That thread I didn't want to get into [scoring content] was (Re: ::scr tales from the crypto)

[Richard Clamp <richardc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:05:44PM +0100, Alex Robinson wrote:
>  ** If I have to explain that quoting is fine
> 
> Well rampant failure to prune quoting gets my goat as well, my 
> obscurantist point was more the fact that the method for calculating 
> is just cack and easily avoided and doesn't really tell anybody 
> anything that isn't already directly and easily observable :)

[Bearing in mind that overquoting only sometimes gets my goat, and it
certainly wasn't that which provoked me to run stats the other day,
read on.]

Right, of course.  This'll be why posting the stats didn't actually
affect the out-of-control thread in any way, shape, or form.  It was all
just coincidence that it stopped shortly after.

I'm also well aware that the methods aren't precise and are easily
circumvented, I didn't do the following for my health you know.

     Subject: ::scr #include "meta/identifying types of post thread"

Also worth noting, just because something is easy to observe it
doesn't mean that people will.  People need allowances making for them
at times.

As Greg has observed, using tools to measure Kwalitee is surprisingly
effective.  Extending this for my own needs, something as artificial
as Kwalitee will often poke peoples brains into exercising the checks
for Quality out of some sense of workmanship that previously they
wouldn't even know how to start gauging.

Now I'm going to scream.  Or something.

-- 
Richard Clamp <richardc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>