Skip to main content

View Diary: Open letter to WaPo's Brady: why are 420 posts still hidden? (122 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A fair point (4.00)
    I know it's wicked long, but I wanted to be thorough. Maybe too thorough!
    •  You got him cold (4.00)
      don't apologize...  :-)
    •  Ombudsman (4.00)
      I nominate you to Howell's position.  Obviously, you have the skills to do it.
      •  ..yes.. (none)
        ..they need somebody there who does not have a disdain for bloggers as some kind of lower form of life.  Look, they own post.blog, and can set the rules, but that doesn't mean they can get away with lying and coverups.  And the rules need to be clear and not made up as they go.  

        What a bunch of clowns.

        Attention Traditional Media: Progressive blogs are one of the greatest forces for good in the world today. Know it. Live it. Love it.

    •  Just something to add... (4.00)
      Lovely work!

      Regarding mass deletions and thread closing, I have seen this sort of thing before, but not on a blog.

      Sony/Verant closed down the EQ Discussion boards (the ones that the GMs monitored) and replaced it with a wholly moderated one - you e-mailed in your questions, and if they liked the question, they posted it and a reply.

      This is what I was afraid the Post was going to do.

      Stealthbadger.net - Searching for Truth, Justice, and the Guy Who Boosted My Wallet a Few Weeks Back...

      by Stealthbadger on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:37:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The only thing in the diary I'd change (none)
        is Howell's nickname.  If you want to tag her with the profanity of her own quotes, I think there's one that isn't quite as profane, but has a much truer ring to it:

        Deborah "Complete Batch of Shit" Howell.

        Just a thought.

      •  "you e-mailed in your questions" (none)
        post.com has actually switched to that format, for all their blogs (except for the ones that are simply locked, entirely). I left this out for the sake of brevity.

        I think it's sort of sneaky that they did this without any announcement. I haven't seen anyone else comment on this.

        They've made various statements to the effect that only certain parts of their blog have been affected. Not exactly true.

        "This is what I was afraid the Post was going to do."

        They actually have done this. Maybe you're saying you already know. Anyway, good point.

      •  EQ (none)
        is a devils game.  www.shardsofdalaya.com is where it's at now .. why pay when you can play for free? =D
    •  If you aren't already a PhD... (none)
      you deserve one for the research and analysis you put into this.
    •  Maybe it WAS too long...but I enjoyed every word. (none)
    •  I just caught this post (none)
      It's 1:30AM on the east coast and I gotta go to bed. I'll finish it tomorrow. Of the 1/2 I've read so far-ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC!!!!
    •  One mathematical error you need to correct (4.00)
      There is one point you need to correct:

      If at any time you have a 8% chance of seeing offensive message, going there 20 times does not give you a 100% chance of seeing one, but only a 80% chance (and 10 times only a 55% chance)

      You need to look at it the other way: each time, you have a 92% chance of not seeing anything offensive. If you go twice, you have a 0.92x0.92 = 85% chance of not seeing anything offensive. If you go 5 times, you have a 0.92x0.92x0.92x0.92x0.92 = 66% chance of still not seeing anything offensive.

      And so on. If you go 10 times, you still have 0.66x0.66 = 44% chance of not seeing anything, and 20 times 0.44x0.44 = 19%.

      This may seem like nitpicking, but as you have tried to be exhaustive, you should correct this little piece of your reasoning.

      In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
      Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

      by Jerome a Paris on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 01:29:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Many thanks (4.00)
        Obviously, you're right. No, it's not nitpicking. It's just basic statistics that I should have gotten right the first time.

        I did sort of remember the concept you described. That's why I hedged by saying "approaching," which was easier than trying to remember (or research) the details of what I studied in statistics class a long time ago. But I'm very glad to have your help making my presentation more accurate.

        I've made a change.

        Sorry it took this long to notice your helpful comment. I think I went to sleep right around the time you posted. (The price of being exhaustive is being exhausted.)

    •  Don't apologize! This diary's perfect (none)
      I logged in just to give you a four. I can't believe that this excellent piece of work, worth reading all the way through and cool and cold in its analystic format, isn't getting hundreds of 4 ratings. It really deserves it.
      •  No complaints (none)
        This diary has been on the Rec list for about 15 hours now, and currently has 312 recommendations. That's a very gratifying amount of recognition, along with, of course, many kind words posted here. I couldn't ask for more.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site