Validating work claims

[Just_a_fan]

@Greg Locock
Hear hear!

As you say, just because someone comes on and says "hi, I'm Bob and I work for Ferrari" doesn't mean they do, so why ask people to prove such a statement - any proof is as worthless as the original claim. The evidence of their technical knowledge gives a much better indicator of their true worth to the site.

I'm also interested in your point about noise ratio. I've seen people with an apparent technical background leave in quite a short time period after joining because they get either hounded out by those who foam at the mouth when disagreed with, or because their valid technical points are lost in a sea of fanboy noise/uninformed gibberish.

The site is supposed to be a technical one - that's what brought me here in the first place - but most threads seem to descend in to fanboy-style arguments or arguments about how X broke rule Y and therefore should have also had a penalty. One only has to look at the relative volume of the various technical and race threads to see where many members' hearts really lie.

And I like your last point. Well made, sir!

[Cam]

Isn't this what the Rating System is for?? Members with higher ratings reflect the quality of their information - hence, the better chance to trust their posts and information.

Look at some of the members on here with 30+ ratings. Granted, some of them have 'side reasons' for posting info, but most of it is valid, on topic and structured in a manner that is open to scrutiny and discussion.

Anyone making claims, one way or the other, should back it up, that said, no-one should be made to divulge personal info against their will. This isn't China. Question everything and accept some people are full of 5hit.

[SeijaKessen]

Isn't this what the Rating System is for?? Members with higher ratings reflect the quality of their information - hence, the better chance to trust their posts and information.

Look at some of the members on here with 30+ ratings. Granted, some of them have 'side reasons' for posting info, but most of it is valid, on topic and structured in a manner that is open to scrutiny and discussion.

Anyone making claims, one way or the other, should back it up, that said, no-one should be made to divulge personal info against their will. This isn't China. Question everything and accept some people are full of 5hit.

And that, is exactly why the voting system is a joke.

You would like to believe higher rating reflects the quality of information.

One post I saw with a number of upvotes read suspiciously similar to the Wikipedia entry on the subject.

But I suppose this highlights the problem.

So much for scrutiny eh?

It has nothing to do with divulging against their will.

I spent enough time in academics to know why the validation of such things is important. If you have yourself, you would full well understand why I would even bring this topic up.

[flynfrog]

Isn't this what the Rating System is for?? Members with higher ratings reflect the quality of their information - hence, the better chance to trust their posts and information.

Look at some of the members on here with 30+ ratings. Granted, some of them have 'side reasons' for posting info, but most of it is valid, on topic and structured in a manner that is open to scrutiny and discussion.

Anyone making claims, one way or the other, should back it up, that said, no-one should be made to divulge personal info against their will. This isn't China. Question everything and accept some people are full of 5hit.

And that, is exactly why the voting system is a joke.

You would like to believe higher rating reflects the quality of information.

One post I saw with a number of upvotes read suspiciously similar to the Wikipedia entry on the subject.

But I suppose this highlights the problem.

So much for scrutiny eh?

It has nothing to do with divulging against their will.

I spent enough time in academics to know why the validation of such things is important. If you have yourself, you would full well understand why I would even bring this topic up.

SO what you want a scan of our check stubs? If you are not smart enough to figure out who is full of it and who isn't the internet might not be for you.

I know my employer wouldn't want there name posted on a forum with comments from an "employee" it would open them up for lawsuits also people working on defense projects are told to avoid talking about what they do and where they work.

Maybe you spent to much time in academics and not enough time in the real world.

[Cam]

Sharing a Wiki entry is valid. Sharing any valid information is good. The voting system is there to say 'good info' not anything else and it shouldn't reflect the source of the information. Good info = +1, bad info (i.e. wasted my time reading it) = -1. The whole point is to share knowledge and information, regardless of source. No-one is born knowing everything, even rocket scientists have to study books and regurgitate that in their research.

I know plenty of 'qualified' people, with degrees etc that I wouldn't trust on any project. Period. I also have worked with people with no formal qualifications that are arguably geniuses in their own right. A piece of paper or employment position does not make information any more credible.

That's the problem with academics - they forget real world people and experience exist.

[Jersey Tom]

I know some posters here have made claims as to working in motorsports or being closely associated with aspects of F1 or other race series.

People have a tendency to automatically accept such claims as gospel.

If one is willing, or bold enough to make such a statement about their employment, should they not need to provide their name as well as where they work for verification purposes?

I guess I subscribe to the train of thought that, just because someone says it is so, doesn't make it so.

Would this be a feasible option?

I think you're assuming that the working professionals actually care whether or not people on an internet forum "believe" them or not. Personally I don't.

The irony here is that regardless of whether someone works for 'X' or not doesn't at all make them right about a given topic. My #1 rule in motorsport (or any branch of) engineering is to not take ANYONE's comments as gospel just because of who they are. Doesn't matter if they're a FSAE student, Doug Milliken, Claude Rouelle, me, anyone else on this forum, and certainly not racecar drivers - not even champions in F1, Indy Pro, or Sprint Cup.

If someone makes a claim or observation, take it in, chew on it for a bit, and try to prove it right or wrong to yourself. The #1 thing that has driven me nuts even since university has been [typically young] engineers saying, "Well so-and-so says..." to which my reply is always, "Ok, well prove it."

Critical thinking - just do it.

[SeijaKessen]

Isn't this what the Rating System is for?? Members with higher ratings reflect the quality of their information - hence, the better chance to trust their posts and information.

Look at some of the members on here with 30+ ratings. Granted, some of them have 'side reasons' for posting info, but most of it is valid, on topic and structured in a manner that is open to scrutiny and discussion.

Anyone making claims, one way or the other, should back it up, that said, no-one should be made to divulge personal info against their will. This isn't China. Question everything and accept some people are full of 5hit.

And that, is exactly why the voting system is a joke.

You would like to believe higher rating reflects the quality of information.

One post I saw with a number of upvotes read suspiciously similar to the Wikipedia entry on the subject.

But I suppose this highlights the problem.

So much for scrutiny eh?

It has nothing to do with divulging against their will.

I spent enough time in academics to know why the validation of such things is important. If you have yourself, you would full well understand why I would even bring this topic up.

SO what you want a scan of our check stubs? If you are not smart enough to figure out who is full of it and who isn't the internet might not be for you.

I know my employer wouldn't want there name posted on a forum with comments from an "employee" it would open them up for lawsuits also people working on defense projects are told to avoid talking about what they do and where they work.

Maybe you spent to much time in academics and not enough time in the real world.

Considering how personal you're taking this, maybe the Internet is not for you eh?

You do know there are plenty of companies that ban their employees from discussing anything related to their jobs period right?

Being able to talk about work related things is not a right...you clearly seem to think it is.

My thought is if revealing who one is, is not feasible because of potential repercussions from the employer, one may want to reconsider how pressing their need is, or how intelligent their engaging in topics on message boards happens to be.

Therein lies the problem.

I can discern quite easily who is worth listening to around here, thank you for your concern. I'll be sure to take it under advisement for future reference.

[SeijaKessen]

Sharing a Wiki entry is valid. Sharing any valid information is good. The voting system is there to say 'good info' not anything else and it shouldn't reflect the source of the information. Good info = +1, bad info (i.e. wasted my time reading it) = -1. The whole point is to share knowledge and information, regardless of source. No-one is born knowing everything, even rocket scientists have to study books and regurgitate that in their research.

I know plenty of 'qualified' people, with degrees etc that I wouldn't trust on any project. Period. I also have worked with people with no formal qualifications that are arguably geniuses in their own right. A piece of paper or employment position does not make information any more credible.

That's the problem with academics - they forget real world people and experience exist.

Ah, but when the Wiki isn't actually quoted, you see my point Cam?

The voting system doesn't work the way you think it does.

In fact the entire thing is a subjective matter, hence why it has no place on this forum.

The second paragraph of yours...

I see this all the time. Credentials do matter quite a bit in the real world. For someone who says that the real world and experience do matter/exist --which I don't disagree with in principle-- you also miss that if credentials did not matter, then there would be nothing of the sort period. I said I was involved in academics, I didn't say to what capacity, and just where my experience is. Seems to me some people here have quite a bit of trouble differentiating things.

[flynfrog]

Considering how personal you're taking this, maybe the Internet is not for you eh?

You do know there are plenty of companies that ban their employees from discussing anything related to their jobs period right?

Being able to talk about work related things is not a right...you clearly seem to think it is.

My thought is if revealing who one is, is not feasible because of potential repercussions from the employer, one may want to reconsider how pressing their need is, or how intelligent their engaging in topics on message boards happens to be.

Therein lies the problem.

I can discern quite easily who is worth listening to around here, thank you for your concern. I'll be sure to take it under advisement for future reference.

It bothers me so much I made a thread about it, oh wait no I didn't....

No idea where you got I think its a right to talk about work related things.

So you don't want some of our best members to post anymore because they don't want to reveal there employment?

So you are now saying there is no need to confirm employment because you can tell without it?

[SeijaKessen]

Ah here it is.

You really don't understand what my point has been. I'd attempt to explain it further, but I am quite afraid you still won't understand it since a few people I know, knew perfectly well what I was saying.

Try not taking things so personally...and read with an open mind.

People have this nasty habit of flying off the handle when I bring up something, you and others have likely not thought/considered judging by the responses.

[flynfrog]

Ah here it is.

You really don't understand what my point has been. I'd attempt to explain it further, but I am quite afraid you still won't understand it since a few people I know, knew perfectly well what I was saying.

Try not taking things so personally...and read with an open mind.

People have this nasty habit of flying off the handle when I bring up something, you and others have likely not thought/considered judging by the responses.

I am not taking personally at all, myself and others have pointed out why your idea will never happen, I still do see what the point would even be. If you lack the cognitive skills to examine another's "facts" a fake proof of employment is going to be just as convincing.


So please clarify what your point was. I took to mean that if a poster claims to work in a field and shares there experience then they should be required to prove it for some sort of benefit to others?

[Jersey Tom]

You really don't understand what my point has been.

I may be biased, but personally.. I liked my points earlier:

1. Those trying to win races on Sundays aren't concerned whether The Internet believes what they say one way or the other... just here for some interesting or amusing discussion.

2. Just because someone DOES work at 'X' race team supplier does not mean they are correct on any given topic, nor that their observations and beliefs are applicable to all situations.

3. Regardless of anyone's "credentials," anything they say has to be evaluated critically. If it makes sense, great. If you work out what they're trying to say and it's BS... then so be it, throw it away.

[xpensive]

I believe the point here is when someone underlines his or hers opinion with hinted but un-validated credentials.

Heck, I happen to have an MSc in mechanical engineering and a whole heap of xperience of the same from various walks of businesses, but love me or loath me, did I ever try to impose that simple fact to endorse my argument?

Thing is, some members do play that card, "been there done that", which can be annoying at times.

[gato azul]

ars est celare artem vs. argumentum ab auctoritate

[Greg Locock]

Well to play devil's advocate here. Suppose somebody proposes to investigate a particular design feature or architecture. Suppose I have worked on that idea myself for a client, and found various insuperable flaws. My choices at this point are (1) say nothing (2) hint that it is a bad idea (3) give the new guy all the benefit of my expensive work by telling him what the issues are.

According to the OP 1 or 3 are the only acceptable courses of action, in other words his poor discrimination means other people's time should be wasted or confidences revealed.