Rant: 'The sample of 1' problem

[Vortex]

Just a rant to make me feel better ..

I am beginning to become very annoyed by the way The Web gives too much importance to single individuals.

I think of it as 'the sample of 1' problem.

Person A posts an opinion or fact X based on years of experience or on solid knowledge

There is then almost always an ignorant but self-opiniated Person B who says something like:
"Well, I have never seen X so what you say can't be be true."

The original post which can contain valuable information is thereby effectively destroyed by a zero-content reply made by someone with a weak grasp of logic.

As blogging becomes more popular, the numbers of people contributing to each blog is rising. This is almost guaranteeing that at least one twerp will jump in with their 'sample of 1' repudiation.

I now see this in almost every blog (PO, medical, computer etc) that I contribute to.

I look forward to a day when:
a: All posters are identifiable
B: The validity of their posts etc can be scored.

In the meantime I suspect that many blogs etc will simply become unusable.

[re]

I've never notice that - you're talking rubbish

[Vortex]

Got me for 0.1 second there .....

[RGR]

[quote="Vortex"]

[biffvernon]

I look forward to a day when:
a: All posters are identifiable

Indeed. I've never posted anything, anywhere in cyberspace without using my real name and usually in a form where it wouldn't take long to find my real world address. I've never been too impressed by the arguements in favour of annonimity, though maybe others have something to hide that I don't know about.

[Vortex]

I consider peak oil to be a near perfect example of just such a phenomena, from a web centric perspective.

I was really referring to a 'point problem' where bored twerps sitting at their home PCs simply have to have their 'equal' - but often invalid - input heard.

Over at peakoil.com they are discussing a related topic: they feel that their site has become 'polluted' by random non-PO discussions ... although I find it hard to see how in the peakoil.com case a cesspit can become more polluted ...

As for 'Peak Oil' as a concept, I do feel that there IS more than a germ of 'truth' buried in all the Web chatter on and around the topic .. but I had to confirm this 'truth' for myself OFFLINE because I could not trust the web.

Clearly I do not have the time or money to checkout other 'truths' being discussed on the web.

Recently I have been reassessing my use of the web as an information source: the increased use of traditional spam, tricky blog spam together with beautiful web sites spouting total insanity devalues the whole experience.

[Ludwig]

I look forward to a day when:
a: All posters are identifiable

Indeed. I've never posted anything, anywhere in cyberspace without using my real name and usually in a form where it wouldn't take long to find my real world address. I've never been too impressed by the arguements in favour of annonimity, though maybe others have something to hide that I don't know about.

Well, I have to confess I tend to be (a) a bit paranoid and (b) prone to getting into heated arguments on Internet forums. There's also the question of identity theft, although I tend to think that if you're careful there's not so much to worry about on that front.

It's just SO easy to find someone via the Internet that I feel that little bit safer having that veil of anonymity, however thin (after all the Govt. is watching everything we do in the Internet anyway).

[caspian]

I look forward to a day when:
a: All posters are identifiable

Indeed. I've never posted anything, anywhere in cyberspace without using my real name and usually in a form where it wouldn't take long to find my real world address. I've never been too impressed by the arguements in favour of annonimity, though maybe others have something to hide that I don't know about.

C'mon Biff, there are plenty of reasons why anonymity might be needed on the Internet, and not all of them because the person is up to no good. What about political dissidents who fear persecution, or whistleblowers wanting to reveal what their dastardly employer has been up to? Your argument is reminiscent of those who support having CCTV everywhere, because "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear". The easy rejoinder to that is: "so you'd be happy to have CCTV in your bathroom then?".

[2 As and a B]

Yeah, they'll be using the Terrorism laws (sic) to root out dissent on the internet next. Don't laugh, they're already using it against peaceful protest and environmental campaigners. What did I read in the news just today? UK 'must log' phone and web use - All internet and phone traffic should be recorded to help the fight against terrorism, according to one of the UK's former spy chiefs.

[Ludwig]

I look forward to a day when:
a: All posters are identifiable

Indeed. I've never posted anything, anywhere in cyberspace without using my real name and usually in a form where it wouldn't take long to find my real world address. I've never been too impressed by the arguements in favour of annonimity, though maybe others have something to hide that I don't know about.

C'mon Biff, there are plenty of reasons why anonymity might be needed on the Internet, and not all of them because the person is up to no good. What about political dissidents who fear persecution, or whistleblowers wanting to reveal what their dastardly employer has been up to? Your argument is reminiscent of those who support having CCTV everywhere, because "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear". The easy rejoinder to that is: "so you'd be happy to have CCTV in your bathroom then?".

I used to be one of those people who saw nothing wrong with CCTV cameras everywhere, until I found out about Peak Oil and realised the (or at least one) likely real reason for their presence, i.e. as a deterrent to protest WTSHTF.

That said, your argument's a bit of a straw man: I don't think the Government is (yet) planning on invading our privacy to the extent you describe.

[biffvernon]

C'mon Biff, there are plenty of reasons why anonymity might be needed on the Internet,

Yeah, mine is not a strong arguement. But Vortex (who?) was posting about the usual forum stuff like this place, not political dissidents and whistleblowers. Since I run a bed and breakfast it's quite handy if folk can find me and since most of our trade comes through the Net our website has a picture of our house just to make us easy to find. Using one's real name on forums makes one pause before saying outrageous things; there's accountability which I hope makes my posts better and perhaps taken more seriously, which I think was part of Vortex's (whose?) point.

There's no CCTV in our lane, not even in my bathroom.

[RGR]

[quote="Vortex"]

[RenewableCandy]

I never click on Utube or any other kinds of video's as "information",

Quite right. Add to that anything with crappy grammar and no obvious excuse (e.g. writing in language other than own mother tongue).

[Ludwig]

I never click on Utube or any other kinds of video's as "information",

Quite right. Add to that anything with crappy grammar and no obvious excuse (e.g. writing in language other than own mother tongue).

Well that rules out pretty much everything written by anyone under 30 in Britain. That generation have never been taught how to write. I wince whenever I see a post with "i" and "u" written as words, the comma used as the single all-purpose punctuation mark, and no attention paid to semantic logic.

It seems unfair of me to disregard a whole generation's opinions because I don't like the way they write, but I just can't bear to read them.

[RGR]

[quote="RenewableCandy"]