Hello all,

We are going to re-jig the forums soon-ish to create some new ones (Climate Change and Physics are confirmed) and possibly change/get rid of the old ones.

It would be helpful to hear your thoughts on these matters. Specifically,

* Ideas for new forums
* Thoughts on existing (do we really want "Origins"? Does it serve a purpose?) forums etc.

Your comments and ideas are appreciated!

Thanks,

KM

biology maybe?

Origins forum is a huge, bright sign reading: "Creationists, come, show your fury and save your soul"

If someone wants to chat about oparin or panspermia, he or she can biology or physics.

My $0.02

G'day Kate,

Perhaps a way to cross reference posts between forums without posting twice. There might be a physics topic of interest to global warming or a general science topic such as solar activity of similar relevance but primarily it belongs in the one group.

I've only just started reading the "Origins" forum but it seems to throw up reasonable debate, even if it does also tend to attract those that religious texts are taken to be the literal truth. Perhaps its guidelines could be tweaked or it be renamed differently if the purpose is to discuss "the big questions" but not just always become bogged down in religion v science.

Perhaps the origins forum could be split into a forum that welcomes religious debate and one that relates to speculations as to our origins, the universes' origins, evolution, etc, etc, but without religious faith based topics posts. Just a thought.


Regards


Richard

Kate. A climate forum seems a good idea. I read the comments re. climate although I don't think I have made any myself. I'm not persuaded one way or t'other yet. Astronomy might be another category. The Asian flu post hasn't attracted much comment lately.

It would be a little unfair to prevent creationists posting comments. Some could surely have a rational outlook on some science subjects. Besides, could you get people to state their religious beliefs before they join? I doubt it.

I'm open to anything.

If it weren't for the origins forum, a lot of that would be in the general science forum. It would be the first thing most people would see when they came here - and that would definitely turn off most people really interested in science. So my vote would be to keep the origins forum.

Same reason for the "not quite science" forum - partly keeps some of the crazier stuff out of the main view, and also there are topics that are relevant to, say, the philosophy and culture of science, or to the ethics and social responsibility angle that might get diluted in the main fora, or might themselves dilute the purpose or concentration of them.

My own interest is in complex adaptive systems (real and artificial), which is the umbrella under which I do most of my reading. I've actually started a CAS lunchtime group where I work that includes about 50 people, about 2/3rds of whom are PhDs. OTOH, I don't know most people would find it all that interesting, and for now there seems to be a bit of the golly-gee-whiz sort of aura about the thing. Also, I don't know if my thoughts are mature enough to contribute regularly. OTOOH, it might be interesting to hear even shoddy ideas.

One benefit of the, ahem, 'discussion' with Trilobyte over on origin is that it's got me thinking a lot about what are called neutral mutations and their importance to diversity and what Stuart Kauffman calls "preadaptation." So even a completely inane post might spur the development of legitimate ideas. OTOOOH, I might have become interested in this aspect anyway.

Science in contention.

im afraid that if you took out the origins all together that they would just post in the scientific one.

IMHO, i also believe that there should be one that is just for discussing religion, just to get them out of the other areas.

its gotten to where i hardly even look at the origins forum any more because its so full of the same religions stuff, thread after thread.

I like the diversity and diversion of the existing fora; I couldn?t have said things better than TheFallibleFiend?s first two paragraphs about Origins and Not-Quite-Science. I also strongly agree with TheFallibleFiend?s, ?One benefit of the, ahem, 'discussion' with Trilobyte over on origin is that it's got me thinking a lot?.?
Eternautu also has a good point in, ?Origins forum is a huge, bright sign reading: ?Creationists, come?.?" There?s probably no avoiding that even if we ?code? the title with something such as ?Family Tree.? The other above points are well taken too.

In terms of the Science fora, I think the distinction (Science Discussion and Not-Quite-Science) should be abandoned, but that the resulting large umbrella of ?General Science? should be split 3 ways (these would still exclude evolution, climate change, & cosmology) (see below**).

First split would be Science News (postings based on news releases).

Second split would be Science Reports (postings based on journal/peer-reviewed reports).

Third split would be Science Letters (posting of an original nature, speculative musings, the Not-Quite-Science stuff in general, and requests for information and input.

**
RicS?s idea of splitting Origins got me thinking of a split between ?Living Origins? (subsuming evolution) and ?Cosmologies? (which would subsume a lot of the ?Physics? postings from the Sci. fora). Additionally, I would add the ?Planetary Sciences? (climate change) Forum here, to these other ?hot topic? fora.

These Big-Three (hot-topics) (?family/home/environment? or life/planet/cosmos) would not be split up by the nature of their sources (reports, news & letters) as with the ?General Science? Forum; but threads could be flagged to indicate the type of posting (report, news, or letter). The initial post of a thread could be duplicated on the appropriate Gen.Sci forum (rpt./news/letter) based on the flag; but in order to reply, one would have to move to the thread?s home (originating) forum.

Alternatively, all post could originate on one of the three General Science fora (based on source); but, if desired, could be flagged (based on topic) to re-post on the appropriate ?big-three? forum, for receiving comments. Is it possible to block comments and direct people to the right place for comments, or automatically direct a reply (to the re-post) on the appropriate forum?

Replies to general threads on the General Science, ?sourced fora,? would continue as they are currently done; but only replies to flagged threads would be directed over to the appropriate Big-Three forum (life, planet, or cosmos).

Avian Flu would fit under the ?Living Origins? Forum if needed; but until there is a transmissible human variant (and it becomes a hot topic), the ?sourced fora? could handle this topic.

A master list of all threads (w/ no comments allowed), that would direct people to one of the 6 fora where comments could be added, would be helpful.

Some rules about following guidelines (based on the flags) in the Big-Three fora might help keep discussions on track, but ultimately, I think we want the diversity and serendipity that currently exists.

Even if things can?t be automatically processed and routed/restricted or flagged as I?m imagining, we could make ?rules? about these distinctions more prominent, hope for the best, and see what evolves.

Summary: 6 fora:
Three general science fora (based on sources)-see above
&
Three ?hot topic? fora (evolution (etc.), cosmologies, and climate change)

Thanks, ~samwik

Hello Kate,

At the moment you/we have "Four different Forums Divisions"
As you say, you are ready to possibly create some new divisions, AND get rid of some old ones?

The net result is, that we/you will end up with MORE divisions than ever.

Not only more divisions....but Sub-Divisions of divisions which can and will be argued about as to which category it should be put in.

Each division now,- occupies a different page. Which many of us do not even look at...like "Origins" or "Asian Flue" etc.
Even if we did, we might decide NOT to post a reply.....since we rightly surmise that, that particular post has become days old and dead.
With a reply not expected.

My contention is:- the more divisions, the more problems (both for you and us) due to the more pages, (which can't be seen) and have to be actively viewed, before replying.

SO MY IDEA
Taking a leaf out of the old type of forum which a few of us remember....where the posting was fast and furious......is:-

Have just ONE long page, as in the old Forum.
But instead of having two rows of (un-useful letter) icons, on the extreme left side.
Allow the poster to PICK one of say ten icons
that you supply, which gives everyone the basic info as to what the posting is about.
The date on the right hand ensures everyone that the post is still alive, and worth posting to.

These icons which YOU supply (instead of smileys)
Could be minature pics:-
- Cloud/lightning - Flask/testube -Oil/power -
Planets - Televisn/Radio - Computer/chip -
Skeleton/underground - Preacher/book/Church -
Cogs/engineering - DNA/Human - Aeroplane -
Weight/Gravity - Earth/mountain - Trees -

I'm sure everyone has got the idea
In my opinion with everything on ONE page, you MUST get an INCREASE in postings, as all your dinky little icons will be there for all to see, and access, and easily read.

Oh well I tried
Keep up the good work Kate, you are ALL doing a great job. Just let me know when you've made your first million.

That's great!

Thanks to everyone who contributed. I'll read them all. Keep 'em coming!

A question: Could "Origins" and "Not quite Science" be merged?

Thanks!

Kate asked: Could "Origins" and "Not quite Science" be merged?

They could be merged, but I think it wouldn't have the same effect. The word "origins" is a perfect attractor for most of the creationist stuff.

I like the NQS forum for things that are related to science (like the quotes), but the original intent was that it be something like an attractor for all the other creationistic-like nonscience stuff. Problem is that cranks never self-identify.

I think merge them. I support limiting, to a single forum, discussions of those topics that are not strictly science.

Hi Kate,

I think that's a great idea. Maybe a Physics & Chemistry or a Physical Sciences forum would be good.

The thing about climate, global warming, etc. is that a lot of ink is spilled. While these are valid scientific pursuits, most of what appears here is hot air (pun intended) and I just skip over it.

Another thought that occurs is a SciFi forum. Seems like many of the folks that hang out here have some interest in this. The physics library at my institution, for example, has a collection of SciFi. Really, I'm not kidding. (Some of my colleagues write in this genre in their spare time.)

Dr. R.

I was unclear in my previous post. I don't support merger of NQS and Origins.

I think NQS should be eliminated as a failed experiment. Origins should be kept as-is.

An SF forum seems worthwhile, although I wonder what kind of people would be attracted to the forum. It's not my place to wonder such things, but I do anyway.

I'm reminded of something I read about child molestors recently - turns out in a study that was done, all but one of the study group of pervs was an ST fanatic.

Well, Bird Flu should probably go now as the whole subject has lost its piquancy somewhat. It may rear its head at some point but for the time being its a dead parrot.

Origins is a good board. I remember pre-origins, and many good science threads were hijacked by religious debate. Origins has served a purpose and kept the science board clean. Besides, the debates with Trilobyte and so on are lively, interesting and fun - and with TFF, Terry T and Soilguy's responses it has been informative for me.

Please keep Origins in its current form - It is not unrelated to science.

'Not Quite Science' works well to allow more speculative discussions and prevents the real serious scientists from getting too frustrated with people posting way-out ideas in the science board.

I wonder, along with TFF, what kind of people will be attracted to a SF board. Probably people like the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons:

Characteristics:

Yellow skin
Brown hair worn in a pony-tail
Fat and constantly eating
Waddles when walking
Highly sarcastic attitude
Owns the Android's Dungeon & Baseball Card Shop
45 years Old
Virgin
Lives with parents
I.Q. of 170
Has prescription pants

Quotes:

CBG: Alec, Alec, regarding that so called "silent" propulsion system in "The Hunt For Red October", I printed out a list of technical errors which I think you'd enjoy discussing.

CBG: Inspired by the most logical race in the galaxy, the Vulcans, breeding will be permitted once every seven years. For many of you this will mean much less breeding, for me, much much more.


Only joking, I'm a big fan of Niven, Asimov, C Clarke etc. and I stopped living with my parents five years ago at the age of thirty.

Blacknad.

Not relevant but I'm a big fan of the Simpsons.

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

i'm with kremer on this...but i doubt that we will return to the old format or anything like it

assuming that won't happen...i suggest that we leavee it as is

it ain't broke...don't try to fix it

For what it's worth, I agree with anyman. I find it easy to flick to each site, see who's made comments and how long ago. Simple. Perhaps change avian flu to something encompassing interpretation of evidence, say climate.

Besides we have to think of any continued increased work load once any changes have been made.

another couple of cents here...

i really don't see the point of a special climate board

that subject is very worthy of being discussed on the main science board (as are all others :-)

climate science/global warming sf/etc are contemporary hot topics, highly relelvant, controversial, and debate/discussion generating

it ain't broke...don't try to fix it :-)

Hi anyman,
No I'm not suggesting that we return to the 'old forum' where everything was mixed,
and replied to -all mixed up down on long single page. Oh No. Very unscientific.

My suggested change would actually be very little different from what we have now!
ALL the different Forum 'Science divisions' would run down the main front page, in the form of one, prehaps two PICTURE ICONS which the writer or maybe Kate would place on the extreme left of the page. (You could have at least 25 different subjects (picture icons)
Everyone viewing the icon/s would know exactly what the postings were about.

At the moment, we all have to RELY upon the information that the writer can IMPART with difficulty, using approx the 2-10 words in the "new topic line" when first posting.
Descriptive words that often bears little relation to the type of science being discussed.

Everything else would be just the same. Ten or twelve average length postings, STARTS you onto a NEW page, ...just as it does now.

The main point being...that you could have (at least) 25 different icons (ie BASIC subjects) that could be chosen, to run down the left of the main page.
I feel it would be better than Kate trying to Put/Type out ALL the different categorys of the Sciences, onto all the different (projected) main pages. Thats even more unrealistic than the four main pages we have now.
Pages that people would have to FIND and reply to. And hopefully wait (having to GO and LOOK) for a reply, if they hav'nt forgotten?

I often find that once about 15 postings/replies are made, you get to access pages 2, even 3 or more
OFTEN by then, the subject has gone completely off topic. With no meaningful reference to the original subject matter.
In fact if the subject became greatly changed, (and the original writers became frustrated, the truly scientific minded ....would normally drop out....BUT, they could enter a new icon at the end of their letter and state "I'll resume this (different) topic from the more RELEVANT front page icon" IF THEY WISHED.

So that anybody that came in to 'scienceagogo' for the first time, accessing the front page icon of their choice....everything would appear quite normal.
The subject matter,would always TEND to equal the basic icon. I say tend to, 'cause no-one's perfect

I also feel icons would help keep the original science by subject matter together. Nobody could shout back and state "this belongs in 'Origins or should be in 'Climate"
No-one gets embaressed. You just change your subject (icon) by going back to the front page, and write under a different subject icon. Allowing others to carry on, as they want?

***A late thought. Using an icon you need not try to fit in description of your subject within the
"New Topics line" You could just add some related words there, alonside the DNA icon
ie -Umbilical - Blood - New gene.

Any foreseen difficulties or comments, guaranteed to give the Moderators, a headache

I'm done, ...off to buy some fireworks (Nov:5th)

thanx, mike

i still like the old board best...but *as is* is the next best thing (perhaps your icon suggestions would help in the present climate :-)

kate, you, and i go back to april '98 when this board began (i came in a couple of weeks after you but still in the first month)...dano came in at the end of that year, amaranth came in the following year, uncle al sometime after that...

there may still be others around that are lurking or have changed their monikers, but...

i don't guess that gives us any special privileges, but it oughta (there oughta be a grandfather clause or somesuch, eh :-)

anyway...carry on, and enjoy your day (nov 5)...what is that...i don't recognize it as a general uk holiday...is that your bday...or your kiddos

Mike?s idea is sounding better to me now.
I?d suggest not replacing an icon if the subject changes; just add more icons. Then you don?t loose the history of the thread (librarian talking again).

As for my idea, changing nothing but the names and description of the existing fora, the basic idea of posting by source (level of authority) could still work. Science Disc. would become the ?Reports? forum, NQ would be for ?News? sources, and Avian Flu would become the ?Letters? forum for speculative, etc. (as former posts detail). It?d have to be by following guidelines, but the same is true for using icons to indicate topic or subject. Both systems could work together. And origins would stay the same.
Smaller type could allow for more info on the main forum pages too.

~samwik

P.S. Any comments on the basic concept of the "source" idea? Too hard, weird, nebulous?
Thanks,
~S

Anyman quote;

"anyway...carry on, and enjoy your day (nov 5)...what is that...i don't recognize it as a general uk holiday...is that your bday...or your kiddos"

It celebrates what my father used to call the day that the only person to enter parliament with good intentions was caught. (i.e. he was going to blow the place up, terrorist that he was).

But it also coincides fairly closely with a Celtic fire festival to protect the population during the coming winter.

Sorry, off topic.

Yes you are right anyman,
Water under the bridge and such.
I rem Kate when she had an ICQ No

November 5th is only celebrated in the UK
Captain Guy Fawkes a Catholic, stashed 8 barrels of gunpowder in the basement of the 'Houses of Parliament' in an attempt to blow them up.

The original Catholic majority in the UK were forced to renounce their religion by King Henry VIII, in favour of Protestism. Old King Henry got pretty mad, when the Pope refused to allow him a divorce to remarry.
Henry sent a message to the Pope, telling him in effect to get lost. And banished all catholic priests, and took all their property. And made the country Protestant overnight, virtually.
All catholics who refused to change to protestant were tortured or put to death in their thousands.

Mr Fawkes was 'shopped' captured, and horribly tortured before he could light the fuses.
He ending up carrying his intestines over his shoulders, before being hung drawn and quartered His body hung in a cage for all to see, until it rotted away.
Fireworks are let off in many Uk towns, celebrating saving the Parliament building. The biggest celebration of all is held at Lewes, on the anniversary of Captain Guy Fawkes capture where thousands of people (all professing to be Protestant) come in from all around carrying lighted flaming torches around the town before marching to a huge bonfire to watch an effigy of the present day Pope being burnt on the South downs.
It can get scary in the crowd, many people lost their hair etc. but its a time for bing drinking and roudyism and fireworks every Nov 5th
Dogs and pets are advised to be kept under blankets in a cupboard.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4402828.stm
AND
http://www.lewesbonfirecouncil.org.uk/history/index.html

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror." .....Mike Kremer.

.

Years ago my aunt Opal (refs. avail.) did some geneaology work and told me I was related to Guy Fawkes.
sooooooooo, BOT
Any comments on the idea of using "sources" to filter the topics a bit?
~Samguy

Please to remember the 5th of November ...

No doubt you are related to everyone else on earth too. ;-)

LOL DA, Thanks for my first LOL of the day....

~Samguy

P.S. ...but, BOT???

I posted this elsewhere, but thought it should be here:
""
Richard, I read your posts too (eventually), but my computer is limiting my capabilities these days.
I was avoiding this thread, but even this "non-scientific" topic is introduced as a "science Letter" (I'm still lobbying for the "source" model -even if just Icons!) and called for a "study." I've been frequently surprised when these threads that I first feel are of no interest and not "scientific," turn into something that leads me to some insight, or at least are informative. At least this could be considered as social or psychological science. I do think this belongs over on a "hot topic" type forum, but that's for another day, eh? Thanks Richard for the plug (shower curtain effect thread), I agree it's hard to decide where to put things; but there may not be a way to make it perfect. I like the organic nature of it all, evolving serendipitously. So I'd vote for not killing to many threads, just let natural selection do the work.
Cheers
~samwik
""

Regretably, I'm not too familiar yet with other aspects of these fora (icons, defaults, prefs., etc.). Maybe this is already addressed and I just don't know about it, but....

I'm still surprised nobody has a comment about a "source" model for the fora. I'm hopeful that at least as icons, "source" can be worked into the threads or posts.
Thanks for listening,
~Samwik