Middle Aged Men in Their Pajamas - Page 3

[Cafesp]

I probably should not have posted this, but for some reason I thought I should, so I did it.

ken

Are we gearing for CENSORSHIP!?
Watching people's writing just for a DRINK?!

"I probably should not have posted this, but for some reason I thought I should, so I did it."

Nathan

[Psyd]

Are we gearing for CENSORSHIP!?

I didn't get that. What it sounded like to me is that the rest of the posters (in one proposed scenario) would have input on everyones 'quality rating' so that the renegades and ranters that have a tendency to spout any old thing that enters their attic could be discerned from the scientists and empirical cats with some sort of community rating.
It's the community identifying those that they trust most and those that have a history of distrust. And those that haven't had the 'stripes' to have a reputation. That isn't censorship, it's community.
And even that has been given the hairy eyeball as maybe too much, by some.

[Ken Fox]

I didn't get that. What it sounded like to me is that the rest of the posters (in one proposed scenario) would have input on everyones 'quality rating' so that the renegades and ranters that have a tendency to spout any old thing that enters their attic could be discerned from the scientists and empirical cats with some sort of community rating.
It's the community identifying those that they trust most and those that have a history of distrust. And those that haven't had the 'stripes' to have a reputation. That isn't censorship, it's community.
And even that has been given the hairy eyeball as maybe too much, by some.

I didn't respond to the post about some sort of rating system, but will respond now.

The only way such a system could have any value would be to also rate the raters. By way of hypothetical example, let's say that you have 3 guys, let's call them Andy S, Jim S, and Dave S (too many "S's," I know). They all have the highest rating, we'll call it "100." Then you have some yahoos, let's call them 1,2, and 3. Andy, Jim, and Dave could all give someone a high rating, but the three yahoos could give the same person a low rating which would nullify it and make this superposter look average or worse.

And the amount of posts one makes is not a good barometer of how useful a participant one is, so you can't use that, either for the rater or for the ratee. I know of one board (a computer related site where I seldom post anymore) where you get "feathers," like some sort of merit badges, based on your posting count. The idea is that this is supposed to encourage people to post and become more helpful, but in reality it just encourages vacuous posts as people try to get their next "feather."

I think people can make their own decisions about whose posts merit attention and whose don't. And they won't be the same posters for everyone.

I'm for leaving things just like they are.

ken
p.s. as to the question about why I would have hesitated to post this, I was afraid that some would take my original post as being aimed at them. I have in fact received emails to that effect, so the concern was not without reason.

[ByronA]

[Edit] Added new comments after finishing this article:

I laughed so hard as I read this article. Ken, thanks so much for having the courage to post it! I have to agree with some of the posts I read on this thread. There is no magic formula for learning. It all comes down to informing yourself and finally making a decision. I will, very strongly say (from personal experience) that the more informed you are, the less likely you will regret your decision.

I've played different roles in the support industry for a while now, and one thing I have learned very well over the years, is that everyone makes mistakes, including the 'experts'. I've met many so called "gurus" over the years. Some of them have been true 'gurus', and others have been called that. Regardless, they are all people and prone to all our flaws. The one thing I can't abide by, are the 'experts' who look down their noses at people who know less. In my opinion, these people are small minded and insecure and only participate to boost their ego. They are the ones who say the problem is your ID-10T. In my opinion, the only stupid question is the one un-asked. [end edit]

We, as internet users, need to understand that just because something is in print (or on the screen) doesn't automatically make it true. This is true on HB, CG, CNN, Billies Blog for experts, etc. We need to develop critical analysis skills to assist us, but as far as I'm concerned, this is so much better than the options we had before, which was to visit a library or to join a club. Nothing has really changed, people lied, gave wrong information, and turned opinion into fact long before the written word. Why would this be different now?

So, how do we fix this?

In my opinion, this is a life skill that every individual needs to develop. We seem as a society to want to categorize everything, and look for someone else to tell us what we should think. This is all wrong. Yes, it is good to listen to differing opinions, and there is nothing wrong in categorizing things, but people, please keep an open mind! Make up your own mind on what many people have to say. And if you aren't certain, try to find ways of testing things out. We will make mistakes, but that is part of the learning process. Hopefully, the mistakes we make won't be life threatening, and when we find out we made a mistake, we will try to fix it.

There are no quick and easy answers. I have found that normally the easiest solution is also the wrong solution and that we prefer to fix symptoms and not problems.

My suggestion to anyone new to anything, is read as much as you can by as many different people as possible. Then start talking with people. Over time, you will realize who gives good advice and who gives bad.

All that being said, I think that the status quo is better than the alternative at this point.

Now, if you want something controversial, here is my opinion; Espresso making is an art, that science can only go so far in helping. The rest is between the portafilter and the cup.

[malachi]

To be totally honest - I think that worrying about disinformation on this site is somewhere between silly and pointless.

As each of us become more experienced (not "skilled" or "better" but simply "with more experience") we start to learn what is disinformation, what we've fallen for, and from this we start to learn what is likely to be disinformation.

Each of us - when we began - fell prey to disinformation. Yet we survived.

While it's a noble goal to try and spare other beginners that experience - I don't think it's feasible. In addition, I might argue that that learning process is actually very valuable in building up your "bull detector."

Now... if we were to see a multi-user campaign of orchestrated disinformation... well that would be a different story.

[Ken Fox]

To be totally honest - I think that worrying about disinformation on this site is somewhere between silly and pointless.

As each of us become more experienced (not "skilled" or "better" but simply "with more experience") we start to learn what is disinformation, what we've fallen for, and from this we start to learn what is likely to be disinformation.

Each of us - when we began - fell prey to disinformation. Yet we survived.

While it's a noble goal to try and spare other beginners that experience - I don't think it's feasible. In addition, I might argue that that learning process is actually very valuable in building up your "bull detector."

Now... if we were to see a multi-user campaign of orchestrated disinformation... well that would be a different story.

I don't disagree with any of this, Chris.

On the other hand, there have been a whole lot of threads lately that have been "occupied" solely by 2 or 3 people, that have grown to be fairly large. In looking at these threads I haven't, myself, been able to make heads or tails of whether what is being said has any merit. Since I don't really need the information contained in those threads, I don't have to decide if they are valid, but some might.

There are threads on a particular piece of home roasting equipment that is new and which had garnered a number of positive posts. Three people whom I'm sure you know had independently said bad things about this roaster to me, but obviously they decided not to post on those threads. Should we just leave it at that, sink or swim, with the benefits accruing to those who have knowledgeable friends, or should we make an effort to "correct the record?" (even if our friends lack the balls to do it themselves?) I'm torn. I don't know the answer to this question, but the question itself is what motivated me to start the thread.

ken

[Fullsack]

There are threads on a particular piece of home roasting equipment that is new and which had garnered a number of positive posts. Three people whom I'm sure you know had independently said bad things about this roaster to me, but obviously they decided not to post on those threads. Should we just leave it at that, sink or swim, with the benefits accruing to those who have knowledgeable friends, or should we make an effort to "correct the record?" (even if our friends lack the balls to do it themselves?) I'm torn. I don't know the answer to this question, but the question itself is what motivated me to start the thread.

ken

I agree Ken, it's a dilemma. I have to cop to not having the balls to say anything negative about certain products as well, especially if they are carried by site sponsors. I did some negative posts early on and took a lot of heat from some other H-Bers. Until negative posts become better received, some of us will continue to keep silent.

[Rainman]

I don't disagree with any of this, Chris.

On the other hand, there have been a whole lot of threads lately that have been "occupied" solely by 2 or 3 people, that have grown to be fairly large. In looking at these threads I haven't, myself, been able to make heads or tails of whether what is being said has any merit. Since I don't really need the information contained in those threads, I don't have to decide if they are valid, but some might.

ken

I think most readers realize that when it really comes down to it, the purchase of coffee equipment is theirs alone. Like one of my economics profs told me long ago, "a free market economy only works if nobody puts a gun to your head to drive your decision-making". It's always going to be "buyer beware". The beauty of places like this, is that there are significant numbers of home users of this sort of stuff to offer advice (however flawed it may be)- where else would you rather go? Readers just have to realize that, and step carefully. If someone makes a frequent habit of purchase expensive things after reading 3 opinions, then sooner or later they're going to be sorely disappointed- then they'll learn their lesson. Luckily, I think this place offers little chance of that happening- especially as it has grown. If not here, there's always coffeegeek (no offense, Mark!).

C'mon, Ken- it's not like we're talking about lifesaving medical technology here.

Ray

[Abe Carmeli]

There are threads on a particular piece of home roasting equipment that is new and which had garnered a number of positive posts. Three people whom I'm sure you know had independently said bad things about this roaster to me, but obviously they decided not to post on those threads. Should we just leave it at that, sink or swim, with the benefits accruing to those who have knowledgeable friends, or should we make an effort to "correct the record?"
ken

I think you should not make an attempt to correct the record in that particular example because your knowledge is no more than hearsay. However, if you used the equipment and had a different experience than those positive posters, you should. The fact that the equipment in question is sold by a site sponsor should have no merit on a decision to post or not to post.

As to Fullsack's comments re: "I got some heat on this site after posting negative comments about equipment/vendor", it all boils down to how you do it. Trashing a vendor or a piece of equipment without being specific as in "I hate that piece of junk"; or using this site as an ax to grind against a particular vendor is inappropriate. A dissatisfaction with a vendor can and should be posted here, but not as a vengeful quest but rather as a service to others. Avoid that emotional language and superlatives in such posts and state the facts. It is much more effective that way.

A couple of months ago a poster praised the Appia as a machine that requires no flushing, is always on temperature and is perfect for a home user. I happened to test that machine prior to that post to evaluate exactly those parameters. In the end I rejected the machine as a subject for a review on HB because it was way too big to fit in a kitchen, it required a pretty long flush, it needs to be plumbed in and in short was unsuitable for home users. The poster was clearly a shiller or an ignoramus. A post exposing those facts is very appropriate in such a case, I'd say mandatory.

[Fullsack]

As to Fullsack's comments re: "I got some heat on this site after posting negative comments about equipment/vendor", it all boils down to how you do it. Trashing a vendor or a piece of equipment without being specific as in "I hate that piece of junk"; or using this site as an ax to grind against a particular vendor is inappropriate. A dissatisfaction with a vendor can and should be posted here, but not as a vengeful quest but rather as a service to others. Avoid that emotional language and superlatives in such posts and state the facts. It is much more effective that way.

At the time, as a new poster on H-B, I was treading very lightly, understated my criticisims and tried to be as objective as possible. A handfull of the "elders" can post negative comments without reprisal, but many of the rest of us get ridiculed. It is the reason not too many negative comments are made about products on this site.

A more recent post, but a case in point:

http://www.home-barista.com/forum...4788-20.html#53684

BTW: If you are still in doubt, if the Gene Cafe is a drum roaster, check out the Roast Magazine definition of a drum roaster. "...has a metal drum"

[Abe Carmeli]

At the time, as a new poster on H-B, I was treading very lightly, understated my criticisims and tried to be as objective as possible. A handfull of the "elders" can post negative comments without reprisal, but many of the rest of us get ridiculed. It is the reason not too many negative comments are made about products on this site.

A more recent post, but a case in point:

http://www.home-barista.com/forum...4788-20.html#53684

BTW: If you are still in doubt, if the Gene Cafe is a drum roaster, check out the Roast Magazine definition of a drum roaster. "...has a metal drum"

I don't believe the example you gave highlights your point, I can't see where you were being skewered for posting a negative comment about a product. The argument was not whether the Gene Caffe is a good or bad roaster (which is a valid argument to begin with), but whether it should be considered a fluid air roaster (your opinion) or a drum roaster (Andy's). A proper discussion has ensued where both positions were presented.

[HB]

I don't believe the example you gave highlights your point, I can't see where you were being skewered.

Andy's response certainly could have been nicer. Here's the same format with the particulars removed:

Oh puleeeeeese.
The AAA is not a BBB. Hint: look for the <insert what should be obvious>.
News you can use: <insert what should be obvious>.

Where I grew up, this format was used to say "Are you joking or are you REALLY that stupid?"

[Fullsack]

I don't believe the example you gave highlights your point, I can't see where you were being skewered for posting a negative comment about a product. The argument was not whether the Gene Caffe is a good or bad roaster (which is a valid argument to begin with), but whether it should be considered a fluid air roaster (your opinion) or a drum roaster (Andy's). A proper discussion has ensued where both positions were presented.

The negative comments from me about the Gene Cafe came earlier in the thread. I was focusing more on the ridicule.

[Abe Carmeli]

The negative comments from me about the Gene Cafe came earlier in the thread. I was more focusing on the ridicule.

Indeed, I saw it. Your negative comment about the Gene Caffe was that "because it dries out the beans too fast you get crap".

The biggest distinction between the HotTop and the Gene Cafe is: drum roaster, (the HotTop), vs fluid bed roaster, (the Gene). Fluid bed roasters roast beans by agitating them with pressure from hot air. This technology dries out the beans. Any more than 9 minutes of roasting with a Gene and you've got crap.

Oh puleeeeeese.

The Gene Cafe is not a fluid bed roaster. Hint: look for the big rotating drum.

Fluid bed roasters roast beans by agitating them with pressure from hot air. This technology dries out the beans.

News you can use: ALL coffee roasters dry out the beans.

We may be reading the same text differently. Andy's response, though should have been nicer, was not related to your negative comment above, (the Gene Caffee produces crappy roasts), or to anything you said about the quality of the roaster, but rather to your claim that the Gene Caffe is a fluid air roaster, and that fluid air roasters dry out the beans. He was not trying to silence your criticism of a particular product (Gene Caffe), but rather argued two of the facts you stated about fluid air vs. drum Roasters. That is a valid argument.

[Fullsack]

We may be reading the same text differently. Andy's response, though should have been nicer, was not related to your negative comment above, (the Gene Caffee produces crappy roasts), or to anything you said about the quality of the roaster, but rather to your claim that the Gene Caffe is a fluid air roaster, and that fluid air roasters dry out the beans. He was not trying to silence your criticism of a particular product (Gene Caffe), but rather argued two of the facts you stated about fluid air vs. drum Roasters. That is a valid argument.

I won't dispute the way you read the thread, that is not the point I am making. Ridiculing a post in that manner, discourages taking any stand, positive or negative.

[malachi]

Should we just leave it at that, sink or swim, with the benefits accruing to those who have knowledgeable friends, or should we make an effort to "correct the record?" (even if our friends lack the balls to do it themselves?) I'm torn. I don't know the answer to this question, but the question itself is what motivated me to start the thread.

It's a good point.
IMHO - we should voice our opinions ("correct the record") when we see things that we feel are incorrect.

I guess I'll take some time to start doing so right now (lead by example).

[AndyS]

I won't dispute the way you read the thread, that is not the point I am making. Ridiculing a post in that manner, discourages taking any stand, positive or negative.

Where I grew up, this format was used to say "Are you joking or are you REALLY that stupid?"

Fullsack, please accept my apology. I did not mean to post in such a way that it could be taken as ridicule.

I felt (and still feel) that some of the statements you made in that thread were flat wrong. In attempting to set the record straight, I meant to correct your ideas. To the extent that I instead leveled a personal attack, that is just my immaturity.

Again, I apologize.

[Abe Carmeli]

At the time, as a new poster on H-B, I was treading very lightly, understated my criticisms and tried to be as objective as possible. A handfull of the "elders" can post negative comments without reprisal, but many of the rest of us get ridiculed. It is the reason not too many negative comments are made about products on this site.

I'm sorry to keep harping on this but this is not just an inaccurate statement that I would normally brush off. You claim that you've been ridiculed because you've posted negative comments about a product. If that were true, I would be worried as a moderator that we are censoring product criticism. It is that connection that bothers me.

You were not ridiculed because your comments about the Gene Caffe were negative, but because Andy thought your other comments about fluid bed & drum roasters were wrong. Distinctions are important in a discussion, and so is accuracy of one's statements. That of course does not excuse Andy's ridicule, but it brings us to the heart of the issue, we all should avoid statements we cannot support. And if this post has a chilling effect on unsupported claims, it will be a welcome result.

[Ken Fox]

A handfull of the "elders" can post negative comments without reprisal, but many of the rest of us get ridiculed. It is the reason not too many negative comments are made about products on this site.

Could you please supply us with a list? I get raked over the coals even on those rare occasions where I know what I'm talking about, and I for one have not hesitated to challenge even the likes of Dan Kehn when I thought he was wrong . . . .

ken

[AndyS]

I for one have not hesitated to challenge even the likes of Dan Kehn when I thought he was wrong . . . .

I for one have not hesitated to challenge even the likes of Ken Fox when I thought he was wrong, and as you know <sigh>, I think that a lot.

But of course Ken always takes it in stride, and we're still pals afterwards.