great survey! just added my answers :)
How Can The Forums Be Made Even Better?
Sort:
Jun 20, 2010
0
#83
erik wrote: great survey! just added my answers :)
Only another few thousand respondents needed to make the results statistically significant. 
Jun 21, 2010
0
#84
artfizz wrote:
One can't read too much into the results but I'm surprised that : PF5: Someone creating a forum in which all the first 20 posts are his is high, since I would have thought it was a fairly rare occurrence.
Yes, I would have thought it was impossible to do that without somebody jumping in. But I've read that if you block someone, the blocked person can't contribute to threads that you create? If that's how it works, all someone would have to do to control a thread is block all 1.1 million user IDs . . . 
Jun 21, 2010
0
#85
artfizz wrote:
One can't read too much into the results but I'm surprised that : PF5: Someone creating a forum in which all the first 20 posts are his is high, since I would have thought it was a fairly rare occurrence.
Cystem_Phailure wrote: Yes, I would have thought it was impossible to do that without somebody jumping in. But I've read that if you block someone, the blocked person can't contribute to threads that you create? If that's how it works, all someone would have to do to control a thread is block all 1.1 million user IDs . . .
I created a topic - the precursor to this one, in fact, in which I posted the first seventy-two items, apart from the 43rd. There were extenuating circumstances: a previous identical thread had disappeared so I reinstated all of the contributions (from memory!)
Jun 21, 2010
0
#87
artfizz wrote: There were extenuating circumstances: a previous identical thread had disappeared so I reinstated all of the contributions (from memory!)
I hope everyone was pleased with your recalled versions of their input! The process seems fraught with potential for disaster.
Jun 21, 2010
0
#88
artfizz wrote: There were extenuating circumstances: a previous identical thread had disappeared so I reinstated all of the contributions (from memory!)
Cystem_Phailure wrote: I hope everyone was pleased with your recalled versions of their input! The process seems fraught with potential for disaster.
Though not from my memory - from Google's cache, as a matter of fact.
Jun 21, 2010
0
#89
paul211 wrote:
Response to Artfizz, post #83:
1. I always write my text in Ms Word before publishing it so I can save a copy should the post fail to render and can repost. I actually had a forum on this and this was my first suggestion. See:
http://blog.chess.com/paul211/recover-lost-post-to-be-added-in-a-forum2
'Great minds think alike.'
paul211 wrote:
2. Did not know that all of the text and links should be of the same size and font as referred to as typeface I believe in lithography which I have studied for one year, any specific reason for this or simply functionality?
In any event you mention: Verdana, size 3, about 12 point. Can it also be any other selection such as Normal (Web), Times Roman 12 cpi ( characters per inch), in my days of the old type writer the common selection for typeface was Courier 12 point , or Normal (Web) Trébuchet Ms 12cpi or any other selection, what is the advantage to go with your proposed selection?
This is just an observation of what worked for me. I experienced more problems when I mixed different font sizes. Any common font and reasonable size should be OK.
http;//wvw,chess,com/images/icons/custom/quote.gif); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #d7d7d0; color: #444444; padding-top: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 24px; display: block; background-position: 4px 4px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; margin: 6px; border: 1px solid #bcbcb3;">paul211 wrote:
3. What is HTML gunk? Not familiar at all, must be language barrier, can you explain for my benefit and anyone else's?
The HTML code that should be invisible and should just render text effects - illustrated in lilac above.
paul211 wrote:
4. Separating the link from the text, do you mean post the link on a new paragraph or line?
Do you mean this way?
http://www. Etc..
Yes. Post the link on a new paragraph or line.
paul211 wrote:
5. Number 4, 10/4, read you loud and clear.
Excellent!
paul211 wrote:
6. Your #5, attach the link to neutral text?? What is neutral text? Can you be more explicit and give an example? Or perhaps you did give it but the text is ambiguous to me.
A URL consists of displayed text and the embedded link. The displayed text can be the same as the embedded link (e.g. http://www.chess.com) or you can use some arbitrary (neutral) text (e.g. Erik's Chess Co) and attach the link to that. The latter causes fewer problems in the forums.
wormrose wrote:
I'm not sure what you are doing wrong but it works for me the way you said you want it to be. I tick the box where it says [Track this forum topic] and when there are new comments I get an alert on {My Home] page and find the topic in [My Tracked Activity]. When I click on it the page opens at the first of the new comments I haven't yet read.
Thanks. I hadn't been ticking the "Track Forum Topic" stuff. I've now tried using it the way you explain, and it's working fine. I appreciate it.
Jun 21, 2010
0
#91
Artfizz is definitely gathering some useful information here. However, with respect to the confidence levels, not that it matters for this purpose, aren't those figures for necessary numbers of participants based on the assumption of randomness? All of the respondents in this case were self-selected and voluntary, and were probably people drawn by the title of the thread who saw the survey as a method of having an existing opinion being heard. Whatever the proportion is of people who think things are basically OK may well be underrepresented, as they might be more likely to forego taking the survey, or they skipped over the thread title and never even learned of the survey.
So the percentages should probably be taken with a grain of salt (or your seasoning of choice), but the resulting discussions are valuable. Also, just from looking at the lists of issues in the questions some members, like myself, may have become aware of issues they hadn't considered previously.
Jun 22, 2010
0
#93
paul211 wrote:
You said :"The percentages should not be taken as a grain of salt ",
??????? I didn't write that. My sentence read "So the percentages should probably be taken with a grain of salt . . ." Your jumbled sentence you attribute to me is meaningless.
I agree that a non-random, targeted survey is more useful for gathering information in this instance. My point, which is correct, is that those confidence intervals and necessary population sizes you cited are derived specifically for cases of randomly selected populations, and thus are not applicable to a survey with a self-selected participation. That's all. Doesn't mean this survey approach isn't good, just means that specific math doesn't apply.
Jun 22, 2010
0
#94
Schachgeek wrote:
wormrose wrote:
When the statistics are accurate I will notify everyone.
You mean, when the results say what you want them to say?
ha!
Sounds like the issue might be whether the target population is all who responded (or who would respond were they aware of the survey), or all members at large.
Jun 22, 2010
0
#96
Schachgeek wrote:
wormrose wrote:
When the statistics are accurate I will notify everyone.
You mean, when the results say what you want them to say?
I expect that's the way a lot of PAC politcal surveys go. Those that don't achieve the right numbers for whatever group is conducting the survey don't get released!
Jun 22, 2010
0
#97
When the statictics are final, we can conduct a survey to determine what they mean. 
Jun 22, 2010
0
#98
wormrose wrote: When the statictics are final, we can conduct a survey to determine what they mean.
Disclosing any results from the Chess.com Forum survey before locking it down must be a certain method of skewing the results!
Jun 23, 2010
0
#99
while trying to think of something clever to say... I keep getting this pester message... telling me that my computer must be restarted in order to complete the installation... just about the time I formulate a thought... it pops up again... either now... or later... no other choices... I mean... who's in charge here? 
Jun 23, 2010
0
#100
wormrose wrote: while trying to think of something clever to say... I keep getting this pester message... telling me that my computer must be restarted in order to complete the installation... just about the time I formulate a thought... it pops up again... either now... or later... no other choices... I mean... who's in charge here?
Things have improved slightly ...
Windows detected you moved your mouse.
Reboot for this change to take effect.
The idea is good. The main problem with these surveys is that anyone can manipulate the survey by taking them multiple times...The result of the survey itself does not confirm the thinking of the majority of chess.com members, but rather the majority of survey takers.
The official chess.com surveys which attract 1,000+ recipients are similarly biased, of course, though not to the same extent.
It is tough to choose a single aspect when you might consider several as equally bad.
One can't read too much into the results but I'm surprised that : PF5: Someone creating a forum in which all the first 20 posts are his is high, since I would have thought it was a fairly rare occurrence.