guru's infected threads - I am voting against reputation system

Originally Posted by LinBox2013 In a healthy community you would have a mix. You would not have the oldest posters always being the top posters.

I was going to write an understanding reply, and then I was stopped by how unbelievably presumptuous this statement was. Do you seriously think you're confident that you know exactly what a "healthy community" needs to be like?

Originally Posted by rtmistler I feel you're just asking for change because "you" have an insecurity.

Not at all.

I just generally have no questions and most are probably more qualified then me to answer them.

I belong to many forums online and in general I am on this site a couple times a day. I am comfortable with myself very much and I can very much hold my own weight in any debate. I am not talking about me.

The funny thing is, the people I am talking about would more then likely not post in support. These people don't post.

Lol

Originally Posted by LinBox2013 I am not talking about me. The funny thing is, the people I am talking about would more then likely not post in support. These people don't post.

I suggest you stop presuming to speak for anyone other than yourself.

And as for the people you've puported to be speaking for, the ones supposedly intimidated by seeing the people have been here for years (OMG!), you've provided no evidence that they exist.

Keep in mind that if your metric is just "number of posts", then long time members will have more simply as a result of posting over a longer duration of time. Posts per day seems like a much better metric in this context, and there is a mix using that metric.

--jeremy

Originally Posted by dugan I was going to write an understanding reply, and then I was stopped by how unbelievably presumptuous this statement was. Do you seriously think you're confident that you know exactly what a "healthy community" needs to be like?

Alright.

You joined in 2003 and have a decently high post count. Do you believe that people from 2003 with high post counts should always be the top posters?

I come to these forums daily. I read the new posts. I can count on my fingers the people who reply often. Seeing the same people most always answering the questions does not signify an environment enticing new people to answer new questions.

A healthy environment entices everyone to post, not just a select few

Originally Posted by dugan I suggest you stop presuming to speak for anyone other than yourself. And as for the people you've puported to be speaking for, the ones supposedly intimidated by seeing the people have been here for years (OMG!), you've provided no evidence that they exist.

That makes no sense.

Studying psychology does not give one an incite into the way people think?

Just because you are not representing the people I speak of does not simply mean they don't exist.

Originally Posted by LinBox2013 Alright. You joined in 2003 and have a decently high post count. Do you believe that people from 2003 with high post counts should always be the top posters? I come to these forums daily. I read the new posts. I can count on my fingers the people who reply often. Seeing the same people most always answering the questions does not signify an environment enticing new people to answer new questions. A healthy environment entices everyone to post, not just a select few

Are you aware that you're arguing against yourself by the very act of posting from a new account?

Studying psychology does not give one an incite[sic] into the way people think?

I hate to resort to spelling flames, but this is not a mistake that I expect someone who "studies" psychology to make.

Just because you are not representing the people I speak of does not simply mean they don't exist.

Having provided no names, numbers, identifying information or other evidence does mean that the people you theorize exist do not exist. Proving your theory is your responsibility. If you've "studied" psychology you should know that.

You're going to need better support for your claims that "I study psychology", which is literally all the evidence you've provided for your theory so far.

Originally Posted by LinBox2013 It is very simple psychology (which I study).

I felt somewhat intimidated until I realised that you only study "very simple psychology".

Originally Posted by LinBox2013 Let me bring up another analogy: Room full of Linux admins (we will say 50). A new guy walks into the room with a question, will he ask? Chances are low and even if he does there is a chance that the experience will lend to him never asking again (if they go the elitist route (not exclusive to Linux BTW).

So what do they do? Pretend they're not 'Linux admins'? None of these admins in your example will be walking around with their experience embroidered on their shirts, so again this is not a suitable analogy.

Originally Posted by LinBox2013 People do have a problem being among others with more experience and being comfortable.

Some people probably do, but your "solution" is just to hide that experience in order that a subset of users feel comfortable? People do register here, ask questions and stay.

Originally Posted by LinBox2013 I would be willing to bet, if Jeremy looked at some statistics on this site he would find that lurkers make up most of his traffic.

Of course, that's a no-brainer - I'd bet it's also the case with the sites you linked to. But your equating this to being somehow too intimidated to register is just your interpretation of this to suit your agenda.

Originally Posted by LinBox2013 I would also be willing to bet that the top ten posters would be people with the most posts and would be people with the oldest accounts (majority). There is a reason whether anyone wants to admit it or not. No one likes to look like the dumb guy in a room full of Linux admins.

The people who don't "want to look like the dumb guy" in relation to this forum, are in fact the people who take too much notice of post counts, join dates and reputation points. This in itself indicates some kind of resentment towards the users in question. It's unnecessary.

Originally Posted by LinBox2013 I would perfectly expect people who have been members for years with high post counts not to understand. To the new user, you are the admin standing among other admins.

Again you seem to place too much importance on post count and duration of membership.

Originally Posted by dugan Are you aware that you're arguing against yourself by the very act of posting from a new account? I hate to resort to spelling flames, but this is not a mistake that I expect someone who "studies" psychology to make. Having provided no names, numbers, identifying information or other evidence does mean that the people you theorize exist do not exist. Proving your theory is your responsibility. If you've "studied" psychology you should know that.

So you are signalling me to shut up?

And that would also prove my point.

Originally Posted by LinBox2013 So you are signalling me to shut up? And that would also prove my point.

And now, the troll thinks that it has achieved its "gotcha" moment and jumps up to reveal itself...

Originally Posted by cynwulf I felt somewhat intimidated until I realised that you only study "very simple psychology".

Very nice mild insult, you can have it.

Originally Posted by cynwulf Again you seem to place too much importance on post count and duration of membership.

You are all missing my point.

---------- Post added 07-16-15 at 10:59 AM ----------

Originally Posted by dugan And now, the troll thinks that it has achieved its "gotcha" moment and jumps up to reveal itself...

Now I am a troll.

Very welcoming and this will surely entice people to post on this site.

Proves my point.

I don't think there is any trolling going on in this thread. As a friendly reminder to all, from the LQ rules:

* Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated.
* Flame Wars will not be tolerated.
* Do not post if you do not have anything constructive to say in the post.
* Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack. Differing opinions is one of the things that make this site great.

--jeremy

Originally Posted by LinBox2013 Very nice mild insult, you can have it.

Not an insult, I have a weird sense of humour. A mix of sarcasm and also trying to get my point across about something.

Personally I don't care much about the 15,000 posts user who joined in 2001 and has 5000 reputation. What is more annoying - and possibly intimidating to some - is the "oh I know what I'm talking about because I have/studied <subject/qualification>". I don't really care who studied what - even if I could verify the claims, which I can't and am not interested in doing so. I take other users (or leave them) solely on post content and general posting attitude.

So if I post in a thread and ask a question and 10,000 post "guru" from 2002 says "it's xyz" and 10 post not-a-guru from 2014 says "it's zyx - and by the way I know because I'm a Linux admin of 20+ years". Guess what?

So LinBox2013 thinks that I'm proving his point and missing his point at the same time. That doesn't worry me, because I genuinely don't think LinBox2013 is arguing in good faith. "Not arguing in good faith" is another way to say, oh, never mind...

To address LinBox's argument seriously and respectfully, well, here's the problem with it. It's talking about a population of people who feels a certain way, but doesn't post. So how do we know that these people exist? LinBox's main point in support is "I study psychology"... so, okay, fine. That means that LinBox is inferring a theory that these people must exist. But theories need to be supported by observations and evidence, and LinBox seems to have constructed his theory so that it cannot be examined in that way. The closest he's come to a recommendation on how to test it is: "look at the stats and see that most of the traffic comes from lurkers". Jeremy already did that, and not surprisingly it doesn't support LinBox's theory. And LinBox isn't talking about himself, so he's not offering even himself as a data point.

If LinBox had studied psychology at the college level (and his posts aren't consistent with having done so), then he'd know that if you have a theory that isn't backed up by evidence (which in this case would be finding actual people), then you need to either find that evidence or discard the theory.

Note that this thread, like all others, is open for anyone to join, and there have been repeated invitations for the people LinBox describes to speak up. None have done so, and some have testified to the contrary. Some psychology studies are indeed conducted by having people fill out surveys. If the survey results don't support your theory, then they don't support your theory.

If LinBox wants to reply with "Of course they don't reply. They're intimidated by the old timers! That proves my point!", well, let me nip that in the bud now. Absence of evidence for your theory is not support for your theory. Anyone who studies psychology should know that, or they need to study it harder.

Originally Posted by dugan So LinBox2013 thinks that I'm proving his point and missing his point at the same time. That doesn't worry me, because I don't think LinBox2013 is arguing in good faith. "Not arguing in good faith" is another way to say, oh, never mind... To address LinBox's argument seriously, well, here's the problem with it. It's talking about a population of people who feels a certain way, but doesn't post. So how do we know that these people exist? LinBox's main point in support is "I study psychology"... so, okay, fine. That means that LinBox is inferring a theory that these people must exist. But theories need to be supported by observations and evidence, and LinBox seems to have constructed his theory so that it cannot be examined in that way. The closest he's come to a recommendation on how to test it is: "look at the stats and see that most of the traffic comes from lurkers". Jeremy already did that, and not surprisingly it doesn't support LinBox's theory. And LinBox isn't talking about himself, so he's not offering himself as a data point. If LinBox had studied psychology at the college level (and his posts aren't consistent with having done so), then he'd know that if you have a theory that isn't backed up by evidence (which in this case would be finding actual people, then you need to either find that evidence or discard the theory.

There are plenty of books that support my theory and are simply just an internet search away.

As I have said, there would be no real way to prove what I am saying. I do think if we all thought about it enough, we could all remember a time when what I am saying might pertain to ourselves.

The local BBS was a good example. People on the local BBS were known to be very elitist in general (not all, but the people who were ruined it for the masses). You had to make sure that any question you would have posted was well thought out. There was a good chance you would be flamed for posting anyhow. Most did not post because they knew this.

I am not saying that LQ works in this way. What I am saying is there is a perceived way things may work or may not work.

If your interested in psychology and want a laugh, check out the DSM4. You will find that about everyone has some sort of disorder. It would also teach we are all very close to psychosis and that is also funny to me. The people who would follow the DSM4 to the letter would probably live in fear thinking anyone could have a mental break at any second.

What I am saying is valid. It does not pertain to everyone. It was a simple observation really. Unless you can somehow get these people to post, there is no real proof other then what a book teaches. I can assure you there are people who are intimidated by numbers, I however am not one.

I just brought this point up. No real need to continue.