Suggestion: require abstracts for posting new ideas or theories.

[md65536]

Abstract: Posting a new idea or speculation with an included abstract might encourage members to write more effectively, while getting more readers to bother checking out their idea. However, might it just be a waste of time?

---

Would it be useful to require an abstract at the top of topics that discuss some new idea, or introduce a pet theory? I'm especially thinking of Speculations forum, where most(?) posts seem to be walls of text long, and may or may not ramble to the point. I don't have the concentration to bother reading through any of the posts to see if any are good. Does anyone? I assume there are a lot of good posts lost in the sea of words. Are there many people who bother reading speculative topics? I think many more people would check out a writer's ideas if there was a small summary of it at the top of their topic, so it would benefit both reader and writer.

A requirement for abstracts might include the following:
- An explanation of what an abstract is, in the most lax form, requiring maybe simply that they summarize the key conclusions or main idea they want to discuss.
- Recommended max word length.
- Explanation that their post is not expected to be read unless the abstract sells it.
- Links to help in writing one.

Or would this just be another hoop for writers to jump through? Would the readers end up having to critique the abstracts, while writers who may not be able to express their ideas well may also not be able to write an effective abstract, wasting everyone's time while the writer doesn't even get around to having their idea discussed?

 

Also perhaps it is fine to leave it as is and let posts be evaluated by people who have better reading comprehension than me.

Edited October 20, 2013 by md65536

[swansont]

Having a hoop to jump through before they cut-and-paste a wall-o-text that they spam all over the internet isn't a bad idea.

[Ophiolite]

The discipline of writing clear, concise, yet comprehensive abstracts should be encouraged at all times and at all levels. I am enthusiastically in favour of this.

[EdEarl]

It might be a good idea, but it would be a huge effort for moderators to edit all the abstracts. However, threads are rarely monologues in which the OP knows what will be posted. An abstract is a summary of a paper or concept, but with dialogues one person cannot summarize what will be said. Moreover, editors of the abstracts, the moderators, would forever be introducing their ideas into original posts, which seems undemocratic.

 

While it would be nice for everyone to make a clear and concise opening statement, not everyone has the skill to do so. Currently, those statements are clarified by questions and comments from other members. The process is chaotic. Sometimes the intent of the post is clarified, and sometimes it is not. But, it does not overload the moderators, and is democratic. Do we really need a change as suggested?

[studiot]

 

Having a hoop to jump through before they cut-and-paste a wall-o-text that they spam all over the internet isn't a bad idea.

 

Preferably a hoop painted on a brick wall.

 

[EdEarl]

Trying to write an abstract for a dialogue would be like trying to write an abstract for a research paper before the research is complete.

[swansont]

It might be a good idea, but it would be a huge effort for moderators to edit all the abstracts. However, threads are rarely monologues in which the OP knows what will be posted. An abstract is a summary of a paper or concept, but with dialogues one person cannot summarize what will be said. Moreover, editors of the abstracts, the moderators, would forever be introducing their ideas into original posts, which seems undemocratic.

 

 

I don't think it was proposed that the moderators do any editing of the sort you suggest.

 

Most of the wall 'o text posts are copy-pasted for screeds posted elsewhere. Even if they aren't, you can go back and write the abstract and put it at the top before you hit the "post" button. Train-of-thought posting is not a legitimate reason to not ask writers for an abstract.

[Phi for All]

I think our biggest problem in Speculations is how a concept is presented, so this might work well. Good idea, md65536.

 

If we can get posters to avoid claims of Proof! and GR B Wrong! I think it would stop most of the pile-on, knee-jerk responses and their attendant replies that turn a single page concept into seven pages of WTF?!.

 

We can certainly let members know it's preferable to do an abstract, but I'm not sure how it would work to require one.

[md65536]

Trying to write an abstract for a dialogue would be like trying to write an abstract for a research paper before the research is complete.

True, but the main questions left to research can still be summarized.

If someone simply introduces a topic and wants to discuss it, an abstract wouldn't be necessary. If the topic is just introduced the post would be short? It's when we write paragraphs worth of ideas/reasoning/conclusions and want to discuss that, where it would be useful.

[timo]

Not being much interested in others' revolutionary theories I may not be the target audience to discussing this proposition. But I do not bother with text walls, and I do not see how increasing the length by an abstract is making me more likely to read it. And I would expect this to be similar for others, including those bothering with text walls. Also, I somewhat share EdEarl's viewpoint: Ideally, threads in speculations should be an attempt to start a discussion. Not be a platform for presentation. For that, I don't see how an abstract is helping. For me, taking the concept of an "abstract" from the field of scientific publication/announcement and putting it into the realm of (laymen) chatting/discussion has a feel of actively enforcing cargo-cult science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science).

[md65536]

We can certainly let members know it's preferable to do an abstract, but I'm not sure how it would work to require one.

I agree, I think it would only work if it was implemented in a lax and painless-for-all way.

If it's already true that long posts are mostly ignored, it might suffice to simply point out that it happens and that writing an abstract (among other things) would help get more interested readers. Perhaps even a thread like the "So, you've got a new theory..." one, titled in some way to encourage people to follow it, so that it is more of a helpful tip than a rule, might work. "How to get more people to consider your idea" or something...

 

Of course, effective communication benefits the readers too, but it wouldn't hurt if the writer felt the encouragement was for their sake, and not "yet another rule of the scientific dogma" etc.

 

It could also be pointed out that a post might be replied to or critiqued on the abstract alone. But then people should be encouraged to fix their abstracts, and after a few replies it might be out of date. That could cause problems.

Not being much interested in others' revolutionary theories I may not be the target audience to discussing this proposition. But I do not bother with text walls, and I do not see how increasing the length by an abstract is making me more likely to read it. And I would expect this to be similar for others, including those bothering with text walls. Also, I somewhat share EdEarl's viewpoint: Ideally, threads in speculations should be an attempt to start a discussion. Not be a platform for presentation. For that, I don't see how an abstract is helping. For me, taking the concept of an "abstract" from the field of scientific publication/announcement and putting it into the realm of (laymen) chatting/discussion has a feel of actively enforcing cargo-cult science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science).

I see abstracts as something that "sells" a paper to those that might be interested, something that a large audience would read, with the goal of letting the few readers who might read a paper know if they should bother reading it. That's what would be particularly useful for the Speculations posts. While it should be expected that most people won't bother reading past the abstract of a bad post, at least if there are interesting posts they might not get lost among the bad.

 

It's very hard to simply discuss a speculative idea, because it's so vague and everyone can go in completely different directions with it. Amateur theoretical scientists seem to like figuring out our own ideas as much as we can, and unfortunately the average quality is not very good, but I think it's still good to have a place like Speculations where we can try to voice our ideas.

 

It might encourage cargo-cult science, but if the purpose of an abstract is made explicit, to the point that "faking" an abstract is difficult, it still might be a good thing. Hm... I suppose it could become commonplace to try to write an interesting abstract with conclusions that aren't supported by the rest of the text.

Edited October 20, 2013 by md65536

[Unity+]

I also think that maybe there should be some special group that can post in speculations. In order to get into this group, you must pass a test that has a variety of questions that deal with quantum mechanics, general physics, and a variety of areas.

 

So, people couldn't just post an essay from another site, but have to get into the group by taking a special test. Then, if they are in that group they can start posting in Speculation.

[ajb]

I also think that maybe there should be some special group that can post in speculations. In order to get into this group, you must pass a test that has a variety of questions that deal with quantum mechanics, general physics, and a variety of areas.

That said, most of the people that I know on here that do know physics do not post speculative ideas here. So I think your suggestion is admirable, but is rather moot.

 

Another related ideas is to insist/suggest the use of the 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification and/or The Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme together with key words. But then we are not running a journal here.

 

Anyway, the idea of an abstract is great and should be encouraged for long posts, but making it mandatory may not work well.

[swansont]

The thing is someone generally asks for a summary when people post anything that's long. We could make this a rule, but the people it would apply to often skip over reading the rules before they post anyway. So while I like the idea, I can't think of a way to reasonably enforce it as a rule.

[StringJunky]

The thing is someone generally asks for a summary when people post anything that's long. We could make this a rule, but the people it would apply to often skip over reading the rules before they post anyway. So while I like the idea, I can't think of a way to reasonably enforce it as a rule.

How about, if possible, putting a word limit on the opening post...that'll stop the walls of text and it'll make/teach people to think about word efficiency/information density.

[swansont]

How about, if possible, putting a word limit on the opening post...that'll stop the walls of text and it'll make/teach people to think about word efficiency/information density.

 

It's an idea, though I don't know if the board software allows it.