Following on from some questions that I asked boar_d_laze in another thread, I thought that I really should make this point a general one and a separate thread.

HB has developed into quite a good forum, with a great signal to noise ratio. Over the past few months, it seems to me that we have been getting more and responses that just assert things as universal truths and I struggle to believe that everyone posting these statements actually has the requisite experience to make such broad generalisations. In particular, I'm getting really sick of reading about the evils of HX machines, all of which are apparently fire-breathing dragons that require a sacrifice of many litres of water before they will condescend to put out anything other than molten-hot ash.

I think that HB's unique value as a discussion forum stems from the members' massive pool of knowledge and experience. In keeping in the spirit of that theme, I think that we owe it to one another to make the basis for our statements clear, whether that be personal experience or someone else's comments. In doing so, we'll allow readers to be able to make an informed decision about how useful our comments are likely to be. So rather than reading "don't buy a HX machine because all of them will invariably incinerate your coffee and all those that you hold dear," I think that we would all much rather read "I have owned machine X for Y months and find that I need to flush Z ounces of water through the group before making a shot," or "person X thinks Y (link)."

I don't think that this is a huge problem; the discussions on this webpage tend to be very fact-centric. But let's just keep it in mind.

Cheers,

Luca

luca wrote:In particular, I'm getting really sick of reading about the evils of HX machines, all of which are apparently fire-breathing dragons that require a sacrifice of many litres of water before they will condescend to put out anything other than molten-hot ash.

I dunno, that seems pretty accurate:



Sorry, I could not resist.

Seriously, thanks for bringing this up. I agree that members should make it clear whether they speak from first hand experience or are reporting what they've read elsewhere, especially because many people rely on forums for gathering information before making a large purchase. However, I think it is indelicate to explicitly "call out" someone - it is just short of calling them a liar. Instead I recommend politely querying the basis of their opinion (e.g., "How long have you owned XXX?", "Have you had the opportunity to compare XXX with YYY?").

The site's Guidelines for productive online discussion offer general advice on getting along. Do you think it needs updating to include "openness"? If you hadn't already surmised, I'm desperately trying to avoid a list of forum "don't do this, don't do that" rules.

I dunno, that seems pretty accurate:
Sorry, I could not resist.

Damn you and your immense library of stock images! ;P

I think it is indelicate to explicitly "call out" someone - it is just short of calling them a liar. Instead I recommend politely querying the basis of their opinion (e.g., "How long have you owned XXX?", "Have you had the opportunity to compare XXX with YYY?").

A few thoughts:

*That was my strategy in the original thread. If the person is speaking from experience, we get an enlightening discussion. If they are not, how "indelicate" the situation becomes is up to them in how they respond. I think that it would be preferable to head this off.

*Some cultural sensitivity is probably required on my part. "That's a load of bull$#!t" is probably one of the top ten most common phrases that I hear ;P

*If "calling out" someone is just short of calling them a liar, surely making ungrounded assertions is just short of lying?

The site's Guidelines for productive online discussion offer general advice on getting along. Do you think it needs updating to include "openness"? If you hadn't already surmised, I'm desperately trying to avoid a list of forum "don't do this, don't do that" rules.

I haven't signed up for a while, so I don't know what new members see, but does anyone actually look at that?

I don't think that rules are what is required. A more elegant way of doing it might be to refine this site's mission statement. I think that "your guide to exceptional espresso" has developed to mean, or at least to encompass, "no BS; just the facts." Why not create a statement of what it is that this site hopes to achieve and how we go about it? That way you have something that offers some "do/don'ts" as well as inspiring people to sign up, rather than tagging on some terms and conditions after people have already decided to sign up.

Cheers,

Luca

Sorry Luca for the slow response, I have been mulling over a response for several days...

luca wrote:Some cultural sensitivity is probably required on my part. "That's a load of bull$#!t" is probably one of the top ten most common phrases that I hear ;

That reminds me of a joke. Sorry, I don't recall the setup, but the gist of it was that a manager was tired of hearing his programmers saying "That's a load of bull$#!t" and informed his employees cussing would no longer be tolerated. So they coded their replies. For example, "That's a load of bull$#!t" = "That's a very interesting idea."

I heard the joke at work many years ago and for a long time thereafter, "That's a very interesting idea" became the catch phrase when someone expressed a particularly bad idea.

luca wrote:I don't think that rules are what is required. A more elegant way of doing it might be to refine this site's mission statement. I think that "your guide to exceptional espresso" has developed to mean, or at least to encompass, "no BS; just the facts." Why not create a statement of what it is that this site hopes to achieve and how we go about it?

I'm a believer in the Fixing Broken Windows theory applied to online communities:

A successful strategy for preventing vandalism, say the book's authors, is to fix the problems when they are small. Repair the broken windows within a short time, say, a day or a week, and the tendency is that vandals are much less likely to break more windows or do further damage. Clean up the sidewalk every day, and the tendency is for litter not to accumulate (or for the rate of littering to be much less). Problems do not escalate and thus respectable residents do not flee a neighborhood.

The theory thus makes two major claims: that further petty crime and low-level anti-social behavior will be deterred, and that major crime will, as a result, be prevented. Criticism of the theory has tended to focus only on the latter claim.

The site guidelines really aren't meant for new signups. They're formal statements of the "rules of engagement" written for the benefit of the moderators, and new members in the odd case where someone needs a reminder. But the day-to-day social norms are enforced subtly by the site's structure, member behavior, and Team HB leadership. For example, the site intentionally has very few forums to better focus on the site's mission statement, and each forum has a named "Lead Barista" to reinforce the team leadership. It's a symbolic gesture since anyone is free to reply to any thread wherever it appears, but I believe it's an important part of putting the "no broken windows" philosophy into action.

That said, I do believe your point is worth explicitly stating, if only as a reference should the question arise. I've added this to the guidelines and comments are welcome:

Be open and honest. Many people rely on opinions presented in these forums as part of their purchase decision. The basis of the information you present or opinions you express are as important at the statements themselves. For example, you should make it clear whether you speak from first hand experience or are reporting what you read elsewhere (and if appropriate, cite the source of this information).

The wording is a bit rough, but I think it gets the idea across.

HB wrote:Be open and honest. Many people rely on opinions presented in these forums as part of their purchase decision. The basis of the information you present or opinions you express are as important at the statements themselves. For example, you should make it clear whether you speak from first hand experience or are reporting what you read elsewhere (and if appropriate, cite the source of this information).

That's pretty good. You might also remind them to list conventional wisdom, i.e. stuff everybody knows, as such. For instance, "Get a grinder" is for most people conventional wisdom. I haven't bought pre-ground coffee in about 35 years, long before I worried about anything else in coffee. So I have no clue how bad preground really is. Oddly, one of the demos at Terroir is that coffee ground 48 hours before tastes better than a roast from green beans stored a few years before roasting. Italians grind coffee and let it stale a day (or a few hours in a doser) to stabilize the taste. So even something as totally slam dunk as "get a grinder" may admit to exceptions or qualifications that are unknown to us.

luca wrote:In particular, I'm getting really sick of reading about the evils of HX machines, all of which are apparently fire-breathing dragons that require a sacrifice of many litres of water before they will condescend to put out anything other than molten-hot ash.

Since this is a sore point for you, Luca, and I am one of the HX Doubting Thomas's, I thought I would respond.

I am fairly certain that the "joys of HX machines" posts outnumber the "evils" posts by a goodly margin, if not a goodly multiple. Part of the reason I like to respond to this topic is that Silvia-(or equivalent)-to-HX upgrade has become the normal upgrade path that serious consumers aspire to, while I think they should pause first and consider the pros and cons.

My discussions with other enthusiasts and observation of posts on the Internet indicate a high pre-occupation with milk foaming and a general preference for milk drinks. When people say they always or nearly always have milk drinks and that efficient steaming capacity is a high priority, that indicates to me that they have given up on making great tasting espresso. I do not profess to know why this is, but I am fairly confident that, if they can't make good espresso with a decent single boiler, they are even less likely to make it on an HX.

What I would hope home baristas aim for is not to reproduce the hot milkshake emporiums that pass for coffee bars in the U.S., but to make great shots at home. So, I stand up for single (and double) boilers as part of that effort.

The second issue is water treatment. My wife is a water treatment chemist. I have been through the Cirqua demonstration of the same coffee brewed with three different levels of mineral content. So I am sensitive to water issues. Water makes an enormous difference in brew quality. I like the fact that I can easily control my water quality with a pourover. I do not think most consumers give proper consideration to the impact that plumbing in to the local water supply may have on their coffee and what they will need to do to correct it.

As Dan, Ken Fox and others on this board know, I came within a hair's breadth of pulling the trigger on a Cimbali Jr. purchase before stepping back and considering the issues above. That is why I am waiting for a GS3 (fool that I may be).

Yes, I have tried several HX machines, and I am sure I could master them. I just came out differently on the decision than most people.

I thought I would add my two cents, somewhat in reply to Marshall. I didn't have a Silvia before getting my HX machine; I didn't have anything of any kind of quality, just an old Gran Gaggia that isn't even in the same league as the cheapest Gaggias available now. Before that, it was a steam-toy Krups. (I know this is a little off-topic, sorry.)

The point is I chose an HX not to make huge milky drinks but because I do enjoy a regular cappa without waiting and I like to be able to easily change brew temperature on the fly. Also, it's nice to have super-hot water for tea or Americanos. I am definitely in pursuit of better and better shots, but that's not always what I want. First thing in the morning I like to have something with a bit more liquid and not quite so strong.

I didn't make good espresso on my Gaggia. After nine months with my Anita I can (not always) pull shots as good, if a bit different than, those served in Stumptown's cafes. Also, don't forget that there are plenty of pourover HX machines, so your water issue is a non-issue.

jgriff wrote:Also, don't forget that there are plenty of pourover HX machines, so your water issue is a non-issue.

I know, but the typical flushing routine usually leads people to plumb their machines in sooner or later.

Marshall wrote:I know, but the typical flushing routine usually leads people to plumb their machines in sooner or later.

Getting back to one of the original problems of online forums - people often perpetuate myths as fact. When we examine conventional wisdom critically we occasionally learn something (like the conventional wisdom is not fact-based) and advance the art. We ought to be quite sensitive to that here since this is currently one of the best forums. When people make blanket statements, we should politely ask them to produce the facts on which they base their assertion.

-Greg

gscace wrote:Getting back to one of the original problems of online forums - people often perpetuate myths as fact. When we examine conventional wisdom critically we occasionally learn something (like the conventional wisdom is not fact-based) and advance the art. We ought to be quite sensitive to that here since this is currently one of the best forums. When people make blanket statements, we should politely ask them to produce the facts on which they base their assertion.

-Greg

No, we shouldn't. That would be a rhetorical question, when questioner already knows the facts were not tested by a formal survey. But, we could run a survey here. Dan?

Marshall wrote:No, we shouldn't. That would be a rhetorical question, when questioner already knows the facts were not tested by a formal survey. But, we could run a survey here. Dan?

But the poster might say something to the effect of "it's been my experience that...", which is perfectly fine if presented as such. Also, the questioner doesn't have to know or not know if the assertion was tested or not. Just asking gets it out there and provides the openness that I think we'd like.

-Greg

The challenge is that 5 seriously vocal and active and belligerent and opinionated people of your description can destroy both the usefulness of a site like this and the s/n ratio

As the population grows, the S/N can only get worse (there will be more outliers in the distribution of signal strength and in the definition of "on topic" on any one topic). People come to sites like this carrying different bundles of needs and as the site population grows so does the fraction of people wanting among other things a sense of belonging, which suggests a predilection for groupthink on their part. The real problem is the changing weights in the population of the different kinds of needs. I suggest having a look at Clay Shirkey's essay at http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html . It is about precisely this phenomenon.

"The likelihood that any unmoderated group will eventually get into a flame-war about whether or not to have a moderator approaches one as time increases."

The issue of the conventional wisdom is a problem, and I suspect that it is an insoluble one because so much of it is arguable and it has changed so much over the last few years. The changes in the conventional wisdom are in a sense smeared out over the population with different people holding different versions of it. That is just natural but it is also part of the motivation of this discussion. How to change nature? That would require changing the way that people engage with the content and I doubt that that is possible. Part of the problem here is that the goals of the site are relatively diffuse; there is an awful lot that is in scope for this site, and so quality control is hard, keeping the site on track is more likely to come down to subjective issues of quality rather than keeping to a defined area, and that is why I am pessimistic.

The site has changed a lot over the last few years. When it started it seemed to deal with a higher percentage of seriously high-end domestic hardware and exotic machines. It was very cool and refreshing, it was much more interesting than coffeegeek at the time. The site is still distinguished by a strong technical and quantitative focus, but in percentage of content terms that is a declining part. The content on the site comes from only a few kinds of sources, it would be interesting to see what percentage of non-meta content is originated by reviews, what by "old" members and what by "new" members, and how much in each category is problematic on some definition like Luca's. I know its not an analysis that anyone has time for, but I have some suspicions about the distribution.

It seems to come down to "how do you weigh or QA contributions?". Greg Scace's approach is one way. I am not sure that you can do that kind of fine tuning of contributions without some loss of vitality, either in the evolution of the conventional wisdom or in the participation of new people. The unfortunate side effect is a lower S/N.

Greg