Why is sciforums traffic so low now?

And that in and of itself is perfectly fine - the problem I have with it is when said people demand an untenable level of evidence from those attempting to provide more mundane explanations whilst providing virtually no evidence for a paranormal explanation beyond "Because I said so". That's just not how rational discourse works.

Aye... or, rather, the owners/admins need to do so - we mods don't seem to get much say in that (at least from my perspective)

Which is certainly fine - again, my biggest complaint (and what I made an earnest attempt to enforce, until I was told not to any longer) was to enforce reasonable requirements for evidence and/or fact checking. If we are going to hold certain members to a standard, and then give other members a pass on said standard... well, what good does that do?

I agree with that idea.

Even a layperson can form competent and well formulated arguments, and one does not have to be an expert on a subject to discuss it; I, for example, am no expert in quantum mechanics, yet the subject fascinates me. The thing is, I know well enough to know when to sit quietly and learn from those more well versed in a subject and how to interject questions to further my understanding.

Again, my big issue is when people try to pass off flights of fancy as fact and make extraordinary claims with nearly zero supporting evidence, and then get bent out of shape when they are challenged on it. "Scientific discussion", simply put, would entail good fact checking and at least a casual attempt at supporting evidence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My thoughts too. If participation is a primary criteria in a forum, then all-about-cat-videos might have a higher count.

I think it only makes sense to consider that 'high participation' and 'in a topic of interest' must go hand-in-hand.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Exactly; last I checked, this was called 'Sciforums" not "SpookyGhostStories&AlienAbductionTales Forums"... it stands to reason that the search engine criteria that bring someone to find this place would most likely be from one looking for a place to discuss science in some form or another, be it political, social, economic, chemical, or any of the other disciplines.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, I, guess but it almost sounds like you're advocating a change in sciforums to put more emphasis on he 'sci' and discourage the 'woo'.

: takes a step away from Kitt :

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hmmm....the " woo " is not ; nowadays ; woo any more .

The younger people ....are thinking upon ; what was once " woo " . is now . The. " woooo " is out there being talked about ; its no big deal quite frankly ; its the older generation ; conservative generation that has a problem with this " woooo " .

Good for them .

the young will discover ; in huge strides ; what our conservative ; narrow minded ; arrogant ; egotistical ; generation ; could never hope to discover ;

What is really out there.



river

 

The woo is not woo anymore?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ghosts are still woo, goblins and fairies are woo, Bigfoot is woo woo woo. Alien visitations and medical experiments are woo, woo, woo, woo.
And it will still be all woo in 10, 20, 100 years time.

 

Free thinkers and 'open minders' fill your boots here... Farsight's forum.
http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/index.php?sid=93679f56c45cf19f032f4abf1aecaf2b
No insults there, so what's stopping you going there? With 'no insults' why is that site almost dead?
Go give Farsight and his sock puppets company.

 

I lean towards social issues, but sometimes give a look at the science topics--if the title grabs my attention. General woo can be entertaining at times, but I don't search for it.

 

My Google response for "sciforums..."

If I were searching for it, the above would seem to invite woo.

 

Having argued that some tolerance of cranks and nitwits seems unavoidable, in order to get enough material to stimulate discussion, I now have to face the consequences

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I have therefore decided to experiment with a new policy, viz. liberal use of the Ignore feature, which I have hitherto barely used. I am hoping that will still allow me to see the interesting discussions, without becoming unduly riled by persons whose opinions or approach to discussion I find tiresome. We'll see.............

 

You closed mind people are all the same. Go with the flow granddad.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Often wondered how it works. Presumably it hides posts by those ignored. Does it hide quoted posts? Presumably, you get a very patchy flow of thoughts.

 

not only are there patchy flows but also everyone else still can view the comment that is being ignored by a specific individual. for instance some have me on ignore, but everyone else still can read what i stated about that individual who is ignoring me.
but overall, it means nothing to anything.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

edit--
that is what amuses me-- all the narcissistic ignoramus actually believe they are pertaining/contributing too the actual establishments of science in general while on here, without acknowledging how insignificant these sites are for such adventures in science-- which is why all these piss-ants are simply pathetic.
which is why i always say "

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

carry on "

 

It seems to hide all posts by the individual, which does mean that if another participant responds you to an ignored member you, do not see what the ignored member said. However the function is only active once you are signed in, so if you view the forum without signing in you can always read it, in order to make sense of that response. I am not permanently signed in so this is no hardship. Mostly, the good threads do not seem to have much participation by the sort of people I will want to ignore.

It is imperfect, but one virtue is to prevent the spasms of uncontrollable annoyance when a post is made by one of these tw*ts, and thereby to prevent you responding in the heat of the moment. You have the discipline of being forced to view by deliberate choice, offline, as it were. I'm only trying it in earnest now, with an initial batch of four test (non-)participants - there may be one or two more eventually. It's early days but it does seem to be helping me maintain a modicum of good humour.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Funny how those of us that like facts, data, and evidence are "closed minded". Change for the sake of change rarely ends well - there is a reason Science relies on the theory and proof model

 

Could you possibly clarify your ^^above quoted^^ statement that : "...there is a reason Science relies on the theory and proof model" ?
"Proof" in the Mathematics is a given...but I was taught that in the Real Sciences - Proof is not...

: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

...the ^^above quotes^^ from : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

There is much more at the Link, but I found it odd that a Moderator on a Science Forum would state : "...there is a reason Science relies on the theory and proof model".

It may be possible that I misread what you stated, and you did not actually type the word "proof"...

So... that is why I ask that you could possibly clarify your statement that : "...there is a reason Science relies on the theory and proof model" ?

Thanks in advance for your further clarification...

 

Answer to the question in the title of this thread straight out: if I were a real n00b who had never seen a forum before, I'd leave at a run after getting a look at members of this forum running around making derogatory posts and making unsubstantiated accusations, and whining about the fact that private people keep their private data private, and following people around stalking them. It would look to me like a setup and I'd find someplace more congenial to post.

Add that to some of the general reasons, mentioned here by others, about people not being quite so interested in science generally because of the confirmation of global warming and other things, and you've got some answers.

You need to kick some people off for making the forum an unpleasant place to be, and stop pussyfooting around. I have put only four members on ignore and it has cleaned the place up immensely. I'd rather not have anyone on ignore, because I'd rather not have to cope with individuals who think it's OK to go "outside the box" when they don't get their way in the first place. Free speech is all very well but disruption is not free speech. It's disruption. And it's time to moderate this place if you want it to survive. And I'm not talking about instituting a bunch of restrictive rules; that will just scare the n00bs off more, and piss the rest of us off. Get with the program and get the disruptors off here. That's what needs to be done, and it's time to make an executive decision and do it.

There's my two cents worth, take it as you will. If you want to do something about it, do it; if not, don't. The ignore button works for me, but you shouldn't count on it working for others. And you shouldn't whine about it when it doesn't. I'm not complaining; if you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question. I'm OK; I've learned two new things today alone, and that's pretty good from where I stand. But having seen good forums and bad forums and a lot of forums, I can tell you how to make this one better.

 

Well said:
If I was to add a specific point it would be the pseudoscience being put in the guise of questions within the science sections: Sure it's interesting debate but the frauds that do this, have no intention of accepting any answer that conflicts with their own agenda...and it just goes on and on and on and on.

 

I think you raise an excellent point about "disruptors". I suspect it is they that put the rest of us in a bad mood on occasion. As I said earlier in this thread, I am trialling a new policy of liberal use of the Ignore function (I now have six people in this group) and it is helping me maintain my equanimity. But there are costs to this, in terms of having to sign out to see what some posts relate to, in terms of being perhaps seen as avoiding debate, and so on.

It is not so much the views of people that cause trouble: it is the style of interaction of certain people - and what we can surmise about their probable underlying motives.

 

A way to get rid of the riff-raff in the science areas of Sciforums an increase site traffic:

Administraton chooses 5 Science-minded regular posters who want "woo" gone... an ther majority vote will decide which are the disruptive posters an restrict 'em from partisipatin in designated "science areas which will then allow science to be discussed properly... an then the "woo" areas of Sciforums can also blossom... ie... a win win.!!!

If somone thanks they see a flaw in the above solution please speek freely.!!!