You know whats funny about this "SCIENCE" forum?

[Elite Engineer]

The post in the politics section called, "Trump protestors", was started on Nov. 10. On Nov. 17 (today..oddly enough 1 week later), there has been over 295 posts on that

 

topic alone (roughly 42 posts/day). I bet the physics, chemistry, biology, computer science or math sections don't even get a fraction of that in a month's time. Now you

 

see why I've suggested deleting the politics section on this forum in the past? It benefits no one, and in case you haven't noticed, minds are seldom changed. Yes, I know I

 

started the post, but it's my 2nd post in that section, and I've been here almost 4 years now.

 

Politics section description: "What's going on in the world and how it relates to science"...more like spew your views and biases. Trash the politics section.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Elite Engineer

[zapatos]

Actually I don't see why you've suggested deleting the politics section. Can you please expound on the benefits you expect if we do?

[Elite Engineer]

Actually I don't see why you've suggested deleting the politics section. Can you please expound on the benefits you expect if we do?

It garners too much attention for the wrong reasons, and it's contents are widely non-science related. It's composed of emotion, and opinion.

 

Benefit of doing away with the section: More attention to other science sections. Clearly this section has alot of time and energy being put into it..and for what? There would be

 

less trolling, less shit posting.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Elite Engineer

[CharonY]

Why do you assume it to be a zero-sum game? Also, why do you think science is completely absence in politics? Natural science for the most part, yes, but at least a number of posters make an effort to provide data supporting positions.

Edited November 18, 2016 by CharonY

[Mordred]

Consider there is an actual science called "Political science"...

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science

 

Which quite frankly I have no knowledge of lol...

Edited November 18, 2016 by Mordred

[arc]

Have you considered it may help prevent the politicization of the "other science sections", much the way the religious section appears to perform the same function.

[Mordred]

if only we could get Speculations to run properly lol. It's been a long time since I last saw a properly run Speculations modelling

Edited November 18, 2016 by Mordred

[StringJunky]

if only we could get Speculations to run properly lol. It's been a long time since I last saw a properly run Speculations modelling

It'll never happen because those that do know how to do it wouldn't post on this forum. It does serve a useful function in that people can have a play at trying out an idea on a receptive and critical audience to see where their idea or thinking works and fails.

 

 

On the politics forum: I agree with Arc. It gives an outlet for the political elements in our discussions. By removing particular forums, I don't think it will increase the participation in others. One is not going to make SFN more sciency by killing off non-sciency forums; you'll just get the purer, mainstream science forums 'polluted' by politics, religion etc.

 

I think it's working as fine as it can do. SFN has become the way it is through trial and error with different strategies being tried over the years; it contains the best set of compromises and will continue evolving with changing demands.

Edited November 18, 2016 by StringJunky

[Mordred]

True though I have seen modelling that was later published done originally on forums.

 

Though that was prior to WMAP lol. That forum no longer exists.

[Sensei]

In your quite cool graph, you missed Speculations section (after subtracting Trash Can posts). It's bigger than Politics section (94k posts vs 92k posts in politics).

[Klaynos]

As a staff we've talked about it. We may have even tried it once.

 

The posts would just end up in the lounge which would make it messy and harder to control. We're all people why not have a politics discussion area. I rarely take part in them.

In your quite cool graph, you missed Speculations section (after subtracting Trash Can posts). It's bigger than Politics section (94k posts vs 92k posts in politics).

Cap'n had generated similar things in the past. Looking at posts over time in the given areas... Done interesting things.

[zapatos]

...it's contents are widely non-science related.

Well, yes. When you go to a physics class, do you ever talk to classmates about anything other than physics? Like what you did that weekend, or movies, or who won the election?

 

It's composed of emotion, and opinion.

And fact and debate. Not too dissimilar from discussions on "time" or QM.

 

Benefit of doing away with the section: More attention to other science sections.

That's questionable. I suspect people will simply get their politics fix elsewhere.

 

There would be less trolling, less shit posting.

Okay, I'll give you that one.

[StringJunky]

You can self-censor what you see by clicking View New Content button then on the far left side of that page select Filter By Forum and choose what you want to see when you press the View New Content button.

 

If you want to see what a pure science forum site looks like go to Physics Forums and hangout there a while. It's a great site if you want it pure with absolutely zero tolerance for anything other than mainstream science talk. It's too dry for me but I go there if I need specific bits of info when searching.

Edited November 18, 2016 by StringJunky

[Mordred]

I'm also a member there. I found I'm more useful here as this site supports Speculations. You can in some cases help redirect a person's interest into studying the current models. So in this regard you end up helping.

[Phi for All]

Over the last decade, we've tried doing without some sections based on the argument in the OP. All it did was decrease traffic, which increased the ratio of noise to signal in many discussions.

 

Ultimately, our goal wasn't to compete with larger, stricter science forums, but rather to provide a place where many interesting things can be discussed rationally, civilly, and with an eye towards providing supported opinions where opinions might be meaningful. We're a science discussion forum that includes just about anything you want to discuss scientifically, even if it's not science.

 

As far as Speculations go, we owe a great debt to the experts we have on staff and to the knowledgeable, long-time, professional and amateur members for their patience in being the tethers that reel in some of our wildest jumpers after they've landed on poor conclusions. Without their generosity with temporal resources, we couldn't have as much freedom to explore, fail, and learn as we do. Thanks, people.

 

It's good to get the input. We're dedicated to providing a middle ground between peer review and Wild West guesswork, and in between there's a lot of judgement calls, and I know the Politics section gets messy more often than we'd like, but we've found it's an area, like Religion, where emotions play a bigger part in our perceptions. Ultimately, it's interesting, so it gets discussed. Since it's discussed here, we try to do that rationally, civilly, with more critical thinking than emotion (hopefully).

[Sensei]

Cap'n had generated similar things in the past. Looking at posts over time in the given areas... Done interesting things.

It's still possible to retrieve these data, within minutes or hours, and make graph with time on one axis.

If you go to WebArchive and look up for scienceforums.net:

https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.scienceforums.net

You can see timeline when WebArchive made backup.

After visiting one of these backups, f.e.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160207181712/http://www.scienceforums.net/

We can see

"12,803 topics

141,799 replies"

 

We can safely truncate ID (which is yyyymmddhhmmss)

and have it in yyyymmdd format (without time)

https://web.archive.org/web/20160207/http://www.scienceforums.net/

 

Somebody could set up PHP script that will run through the all dates mentioned by WebArchive to get copy at certain time and date,

parse it, to get number of topics/replies per section, and build local database.

From which there will be possible to draw graph. And see how they grew in the past with time.

 

You can in some cases help redirect a person's interest into studying the current models. So in this regard you end up helping.

Your links are often too advanced topics for them, I am afraid.

I am trying to find wikipedia articles, easier to handle for layman.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Sensei

[Mordred]

I keep looking for those too, in some subjects such as GR they are difficult to find decent heuristic views which is why I tend to repost good examples.

Certain authors such as Rindler, Lewis Ryder, Barbers Ryden, Andrew Little and Griffith have some decent low math level books. Unfortunately posting them would be a copyright violation lol.

So instead I grab key lessons from them and refer to them. Always interested in other sources though. I had hoped 100 roads to reality by Sir Roger Penrose would have helped but that got too math heavy for most forum members who are unfamimiliar with the math.

 

Which is also why I steer clear of Scott Dodelson Relativity and Fundamentals of Cosmology by Mukhannhov

 

This is a problem I saw on Physicsforum. The level of math particularly on Relativity literally terrifies the average member. Many flat out refuse to even dare post a question. In many ways I miss the old Space.com forum (thats going back a ways) they had an unwritten policy of sticking to the Minkowskii metric as much as possible. While still supporting Speculations.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Mordred

[StringJunky]

This is a problem I saw on Physicsforum. The level of math particularly on Relativity literally terrifies the average member. Many flat out refuse to even dare post a question.

You mean Relativity as in GR? They feared getting drowned in maths from the pros? Doesn't surprise me, they are hardcore and often speak at a level not amenable to amateurs. They don't come down to you, so you have to come up to their level. I don't say all of them are like that because there those great ones that will move to any level like Janus and DH et al that hangout there as well... DH and hasn't been here a while though... not forgetting Martin as well who's fab on astronomical stuff.

Edited November 18, 2016 by StringJunky

[Mordred]

Yes those are some the ones I respected over there Unfortunately another good was Markus who unfortunately passed away.

 

However you described the general attitude perfectly meet me here or go back and study. There is a lot to be said for the flexibility here. I for one hope this site never loses sight of being flexible.

 

The member I learned the most from was Brian Powell. Particularly in his specialty inflation.

 

anyways this is rather off topic which is to discuss the politics forum

Edited November 18, 2016 by Mordred

[StringJunky]

....Unfortunately another good was Markus who unfortunately passed away.

You mean Markus who was here a bit a go, who liked hiking?

Edited November 18, 2016 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

Janus and DH et al that hangout there as well... DH and hasn't been here a while though... not forgetting Martin as well who's fab on astronomical stuff.

 

Science forums everywhere benefit from Janus and D H. Always a pleasure having them with us.

 

Is Martin still around? I miss him. You learn a lot reading Martin's posts, always.

[Mordred]

You mean Markus who was here a bit a go, who liked hiking?

No different Marcus. You can see his posts commonly in the Cosmology forum. He was one of the co-contributors to the lightcone calc in my signature.

 

He was excellent at finding ways to simplify complexity of the FLRW metric to a simplified but mathematically equivalent form.

 

He was also exvellent in his understanding of LQC which was his specialty. In this he was more knowledgeable than me. His other favourite forum was Beyond the Standard model.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Mordred

[Elite Engineer]

You can self-censor what you see by clicking View New Content button then on the far left side of that page select Filter By Forum and choose what you want to see when you press the View New Content button.

 

If you want to see what a pure science forum site looks like go to Physics Forums and hangout there a while. It's a great site if you want it pure with absolutely zero tolerance for anything other than mainstream science talk. It's too dry for me but I go there if I need specific bits of info when searching.

I like this forum because there's more than just one science in discussion. Also, yes, pure science does get dry...that's why I enjoy the Lounge.

Over the last decade, we've tried doing without some sections based on the argument in the OP. All it did was decrease traffic, which increased the ratio of noise to signal in many discussions.

 

I suppose it's a good buffer. If the politics section never existed, I assumed admins would just lock political topics in the Lounge

Also, for anyone suggesting I go to another forum. I've been a member at the Chemical forums and a few others. I like it here. I find this forum to have the most vast topics and consistent questions-answer responses.

 

Even posting on reddit, I've personally found this forum to be WAY more helpful. I guess the shear number of posts per day on reddit, you're lucky to get any response.

[Mordred]

I too prefer it here, and no I don't believe anyone is suggesting a different forum. It's simply a side light example of a different methodology used on forums.

 

Both methods have their pros and cons.

 

I also visit plctalk.net for motion control systems. Though a electrical Engineering+Plant automatation its far easier to control.

[StringJunky]

No different Marcus. You can see his posts commonly in the Cosmology forum. He was one of the co-contributors to the lightcone calc in my signature.

 

He was excellent at finding ways to simplify complexity of the FLRW metric to a simplified but mathematically equivalent form.

 

He was also exvellent in his understanding of LQC which was his specialty. In this he was more knowledgeable than me. His other favourite forum was Beyond the Standard model.

I think that was Martin who I mentioned earlier. Martin used the same avatar in both forums but with different usernames; Martin in SFN.The avatar was a famous cheeky schoolkid from old. Can't remember the character's name.

 

 

I like this forum because there's more than just one science in discussion. Also, yes, pure science does get dry...that's why I enjoy the Lounge.

I suppose it's a good buffer. If the politics section never existed, I assumed admins would just lock political topics in the Lounge

Also, for anyone suggesting I go to another forum. I've been a member at the Chemical forums and a few others. I like it here. I find this forum to have the most vast topics and consistent questions-answer responses.

 

Even posting on reddit, I've personally found this forum to be WAY more helpful. I guess the shear number of posts per day on reddit, you're lucky to get any response.

Yes, it's good discussion site for a lot of things and the group of long-term guys here are thoughtful and intelligent which matters as much as the subjects of interest.

 

You can't go. You are part of the scenery. I do understand your post though but it is only phases of being frustrating in terms of a particular subject matter sometimes but this the price we have to pay to have all the good bits... and the good bits are great. The thing I like is the sheer variety of questions SFN gets... some are WAY OUT there. The other thing is I think people have a certain trust for sciency types and will ask questions they may not elsewhere.

 

 

 

Is Martin still around? I miss him. You learn a lot reading Martin's posts, always.

It appears Martin has died. Shame. Very accessible and informative fellow. Gem.

Edited November 18, 2016 by StringJunky