The main purpose for this thred is to gather ideas from mods on how to increase site traffic.!!!
Making Sciforums more Successful.!!!
- Thread starter cluelusshusbund
- Start date
Mayb this will help get the ball rollin.!!!
Mods... anybody... any ideas on how to get many more members to come an post a whole lot of interestin content.???
Mods... anybody... any ideas on how to get many more members to come an post a whole lot of interestin content.???
Well, to be fair... to attract people with interesting ideas or comments, we would need to have interesting content be what people see when they first land on the forums, as opposed to the multitude of threads with angry squawking, bickering, and claims of mod-trolling, collusion to ban everybody, etc.
Cause, well, lets face it - if you were surfing the net, and stumbled across our current "hot topics"... it's not likely you'd stick around if that was your first impression, amirite?
Cause, well, lets face it - if you were surfing the net, and stumbled across our current "hot topics"... it's not likely you'd stick around if that was your first impression, amirite?
Interestin... i remember my first impression of Scifourms... when i was serfin the web an found an old buddy postin here... i read some of the Sciforum rules an saw that name callin was not alowed... but a mod (an others) had called my old buddy a idiot (an other names)... an my buddy was wrong... but i figered the people woud get in trouble for callin him names... but they didnt... an i thout that was strange.!!!
Anyhow... i later discovered that rules was sometimes follered an sometimes not :shrug:
But i stuck around cause it was obvous ther was people here that coud answr science questons... but soon enuff i was run thru the "sock accusation" mill by a thred started by a mod sayin i was a sock... O... it was "Ben The Man"... an not long after... me an everbody else witnessed the James R Bells an Tiassa shows of publicaly guttin each other on a regular basis... kinda like you an Bells did recently.!!!
Sciforums ebbs an flows wit highs an lows... whare the rules goes nobody knows... but to the issue at hand... increasin the site traffic as goal number 1.!!!
So you have identified what you see as a prollem;;; do you have suggestons as ways to make the Sciforums "hot topics" more apealin to people surffin the net.???
Unfortunately... no, not really. A big issue right now is, as I said... we have more activity in threads condemning moderators or having silly arguments about known hot-topics without the intent of improving anything for the sake of being able to blast one another... it's a mess, really... the only way to change that would be for everyone to drop the old grudges and move on in good faith, but I just don't see that happening.
Woud droppin old grudges an movin on be a real solution as long as the major reasons for the hot-topic complaints is not corected... that mods will not agree to be held acountable if they brake the forum rules.???
Anuther solution to rid the forum of unapealin hot-topic complanits is to make it clear that public complaints about mods will lead directly to a permaban.!!!
Or maybe the way thangs are goin now... whare 1 way or anuther... the undesirable posters bein baned or jus leavin on ther own will resolve the issue over time.!!!
I remember a new Member Posting, about a month after he joined SciForums, of previous experiences when he was apart of another Forum.
He talked of mainstream professionals proclaiming any thinking outside the square of the mainstream as pseudoscience ; how any "thinking outside the box" angered and disturbed some self appraised mainstream science cheer-leaders ; being castigated by science cheer-leaders ; science cheerleaders wanting to totally screw posters.
He said that he did not tolerate their Bullying.
If there was any of that kind of Bullying going on here at SciForums, could it possibly lead to a multitude of threads with angry squawking, bickering, and claims of mod-trolling, collusion to ban everybody, etc.
If there was any of that kind of Bullying going on here at SciForums, should it be tolerated?
If there was any of that kind of Bullying going on here at SciForums, could it possibly decrease site traffic?
If there was any of that kind of Bullying going on here at SciForums, would getting rid of it possibly make SciForums more successful?
He talked of mainstream professionals proclaiming any thinking outside the square of the mainstream as pseudoscience ; how any "thinking outside the box" angered and disturbed some self appraised mainstream science cheer-leaders ; being castigated by science cheer-leaders ; science cheerleaders wanting to totally screw posters.
He said that he did not tolerate their Bullying.
If there was any of that kind of Bullying going on here at SciForums, could it possibly lead to a multitude of threads with angry squawking, bickering, and claims of mod-trolling, collusion to ban everybody, etc.
If there was any of that kind of Bullying going on here at SciForums, should it be tolerated?
If there was any of that kind of Bullying going on here at SciForums, could it possibly decrease site traffic?
If there was any of that kind of Bullying going on here at SciForums, would getting rid of it possibly make SciForums more successful?
It's always been a forum rule not to complain about moderator actions in public forums - that's why we have super mods, admins, and the ownership. We attempted to create the ticket system as an additional venue, but it was really only used by one or two people to further their vendetta... I think we've seen maybe 3 or 4 legitimate tickets among dozens of crap ones
Yeah... as long as the ones creatin the mess are the ones in charge... an they dont realize that ther the ones creatin the mess... thers little hope of the mess bein cleaned up.!!!
Simply put... if its a good rule... enforce it... consistently.!!!
Inconsistent moderation creates disgruntled posters.!!!
If he was a crank who was not getting the ego boost he needed from a science site, then both people made good decisions. They shut him down so he didn't degrade the site, and he left and found other forums where people would better appreciate his woo.
To stop cranks who troll forums like this? Definitely.
To stop people who have done good science from expressing their opinions? Definitely not.
Fortunately it's pretty easy to see the difference.
Given the amount of woo that gets posted here (see any of MagicalRealist's "look there's a ghost/UFO/psychic!" posts) I'd say there isn't enough of that sort of bullying.
I just made a post at Alternative Theories that relates to you'r issues:::
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...eories-forum&p=3203068&viewfull=1#post3203068
Doesnt Magical Realist post his ideas in the proper forums.???
MR posts fun an interestin stuff that lots of people like to read... an i thank Scifourms coud use mor MR's.!!!
What do I see that's needed to make this science forum more successful.
Let's look at a few things.
This forum has and is trying to be an outlet for everyone, and every category....religion, politics, pseudoscience etc, but it is in the main a science forum to discuss accepted mainstream science, discoveries and speculative assumptions based on the current laws of physics.
That is the primary purpose of the forum, despite how anyone wants to dress it up.
Science and religion, will as has been shown, clash.
Science and pseudoscience/Alternative hypothesis will as has been shown, also clash.
Politics, religion will clash violently even when discussed fully within their own categorizations.
So in that effort of trying to be an outlet for everyone, it's rather logical that clashes will occur.
So, yes, we do need mods...100% certainty on that score.
Being in the main a science forum, will naturally see some members contributing to other than accepted mainstream science, seeing themselves as "ünderdogs" and unfairly treated.
They see the forum as being an opportunity to spread their "thing" and any curtailment on that "thing" gets some frustrated, and then the "claiming science has an unfair advantage" starts to ring in the air.
Sure they have an advantage, and that is highlighted with the logical assumption, that incumbent scientific theories, hold the default position.
In my history on forums, I have only ever participated on one at a time...This is my third. The other two I left after one went defunct, the other I interpreted as not open enough for my likings.
Although with the second forum in question, some great discussions by top scientists were had, I did have a disagreement and decided to find somewhere else...no banning or expulsion was given at all, and no whinging or whining from me about any actions or procedures.
One of the great innovations on that forum, was their procedure for Alternative hypothesis people.
They were able to put their point.
They had to answer questions and queries re their hypothesis...
They had to give all details...none of the well "I cannot say too much because I am publishing" or any other fanciful excuse they can think of.
They had ONE MONTH to show their model as superior to the incumbent, or at least supporting all that the incumbent supported, and then the thread was CLOSED.
In relation to alternative hypothesis pushers, its been my observation, that some are that anxious and keen to push their concepts, that they will and do resort to bullying.
This is aptly shown in their attitudes to other scientists and even lay people, when questions are asked of them...or when they are asked why they are so certain they are correct, and especially when asked why peer review has not been undertaken.
The one month grace with them, would in my opinion sort that type of bullying out.
Besides the few points I have mentioned, which "MAY" make this a better forum, I see it overall as OK.
I see all the Mods as OK also, although on two occasions, I suffered moderations when I thought it was not applicable.
But, :shrug: no whinging, no whining,I copped it sweet.... I do have a rather full life and as the song says, "I'll play on the forum all day if I could, But the Lord and the wife wouldn't take it very good, So I play when I can, work when I should....and you know the rest!
In essence the over the top whinging that has taken place, should not be allowed.
Sections I have no interest in, I ignore...Sections claiming new theories, new models, overthrowing incumbent models, will generally get my attention.
Finally, and indisputably, this is in the first instance, a mainstream science forum.
James, who I knew on the previous forum that went defunct, was one of the moderators there, and excelled at getting right into the alternative brigade and pseudo crap, in no uncertain terms.
Let's look at a few things.
This forum has and is trying to be an outlet for everyone, and every category....religion, politics, pseudoscience etc, but it is in the main a science forum to discuss accepted mainstream science, discoveries and speculative assumptions based on the current laws of physics.
That is the primary purpose of the forum, despite how anyone wants to dress it up.
Science and religion, will as has been shown, clash.
Science and pseudoscience/Alternative hypothesis will as has been shown, also clash.
Politics, religion will clash violently even when discussed fully within their own categorizations.
So in that effort of trying to be an outlet for everyone, it's rather logical that clashes will occur.
So, yes, we do need mods...100% certainty on that score.
Being in the main a science forum, will naturally see some members contributing to other than accepted mainstream science, seeing themselves as "ünderdogs" and unfairly treated.
They see the forum as being an opportunity to spread their "thing" and any curtailment on that "thing" gets some frustrated, and then the "claiming science has an unfair advantage" starts to ring in the air.
Sure they have an advantage, and that is highlighted with the logical assumption, that incumbent scientific theories, hold the default position.
In my history on forums, I have only ever participated on one at a time...This is my third. The other two I left after one went defunct, the other I interpreted as not open enough for my likings.
Although with the second forum in question, some great discussions by top scientists were had, I did have a disagreement and decided to find somewhere else...no banning or expulsion was given at all, and no whinging or whining from me about any actions or procedures.
One of the great innovations on that forum, was their procedure for Alternative hypothesis people.
They were able to put their point.
They had to answer questions and queries re their hypothesis...
They had to give all details...none of the well "I cannot say too much because I am publishing" or any other fanciful excuse they can think of.
They had ONE MONTH to show their model as superior to the incumbent, or at least supporting all that the incumbent supported, and then the thread was CLOSED.
In relation to alternative hypothesis pushers, its been my observation, that some are that anxious and keen to push their concepts, that they will and do resort to bullying.
This is aptly shown in their attitudes to other scientists and even lay people, when questions are asked of them...or when they are asked why they are so certain they are correct, and especially when asked why peer review has not been undertaken.
The one month grace with them, would in my opinion sort that type of bullying out.
Besides the few points I have mentioned, which "MAY" make this a better forum, I see it overall as OK.
I see all the Mods as OK also, although on two occasions, I suffered moderations when I thought it was not applicable.
But, :shrug: no whinging, no whining,I copped it sweet.... I do have a rather full life and as the song says, "I'll play on the forum all day if I could, But the Lord and the wife wouldn't take it very good, So I play when I can, work when I should....and you know the rest!
In essence the over the top whinging that has taken place, should not be allowed.
Sections I have no interest in, I ignore...Sections claiming new theories, new models, overthrowing incumbent models, will generally get my attention.
Finally, and indisputably, this is in the first instance, a mainstream science forum.
James, who I knew on the previous forum that went defunct, was one of the moderators there, and excelled at getting right into the alternative brigade and pseudo crap, in no uncertain terms.
Last edited:
For the most part, yes, he is good about posting in the "fringe" forums. However, again, he posts woo, not science. Thus if the question is "how to improve SciForums?" then I'd say more science, less woo.
But to your point, if the only question is how to increase _traffic_ then that might work well. (Of course, porn would work even better.)
The primary purpose includes site traffic... an thers no reason Sciforums cant be "an outlet for everyone" an still be an excellent mainstream science forum.!!!
Last edited:
Bottom line... MR posts the proper stuff in the proper forums which can easily be skipped by those not interested... an mainstream science is not negatively affected.!!!
Aparently the owners dont want a porn site so the issue is mute.!!!
Ideally correct, but we are all human.
We are but human, and volunteers at that. I cannot blame any of my fellow mods for acting a tad irrational when their name is dragged through the mud - to blame them for it would be hypocritical of me, as I know I have felt the urge, and on occasion, done the same. It's one of the reasons we often consult with one another and give input on each others actions.
The big issue is, if we enforce the rules 100% consistently and 100% impartially... we'd have to pretty much perma-ban half the site. We try to offer leeway where it is appropriate, and prefer to use alternative methods to keep people around but at the same time try to nudge them into aligning with the site purpose/rules.
It just... doesn't always work... and sometimes, people like to fight back for the sake of, well, I guess fighting?
So why is it allowed?
Not true. It is easy to change simply by deciding not to allow it anymore: close/delete the discussions and infractionate those who are breaking the rules.
Besides lack of/inconsistent moderation, SF has an identity crisis, caused by conflicting and unclear goals: you can't be scientific and unscientific at the same time. And just saying you want alternate theories and pseudoscience in their own forums (not enforced) isn't good enough. You have to decide how you want them handled, be clear about it, and enforce it. Do you want in those forums:
1. A zero quality free-for-all? That's basically what you have now, everywhere.
2. Academic/scientific discussion?
The problem is that neither works very well. Right now, #1 exists everywhere, and it is a mess. Confining those discussions to their named forums would just make the mess narrower but deeper, keeping the quality to crap ratio as low as it is now (at least until quality discussion returned to the other forums). #2 is all or nothing and makes it tough for any discussion beyond straightforward debunking to happen in any of those other forums.
But what about alternate theory development in the Alternative Theory forum, you ask? It doesn't exist. No real science has ever happened in such a forum, so in short order, you'd have to ban all the usual subjects for their crackpottery.