who links to us

[Comandante]

Sometimes it's interesting to see places where SFN is referenced

 

http://www.google.com/custom?domains=www.wholinks2me.com&q=www.scienceforums.net&sa=Google+Search&sitesearch=&client=pub-1596829452635297&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&flav=0000&sig=xz8IPeIrBZCNsOPR&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A003366%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BLH%3A50%3BLW%3A230%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.wholinks2me.com%2Fimages%2Flogo.gif%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.wholinks2me.com%3BFORID%3A1&hl=en

 

Having looked at that I came across an interesting link;

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=79299

 

It appears as if our colleagues on physicsforums think SFN sucks lol

[Sayonara]

Or at least, one or two of them thought so in 2005...

[Comandante]

True. Or we would hope that was the case

 

I personally think SFN is much stronger than physicsforums, due to the variety of other topics rather than just physics...

 

Either way, I would think there are a lot of same members registered on both..

[Sayonara]

I don't think that's very fair to them... they may focus on physics and engineering, but they still have quite busy forums for the other sciences. They are not as interested in things like medicinal sciences, neurology etc, but then of course that is not in their remit, is it?

 

I am not sure what you mean by "stronger". They have over five times as many threads as us, and well over a million posts. We can guess there is a low level of spam pushing up the figures because of their reputation for tight control.

 

They also have ten times as many members as us, which must be nice. I wonder what their activity percentage is?

 

Like us, they made the decision to effectively outlaw religious discussions and that seems to be working well for them. One thing they do that we don't, and this might explain the 63k members, is that they actually do help people to do their homework.

 

Maybe that is something we should consider, because our attitude at the minute is basically "move threads that look like they are homework requests to the homework help forum, where we then refuse to do people's homework for them."

 

Look at the depth in their homework/coursework forum: http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=152

 

"Depth" is something they are quite proud of. Whereas we twice compressed our depth from what it was in 2004 to what it is now, they seem to have expanded theirs into quite an elegant structure.

 

Also I notice they have the inverted forum stack going on, where THE SCIENCE! is at the top of the forum list, and miscellanea and even forum announcements are right at the bottom. We are getting there, but our forum priority is not so clearly defined.

[Comandante]

Well you could say it's a bit unfair yeah, but aren't you on our side

 

I think it's the quality of members that make up the 'strength' I was referring to. I think that we have more specialists in different areas while majority of their specialists would be in phys/eng. It's true though, if we compared physics only, they would outweigh us probably, but then again, SFN is not 'PFN'.

 

When you access forum statistics, can you see number of words in the entire database? If you could compare that to theirs you would get a much better estimate of the 'strength' for the period of.. last 5 years?

 

And I would definitely agree on that homework part, probably half of their members are hanging in the homework section asking for help, it's almost like 'free lunch'. I'm having an idea that forums should be more forward-pushing if you will, in a sense that things to be talked about would mean new ideas rather than answering same homework question all over again in a different context. That's another reason why I would place our 'strength' in a good position.

 

The age of the forums would be another factor to consider. When did SFN come to exist and when did physicsforums? If SFN is older then physicsforums must've done a hell of a good job getting those members. But then again, I'm sure the main attraction was the homework help section. I could be wrong yes, simply because I don't visit physicsforums very often, but I did check it out briefly, hence the reason I wouldn't want to carry my point anywhere further. Just my personal view of things.

 

If I go and make an account though, I'd probably get a much better picture in a year or so Perhaps they could help me with some of my homework too

[KLB]

Sayonara³ has some good observations for strengthening the structure of SFN. Moving the detritus to the bottom of the forum index can help the primary forums gain more attention. I'd also suggest people starting more threads on topical issues in the news (e.g. EPA Clean Water Act rule changes). Although not every topical issue needs to be as divisive as global warming. Topical issues can garner more search engine traffic and references from blogs. Topical discussions can broaden the appeal of SNF and draw in new members. Not everyone who has an interest in science can discuss the deeper parts of science, especially when complex mathematics becomes involved.

 

Sysco has some good observations about homework help. I like the way SFN shifts homework help threads to a "black hole". From an academic standpoint, students should be doing their own homework and from a forum growth standpoint catering to students wanting a "free lunch" as Sysco calls it does not help build dynamic discussions.

 

In regards to the size of one forum vs. another, don't get caught in the trap that bigger is better. What really matters is the signal to noise ratio. I participate in several webmaster related forums and it is the smallest of the forums that has the best signal to noise ratio. It is also the smallest of those forums that I participate in the most. The big forums have such a poor signal to noise ratio that I rarely find threads I'm truly interested in participating in.