Comments on: This is a post in which I provide very important information about a disaster occurring somewhere. https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/28/this-is-a-post-in-which-i-prov/ Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:07:37 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8 By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/28/this-is-a-post-in-which-i-prov/#comment-517847 Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:07:37 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/28/this-is-a-post-in-which-i-prov/#comment-517847 I didn’t think YOU were fighting. I just assume that somebody with too much time on their hands will.

But yes, there are different ways to produce the message.

]]> By: daedalus2u https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/28/this-is-a-post-in-which-i-prov/#comment-517846 Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:43:09 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/28/this-is-a-post-in-which-i-prov/#comment-517846 Yes Greg, inserting other messages and being unclear is a sure way to add noise and increase the noise-to-signal ratio. Your habit of doing that when you want to go all meta is fine when going meta is appropriate, i.e. when you don’t know what answer you are trying to get because the question isn’t clear either.

Adding noise via stochastic resonance can help get a better answer in some circumstances, but this was not one of them (in my opinion).

I am not trying to fight about this, I am simply making and expressing my observations on what effective communication would be like in the circumstances that PalMD outlined.

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/28/this-is-a-post-in-which-i-prov/#comment-517845 Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:23:45 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/28/this-is-a-post-in-which-i-prov/#comment-517845 daedalus2u: This test was not blinded. That was just me being vague, unclear, and linky, which is what one might expect under NOP.

Informed consent isn’t even close to a factor here. At best this is a meme. But I’m sure, somehow, some way, people will find a way to fight about it and blame each other for ruining it. The informed consent angle COULD work for that….

]]> By: daedalus2u https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/28/this-is-a-post-in-which-i-prov/#comment-517844 Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:17:24 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/28/this-is-a-post-in-which-i-prov/#comment-517844 Greg, I think your test was compromised by you trying to not disclose what the test was about, to make it “single blind” so to speak. I didn’t click on the link because I thought it might be malware.

Informing people what the “test” is about before you expect them to participate in it is the essence of informed consent.

This particular test had no need for blinding and I think would have given better results (i.e. closer to what would happen in a real emergency) if the details were disclosed before the link was expected to be clicked on.

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/28/this-is-a-post-in-which-i-prov/#comment-517843 Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:30:46 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/28/this-is-a-post-in-which-i-prov/#comment-517843 Mary: This was just a test. This was only a test of the Emerency Blogging System.

Had this not been a test you would have been asked to drool as well.

]]> By: Mary H https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/04/28/this-is-a-post-in-which-i-prov/#comment-517842 Wed, 28 Apr 2010 05:06:50 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/28/this-is-a-post-in-which-i-prov/#comment-517842 woof! *wags pavlovian tail*

]]>