Re: Org Promotion
Missing the point… It was not presented as such (see post:25) and that is the first point (out of several) I made in my previous post. It was not presented as such and I reacted to that very circumstance because its hardly honest to present it as something completely different – in this case as general, representative and solid statistics. It is clearly nothing of the sort, and thus it (the post) is/was obviously misleading folks, by definition. Besides, even if it had been presented as you would have liked – as 2016-threads only, and only the views that such threads generates – it still struggles with serious relevancy-issues regardless. After all, 2016-threads are hardly alone in generating traffic/views on a site in 2016 (even this one) – and as long as that is a fact, ignoring everything else beyond that limitation hardly makes the results of such an approach any more relevant or representative, now does it? It actually makes it less relevant and representative, if anything. One would think this is obvious. The “2016-threads only” method will thus only yield highly skewed, misleading and flat out impractical results due to the fact. It clearly won’t represent reality well enough somehow, and thus it becomes irrelevant as it has then lost its basic function and meaning here. "Partial reality" don't do us much good here, now does it?Originally Posted by Husar
I don’t know… I have not suggested such thing (see my previous post) – you did (right here). Feel free to triple check that all day if you want too, its mentioned about zilch times in all my posts here.
Is this a bad joke? I am well aware of what and when Therother have explained his intentions and motives here. Its thanks to him that I got a chance to actually evaluate the staff traffic-list seriously in the first place. Regardless, you post as if the screens I forwarded does not exist or that any reference to these never existed in my post (they are fully visible in their entirety, using the Chrome-browser for instance). You have thus decided to actively ignore the very material that actually proves and makes another significant point I was making here. The screens of post: 30 are crystal clear in their numbers and in the statistics they deliver. They leave no doubts about views generated in 2016 what so ever (up to 16th sep) in that specific area of the site, or about the enormous discrepancy that they (the screens) illustrate compared with the presented traffic/views-list by staff. Once you actually bother to look at those screens you can see that as well. It’s a question of basic maths. They even have timestamps, 1st Jan and 16th Sep, 2016. It can hardly get any much clearer, or more obvious, then that. The numbers are in contrast actually accurate for this specific case (Redux) and (its) area - and you can triple check that all day if you want too.
If the staff don’t have such solid statistics for the site, then they don't have solid statistics for the site, as simple as that – act accordingly and seriously about it. Don't conjure up some half-ass "solution" that won't work anyways (as explained above) and then try to sell that to us as reliable statistics to compensate for the void of actual solid statistics here, because that is both dishonest and stupid. And we all know it. Either you learn from this obvious screw up and improve on your practices so it won't happen again - or you continue to screw up some more on this note, again and again - and you(/staff) will look needlessly ridiculous and unserious in the process. Understand?
First of all, at least try to be accurate for a change... Secondly, don’t try to be witty here, it doesn't agree with you. Thirdly, its hardly my fault if people decide to act stupid or dishonest - very especially so while representing the site in general (on these boards, regardless of context). But, it certainly is my (and everyone else's) fault if I (/we) don’t point that out whenever it does happen in any official or formal capacity. Assuming here, that I (/we) actually do want to help and improve the site and the staff that serves it somehow. Of course, I (/we) could do nothing and pretend its raining (as most people seem to do here), but do I then really help the site? Nope, I (/we) do not…Before you call other people stupid or liars you may want to check whether the reality you like to talk about is actually real...
Lastly, you are hardly in a position to tell me about handling reality, much unlike yourself I have actually dealt with what you have posted here (all of it) and not some junk I made up in your name. The fact that you have done this (here) as a member of staff certainly isn’t doing much for the image of this site, or its staff at large, or you personally for that matter. In short, its annoying, its rude, its stupid and it’s a waste of time for all (yup, you too).
Get my drift?
- A
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks