The Sci. page and the NQSci. page look pretty much the same to me. Most of what goes on "Sci." is news reports, and the result is lots of arguing over sources. Most NQ Sci. topics rise to this level, and the rest would be do better on a "hot-topic" forum.
Origins is a great place to draw fundies, and for anyone who wants to practice their evo theory it's a great opportunity. How many would really be discussing some climate or string or evo- theory stuff/reports if not for the fundies, or people just curious about these new/hot topics?
DA's very neat post ("News") about the Ice-age Cave found in MO should have been on the Science forum as an archaeology type topic, and probably someone would have commented on it, if not just to say "Cool!". People avoid the Origins forum, thinking it's all funky, fundy stuff.
If it had been "Re-peated" on the Sci forum, I bet it would have drawn some comments over on the Origins (or "Living Origins," or "Life Sciences," or "Evolution") Forum, or whatever you end up calling it (hopefully it will draw fundies away from...other fora). If there was just one big forum, it'd be too much to wade through all the funky stuff to find the "hard science" discussions.
Regardless of topic, so much arguing over sources could be avoided if we started topics on a page that was based on the source's authority type [News interpretation vs. Scientific Reports vs. "Letters," (blogs, personal opinion, conjectures, requests for help, NQsci. stuff etc.)].
In this suggested "source" or "authority" model (re: my previous post):
Technically anything posted on the "Hot Topic" pages could have been started on one of the 3 "Sourced Fora;" but to keep the "sourced fora" pages more focused, it's good to have those hot topic outlets, and just "re-post" their topics on the appropriate "sourced forum" page (as a sort of Table of Contents function for the hot-topic fora), with comments restricted to the originating forum's page.
Even the "sourced fora" could re-post each other's topics (but still direct comments to the originating forum).
This could be done manually, following rules, if hard/software preclude it.
I love the way most recently active topics rise to the top, but that wouldn't be good if all the fora, everything, was all one page.
I'd like to see each topic displayed as one long page, but I think some initial filtering (4-6 fora) is a good idea. By looking at dates, # of pages (# of comments, if a 1-page style?), and position on the forum, you can tell how "dead" a topic is.
I bet there are software/hardware restriction on how things are structured, but what about one page (current style) to start, and if a topic generates enough posts to generate a second page, that second page should be endless (with the first page repeated at the top) to allow for easy viewing and commenting.
If you keep topic pages as is, at least add a "Back to Top" button (along with an "All Fora" tab in the drop-down "directory of fora") at the bottom of the page.
My "Shower-curtain Effect" topic (NQSci) is a good example of how "sourcing" could work. A "Letter" (topic) from me was requesting help (input/ observations) regarding a "News" article that, based on one scientist's observations, has been given the authority of a "Report" (by the media). -...or words to that effect.
Since this was a "Letter" (about a news article), I posted it on the NQSci. forum, but it got a lot less activity until RicS brought it up on the Sci. forum. I was new at the time, but if I'd known that "News" was standard on the Sci Forum, I would have posted there first. As it was, if it had been "re-posted" on the Sci. page (no comments allowed; comments directed to topic on originating forum) it all would have worked better. A "re-post" on a "sourced Sci" forum would track the activity & dates/times, but not move to the top every time the topic was active on the originating forum.
Bottom line is I like the multi-fora format, but the "real" science forum should be split into at least two based on authority (the librarian in me talking), the source that the topic is based on. I'd vote for three (see above), but....
And there needs to be some open (regardless of source) page(s), forum(s) that is, to attract and absorb funky, fundy polemics and diatribes (whether about evo/creat theories, or relativity/string theories, or anthros/naturas climate change theories).
~Sam
