A few site related questions...

Seattle

Seattle

Valued Senior Member
I have a few site related questions that maybe are of interest to not just me. :)

First of all, thanks for the site. I think that should go without saying to I'll say it anyway. :)

I am unclear as to all the titles that some posters have. What is the different between administrators, staff, and other such titles?

Is there a way to understand when such comments are individual comments and when they are admonishments? It would be good to have those titles not show (if possible) when someone is posting just as an individual and when someone is an administrator of a certain section it would probably be good if they didn't get involved in posting as a regular member in that section. Just a suggestion however. :)

I also question the massive amounts of threads started by administrators that can border on spam because there is no commentary involved at the time the thread is started. I'm not even sure the administrators are reading all the articles they are starting threads with.

If I may ask, what is the logic behind doing this?

I know this has been brought up before as well but has any thought been given to making this site more about science and less about crank subjects? I think it's great that it's a broader site subject wise than most science related sites but a little narrowing of the scope could only improve things don't you think? :)
 
I had suggested long back that whenever any posts comes from Moderator, the title should be Moderator only, identity of Moderator should not be disclosed. That means staff should have two identities one is under the hat Moderator and another their chosen name. This can be quite advantageous. I don't care if it is Mod1, Mod2 etc....
 
Seattle said:
I also question the massive amounts of threads started by administrators that can border on spam because there is no commentary involved at the time the thread is started. I'm not even sure the administrators are reading all the articles they are starting threads with.

If I may ask, what is the logic behind doing this?
Click to expand...
:) This is a science forum. Scientific information from all areas is welcome and is an attempt to pass on new results, observations and theories etc.
If one choses to comment, that's up to he or she.
I welcome it.
 
The God said:
I had suggested long back that whenever any posts comes from Moderator, the title should be Moderator only, identity of Moderator should not be disclosed. That means staff should have two identities one is under the hat Moderator and another their chosen name. This can be quite advantageous. I don't care if it is Mod1, Mod2 etc....
Click to expand...
What nonsense! I certainly hope your suggestion is treated with the contempt it deserves.
Whether mods post scientific articles, or whether ordinary members post scientific articles, it is scientific information and welcome.
Far better than the carryings on of late of a number of trolls, with biases and agendas, preaching fire and brimstone against anything mainstream, and claiming there own brand of nonsense and pseudoscience.
That is the issue that needs to be attended to at this time on this forum, but it appears at this time that the owners have decided that "quantity" is more Important than "quality."
 
Typically, any "official" moderator action is prefixed with something akin to "Mod Hat" and/or is posted in colour, as opposed to black ink. Eg:

Mod Hat
Like this
 
paddoboy said:
What nonsense! I certainly hope your suggestion is treated with the contempt it deserves.
Whether mods post scientific articles, or whether ordinary members post scientific articles, it is scientific information and welcome.
Far better than the carryings on of late of a number of trolls, with biases and agendas, preaching fire and brimstone against anything mainstream, and claiming there own brand of nonsense and pseudoscience.
That is the issue that needs to be attended to at this time on this forum, but it appears at this time that the owners have decided that "quantity" is more Important than "quality."
Click to expand...

Your comprehension ability is moving towards nullity.

The suggestion is simple that when a Mod is posting something as a part of his Moderator duty, let that remain under the name Mod1 etc, otherwise he can post under his cyber name.
 
The God said:
Your comprehension ability is moving towards nullity.

The suggestion is simple that when a Mod is posting something as a part of his Moderator duty, let that remain under the name Mod1 etc, otherwise he can post under his cyber name.
Click to expand...
The ignorance as usual exists with the fact that you stand in front of a mirror! :)
And of course you have said at least twice over the last month or so, that articles Plasma posts and that I post, where an obvious question does not exist, should not be allowed [or words to that critical effect] which coming from someone who has many threads moved to the fringes due to their nonsensical nature, is somewhat laughably hypocritical. :)
And of course the obvious thing as Kittamaru has illustrated, when a mod posts as a mod, it is plain to see. I mean do you require them to e-mail you personally? :rolleyes:
 
paddoboy said:
:) This is a science forum. Scientific information from all areas is welcome and is an attempt to pass on new results, observations and theories etc.
If one choses to comment, that's up to he or she.
I welcome it.
Click to expand...
I don't know, it just becomes a news feed. Most of the headlines are sensational and when you read the article it basically says as much. If it's not interesting enough for the thread starter to comment on why go for quality rather than quality in the starting of threads?

I think much more would be accomplished by just not having all of the woo woo forums on a science forum and then exercising a little moderation to keep those kinds of posts off here. It would require far less moderation than the current mess.
 
Seattle said:
I don't know, it just becomes a news feed. Most of the headlines are sensational and when you read the article it basically says as much. If it's not interesting enough for the thread starter to comment on why go for quality rather than quality in the starting of threads?
Click to expand...
A news feed certainly, a science news feed> But what's wrong with that on a science forum?
I probably read around half that I believe maybe interesting...the others I don't see.
Yes, the headlines as per journalism to day are sensantionalistic. I remember the one 12 months or so ago,
"Hawking says BH's do not Exist" :)
But the article was still interesting.
Seattle said:
I think much more would be accomplished by just not having all of the woo woo forums on a science forum and then exercising a little moderation to keep those kinds of posts off here. It would require far less moderation than the current mess.
Click to expand...
You will not get any argument from me on that score!
 
It's not that there is anything wrong with a newsfeed on a news site. On a science forum you don't usually expect threads to actually just be a news feed.

It also gives the appearance that traffic is lagging and that it's being done to make it look like the site is more active than it is. For instance, now in prime time in many time zones there are 18 members and close to 400 guests. Only the members can post. Later at night it's not unusual for there only to be 7 0r 8 people who can post.

I think it would be more interesting to get rid of the woo woo and maybe retain more of the serious members. I know I tend to stay for a week or so and then leave for 6 months or so and then try again. In most cases Jan and Sarkas are still having the same argument trying to define God and most of the "action" is in the woo woo forums.
 
I wasn't active for about two years, and came back recently. I think that it's good to have a wide range of topics, that's what drives traffic. When I first joined here, there seemed to be more active people posting (noticed quite a few of them have been banned), but the forum had just as many science topics going, as it did non-science related topics, back then. Forums, and this goes for any themed forum, that offer only that one niche theme, usually have little traffic. Think that human interest stories and topics will always be interesting to people.
 
Seattle said:
It's not that there is anything wrong with a newsfeed on a news site. On a science forum you don't usually expect threads to actually just be a news feed.
Click to expand...
I wondered too. But I don't mind em. I scan them and read the interesting ones. Who am I to tell the site owner he shouldn't post science on his science forum?

Seattle said:
I think it would be more interesting to get rid of the woo woo and maybe retain more of the serious members. I know I tend to stay for a week or so and then leave for 6 months or so and then try again. In most cases Jan and Sarkas are still having the same argument trying to define God and most of the "action" is in the woo woo forums.
Click to expand...
No forum can serve all needs. There are other fora out there that discourage woo.
This one tries not to be so partial.
:shrug:
 
Seattle said:
It's not that there is anything wrong with a newsfeed on a news site. On a science forum you don't usually expect threads to actually just be a news feed.

It also gives the appearance that traffic is lagging and that it's being done to make it look like the site is more active than it is. For instance, now in prime time in many time zones there are 18 members and close to 400 guests. Only the members can post. Later at night it's not unusual for there only to be 7 0r 8 people who can post.

I think it would be more interesting to get rid of the woo woo and maybe retain more of the serious members. I know I tend to stay for a week or so and then leave for 6 months or so and then try again. In most cases Jan and Sarkas are still having the same argument trying to define God and most of the "action" is in the woo woo forums.
Click to expand...

Aye... this has been discussed a few times. Unfortunately, as it is the "woo woo" that generates the most site traffic, and it is site traffic that drives revenue... well, you can see where that leads. :(
 
Kittamaru said:
Aye... this has been discussed a few times. Unfortunately, as it is the "woo woo" that generates the most site traffic, and it is site traffic that drives revenue... well, you can see where that leads. :(
Click to expand...
Not that I want to derial the thread with a different beaten-to-death topic, but what about more oversight? The content would be a lot more readable if rules of repsect and civility were employed with greater frequency.
 
paddoboy said:
And of course you have said at least twice over the last month or so, that articles Plasma posts and that I post, where an obvious question does not exist, should not be allowed [or words to that critical effect] which coming from someone who has many threads moved to the fringes due to their nonsensical nature, is somewhat laughably hypocritical. :)
And of course the obvious thing as Kittamaru has illustrated, when a mod posts as a mod, it is plain to see. I mean do you require them to e-mail you personally? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Keep abusing and keep lying...That's your forte.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Not that I want to derial the thread with a different beaten-to-death topic, but what about more oversight? The content would be a lot more readable if rules of repsect and civility were employed with greater frequency.
Click to expand...
Agreed: But the simple additional fact is as Kittamaru has said. The anti science nonsense, cranks, religiously inspired junk, and woo in general, generates the traffic.
Another fact: How many of the claims being made at this time, under the science sections proper, would not get these posters banned elsewhere: In fact some of them are!
 
Pad, I can't tell, but please reassure me that abusive name-calling hasn't crept right here into the site feedback forum!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top