Threads exceeding their shelf-life.

[StringJunky]

I've noticed a consistent trend of threads dragging for about 300-400 posts, then people start getting annoyed and mods start insisting for some substantive evidence. None is forthcoming, and then quickly follows some mardy exchanges, resulting in closure. Might it be a good idea for the mods to intervene much sooner, say 100 posts? I think this is more than ample to ascertain the direction and usefulness of a thread. I think the mods would not be out of order, if there is a consensus between them, to 'knock a thread on the head' because it's clearly pointless with no productive outcome.

 

I like this forum because of it's relative freedom, but I do think a line needs to be drawn when that freedom just results in aimless, content-free waffling, or stubborness to pursue an idea that was scientifically dismissed umpteen posts ago in a thread.

 

 

[physica]

There's a couple of people that I have in mind when you raised this. It's tricky. People should be free to express their ideas. When we start locking down quickly it becomes complicated as to what should be locked. We also have the freedom not to get involved in a thread and I think we should be more willing to vote with our feet. If they ignore a bunch of statements the statement they make when they are ignoring should be voted down. I think there are a couple of people who have good reps because they are nice people however, they never fail to disjoint a conversation or not take on board what people are saying or waffle on to such extremes that the point of the thread gets lost. Not mentioning names but I know of a poster who has positive rep points of over 100 but in every thread has used the fact that he doesn't understand that concept as a rebuttal to you introducing the concept. Every thread he has it pointed out but he still does it. Another repeating offence is: well I still think it's this because I've thought about it. If multiple people voted down or chose not to engage then they may take a step back and think as opposed to chalking it down to one person being unreasonably angry with them..

[StringJunky]

There's a couple of people that I have in mind when you raised this. It's tricky. People should be free to express their ideas. When we start locking down quickly it becomes complicated as to what should be locked. We also have the freedom not to get involved in a thread and I think we should be more willing to vote with our feet. If they ignore a bunch of statements the statement they make when they are ignoring should be voted down. I think there are a couple of people who have good reps because they are nice people however, they never fail to disjoint a conversation or not take on board what people are saying or waffle on to such extremes that the point of the thread gets lost. Not mentioning names but I know of a poster who has positive rep points of over 100 but in every thread has used the fact that he doesn't understand that concept as a rebuttal to you introducing the concept. Every thread he has it pointed out but he still does it. Another repeating offence is: well I still think it's this because I've thought about it. If multiple people voted down or chose not to engage then they may take a step back and think as opposed to chalking it down to one person being unreasonably angry with them..

Yes, perhaps people need to be a bit more vocal, or use the red ones more, The only problem with in-thread off-topic comments about a posters attitude/style may only serve to derail the conversation. Regarding ignoring a thread at the right point, most people seem unable to do this... because the other guy is so wrong! They can't let it go, and deny it the oxygen of a response.

[physica]

Regarding ignoring a thread at the right point, most people seem unable to do this... because the other guy is so wrong! They can't let it go, and deny it the oxygen of a response.

I understand this. I am also guilty of this from time to time. Another point is that other people may browse it as a guest and think that this is proper science. I think that the simplest way is to vote down more. I'm not advocating people voting down anything they disagree with or if someone steps out of line once but the people we're talking about repeatedly make the same fallacies again and again.

[StringJunky]

I understand this. I am also guilty of this from time to time. Another point is that other people may browse it as a guest and think that this is proper science. I think that the simplest way is to vote down more. I'm not advocating people voting down anything they disagree with or if someone steps out of line once but the people we're talking about repeatedly make the same fallacies again and again

Yes, perhaps voting down the persistent ones more keenly may have a behaviour-altering effect. You can't go mental with the down votes anyway, because you only get 3 a day. Perhaps it might work if offenders start getting sudden flurries of them from different readers the moment they start, they might think more deeply about their next response.

[Acme]

The down voting gives readers a good clue that something is amiss, however it does nothing to stop the insanity. Multiple reports of posts by more than one reader; now that lets the staff know the members are fed up and usually gets some action.

[pzkpfw]

Cosmoquest forum (formerly BAUT (Bad Astronomy and Universe Today)) has a special rule for its ATM (Against The Mainstream) section, where threads are automatically closed after 30 days.

 

("Automatically" here means a moderator has to do it manually, but it's standard practice.)

 

The thread starter can make a plea by report-to-the-mods to have a thread reopened - giving reasons why. It doesn't happen often, which to my mind suggests the closure is usually a good idea.

 

It seems to work well as a policy.

[hypervalent_iodine]

The down voting gives readers a good clue that something is amiss, however it does nothing to stop the insanity. Multiple reports of posts by more than one reader; now that lets the staff know the members are fed up and usually gets some action.

The last sentence is particularly true. Especially for large threads that waffle on and on...in more than a few cases, we don't keep up with them 100% and we rely on members to keep us informed.

[StringJunky]

The last sentence is particularly true. Especially for large threads that waffle on and on...in more than a few cases, we don't keep up with them 100% and we rely on members to keep us informed.

You wouldn't think we were nagging if people thought they were talking to a brick wall, which is what it is alot of the time?

[hypervalent_iodine]

You wouldn't think we were nagging if people thought they were talking to a brick wall, which is what it is alot of the time?

 

Not if its impeding discussion of the topic, no. We often like to try and let membership sort these things out without intervention, but if all efforts to move forward are failing, you're more than welcome to get staff involved.

[Klaynos]

Being wrong isn't against the rules, I'm wondering if being consistently wrong after 100 posts of corrections should be though. Often the soapboxing rules can be used but that doesn't always apply.

 

We have introduced some stricter policies in the speculations section. They seem to have reduced the number and frequency of very long but worthless threads.

[StringJunky]

Being wrong isn't against the rules, I'm wondering if being consistently wrong after 100 posts of corrections should be though.

That's part of what I mean: it becomes wilful intransigence. I think somewhere around 100 posts must be enough to say "enough!", surely?. It happens at 300-400 (10 pages) mark anyway, so why not preempt the inevitable? It's not a massive problem, but I thought a little bit more QC in this area wouldn't go amiss, especially when you know the likely ending.

[Robittybob1]

Being wrong isn't against the rules, I'm wondering if being consistently wrong after 100 posts of corrections should be though. Often the soapboxing rules can be used but that doesn't always apply.

 

We have introduced some stricter policies in the speculations section. They seem to have reduced the number and frequency of very long but worthless threads.

It is not just a matter of being told "you are wrong" but the proof of it that counts.

If I am on the wrong track, I'd like someone to show me where I'm wrong and not just told to go back to school.

That's part of what I mean: it becomes wilful intransigence. I think somewhere around 100 posts must be enough to say "enough!", surely?. It happens at 300-400 (10 pages) mark anyway, so why not preempt the inevitable? It's not a massive problem, but I thought a little bit more QC in this area wouldn't go amiss, especially when you know the likely ending.

It shows a deficiency in the rebuttal as well as those who are "in error".

[Klaynos]

It can be very difficult when people are trying to cope with complex situations when the foundations are missing. Often the best advise can be to take time to learn the foundations.

[hypervalent_iodine]

It is not just a matter of being told "you are wrong" but the proof of it that counts.

If I am on the wrong track, I'd like someone to show me where I'm wrong and not just told to go back to school.

It shows a deficiency in the rebuttal as well as those who are "in error".

Not really. Surely you have encountered people for whom clear and decisive logic / evidence simply does not hit home? Some people are just plain obstinate and others are too busy jumping down unrelated rabbit holes and / or moving goal posts to notice that their original questions have been answered.

[Robittybob1]

Not really. Surely you have encountered people for whom clear and decisive logic / evidence simply does not hit home? Some people are just plain obstinate and others are too busy jumping down unrelated rabbit holes and / or moving goal posts to notice that their original questions have been answered.

I'll look out for it.

[swansont]

It is not just a matter of being told "you are wrong" but the proof of it that counts.

If I am on the wrong track, I'd like someone to show me where I'm wrong and not just told to go back to school.

It shows a deficiency in the rebuttal as well as those who are "in error".

 

Often it's difficult to understand the conceptual error that is leading to one's confusion. It has to be enough to show that you are wrong, rather than the specific place where you are wrong; you may have to figure out that for yourself. Also, not understanding the rebuttal is not the same as not having been rebutted.

 

Take your very recent "curving bullets" post. One might think that objects curve in flight from a rotating source; it's a fairly common misconception. But I can't tell where and how you picked that up, so I may not be able to fix that. All I can tell you is what physics says. As far as going back to school goes, it's exceedingly basic physics. If you don't already know it, then any explanation is going to be beyond your reach, and that is most definitely not the fault of the person rebutting the claim. You have an obligation to learn some of the basics.

 

IOW if you want to visit science-land, you need to speak some science. Otherwise you're just the ugly tourist, shouting louder trying to be understood. It doesn't work.

[Phi for All]

Regarding ignoring a thread at the right point, most people seem unable to do this... because the other guy is so wrong! They can't let it go, and deny it the oxygen of a response.

 

If I give what's wrong tacit approval by letting it go, I often don't trust others to see what's wrong. I should, but there are so many levels of knowledge here, it's hard to know who will trust what information.

 

More often, I realize the person I'm talking to is either one of those eternal skeptics, who doubts but never bothers to learn, or one of those folks who is never going to listen because they have a bad reason-to-emotion ratio about the subject.

 

Staff is always worried about intervening too early or too late. The membership is extremely knowledgeable, helpful, and patient, and we hate to remove opportunities for learning by closing a discussion down. We also don't want the membership's time wasted by those who argue just to argue, or want to discuss their guesswork and opinion as science.

[swansont]

 

If I give what's wrong tacit approval by letting it go, I often don't trust others to see what's wrong. I should, but there are so many levels of knowledge here, it's hard to know who will trust what information.

 

More often, I realize the person I'm talking to is either one of those eternal skeptics, who doubts but never bothers to learn, or one of those folks who is never going to listen because they have a bad reason-to-emotion ratio about the subject.

 

Staff is always worried about intervening too early or too late. The membership is extremely knowledgeable, helpful, and patient, and we hate to remove opportunities for learning by closing a discussion down. We also don't want the membership's time wasted by those who argue just to argue, or want to discuss their guesswork and opinion as science.

 

To add to this, more often than not the conversation continues either because knowledgable people are still involved and/or because there are no moderators following the discussion and nobody has reported an end-of-life criterion, like continued soapboxing. If it gets closed when mods are involved in the discussion, they typically have reported it for another to evaluate. The fastest closures are when the mods are monitoring, and can give out timely guidance that the discussion isn't going well, but we can't monitor every thread.

[StringJunky]

 

If I give what's wrong tacit approval by letting it go,...

But then you are perpetuating the pointless conversation if you don't; it's a dilemma. I shall make a point of flagging a thread of this type and see how it goes. Not say anything for about 100 posts, at suitable point, and see what happens. If it's a reader + mod opinion, that's collective responsibility.

[Phi for All]

But then you are perpetuating the pointless conversation if you don't; it's a dilemma.

 

I think we're always hoping the light bulb goes off before 100 posts, but we're convinced it won't take 300, until it does and there's still no resolution. And let's not forget that there's a certain ping-pong competition response mechanism that can happen. I should concede your well-thought-out point, but instead I volley back just because it's expected of me and I want to look smart too.

 

I like the idea of experimenting with a thread you'll flag as an example.

[StringJunky]

 

... I should concede your well-thought-out point, but instead I volley back just because it's expected of me and I want to look smart too.

This raises the question: is science discussion about 'winning the argument' or mutually pursuing as a close a description of nature as we can? For me personally, winning the argument is for politics and debating societies.

 

 

I like the idea of experimenting with a thread you'll flag as an example.

I'll keep it in the back of my mind.

Edited May 18, 2015 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

This raises the question: is science discussion about 'winning the argument' or mutually pursuing as a close a description of nature as we can? For me personally, winning the argument is for politics and debating societies.

 

I agree. I'm in learning mode most of the time here, and that leaves little room for perceived competition.

[StringJunky]

 

... that leaves little room for perceived competition.

In pure science discussions egos should be left at home. Accepting ones error without a fuss is a virtue and essential for good science discussion imo. Getting emotional and egotistical is the antithesis of good scientific practice... Spock would turn in his grave.

Edited May 18, 2015 by StringJunky

[Acme]

 

I like the idea of experimenting with a thread you'll flag as an example.

I'll keep it in the back of my mind.

 

Seems to me you ought to keep it in the front of your mind inasmuch as you started this thread and Hypervalent made it clear that your making reports is more than welcome.

 

 

This raises the question: is science discussion about 'winning the argument' or mutually pursuing as a close a description of nature as we can? For me personally, winning the argument is for politics and debating societies.

I agree. I'm in learning mode most of the time here, and that leaves little room for perceived competition.

 

It's not about competition, perceived or otherwise. String had specific threads in mind when he started this topic and we are all painfully aware of which threads those are. Revisiting the OP:

I like this forum because of it's relative freedom, but I do think a line needs to be drawn when that freedom just results in aimless, content-free waffling, or stubbornness to pursue an idea that was scientifically dismissed umpteen posts ago in a thread.

Those offenders who are at the root of the issue have no apparent interest in learning, rather they appear bent on pushing their idea, i.e. the soapboxing Klaynos mentioned. I think you [Phi] had similar concerns in mind when you started the Healthy Skepticism thread. By all means set me right if I am mistaken.

 

If StringJunky and other members vexed for the umpteenth time at seeing these threads perpetuate don't make reports then the trend of aimless content-free waffling and stubbornness [say trolling] will continue.

 

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~Martin Luther King Jr.