They may be wrong or incorrect posts,but they may not be of low quality as the posts could be properly constructed and could have opposite views with the initial post.
Though such views may be wrong,and we've seen that happen numerous times here, when a member is vehemently arguing a wrong cause,but the way and manner in which he or she presents the case makes it worthy but doesn't make it correct
I think it doesn't make the post of low quality except of cause if the post is totally off from the initial or previous correct post as opposed to it being a slight difference in opinion
Opinions are not statements of fact and by definition can't be right or wrong. What we often confuse with opinions is their factual basis (see below). This has nothing to do with quality though.
I guess you can look at it like that...however an opinion worth hearing (HQ that has value) you would expect would be grounded on some reason and logic. Reason and logic you would expect require some factual evidence or events/experiences to analyse. If you have opinions you have not thought about enough or one that is not derived from factual experiences or evidence or at the least has some corroborating material that you can present to make a reasonable case then it is likely not worth hearing and is probably dilution/pollution to a group attempt to find the optimal answer/action.
I mean as an example .... discussion on the earth being an oblate spheroid and people presenting evidence to support this and ways to demonstrate or confirm. So several people say their opinion is that is indeed a oblate spheroid for those reasons and present data. They are to me having an opinion worth listening to. Now another says in his opinion the earth is a cube and provides no supporting data or when pressed he provides data that is not related... like the ingredients of a bag of salt and vinegar crisps. I think if you got lots of those kinds of opinions on such a thread it is safe to call them LQ or low value. I guess opinions you can argue are right or wrong as they are not statements of fact.. but they are either valuable or not valuable or even of negative value through dilution and disruption.
I would not expect the cube earth crisps guy to get a high merit score above the guy that said oblate spheroid and presented a ton of valid fact based supporting data.
Opinions can be sensible reasonable and logical or ...not i guess.. I mean if people are rewarded and encouraged to voice any opinions with no thought or regard to them at all then they will just be a dilution and pollution to the thread. Posters should start to be of the mindset that I should be ready to back up my opinions with sensible logical reasons for having such an opinion and why they are pertinent to the discussion.
Statements of fact can be right or wrong. This also doesn't have much to do with quality. Someone could post an elaborate high-quality hoax and someone could post a poorly-expressed albeit true fact.
Let's think about this. In most debates (like this one) you are trying to find the optimal or correct answer/action/outcome. The value of each post to me would be the positive contribution one makes towards that goal. If people voice an elaborate hoax that actually misleads or confuses some that do not have the capacity to see through it they are net negative because they are actually the faux rebuttals I am referring to. So in relation to merit. If these faux rebuttals fool people into believing they are a valuable post in reaching the optimal truth/action/outcome and receive merit this compounds the problem further because this reinforces to others that fell for this hoax that it was a valuable post.
You do not really want a system where you get high merit individuals posting convincing (to those that do not have the capacity to see the truth for themselves) hoax or for posting flawed logic and those posting valuable factual, logical and reasonable statements or answers that are contributing greatly to discovery of the optimal answer/solution getting low merit.
I mean that would make merit score almost and inverse correlation with actual value.
I would even say obvious spam is less negative because it can easily be discounted.
The problem is that this is rarely so nicely delineated. We don't start all our posts with "in my opinion" although that can be implied most of the time. In some cases the poster can abuse this implication and masquerade false statements as opinions or vice versa. In some cases the reader might abuse this implication and interpret one's opinion as a statement of fact or vice versa. But again, most of the time that doesn't have much if anything to do with quality. Not liking someone's opinion or even someone being flat out factually wrong doesn't mean they can't construct a high-quality post.
Well yes if they are factually wrong in one case they may be able to make a factually correct and positive contribution in another post.
Where I would draw the line is a lie, i.e. knowingly making a false statement with intent to deceive, although there are some exceptions (lying to preserve privacy on an internet forum would be one such exception). By extension this may include logical fallacies. A fallacy is an error in argument/reasoning but once the error has been pointed out it may be considered a lie if it's repeated. I would probably not merit something that I know is a lie even if it's three paragraphs of impeccable Queen's English.
Of course I am just here laying out my views as they are now. I remain open minded and hoping for more debate.
I can see no logical reason to reward and add merit (if merit scores are meant to ever correlate to value of the posters input) to either empty or faux rebuttals however elaborate and clever they may be to mislead those that do not have the capacity to find the trust through their own analysis. I mean even if they thought they were correct and not doing it to mislead.
I just can't see any value in a system that allows incorrect or misleading posts to gain more rewards than those that provide real value from contributing to the optimal solution via relevant and factual presentation.
Or maybe that is not what you are saying?
I am not intentionally trying to pick any holes in what people are saying. I simply want to drill it down so we get an optimal definition of HQ and LQ posts. Perhaps I need to rephrase to high value and low value.
Still good debate on this.
I hope after it is all thrashed out and we encourage all people that really want to see merit be a score that denotes a score derived from a real meritocracy to have their part in the debate then we can form some solid basis for what is low and high quality/value.
@yahoo
I think your post is something that could be generally accepted as a broadly correct view but..
Motive is a hard one. Motive can have no real bearing on post value sadly and I found it hard to add it on the LQ list. As much as I agree most paid2post loving shitposters are the issue there. When you bring motive into post quality or value then you are on the same lines as ad hominem attacks. We need to evaluate their central point not their motive for making it. I agree though broadly speaking paid2post junkies trying to max out their income are a big issue. On the other hand if VB or GM lost all of their money and needed to get in on some bounties and would only post their great knowledge and experience here for btc dust we could not write their posts off as LQ until we evaluated the content.
Also what you suggest about finding HQ members ( they can not even be located until you have an objective system that allows them to surface over time.. except for known and proven experts in their field i guess) and then making sure their posts get more attention could create a more efficient and powerfully positive environment however you would then stop it being a fair and true meritocracy. I mean that is probably impossible but we should strive for it if you want merit system to have the highest value it can.
