Why is sciforums traffic so low now?

[krash661]

krash, you of all members shouldn't be giving others a hard time about being coy. Your signature one liner is a terribly coy form of interaction.
Why don't you participate more constructively?

We need more constructive participation to keep the forum alive.

my god-- this comment from you is completely pathetic. my advise--increase your intelligence. it was not even about being coy--it was simply about him quote mining me to say i was speaking of the actual knowledgeable ones while this guy attempted a manipulation attempt to imply i was speaking with him and not against him.

Why don't you participate more constructively?

it appears that you simply cannot grasp my statement of:
"everyone whom is whining, clearly does not have a clue of both sides of this issue and are simply masking the reality of these so-called learners. we all know the actual reality--which is simply, an abundance of ignoramuses with no education, with no experience and for-sure with no background, except of a belief of their own extraordinary intellect, which in reality is nothing more than pathetic, low-level minded, nonsense.
then with all this above--comes in to these places and then insults scientist and science in general--attempting to re-establish, established science, simply because they believe they are some sort of science genius or simply they are pretending wannabes. this is the actual reality of these places.. i have said this here before-- these places are simply cesspools for the mentality disabled and the want-to-bes to play at, nothing more. then there are the ones whom believe they are intellects and simply just come here to receive their arguing fix, as they use any topic here to do so. just about five years ago, these places were different, nowadays, the pathetic-s run these sites. understanding what and whom are being insulted would help. "

in essence, i used to do what others do now, like rpenner and such. i used to be on multiple science sites. i do have posting histories on them all. but over years i became disgusted by the exact shiit from my statement. it is easier to insult with the reality than to sit here and correct narcissistic ignoramus. i cannot stand writing or typing. so hence it is easier just to skip these charades and simply show the reality.

 

[krash661]

krash, you of all members shouldn't be giving others a hard time about being coy. Your signature one liner is a terribly coy form of interaction..

(shakes head)--please clarify what exactly is coy about:
" While I am standing still, I prefer the stillness here. I am tired of earth, these people, I'm tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives "

 

[C C]

If 2011 was part of the era when this place supposedly had more traffic, then I recollect more blatant incivility transpiring back then, with what seemed far slower mod response to it. Having occasionally looked farther back at SciForum's archived past, that intense degree of insolent exchanges between "cranks" and "mainstream" still appears dominant (though this was just deriving a judgement from a sampling of random, scattered posts from that first decade). I'm a little bit surprised at the members who were perma-banned that seemed to have racked up thousands of posts before that happened. Which seems another indication of a former, bygone tolerance of stunts and abusive chatter between foes.

I gather that a purging of a lot of "been hanging around for years" members like Light Gigantic (or whoever) finally took place a couple of years or so ago, via both permanent bans and others just disappearing for good due to such losses of either their "friends" or ironically valued enemies / "rival discussion buddies". Which adds to the perception that the severity of incivility and violations might have actually been curbed or diminished since 2011 or thereabouts after. Thus the remarkable aspect of all this oppositely contrasting tumult that's been transpiring down here during that time over the SciForums either "being no fun anymore" or "there still being too much fun".

 

[DaveC426913]

(shakes head)--please clarify what exactly is coy about:
" While I am standing still, I prefer the stillness here. I am tired of earth, these people, I'm tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives "

Not your signature, your signature one-liner (trademark, go-to, etc.):

"LOL. Comical. carry on."

 

[krash661]

Not your signature, your signature one-liner (trademark, go-to, etc.):

"LOL. Comical. carry on."

ahh-okay then, clarify how saying comical and to carry on is being coy-- do you not understand the meaning and the significance of coy?
i also could have sworn that comical and carry on haves their own significant meaning and definitions--but this only appears to be that i am the only one whom understands these words and such within this little conversation..
(shrugs)--carry on.

i will actually help you--

com·i·cal
com·i·cal [kómmik'l] adj
funny: funny to the extent of being absurd, especially if unintentional

com·i·cal
ˈkämək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: comical

1. amusing.
   "a series of comical misunderstandings"
   synonyms:synonyms: funny, comic, humorous, droll, witty, jocular, hilarious, amusing, diverting,entertaining; More
   antonyms:sensible

carry on
phrasal verb of carry
1.
continue an activity or task.
"carry on with what you were doing"
synonyms: continue, keep (on), go on; More
BRITISH
continue to move in the same direction.
"I knew I was going the wrong way, but I just carried on"

 

[DaveC426913]

ahh-okay then, clarify how saying comical and to carry on is being coy-- do you not understand the meaning and the significance of coy?
i also could have sworn that comical and carry on haves their own significant meaning and definitions-

The coyness comes in repeatedly interjecting the comment into threads without otherwise adding constructively to the conversation: You might have something to say, but you do not say it. It is passive-aggression.

That being said, I do not wish to derail this thread further. I am merely hoping to discourage personal sniping between contributors (and yes, I am aware that I did my own personal sniping to do so. )

Let's return to the main discussion.

 

[krash661]

The coyness comes in repeatedly interjecting the comment into threads without otherwise adding constructively to the conversation: You might have something to say, but you do not say it. It is passive-aggression.

please show an example. but i am sure that you cannot--except maybe of some form of manipulation attempt that you will for-sure try, simply due to the fact that you are wrong--which is nothing more than that you simply cannot comprehend what i type, which is odd for such intellects, do you not think?

That being said, I do not wish to derail this thread further. I am merely hoping to discourage personal sniping between contributors (and yes, I am aware that I did my own personal sniping to do so. )Let's return to the main discussion.

I never had derailed from it-- i only, simply, shown your attempts, along with the reality of this discussion.

 

[paddoboy]

We can all surmise......
I do remember Grumpy saying he had had enough of what was let pass as science......AqId is another that has grown tired of what is let pass for science.
We also at this present time have three threads started with "supposed" questions, with absolutely no intention of the questioner accepting any answers: The object obviously in all three is to try to deride accepted standard cosmology and push some other imagined unsupported scenario.

Not sure of how they are related with my thoughts up above, but has anyone else been rather amazed at the amount of permanently banned obviously trolls that have found there way to this forum and been subsequently permanently banned?
Do other forums suffer from this?
And wouldn't this contribute greatly to the work load of the mods, that could otherwise be focused on appropriate forum/post content.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

understanding what and whom are being insulted would help.

Irrelevant, krash661, insults and ad hominems have no more pertinence on Science Forums than they have in Real Science.
Period.

 

[krash661]

Irrelevant, krash661, insults and ad hominems have no more pertinence on Science Forums than they have in Real Science.
Period.

except showing reality is only insulting and considered ad hominems to the the pathetic ones initiating all this nonsense. but i understand how pointing out this reality is insulting to these individuals that i actually categorize you in--i mean why else are you lurking under this topic and other such topics as you always do--you simply thrive for this nonsense, simply because you are part of the pathetic-s. and yes there is pertinence, such that if all the nonsense that is being submitted is nonsense, then what is the source--ahh it is the mind/mentality--so hence stating and showing the mentality that the shiit comes from is massively important since it is the source, even if science is being used. so hence ad homaienas are very important-- if the mind is flawed, then that leads to what is being said, being flawed.. get it?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

except showing reality is only insulting and considered ad hominems to the the pathetic ones initiating all this nonsense. but i understand how pointing out this reality is insulting to these individuals that i actually categorize you in--i mean why else are you lurking under this topic and other such topics as you always do--you simply thrive for this nonsense, simply because you are part of the pathetic-s. and yes there is pertinence, such that if all the nonsense that is being submitted is nonsense, then what is the source--ahh it is the mind/mentality--so hence stating and showing the mentality that the shiit comes from is massively important since it is the source, even if science is being used. so hence ad homaienas are very important-- if the mind is flawed, then that leads to what is being said, being flawed.. get it?

...again, krash661, insults and ad hominems (like the ^^above quoted^^) have no more pertinence on Science Forums than they have in Real Science.
Period.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry, having trouble parsing your diction.

my god-- this comment from you is completely pathetic. my advise

advice

"everyone whom is whining,

who

 

[krash661]

...again, krash661, insults and ad hominems (like the ^^above quoted^^) have no more pertinence on Science Forums than they have in Real Science.
Period.

again, it appears that you simply cannot comprehend how " the science" comes from the mentality, hence the source.
(shrugs)--carry on.

 

[krash661]

Sorry, having trouble parsing your diction.

advice


who

ahh-yes-yes, of course, one of the oldest pathetic shenanigans, that low-level minded individuals, whom presume themselves intelligent, usually resort to--(please do not tell me that you could not comprehend that error of mine) congratulations. (shakes head)
as for the whom, again, actually understand words that are used instead of pretending that you actually do.

--carry on ,all of you.

 

[Bowser]

I think my first question would be, which sections of the forum get the most traffic? Are the strictly science sections getting the most activity, or is it more the social/political sections generating traffic? Is one supporting the other?

 

[Kittamaru]

I think my first question would be, which sections of the forum get the most traffic? Are the strictly science sections getting the most activity, or is it more the social/political sections generating traffic? Is one supporting the other?

The problem with defining 'activity' in that way is this: take the woo sections, for example the "ghosts and ufo's" section. I would wager without having taken the time to analyze the posts, that 90% of the activity there is driven by one or two members, with the others taking part trying to bring some element of actual science into it.

If you were looking for a forum rooted in scientific discussion to take part in, and saw that as the "primarily active section", would you consider that a place that filled the niche you were looking for?

 

[Bowser]

The problem with defining 'activity' in that way is this: take the woo sections, for example the "ghosts and ufo's" section. I would wager without having taken the time to analyze the posts, that 90% of the activity there is driven by one or two members, with the others taking part trying to bring some element of actual science into it.

That would explain active participation, but how many unique views do they generate? This site seems to generate revenue from the ads it displays. Again, I don't know the numbers other than whats shown on the site. I think the number of actual participants is relatively low in relation to those who only read the forum.

If you were looking for a forum rooted in scientific discussion to take part in, and saw that as the "primarily active section", would you consider that a place that filled the niche you were looking for?

Absolutely, participation would be a big factor in my decision to give it a look.

 

[Yazata]

The problem with defining 'activity' in that way is this: take the woo sections, for example the "ghosts and ufo's" section.

The 'fringe' sections are no more off-topic than the political fora where several of the board's moderators seem to spend most of their time.

At least the fringe sections address interesting questions about the definition and boundaries of science. (What is science, what is pseudoscience and what's the distinction between them?) They raise interesting questions about evidence and about how beliefs are justified. And they raise questions about the role of preexisting metaphysical assumptions in accepting or rejecting hypotheses.

The thing is, you guys still need to decide what kind of science board you want Sciforums to be.

Do you really expect it to be a shop-talk board for working scientists? I don't think that's realistic.

Do you expect it to be a board for university students in the sciences? To attract them, it probably needs to be talking about the kinds of problems that undergraduates will see on their exams. So who is going to play the professor, post problems and provide guidance in answering them?

Or do you expect Sciforums to be a place for interested laypeople to talk about science. That's what it is now.

Should Sciforums be a news-board, consisting of posts about science news? Would that motivate new people to sign up and post their own views, if any? Why would people visit Sciforums just to read the news instead of visiting some science news website?

In my opinion, in order to get new people to post, there needs to be some drama. There needs to be some controversy. The board has to arouse people enough that they feel like weighing in on one side or another with their own opinions. And the arguments have to be happening at a technical level where laypeople aren't frightened off.

I would wager without having taken the time to analyze the posts, that 90% of the activity there is driven by one or two members, with the others taking part trying to bring some element of actual science into it.

Perhaps those individuals deserve some thanks for keeping things lively.

If you were looking for a forum rooted in scientific discussion to take part in, and saw that as the "primarily active section", would you consider that a place that filled the niche you were looking for?

I'm still not sure what the phrase "scientific discussion" even means for laypeople. What are people untrained in the sciences supposed to say about science?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I'm still not sure what the phrase "scientific discussion" even means for laypeople. What are people untrained in the sciences supposed to say about science?

Around here, Yazata, "people untrained in the sciences" appear to be convinced that they are "supposed to say" quite a bit more than those that are.

 

[Kittamaru]

That would explain active participation, but how many unique views do they generate? This site seems to generate revenue from the ads it displays. Again, I don't know the numbers other than whats shown on the site. I think the number of actual participants is relatively low in relation to those who only read the forum.

Indeed - and that's a statistic that I'd be curious to know (unique page views per day)

Absolutely, participation would be a big factor in my decision to give it a look.

Even if said participation was in pseudo-science and general woo, as opposed to actual science?