Re: [NetBehaviour] Sign up to Quality Metrics now

excellent :D On 2/10/15 10:33 19PM, James Morris wrote: > > on thinking about this for all of two seconds: > http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/56031085.jpg > > > > > > On 02/10/15 15:32, ruth catlow wrote: >> Should Furtherfield sign up to this. >> - Discuss please! >> ; ) >> R >> >> >>

Re: [NetBehaviour] Sign up to Quality Metrics now

On 2015-10-05 02:30, James Morris wrote: May I suggest looking at meta metrics? Is there such a thing? Metrics can be aggregated or dimension-reduced. But you're right: clearly we need metrics for metrics, otherwise how can we determine which metrics are most performative? - Rob.

Re: [NetBehaviour] Sign up to Quality Metrics now

This should go on the Furtherfield mission statement! Brilliantly subversive: what Craig Saper calls the “intimate bureaucracy.” On 10/3/15, 5:41 AM, "ruth catlow" wrote: >a Situationist networked performance

Re: [NetBehaviour] Sign up to Quality Metrics now

Ha hah! I posted this link to give everyone a little peak through our window at the daily stream of 'opportunities' (that feel like veiled threats) that daily flood the inbox of the UK publicly funded arts org at the moment. It's connected to the other parallel discussion going on here about

Re: [NetBehaviour] Sign up to Quality Metrics now

invited by the Arts Council - is it a way for "them" to surveil, to know who merits money next year? can Furtherfield say "no"? embrace extend and ironise On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 02/10/15 07:32 AM, ruth catlow wrote: > > Should Furtherfield

[NetBehaviour] Sign up to Quality Metrics now

Should Furtherfield sign up to this. - Discuss please! ; ) R Can't see the images? View this email online Dear Ruth Would you like to take

Re: [NetBehaviour] Sign up to Quality Metrics now

don't, unless you have an academic to play around with the results On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:32 PM, ruth catlow wrote: > Should Furtherfield sign up to this. > - Discuss please! > ; ) > R > > Can't see the images? View this email online >

Re: [NetBehaviour] Sign up to Quality Metrics now

On 02/Oct/15 10:33, Annie Abrahams wrote: don't, unless you have an academic to play around with the results I agree, Annie -- surely this call will be implemented with yet another dot.com data-harvesting implementation where any/all info is scraped and cashed-in-upon by those behind the

Re: [NetBehaviour] Sign up to Quality Metrics now

on thinking about this for all of two seconds: http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/56031085.jpg On 02/10/15 15:32, ruth catlow wrote: Should Furtherfield sign up to this. - Discuss please! ; ) R Can't see the images? View this email online

Re: [NetBehaviour] Sign up to Quality Metrics now

Fuck off Sent from my iPad > On 2 Oct 2015, at 21:33, James Morris wrote: > > > on thinking about this for all of two seconds: > http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/56031085.jpg > > > > > >> On 02/10/15 15:32, ruth catlow wrote: >> Should Furtherfield sign up to this. >>

Re: [NetBehaviour] Sign up to Quality Metrics now

On the standardization and metrics: http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/archives/5867 http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/archives/1343 http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/archives/75193 -- ++ Dr. John Hopkins, BSc, MFA, PhD grounded on a granite batholith twitter:

Re: [NetBehaviour] Sign up to Quality Metrics now

Problem? On 02/10/15 21:39, Adrian Couzens wrote: Fuck off Sent from my iPad On 2 Oct 2015, at 21:33, James Morris wrote: on thinking about this for all of two seconds: http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/56031085.jpg On 02/10/15 15:32, ruth catlow wrote: Should

Re: [NetBehaviour] Sign up to Quality Metrics now

On 02/10/15 07:32 AM, ruth catlow wrote: > Should Furtherfield sign up to this. Sounds like a trap. But it might be funny. Metrics are the current managerialist religion - what we cannot measure we do not know. Embrace, extend and ironise? - Rob. ___