next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Andrew D. Wright wrote: > So you're saying that since the numbers are in fact worse than I > noted (i.e. more IPs have left the IPdb entirely and their records > purged), that no analysis of the existing records is worthwhile. > Interesting reasoning. What does 'worse' mean? Worse what? There have been many inappropriate, defunct, expired, duplicate, test, etc. applications in the IPDB. There have also been applications which did not result in IPs or IPs that later folded, or moved, etc. Not all of that information remains in the IPDB. Consequently an analysis of what is there is inherently, statistically off base. The question is, what information are you trying to derive? A certain percentage of applications don't go to completion. This is for a variety of reasons: some applications simply aren't serious: others get stalled for a variety of circumstances. If we want to improve the system we need to know why. I've never tried to compile statistics but I can say a fair bit based on the all the communications I have had with stalled or withdrawn applications given that I've spoken with just about every one. To say: > the majority of dropouts from the IP process for the last three years > have been through not completing our IP creation process. Is simply circular. Another important point to understand is that we should not expect (or perhaps even hope ;->) that every application will go to completion. Just like the fact that every application for a user login is not always pursued, so it is the case that not all people who one the spur of the moment decide to do an IP application really intend to do it. Its useful to try and find out why, which the IPDB will not tell you. > The fact that the IPdb is virtually impossible to get data from > would in most organizations be considered a Bad Thing. That you can > consider this as rationale for keeping it the way it is can once again > only be considered as interesting reasoning. Keeping what the same way as it is? I never argued that the IPDB was perfect. It's highly *imperfect*. Its not really built on databse structures at all (rather its a flat file), it isn't properly searchable, lacks all kinds of functionality and in places is wholly inadequate. I've submitted a whole series of suggestions over the years on how it could be improved. I'd be delighted to see it improved. > > This might be a very interesting topic of inquiry either through the > > creation of a questionnaire or a mailout to all-ips + former/non IPs. If > > we got a reasonable rate of response we might have some useful information > > to evaluate what the good and bad features of the IP process are. Anyone > > want to take this on? > > If this is what it takes to prove the point that falling numbers > plus lower retention rate of those who do apply means that perhaps > something is wrong and needs fixing, then fire away. You send me the > contact information of every single IP who has ever applied to Chebucto > and I will personally get in contact with each and every single one of > them and ask them why they are or are not here and if not, then why not. If you wanted to pursue this you could discuss this with IPDB designers (Gerard McNeil & David Trueman) or with someone like David Potter or Michael Smith who really understand how it works. I seem to recall that when it was introduced someone made mention of the fact that information deleated from the IPDB is not *really* deleated, but actually continues to exist, it's simply not (readily) visible. Thus it may be the case that every entry for every application that was ever submitted does still exist (somewhere). I'm not certain if this is true and if it is I haven't any idea of how it could be accessed, however one of the above people may know. > To make the point as bluntly as I can: if we wish to stick around > and not disappear, then we have to adapt to the new realities of the net > and the way things are done now. We evolve or we die. The potential IP > groups do not need to accomodate us, we need to accomodate them. I think it's more the case that both have to meet at a point where legitimate concerns of both are optimally accomodated. However, my question is what exactly are you proposing should be done? Eliminate all IP Training? Discuss away. It's been a main feature of the CCN environment but if enough people think it can be dispensed with then that can be a compelling arguement. It would be good to canvass IP Editors and see what they think: useful or not. Merge the User & IP registration process? Could be done with a lot of work but what's the advantage? Revamp the IP Database? Great idea: you just need to find someone who will do it. Turf RCS? O.K. but what happens to on-line editing? N.B. If you dispense with RCS you also lose CCN 'Recent' functionality since the scripts that do this, work from RCS info. > I expect the IP contact information as soon as you can send it > along. I will present the numbers from that to this list as soon as > possible. I don't have a better source than the (inadequate) IPDB either (except for my own experiences and directories full of old EMail). Cheers, Christopher Majka _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Christopher Majka <aa051@chebucto.ns.ca> Editor-in-Chief: Chebucto Community Net - Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada URL = http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Home.html "Often his editorial policy was a nice compromise between blackmail and begging" - William Allen White, The Nation, Jun 18, 1938 _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects