Improving ASR as a member/moderator

[Salt]

Long is OK - as long it provides further information - would like to see ' long story short' more often (but speech to text seems to offend this) .

 

[sam_adams]

@RickS, tough job. I appreciate your efforts. I'd like to encourage other members to be more discerning in their responses to posts made to what are obviously a genre of discussions that should be considered 'engagement bait'. Not every question posed requires an answer—especially those that are so obviously trying to elicit an opinion or answer on an obviously ingenuous question. Sometimes it's best to let it whither and die. The current, active example:

When is AI going to regenerate the lost data on recordings from cd or other digital source?

The 16bit 44.1khz standard looses musical information from the original performance, this cannot be recreated by an ordinary DAC. Will AI eventually fill in the gaps?

www.audiosciencereview.com

The above needs serious examination as to its worth to the membership and the viewing public.

 

[xlinknz]

Problem is audibility is key. Technical discussions are meaningless unless they are framed against a backdrop of common understanding of what is audible.


A technical discussion of the performance of any gear or subsystem must inevitably, eventually, ask the question "is it good enough, or do we need to make it better"

The graphs on this site could be overlaid with a range of what inaudible and the same done with the rankings?

 

[antcollinet]

@RickS, tough job. I appreciate your efforts. I'd like to encourage other members to be more discerning in their responses to posts made to what are obviously a genre of discussions that should be considered 'engagement bait'. Not every question posed requires an answer—especially those that are so obviously trying to elicit an opinion or answer on an obviously ingenuous question. Sometimes it's best to let it whither and die. The current, active example:

When is AI going to regenerate the lost data on recordings from cd or other digital source?

The 16bit 44.1khz standard looses musical information from the original performance, this cannot be recreated by an ordinary DAC. Will AI eventually fill in the gaps?

www.audiosciencereview.com

The above needs serious examination as to its worth to the membership and the viewing public.

Oh I don't know -it's given us the opportunity to post Monty again - twice in quick succession.

We can't expose that often enough in my opinion. I would happily argue in favour of making it a mandatory verified watch for all new members.

 

[RickS]

@RickS, tough job. I appreciate your efforts. I'd like to encourage other members to be more discerning in their responses to posts made to what are obviously a genre of discussions that should be considered 'engagement bait'. Not every question posed requires an answer—especially those that are so obviously trying to elicit an opinion or answer on an obviously ingenuous question. Sometimes it's best to let it whither and die. The current, active example:

When is AI going to regenerate the lost data on recordings from cd or other digital source?

The 16bit 44.1khz standard looses musical information from the original performance, this cannot be recreated by an ordinary DAC. Will AI eventually fill in the gaps?

www.audiosciencereview.com

The above needs serious examination as to its worth to the membership and the viewing public.

Thanks, I concur on the engagment bait aspect. As I mentioned earlier though, I think some thorough rebuttal of such a thread by members has value, so I allowed it to continue temporarily. It is now locked and will address the OP.

 

[RickS]

Because that's the way almost all other audio forums work and some don't differentiate. So if they find a thread about 'Superdac 2000' they will join to post their impressions 'It's a significant step up from the 1000 I had previously' etc - it's essentially just learned behaviour.

This is a great point and made me reflect a bit more on new member actions. Notably, those whose first post is a rule violation. Notably, these posts have usually been offsite content or ai slop. I often reject these as spam. Have looked at how often anyone pushes back on my challenges, and it is low enough to be valid. Noting it is a somewhat imperfect compromise.

 

[RickS]

Oh I don't know -it's given us the opportunity to post Monty again - twice in quick succession.

We can't expose that often enough in my opinion. I would happily argue in favour of making it a mandatory verified watch for all new members.

There already is a mandated watch of a new member posts. To get reviewed, they usually have to trip a key word content filter as well.

Given the rate of new members, fuller verification would require more staff or more automation or likely both.

 

[Mart68]

This is a great point and made me reflect a bit more on new member actions. Notably, those whose first post is a rule violation. Notably, these posts have usually been offsite content or ai slop. I often reject these as spam. have looked at how often anyone pushes back on my challenges and it is low enough to be valid. Noting it is a somewhat imperfect compromise.

I think only a handful are actively looking for a 'fight' regardless of the content of their first post.

Linking to Youtube videos without a summary of the content or cutting and pasting A.I are still issues, but you can't be everywhere all the time.

I moderate a hi-fi forum myself and it's a thankless task although these days it's a quiet forum so there's very little to do. But in the distant past, it was a right pain in the arse

 

[krabapple]

I was looking around for the original quip/clip, but couldn't find it quickly (and I am lazy, as y'all know) -- and way too lazy to dig out the album and transcribe it.

EDIT: well... for better or worse, I tracked it down. I'd blame my muddled recollection of the content on drugs, but I was high on life alone by the time that the above-mentioned album came ouut

I, for better or worse, love watching the train wreck threads (depending on topic, though, I must admit).

? I don't go to concerts to see the performer(s) 'fuck up'.

 

[mhardy6647]

I do believe Mr. Palumbo was being facetious... as was I.

 

[Multicore]

Many of the rando questions have no succinct answer. I think that is often by design.
Most of us aren't gifted with the ability to communicate science, math, and engineering principles briefly. Not many are.
I am pretty sure the 5 pages of run-on that occurs is by people who didn't take the time to read the post irrespective of the length.

We have walls-of-text of subjective posting here too. I used to read these out of courtesy to the poster if I intended to respond. I admit, I tend to ignore some of the overly verbose stuff these days. But if someone posts something with an explanation, I read it.

I definitely read your posts, even if they are long.

Thank you, MAB and your point is well taken.

In that post I tried but failed to offer useful specific advice but my general point is that I believe we, simply in the manner that we participate here, together, can ease and even assist the task of our gracious host and long suffering mod to maintain and improve the culture. I really believe it ... but it's complicated.

For me it comes down to being a bit thoughtful. However, at the same time it's just in my nature to want everyone to be themselves cos life's more interesting that way. I don't really want anyone dictating how others behave but that doesn't work because some behavior is just too destructive. So what interests me is if I can ever contribute in a way that helps to steer one of those borderline cases, be it a thread or contributor, in a better direction. Even in threads were all is well we can contribute by ______ (fill in the blank, I guess, as it's up to you what you would prefer ASR to be).

This is a rather vague idea, isn't it? Still, I'm sticking with it, at least for now.

 

[MAB]

Thank you, MAB and your point is well taken.

In that post I tried but failed to offer useful specific advice but my general point is that I believe we, simply in the manner that we participate here, together, can ease and even assist the task of our gracious host and long suffering mod to maintain and improve the culture. I really believe it ... but it's complicated.

For me it comes down to being a bit thoughtful. However, at the same time it's just in my nature to want everyone to be themselves cos life's more interesting that way. I don't really want anyone dictating how others behave but that doesn't work because some behavior is just too destructive. So what interests me is if I can ever contribute in a way that helps to steer one of those borderline cases, be it a thread or contributor, in a better direction. Even in threads were all is well we can contribute by ______ (fill in the blank, I guess, as it's up to you what you would prefer ASR to be

This is a rather vague idea, isn't it? Still, I'm sticking with it, at least for now.

It's good advice. I try to follow it, but was kind of detailing my own failures!
It may be a vague idea but I think you are describing common decency, which is a vague concept that we can all work on.

 

[Robin L]

@RickS, tough job. I appreciate your efforts. I'd like to encourage other members to be more discerning in their responses to posts made to what are obviously a genre of discussions that should be considered 'engagement bait'. Not every question posed requires an answer—especially those that are so obviously trying to elicit an opinion or answer on an obviously ingenuous question. Sometimes it's best to let it whither and die. The current, active example:

When is AI going to regenerate the lost data on recordings from cd or other digital source?

The 16bit 44.1khz standard looses musical information from the original performance, this cannot be recreated by an ordinary DAC. Will AI eventually fill in the gaps?

www.audiosciencereview.com

The above needs serious examination as to its worth to the membership and the viewing public.

I think there is a potentially interesting discussion possible in talking about what is and what is not possible with AI in audio. There are, after all, commercial recordings that use AI in their production, some in the attempt to replicate what was lost in the original recordings. On the other hand, the OP proved to be a bonified troll anyway, so I guess it helps to stay awake.

 

[tineared]

I rather enjoy seeing silly threads. Sometimes I even join in.
There's a silly thread now about tube amps and their popularity if the tubes are out of sight.
That could be considered derogatory to all the tube amp lovers out there, but I think it's all in fun and harmless.
My only dislike is folks who become abusive, either with facts or personal attacks

 

[Multicore]

It may be a vague idea but I think you are describing common decency, which is a vague concept that we can all work on.

Partly yes, for sure, but something else is on my mind to do with how the feeling of us can divide into me v. them. It's the question of stance.

Imagine while reading a new thread thinking along the lines, "Ahh here we go again, those guys always with the ___." or any variations thereof. One might think there's nothing to be done. Maybe so. Or maybe not. Can you choose?

I think probably this will only get more confusing the more I try to elaborate.

 

[RickS]

I think only a handful are actively looking for a 'fight' regardless of the content of their first post.

Maybe so, but if a new member comes here posting subjective opinion, they will get push back and that can quickly turn into a battle. If the new member is not able to defend their opinion objectively, their next response too often goes to your (science-based) response is just opinion or they claim the science is weak. Does not go well after that!

Shy of some upfront screening or previous ASR exposure, delicate handling of the new member is all we have. So not just hard on moderators but members too (unless they are rather accustomed to dealing with strangers).

 

[krabapple]

New members migrating in from dopey audiophile sites and behaving as if ASR was another dopey audiophile site, is one thing. They can quickly learn they are committing faux pas, and stop.

What I don't get are the long-time (5+ years) ASR members who still start threads premised on dopiness like:
'this DAC doesn't sound as good as this other DAC'
and its cross-eyed snaggle-toothed cousin:
'this DAC sounds bad, recommend me a new DAC'

 

[Chr1]

Unfortunately I think that this is often due to DAC B (its cross-eyed snaggle-toothed cousin), being shown to have 0.0003db better SINAD.
Often here.
My 2c.

 

[Chr1]

... The problem being that lots of naive peeps obsess over such things.

Edit : Me being one of those naive peeps a few years back. Ahem.

(As with everything there's a learning curve. Thankfully I only spent one year obsessing over DACs)

 

[antisuck]

Rick, you unintentionally taught me a valuable lesson yesterday that sort of ties into the current discussion.

I was in the process of responding to what seemed to be a rather disingenuous bait-post with some hard facts. Just before I clicked the button, you locked the thread.
After a moment of disappointment I looked at your stated reason, and while it wasn't as personally satisfying for ME, I was able to see that it was clearly much better for the health of the forum than what I had been planning to say.

So, thanks. Please keep doing what you do, and I'll try to pay more attention to what's productive and good for this place vs. what doesn't help and only makes your job harder.