0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I see this forum as one promoting a discussion of science and technology, and their impacts on society. So your concerns about nuclear weapons are certainly within scope.
Creating 7 threads to discuss basically the same topic seems a bit excessive.
Summarized, what if we took this forum seriously, and didn't just view it as a fun little play thing not really that suited to serious discussion by serious people?
It has come to my attention that certain mad dog typoholic blowhards on the forum are clogging many of the threads with an endless series of similar somewhat hysterical posts.
Quote from: TannyI have another solution - how about we merge some of these multiplying threads into fewer threads?That's your call, I'm agreeable to whatever you want to do. The threads that interest me most seem to have reached the limit of what they can accomplish here, so I'm not attached to what happens to them next. I know the following is very unlikely to work, because I've already suggested it on literally a hundred other forums where it was enthusiastically rejected. But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, here goes, yet again.On this forum, any forum whose goal is to be intelligent, some method must be found for raising the signal to noise ratio or the posters you'd most like to attract aren't going to engage. The posters you'd most like to keep will wander off one by one, to be replaced by less interesting writers, a destructive process which tends to accelerate over time.One method for raising the signal to noise ratio would be to create at least one section of the forum where posts are reviewed by the mods BEFORE they are published, instead of after. Only those posts that meet some criteria set by the mods would be published. Those posts that fail to meet the standard would be politely declined. Everybody is allowed to submit, only the best posts are published.So for example, if the CSER scientists and others of that level were to visit, there would be at least one section of the forum where their time would not be wasted scrolling through Facebook quality gotcha blurbs and other high school level content. Thus, they might hang around, and enhance the forum for all readers.The quality section(s) of the forum should be given prominence and some name which elevates it's status above the rest of the forum sections. The quality section provides a concrete example to all members of what kind of content the forum owner would most like to see shared here. The "Premium Section" would give all members something to shoot for, encouragement to raise their game, do their best work, and receive the spotlight and reputation they deserve for doing so.I call this the "magazine model". Almost all forms of media other than social media use this content management model, editors deciding what gets published and what does not. The magazine model can be contrasted to the "water cooler" model used on almost all forums, where pretty much anybody is allowed to publish pretty much anything, a guaranteed formula for a race down the quality ladder towards the lowest common denominator. That's the problem with forums, it's why they've been largely abandoned by the writers you'd most like to talk with. It's not the particular people on any particular forum, it's a failed content management strategy stubbornly used by pretty much every forum on the Net. Proof, a great many forums have been largely abandoned by their owners. Sound familiar?I've been using forums daily since before some of you were born. I'm a retired forum software developer. I know what I'm talking about on this particular subject. And because I do, I know that this proposal is most likely to be ignored, or more likely, enthusiastically rejected. That's ok, it's your forum to do with as you wish, I totally agree with that.You want to have a quality forum. And you could achieve that. The obstacle standing in your way is the same obstacle all forums face, a content publishing model dedicated to the mass production of mediocrity.
I have another solution - how about we merge some of these multiplying threads into fewer threads?
Only those posts that meet some criteria set by the mods would be published. Those posts that fail to meet the standard would be politely declined.
What I'm suggesting for an intellectual forum is an intelligent blend of, 1) the democratic and inclusive publishing model used on forums and across social media with (water cooler model), and 2) the editor selected model used in almost all other forms of media (magazine model).
It's equally inappropriate to never provide the edited discussion service to readers.
You don't seem to have noticed that this forum is attached to the Naked Scientists podcast, which does provide edited content, solicited from experts, with occasional input from the public on "Question of the Week" and Q&A episodes.
In fact, the podcast had an episode on the range of existential risks only a month or two before you raised your concern that everyone was ignoring one existential risk.
It's equally inappropriate to expect volunteer editors to review a flood of submissions on some finite timescale.
Especially when the contributors and editors are scattered around different timezones, with competing interests like paid work, family time and sleep.
If you don't want to see nonsense posts, then just don't look at the New Theories forum. It's a circus in there.