Is the Integration of PhysOrg.com Links a Bug or Intentional Feature?

[Kurdt]

Greg said he was already working on a hide feature. I don't know whther it is just for staff ad contributors or for everyone.

 

[sylas]

Greg said he was already working on a hide feature. I don't know whther it is just for staff ad contributors or for everyone.

I think the "hide" feature is less important than the location.

I personally don't mind at all how prominent it is. It can be big and bold at the top of every page. I would, however, prefer that it is not in the middle of a thread.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Kurdt]

If its hidden, its position would no longer be a problem.

 

[Monique]

If its hidden, its position would no longer be a problem.

It is, if you want to have people pay maximum attention to the links you should not put it right after the first post (I automatically skip the information and scroll down to read the thread and don't go back up to the first post).

Having a hide feature does not solve the problem, it even defeats the purpose of having the partnership. At the bottom of the page would be a perfect solution for me. That way you can read all the replies in a thread and link through to gain access to more information. There could be an unobtrusive button in the first post that takes you to the bottom of the page to the links, if there is any need for that.

 

[sylas]

If its hidden, its position would no longer be a problem.

Sure. But I don't propose to hide it. I don't have a problem with the information being there. I just think we'd be better to have a page layout in which the thread is contiguous, so I am proposing a different layout, with the information being, if anything, more prominent.

Hiding is overkill for what is indeed useful information, poorly placed.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[tiny-tim]

PF presence on phys.org

I was looking around at physorg.com, to see how they promote our site. PF has a presence, but not an intrusive presence, at physorg.

They do not put us "in the middle" of their articles, instead we are off to the side so as not to interrupt the flow of the article:

For the record, the following appears to be the PF presence on phys.org:​

On the homepage, http://www.physorg.com/ , the second menu bar (under the "Spotlight News Stories") has a link "Physics Forums", but it links straight back to the same page!

Just below that is a red button "More news", and clicking that takes you to the Feature stories page, http://www.physorg.com/editorials/, where an identical menu bar appears, at the bottom of the page, and again the link is to the same page!

However, under that menu bar, ie at the very bottom of the Feature Stories page, is a selection of five PF threads, eg …

Getting comfortable with homological algebra, 54 minutes ago, via Physics Forums
Force and potential problem, 56 minutes ago, via Physics Forums
drag coefficient and power required!need help, 1hour ago, via Physics Forums
Continuity Like Equation, 1hour ago, via Physics Forums
effect of electric field on a dielectric, 1hour ago, via Physics Forums​

(clicking the red "more" button gives the subsequent Feature Stories pages, with a different PF selection on each page)

Each individual story page has the story itself in the left column, and a number of boxes at the top of the right column: Related stories, Tags, Feature stories, and finally "Relevant PhysicsForums posts", which lists 5 or 6 posts of (doubtful?) relevance … eg (for the story "http://www.physorg.com/news165234976.html" ")

Data collection and analysis: OriginPro 8.0 SR6
6 hours ago
Pressure Vessel Design
7 hours ago
Purging air from system
7 hours ago
Replacing a bow and arrow.
18 hours ago
More from Physics Forums - General Engineering​

However, if you increase the font size even one point (as I always do), the PF box disappears (even though the other boxes do not )

 

[tiny-tim]

highlighted threads

Just occurred to me …

topicality may be a good way of selecting important or interesting phsy.org articles, but it usually isn't for PF threads.

So, rather than the present presumably random selection (I think it's the most recent items) from the relevant PF sub-forum (some of which are a bit ), wouldn't it be better to take advantage of another of Greg's recent innovations, and link to the highlighted threads in that sub-forum?

 

[Evo]

Just occurred to me …

topicality may be a good way of selecting important or interesting phsy.org articles, but it usually isn't for PF threads.

So, rather than the present presumably random selection (I think it's the most recent items) from the relevant PF sub-forum (some of which are a bit ), wouldn't it be better to take advantage of another of Greg's recent innovations, and link to the highlighted threads in that sub-forum?

The "quality" of the PF threads being linked to is being addressed. Greg thinks he may have a solution.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I've talked it over with the guys at PhysOrg and we agreed to hide it for gold members.

 

[sylas]

I've talked it over with the guys at PhysOrg and we agreed to hide it for gold members.

This is a strange choice, to my way of thinking. The links are not at all like an advertisement for raising revenue, as I understand it. There's a good rationale for removing the ads for a subscribing member, but what is the rationale here?

I consider the PhysOrg connection as something that gives added value for users. The problem, in my opinion, was never about having links, but about their location, in the middle of the thread. It would make sense to have them at the top, or below the thread, as a set of potentially relevant links. But wherever they are, I think it makes sense to consider them as adding value, and hence there's no reason to remove them for gold members. It would be sensible to have an optional display for gold members, perhaps.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[GeorginaS]

Um, is the "hide" a default setting that I can change somewhere? I didn't mind the PhysOrg links in the second thread post and even liked checking them out. As a gold member, I can't see them at all now.

Poor Greg, it's always something, isn't it? Sorry.

 

[tiny-tim]

added value!

This is a strange choice, to my way of thinking.
…
I consider the PhysOrg connection as something that gives added value for users. The problem, in my opinion, was never about having links, but about their location, in the middle of the thread. It would make sense to have them at the top, or below the thread, as a set of potentially relevant links. But wherever they are, I think it makes sense to consider them as adding value, and hence there's no reason to remove them for gold members. It would be sensible to have an optional display for gold members, perhaps.

Perhaps PhysOrg could go at the bottom of the page, between the Tags and the Quick Reply box, for gold members?

Easy to get to, if we want it …

and a slight encouragement to click the "QUOTE" button instead of using the Quick Reply box!

(incidentally, perhaps the same position would be better for the Similar Threads table? … I hardly ever notice it )

 

[Redbelly98]

Or maybe add PhysOrg links to the PF main page, in the same section that has the Scientific American and PhD Comics links.