Yes, I should have specified. I didn’t search for ALL of everyone’s posts, just from the last week. Not only does it use less resources, I think you get your results quicker too.
You’re being silly. Of course we aren’t deleting your posts. If we didn’t want you to be able to post here, there is a far more effective tool available to us than simply deleting post, portions of posts, or entire threads. We’d simply ban you. A whole lot less troublesome than selectively, or randomly, deleting material.
The answer is, we just don’t know what’s happening. Or why it seems to you that it happens more frequently to yourself. Implications otherwise, no matter how couched, aren’t likely to be taken too graciously either. I understand you’re frustrated, but dropping these little bomblets isn’t a very nice thing to do. The staff is frustrated, too - probably more so. If you wanna make another of these accusations, I’d remind you the Pit would be the proper place to do it.
And ya know, it’s possible the problem here is one of selection bias. You may just happen to notice it more than others. Or others notice too, but they simply accept it as the state of a situation that cannot be resolved and move on - they don’t see it being something irksome enough to report continually.
Uncle Beer, one of the only reasons that I even consider the possibility is that other far more prolific posters like iampunha, Guinistasia and handy never seem to mention the loss of their posts, not to mention entire threads.
What’s more, please note how I neither started this thread, nor was I first to voice any suspicions of untoward acts in it either. I do my best to believe that all is on the up and up at these boards.
Just for the record, what part of;
“For all of these reasons, I’ve yet to be able to convince myself of intentional deleting going on here.”
was unclear?
With all due respect, it’s me to whom you should be saying this, isn’t it?
Probably because they do not start as many threads, especially in such short time spans. handy, for example, tends to ‘answer’ questions rather than ask them. I don’t see that many iampunha threads, but I often see threads he has replied to.
It’s probably this part:
And what part of selection bias do you not understand? You just don’t have complete information from which to make any kind of an informed assessment. In fact, none of us do. Which is why we: a) don’t really know what’s happening, and b are just as frustrated as you.
Perhaps lel, but your comments, wrapped in the bits of humorous self-deprecation as they are, don’t ring with the accusatory tone of Zenster’s. If you are indeed making serious and specific accusations, I’d offer you the same reminder I offered Zenster.
Now, if it should prove that someone is intentionally deleting Zenster’s posts, I’ll eat my best hat and resign immediately. I’ve known and conversed with the SDMB staff for several years now, through personal meetings and literally tens of thousands of e-mails and not a few telephone conversations. I just cannot believe that any of them would act in a manner so capricious and contrary to the integrity I’ve seen them display over and over again. The only real authority we have to manage this community stems directly from the memberhip’s trust and goodwill. Breaches of that trust must necessarily be cause for great concern. Just as perceived accusations from the membership, however mild, of staff transgressions must also be defended. And given my experiences as a staff member here, met with great skepticism. Surely you can understand that.
Uncle Beer, in all fairness, what Zenster said is that he’s suspicious, not that he’s suspicious of the staff. It’s conceivable that there’s some sort of technical glitch which (for whatever reason) affects him disproportionately. Or that the hampsters just find his recipes particularly tasty. In which case he could reasonably say that he’s suspicious of the board software.
Yes, it might just be coincidence/selection bias, but I for one would prefer to see that demonstrated, since it does seem to be rather overwhelming. “It might be selection bias” does not imply that it is selection bias, and it can’t hurt to try to brainstorm some other plausible explanations. Note that I don’t consider “malicious staff member” to be a particularly plausible explanation.
Thank you very much Chronos.
Anyone who can observe frequent and highly anomalous events without suspicion is most likely brain dead (or ought to be).
And don’t call me “Shirley.”
How is this not a suspicion that the staff may be responsible?
Wait, I never got a tail! Did you guys get tails? Is it only the staff who get tails? Do you need a certain post count to get a tail? UncleBeer, are you jerking other peoples’ tails because you didn’t get one either? If I get a tail, UncleBeer, I’ll try to get you one, too. I want a tail.
I wants me some tail too!
There’s a current thread in Cafe Society about favorite Christmas recipes. As of this writing, Sunday, just after midnight, I have the latest post. But some while after I posted I saw a post from Zenster that followed mine. He posted a link and said “Sounds like ****** to this Viking.” That row of dots is the link, I can’t remember how to spell the word but it started with the letter a.
aebelskiver
Actually, aebleskiver
So what did happen? Were the hamsters hungry or what?
What hamster (virtual or no) could possibly resist the scrumptous lure of a piping hot Danish aebleskiver? It’s almost impossible to blame them. I personally set my family’s all-time record by eating twenty-three of them in one sitting.
In view of my having posted nearly one hundred times and starting almost a dozen threads in the course of yesterday, losing a single post represents a MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) of 1% and is fairly acceptable, especially in view of how overloaded this board is.
Since you are a skilled baker, Baker (there’s an echo in here!), I strongly urge you to try the recipe I posted. I can send you one of the pans if you need me to.
MTBF is measured in units of time, typically hours and fractions thereof - it’s not a percentage. Those hours are sometimes called POH, for Power On Hours. What you’ve measured is failure rate, not MTBF.