Rifraff by actual count

If you feel that your question or comment doesn't fit into the categories above, feel free to post it here.
Post Reply

Rifraff by actual count

Post by dalehileman » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:12 pm

During the same couple of hours in which WW users have contributed a couple of comments, PF has registered--by actual count--52 threads, replies, and followups

Does this mean

(1) We are too elite or excessively pedantic; or
(2) In some other way do we discourage visitors

Or do some of us consider the PF types as rifraff
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Rifraff by actual count

Post by Ken Greenwald » Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:53 am

Dale, Since Phrase Finder kicked you off their site and we didn’t, I wouldn’t necessarily say we were more elitist! (<:)

Ken – July 22, 2005
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Rifraff by actual count

Post by Erik_Kowal » Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:22 am

Ken, must you be so pedantic? ;-)

PS - Dale, 'riffraff' is normally spelt thus.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: -- Looking up a word? Try OneLook's metadictionary (--> definitions) and reverse dictionary (--> terms based on your definitions)8-- Contribute favourite diary entries, quotations and more here8 -- Find new postings easily with Active Topics8-- Want to research a word? Get essential tips from experienced researcher Ken Greenwald

Rifraff by actual count

Post by dalehileman » Sat Jul 23, 2005 4:09 pm

I am duly mortified in all respects
Still how do we explain the huge discrepancy noted
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Rifraff by actual count

Post by Ken Greenwald » Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:36 pm

Dale, I think the explanation might be that a site where anyone can say whatever nonsense pops into their head, without most of it being called into serious question, is naturally going to have more chatter. For those who think that this is a good thing, tune into talk radio. For those that don’t, you might prefer NPR.

In looking through the Phrase Finder discussion forum, I do find some good stuff, but I also see a lot of unchallenged garbage (and, personally, I really don’t have the patience or desire to want to wade through all that and separate the wheat from the chaff – and I don’t), which would never go unquestioned if presented on Wordwizard. But I suppose it may just be a fact of life that more folks prefer this type of thing and the freedom to pontificate without the encumbrance of facts and serious scrutiny by others (which some may find intimidating). And so, as we well know from our experience with television and radio, when blather goes head to head with quality - sad but true - the blather mostly wins.

Ken – July 23, 2005
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Rifraff by actual count

Post by JANE DOErell » Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:02 pm

I notice a couple of thing. This thread starts with "...couple of hours...". Is that to be taken more or less literal? A couple of hours doesn't mean much to me. Perhaps a couple of weekdays might be meaningful unless there was a national holiday on one side of the globe.

Also here, a comment brings a thread back to the top of the page for consideration while over at phrasefinder the thread just keeps on going off the bottem of the screen. Phrasefinder invites more duplicate subjects, and more admonishemts about duplication. A comparison with Wordorigins might be much more useful. I don't know how to post this as a clickable link but I think it is http://p098.ezboard.com/fwordoriginsorgfrm1 .
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Rifraff by actual count

Post by dalehileman » Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:00 am

Jane: I think WW's algorithm is just a whole lot better--by far simpler and easier to use. I had criticized Gary's PF unmercifully, to my own great undoing

Oh, it was--like--a couple of hours--more or less

Ken: And so we are elitist, while they are riffraff
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

ACCESS_END_OF_TOPIC
Post Reply