|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 21, 2008 12:57:38 GMT -5
Holy shit! Uncle! Uncle!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Apr 21, 2008 13:47:04 GMT -5
 Told ya he would find a way around that 60,000 character limit!!!! Good Lord.....I got lost in there somewhere!! I think the point they were trying to get was to have as many hits as possible while continuing to narrow their control over it. They didn't realize the downside of it all. Now they will pay the piper for it by having to babysit it 24/7!!
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 21, 2008 16:29:14 GMT -5
Before I went out the hardware store, I did a little research and discovered the National Advertising Database site and a few others. Pretty interesting in regards to newspapers and their use of the Internet, etc. Turns out the web is the print media's way to extend their coverage down into the 18-34 age group, who eschew the print media but who spend more money than us old farts. Also, newspapers already have the demographic data placing them in educated, high earning households, so the web is a good place for them. I still haven't confirmed the idea of "reckless journalism," which proposes that any website hit is a plus for advertising dollars, so let all hell break loose and would like to explore that idea more. Here's an intersting article: Readers flock to online websites: www.cyberjournalist.net/news/003421.php |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Apr 21, 2008 20:32:42 GMT -5
Interesting, Swimmy. I'll play devil's advocate and speculate that your examples of the New Hartford real estate business and the land trust application may be simply one lawyer (you) versus the OD's lawyers. Obviously, they don't want to get sued for statements theyt feel they can't support. Or, you could be right and they have an unfair interest. Which brings up an interesting point,which you can answer, if you don't mind. Is the OD in any way responsible for comments made in their forums as they might be for what they print in their newspaper? And if so, would it make them skittish about what happens in the forums? I think I already answered this question because I had you screaming uncle. LOL!  Also, I'm thinking about the Tax Assessment incident you mentioned. I suppose a reporter could have called either of the persons involved, inquired and gotten a response that satisfied them nothing illegal happened. (Can't imagine, maybe coincidence, whatever, doesn't matter for this example, as long as the reporter was satisfied.) Now, they can't write about their inquiry, that's not news and it isn't fair if indeed the deal was legal. They can't even relay the results of the conversation to you, probably. I guess I should have also mentioned that ConcernedCitizens did give copies of the information to the disgrace who did nothing. I'm speculating wildly, I suppose, but that's one of t he "rights" of a devil's advocate. By the way, seems to me a "real" conversation, either in person or on the phone, would possibly have been in order with a person like the reporter or this famous Fran I hear about. Real talk between real people often makes real progress. I have not tried this, but I believe there were others who have. Some of the other regulars can chime in on this one. In regards to hit counter statistics and reckless news reporting. I need to go research that. Seems a bit "just so" to me and if such a system had no checks we would have heard by now of newspapers imploding as they played the numbers, I'm thinking. I have to admit, that's not my original idea. Losjibaros/getoverit made that argument long before the od made the disgrace. After seeing the move and the decidedly worse reporting, I am inclined to agree. By the way, time for you to write again for More Stories! My neighbor lady, an attorney, really enjoyed Guest Lecturer! I'm working on something. I'm glad your neighbor had a pleasant chuckle with it. I'll be in touch with another one for you to publish for me. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 21, 2008 22:20:25 GMT -5
I spent a little more time investigating what I now understand is called "analytics." Turns out that interpreting web page hits is a BIG controversy in the advertising field. There are all sorts of complications and the science of analytics attempts to analyze raw data from counters and massage it to more realistic information that can be used by advertisers to judge if they're getting their money's worth. E.g., Neilson numbers are said to often understate actual hits and agencies who stand to lose profits are understandably chagrined when their own hit counters show much higher numbers. News organizations, such as newspaper on-line outlets and the cable guys like CNN, etc., are particularly embroiled in the fray because most of their hits occur in the daytime from people at work who are behind fire-walled servers that group requests and reflect lower numbers than actual user requests.
The numbers published by the NAD databasse (I registered) for the Syracuse and Albany DMA's (marketing areas, sorry no breakout of Utica-Rome) what I think are unusually low numbers of distinguishable users coming on the site and spending a few minutes. Unless I'm reading the data wrong (and I could well be), even the New York Times had only about 13,000 unique users in 2007.
But still, although it would be advantageous for the OD to incent users to hit their site, I'm still not convinced they would let the forums run wild and reckless just to bump the numbers. But, you never know. Besides, if such were the case, the OD would not have attempted to rein in the forums, as they recently did.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 21, 2008 22:29:41 GMT -5
I just did the obvious. While thinking of the old OD forums, it occurred to me that I didn't remember seeing any advertising on them. They're still on-line, although locked. There's no advertising on them, which may have been only recently removed, of course. Does anyone remember ever seeing any banners, etc. on the forums when they were open? If there never was, then all the hits occurred from people checking the news and not necessarily from people looking for an argument. Of course, the arguers would first have to check the news to pick their topic. But this takes some wind out of Los's proposition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Apr 22, 2008 0:29:06 GMT -5
Dave, I had been a member of the past OD forum and the two that proceeded it as well.
The first was worse that Utica Sux.....death threats abounded daily!!!
The second was better handled, but very strict in the registration process. "You" had to be "You". It became Millicent's personal "blog" over time.
And of course the very recently deceased forum, which for the faults it had was probably the best of the three.
None of them ever had any advertisement whatsoever.
I do know that the OD has changed their site over time so much as to be almost a bi-yearly occurrence. For what reason I don't even want to try and fathom, but it seems to get worse each time instead of better.
Certainly their reporting has gotten much worse over the last ten years as well.
I don't purchase the OD anymore, but if I snag a copy at work I may well read it. I hate reading it on-line!!! Reading anything on-line is just plain hard on the eyes, but the OD's articles seem to changed at a moments notice.
And forget investigative reporting!!!!!
From my own experience you can hand them a gold mine on a silver platter and they will ignore it if they can stir other dirt instead.
The only good thing I have to say about the OD is that our birds love it for cage fodder!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by thelma on Apr 22, 2008 8:54:05 GMT -5
What posters need to remember is there is a big difference between debating an issue and using insults to argue a viewpoint. Too many times posters loose sight of this and start throwing insults on a personal level rather than using the art of debating without the use of snide remarks or outright insults directed at the other poster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Apr 22, 2008 13:27:00 GMT -5
 I hope you are talking about a generality, thelma, or are we going to continue down our road of mutual disrespect and needling? Just asking. WE are both guilty of the charges you describe. It is hard not to become pissed off when you don't agree, and people like Ralph and Frank have found the secret that you and I are still searching for. If I am not mistaken, it has to do with thicker skin, and more restraint. Neither of which I have been able to acquire the optimum amount of as of yet. I am finding that it takes experience and finesse to cruise the forums effectively. You and I and Bobbbiez too, have a lot to learn about posting things that won't be taken out of context, or perceived as being insulting or inflammatory to someone. Like calling people stupid, or uninformed, when one knows that the person in question simply has a different opinion than your own.  The word "innuendo" comes to mind. If we could avoid putting "those" things out there, we might get along much better.  I am reading your post with actual respect for the message it conveys. I hope you too are reading and digesting what you are saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Apr 23, 2008 0:10:46 GMT -5
Oh for goodness sakes, it's been all about respect all along.
---------------------------------------
Swimmy, your presentation or refutation of an argument was always something I enjoyed. Your command of the language is evident no matter what screen name you choose to use. I have observed the change in your online persona as you described it above and I have judged it to not fit you very well. I can appreciate the frustration you feel when you are treated unfairly by moderators or by people who don't play by the rules of common decency. I just hope the insults and name calling have not or will not cross over into your real-life persona.
I take a different perspective when it comes to on-line behavior. Yes, sometimes I get angry when I read an especially doltish response, but it's usually when one user is abusing another. I rarely get mad about something written at me -- compared to getting shot at, getting called a name don't mean a thang. When I get called a name, I just figure that's another notch in my keyboard -- argument won. Next?
Having said all that, I am extremely flattered that you used my name as an example of a debater. I troll all the blogs you listed and they're not what I look for in my online time. I prefer a good argument. I love it when I hit that Post button and begin to worry about how bad my opponent is going to rip me apart. And then after I get ripped apart, I love composing a counter argument that rips him or her apart. If I get one moment like that a week, I'm happy. I do appreciate that you see that I like to promote intelligent discussion. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Apr 23, 2008 6:19:08 GMT -5
I'm trying to revert back to my old persona, I think I've kept on these boards and or improved over the disgrace ones. I'll do a better job of trying to keep your philosophy in mind, e.g. argument won. And no, the change has not occurred in my real-life. I'm still fairly humble. Though I'm regretting not standing up and speaking at the public meeting. I finally came up with what I should have said. Go figure!
I enjoy very much a good debate too. When I've engaged in a thought-provoking debate, I get a high that is only rivaled by my former swimming career.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Apr 23, 2008 6:29:32 GMT -5
Swimmy, some day I'm gonna write a book -- Things I shoulda said -- Put a (c) after that, unless someone else has already used it. Would you start a topic with that name and prime it for us? I'd like to hear what you woulda said.
You improve a discussion when you participate. I am told I need to learn humility. I doubt it, myself but just in case I'm wrong, I am sure to learn some of it from you.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Apr 23, 2008 6:31:28 GMT -5
bobbbiez, don't even think about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Apr 23, 2008 9:10:51 GMT -5
Frank, REAL humility, is using Jduges addy on the OD forums, about possibly being wrong in 1985. I was always soooo tempted to toss dates and threads in his face, where he admitted being wrong! haha When can we expect that addy to appear? I don't think it is copyrighted. 
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Apr 23, 2008 14:11:25 GMT -5
Good point, Clipper. I recall others trying to point out the error in Jduges signature line. It didn't get them anywhere with him, though.
|
|
Told ya he would find a way around that 60,000 character limit!!!! 
I hope you are talking about a generality, thelma, or are we going to continue down our road of mutual disrespect and needling? Just asking. WE are both guilty of the charges you describe. It is hard not to become pissed off when you don't agree, and people like Ralph and Frank have found the secret that you and I are still searching for. If I am not mistaken, it has to do with thicker skin, and more restraint. Neither of which I have been able to acquire the optimum amount of as of yet.
I am reading your post with actual respect for the message it conveys. I hope you too are reading and digesting what you are saying.
