The Index Reloaded --- (Index of the Giant's Comments II)

[Jasdoif]

This is supposed to help in discussions on the forum. Discussions about things that can be outright proved accurate are not really discussions; they're recitations of fact.

I think you're overlooking the benefit of the narrowing effect: recitations of fact can head off discussion/bickering over facts, allowing a discussion to continue on to more interesting/useful matters. (I mean geez, this thread itself has multiple pages devoted to voting structure, pages that would have been unnecessary if there had been clearly established voting guidelines to reference.) Personally, I think it's best to focus on cutting short needless arguments, and letting everyone discuss their own conclusions on what's left.

I also cited other areas where there isn't a way to scientifically test your answers.

But, more importantly, why does it have to ultimately be testable?

If it's not verifiable, there's a great deal less value in referencing it. Arguments over facts can simply shift into arguments over the meaning of the Giant's comments on those facts.

It makes no sense to me. When asked, no one has really articulated what the harm is, other than the thoroughly debunked "stalking" theory (that is, the Giant has not expressed any discomfort with posts in this thread about OOTS being included, whereas he has expressed discomfort about certain other types of posts) and vague references to "clutter."

I'm going to quote our thread curator here:

One more thing. Why does the vote have to have a majority for inclusion? What is magical about 50% approval? It's not a zero-sum game, where if one quote is put in, another is left out. If 10 people vote against inclusion and 6 people vote for inclusion, we know that at least 6 people think it's worthwhile. And the 10 naysayers will not lose anything by that hypothetical quote's inclusion. I think quotes should be included on the criterion of "a significant number of people think it's worthwhile", not "more than half of participants think it's worthwhile".

Simple: the basis for inclusion isn't that "someone thinks this comment is worthwhile." Almost every comment has one person that wants it in the index. And why, by your system, should that one person's opinion not be as important as the six you mention? Or why should those six not get their way if one hundred others vote against the comment's inclusion? Your system is too ambiguous to be helpful. Your criteria for inclusion are similarly vague. And under that system, the index ceases to function as a community project with a unified vision and instead just becomes a collection of stuff the Giant said, organized poorly because there are so many comments. Indeed, under your system there would really be no point of voting at all. It would cease to be a community project.

Emphasis mine.

The more comments that are in the Index, the more unwieldy the Index is to use; intentionally adding comments with the expectation that they have no worth on their own seems counterproductive.