Most interesting topic on Sciforums...

[Seattle]

OK. But it isn't.

You're holding an orange, saying "This makes a lousy apple."



To be clear, it's not that I don't have a problem with the site, it's that - if I'm going to have a problem - I'm going to first look at myself, to see if I'm black, before calling the kettle.


I feel that I was adequately paraphrasing yours.


I would only be defensive if I thought you were addressing me.


How does that change anything about your critique here? You're still not liking what you've got here.

That sounds like an apples to oranges thing. It would only make sense to talk about apples if you could refer to a glut of apples out there.

1] This isn't a general discussion forum, so it's hardly fair to compare it to one, and declare it wanting.

2] Are there sites you go to where conversations are like being at the gym or work? Again, what are you comparing it to?

I guess you are going to stick with the premise that this is a science site and not a general discussion site but it's not.

How would you describe this site? A religion and woo site? OK, I guess I'll agree with that.

My point about posts from other sites where there are posts from those for whom English is a second language was that if those "foreigners" were posting in a manner that was readable, there's something going on here for that not to apply here. What is that reason?

As far as the pot calling the kettle black or "taking a look at myself"...what is your point? I'm being critical of the site? Yes, Is that allowed? Yes. Am I a nut job? No. Is my manner of writing readable and my grammar standardized grammar? Yes.

So, we are left with am I starting threads with amazing content on here? No. Have I tried a few times over the years? Yes. They were usually derailed (eventually as I recall) and closed? I think I am correct about that. I can't promise you that I'm being accurate here.

I don't see that anyone, you, me or anyone else has ever changed the general direction of this site or the quality of it's membership or content or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

These kinds of discussions come up from time to time. There is a vote among the nut jobs and there is no change (at all). People are pretty much told to leave if they don't like it and nothing ever changes.

It remains a very small fringe site for 12 people.

 

[DaveC426913]

I guess you are going to stick with the premise that this is a science site and not a general discussion site but it's not.

How would you describe this site? A religion and woo site? OK, I guess I'll agree with that.

I participate in the stuff I want to participate in. Mostly, that's science. Granted, the quality is not the same, but there's still good work to be done here.

Within the constraints imposed by the owners (above the moderators) (Notably, "we're not going to close any subfora"), what would you do?

I know the one thing I would do differently. I would enact a zero tolerance policy on ad homs and insults. That would be a l0t of work, but no effective change wouldn't be a lot of work.

 

[Seattle]

I participate in the stuff I want to participate in. Mostly, that's science. Granted, the quality is not the same, but there's still good work to be done here.

Within the constraints imposed by the owners (above the moderators) (Notably, "we're not going to close any subfora"), what would you do?

I know the one thing I would do differently. I would enact a zero tolerance policy on ad homs and insults. That would be a l0t of work, but no effective change wouldn't be a lot of work.

I wouldn't have a zero tolerance on Ad homs and insults. Not that I'm for those things. I just don't see a big problem with that here. The biggest problem is that no one is here.

I would try to make the place more interesting (not though added drama). I don't know how you do that with the current sub-forum categories. I think I would have tighter standards for the sub-forums.

It would take a lot moderating initially to show that change was in the air. Most of the posts in science, economy, etc. are in name only. It starts out with the work "economy" or whatever the keyword is and then goes off the rails into some bizarro version of whatever the topic is.

That's the problem. None of the people that were attracted to this site are interested (or knowledgeable) regarding the subject.

The only people who post regarding politics or the economy are anti-capitalists and socialists. The people who post in the sciences are interested in pseudo-science. Religion is the main sub-forum. It's not that theists just love to discuss religion with each other. It's about theists and atheists debating each other.

Many of the most frequent posts are hard to read. All energy must go into figuring out what their actual point is (frequently they don't know).

I think philosophy and religion (and woo) is what drives this site. The type of philosophy favored here is simply to ask "what do you mean by that?", "how do you define that?". What is the highest frequency?

What interests you most in the scientific discussion you've had here? Have you noticed that most threads in certain subjects just go on and on for hundreds of posts until they get closed?

Nothing is actually discussed. It's just "What is God?" "What do you mean by God", "What's not what I mean by God", What do you mean by "mean"?, I have a theory of Gravity but it's a "push" rather than "pull" theory. I don't think "light" is a thing. I think "dark" is real and "light" is only the absence of "dark". Perhaps you would like me to be more specific. I can use math. My theory of dark can be described by E= D-L which in my theory means energy = dark - light.

You get the point. It doesn't matter what subject you choose, soon it will turn into nonsense.

In politics or the economy it all comes down to everything was great until Reagan and it's terrible since then or capitalism will drive us all into the ground and anything other than capitalism is the answer (with no examples or details).

There is really no discussion that goes on here. It's just some crazy theory and then insults after that. The insults aren't terrible or any particularly offensive. It's just that there is no legitimate discussion going on...Team Red vs Team Blue, for example.

 

[James R]

Musika:

You also suggested that this was because the internet was making people dumber and reducing their capacity to engage in the "in depth" discussions sciforums offers. You suggested that platforms like facebook were responsible for facilitating "new" behaviours.

Er... no I didn't.

I suggested, as a broad generalisation, that people are less willing these days to invest time and effort into long-form, reflective communication of the kind typically found on discussion forums such as this one. I didn't say anything about the internet making people dumb or reducing their capacity. I mentioned that facebook and twitter are popular (duh!), and I observe that twitter in particular does not facilitate long-form, reflective communication.

I suggested that it has probably never been a good place for in depth discussion, inasmuch as ego jockeying around sociopolitical issues never lends itself to indepth unvestigation (but is certainly a brilliant field for shooting the breeze).

You're welcome to your opinion.

It seems strange that after so many years you cannot recognize your clientelle, which is immediately obvious to anyone who walks through the door.

What makes you think I can't recognise our "clientelle"?

IOW I don't think it has ever been a case of losing members to indepth platforms, but rather a case of losing members at the other end of the spectrum.

You think we're losing members who don't like having in-depth conversations to Facebook and the like? You could well be correct. But that's more or less what I said, originally.

Facebook et al hasn't made people too dumb to join. Those sites simply do it better.

What's "it"? What are you talking about?

I did mention them and discuss the issue of focus in an earlier response to dave .... but only to the end of suggesting that sciforums is not a contender.

You mentioned quora, cycling forums and facebook. I agree that sciforums doesn't compete very well in the field of discussions of cycling. But then, that was never something we set out to do.

I think you need to take a good hard look at what you mean by the term "in depth".

Those were your words, not mine. I thought the meaning is fairly obvious from the words, but given what you wrote below I'm not so sure now. Maybe you need to tell me what you want in terms of "in depth" discussion, and where you go to get that.

Take a look at what form and subject the most popular threads here take. As a side point, funnily enough, its not unusual for them to end in thread closure or at least have strong airs of dealing infractions or banning.

I'm not sure which threads you're referring to when you say "popular". Popular with whom? A thread with hundreds of posts in it may have only two main contributors, with other people popping in and out. A thread might have 20 posts in it yet be read by hundreds of people who do not post in it. A thread might turn into an argument among two or three posters, which gets out of hand and is eventually closed. A thread might have lots of members contributing.

How are you judging popularity?

Only a small minority of threads here are ever closed. Most of them remain open and die a natural death as posters move on to new ones. As for infractions, it is true that sometimes a single thread can result in a string of infractions. That tends to happen when an argument gets out of hand in one way or another.

As I pointed out earlier, bans results from accumulated warnings. That is, they tend to be accrued by repeat offenders. They are applied automatically, based on warnings. If a member regularly engages in personal attacks or posts inappropriate content, that member will tend to accumulate warnings and bans.

It's not too hard to join the dots here ....

Not hard. But there are lots of ways to join dots.

The question is whether they would publicly wager their credentials in such an environment? Or would they see such appearances as detrimental to their professional pursuits?

Compare a site like quora, that has a policy of banning people who post under false id's.

Your complaint is that sciforums allows members to post (semi-)anonymously?

I agree with your point that some people might be less likely to act up if they were not anonymous here. Do you think we should impose a real-names-only requirement?

I am just pointing out the obvious.: If you run out whatever form of success this site has, and the prospect of upping the ante to "in depth" discussions has never been on the cards, what sort of result are you expecting?

What form of success does this site have in your opinion (if any)?
It seems like you think sciforums has no prospect of "upping the ante" to suit your personal tastes (we lack a cycling subforum and probably won't create one in the near future). What do you come here for? Why aren't you off having your "in depth" discussions over on quora or wherever?

The problem with sending mixed messages is that most people interpret them as a "no".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[James R]

Seattle:

Given what you've written, I'm interested to learn more about your perceptions of your own experience on sciforums.

Sure, it's possible to start a reasonable thread every now and then but it's not likely to end as a reasonable thread. Actually, it's more likely to derail and then be closed.

Very few threads here are ever closed (see my post above). As for derailment, that's a matter of the self-discipline of the membership, isn't it? That is, unless we want to enforce the "off topic" policy more strictly, which would take a lot more moderator time and effort, at least initially. It could be done, of course. Do you think such a thing would result in more posters being attracted to sciforums?

Go to "New Posts" and read the titles. How many "reasonable" threads do you see?

What makes a "reasonable thread", in your opinion?

How many nonsense threads do you see?

What's a nonsense thread?

Consider someone who was looking for a general discussion forum (something this site appears to be from a distance). They try to stick around for a while to contribute/interact and what happens?

First, they hit the "New Posts" tab and what they see is ridiculous.

Ridiculous in what way?

Next they manage to find a more sensible topic and they contribute by posting a response every now and then. How will that go?

What's your own experience? How does it go for you?

The most prolific posters seemingly aren't proficient in English or grammar.

Really?

How are you judging "most prolific"? Is a prolific poster one who posts many posts, even if they are mostly one-liners? Or does the average length of a member's posts make a difference? Are you counting total words, total posts, total threads posted in, posts per day, words per day, or what?

How do you think that sciforums should go about improving the English and grammar of its members? Should we introduce a test, or a policy of banning people for bad grammar, perhaps?

That's cool if this is a vast site with contributions from people all over the world. You would expect most of those for whom English is a second language to be intelligent, well-adjusted people who just have issues with English from time to time.

That's rarely the case. It's usually nutcases who can't think, write or discuss in any standardized way.

I see. So it's not the bad grammar or English that's the main problem. Rather, you see those things as a symptom of being a "nutcase".

Is the real problem, as you see it, too many nutcases? If we banned the nutcases, do you think that would attract more members to sciforums?

If you were a moderator, how would you go about identifying and weeding out the "nutcases" from the intelligent, well-adjusted people?

Here every other person invents their own language and rules of grammar.

Mostly I find that people are understandable here. That is, their posts mostly make grammatical sense, with some errors. But when I read most of my own posts through several times, I usually pick up errors - typos, the occasional misspelling, less-than-elegant grammar or expression. So, not being perfect, I try not to judge others too harshly, especially since they might not have had the benefit of as good a formal education as I've been fortunate to have had.

Everyone has their own theory of gravity.

Our Fringe subforums, including Alternative Theories, are there by choice. A few years back, our members voted to expand what was then a single "pseudoscience" forum into a number of sub-categories. At the time, I put forward the suggestion that there should be certain requirements for posting in the Alternative Theories subforum, but our membership was not particularly interested in that. The result is that, pretty much, any crazy idea can get dumped into Alternative Theories. There's essentially no sorting of what might become a viable theory from fantastical notions based on a misunderstanding or non-understanding of the relevant topic.

What would be your preferred approach to dealing with people posting private theories of gravity? Ban them outright? Kill the Fringe forums and go back to a single Pseudoscience subforum as a dumping ground? Introduce a hard-line policy allowing moderators to pre-emptively strike out anything perceived as pseudoscientific? Turn sciforums into Physicsforums #2? (Not that there's anything wrong with what physicsforums does.)

No one can spell or use paragraphs.

You're exaggerating just a bit, aren't you?

Those who should be trying to express themselves with simple English instead try to invent the longest words that they can and accuse anyone who doesn't understand them as being deficient.

I think you might be thinking of somebody in particular, there.

Just having a Pseudo-science section encourages the nutjobs.

When you say "nutjobs", do you think the people concerned actually have a mental illness? Or do you think they are malicious? Or maybe a mixture of both?

Do you think the best thing to do would be just to sweep these people out the door and forget about them? Do you think any of them deserve any sympathy, or any attempt to help them to be less "nutty"? Do you think that task ought to be somebody else's problem?

We have a moderator who footnotes his posts and answers with a page where a paragraph would do and with language meant to convey "hey look how deep I am" when, in actuality it does just the opposite.

Why do you find this problematic? How does it affect your own experience on sciforums? What do you think we should do about it?

In any type of writing whether it's prose, fiction, technical writing, legal writing, the rule is always (usually) to convey thoughts as simply and concisely as possible and not to write in a tortured manner in an attempt to put ones vocabulary on display.

Any type of writing? Or just the type of writing you prefer to read?

Do you think we should have some editors to vet each post for clarify, appropriate grammar, use of simple language etc.? Or maybe we could just ban anybody who is deemed though some process to be insufficiently clear, concise etc.?

There is just very little "normal" about this site and it shows with the low and declining membership numbers.

Can you please list a few "normal" sites - preferably discussion forums with a similar format to this one, so I can compare?

If a sports team were doing this poorly, the manager would have been fired long ago.

Most of your complaints in this post have been about what you regard as the low standard of member postings here. It seems you think that moderators are responsible for this, somehow.

Again, I must ask: if you were a moderator/admin here, what would you do to remedy the problems you have identified?

Instead, I'm sure there will be a new thread about "What does Jesus look like?" or "Is there more gravity inside or outside?" in the coming days. That doesn't exactly draw membership like a moth to a flame.

Actually, I think that both of those questions, on the face of them, are interesting ones that would attract me to dip in and browse the threads. My first thought on the Jesus one is the European tradition of depicting Jesus as a "white" man, as opposed to the high probability that he was "black". As to the gravity one, that sounds like it might be a discussion about a scientific concept. Being a forum called "sciforums", that has its Science topics at the top of the topic list, it seems to me that the very kinds of members we'd like to attract would be the ones interested in reading a thread about gravity.

It has nothing to do with Facebook or the "dumbing down" of America.

The "dumbing down" is being encouraged right here and by design.

So, if I was to summarise your point, would it be that we allow too many of the riff raff in here, and we should be more elitist? If we had everybody take a grammar test before being allowed to post, that would go a long way towards solving the problem, maybe. We should also set up a screening committee to make sure that no pseudoscience slips through the net and onto the forums.

Maybe we could require members who want to sign up to send us copies of their academic transcripts and/or degree certificates.

---
P.S. Reading this post back, it sounds a bit like I'm not taking your complaints seriously, or even that I'm trying to make them look silly. There's maybe too much taking things to their logical conclusions in what I wrote, and for that I apologise in advance. However, I really am interested in what you are saying. The questions I have asked are not intended to be rhetorical ones.

 

[Seattle]

Seattle:

Given what you've written, I'm interested to learn more about your perceptions of your own experience on sciforums.


...
---
P.S. Reading this post back, it sounds a bit like I'm not taking your complaints seriously, or even that I'm trying to make them look silly. There's maybe too much taking things to their logical conclusions in what I wrote, and for that I apologise in advance. However, I really am interested in what you are saying. The questions I have asked are not intended to be rhetorical ones.

I was going to give a rather flippant response until I read your last paragraph. It may still contain some flippancy but I'll at least try to do better. I'll also try to make it compact so I won't go line for line in my response.

Seen in the best light, I still say this is a general discussion forum. Seen in a more accurate light it's a religion and woo site IMO. It would attract more people if the focus was on being a general discussion forum (meaning you can talk about a little of everything). This is more or less how the sub-forums are laid out anyway (except for the woo).

Yes, I think there should be more moderation initially which is necessary only to correct for the current limited group of members you have attracted (woo and nut jobs). Do I think nut jobs are malicious? No. Do I think they are mentally ill? Who knows? Mental illness is a long spectrum so yes, there is probably some of that going on.

What would I do? Eliminate the woo sub-forums and through moderation try to keep it out of all sub-forums. This isn't an issue that really comes up on most any other forum. If you are a member of any other forums that has to do with your hobbies or interests, how many times does woo come up? It doesn't.

It's taken over here only because it's been enabled.

Of course I don't suggest an education test or a written test to be a member. People who can't communicate in English generally don't post on other English language sites just as I don't try to post on Russian sites.

There is just something about the enabling that goes on with this site that seems to attract all of those traits that I have been talking about and all in one person.... nut jobs who also can't communicate.

How is it that they are everywhere here and don't exist at all on most other sites. I haven't been to whatever physics site you are talking about but I can picture it as I have been on similar astronomy sites in the past. There were no nut jobs, everyone could communicate, even if someone's first language wasn't English they still managed to be understood because they didn't try to communicate beyond their ability and because they weren't nutty in the first place.

I have no problem with "diversity". I have no problem with the occasional person who is a little out in right or left field. On most subjects here, no one is in center field.

Regarding the person being attracted to this site, even those who were born in an English speaking country and who know no other language, many are still outliers. People who are inventing their own grammar. I don't really care about the random person like this on a site but I have to wonder when reading a post like that isn't a random occurrence at all.

It's not awe inspiring to see one person lecturing another on some far out theory and the one lecturing also can't spell, manage anything but their own made up grammar and yet they have a forum here to be taken seriously? Why?

Sometimes the reason given is that "we" are trying to educate or change minds. How is that working? This site hasn't changed one bit over the years that I've been a member.

Of course a common retort is "well you're here, there must be some reason". Of course there must be some reason. Is there a point to be made here? No, not really.

I'm not a fan of a circus freak show but if I was at a circus and I walked past the freak show tent from time to time I'd probably glance in. I could still argue that society would probably be better without the freak show. Me glancing in wouldn't be a great justification for the freak show in the first place.

More than anything else, regarding this site, it just isn't working. There is no traffic. The subject matter becomes boring. The threads are unending with the same results/conclusions.

How many religious threads over the years have been indistinguishable from each other. There is nothing really being discussed..."define this no define that". "God isn't real no you just don't know my God".

Most topics under the science sub-forums aren't really about accepted mainstream science either. Most should be under the woo sections but because they aren't as outrageous as what is in the woo sections they don't go there.

It's similar to the situation with Trump. One day under Trump would have caused any other President to be considered for impeachment or just considered as totally unacceptable behavior by society in general. Now we've just become numb and we accept most of it.

"We've" accepted that this forum is about religion and woo and most any topic is acceptable even if it has killed the site just like the Jerry Springer show could be said to have killed daytime TV (OK daytime TV was always bad but you get the point). I'm talking about arguing for the lowest common denominator.

I was going to try to keep my response short but I haven't been successful.

No one was ever arguing for or implying that scientific experts should be invited in to speak. When I read conclusions like that, it makes me suspect the sincerely of your arguments and makes me think you are either just arguing to be arguing or are just defending the policies here out of a sense of loyalty rather than because of any actual belief in the validity of those policies.

I have one constructive comment but it probably can't be done with the software (I don't know). It would be nice if you could hit "new posts" and check those you aren't interested in so that they don't continue to come up.

If I could easily opt out of certain sub-forums and/or posts from a few specific people so that when I hit "new posts" only threads that I'm interested in would come up that would be an improvement.

I don't want to opt into threads to receive email notification but just being able to personalize new posts would be nice.

 

[DaveC426913]

Seen in the best light, I still say this is a general discussion forum. Seen in a more accurate light it's a religion and woo site IMO. It would attract more people if the focus was on being a general discussion forum (meaning you can talk about a little of everything). This is more or less how the sub-forums are laid out anyway (except for the woo).

My local mom & pop shop sells more phone accessories than anything else.
Should they take down their 'groceries, milk, eggs' sign and hang out a 'phone accessories sign'?
They're a mom & pop grocery at-heart. Always will be. Never will be a phone kiosk.

If you discovered that the girls in your town like Ska music, would you go out and buy all the Ska you could, since that's what you perceive as being in-demand?

Should an entity should change its identity/vision/mission based on what will get it the most attention?

I have one constructive comment but it probably can't be done with the software (I don't know). It would be nice if you could hit "new posts" and check those you aren't interested in so that they don't continue to come up.

Well, it wouldn't be New Posts then, would it?

If I could easily opt out of certain sub-forums and/or posts from a few specific people so that when I hit "new posts" only threads that I'm interested in would come up that would be an improvement.

How you do that is to go directly to the subfora you wish to follow; it will list latest posts first. To opt out of posts from certain people, you use the 'ignore' feature.

i..e you can have the functionality you seek, it just won't be by repurposing existing functionality, or by tailoring the site to a minority of users.

Sometimes the reason given is that "we" are trying to educate or change minds. How is that working? This site hasn't changed one bit over the years that I've been a member.

Is that a meaningful test though?

Returning to the Sweathogs analogy:
The Sweathogs graduated and moved on to become Nobel prize-winners. Meanwhile the school has a new crop of Sweathogs.
From where you and I stand - in the school - nothing seems to have changed. But we've still done good work.

 

[Musika]

Musika:


Er... no I didn't.

I suggested, as a broad generalisation, that people are less willing these days to invest time and effort into long-form, reflective communication of the kind typically found on discussion forums such as this one. I didn't say anything about the internet making people dumb or reducing their capacity. I mentioned that facebook and twitter are popular (duh!), and I observe that twitter in particular does not facilitate long-form, reflective communication.

I think you're mistaken to think sci is a more "reflective" medium than facebook et al.

What makes you think I can't recognise our "clientelle"?

Because you treat that the primary contributors as intruders to a "reflective" platform that seems to exist only in your imagination.
If a thread is popular here, there is a strong liklihood it will end in being closed and/or receiving or threatening to receive bannings.
Love it or loathe it, that's where this site's traffic lies.
Of course you can talk about improving the quality of discussions or implementing change, yada yada .... but in 17 years, that doesn't appear to have happened.

You think we're losing members who don't like having in-depth conversations to Facebook and the like? You could well be correct. But that's more or less what I said, originally.

I think you introduce the whole "in-depth" thing to create a divide that does not exist.
As things stand, this is basically like a personal facebook page of a handful of mods.

What's "it"? What are you talking about?

Facillitate discussion, of course.

You mentioned quora, cycling forums and facebook. I agree that sciforums doesn't compete very well in the field of discussions of cycling. But then, that was never something we set out to do.

I mentioned them as examples of focus -- a stark contrast to wading through the ego jockeying of sociopolitical subjects (at the hands of mods who are possessed of sensivitive sociopolitical views themselves).
IOW the "focus" here is certainly not science. It is sociopolitical .... which, in itself, is not a subject you can tie down easily, like cycling (or science ...).
So then there are platforms like quora that are quite broad, but there is an absence of ego jockeying (on the whole ... or at least it is comparatively less flagrant).
So to to be specific, the focus here is sociopolitical ego jockeying.
Once again, love it or loathe, that's what is.
If you view that the best way to manage your clients is to have them moderated according to the sociopolitical views of the mods (with perhaps just a punch, er, pinch, of ego jockeying thrown in) .... well, this is the result. Small membership and a site that will perish.

Tl:dr . Basically you can introduce focus, like science (or even cycling, if you want to make a site that is competive in that field) and turf out all the sociopolitical stuff.

Or.

You can work with what you have (better the devil you know?) and capitalize on the sociopolitical contributions, but tone down the club swinging moderation so that membership can actually grow.

There may be other alternatives, but if you just continue doing things the way do them, this place will just become a site for lost spambots.

Those were your words, not mine. I thought the meaning is fairly obvious from the words, but given what you wrote below I'm not so sure now. Maybe you need to tell me what you want in terms of "in depth" discussion, and where you go to get that.

I already mentioned quora.

I'm not sure which threads you're referring to when you say "popular".

One's that have traffic

Popular with whom? A thread with hundreds of posts in it may have only two main contributors, with other people popping in and out.

If you only have about a dozen regular members, by what other form would it be possible to recognize a popular thread?
I get it that you may not personally like certain threads, topics and even posters ... which then leads back to the q of what is the focus here? Cycling? Science? Sociopolitical topics? The sociopolitical views of the mods?

A thread might have 20 posts in it yet be read by hundreds of people who do not post in it. A thread might turn into an argument among two or three posters, which gets out of hand and is eventually closed. A thread might have lots of members contributing.

The genetal tendency is for people to contribute to threads they read. At the very least, you are dependant on members to provide content, so that might be a good place to start.

How are you judging popularity?

In the standard manner.
By content being produced and discussed.
You will find that they feed off each other. If there is not much being produced, not much will be discussed, and vice versa.

Only a small minority of threads here are ever closed. Most of them remain open and die a natural death as posters move on to new ones. As for infractions, it is true that sometimes a single thread can result in a string of infractions. That tends to happen when an argument gets out of hand in one way or another.

I was talking specifically about threads that generate a lot of discussion. If a thread here is lively, there is a good chance a mod will inevitably close it down.
No doubt, you will say (and perhaps even rightly, on some occassion), that this is because it is the type of material we don't want.
Which then begs the question of what do you really want?
Cycling?
Science?
Sociopolitical banter?
Sociopolitical banter that I, as a mod, personally appreciate?

As I pointed out earlier, bans results from accumulated warnings. That is, they tend to be accrued by repeat offenders. They are applied automatically, based on warnings. If a member regularly engages in personal attacks or posts inappropriate content, that member will tend to accumulate warnings and bans.

As many people have pointed out, there is not a universal application of these guidelines and mods frequently take liberties with them for the sake of gaining leverage in a discussion.
The result is something like a personal facebook page or blog of a mod .... which gives you the current membership.

If you want to talk about the issue of diminishing membership, that is the elephant in the room (and not this narrative you subscribe to about the times-are-a-changin).

Not hard. But there are lots of ways to join dots.

All of which fall into two categories : the right way and the wrong way.

Your complaint is that sciforums allows members to post (semi-)anonymously?

Um.
No.
It wasn't even a complaint.
It was an observation on what other platforms incorporate as part of "in depth" discussion.
It was also in support of what I was explaining about how this is certainly not the place people see as being supportive of their professional lives ...which I thought would have been a very straightforward point. I think its even written in to the forum guidelines ... something about prohibiting discussing posters IRL identity.

I agree with your point that some people might be less likely to act up if they were not anonymous here. Do you think we should impose a real-names-only requirement?

I was actually presenting it as an indication on how high the bar is on "in depth" online discussions.
As things stand, for all intents and purposes, if you are prepared to bring that measure in here, you might as well take a serious look at reining in all the sociopolitical stuff and just focus on cycling.

What form of success does this site have in your opinion (if any)?

No need to ask me.
Just look at the content members provide and discuss, while you no doubt distastefully look at with a furrowed brow, hand hovering over the big red moderation button.
The question is not what form of success this site has, but why you are against it.
If you want something "better", fine. Do something about it. Cycling. Science. Whatever.
If you do nothing, the result will be predictable.

It seems like you think sciforums has no prospect of "upping the ante" to suit your personal tastes (we lack a cycling subforum and probably won't create one in the near future).

The irony here is that the current model of sciforums floundering membership arises from the site's moderation's personal tastes.
Love it or loathe it, this place is about the sociopolitical.
From that point, you have to make an executive decision whether you want to capitalize on what it already provides, or change what the forum is already providing (or alternatively, sit at helm while it dies a natural death ...).
To borrow a cycling metaphor, its like you purchased a full suspension mtb to commute to work on via the highway. You've got the wrong vehicle for your intentions, or the wrong intentions for your vehicle.

What do you come here for? Why aren't you off having your "in depth" discussions over on quora or wherever?

Funny that you should say that ... the only reason I am back is to discuss why I am not much at sciforums these days ..

 

[Seattle]

Reading Musika's post above (good post by the way) reminds me of a few points that I'll make here.

The fact that this site is so small after this many years is proof that the issues that are being brought up in this thread are valid. If you were to start a site today (any site) and lightly moderate it (only to ban those whose intent was to insult and to get banned), it would grow fairly rapidly over time. This site hasn't done that.

Someone started a group on Facebook about a specific (but popular) guitar amp that came out two years ago. It now has 8.000 members and it has more daily discussions than this whole site has.


That site has been around for a long time but it is heavily moderated and is quite authoritarian. It attracts authoritarian or change adverse members. Anyone who does things differently or who thinks differently is harassed and ultimately banned.

There is another site that started much later (same subject) that is 10 times (or more) bigger. It is lightly moderated however everyone is polite, no one cares if people have different opinions and the daily volume on that site is much, much higher than on the first site.

If people continue to come back it is because of the "community". They may come back to help others speed it the learning curve or maybe the site has an "open" sub-forum where they can chat about anything else. They already know the people, like them and so they might discuss politics, a popular sports team, another hobby, whatever.

As I said, in those particular cases the subject matter is obscure but the second site has much, much more volume than Sciforums. The reason that it is doing well is the reason that Sciforums is not doing well.

If you have a pleasant place to visit, interesting, lightly moderated where people can kid each other and that could be seen as an "insult" on a highly moderated site but on that site moderation would just be if someone was really out of control rather than someone who offended a moderators sensibilities.

Looking at this issue yet another way... I have an M.B.A. It doesn't tell you much about me as business isn't my life but it is one of many interests.

If I see a business that is well run, I can appreciate it. If I see one that doesn't seem to have a chance of surviving, I notice it. I don't really care if it fails. It deserves to fail on some level but if the business is in some area that I'm especially interested in, I may think, "that's too bad, this market is good for this kind of business but this one is going to fail just because they don't seem to have a clue".

That's kind of what I think about this site. Who hasn't (in past years) gone into Radio Shack for some small part (or for whatever reason you find yourself in there) and you think "How is this place stay in business"? It's almost like they are trying to fail. They carry the weirdest assortment of products that no one commonly needs, they drive you crazy trying to get your home phone number even though you are just buying a $2 battery and the unusual parts that you used to go in there for are now usually out of stock but they want to sell you a smart phone. Who goes to Radio Shack for a smartphone? If it's not that, it a set-top antenna for your TV?

It used to be computers.

There was a mall near me that eventually went out of business. Before it totally went out of business it was reduced to having odd stores like a Russian shop that sold samovars and items like that. They literally had no customers (of course).

If you were to go in there and tell them that they were going to go out of business because it was just a bad business they would have disagreed and they would probably draw some of the same conclusions that James draws here.

The problem here isn't Facebook, the dumbing down of potential members, there isn't really a lot of members who keep coming back but just don't post, no one is suggesting that we need guest expert speakers and yes, the samovars aren't going to sell.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think what makes me sad is that, until this thread, I was blissfully mindless of the fact that I've only been interacting with, at most, about two dozen members. I thought that constantly interacting with people I know indicated that this was an active, thriving community, not some desert island on which there are only a few dozen denizens.

You have cut me deeper with this than the decades of arguments, condescensions and insults put together. :notices there's no crying emoticon:

 

[Seattle]

I think what makes me sad is that, until this thread, I was blissfully mindless of the fact that I've only been interacting with, at most, about two dozen members. I thought that constantly interacting with people I know indicated that this was an active, thriving community, not some desert island on which there are only a few dozen denizens.

You have cut me deeper with this than the decades of arguments, condescensions and insults put together. :notices there's no crying emoticon:

When you are sad, it's probably healthy to have a good cry, especially if you have been mindless. After you get past the shame and drama, you may emerge like a phoenix from the ashes.

 

[DaveC426913]

Actually, it's not a bad thing really.

I like to d̶i̶s̶c̶u̶s̶s̶ argue. In most civil places, people will give up once you start nitpicking at the rough edges. This place has winnowed out the people who don't like to argue, and we are left with a group of people who have no compunctions about pulling on loose threads of what otherwise appears to be an overwhelming case.

Ever watch Columbo? Just when it looks like every avenue to finding the killer has been shut down, he can't quite let go. He pulls on that last thread, and the whole thing comes unravelled. And he always catches the killer.

JamesR gets that. You can tell by the length - and depth - of his posts, even after a week or two delay. Many others get it too (even when they on the opposite side of an issue from me).

 

[Seattle]

Actually, it's not a bad thing really.

I like to d̶i̶s̶c̶u̶s̶s̶ argue. In most civil places, people will give up once you start nitpicking at the rough edges. This place has winnowed out the people who don't like to argue, and we are left with a group of people who have no compunctions about pulling on loose threads of what otherwise appears to be an overwhelming case.

Ever watch Columbo? Just when it looks like every avenue to finding the killer has been shut down, he can't quite let go. He pulls on tat last thread, and the whole thing comes unravelled. And he alwaus catches the killer.

JamesR gets that. You can tell by the length - and depth - of his posts, even after a week or two delay. Many others get it too (even when they on the opposite side of an issue from me).

I know Perry Mason and you're no Perry Mason.