• Replies 107 replies
  • Subscribers 3 subscribers
  • Views 8579 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Quality of CIPD online discussions

Amanda Claire Baldwin

This is my first foray into the mist of CIPD online discussions and I have to admit to being a bit disappointed with the quality of some discussion for debate. 

Not to say that the items listed are not relevant but I think it would be better to have an 'advice section' for those individuals who have simple questions about practice to be answered? 

Then the space for discussions can be recogised and valued more as one where real debate will occur.

Parents

  • Hi Anna


    I think the first is a very good idea and I know of the technique referred to in your second both from my late father (an Accountant, but otherwise a nice enough guy) and my time at YouGov.


    I'm not sure it would be quite fair to make the assumptions of nominal distribution for "Communities" on membership as a whole as "awareness" could itself create an anomaly (i.e. some members may know of it/its function others do not) but it possibly would to "readers" and that readership statistic could be extrapolated with more information.


    What were also very interesting (and "real" data!) were the stat's relating to "Communities" which we heard at last year's conference suggesting that both readership and contribution are far higher than "norms" for similar sites.


    Peter


    PS, Amanda: Does getting a principle of Quantum Physics, Mathmatical Distribution theory and Schroedinger into the act raise the quality of debate?


    ....or am I being frivilous again? :-) :-)

Reply

  • Hi Anna


    I think the first is a very good idea and I know of the technique referred to in your second both from my late father (an Accountant, but otherwise a nice enough guy) and my time at YouGov.


    I'm not sure it would be quite fair to make the assumptions of nominal distribution for "Communities" on membership as a whole as "awareness" could itself create an anomaly (i.e. some members may know of it/its function others do not) but it possibly would to "readers" and that readership statistic could be extrapolated with more information.


    What were also very interesting (and "real" data!) were the stat's relating to "Communities" which we heard at last year's conference suggesting that both readership and contribution are far higher than "norms" for similar sites.


    Peter


    PS, Amanda: Does getting a principle of Quantum Physics, Mathmatical Distribution theory and Schroedinger into the act raise the quality of debate?


    ....or am I being frivilous again? :-) :-)

Children
No Data