mike_ellison

Tony Here are two threads. There are others. Can you see any credible specific critisism in there because I can't? Looking at your response of 16-09-10, it seems that his opinion, unqualified as it is, carries some weight on this forum, so you will perhaps see why I have picked up on his persistent carping. This is his opportunity to either put up or shut up where QTRA is concerned. As I have already said, I don't have a problem with openly debating the subject, but this is neither open nor a debate. Mike Thread – Tree Report 16-09-10, 10:19 AM And don't get me started on quantifying risks. There is so much nonesense in our industry on this subject that it's embarassing. --------- 16-09-10, 06:19 PM Hamadryad <I couldnt agree more with that statement, but what can WE do about it? worth a thread?I > --------- 16-09-10, 06:24 PM doubt it, but you're welcome to try --------- 16-09-10, 06:36 PM Hamadryad <If YOU doubt it, I see little point, theres a limited number prepiared to engage in such subjects and if one of the key few says waste of time, then it probably is!> --------- 16-09-10, 06:57 PM The reason I think it's probably a waste of time is that the QTRA brigade will step in with their usual guff based on very limited training and an even more limited understanding of probability maths and how it should feed into a risk assessment. Eventually the discussion will end in the usual, 'go and do training in QTRA' or, 'there have been significant changes which only license holders can be know about', or someone will pop up and start getting personally abusive. None of which gets us anywhere. I long ago decided to leave the deluded and mis-educated risk quantifiers to get on with it. I suspect that one day one of them will end up in court and have a truely awful time - I just feel sad that the peddlers of this snake oil have been allowed to get away with it for so long. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Thread – QTRA Registered? 30-09-10, 02:07 PM I think QTRA is not good, and I know several people who have done the training who found it very disappointing. Apparently the guy who does the training admits that he doesn't even understand the maths behind the system he is teaching - very worrying. Consider how much the training costs, and what other training you could do instead. If you haven't done it already, the LANTRA Professional Tree inspection course is usually taken as evidence of competence. The QTRA training is NOT evidence that you can inspect a tree (and from the reports I've seen, it's not even evidence that you understand QTRA). As to whether or not it's worth doing, ask your potential clients. At the end of the day, if one of my clients wanted me to do QTRA surveys, I'd get the training and do it. But my report would include some heavy conditions in it stating that I don't recommend the system. ----------------- 04-10-10, 11:38 AM If someone's just spent several hundred pounds buying the right to use a system, it is not then in their interests to say it's not a good system. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but it's important to be wary of bias ----------------- 11-10-10, 12:37 PM You are right my comments were not a critique, just opinions. However, they are the well educated opinions of someone with over 15 years of experience in arb based on an unbiased assessment of the many tree surveys that I have seen, made after discussion with lots of people (many of who have done your training), and also after reading many of the background papers on the subject. They are also the honest opinions of someone who has no financial interest in the validity (or otherwise) of QTRA. At the moment I'm not really interested in a debate on the minutae of your system. I would have enjoyed a debate of this kind a few years ago, but since then I've heavily researched QTRA (among various other systems) and I honestly believe it to be very poor indeed. If others feel otherwise they are free to do so - it is no concern of mine. Why are you so reluctant to discuss QTRA with someone anonymous? ------------- 11-10-10, 01:19 PM I wasn't aware that I was being provocative in my question about anonymity. It's probably an issue for a seperate thread, but this was a genuine question, I don't understand why there is a reluctance to discuss an issue (any issue) with someone just because they wish to remain anonymous. By the way, I don't know what silly nonesense has plagued other threads, but if you know of a good reason for not allowing anonymity then let us know. It might be time for Arbtalk to change forum rules

Tony What you say makes some sense, but surely you are not suggesting that it is reasonable for one person to publicly critisise the work of another without offering any justification for that critisism. That is what happened on this forum isn't it? How people perceive my work is important to me and I gain a great deal from the views and opinions of others, particularly where they are well reasoned. James made comments about QTRA that were neither well reasoned nor accurate and one seemed to me to be a just too close to the bone. I had no interest in his identity until he added unfounded critisism to his persistent carping and I haven't actually revealed him to this forum. I hope that I can make a more positive contribution in the future. Mike Ellison

James It doesn't take a lawyer o work out the blindingly obvious. My concern obout your critisism of QTRA, here and on other forums, seems to have no basis in fact. As I have said before, I am happy to openly debate the merits of QTRA, VOSL and risk management more generally. Mike QTRA:party:QTRA:party:QTRA:party:QTRA:party:

Hi Andy Rough/smooth, I will debate tree risk assessment with anyone, but not as long as they insist on anonymity. You might be suprised, but I think that QTRA benefits most from constructive critisism, which in turn ususally arises out of a negative critisism. The problem with the post to which I responded is that it wasn't a really a critique of ony kind,

I would not ordinarily respond to an anonymous post such as this, but, whatever your source, the comment "the guy who does the training admits that he doesn't even understand the maths behind the system he is teaching" is untrue. There are two presenters of the QTRA workshop in the UK and neither of us have made such a statement. What is the value of your statement "I think QTRA is not good" when it is conjoured out of thin air without any qualification by someone standing in the shadows? If either you or 'Apparently' would like to discuss this openly then I will do so but I will not respond to anyone who feels the need to hide behind either a nom de plume or a sock puppet.