• Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Having a methodology or a standard and writing about how you came to your conclusion doesn’t absolve you of being completely subjective. It also doesn’t mean that it’s not arbitrary. My methodology could be that I roll a dice, a one is left leaning and a six is right leaning. I can be totally transparent and have a clear methodology, but it’s arbitrary.

      MBFC’s methodology is totally subjective and arbitrary. It’d be almost a miracle if two people independently followed their methodology and came to the same conclusion. I think I showed how flawed it is with my previous comment, but if you think otherwise I’d be really interested to understand your reasoning.

        • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          2cm per hour is an objective measure though. So now we have an objective standard so we can all understand what ‘a lot’ means, which is great but not at all like the bias methodology from MBFC.

          Rate the amount of rain from 0 to 10 is still entirely subjective and is closer to the actual methodology used by MBFC.

            • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Sounds like I’m just missing your point then. I don’t understand the relevance of the methodology if it doesn’t produce a useful rating beyond the subjective opinion someone would have given anyway, nor establish a coherent reason for the rating.

                • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Thanks for clarifying, that makes sense now. I think from that perspective, MBFC in my mind is still useless because the why behind their rating is totally opaque, at least to me. I have read several of their analysis and their methodology and I just still have no idea why they give a certain rating. It feels more like a post hoc rationalisation than a process or set of criteria that was followed. Maybe it’s just me though, and it’s clearer for other folks.