Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dispute Resolution Forum

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    r3nu4l
    Registered Users Posts: 17,399 ✭✭✭✭r3nu4l


    IITYWYBMAD wrote: »
    I didn't say that, but I get where you would infer that conclusion. You can shout all day that the world is flat tbh....If i ask you to show me how the world is flat, and you tell me you have the evidence but cannot show me, I may think a number of things, one being that you have the evidence and another being that you are just bulls**ting me. I can point out what you told me, but it does not address the question no matter how many times you shout that the world is flat...
    Yup, I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. :)

    Don't get me wrong, I understand your frustration and the need for metrics! My own crude post on the last page isn't an analysis but it at least points towards the forum changing over time (to some extent).


  • Options
    #33
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    While I probably only qualify as one of renu4l's "half-baked wannabe mathematician" types, I thought I'd offer a small amount of perspective on this...
    IITYWYBMAD wrote: »
    How many where dealt with within the time frame of the ban?

    A permanent ban could be dealt with in a period of a year, and qualify as a "positive" for this measurement. A one-day ban may not even get to us before the ban had expired, making it impossible for it to qualify as a positive.

    Its also worth considering that "size" and "complexity" are not the same thing. A complex issue will typically take longer to resolve, but thats independant of the ban resolution. Should we consider something a negative because we took the time to look at it properly...where a positive would be a snap-judgement, ignoring the details at hand, but where we delivered a decision within the timelimit of the ban?

    There are no shortage of other points to consider, but what I'm driving at here is that as a metric, this measurement wouldn't tell us much. A simpler measurement like "average time to resolve" would probably be more useful, but even then there's a number of factors which come into play.

    All that said, we'd like to make the whole thing run faster...without sacrificing correctness. Getting the wrong result in less time is not preferable to taking more time and getting it right.
    What is the ratio of overturned/non-overturned appeals?
    What do you see as the relevance of such a ratio?

    (I'm not trying to knock you here...its a genuine question.)

    I see it like this - we don't control the "input". We don't force people to come to us, and as long as its a DRF-relevant complaint, we let the thread run.

    From that perspective, we have no control over how many complaints need a corrective action and as a result have nothing by which to judge the ratio of upheld against not-upheld.

    If we found that 90% were upheld...does that tell us that we're doing a bad job, because we're always backing mods even when they're wrong, or that we're doing a good job, because the mods are making the right call(s), and we're seeing that reflected in review.
    What measurements are being used to deem this "new" procedure a success or not?
    What would you define as "success"?

    Again, its a genuine question...because if you don't know what your goal is, its impossible to measure for it. It may still be impossible to measure even if you do know what it is...but the first thing is to know what you're aiming at.


Advertisement