Originally posted by huckleberryhoundHey you, you just said what you REALLY think again. Please stop that.
I thought he was making a serious point in a way that was mis-understood, That's why i backed him up at the time. Now i think...well i'm not allowed to say what i think anymore, but lets just say that the hunted has become that which he once claimed to despise and leave it at that.
Robot, Robot
I am a robot
I am your slave
I can not harm you
I can only obey
The Three Laws
P-
Originally posted by NemesioYou've got to take your hat of to pradft: mild, mannerly and could type the back legs of a donkey. Or even a troll.
I miss pradtf.
Can't we find someone else to write hundered line essays about any subject, bizarrely containing the same two or three topics / points of view regardless of said subject, then politely answer any questions arising using hundered line replies that don't actually address the question raised?
Originally posted by ToeAre you referring to prad or Nem? 😉
Can't we find someone else to write hundered line essays about any subject, bizarrely containing the same two or three topics / points of view regardless of said subject, then politely answer any questions arising using hundered line replies that don't actually address the question raised?
D
Originally posted by ToeWhilst counting errors is easy, it's not sufficient for evaluating a publication's quality. Given time constraints, it's also important that a topic's coverage emphasizes the most important points so readers aren't bogged down in minutiae. Writing style and clarity matter as well, as does point of view. All of these are more a matter of editorial judgment, and are not as easily scored as factual errors.
You've got to take your hat of to pradft: mild, mannerly and could type the back legs of a donkey. Or even a troll.
Can't we find someone else to write hundered line essays about any subject, bizarrely containing the same two or three topics / points of view regardless of said subject, then politely answer any questions arising using hundered line replies that don't actually address the question raised?
Luckily, we do have methods for judging content usability. Such methods involve letting a set of users loose on the information and seeing how well it supports typical tasks. Here, the tasks might be anything from writing a high school essay to understanding a bit of a country's history before going there on vacation. In any case, the point is: you must judge content relative to the readers and their needs. It's a usability question, and must be addressed with empirical studies