Should we re-organize the BAUT forum?

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by Sticks

I disagree about moving the Q&A thread to limit questions about space and astronomy

I disagree with your disagreement... Here's my reasoning:

I really don't feel that the way the OP is presented is really as important as the subject matter is presented.
Of course, OPs generally fall as either questions, or hey look at this. Once the OP is presented, the discussion follows fairly the same no matter how it was presented.

So; I would rather follow the subject matter than follow the tone.

As far as particle physics and astronomy, they are very entwined. But; I also think the context will be able to determine where it goes.
For instance: an LHC discussion might not be astronomy, but findings from the LHC compared to observational evidence could be.

Is there a finalized list of the changes? I looked at the previous thread for a concensus, but it's not that easy to find.

[Fazor]

Yes, the problem of subject versus relevance is always going to be present with science. I'd propsose we have Astro Q&A, Gen Sci Q&A, Math Q&A (for people like me that need help with a formula) etc... but even then, my "physics" questions (which are very basic) still always lead to discussions related to astronomy.

Which is part of the problem; many threads can fit multiple forum subsections; and which it should best fit is often a judgement call ultimately made when a mod moves a thread. I'm unconvinced that the majority of "wrong section" posts are caused by poor forum organization. Of course, it should be noted that there's many times that I don't agree with a mod's decision to move a particular post.

Also also note that this isn't including the posts intentionally made in the wrong sections (For instance, someone throwing an ATM post into a mainstream section on purpose). You're always going to have that, no matter how you arrange things.

[tdvance]

that is a good point---the "change it" votes are not necessarily for the same specific result--might be good to read the bill before making it law

MY taxes are 75%--I want change no matter what it is! ok, oops, now my taxes are 95%....

[Sticks]

If you ignore the large It's no big deal either way. column as they are "Don't care", those wanting things kept the way it is at the moment out numbers those wanting change.

[ExpErdMann]

I voted for "no way". I usually post in ATM and it seemed to me a disparagement of ATM to take it out of Space & Astronomy and put it with Conspiracy Theories. I don't see a particular need to subdivide ATM. As long as there is some general relevance to Space & Astronomy, it should be okay to post there. I understand that moderating has sometimes been burdensome in ATM, but that's partly because the BAUT members don't attack with the same relish they used to have. This has caused a few too many rules to appear in ATM, which sometimes have the effect of damping discussion. I say keep ATM where it is and let the fighting resume! (Does anyone remember JS Princeton?)

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by ExpErdMann

I voted for "no way". I usually post in ATM and it seemed to me a disparagement of ATM to take it out of Space & Astronomy and put it with Conspiracy Theories.

Actually, the latest complete proposal is sort of the other way around...

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Actually, the latest complete proposal is sort of the other way around...

For those who are permalink-challenged like me (for some reason mine goes about 30 posts later on this one)
Here's the link by thread entry instead of post number. Proposed Forum Changes

Anyway, sort of the other way, twisted one way or another. I think ExpErdMann might be more concerned that it is pulled farther away from mainstream. Otherwise the threads are the same and mean the same thing, only the names have changed to protect the innocent.

[ExpErdMann]

As the BAUT forum is currently constructed, ATM is included under Space & Astronomy. Under the proposed changes, it is placed in a separate category of its own, that includes Conspiracy Theories. It just makes ATM look less serious and will probably move it in that direction.

[Moose]

I see your concern, EEM, but I don't think ATM will suffer tangibly for it. ATM (and CT) are already polarized that way. I don't think having it in its own section will change anybody's mind at this point.

What having it in its own section may do is further reinforce the burden of proof that ATM proposers (like CT proposers) are going to be held to. Again, it won't affect people who are serious about it, but it may deter a few of the dabblers. Or it may not. I don't think we'll see anything significant either way.

[Fazor]

If they do move to their own section, can we call it "The Free-thinker's Corner", subtitled: "Know more than those mainstream sheep? Tell us all about it here!"

...just kidding, just kidding.

If sections are being left as is, but just grouped differently, I don't think we'll see much impact either way (unchanged vs changed). If the existing subsections are further broken down (e.g., different types of Q&A threads as discussed above) ... well, if that's what needs done, I think we all need to chip in and buy the Mod and Admin staff some very comfy chairs and as much hard liquor as needed. Have you seen the amount of posts in sections like OTB and Q&A? I surely wouldn't envy anyone who has to go sort through those!

[Disinfo Agent]

I don't think it's necessary to restrict Q&A to "Space and Astronomy" topics. The vast majority of posts in that forum already are about those topics. Only occasionally will a math question, say, pop up.

[jlhredshift]

What is the goal of the reorganization?

More viewership?

Easier use?

Change for change's sake?

Set the goal and I am sure we will do as much as we can to help plot the course.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by jlhredshift

What is the goal of the reorganization?

Several goals have been mentioned throughout this and the other thread.

Essentially:

1. Improve (tighten) the overall structure of the forum. Why? It simply looks better, more professional, less like someone's socks thrown around a living room.

2. Reduce the frequency where people post in the wrong sections. Currently, there's enough confusion where this happens often enough to keep the mods busy re-locating new posts to their appropriate sections. A reorg won't eliminate this issue, but it will reduce it.

That's pretty much it. Short and simple. And if you compare the proposed changes with the current board layout, they're largely the same - it's only a few minor tweaks. No splitting of or joining threads required.

Set the goal and I am sure we will do as much as we can to help plot the course.

While they were set about a month ago, with all the feedback they're been improved some, but are largely the same as they were then.

Climb on board.

[jlhredshift]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Several goals have been mentioned throughout this and the other thread.

Essentiall:

1. Improve (tighten) the overall structure of the forum. Why? It simply looks better, more professional, less like someone's socks thrown around a living room.

2. Reduce the frequency where people post in the wrong sections. Currently, there's enough confusion where this happens often enough to keep the mods busy re-locating new posts to their appropriate sections. A reorg won't eliminate this issue, but it will reduce it.

That's pretty much it. Short and simple. And if you compare the proposed changes with the current board layout, they're largely the same - it's only a few minor tweaks. No splitting of or joining threads required.



While they were set about a month ago, with all the feedback they're been improved some, but are largely the same as they were then.

Climb on board.

Ok. I equate the goal as "easier use". IMHO

[Cougar]

By far, to most people, it's no big deal either way. And roughly equal numbers for and against. I was in the middle group - no big deal. But then I thought, as a former taxonomist and information scientist, the forum structure can surely be improved. Therefore, it's probably worth doing.

[timb]

Reorganizations are an excellent way of giving an illusion of progress and activity, as every good manager knows. We have a new team of mods and a new admin, it's about time they stamped their mark on the place!

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

I don't think it's necessary to restrict Q&A to "Space and Astronomy" topics. The vast majority of posts in that forum already are about those topics. Only occasionally will a math question, say, pop up.

That's because the restriction is there now. It's just not as clearly stated. I've seen plenty of threads moved out of there.

Here's a discussion.

[cjl]

More symmetry now -

8
23
37
23
8

[Sticks]

If you move Q&A to A&S, a question about Quantum Mechanics would have to go in OTB?

[jlhredshift]

Originally Posted by Sticks

If you move Q&A to A&S, a question about Quantum Mechanics would have to go in OTB?

I always felt that it belonged in General Science.

But, I think that geology is planetary science. So...

[suntrack2]

Originally Posted by Whirlpool

It's probably worth doing .

I have dropped the same vote in the ballot box.

What I experience here the site is little bit slow in opening the pages, ofcourse it may related with the internet speed eighter.

secondly re-organisation of different topics and sub topics can be possible alphabetical if in that case I will type in little window "T" then I will get for all the topics starts with the letter T. and so on. But frankly speaking the current profile of the whole site is very nice, but we have to search that "what can we do more better to enhance it from the root levels.

I found the all participants here very clever,doing well interactions on the related topic.

Thanks Toseek for your great FB(feedback).

Sunil

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by Sticks

If you move Q&A to A&S, a question about Quantum Mechanics would have to go in OTB?

I would say no.
General science is a topic, Astronomy and space is a topic.
The only difference in asking a question in either place is that there is a specific place for questions in the latter.

Unless, of course the Quantum question is how it is relating to the universe in some way.

[steffanie]

Just to add my humble opinion...
I'm not a member too long but when i logged on first i remember finding the layout pretty overloading. Its seemed to spread out with too many forum topics. Not a bad thing but maybe they can be cut back to a few broader topics. But hey thats just my view
I recently completed a course on 'Lean Manufacturing' for the company i work for, Lean is all about eliminating waste from a process with the goal of adding value. One of the key objectives is continuous improvement and in Lean you strive for perfection, off course you will never reach perfection but the idea is you constantly look at things differently in order to improve so, naturally i have been indoctrinated to thinking you can always improve your process and in this case your forum, i feel it would be good to make a few changes and tidy things up, people will fear change naturally but if it doesn't work you can always change it back
Steff.

[mahesh]

Originally Posted by steffanie

Just to add my humble opinion...
..... but if it doesn't work you can always change it back
Steff.

!!

[The Supreme Canuck]

Changes to the forum, eh? Really, I've only seen three changes that have any hope of being useful at all.

Move the Q&A section into a different category to reduce confusion.
Change the name of the Space and Astronomy category since it includes the General Science section - minor, yes, but it irritates my notions of hierarchy.
Re-purpose SML for discussion of bad astronomy in the media, and move the other stuff into Babbling. Heck, don't even move threads, just change a rule, if it's easiest.

Now, none of this is really pressing in any way. The forum gets on fine as it is. So I'm going to have to go ahead and vote "meh." Do whatever makes the administration of the board easiest for you.

[Ara Pacis]

Is there a way that VB could be made customizable so that each person can make the layout fit their preference? Then, the "official" layout is only there for new people or people who haven't bothered to tweak it for themselves.

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by Ara Pacis

Is there a way that VB could be made customizable so that each person can make the layout fit their preference? Then, the "official" layout is only there for new people or people who haven't bothered to tweak it for themselves.

Even if it were, then we would still need a single set of categories.

And if you organize your own wording or intention, then you're going to get posts that were created under somebody elses wording or intention, then we'd be getting people crying "move this post" all over the place.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck

Re-purpose SML for discussion of bad astronomy in the media, and move the other stuff into Babbling. Heck, don't even move threads, just change a rule, if it's easiest.

Yeah, I may have mis-represented that category earlier. From the internet archive of Sept. 2008, post-merger, the categary is Small Medium at Large, and the description is "Movies, TV, radio, podcasts, books... space and astronomy in the media". The month before on the Bad Astronomy website, it was Bad TV! Bad Movies! No doughnut!, with a description of "See something in the media that just screams "Bad Astronomy"? Post about it. Maybe it'll find its way onto the main site." Not really even the same animal.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck

Re-purpose SML for discussion of bad astronomy in the media, and move the other stuff into Babbling. Heck, don't even move threads, just change a rule, if it's easiest.

SML seems to be fairly active which indicates it does fulfill a need, but it's problematic in that the current hierarchy requires that people split media discussions, which is a rather natural grouping, into media about space and astronomy (which ends up including sci-fi and fantasy) and other media which ends up in OTB.

I would actually suggest making a general off-topic media thread to accompany Babbling and F-n-G in Off-Topic, and re-purpose (and rename) SML to not include fantasy and science fiction but only be Bad Astronomy in Media.

Given the current discussions in SML I would expect most of the action would go to off-topic media.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Grapes: Two possibly beneficial changes, then.

So, have we officially changed the nature of that forum? Just talking about, say, Alien for the heck of it is allowed, not just tolerated? I'm probably still in the BABB mindset.

Edit:

Henrik, that's an option, too. It just seems easier to me to dump the off-topic media stuff into Babbling to prevent a proliferation of fora.