Sistercynical said in forum #418355:
Disagree, this is a win as it reduces mistags from ~85% to ~15%. Not sure what your point is exactly.
If you can agree there's a problem, but disagree with the move, then come up with a solution yourself instead of ridiculing the solution.
We are not obligated to come up with solutions for you. Pointing out the issues in your proposals is not ridicule.
Besides, I already came up with a solution and made my own BUR for it, which you obviously saw because you downvoted it.
If you can't handle your BURs being criticized, then don't make them in the first place.
Also, this is what you're calling a crashout...?
"I don’t see how my methodogy is incorrect, but I digress.
Would 10-15% of posts being mistagged not be better than ~85% being mistagged as they are now?
This BUR can be rejected if it doesn’t seem like it’s worth it, but it feels like a win/win either way"Which of those sentences qualifies as a "crashout"?
None of those. I was referring to the comments you made after that and your rejecting of the BURs you already made.
I already said this in my above message:
"You’re right that a sample of 30 produces a wide interval, but your critique only becomes materially relevant if you produce conflicting data.
Otherwise, we can acknowledge the limitation of the 30 sample size and move forward, review more samples, or just agree to disagree."Instead of talking about the BUR, you've started going down this rabbit hole trying to critique some math I used.
You continue to slander me unjustly, which I've very much not appreciated, and contributed nothing to this discussion.
This has become a waste of time. Like I said above twice already, I don't give a shit anymore. I'm never coming back to this thread.
Your argument was that ~85-90% of posts are mistagged, and that switching the tags would reduce mistags. If there is any doubt in how that range was obtained, then it needs to be addressed so we know it won't inadvertently cause further problems.
I wasn't the one that introduced confidence intervals into the discussion. It was you that tried to start a dick-waving contest over math by bringing in terms most users wouldn't be familiar with while making condescending and arrogant remarks. Most people here, even those not particularly good at math, can understand that you can't get a reasonable estimate from less than 1% of the posts.
I don't know how good at math the admins are. The way you misinterpreted confidence intervals is actually very common, so I could see the possibility of one reading your arguments, thinking "seems legit," and approving it without knowing if the mistags are actually in the majority or not. I explained the problem while trying not to get too technical about it for the admin's benefit.
Again, it's your responsibility to defend your arguments. You could've looked at more samples yourself to prove your point. Most of us wouldn't bother because we don't really care about the distinction in the first place.
These comments from me and other users are meant to help you create better BURs in the future and better defend your arguments. If you see everything as an attack, your BURs and arguments won't improve. And if you lash out at everyone, no one will be willing to help you. I hope you take this advice and start being nicer and more open to criticism with your future BURs.