Thread survival

[davidivad]

After seeing many topics abandoned or caught in circular argument i wonder how to use them to contribute to the SFN community over the long term. For me science is more than argument. it is about collaboration too. I feel that the answer is in using the friending resources available to us on this site. However i would like to hear what other people think so that i can get a better line of sight upon the subject. What do you think about it?

Edited April 14, 2014 by davidivad

[Phi for All]

I'm not sure any of those choices are MOST important. Certainly it's possible to remain on topic yet fail as a thread. Arguing well helps a single argument, but not necessarily the whole discussion. And how the topic affects the community is not necessarily a guarantee it will be a successful thread.

 

 

For me science is more than argument. it is about collaboration too.

 

I think this is closer to what's really important to thread survival. If a discussion bogs down because those involved can't agree on definitions, or because one side is using assertive statements the others can't agree with, there's little productive benefit.

 

I think it also helps if everybody passes the "teacher's hat" liberally. Nothing is as frustrating on a discussion forum as those who come only to "teach" us something. They don't collaborate, they don't discuss, they're here to soapbox about a certain subject they feel they own, and that kind of preacher isn't interested in learning. Better to discuss things with people who wear the teacher's hat when they have something to share, then pass it to someone else because they're really here to learn.

[swansont]

How do you define a successful thread? Is a two-post thread, one for the Q and one for a thorough A, successful?

 

 

I feel that the answer is in using the friending resources available to us on this site.

 

I have not seen the utility of the friend function in action. After the initial rush of friending after it was implemented, I've been ignoring friend requests. Get the hell of my porch, you damn kids!

[Phi for All]

How do you define a successful thread? Is a two-post thread, one for the Q and one for a thorough A, successful?

 

I read this more as a longevity question, rather than end result productivity. Survival in discussions seems more related to the flow of ideas, the cooperative efforts of all involved to help channel the discussion and keep it moving positively.

 

You're completely right, a two post thread could be said to be the most successful, if it's a simple Q&A.

 

Some of the more in-depth discussions we've had about the future direction of space travel have been extremely enjoyable because most participants are offering collaborative perspectives, rather than trying to refute something or argue from a spinning circular soapbox about a perceived flaw in physics.

 

I have not seen the utility of the friend function in action. After the initial rush of friending after it was implemented, I've been ignoring friend requests. Get the hell of my porch, you damn kids!

I agree completely. Sound concept + Poor execution = Friends with no benefits.

[swansont]

 

I read this more as a longevity question, rather than end result productivity. Survival in discussions seems more related to the flow of ideas, the cooperative efforts of all involved to help channel the discussion and keep it moving positively.

 

You're completely right, a two post thread could be said to be the most successful, if it's a simple Q&A.

 

Some of the more in-depth discussions we've had about the future direction of space travel have been extremely enjoyable because most participants are offering collaborative perspectives, rather than trying to refute something or argue from a spinning circular soapbox about a perceived flaw in physics.

 

This reminds me of something from Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman; the excerpt is the second bit, under "Alfred Nobel's other mistake". The idea is that you can't have a discussion/conversation about things you know — then it's just Q&A or lecturing. No real discussion.

 

"It's because somebody knows something about it that we can't talk about physics. It's the things that nobody knows anything about that we can discuss. We can talk about the weather; we can talk about social problems; we can talk about psychology; we can talk about international finance -- gold transfers we can't talk about, because those are understood -- so it's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!"

 

[davidivad]

I'm not sure any of those choices are MOST important. Certainly it's possible to remain on topic yet fail as a thread. Arguing well helps a single argument, but not necessarily the whole discussion. And how the topic affects the community is not necessarily a guarantee it will be a successful thread.

 

 

 

I think this is closer to what's really important to thread survival. If a discussion bogs down because those involved can't agree on definitions, or because one side is using assertive statements the others can't agree with, there's little productive benefit.

 

I think it also helps if everybody passes the "teacher's hat" liberally. Nothing is as frustrating on a discussion forum as those who come only to "teach" us something. They don't collaborate, they don't discuss, they're here to soapbox about a certain subject they feel they own, and that kind of preacher isn't interested in learning. Better to discuss things with people who wear the teacher's hat when they have something to share, then pass it to someone else because they're really here to learn.

thank you very much Phi for All.

 

 

 

How do you define a successful thread? Is a two-post thread, one for the Q and one for a thorough A, successful?

 

 

 

I have not seen the utility of the friend function in action. After the initial rush of friending after it was implemented, I've been ignoring friend requests. Get the hell of my porch, you damn kids!

 

lol, thank you very much swansont.

 

how do you get better responses than that? i may have to live twice to get where you guys are on number of posts.

there is the possibility that i have a hard time giving that hat away. it is a pretty hat...

i will definitely remember.

Edited April 14, 2014 by davidivad

[Phi for All]

 

This reminds me of something from Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman; the excerpt is the second bit, under "Alfred Nobel's other mistake". The idea is that you can't have a discussion/conversation about things you know — then it's just Q&A or lecturing. No real discussion.

 

 

I can see the point, but my lack of comprehensive knowledge in most areas means I'll always have a lot of empty space in my bag of "things you know".