Distinguished Road?

Hacker15e said:
Well, first off, I think there are a lot of reasons for the demographic on this site, but I don't think that the fact the flavor of the discourse in the threads is a major factor.
Click to expand...

I guess people just don't like us. :D

More importantly, though, I think there are a lot more experienced folks who participate in the forums than you realize. Dunno what your particular threshold is, but by my yardstick there are are many.
Click to expand...
Not just experience, but mostly maturity. You may be right; once you eliminate the Qgars, the Velocipedes, the Kestrel452s, the Chris_Fords, things begin to look better, don't they? :)

I will say that generally the guys who post the most are regional Capts, FOs, and younger, but just because those are the voices heard most frequently doesn't mean they're the only demographic.
Click to expand...
They aren't the only ones, but they are the majority. Every user has a limit to how many reputations they can give out. These guys collectively give out more, so the ratings are biased in their favor.
 
Roger said:
Wait so I'm confused... are the little green or red bars under the username separate from or linked to the "reputations" received on individual posts?
Click to expand...

They are tied to the reputations that you get from your individual posts. The more positive reputations you get in your posts, the more reputation points you will receive; thus, the more green bars you will see under your name.
 
coa787 said:
They are tied to the reputations that you get from your individual posts. The more positive reputations you get in your posts, the more reputation points you will receive; thus, the more green bars you will see under your name.
Click to expand...
So even though I have X "reputations" that show up under my settings... it still shows me under my username as "unrated".

So...confusing...
 
Roger said:
So even though I have X "reputations" that show up under my settings... it still shows me under my username as "unrated".

So...confusing...
Click to expand...

You need X amount to start "trending".

But if you're going to complain....we can fix yours to join the rest of the negative crew. It's the cool club! :D
 
MikeD said:
You need X amount to start "trending".

But if you're going to complain....we can fix yours to join the rest of the negative crew. It's the cool club! :D
Click to expand...
I'm ok with that. Wrenches aren't supposed to be popular among the skygods anyway.
 
darrenf said:
I bet you aren't the first to think of that. :)
Click to expand...

I'd certainly hope so. Too many pranksters on this board to have not had it happen. ;)

My intent is never to be the most frequent of muckrackers.. just the one that inspires the most to follow his wacky lead. :yar:
 
Hacker15e said:
I know the board can have the peer raters identities attached to the ratings. I don't know why the JC one isn't set up that way.

How does it offer "no constructive criticism"? There is a place for the rater to put a narrative about why they rated the way they did...what exactly are you looking for here?

It's a pretty big leap to go from the circumstance where a rater's identity isn't published to the determination that there is "absolutely nothing of substance behind it." That's NOT a direct cause-and-effect link.
Click to expand...

It offers no constructive criticism because the comments left are "." or "/". The person is also anonymous and no dialog can take place, no rebuttal.

Someone disagrees with me? Great, lets hear why and offer some type of argument that backs your position.
I have two negatives one of which is . and the other just says "disagree"... in referring to this:

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor
I always thought when they say "the world is going to end, repent now! join us!" was always bad marketing.

I mean, huh, what would Don Draper and "Sterling Cooper" do?


Have another drink!
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but is the person anti-alcohol? Do they think the characters from mad men would not have another drink? wtf are they trying to convey?

So, basically, IMO this is utterly useless. No dialog, no discussion. I see no worthwhile function.
 
You'll notice that an individual cannot pile onto any one member. If you try that you will get an error message, "you must spreap 'rep' around....". It really is simple guys and gals...You will get out of it what you put into it....
 
JEP said:
You'll notice that an individual cannot pile onto any one member. If you try that you will get an error message, "you must spreap 'rep' around....". It really is simple guys and gals...You will get out of it what you put into it....
Click to expand...

Or we can all go around randomly rating people as it seems is much more popular. This could be fun.... start posting links to random websites in the comments. Randomly pick positive or negative, leave the other person baffled.
Or you could even be like "hey go F yourself" and they wouldn't even know who said it! :banghead:
So much juvenile fun could be had!
Or you could spam your new website of pure awesomeness. I mean it's clearly of party gorilla awesomeness, so it'd be cool to spam it.
 
coa787 said:
Not just experience, but mostly maturity. You may be right; once you eliminate the Qgars, the Velocipedes, the Kestrel452s, the Chris_Fords, things begin to look better, don't they?
Click to expand...

Personally, I like having dissenting opinions in the mix, but since I'm not a mod and I don't determine who stays and goes around here, my opinion doesn't count for squat. The fact is, there are people just like those folks you mentioned in all walks of real life, including in our professional workplaces. Their contributions to the discussion here (for positive or negative) force us to adapt our own conversation. In real life, these folks can't just be banned from the mix for being jerks, or having the loudest voice, or the frequently annoying opinion, or even sorta harassing other folks around them. We instead have to learn to carry on the conversation in spite of their negative inputs.

In the case of every one of those you mention, I thought amongst the personalities that got them removed from JC there were also some very informative and insightful posts as well.

BL, I just don't believe that the flavor of discourse on JC is qualitatively any worse than any other aviation forum (in most cases it's significantly better), and thus I don't believe that it is a significant factor in who JC attracts for participants.

Let's face it -- JC is specifically aimed at the younger, lower time pilot. The name of the site itself says that it's targeting people who want a "jet career". Most of the more experienced and mature voices you are looking to have participate here all ready have a career, and thus the discussion here doesn't really cater to what interests them. All of the non-forum content, while generated by some more experienced pilots, is specifically targeted at the lower time pilot who is trying to build experience. There just isn't a lot on JC that appeals to the run-of-the-mill highly experienced pilot.

The certain type of experienced pilot that JC does appeal to is the one who has the desire to pay it forward, pass along their experience, what have you...and not every pilot is that guy. If you're a Captain at a major, and you're not that guy, then there's simply nothing to be interested in at JC. They're going to take their discussion to APC or FI, where the conversation centers around what's important in their life and career.

Military dudes I fly with who are not interested in the airline gig will take their discussion over to baseops.net or airwarriors.com, where the conversations are directly centered on what interests them.

Personally, I'm happy that JC isn't any of those other places. The variety of the discussion here, and the relatively close nature of the members here (I've met and interacted with more JC members than any other forum I participate in) makes it interesting to me, even though none of the "jet career" information, or a lot of the discussion, interests or applies to me.
 
Hacker15e said:
Personally, I like having dissenting opinions in the mix, but since I'm not a mod and I don't determine who stays and goes around here, my opinion doesn't count for squat. The fact is, there are people just like those folks you mentioned in all walks of real life, including in our professional workplaces. Their contributions to the discussion here (for positive or negative) force us to adapt our own conversation. In real life, these folks can't just be banned from the mix for being jerks, or having the loudest voice, or the frequently annoying opinion, or even sorta harassing other folks around them. We instead have to learn to carry on the conversation in spite of their negative inputs.

In the case of every one of those you mention, I thought amongst the personalities that got them removed from JC there were also some very informative and insightful posts as well.

BL, I just don't believe that the flavor of discourse on JC is qualitatively any worse than any other aviation forum (in most cases it's significantly better), and thus I don't believe that it is a significant factor in who JC attracts for participants.

Let's face it -- JC is specifically aimed at the younger, lower time pilot. The name of the site itself says that it's targeting people who want a "jet career". Most of the more experienced and mature voices you are looking to have participate here all ready have a career, and thus the discussion here doesn't really cater to what interests them. All of the non-forum content, while generated by some more experienced pilots, is specifically targeted at the lower time pilot who is trying to build experience. There just isn't a lot on JC that appeals to the run-of-the-mill highly experienced pilot.

The certain type of experienced pilot that JC does appeal to is the one who has the desire to pay it forward, pass along their experience, what have you...and not every pilot is that guy. If you're a Captain at a major, and you're not that guy, then there's simply nothing to be interested in at JC. They're going to take their discussion to APC or FI, where the conversation centers around what's important in their life and career.

Military dudes I fly with who are not interested in the airline gig will take their discussion over to baseops.net or airwarriors.com, where the conversations are directly centered on what interests them.

Personally, I'm happy that JC isn't any of those other places. The variety of the discussion here, and the relatively close nature of the members here (I've met and interacted with more JC members than any other forum I participate in) makes it interesting to me, even though none of the "jet career" information, or a lot of the discussion, interests or applies to me.
Click to expand...


I think that when people who are abusive and disruptive can be ignored far easier in the workplace or the real world in most cases. There is a more natural selection of people you involve in your conversations. Eventually when the"jerk" is coming your way, you avoid him or her. Similarly when there are a few experts discussing an issue and some upstart wants to pipe in, in the analog world that person is easily identifiable, and the experts can close the circle, or just interrupt and speak over the "intruder" here everyone gets a pretty even shot at the conversation, sometimes to the detriment.

As far as who this site is designed for, I still feel that it is for all aspects of the career. I know that I have utilized this board throughout my career even into the career position I hold now. I have seen many threads that you military guys use and discuss things, airline, freight and CFI's all use different places here to have "hangar talk".
 
After you give somebody "reputation", a dialog box pops up that makes you click "ok". Any chance on omitting that step?

Personally I like that the system is anonymous, with the option to comment and id yourself.
 
I don't think it should be anonymous because then it'll become nothing more than a "reader's comment" section of an online newspaper.

This is largely a social experiment. If anyone's panties gets in a wad over this on a serious level, time for a nice walk in the park! :)
 
I can't see on the back end (that's what SHE said) but I'm sure there has to be a "hack" to do so I believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top