Why is sciforums traffic so low now?

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Magical Realist, Apr 7, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Retribution Banned Banned

    Messages:
    200
    Bells, one of the issues this site has isn't that you are holding a grenade.
    It is that you are holding a grenade.

    Observer note:
    This post wasn't directed at Bells.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,682
    There's only like 5 or 6 trolls here who regularly bitch about what I post and who routinely attack me. That's hardly "many people". And this has been going on for a few years now. So much for the effectiveness of bitching about posts you don't personally like.

    You are not free to bitch at people who are not reasoning like you think they should. There's nothing in the forum rules that condones that sort of conduct. So I'll take this as a refusal to abide by the basic rules of decency and civility set forth for this forum. I rarely responded to your pedantic posts in the past, so ignoring you from now on will be a piece a cake. Consider that done.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    That's because the rest just ain't interested in the muck and paranormal nonsense you claim as genuine. :shrug:


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    A common thread I have observed among our alternative anti science brigade is their often application of false indignation and grand standing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Then go out there and prove it - collect samples, bring them to reputable labs for third party analysis, and post the findings.

    Until then, yes - they ARE free to tell you when your "reasoning" is flawed and flies in the face of accepted (and, simply put, effective) scientific doctrine. There is a reason it is an accepted method - that is because it works, and has been proven to work, time and time again... it has been proven, repeatedly, to lead to the truth, no matter how inconvenient it may end up being.
     
    Ophiolite likes this.
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,682
    Reported for more offtopic prattle.
     
  9. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Get a frigging grip!
     
  10. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    It's ok to go on about left and right wing wotnot on this thread, but if Kitts brings up the scientific method it's off topic.
    Are you trying to dictate what's spoken of on this thread by reporting what you don't like? Are you the thought police practising on the site feedback section now?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 3, 2016
    paddoboy and Ophiolite like this.
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,682
    No..I'm enforcing the new policy laid down by Bells earlier not to talk about ufo evidence outside of the fringe forum. If I can't do it, noone else can. Capiche?

     
  12. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    I see you don't "capiche".The point was your ignoring of the scientific method not specifically the case of ufos.
     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,682
    He's talking about evidence for ufos. I don't care about the usual blather about the so-called scientific method. Nobody uses that to figure out what's real.
     
  14. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Really? I thought Kittamaru was talking about evidence and the scientific method.

    You know, the stuff that should be applied to all extraordinary claims such as ghosts, bigfoot, and flying saucers.
     
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    At the risk of getting my head bitten off may I suggest that Bells moderation was to point out that the thread has drifted off topic.
    The traffic has dropped for this site.
    Gentlemen is there anything we can do or should do is perhaps what should be the focus of discussion.
    Alex
     
  16. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Really? I would wager everyone who has any sort of education in the sciences and considers them any sort of scientist uses the scientific method... the only ones that don't are those who know that it will simply prove them wrong. Simply put - anyone interested in the truth uses it...

    Gentlemen, ladies, at this point I think it is safe to say - case closed.
     
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,682
    Tell us then how your belief in the Bible is supported by the scientific method.
     
  18. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Tell us then how your belief in ghosts, bigfoot, and flying saucers, is supported by the scientific method.
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Bingo!

    Has the traffic dropped for this site? Yes. It has and the reason I know it has is because over the better part of the last year or so, the staff had found ourselves in a situation where we were logging on to ban dozens of people an hour (my record was around 100+ pages of spam threads deleted and then moved in one sub-forum alone and I think it was over 60 spammers banned in one go and it took me about 2 hours to do and that was for just one sub-forum.. it took me several hours to clear the other equally spammed sub-forums, while trying to ban them as they were signing on at the same time). To wit, the numbers were so high at around this time last year, because we were getting in excess of a hundred new members a day, increasing site traffic and visitors, but these new members were spammers. Looking at other websites, who are seeing their number of visits shoot up, they also have severe spammer issues.

    And we lost a lot of members during that period, simply because it had become nearly impossible to post at any given moment. Someone would start a thread and within about 30 seconds, that thread would be on the 30th page of the sub-forum it was posted on, simply because spammers would flood that sub-forum. We also lost some staff members from burn out because it had become absolutely insane.

    Yes, we have lost actual members, but we have also gained new members. People come and go. We have all left for periods and then returned later. Real life, not being happy with the level of scientific discussion here at any given time, or dissatisfied with what people feel were the political leanings of those who post here (we have been accused of being leftist liberals by some and right wing fascists by others), to how we tolerate or do not tolerate people's personal beliefs, I could go on.. then returning and seeing how it is now going, rinse and repeat.

    Do people want to see a jump by 34% to go back to last year's rate of visitors and new members? Sure, just remove the spam protection on this site. It will go up then, but you just won't be able to post anything in the sea of spam that will infest this site. I mean, if we are looking at just the numbers, that is your solution.

    There is this expectation that we have to please everyone. We cannot. That would be an impossible task. What we can do is try and have an expectation for how people post, what they post and where and try and get people to be able to support their arguments. There are a variety of different subjects being discussed on this site, in the hope that there is something for everyone, and also in the hope of trying to keep the woo out of the science sub-forums and we also try to instill the need for supporting one's arguments throughout this forum. We are all individuals, with different opinions, beliefs, experiences, education, culture. We cannot please everyone. But we can expect that others post in good faith and be able to argue their points in good faith and be able to support their arguments or claims..
     
  20. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I have never claimed it to be; as I already stated numerous times, that is a key difference between us. My belief is my own personal beliefs, and I do not peddle them as anything more. You are trying to pass your beliefs off as facts. That requires a certain level of evidence you have thus far been unable to provide.

    You are attempting yet another red herring with this beleaguered attempt at an argument... it is so worn out as to be transparent to all who have heard it before. I can only assume you keep returning to it because you have no actual argument or basis.

    However, to entertain you... there is actually archeological evidence to support passages from the Bible (and other ancient texts).

    there is more on just this site - however, providing proper citations and copying the information over is a pain in the arse on my cell phone, so feel free to read at your leisure.

    http://www.equip.org/article/biblic...ence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/
     
  21. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,996
    How about... Sciforums adninistration copy the style of more successful science forums... an see if that helps to improve the success of Sciforums.!!!
     
  22. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    it is also worth noting that the scientific method cannot be applied to something such as the birth/existence of Jesus: much the same way that it is not demanded it be done regarding the birth or existence of Napoleon Bonaparte. History is not a science that lends itself well to repetition and experimentation, as a whole. It is why historical documents are so vital; they corroborate what archeological findings discover.

    Not to mention the lack of video recording at the time...
     
  23. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    So, less woo-woo? I can get behind that.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page