Coronavirus threads

[jfgw]

There has been discussion recently on the Snug "no politics" thread concerning the number of posts involving data, and other posts are getting lost in the crowd. There was a time when the word "exponential" was as good as banned from this thread. While there is a "Modelling" thread on the science board, few of the posts in question relate to actual modelling. It is also possible that moderation has tended to push submissions (including matters relevant to modelling) over to the Snug (although, without knowing which posts have been moved or removed, it is not possible to know), for example, viewtopic.php?f=83&t=22737&start=820#p346900. One problem is that there is overlap and this allows the boundaries of the boards to creep.

I think that there is a strong argument for separating statistics from the "no politics" thread. One way would be a statistics thread in The Snug (as suggested by Mike4). Another way would be to broaden the scope of the Modelling thread on the science board, maybe with a name change. The board would, however, have to allow a degree of general discussion on matters which may influence the outcome of the virus and, for that reason, the Snug may be a better place.

Possible solution A:
Create a new "Beerpig's Snug Coronavirus Statistical Aspects Thread".
1. Is it data or graphs relating to modelling/forecasting? If yes, post in the Modelling thread;
2. Is it data or graphs showing what has already happened or general discussion relating to these, or general discussion relating to forecasting? If yes, post in the new "Statistical Aspects" Snug thread;
3. Is it anything-else which belongs in The Snug? If yes, post to the existing "No Politics" thread.

Possible solution B:
Rename the thread in the Snug to "Beerpig's Snug No Politics or Statistics Coronavirus Thread".
Rename the "Modelling" thread to "Coronavirus Statistics and Influential Factors".
1. Is it data or graphs or general discussion relating to statistical matters or forecasting? If yes, post to the "Statistics and Influential Factors" thread;
2. Is it general discussion of a different, non-political nature? If yes, post in the Snug.


Julian F. G. W.

[Mike4]

1. Is it data or graphs relating to modelling/forecasting? If yes, post in the Modelling thread;

Its interesting that the tone of your post suggests you see 'modelling' as forecasting rather than a retrospective activity. I see them as two sides of the same coin.

To me, modelling means using historical data to build an understanding of what has already happened (the model). Once a working model has been built that accounts for all historical data, it can be hopefully be relied upon to accurately forecast the future behaviour of whatever has been modelled. Consequently the modelling board appears perfect to me for all the statistical debate and number crunching currently filling the 'no politics' board.

I also feel trying to model the behaviour of coronavirus is near impossible and like you, I disagree with the way the 'no politics' board has become overwhelmed with data and modelling debate, to the near exclusion of other aspects of coronavirus discussion. It should be given a place of its own so the 'no politics' board can 'breathe' once again.

[redsturgeon]

Interesting suggestions and I have some sympathy with trying to maintain some kind of discipline in the appropriate posting to threads. However as someone who is partly responsible to managing this process let me say the phrase "herding cats" springs to mind.

Ideally posters would manage their own posts in a relatively consistent manner but one person's "Snug" post is another person's "Modelling" post and some end up on Polite Discussions anyway.

One issue is when one person posts something that may mention some slightly off topic matter, then someone responds to that, then the whole off topic issue takes on a life of its own but to split it out may render some other part of the discussion incomprehensible.

Another issue is that while deleting posts and moving whole topics is fairly straightforward, splitting and merging topic (threads) is relatively complex and time consuming.

My view is that while the current set up is not perfect, any solution will also not achieve perfection and while it may solve a problem for some posters, it will create new problems for others.

Can I therefore suggest that we muddle on with the existing limitations while each one of us resolves to select the most appropriate thread for our posts and avoid replying to any blatantly off topic ones.

As moderators we will continue to deal with reports as required and lets recognise that the current system has managed pretty well for nine months.

John

[johnhemming]

I am with John on this. I don't think you can ban the mention of numbers from a discussion about a dangerous virus. In any event this is a written forum not an oral one and people can always ignore posts.

[Mike4]

I am with John on this. I don't think you can ban the mention of numbers from a discussion about a dangerous virus. In any event this is a written forum not an oral one and people can always ignore posts.

Yes but that is the whole problem, people are ignoring the posts attempting to discuss non-numerical aspects because they miss them, lost in the quantity of statistical posts at times.

In fact latterly I think people have simply stopped reading Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread because the quibbling over statistical minutiae is dull as ditchwater to read.

I'm sad to say I started skipping over many of John's posts a while back when his main goal seemed to be to use statistics to prove there was no second wave, when there so plainly was, and is.

[johnhemming]

I'm sad to say I started skipping over many of John's posts a while back when his main goal seemed to be to use statistics to prove there was no second wave, when there so plainly was, and is.

I told people this was a seasonal virus some time ago and that there would be a seasonal wave (which can be called a second wave).

[Itsallaguess]

In any event this is a written forum not an oral one and people can always ignore posts.

They can John - but that shouldn't get away from the fact that the boards, and the topics within them, are generally raised or intentionally organised to help posters and readers look for and subsequently follow topics that they are generally interested in, and to also help them avoid topics that they might not be so interested in...

That means that when someone persistently has the following attitude to such intended board and topic organisation, it is generally unhelpful to all those involved, both in a poster/reader capacity, and often in a moderation capacity due to the downstream issues that are caused by someone taking such a wilfully dismissive approach to these issues -

I tend to read this forum (and the others I post on) on the basis of a recent posts search.

I don't really try to worry too much about the precise subtleties of what goes where unless I am starting a new topic.

It is not really like a debating chamber where things are in or out of order and there is a time limit, but instead a collection of written submissions that people can if they wish decide to ignore and not read.

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=22218&p=370163#p370163

Judging by the fact that this topic has been raised here, then it sounds like a more community-minded approach might be appreciated in terms of perhaps paying more attention as to where you're posting some of your more prolific statistical output...

As almost every other poster on this site manages to do that, I don't think it should be that difficult to help improve things here, to be honest...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[johnhemming]

Judging by the fact that this topic has been raised here, then it sounds like a more community-minded approach might be appreciated in terms of perhaps paying more attention as to where you're posting some of your more prolific statistical output...

For a while I was posting the daily figures from the government site. I stopped because the government site stopped being reliable about providing them. In fact then you personally posted them complaining that I had ceased to do that.

Now I am happy to fit in with reasonable rules, but if things become unreasonable and it appears to me that people are complaining primarily because they disagree with me then I can simply stop posting.

I really don't think there is a problem putting the historic numbers into a debate about coronavirus. To be honest I cannot see how one can discuss the matter without at least some facts most of which have numbers associated.

[redsturgeon]

Ok, hold fire everyone we could be coming up with a cunning plan as I speak!

Watch this space!

John

[Itsallaguess]

Now I am happy to fit in with reasonable rules, but if things become unreasonable and it appears to me that people are complaining primarily because they disagree with me then I can simply stop posting.

I think the majority of people would prefer to take a pragmatic approach to most things in this area, and I agree with you that some level of numbers-based discussion is inevitable with this particular subject, but where a recent surge in statistical output might lead to the wider community raising a separate thread here to try to discuss that, and to discuss why that recent surge in statistical output might be more helpful to be posted on the dedicated 'modelling' thread that's already been set up for some time just for that type of meta-discussion, and then the issue is met with an attitude of 'I'll post where I like - you can ignore it if you please', then that doesn't sound like a 'two-way-street approach' at that stage, that's all....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[johnhemming]

but where a recent surge in statistical output might lead to the wider community raising a separate thread here to try to discuss that, and to discuss why that recent surge in statistical output

Exactly what "recent surge in statistical output" has there been?

[Mike4]

Now I am happy to fit in with reasonable rules, but if things become unreasonable and it appears to me that people are complaining primarily because they disagree with me then I can simply stop posting.

No not at all John, or not in my case anyway. I am complaining about the volume of statistical posts, not that in my opinion some are wrong

Nothing wrong with a few stats, but there is when it becomes nearly all stats.

[Itsallaguess]

but where a recent surge in statistical output might lead to the wider community raising a separate thread here to try to discuss that, and to discuss why that recent surge in statistical output

Exactly what "recent surge in statistical output" has there been?

The one that has led to this topic being raised by your fellow posters, and as discussed in the opening posts of it....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[GrahamPlatt]

Given the title, I was expecting a discussion on clothing.

[johnhemming]

The one that has led to this topic being raised by your fellow posters, and as discussed in the opening posts of it....

It should be possible, therefore, to provide links to the posts which are considered inappropriate.

[Itsallaguess]

The one that has led to this topic being raised by your fellow posters, and as discussed in the opening posts of it....

It should be possible, therefore, to provide links to the posts which are considered inappropriate.

Well you should direct that question to the people raising the issue on this thread - my only input here is to highlight your own stated admission that you don't care where you're posting, and it's other people's problem if they do...

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=22218&p=370163#p370163

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[johnhemming]

Well you should direct that question to the people raising the issue on this thread - my only input here is to highlight your own stated admission that you don't care where you're posting, and it's other people's problem if they do...

There are two distinct points

One is that there has been a generalised complaint about there being a "surge" in statistical posts. I am not really aware of what that surge is and I think for anyone to complain they at least should particularise the complaint.

The second is that I think it is wrong to too narrowly define what is and what is not in order for a written forum. I tend to respond to what is posted rather than any perception of what the narrow definition is.

However, as this has started with me posting too much information and too many numbers I would like to at least be told what the offensive numbers are.

[PinkDalek]

The one that has led to this topic being raised by your fellow posters, and as discussed in the opening posts of it....

It should be possible, therefore, to provide links to the posts which are considered inappropriate.

Being pedantic, it might be all 6392 & counting of them at Beerpig's are off-topic, given the OP was a joke viewtopic.php?p=289897#p289897. At the risk of repeating myself, not that anyone seems to worry about being repetitive, Beerpig's is a place for light hearted pub related banter and discussion. Yes, I'm perfectly aware one can ignore posts/topics/fora/TLF etc.

Anyhoo, lets' see what the cunning plan might be, as posted by redsturgeon some 45 minutes ago.

[johnhemming]

Anyhoo, lets' see what the cunning plan might be, as posted by redsturgeon some 45 minutes ago.

That's a fair point.

However, it is still important to be give sufficient details of what numbers are actually offensive enough as to create all this effort. I do not set out to create offence. However, at the moment I have no idea of what it is that has actually caused offence.

[PinkDalek]

... I do not set out to create offence. ...

I'm certain that is the case & I've never found your posts offensive. Nor do I think anyone has used that word until you introduced it (but haven't checked).