Why no Earth Science category?

[Doughboy]

I think that is just what this site needs, and then under it can be geology, meteorology, volcanology and anything else that you can think of

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm going to do a little audit some day of forums we should add or remove. This'll be on the list to add.

[Doughboy]

that would be great, that is one my favorite fields

[bascule]

I asked about this before. It seemed to kind of go by the wayside

[Sayonara]

We get the thread "Why is there no Earth Science forum?" more frequently than we get Earth Science threads that aren't asking that question.

 

We could always have a "Why is there no Earth Science forum? and other Earth Science topics" forum.

[bascule]

We get the thread "Why is there no Earth Science forum?" more frequently than we get Earth Science threads that aren't asking that question.

 

You seem to be confused. Earth science is one of the most popular topics on these forums, except for some reason the threads seem to be erroneously scattered among biology, general discussion, and politics.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

As a hint for future reference, since search IDs don't last longer than a few hours, that's a search for "global warming" there.

[Sayonara]

You seem to be confused. Earth science is one of the most popular topics on these forums, except for some reason the threads seem to be erroneously scattered among biology, general discussion, and politics.

 

The fact that the word "global" or the word "warming" appears somewhere in a number of threads does not make earth sciences "one of the most popular topics on these forums". VBulletin searches are hardly a sufficiently granular data set to permit a reliable inference.

 

If you search titles only, which is more reliable, you get 139 threads for the search terms "global warming".

 

However this is an either/or search.

 

You can immediately remove 12 threads because they do not qualify statistically (they are either reported posts, resolved reports, old Debate Challenges, or old Debate Threads, or they were posted by ExtraSense).

 

You can then remove the results for the word "global" which have nothing to do with global warming, including threads started by spammers, threads where the term is in the title but not the actual topic, or where the actual discussion in the thread is on something else, such as economics or politics, etc. There are 32 of these.

 

We'll allow threads where the topic is global warming but the focus is politics or physics or whatnot, because deciding what forum they should go into could get pretty opinion-driven.

 

Anyway, we end up with 95 threads over a period of 6.5 years.

That's fewer than 1.1 topics per month, on average.

 

Confused, Bascule? I don't think so. I think that I have a fairly realistic view of what the data shows.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Sayonara³

[StringJunky]

Sayonnara: You might bring in a new set of posters that have expertise and/or a strong interest in Earth Sciences if that subject had a designated home where it was concentrated as opposed to scattered willy-nilly all over the different boards.

 

At the moment that subject is nothing more than an orphaned afterthought discussed predominantely by seasoned posters here that know how this place is laid out.

 

Any practicing or aspiring Earth Scientist passing through might easily miss any threads pertinent to their interest because it's not specifically categorized in a prominent position like the other sciences.

 

You reap what you sow.

[Mr Skeptic]

Is there any possibility to have threads that are posted on multiple forums? Would be great for interdisciplinary topics. Effectively, this would be using a tag system rather than a hierarchy for categorizing topics.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I've thought about that. I don't know of any software that supports it, but it would be rather cool to be more flexible about organization.

[bascule]

Confused, Bascule?

 

Yes, I am confused. That's quite a detailed analysis, however you didn't provide any context. How does that compare to the other subforums? Is 1.1 topics unusually low? Also, are topics per month really a good metric of popularity? How many posts are there in each of those threads? Just a quick survey of some of these threads (I got tired of copying and pasting these URLs but there are more threads with >100 posts):

 

652 posts: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32699

122 posts: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39013

111 posts: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32225

319 posts: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26669

214 posts: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30057

 

When was the last time a subforum like, say, Microbiology and Immunology got over 100 posts in a single thread? Answer: never.

 

Here's a hypothesis: global warming threads have an unusually high number of posts because there's no subforum for discussing it. So people flock to any thread named "global warming" (notice there are quite a few named just that) and instead of getting topical discussions, you get long meandering conversations with no overlying topic. People just join and say whatever they want on the issue.

 

Also, while you eliminated false positives from my search (which wasn't intended to be exhaustive, merely to lead you to the relevant information) you're causing false negatives for threads on climate science that don't include the term "global warming" in their title, such as this thread:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47938

 

...which is hard to find in the first place, because it's categorized under "Ecology and the Environment", both of which are rather vague terms which don't mean "climate science". Also, it's filed under the Biology forum.

 

All of that said...

 

Given your analysis, do you really conclude that there's no need for climate/atmospheric science-related subforums? I think the above threads demonstrate that climate science/climate change/global warming is a heavily discussed topic with thousands of posts and at the very least deserves its own subforum.

 

Conflict of interest: I worked in atmospheric science, so I suppose the lack of any specifically atmospheric science-related subforums is a bit personal for me.

[Sayonara]

Those are all very good points Bascule, and it's obviously something that we are going to have to look into in more detail. We don't have a specific strategy per se for deciding what topics will have a sub-forum, and which will not, and it might be a good idea to develop one.

 

I hope you realised that my reply was not supposed to be a definitive one, but one which shows the problems inherent in using VB's rather lame search engine as a basis for predicting or measuring interest. Well actually I presume you did, because you quite astutely point out the false negatives issue as well as the issue of interest not necessarily correlating with the presence of threads.

 

The issue is now under discussion in the staff forums, anyway.

[The Bear's Key]

I agree with Doughboy, that Geology and other relevant forums would be nice under Earth Sciences.

 

Climate is just one part, there are various others.

 

I'm going to do a little audit some day of forums we should add or remove.

While you're at it, the "Politics" section could be renamed to "Political Science". I really don't view the mechanisms of politics as too subjective to discuss rationally. The name change might actually draw in some people with experience in that field and/or with real knowledge of international politics.

[Mr Skeptic]

But we don't do much political science in the politics section, do we?

[The Bear's Key]

Ha it's my point exactly

 

http://www.collegeboard.com/csearch/majors_careers/profiles/careers/105721.html

How does the government decide how much pollution industry can release into the air and water? What’s the best way for local mayors to convince voters to reelect them? Why do some people vote and not others? How does democracy differ in countries across the globe?

 

Political scientists study political systems from every angle, looking into their birth, growth, and operation. While most strive to discover the trends that shape our identity, their interests and jobs vary greatly. For example, some survey the public about their political opinions; others use math to analyze election results.

Wouldn't that person be less inclined to drop by and contribute if the forums section were named merely "Politics"?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

http://www.michael-oakeshott-association.org

Political Scientists study the allotment and shift of power in decision making. The roles and systems of governing which includes governments and international organizations, political behaviors and public policies are all included in the study by political scientists. They measure the success of this authority and policy by studying many aspects which include stability, justice, material wealth and peace. Many political scientists strive to advance positive aspects by analyzing politics while others strive for more normative aspects such as making specific policy recommendations.

Edited February 25, 2010 by The Bear's Key
Consecutive posts merged.

[bascule]

Hooray! It's an Earth Science forum!

 

Thanks!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Enjoy. If you find recent threads that should be moved into it, just report them and someone will handle it.