions may be validated and others discredited.
Until then, I would much prefer to not see name-calling. This is an
experiment, is it not? Why not wait until the results are clear, then we can
indulge in the ITYS and all the rest. Then again it might help, or it might
be neutral and the proponets will be validated, at least a little. I did not
see anything in the proposal that said it could not be modified or elimnated
in the future. I doubt that any harm will be permanent, if there is any harm.
|
remmers
|
|
response 213 of 367:
|
Mar 5 23:38 UTC 1997 |
Much to my chagrin, I'm afraid I have to report an error on my
part. When I announced the closing date for the vote as March
12, that allowed 14 days for the vote. It should have been 10
days. This was not intentional; I simply confused the length of
time allowed for the discussion of a proposal and the length of
time for voting on a proposal, and used the former in setting
the closing date of the vote instead of the latter. So the close
of voting *should* have been set for March 8, four days earlier
than the announced date of March 12.
Apparently nobody caught this, myself included, until today,
when Mary noticed it and called it to my attention. Not that I'm
blaming anybody but myself -- it was my responsibility to
announce the time period for the voting correctly.
It is now March 5. To change the voting deadline to March 8 at
this late date seems to me inappropriate and unfair, since the
March 12 date has been well-publicized in this item, in the vote
program, and elsewhere by an agent of Grex (i.e. me). People
might not log in and be aware that they have less time than they
thought they did to cast a ballot.
I think that the least disruptive and fairest thing to do would
be to stick with the announced closing date of March 12. If the
announced date had allowed *less* than 10 voting days, this of
course would be inappropriate and the voting period would have to
be extended to meet the bylaw requirement of 10 days. But leaving
the closing date at March 12 will allow 10 days and also give
people the time that they were told they'd have to cast a ballot.
The alternative would be to scratch this vote and start over,
notifying eligible voting members by email that this was being
done and indicating that they should vote again. But I'm not sure
that such a re-vote is necessary or helpful.
My apologies for the mixup.
|
ryan1
|
|
response 214 of 367:
|
Mar 5 23:53 UTC 1997 |
If you extend the voting period, I also think it would be important to
note that people's votes who have paid for Grex membership through
March 8th, but not through March 12th (if there are any) that
their/those(if any) particular votes should not be discounted.
|
richard
|
|
response 215 of 367:
|
Mar 5 23:56 UTC 1997 |
question: what hapens if thevote is a tie? (it could happen statisitcally)
Does Valerie as president og rex get to then cast s a second vote as the
tiebreaker to decide this?
|
aruba
|
|
response 216 of 367:
|
Mar 6 00:00 UTC 1997 |
I agree John - let the vote go until the 12th. Re #214: All Grex memberships
expire either at the end of the month or on the 15th of the month, so there's
no problem there.
|
mta
|
|
response 217 of 367:
|
Mar 6 00:04 UTC 1997 |
Thanks, John, but I think this a really, really minor. ;)
|
dpc
|
|
response 218 of 367:
|
Mar 6 01:08 UTC 1997 |
Unfortunate mistake. Let's hope the vote isn't close enuf for the
losers to quibble that the votes cast in the extended period made
the difference.
|
pfv
|
|
response 219 of 367:
|
Mar 6 03:10 UTC 1997 |
WHAT!? No quibbling?!?
Are ya' Daft, mon? What shall we use to power the drives, laddy?
I'm tellin', yah lad - reduce the Kerouacs and yah jus canna'
power up the Warp Field!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 220 of 367:
|
Mar 6 03:42 UTC 1997 |
Motions with tie votes fail. There is no "chair" for mail ballotting, so there
is no one to break a tie.
|
babozita
|
|
response 221 of 367:
|
Mar 6 04:06 UTC 1997 |
Richard, my math is immaculate. My estimates are most likely flawed, or, more
appropriately, inaccurate. My numbers can only be flawed if I had claimed any
level of accuracy. I specifically disclaimed accuracy with the word
hypothetical.
This was merely an example of why higher exposure doesn't necessarily mean
higher usage. I think it was an adequate example, even if the numbers don't
match Grex's.
Your response is causing me to believe that you've taken to participating in
spaking-in-tongues. Aspects of it certainly weren't English, not that I know
of it. =}
|
srw
|
|
response 222 of 367:
|
Mar 6 06:14 UTC 1997 |
I think your conclusion is probably pretty accurate, babozita. I believe
that it is your hypothesis that is flawed. Perhaps Kerouac wants to see
more newuser runs. I will be quite pleased if the effect is to reduce
the number of newuser runs. I am interested in seeing more people run
newuser for the purpose of conferencing. I am interested in seeing fewer
people run newuser because it is simply the only way you can do things
on Grex, only to realize that they don't want to keep their account.
Even if 90% of the people who look at these conferences reject them, and
thus don't run newuser, it will be a victory. Constamtly creating and
reaping accounts that have been used once or twice before abandonment is
a waste of Grex's resources. The 10% who create accounts to conference
will be well selected users, not the random users we have today.
|
robh
|
|
response 223 of 367:
|
Mar 6 08:56 UTC 1997 |
Re 213 - I'm fine with extending the voting. I actually did
say to myself, "Shouldn't the voting be for ten days instead of
fourteen?", but with the jumble my life has become, I figured
I was the one in error.
Besides which, that's four more days of my being allowed to stay. >8)
|
tsty
|
|
response 224 of 367:
|
Mar 6 09:46 UTC 1997 |
fine with me remmers to keep the voting period at it's 'longer' state.
it's the right thing to do, and only a tiny 'oops,' no biggie.
|
babozita
|
|
response 225 of 367:
|
Mar 6 13:54 UTC 1997 |
#222> In what way do you think my hypothesis is flawed?
Do you think the number of "select" (i.e., people who actually WANT to be
here) users will go up? I honestly don't. I don't think it will go down or
up, appreciably. I think the way in which Mary's proposal willhelp Grex is
in the significant decrease in newuser runs (by people who aren't interested
in Grex). I do think we'll lose a lot ofpotential "select" users, too, because
they'll skim through once and forget about Grex by the morning light, not
having a handle and a password scribbled on a cocktail napkin.
I caught the error at the very beginning, but didn't mention it because it
was so trivial.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 226 of 367:
|
Mar 6 18:40 UTC 1997 |
I wonder if we need an item called "Predictions" or maybe two items, one for
"Dire Predictions" and another for "Not so bad Predictions".
|
rcurl
|
|
response 227 of 367:
|
Mar 6 20:05 UTC 1997 |
And, "I forgot to mention it, but I made that Prediction" Predictions.
|
babozita
|
|
response 228 of 367:
|
Mar 6 21:19 UTC 1997 |
I like Rane's idea best. =}
|
richard
|
|
response 229 of 367:
|
Mar 6 23:10 UTC 1997 |
I would only suggest that if this passes, that there be a period of notice,
say two weeks, before implementation, so that people who do have a problem
with this have ample time to remove any items they dont want unregistered
users reading.
Its possible that an fw might wantto restart their conf or something, you
never know.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 230 of 367:
|
Mar 7 00:31 UTC 1997 |
Of course, we would not want Joe Palooka to read our posts, would we. I agree,
Richard. I just think this is a tiny tempest in a huge teapot. There must be
a subtlety here (the "issue") that is continually flying over my head. I can
think of some really strange reasons for not wanting the public to read public
statements, but the rational basis escapes me. I have disgusted some (one,
at least), I hope I can provoke others to explain. I like the idea of the
third conference rcurl (#227) suggests. This reminds me of the apocryphal
security classification: "DBR". Destroy Before Reading!" And, it makes about
as much sense. You want privacy, stay on the a:\ drive, and then protect
yourself. Here, there is no expectation that I can see.
|
ryan1
|
|
response 231 of 367:
|
Mar 7 01:33 UTC 1997 |
<gasp! the world stops momentarily>
I agree with Richard, there should be a waiting period, so people can
clean things up, or make counter-proposals :)
|