Middle Aged Men in Their Pajamas

[Ken Fox]

As this site becomes more popular and the posting volume increases, it is worth mentioning that quality in posting does not necessarily follow quantity.

It is difficult to start out with a new interest (like making espresso in your home), to come to a site such as this, and then to have to try to decide whether or not what you are reading is actually correct. This is not a new problem, and of course, there are many reasons for incorrect information being written and repeated in online venues. Sometimes it seems obvious that something *must* be true, is assumed to be true, is then repeated so many times that it seems like it is true, but then it turns out it is false. Other times a false way of trying to look at something objectively ends up yielding (surprise!) false results. And some times, people simply don't know what they are talking about, plain and simple.

Unless you have personally interacted with individuals posting here (or on any other site) you cannot simply assume that they really know anything much about what they are writing, and you can't assume that they really have any taste in coffee. This even applies to people who post a lot, which would include myself. I've read a few posts lately that seem to imply that some people view me as being some sort of expert, and I'd caution you that I've written my share of stuff that later proved to be flat wrong since I got into this little world of online coffee. So has most everyone else who has been in this little hobby for a while.

There are threads that get written about particular pieces of equipment, for example, that will have one or two or maybe three people going back and forth about this piece of gear with no one else participating. According to these one or two or three people, the thing is just phenomenal, god's gift to whatever, but curiously, no one else chimes in or participates in the thread. An astute reader might consider the possibility that others, likely other people even more knowledgeable, have avoided participating in the thread because they don't want to be confrontational, to be slinging mud, implying or stating that these one or two or three posters don't have a clue. So, the thread comes off giving the impression that the piece of gear is phenomenal, when in fact it might be a terrible POS.

Of course, it depends on who these people are. If it is Dan Kehn and Dave Stephens and Jeff Sawdy debating the merits of a particular espresso machine or grinder or whatever, I'd give that a lot of credence. If it is 3 people you have no way of evaluating, I'd be cautious.

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

ken

[Abe Carmeli]

Ken,

Well said, though I read it in my shorts. One of the most surprising pieces of trivia I learned from watching way too many episodes of The Actor's Studio is that actors get into character, mentally, by wearing that character's cloths. From Robert Deniro to Phillip Seymour Hoffman, they all placed large weight on how the garment we wear affects our state of mind. Which brings me to my point here, perhaps we should all get into a tux before posting. I aim to try it next time, and I do have a monocle to match.

[Randii]

Hi Ken,

I really appreciate that you have said this. I am an espresso newbie, and have only been reading the forums for less than a year. I have finally begun to notice the difference between statements that are opinion, statements that are fact, and statements that are just posters blowing hot air around. I have said on the CG forum, that there needs to be a section written especially for newbies, which spells out "Coffee Myths" and "Issues under Debate", so we don't get thrown off when we read these things, and think that they are facts, or that the debate has been decided one way or another.

There is so much overwhelming information for us to dig through, and so little guidance as to which information is accurate. Many times people will just point to a thread and tell a newbie to read it, not realizing that we have no way of knowing what to read and what to ignore in the thread. We don't have enough background information - as many of those in the forum do - to be able to read between the lines. Many of the threads can be so esoteric that they go completely over our heads, and - as I found - some of the things that people write are completely ridiculous, or even worse, have ulterior motives - especially when newbies are concerned. Ultimately, we wind up learning through experience, or by training with professional baristas (as I did), that much of what we have read isn't true, or is blatant manipulation - so the "wisdom" of the collective coffee community finally comes into question, as it should.

I appreciate - and have noticed - your efforts to make things easier for those of us who are just beginning, so that we don't get discouraged along the way and just give up, which happens all too often. Thank you very much for all of your help. I just hope that the rest of the real "experts" on the forum will take notice of this thread and join in your efforts to make it easier for newbies to learn how to differentiate fact from myth, and to continue to shield them from some of the sharks that lurk in the forums.

[jesawdy]

It is easy to get lost in all the information here and it can be difficult to decide what is right and what is wrong; what is good advice and what is bad. As moderators, we work hard to try and make information here easier to find; we move and rename topics; we try to ask guiding questions, etc. The hope is that members new and old alike will be able to find useful information, conversations and be more inclined to participate.

Now that said, it think that is healthy to think that everything you read here is total malarkey. Of course I don't believe that to be true. But as a new or old enthusiast, one should always question what they read and try to determine for themselves what is good or bad information. Try new things, try recommended things, heck, try things that are not recommended. Experiment for yourself and grow your experience and knowledge. When you think you have it figured out, you might discover that you had it all wrong. Or maybe not. Taste is such a subjective thing. What I may think is awesome, you may think is worse than dirty dishwater.

Making espresso isn't as hard as one might think from reading these forums. Keep that in mind all the time, it's a simple process. Grind, dose, pull, taste... that's it. Everything else is purely optional. I often like to keep in the back of my mind the thought of an Italian barista that is pulling single shot after single shot of espresso with a seemingly minimum of fuss.

I bet if you asked a goodly number of crusty old Italians that have been in the espresso biz what they thought of the discussions here, they'd probably say we are all nuts... or maybe not.

[SJM]

As an old broad in jammies who has made more than a few errors in judgment about posting here and there, I am SO glad you decided to post this particular post, Ken.

I am trying hard to learn to hold my tongue which seems to have a mind of its own. And I'm learning to read more critically....Thanks in great measure to your particularly measured way of proffering information.

Thanks and Happy New Year

Susan

[Psyd]

It is difficult to start out with a new interest (like making espresso in your home), to come to a site such as this, and then to have to try to decide whether or not what you are reading is actually correct.

It is the responsibility of the poster that has the high-post count to qualify his posts. I use a few tricks to keep me humble here, and at a few of the other sites I tend to hang out on.
1. Facts are facts. There are facts based on references, and those references should be cited if the facts are going to be used in a discussion that brings them into question. "Wiki reports that water boils at 212F at sea level."
2. Facts are experiences. There are those results of empirical and anecdotal evidence. "When I did that, My Silvia did this", and (Dan Kehn has tested three of those, and he reports that they..."
3. Opinions aren't facts. Opinions are based on experiences and anecdotes. Opinions are those things that you hold to be true, but really have no facts to support that opinion, other than your personal experiences and those of others. Reporting an experience is a fact, you had that experience. Reporting that that experience is the result of a + b is an opinion, regardless of how many times it has occurred to you and your friends. Just because every time you do a + b you get c isn't anything more than an indication that these two things cause a third. It's a good one, mind you, but not always true! "Every Tuesday, my shots are 7.5 Bar instead of the 8.5 Bar I usually get. Tuesdays cost me 1 Bar of pressure." Could be that Tuesday, at eight AM is the time that the maid does your neighbors laundry every week, dropping the pressure to your pump a bit...
4. Opinions are variable. The story of the Elephant described by six blind men comes to mind. They're all right. I teach swordsmanship, and I tell my students that my instructions are one of the tools that they get, and the instructions of others are just more tools. The simple fact that some of us will absolutely contradict one another doesn't mean that one of us has to be wrong. Some of the tools I teach won't work well in every situation, and some of the tools I teach are a preference of mine and work for me. They may not work for everyone, with different kit, and different situations.

If I can manage to post with all of that in my head, anyone that goes awry with my advice only has themselves to blame!

[HB]

It is difficult to start out with a new interest (like making espresso in your home), to come to a site such as this, and then to have to try to decide whether or not what you are reading is actually correct. This is not a new problem, and of course, there are many reasons for incorrect information being written and repeated in online venues.

Sigh... you are right. What can we do to reduce "disinformation"?

[DavidMLewis]

Sigh... you are right. What can we do to reduce "disinformation"?

Hi Dan,

I think, aside from keeping in mind as we write that we can always be wrong about something, that there's not too much. As Ken implied, critical reading is almost always more important, because by definition we can't be aware of our unconscious assumptions. It is important to try to sort out, when we post, what comes from our personal experience and what that might mean, and it's important not to simply parrot others' opinions, particularly without attribution to avoid what has been called a misinformation cascade (on CarTalk, so it's attributed!). One of the things that's been driven in for me in what is now a longish career in engineering is how hard it is to know what you know, i.e. what an experiment is telling you. That's why replication in science is so important.

Best,
David

[woodchuck]

Yes there may be alot of "disinformation" that pops up during discussions on this site but I find more often than not that we generally work our way to a good answer in the end. Maybe Surowiecki got it right - The Wisdom of Crowds.

Cheers

Ian

[stsmytherie]

"As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do." -- Andrew Carnegie

[cannonfodder]

You give me more credit than I deserve. I have, and continue to make my share of mistakes although I try to avoid incorrectly stating facts (Google and the secret search button are my friends). I am just a home barista trying to learn from those that know more than I.

I think one of the keys to avoiding misinformation is to separate fact from opinion. I try to state that the statement or stated view is my opinion or belief by simply saying things like 'I believe', 'I think', 'in my opinion' or the ubiquitous IMHO.

[popeye]

I've probably shared my quota of opinions as facts... I think I prefer this forum to coffeegeek because anyone can make coffee (well, almost anyone), but if your espresso's not good you will either give up, get better, or blindly push on to justify the cost of all that equipment. I'm somewhere between the latter two, but I have a few opinions on how to separate the beans from the chaff on this site.

1. I tend to value the opinions of people not based on number of posts, but length of membership on this site. (based off the "give up" theory, as stated above)
2. I tend to greatly value the opinions of people who are involved with coffee outside this site. Whether its a blog, or a shop, or just being everywhere, your name gets known.
3. I tend to value opinions of people who post a good video of their shot! There's nothing like a beautiful pour to let me know you can produce the product. (Not necessarily that it tastes good, or that you know what your doing outside of making shots, but they sure look pretty).
4. I tend to value the opinions of people who agree with me, because my opinion is always right, of course

[jrfuda]

Does phpBB (HB's forum software) support any sort of "karma" or "reputation" system? The forum software I use at one of my sites has such a feature. If phpBB does, turning this feature on could be a way to help newbies, like myself, have more than just number of posts to judge someone's experience level. Users will be able to give each user's post a thumbs-up or down based on whatever criteria they choose. Over time, posters who are more helpful and polite tend to get a higher "karma" or "reputation" score. The interesting thing about this is it does not necessarily correlate with the number of posts you make, but - rather - the number of post you've made that people found helpful. With this, it would be possible for someone with only 10 posts, but 10 AWESOME posts, to have a higher reputation or karma than someone with 10,000 posts. Why? Because each and every use who votes for the post ups the poster's karma/rep - so it's driven by the membership and not how much the user posts.

I, for one, tend to post a bit more than most people on the boards I frequent, but would consider myself in the lower-end of the tier concerning knowledge in the same subjects - however my post count would make folks think otherwise (not here, I'm pretty new here and have been mostly lurking). The karma/rep tool is a good way to level the playing field. Unfortunately, it would also sort of "reset" folk's reputations, as - though number of posts would remain the same - everyone would start at "0" for whatever type of rep/karma system is used, and old timer's who made great posts in the past would be less likely to have their older posts (except for some of the "classic" threads) voted-up.

[HB]

Does phpBB (HB's forum software) support any sort of "karma" or "reputation" system? The forum software I use at one of my sites has such a feature. If phpBB does, turning this feature on could be a way to help newbies, like myself, have more than just number of posts to judge someone's experience level.

I've thought about that too, though "wisdom of crowds" can get tricky when someone strives to game the system. I searched and found a lot of talk about karma mods for phpBB, but there wasn't a lot in active development. If all goes well, HB will be upgraded to the next version of phpBB in the new couple months, which would be a natural time to add such features.

On a related note... the site's FAQs and Favorites are dynamically created based on the input from the moderators, i.e., a thread can be flagged as noteworthy/interesting. This designation gives the topic priority selection in the Related Topics auto-search at the bottom of each thread and inclusion in the FAQs and Favorites page. The FAQs and Favorites Digest is more carefully vetted for inclusion, i.e., topics in the digest are noteworthy and categorized. This was a first attempt at identifying content that might be worthwhile article candidates and has turned out to be quite useful (it certainly saves me time looking up previous discussions!).

[Ken Fox]

Sigh... you are right. What can we do to reduce "disinformation"?

We can try to challenge it, but it is oh so . . . . . painful.

ken

[Fullsack]

Sigh... you are right. What can we do to reduce "disinformation"?

My hope has been that, if I state something that is flat wrong, a moderator or one of the "elders" will set me and the rest of the community straight. If moderators, etc., (I don't really think this is true), are concerned about hurting someone's feelings, they shouldn't be. I'd rather be corrected than let one of my wrong-headed notions mess up an H-Ber's espresso experience.

[coffeefrog]

I've thought about that too, though "wisdom of crowds" can get tricky when someone strives to game the system. I searched and found a lot of talk about karma mods for phpBB, but there wasn't a lot in active development. If all goes well, HB will be upgraded to the next version of phpBB in the new couple months, which would be a natural time to add such features.

I would worry that a reputation or karma system, particularly in a growing population would reinforce groupthink. Such a system tends to privilege the received wisdom and what is really needed is something less democratic, more like a process of editorial selection.

My experience in a different place with strong groupthink is that loopy posts that align with the received wisdom are accepted and posts that do not are slapped down (which is in practice a fairly strong editorial process). I stopped going to that forum regularly some time ago because interesting minority views are more important to me than reiteration of an always flawed received wisdom.

With reference to Fullsack's comment that suggests that moderators should set people right when they have "wrong headed notions"... Is the role of the moderators really to set people right when they are in some sense wrong, or it is to maintain order? There are always grey areas where opinion and facts blur (I am more of the Kuhn and Feyerabend school than the Popperian one). What happens if a moderator changes their mind about what is thought to be a fact? How is the set of facts agreed? The moderators would no-longer be able to participate in the same way as everyone else, disagreeing with a moderator would become a more complicated business than it currently is, and that would be a pity.

On the more immediate questions the wrong information is probably unavoidable, there just isn't enough depth of knowledge across the whole range of subjects. For the larger issues, like the recent shift on tamping it would be possible to periodically summarise the key discussions and let the others be handled by the normal process of discussion, disagreement and consensus.

Greg

[AndyS]

perhaps we should all get into a tux before posting.

Hi Abe, we been missin' u.

OK, in response to the hundreds of emails I get every week from desperate newbies, here's my Full Disclosure:

My postings are normally made in street clothes (business casual during the week, jeans on weekends). However, about 5% of the time I wear only jockey shorts when I post. :shock:

Ken, I don't wear pajamas, so you don't have to worry about me posting in them.

I hope this clears up any lingering doubts people may have had about my online participation.

[AndyS]

Ultimately, we wind up learning through experience, or by training with professional baristas (as I did)

Hi Randii, have you ever asked Ken for his opinion on pro baristas?

[Abe Carmeli]

I hope this clears up any lingering doubts people may have had about my online participation.

Hi Andy, been missin' you too. .

I see people have taken this topic a bit too seriously, trying to come up with the 10 commandments of ignoring posts. It isn't much different than any other information you evaluate in your daily life. If you are a total newbie you have no point of reference, but that's the admission fee to this insane asylum we run here. If you hang around a bit and try some of the advice you read about you will quickly identify the posters that are worth their words in ink, and the ones worthy of bathroom graffiti. Sadly, I've been worthy of both. There are old posts of mine on CG that wear my newbie status as a beacon of shame. I left them be and just added in the edit - "Please ignore this post, I was a pompous ignoramus.."