Poly "Impact Factor"

[Felch]

Originally posted by Asher


Actually, I nominate the following system:

- By default, everyone has full posting access.
- Once determined by an elected official (eg, the OT President) that a person is stupid, all of their future posts will be subject to peer review by the President and his Cabinet before they are posted to the site.

Aside from Vice President Wiglaf, who's in your cabinet?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Honestly, I'm not entirely sure that is even true... maybe biology is worse than the physical or mathematical sciences in that sense, but sometimes I wonder whether the current system actually net harms science ...

How can this possibly be? Surely people will not cite irrelevant or unimportant work?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Felch


Aside from Vice President Wiglaf, who's in your cabinet?

Everyone I've promised positions to in the election threads. Actually I don't even remember.

I think you're part of it.

[Ming]

Re: Re: Re: Poly "Impact Factor"

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Ming, your smiley-filled replies are one of the major demonstrations of why it is necessary to update the current system.

If we don't do so the movement toward blatant nonsense exemplified by your posts will be almost unstoppable as the incentive structure of raw post count is aligned this way.

Laughter is far better than delusional people who think they are better than everybody else. Talk about blatant nonsense...



Enjoy the fantasy world you seem to live in

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Felch
These posters also have the word "Diety" next to their names

After studying this issue in depth we demonstrate that to p < 0.000001 we reject the hypothesis that the poster title corresponding to a post count of >= 10000 is spelled "Diety" in favour of the hypothesis that it is spelled "Deity".

Previous work on this subject is available in the form of KH et al (2007) as well as in the review article by Feynman & Weinstein (1982)

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


How can this possibly be? Surely people will not cite irrelevant or unimportant work?

It's more that people start focusing on the cites as a goal rather than a benefit of good work, and stop doing good work that might not be cited.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by snoopy369


It's more that people start focusing on the cites as a goal rather than a benefit of good work, and stop doing good work that might not be cited.

What could possibly make somebody cite a work other than quality or importance, you son of a mongrel?

[MrFun]

Hey there KH. Your name is either Ron Jeremy (as you said in the DC meet thread) or it's Matt.

Which one is it?

[Felch]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
After studying this issue in depth we demonstrate that to p < 0.000001 we reject the hypothesis that the poster title corresponding to a post count of >= 10000 is spelled "Diety" in favour of the hypothesis that it is spelled "Deity".

Previous work on this subject is available in the form of KH et al (2007) as well as in the review article by Feynman & Weinstein (1982)

Too true. I forgot my Latin cognates, (2nd decl. m. Deus, Dei)

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun
Hey there KH. Your name is either Ron Jeremy (as you said in the DC meet thread) or it's Matt.

Which one is it?

Do you not know who Ron Jeremy is?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Felch
Who would be trusted to prevent cartels of like-minded spammers from ruining the system?

One factor we could introduce would be a "diminishing returns" term. Basically, the more an individual is cited by another individual the less each further citation by this same individual is worth.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


What could possibly make somebody cite a work other than quality or importance, you son of a mongrel?

You misunderstand my objection. It is not that people cite works they oughtn't (though they often cite inferior works that appear in larger journals or from larger labs over superior works that did not make their way up the ladder, but that is not relevant to my point). It is that people forgo doing important science because it is not 'sexy' right now and thus will not be cited by numerous others. When gaining citations is the sole point of science, we have a problem...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher


Do you not know who Ron Jeremy is?

He's a comedian who has done a parody of John Malkovich.


Next question!

[Felch]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
One factor we could introduce would be a "diminishing returns" term. Basically, the more an individual is cited by another individual the less each further citation by this same individual is worth.

Sounds reasonable. I'm also assuming that these ranking are limited, so that a poster can only "give a point" once per day, or perhaps based on some function of their own impact factor.

[ZEE]

posting in an obvious troll thread by an obviously bored wanker.