Marc -

I appreciate the Cove, and find it quite informative. With the volume of posts and the volunteer forum moderators too much misinformation is being spread. Not sure how to fix the problem outside of a credentials check.

Sorry for the bitching!

Marc -

I appreciate the Cove, and find it quite informative. With the volume of posts and the volunteer forum moderators too much misinformation is being spread. Not sure how to fix the problem outside of a credentials check.

Sorry for the bitching!
I am interested in what you are saying.
The misinformation in what form is it? Is it in the area of beliefs and opinions or real factually errors.
Please can you give some examples to enable us to discuss the situation and perform corrective action

Marc -

I appreciate the Cove, and find it quite informative. With the volume of posts and the volunteer forum moderators too much misinformation is being spread. Not sure how to fix the problem outside of a credentials check.

Sorry for the bitching!
I thought the moderators were always right. :confused:

:topic: I thought the moderators were always right. :confused:
I trust that this is tongue in cheek.
None of the moderators have ever claimed to be infallible. Most of our time is spent in trying to help people get answers for their problems. This is a voluntary position which we do in the attempt to return to others what we have gained.
To much time is wasted on petty squabbles between adults who act as children in what is supposed to be a professional, informed and adult forum.

I am interested in what you are saying.
The misinformation in what form is it? Is it in the area of beliefs and opinions or real factually errors.
Please can you give some examples to enable us to discuss the situation and perform corrective action
Part of it is beliefs and opinion and part of it is factual errors. For example, interpretation of ISO or TS standards. Most people opine on what they believe is correct. It is this opinion without factual basis that scares me. I am a statistician by trade and profession. I work with companies that usually need assistance or 3rd party review of their statistical approach. If I just gave them my opinion without any discussion of why I chose the approach, I would be out of a job. Here on the Cove, you can just opine and not worry if you give misinformation. Unfortunately, I think many people take comments here as gospel because they do not know the credentials of the poster.

I am interested in what you are saying.
The misinformation in what form is it? Is it in the area of beliefs and opinions or real factually errors.
Please can you give some examples to enable us to discuss the situation and perform corrective action

Yes--examples would be good, especially examples of factual misinformation that wasn't corrected.

I thought the moderators were always right. :confused:Moderator does not equal expert. As with any open forum, information gained here should be verified and substantiated from a primary source.

Steven,
I do not disagree with what you are saying and there used to be a convention of the use of IMO a lot more than there is today.
I think that it is important to question and in a lot of questions some one asks for an interpretation which then is discussed thoughly.
Any one who takes a 'pronouncement as gospel has a problem and I do not remember any case where there was any dogmatic claim of righteousness.
This is a discussion group and as Al said
Moderator does not equal expert. As with any open forum, information gained here should be verified and substantiated from a primary source.
This is true and is also true in respect to others whose professional status is known and accepted. In most issues here there is no absolute

Steven,
I do not disagree with what you are saying and there used to be a convention of the use of IMO a lot more than there is today.
I think that it is important to question and in a lot of questions some one asks for an interpretation which then is discussed thoughly.
Any one who takes a 'pronouncement as gospel has a problem and I do not remember any case where there was any dogmatic claim of righteousness.
This is a discussion group and as Al said
Moderator does not equal expert. As with any open forum, information gained here should be verified and substantiated from a primary source.
This is true and is also true in respect to others whose professional status is known and accepted. In most issues here there is no absolute
I guess the question should be..."Should Moderators be experts? Should Moderators remove posts with erroneous information?"

I guess the question should be..."Should Moderators be experts? Should Moderators remove posts with erroneous information?"Why should a moderator remove a post with eroneous information? It might be more beneficial to discuss it. I think that is what a discussion board is about.

I guess the question should be..."Should Moderators be experts? Should Moderators remove posts with erroneous information?"
That is a good question.
There are forums on the net which are "ask the experts" the cove does not say it is this type of site.
I don't think that we should remove such posts but rather explain the reason why they are erroneous, this is more useful as it includes the education advantage of the discussion.
I think that you would like a warning on the cove.
I think that amongst most reasonable posters this is not needed but I see no reason not to place some sort of statement that all posts are individual ideas and not to be used in any other manner than reading a magazine or book.

That is a good question.
There are forums on the net which are "ask the experts" the cove does not say it is this type of site.
I don't think that we should remove such posts but rather explain the reason why they are erroneous, this is more useful as it includes the education advantage of the discussion.
I think that you would like a warning on the cove.
I think that amongst most reasonable posters this is not needed but I see no reason not to place some sort of statement that all posts are individual ideas and not to be used in any other manner than reading a magazine or book.
I think you synthesized by concerns well. I think of the Cove as a peer-reviewed site. That is if information is incorrect, it is corrected and the post is edited. You see the Cove as a free flow of information or brainstorming, and not a place for finding the answer. I now understand some posters here :)

I think you synthesized by concerns well. I think of the Cove as a peer-reviewed site. That is if information is incorrect, it is corrected and the post is edited.

If information is demonstrably incorrect, it should be corrected, which shouldn't necessarily include editing the post where the error occurred. If a user sees a long thread, reads the OP and the first response and ignores everything else, then shame on the user. There is value in seeing mistakes being made and corrected, and in seeing things from different perspectives.

You see the Cove as a free flow of information or brainstorming, and not a place for finding the answer. I now understand some posters here :)

I don't think that's fair or accurate (perhaps we should delete the post, or edit it so that it reflects the facts?). You've constructed a false dichotomy, that being the idea that "free flow of information" and "a place for finding the answer" are mutually exclusive concepts. The Cove offers both possibilities, and it's up to individual users to sort the information in accordance with their own needs and abilities to understand what's presented.

Being a relatively small forum which is not paying people to moderate, there is no way to expect an expert in every field. Moderators are meant to help out people when they can and to help out watching over everything in general.

If this forum was owned and run by a big company with money to burn, then experts from various fields could be hired to work at giving 'expert' answers.

Unfortunately, I'll just have to say that your expectations are a bit high with consideration to what we have here to work with.

As to removing posts with erroneous information, one only has to quote the suspect information in a reply and state what the erroneous information is, as well as the correct information. Anyone can do this. It is not limited to moderators, nor is it a specific moderator requirement.

That moderators donate their time is in its self very much appreciated. I do explain to prospective moderators that they do not need to be an expert in a specific field. But then - What is an expert and what measurement is used? When you have two experts in one field who disagree on something, which is right?

NOTE:
Are you interested in helping out as a Moderator? Moderator Requirements (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=10012)

When you have two experts in one field who disagree on something, which is right?

The one who buys the beer:D

Let me phrase it more directly. This problem has nothing to do with the Cove, its moderators or the correctness of editing/deleting posts. The problem has been created by quality professionals themselves. Unfortunately, there are now 3 camps of thought in the profession.

1. Traditional quality professionals. The Deming, Juran, Shewhart folks that people that use statistics and data to formulate an approach.

2. New Age quality professionals. The six sigma, Lean Manufacturing folks that use belts and jargon to sell quality to upper management, but lack the basic fundamental quality tools to solve problems.

3. The "Morph" professionals. These are the professionals who figured out that you need to combine #1 and #2 to be successful.

Depending on which camp you sit in, you see the other camps as propergating misinformation. Like the Republican/Democrat argument in US politics. It is not that people mean to misinform, but they themselves are misinformed because in many cases they lacked the necessary training and tools.

Let me phrase it more directly. This problem has nothing to do with the Cove, its moderators or the correctness of editing/deleting posts. The problem has been created by quality professionals themselves. Unfortunately, there are now 3 camps of thought in the profession.

1. Traditional quality professionals. The Deming, Juran, Shewhart folks that people that use statistics and data to formulate an approach.

2. New Age quality professionals. The six sigma, Lean Manufacturing folks that use belts and jargon to sell quality to upper management, but lack the basic fundamental quality tools to solve problems.

3. The "Morph" professionals. These are the professionals who figured out that you need to combine #1 and #2 to be successful.

Depending on which camp you sit in, you see the other camps as propergating misinformation. Like the Republican/Democrat argument in US politics. It is not that people mean to misinform, but they themselves are misinformed because in many cases they lacked the necessary training and tools.

And I think that the Cove is a great place because we have folks like you who have their feet planted firmly on the ground to help keep us focused. I understand your frustration, believe me, but you do plenty around here to help dispel the fallacies and fads. :agree1:

The one who buys the beer:DNo the one who buys is wrong.

Who among any of us is an expert in all that is discussed in these forums? Who is to make the determination with regard to whether information is erroneous or not?

With regard to ISO 9001 there truly are few absolutes, it is a document written to encapsolate the needs of a vast, very fluid customer base (from the service industries to manufacturing, and all points in between). All I can provide are recommendations and suggestions based on the facts noted through my experiences - which may vary when implemented by others.

With the exception of Nosmo King, I have never felt that I was purposely being "mislead" by anyone here. I have disagreed with a few, but only because my experience base differed from theirs which allowed me to see where what may have worked for them, would not for me.

The nature of a Discussion Forum is to challenge an answer thought to be incorrect. The normal protocol for such challenge is to cite chapter and verse of an authoritative source, hopefully the original material versus another "opinion."

To be a member of a Discussion Forum and not challenge information thought to be erroneous is a disservice to the other members and casual readers.

It is correctly said the Cove is not "Ask an Expert" but rather, "Ask my peers for help and guidance."

Sometimes, both posters and readers have a difficult time separating fact from opinion. In such cases, everyone learns as the facts evolve over the length of a thread. In the case of some long, multi-year threads, the facts have changed over time, making a truly instructive lesson in the power of the group mind.

To Statistical Steven:
I echo a question some of the previous posters have raised:
"Can you cite some of these posts with [what you think is] erroneous information so we can ALL revisit them and perhaps develop the VERIFIABLE truth?"

This thread split from Suggestions for Improvement - January 2006 (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14750)

To Statistical Steven:
I echo a question some of the previous posters have raised:
"Can you cite some of these posts with [what you think is] erroneous information so we can ALL revisit them and perhaps develop the VERIFIABLE truth?"

Here are a few to chew on

Variance Tracking and Identification - Best approach to determine the source? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14529) A discussion of variance tracking. Maybe I am wrong, but T-tests compare means not variances.

I need Six Sigma and Statistics Jokes (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14131) Six Sigma Week? Deming would be turning over in his grave on this thread!

Inspection Plan for receiving finished products (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14851) Not sure the question is ever answered!

Steven, Feel free to jump in any thread and reply pointing out the problem you see. I'm not sure what your expectations are, but you can sit back and do nothing - OR - You can get involved in correcting mistakes and 'misinformation'.

Steven, Feel free to jump in any thread and reply pointing out the problem you see. I'm not sure what your expectations are, but you can sit back and do nothing - OR - You can get involved in correcting mistakes and 'misinformation'.
Thanks. LIike I said, with these 3 camps, when you point out something incorrect, someone from the other camp comes in to debunk your statements. Without moderators who set the law, it is a free flow discussion with the readers needing to be aware that they might be getting misinformation for their problem.

Variance Tracking and Identification - Best approach to determine the source? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14529) A discussion of variance tracking. Maybe I am wrong, but T-tests compare means not variances.


Enlightenment from an expert Cover would have been just the ticket, and an opportunity for others to learn.

I need Six Sigma and Statistics Jokes (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14131) Six Sigma Week? Deming would be turning over in his grave on this thread!

Just banter, nothing more. I'm no fan of SS or other flavor-of-the-month "strategies," but we can't deny their existence.

Inspection Plan for receiving finished products (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14851) Not sure the question is ever answered!

I think we do a pretty good job of making sure that nothing goes unanswered, even if the answer is a plea for expert help or more information from the OP. In the cited case, the OP was either satisfied with the answers given, got what he was looking for elsewhere, or just decided it wasn't that important, for whatever reasons.

Here are a few to chew on

I need Six Sigma and Statistics Jokes (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14131) Six Sigma Week? Deming would be turning over in his grave on this thread!


It seems a bit prudish to complain about a few silly jokes.

Here are a few to chew on

Variance Tracking and Identification - Best approach to determine the source? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14529) A discussion of variance tracking. Maybe I am wrong, but T-tests compare means not variances.

I need Six Sigma and Statistics Jokes (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14131) Six Sigma Week? Deming would be turning over in his grave on this thread!

Inspection Plan for receiving finished products (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14851) Not sure the question is ever answered!

Steve,

Now...Please don't think we are on a Steve-bashing wagon here...unless you like it...LOL:biglaugh: :biglaugh:


But, I’m really confused here, so please, help me out. This thread was started to discuss potential misinformation posted at the Cove. You provided some examples, but aside from the first link, the others do not, IMHO, contain misinformation.

One of the common issues with all forums is a lack of information when posting a question. The last link you posted, the poster was asking for a sampling plan for incoming inspection. Frankly, based on the information provided, I would not recommend anything, too little information. No information on the product (are we speaking of office furniture, or rocket parts), and no additional input from the thread starter.

Now, if this is just a vent of the “3 camps”…go for it…we all gotta blow some steam from time to time. :mad: :mad:

Steve,

Now...Please don't think we are on a Steve-bashing wagon here...unless you like it...LOL:biglaugh: :biglaugh:


But, I’m really confused here, so please, help me out. This thread was started to discuss potential misinformation posted at the Cove. You provided some examples, but aside from the first link, the others do not, IMHO, contain misinformation.

One of the common issues with all forums is a lack of information when posting a question. The last link you posted, the poster was asking for a sampling plan for incoming inspection. Frankly, based on the information provided, I would not recommend anything, too little information. No information on the product (are we speaking of office furniture, or rocket parts), and no additional input from the thread starter.

Now, if this is just a vent of the “3 camps”…go for it…we all gotta blow some steam from time to time. :mad: :mad:

Each link was to highlight the issues I see and the improvement I would suggest.

Link 1. Clearly some misinformation was given and OP took it and used it.
Link 2. Looking for slogans to post for Six Sigma week. Is there a QUALITY professional on this board that thinks this is right. I thought some of the jokes were funny, and would have thought the moderator would have moved the link to the joke section. But instead, it was given validation under the 6S thread. This type of misinformation about quality (allowing a poster to be taken seriously about jokes for six sigma week) is just silly.
Link 3. Might be a stretch, but I sometimes see Marc "bump" up messages to see if anyone has an answer for the OP. I guess when a question is asked, and you answer a different question, a moderator should refocus the discussion.

You can bash away at me. :lol:

I guess the question should be..."Should Moderators be experts? Should Moderators remove posts with erroneous information?"

I would say the very nature of this forum and the people involved help to police this problem. If something isn't quite right with a post, I would dare say that someone would speak up about the issue and let the debate go where it may.

A moderator is typically for the purpose of seeking and removing threads that are simply spam or trolling. They may also help maintain some degree of decorum by preventing and/or stopping flame wars.

Based on the amount of information in this group and numerous ways that some of the topics can be addressed, I would say that the moderators are performing exactly as intended.

Wayne

Link 1. Clearly some misinformation was given and OP took it and used it.

Agree, the potential is there. I urge you to jump in and correct the mis-information. You never know when another user will find this thread during a search.


Link 2. Looking for slogans to post for Six Sigma week. Is there a QUALITY professional on this board that thinks this is right. I thought some of the jokes were funny, and would have thought the moderator would have moved the link to the joke section. But instead, it was given validation under the 6S thread. This type of misinformation about quality (allowing a poster to be taken seriously about jokes for six sigma week) is just silly.

I will reserve my comments on this. Suffice it to say that I am not a fan of 6S, and my comment would be jaded.


Link 3. Might be a stretch, but I sometimes see Marc "bump" up messages to see if anyone has an answer for the OP. I guess when a question is asked, and you answer a different question, a moderator should refocus the discussion.

I follow your line of thinking now. Again, I would urge you to jump in when you see issues like this. Based on what I have read in your post, you could contribute quite a bit!!

You can bash away at me. :lol: LOL...he likes it!

This is hte official offer - Steven, would you like to help out as a moderator?

This is hte official offer - Steven, would you like to help out as a moderator?
Sorry Marc, my "opinions" are strong, and I am not as PC as the volunteers you have here. I appreciate the offer, and would consider it in the future.

Thanks

I second the offer:agree1:

It seems a bit prudish to complain about a few silly jokes.I don't know if it's prudish. I do know that there have been complaints about much less by others here. I also don't think that characterization is very polite.

I few thoughts from the "other" Steve who is also a statistician (or maybe more correct, Operations Researcher).

One thing I have learned after exposure to Deming and cohorts is that there is no "RIGHT" answer. Depending on how we view things, and the context they exist in, what is "RIGHT" to one person may be "WRONG" to another. DeBono has a great, short book called "I am Right, You are Wrong".
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140126783/002-7041441-8813604?v=glance&n=283155

Now, on the subject of how to calculate a mean and variance, we may agree on the math. But we may disagree on what is the best estimate of the standard deviation to put on a control chart.

I would suggest the Cove is a good place to get ideas out in the open. Yes, we should state when we disagree with something, and state the alternative and why we feel as we do. I do fall in the traditional Deming camp, but will usually (I hope) state that I am providing a suggested answer from a certain point of view. Yes, I will "take on" the Six Sigma perspectives and offer an alternative.

I am a moderator of 3 boards at ASQ, and an ASQ Section Chair, and in both roles it can be tough to put aside the partisan hat and put on the moderator hat. I do believe the moderators need to be neutral, and it might be best if they are NOT "experts" in the are they are moderating. Maybe I am a laid back moderator, but I think the moderator should nurture differing points of view, but be sure to "moderate" (which does have a certain meaning in nuclear reactors) and slow things down now and then if the participants get too heated.

So far, Steve, I think your technical statistics answers have been spot-on.

I few thoughts from the "other" Steve who is also a statistician (or maybe more correct, Operations Researcher).

One thing I have learned after exposure to Deming and cohorts is that there is no "RIGHT" answer. Depending on how we view things, and the context they exist in, what is "RIGHT" to one person may be "WRONG" to another. DeBono has a great, short book called "I am Right, You are Wrong".
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140126783/002-7041441-8813604?v=glance&n=283155

Now, on the subject of how to calculate a mean and variance, we may agree on the math. But we may disagree on what is the best estimate of the standard deviation to put on a control chart.

I would suggest the Cove is a good place to get ideas out in the open. Yes, we should state when we disagree with something, and state the alternative and why we feel as we do. I do fall in the traditional Deming camp, but will usually (I hope) state that I am providing a suggested answer from a certain point of view. Yes, I will "take on" the Six Sigma perspectives and offer an alternative.

I am a moderator of 3 boards at ASQ, and an ASQ Section Chair, and in both roles it can be tough to put aside the partisan hat and put on the moderator hat. I do believe the moderators need to be neutral, and it might be best if they are NOT "experts" in the are they are moderating. Maybe I am a laid back moderator, but I think the moderator should nurture differing points of view, but be sure to "moderate" (which does have a certain meaning in nuclear reactors) and slow things down now and then if the participants get too heated.

So far, Steve, I think your technical statistics answers have been spot-on.
Thank you!

Steve, a question for you. When you see the misapplication of statistics in a post for a group you moderate, how do you deal with it as to not come across as the expert that you are?

Is this a record 35 posts in less than 3 hours
Does one of our statisticians want to comment:lmao:

Thank you!

Steve, a question for you. When you see the misapplication of statistics in a post for a group you moderate, how do you deal with it as to not come across as the expert that you are?

It depends on the nature of the "misapplication". If someone suggests, say, we ought to use a c-chart and the Poisson distribution for trending the weight of airline passenger's luggage, I will try to answer in a dry, technical manner and state - the poisson distribution is useful for counting discrete, independent events, such as counting individual passengers. But, if I am now weighing their luggage, the discrete count is no longer valid. And then try to give them a reference, either to my own "trending primer" we use at Hanford, or to another stats book.

Now, if someone comes forth and says "we ought to have numerical targets", I will try to respond with - from a Deming perspective we ought not to have targets because they can cause the following problems. And for a good hands on experience, look at the Red Bead Experiment.

So, what I try to do is give some perspective and context to how I am responding and why. And try not to label the issue as "RIGHT" or "WRONG".

The previous answer was from the perspective of an individual poster. As moderator, I did make this comment on the ASQ Ask a Professional board over the weekend. A discussion board member had made the observation marked off with ">" signs.

Re: Calculating 3.4 DPMO using Minitab
Posted: Jan 27, 2006 1:50 PM Reply


> So the favourite sport here is knocking ISO9001. I
> guess the second favourite is knocking Six Sigma
> register trademark.

I suppose I should respond to this as the moderator. I hope that no one takes the discussions on these boards as "knocking" something or somebody. It is my hope that we may have open and healthy discussion here. I think it is healthy for quality professionals to have a questioning attitude, and look to uncover hidden assumptions.

Now yes, this thread has strayed away from the original question of how to calculate DPMO. But, like it or not, the 1.5 sigma subtraction has become ingrained in the culture. So we need to know it exists, at least if you want to "do six sigma". But I do believe it also important to understand "why" it exists, and when ASQ went whole hog into six sigma with Mikel Harry it never asked the questions.

Perhaps if more people had asked questions on day one, we wouldn't be here years later guessing about what the 1.5 sigma shift means.

Anyway, let us strive to continue on with healthy discussions of the pros and cons of any of the quality methodologies.

Thank you,

Steve Prevette
moderator.

Is this a record 35 posts in less than 3 hours
Does one of our statisticians want to comment:lmao:

Yes, these posts are coming in faster than I can even comment.

Definitely one above the upper control limit, I think.

Variance Tracking and Identification - Best approach to determine the source? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14529) A discussion of variance tracking. Maybe I am wrong, but T-tests compare means not variances.

I started this before seeing the valuable exchange between the Stevens, so this is kind of a side comment at this point.

IMHO, even though the title of the original post used the word "variance", he didn't actually mean "sigma squared". Within the post he uses the word "variation", so I think he simply meant "variation" or "change". In particular, change in the mean.

So yes, T-tests are for means, but that may well be what he really meant. So this is not so much a factual error as a challenge in interpreting the original intent. (BTW, I don't think that paired t-tests - as suggested in one reply - are appropriate here.)

This would be a case where it could be quite valuable to sit down face to face with an expert, to make sure that the true issues were addressed and that terminology was used appropriately. Free advice can be helpful, but communication between strangers (e.g. with infrequent posters) certainly has the potential for miscommunications!

Tim F

I started this before seeing the valuable exchange between the Stevens, so this is kind of a side comment at this point.

IMHO, even though the title of the original post used the word "variance", he didn't actually mean "sigma squared". Within the post he uses the word "variation", so I think he simply meant "variation" or "change". In particular, change in the mean.

So yes, T-tests are for means, but that may well be what he really meant. So this is not so much a factual error as a challenge in interpreting the original intent. (BTW, I don't think that paired t-tests - as suggested in one reply - are appropriate here.)

This would be a case where it could be quite valuable to sit down face to face with an expert, to make sure that the true issues were addressed and that terminology was used appropriately. Free advice can be helpful, but communication between strangers (e.g. with infrequent posters) certainly has the potential for miscommunications!

Tim F

Very good points, Tim. And t-tests and other tests of hypothesis are an interesting example of discussions on two different levels. We can discuss the proper technical way to conduct a test of hypothesis and which test to use, how big a sample, etc. etc. etc.

Yet, interestingly, Dr. Deming came out very strongly against using tests of hypothesis in the first place (in Out of the Crisis). It took me a while to come to grips with what his issue was and why.

So, we can have on one level the technical discussion of the calculation, and on the other level, should we even be doing the calculation at all?

This would be a case where it could be quite valuable to sit down face to face with an expert, to make sure that the true issues were addressed and that terminology was used appropriately. Free advice can be helpful, but communication between strangers (e.g. with infrequent posters) certainly has the potential for miscommunications!
Tim F
DING DING DING....You got the problem Tim. Many people miscommunicate in this communication medium, but do not pursue the expert opinion to ensure clarity and correctness.

Many people miscommunicate in this communication medium, but do not pursue the expert opinion to ensure clarity and correctness.

Hopefully, most people realize that free advice is worth about what it costs! ;)

That said, I think that most of the advice given here is worth much more than it costs. The fact that so many smart & informed people are willing to discuss/debate/advise (and the overall level of their insights) always amazes me. That is still no substitute for individual, professional advice when it is warrented.

Tim F

Personally, I think it's worth US$25 a year for all the advice, powerpoint files, excel forms and everything else here.

Since we're talking about $: Donate / Contribute (http://elsmar.com/subscribe.html) :notme:

This discussion is exactly what I think the Cove does best. Exchange of ideas based upon ones own level of experience and training related to varying specific knowledge of particular subjects. I think we all basically sift the info gained here to apply to our individual needs and methods of improvement. The other thing I think is that this is the greatest forum available anywhere of people readily offering to help others. I have not seen any flagrant misinformation posted. I have seen lot of people jump in to help others, and in a rapid timeframe. We have to think for ourselves and look at how the information fits or not. I think Steven has been a good contributor and will continue to do so.:agree1:

Wow. :eek: When I went home from work earlier today, this thread had not even been started, and look at it now: Great discussion...

I believe Ralph is spot on: This discussion is exactly what I think the Cove does best.

/Claes

One thought - there is always going to be disagreements amongst "experts" (or gurus). I participate in the In2InThinking network, and this month's conference call (with 25 folks on it) was led by Dr. Russ Ackoff. One person did ask Russ what he thought of Dr. Deming and where did he disagree. Russ acknowledged that he worked closely with Dr. Deming, and thought the world of him. And then he went into what he disagreed with and why.

I should state that I found myself in disagreement with some of Dr. Ackoff's statements. At least today. I reserve the right to reconsider in the future. I do believe that we tend to quickly categorize things as "we agree" or "we disagree" and then turn a blind eye towards those things we disagree with. That can really hamper learning. I suspect one would learn more by discussing something with someone they fundamentally disagree with rather than agree with. All you will gain by talking with someone you agree with is affirmation of what you already believe to be "true".

All you will gain by talking with someone you agree with is affirmation of what you already believe to be "true.

I agree, Steve! :rolleyes:

Sometimes we can get too wrapped up in our individual areas of experience and/or expertise. I can readily understand where a person who is a statisticain would like clean, mathamaticially accurate statements and solutions. It's the nature of the beast and certainly nothing wrong with it. Others who deal less with the mathematicals and more with the manegerials/motivationals tend to be a bit less precise in their outlook on things. Occasionally these will clash, but overall and in most cases I think that the persons involved are are more interested in providing good answers than in partisan bickering.

I recall a thread I was involved in that might fit Stat-Steve's concern.

Concentricity Measurement - How to correctly measure concentricity (http://Elsmar/Forums/showthread.php?p=127898#post127898)

The question was for a SIMPLE explaination fo how to check concentricity on part. The tolerance was something like .020 TIR. The first answer was extremely correct but not simple. I then described my uneducated, seat of the pants 15 years running machine, method. The discussion continued between the "correct" terminologies/methodologies and the practical simple answers that the OP needed.
Who was "right" and who was "wrong"? Both provided information. Both sides gained insights, and the OP seemed to have gotten the answer he needed for his particular application regardless of all the "Terminology".

I have seen this time and again here where a person will ask a question, and upon discussion it is discovered that they are asking something different.

So to Stat-Steve I just say keep the posts coming...correct us where we are wrong so that we keep up the value of these forums. Just remember we're all pulling together, just not always the same direction.

Regards
James:agree:

I guess the question should be..."Should Moderators be experts? Should Moderators remove posts with erroneous information?"

I disagree with "removing" posts with erroneous info. We can all learn from the discussion that follows, including many times the person who posted if he indeed has an open mind.

Pat in NH

Sometimes we can get too wrapped up in our individual areas of experience and/or expertise. I can readily understand where a person who is a statisticain would like clean, mathamaticially accurate statements and solutions. It's the nature of the beast and certainly nothing wrong with it. Others who deal less with the mathematicals and more with the manegerials/motivationals tend to be a bit less precise in their outlook on things. Occasionally these will clash, but overall and in most cases I think that the persons involved are are more interested in providing good answers than in partisan bickering.

I recall a thread I was involved in that might fit Stat-Steve's concern.

The question was for a SIMPLE explaination fo how to check concentricity on part. The tolerance was something like .020 TIR. The first answer was extremely correct but not simple. I then described my uneducated, seat of the pants 15 years running machine, method. The discussion continued between the "correct" terminologies/methodologies and the practical simple answers that the OP needed.
Who was "right" and who was "wrong"? Both provided information. Both sides gained insights, and the OP seemed to have gotten the answer he needed for his particular application regardless of all the "Terminology".

I have seen this time and again here where a person will ask a question, and upon discussion it is discovered that they are asking something different.

So to Stat-Steve I just say keep the posts coming...correct us where we are wrong so that we keep up the value of these forums. Just remember we're all pulling together, just not always the same direction.

Regards
James:agree:

A great post, and an excellent example. In the post you referenced, it would be easy to say that one method is wrong and another is right, but what the OP got was information from experienced people that he could use to make a decision. That's what we're here for, imo. Sometimes I'll strongly assert a point of view, but I expect to be disagreed with, and I know that differing points of view make for good decisions. Quality managers don't need to know everything, but they do need to know how to find answers and assimilate them into a decision. The Cove's great strength doesn't lie in accentuating absolutes, but in helping people navigate through the gray areas.

I disagree with "removing" posts with erroneous info. We can all learn from the discussion that follows, including many times the person who posted if he indeed has an open mind.

I think you will find that the majority of responders supported the idea of leaving the erroneous post in, and then commenting on it.

The only posts I've seen moderators remove are from spammers, advertisers, and the rare highly inflammatory post (e.g., cursing, racial slurs, etc.).

Sometimes we can get too wrapped up in our individual areas of experience and/or expertise. I can readily understand where a person who is a statisticain would like clean, mathamaticially accurate statements and solutions. It's the nature of the beast and certainly nothing wrong with it. Others who deal less with the mathematicals and more with the manegerials/motivationals tend to be a bit less precise in their outlook on things. Occasionally these will clash, but overall and in most cases I think that the persons involved are are more interested in providing good answers than in partisan bickering.

I am a very practical statistician, and many times I use seat of the pants solutions to solve complex problems. I am not just talking about statistically incorrect answers, but more about propagation of arguments over different ways of saying the same thing. Such as the term Turtle Diagram...it is a cause and effect diagram, so just call it that!

I am a very practical statistician, and many times I use seat of the pants solutions to solve complex problems. I am not just talking about statistically incorrect answers, but more about propagation of arguments over different ways of saying the same thing. Such as the term Turtle Diagram...it is a cause and effect diagram, so just call it that!

You say tomaato and I say tomawto.....:biglaugh: :lol:

James

I am a very practical statistician, and many times I use seat of the pants solutions to solve complex problems. I am not just talking about statistically incorrect answers, but more about propagation of arguments over different ways of saying the same thing. Such as the term Turtle Diagram...it is a cause and effect diagram, so just call it that!
But then you can't sell it.
I think that we all generally agree in principle, there are slight differences of emphasis based on our outlook.
There is a difference between what we believe and want to be the case and what we need to do to keep our customers happy.:yes:

But then you can't sell it.
I think that we all generally agree in principle, there are slight differences of emphasis based on our outlook.
There is a difference between what we believe and want to be the case and what we need to do to keep our customers happy.:yes:
Howard I think you capsulated my frustration. My proposed improvement effort was to ask moderators who are experts in the discipline to "coach" posters. What I hear, and I accept is that the Cove is not about what is right or wrong, but more about embracing diverse opinions. :bonk:

Steve, this business requires a great deal of flexibility and tolerance. I think we all see the "propagation of arguments over different ways of saying the same thing" from time to time. That is no fault of the Cove. When I see posts like that, I know I have two choices: 1) Ignore it and don't follow the thread, and 2) Make a response that expresses my concern over the direction the thread is taking.

One thing I have found, however, is that occasionally there are subjects where I am absolutely "certain" I am correct, only to find after lengthy discussion (numerous posts throughout the thread) that my thinking needed a little adjustment. So now I try to keep an open mind, even about such nonsense subjects as six sigma.

Steve, this business requires a great deal of flexibility and tolerance. I think we all see the "propagation of arguments over different ways of saying the same thing" from time to time. That is no fault of the Cove. When I see posts like that, I know I have two choices: 1) Ignore it and don't follow the thread, and 2) Make a response that expresses my concern over the direction the thread is taking.

One thing I have found, however, is that occasionally there are subjects where I am absolutely "certain" I am correct, only to find after lengthy discussion (numerous posts throughout the thread) that my thinking needed a little adjustment. So now I try to keep an open mind, even about such nonsense subjects as six sigma.
I agree about flexibility and tolerance. I understand that six sigma is here to stay for the time being. I am a wise little grasshopper...I learned something new over the last few days.

Thanks to everyone for their feedback!

:topic: I learned something new today. I learned from Rob Nix how to do a "strikeout" of text strikeout by entering an "s" in brackets [ ] in front of the material to be struck and "/s" in brackets after the material.:applause: :magic: ;)

:topic: I learned something new today. I learned from Rob Nix how to do a "strikeout" of text strikeout by entering an "s" in brackets [ ] in front of the material to be struck and "/s" in brackets after the material.:applause: :magic: ;)There is a post or thread somewhere that describes the different tags that you can use, but I haven't been able to find it.

There is a post or thread somewhere that describes the different tags that you can use, but I haven't been able to find it.

vBulletin BBCodes (http://elsmar.com/Forums/misc.php?do=bbcode)

Thanks, Jim. :bonk:I was searching the threads.

There is a link to them at the bottom left of every forum page. In the box titled 'Posting Rules Settings' there is a set of about 8 setting status codes and a link to BBCodes. Look for: vB code is On

Yep! A small part of what makes the Cove great!

Isn't it odd how we can often miss the little, but important, things that are right there in plain view?

Howard I think you capsulated my frustration. My proposed improvement effort was to ask moderators who are experts in the discipline to "coach" posters. What I hear, and I accept is that the Cove is not about what is right or wrong, but more about embracing diverse opinions. :bonk:
I remember a similar discussion in the past about how we should post around the attitude to Quality Manuals and spoon feeding auditors
:soap:
Most of us work in the real world and our biggest problems are to find ways of getting our "customers" to accept the basics rather than the subtleties of the philosophies. The "ism's" work as a short term attention getter and sell the product. If 10% goes in then this is a great achievement
I know a company that bought a"Kaizen" event which was on reduction of set-up time. The same company about 8 years ago received 3 day Picos workshop by 3 Delphi staff. They implemented then say 10% now another 10% in a 100% maybe they will get there.
6S:yes:

I question the validity of the following statement, "Such as the term Turtle Diagram...it is a cause and effect diagram, so just call it that!"

I don't view turtle diagrams as a cause - effect diagram. I believe that turtle diagrams are a description of the components of a process. Turtle diagrams describe the inputs, outputs, controls, and measurements of a process. They may help in solving a problem in terms of where to look for a cause but I don't see them as cause - effect diagrams.

Is this the type of "coaching" Statistical Steven is looking for?

Regards,

Dirk

I question the validity of the following statement, "Such as the term Turtle Diagram...it is a cause and effect diagram, so just call it that!"

I don't view turtle diagrams as a cause - effect diagram. I believe that turtle diagrams are a description of the components of a process. Turtle diagrams describe the inputs, outputs, controls, and measurements of a process. They may help in solving a problem in terms of where to look for a cause but I don't see them as cause - effect diagrams.

Is this the type of "coaching" Statistical Steven is looking for?

Regards,

Dirk
Exactly....if a Turtle diagram is different than a Cause and Effect, then my post should be removed for propagating erroneous information.

Oh, if only the last two posts carried emoticons (smilies), then I would know whether to smile or cringe. :eek:

Exactly....if a Turtle diagram is different than a Cause and Effect, then my post should be removed for propagating erroneous information.It is different, but your post doesn't have to be removed.

Exactly....if a Turtle diagram is different than a Cause and Effect, then my post should be removed for propagating erroneous information.

I agree with Rob Nix - don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Who gets to decide which statements are erroneous and should be removed?
What happens when two people hold equally strong opinions of their definitions?
How many people are we going to tick off and in what time frame?

I think we need a statistical model to see how long it would take to go from 5000 visits per day to 10. JMHO of course

James

Exactly....if a Turtle diagram is different than a Cause and Effect, then my post should be removed for propagating erroneous information.


Ah, Steven, this post has prompted me to finally quit lurking. Might I toss my two pesos in?

If I am clueless about a certain subject, and turtles are a great example because I have rarely used them, I may be under the impression that they are indeed the same as cause-and-effect diagrams. If they are not, then, sure, I run the risk of continuing to blunder around in the dark if I read the thread right after an erroneous post stating that they are. However, if another Cove dweller comes along soon after the offending post and posts their own thread disagreeing with the original premise, then my own incorrect thinking will very clearly be discovered by myself. Remove the post, and I continue to stumble about in the dark, maybe to find out about my misconception at a very inappropriate and inconvenient time.

So, my humble opinion is, unless the post contains spam, politics, or other offensive material, leave it be. Post an opinion to the contrary, but leave it be.

I think we need a statistical model to see how long it would take to go from 5000 visits per day to 10. JMHO of courseIs that the average visits?

I commonly post my erroneous, but commonly held, opinions in this forum and I'm not afraid to admit it.

We learn wisdom from failure much more than from success. We often discover what will do by finding out what will not do; and probably he who never made a mistake never made a discovery. I learn quite a bit when those wiser and more learned than I correct the error of my beliefs.
I agree with Craig.So, my humble opinion is, unless the post contains spam, politics, or other offensive material, leave it be. Post an opinion to the contrary, but leave it be. IMO, that's what makes the Cove what it is.

Is that the average visits?

Check the scroll on the Forum main page (http://elsmar.com/Forums/index.php).

It is also important to remember that different terminology for the same ideas developes independently in different settings. An extreme example would be different languages. Are brewed beverages properly called "beer" or "bier" or "cerveza" or "пиво"?

Even within a single language or country, differences appear. Are carbonated beverages properly called "soda" or "pop"?

The same goes for terms used in quality. Many terms are stolen at different times for different needs from engineering, mathematics, or business. Some are "invented" by authors trying to sell books or a consultant needing to stress a new idea. Consider the terms "attribute data" and "variable data". Statisticians don't use those terms. They talk about "binary" or "nominal" or "ordinal" or "ratio" data types. Computer scientists use a whole different set of data types.

Beyond that, different industries use different terminology for historical or practical reasons. Sometimes a specific example (Turtle Diagram) of a general approach (cause and effect diagram) is given its own name within a particular industry.

Bottom line (IMHO) - it would have been nice if common terminology had been created, but we have to live with the fact different groups will always have different ways of expressing the same thing. The goal should be to look beyond just the name and come to an understanding of the actual concept behind the name.

Tim F

Check the scroll on the Forum main page.Sorry, I forgot my emoticon. That says about 5000.;)

Hello ALl:

Why would one cringe about my posting?

How does a turtle diagram show casue and effect?

My posting may be off topic for this thread but I thought Statitical Steven's comments were a great example of a posting that may have included the type of information he thinks should be removed from Cove threads.

I see no reason to remove erroneous postings. Just like open source software, I believe it is our duty as a community to determine the best possible outcomes or conclusions. Removing postings would ruin the continuity of a discussion. Removing intermediate steps in a thought process or discussion may break the traceability of a developing discsussions.

Regards,

Dirk

Complaint about deletion of political posts and moderator inconsistency split to: Political Posts - Brief Discussion (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=15171)

I see no reason to remove erroneous postings. Just like open source software, I believe it is our duty as a community to determine the best possible outcomes or conclusions. Removing postings would ruin the continuity of a discussion. Removing intermediate steps in a thought process or discussion may break the traceability of a developing discussions. This pretty well sums up my position. Folks should remember this is a Discussion Forum, not an encyclopedia or static web page. That is why we get into, sometimes, emotional posts and personal 'battles'. There has to be a lot of give and take and patience in a discussion forum. If one plans to participate in a discussion forum, one should prepare for discussions.

Let me phrase it more directly. This problem has nothing to do with the Cove, its moderators or the correctness of editing/deleting posts. The problem has been created by quality professionals themselves. Unfortunately, there are now 3 camps of thought in the profession.

1. Traditional quality professionals. The Deming, Juran, Shewhart folks that people that use statistics and data to formulate an approach.

2. New Age quality professionals. The six sigma, Lean Manufacturing folks that use belts and jargon to sell quality to upper management, but lack the basic fundamental quality tools to solve problems.

3. The "Morph" professionals. These are the professionals who figured out that you need to combine #1 and #2 to be successful.

Depending on which camp you sit in, you see the other camps as propergating misinformation. Like the Republican/Democrat argument in US politics. It is not that people mean to misinform, but they themselves are misinformed because in many cases they lacked the necessary training and tools.

I was hoping this had all blown over but I find this thread (useless IMO) still here and still being discussed. Steve I suggest you...GET OVER IT... become part of the solution instead of the problem. If you identify issues then be specific and let us know on the appropriate thread or post. Offer your help and correct the wrongs but don’t cast general dispersions across the entire cast and crew that make up this invaluable tool.
I totally disagree with your assumptions/beliefs above where you claim that all QA professionals fall into one of three categories. According to your theory I am not a Quality Professional. I have read all of the ‘so called’ old school Gurus and looked at trendy stuff like Motorola’s Six Sigma and Hewlett Packard’s guff. I have undertaken Kepner-Tregoe and studied Lean and 5S. These are all very catchy and on their day and in the right place they can be very effective but they are NOT Quality Assurance in a nutshell and far from it. They are only TOOLS and GURUS. Quality in the 21st Century is about business management but we are often restricted by the very ambiguous ‘Standards’ and that is why this site is here…to clear up ambiguity (or at least try). Can statistics alone or the tools we employ clearly define the difference between ‘Continuous’ vs ‘Continual’? Can it tell me that if I repair an item should it be placed under a 'Preventative Action' or a ‘Corrective Action’? Can all of these wonderful tools tell me how to write an efficient and effective quality manual? Can they show me how to write a work instruction? Can they tell me if I need clause XYZ to be adopted in my small business? This forum is here to help people…many of whom have never had the benefit of formal quality training…rather they have been thrown in the deep end. We are here as a group to help them. Sure we have differing opinions and the Continuous versus Continual thing annoys the h**l out of me….but…I will try and help anyone that wants my help. People here have helped me thru many tasks and issues that I have bought up. We do this for the benefit of all not the few and I think we do a d*mn fine job of it.

PS: Not everything is reliant on problem solving. We actually have a business that addresses possible problems/breakdowns and Non Conformances BEFORE they happen and this is good business practise coupled with common sense and good work processes and procedures. Good old fashioned Quality. (Sorry about the sarcasm).

PPS: This is MY opinion and I ma glad that I have the freedom here to express it.:)

One more vote for NOT deleting posts that may not be factual or may be misleading because the author is in error. I find it educational to follow the entire discussion. I have especially appreciated the very long posts here on systems thinking, where a lot of thoughts and ideas were fleshed out in the discussion.

This isn't an encyclopedia site, it's a discussion forum with a huge base of participants with their own thinking and view of the facts. Misinformation here almost always gets caught and corrected in the course of discussion. Not always maybe, but that's where you and I come in, to help this place continually improve. Can't do that if we can't see deleted threads.

:topic:
None of the moderators have ever claimed to be infallible.


I thought I had in the past, but I found that I was in error. I was just wrong.:lol:

:topic: MAYBE.