Explaining Efforts: Understanding Valid Sources in Blogging

[member659127]

Your blog is not a valid source. Please do not reference it here.

Not to defend anybody, just curious... What is a "valid" source? The guy is just explaining his efforts.

 

[PeterDonis]

What is a "valid" source?

The PF terms and rules explain this:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/

The guy is just explaining his efforts.

His own blog is either personal theory, or original research. PF is not the place for either.

 

[member659127]

His own blog is either personal theory, or original research. PF is not the place for either.

I am relatively new here, so please help me out with this... The thing confusing me is that many of the popular posts around here have the exact same character, yet they are being promoted in some sense. And I m OK with it, the double standard I am not OK with...

(By the way regarding the "rules", before I publish something I generally tend to discuss it with people as much as I can in the conferences, private communications, etc... I believe a forum is also a perfect alternative for this since you can meet with many experts.)

 

[PeterDonis]

The thing confusing me is that many of the popular posts around here have the exact same character

You're going to have to give some specific examples. But please do it via PM, not in this thread.

before I publish something I generally tend to discuss it with people as much as I can in the conferences, private communications, etc... I believe a forum is also a perfect alternative for this since you can meet with many experts.

As I said, PF is not for doing original research. It is for discussing already established mainstream science. There might be forums where scientists can discuss original research before publication, but PF is not one of them. That's simply not PF's purpose.

 

[member659127]

You're going to have to give some specific examples. But please do it via PM, not in this thread.

I am not going to do it. Neither here nor via PM (whatever that is supposed to mean).
It is moderator's duty to make sure the rules apply equal to all... So I conclude this discussion by leaving it to you as an excercise...

 

[hilbert2]

As I said, PF is not for doing original research. It is for discussing already established mainstream science. There might be forums where scientists can discuss original research before publication, but PF is not one of them. That's simply not PF's purpose.

Is it possible to link to personal blog posts with source code that calculates something based on existing theories? I've sometimes done that when discussing e.g. calculation of ground state wavefunctions with the imaginary time method. I could of course write a similar insights article in those cases.

 

[PeterDonis]

It is moderator's duty to make sure the rules apply equal to all

And as far as I know we are doing that. If you are going to accuse us of not doing that, you need to give us specific cases where you claim we are not. If you don't want to PM a moderator specifically, you can just find a post where you think we were not applying the rules the same to all, and use the "Report" button to bring it to our attention. What you can't do is throw around accusations with no evidence. That will end up getting you banned.

 

[PeterDonis]

Is it possible to link to personal blog posts with source code that calculates something based on existing theories?

I think generally we would rather have you write an Insights article.

 

[member659127]

That will end up getting you banned.

That sounds serious...

 

[Dale]

I am not going to do it. Neither here nor via PM

I guess it is not just a double standard, but a secret double standard.

It is a good thing that most problems are best fixed by complaining about them and not clarifying or identifying specific instances. Open communication often interferes with efforts to fix problems, so it is good that you are keeping it secret.

Frankly, the rules are enforced by humans, so there will always be some inconsistencies. However, we do make an effort to be consistent. So I suspect that whatever is bothering you was probably a perfectly legitimate application of the rules. But, I guess we will never know.

 

[Dale]

What you can't do is throw around accusations with no evidence. That will end up getting you banned.

Plus it is just plain rude and completely unhelpful and counterproductive. That is the sort of thing that leads to dysfunctional relationships in all facets of life. People who adopt this strategy in relationships generally wind up bringing misery to themselves and those around them.

Sorry, it is a bit of a “pet peeve” of mine.

 

[berkeman]

I am not going to do it. Neither here nor via PM (whatever that is supposed to mean).

A "PM" is using the Private Message functionality of the forum software to have a private conversation with someone. You can start a PM conversation with me by clicking on my Avatar, and selecting "Start a conversation". Please feel free to contact me via PM if you would like help with anything regarding the forum.

The other alternative, as already mentioned, is to click the "Report" link on any post or PM. That sends an alert to the Mentor forum, and all of the Mentors work together to help to resolve the report. Thanks.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I guess it is not just a double standard, but a secret double standard.

Double secret probation!

 

[member659127]

Since it seems many people are missing the point let me clarify it:

I am not going to do it.

There are two reasons for this... (Both of them are more important than PF's artificial rules to me.) Let me elaborate:

The first one is called professional integrity. Many of the posts in which I observe people promoting their own unpublished theories are professional physicists who obviously have spent a lot of effort on their work. I respect that a lot and being a physicist myself I don't intend to go into polemic in topics that I am not an expert just to give some counterexamples to an anonymous guy with an alien avatar trying to sort people out about why they shold NOT express their views. If there is something rude in the exchange, THAT is the thing.

The second one is even more simple: I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT! I absolutely don't have a problem people expressing their ideas, theories, published, unpublished or personal. It is your rules that have a problem with it and it is exactly those rules which make it so complicated for you to handle fairly trivial situations.

 

[Dale]

PF's artificial rules

The rules are actually not that artificial. They are primarily a result of more than a decade of experience figuring out what is needed to attract and retain our core contributors. The rules are there because having them allows us to retain professional scientists who wish to share their expertise without having to endure the monotonous droning of crackpots that pervades many other science forums.

Requiring all posts to be consistent with the professional scientific literature is the single most effective and natural measure we have found for doing so.

 

[berkeman]

There are two reasons for this... (Both of them are more important than PF's artificial rules to me.

Artificial? Please see the response above by @Dale

The first one is called professional integrity.

That's why we use peer review as the minimum bar for technical discussions here.

Many of the posts in which I observe people promoting their own unpublished theories are professional physicists who obviously have spent a lot of effort on their work

Observe here? Please use the Report link in any problematic post here to bring any problems to the attention of the Mentors. Thanks.

I respect that a lot and being a physicist myself

Can you please send me a PM with a link to your dissertation? It's easy to say "I'm a physicist" -- it's harder to link to your high quality work. Thanks

The second one is even more simple: I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT! I absolutely don't have a problem people expressing their ideas, theories, published, unpublished or personal. It is your rules that have a problem with it and it is exactly those rules which make it so complicated for you to handle fairly trivial situations.

As you are hopefully aware by now, we don't allow BS here. Please PM me with answers to the questions above so that we can re-open this thread for you. In the mean time, this thread is closed.