On 7/14/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote: [snip]
I don't see how I'm making this assumption. Quite to the contrary, you now seem to be making the assumption that users always get pissed when admins do bad against them...
I'm not making any assumptions. My only claim is that we do not have statistically significant information... and that you are complaining about a complaint level which is probably itself too low to be statistically significant.
If my restatement of your position didn't match your thoughts, then I've failed to understand what you are arguing.
The claim you are referring to made is that only if users are bad admins are pissed, not if and only if.
I'm sorry, this sentence does not parse grammatically. Please rephrase? :)
I omitted 'being' before made. Your (2) is effectively: Only if users are bad admins are pissed
It seemed to me that you were reading (2) as : If and only if users are bad admins are pissed.
Does it? Are you alleging that all or most annoyed people speak up? I don't think so.
No, I'm claiming that we have a lot of users and that you've failed to make any attempt to demonstrate that the level of complaint we are seeing is significant.
I am quite sure that mistakes are made... and that we even have a few low quality admins. ... But I've seen no information which causes me to believe that this should be considered a high priority problem
You'd rather continue to have this flurry of angry complaints on this mailing list? :)
They don't bother me. You can always unsubscribe if they bother you.
How else could I respond? Even if everything were perfect we'd still get complaints... and if the number of users becomes large enough, we'd still get a lot of complaints in absolute terms. So if lots of complaints bothers you, you should unsubscribe.
Now if you actually think that the complaints are evidence of something that needs improvment, please provide evidence...