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

[FredGarvin]

I personally do not like them. I would prefer that they were off on the side, similar to how the links are in the main forums page. If there was anything like a "flow" to the threads, it certainly gets destroyed by having an advertisement in them.

Perhaps if they were smaller or just one link to take you to another page?

 

[cristo]

I would prefer that they were off on the side, similar to how the links are in the main forums page.

I think if they were at the side then they would have more of a (negative) effect since they would effectively reduce the width of the page.

Anyway, I'm sure greg will take all comments onboard, especially of the gold members since you guys really are appreciated, and in fact he mentioned that he was going to introduce a "hide" feature. He's away at the moment, but I'm sure he'll get onto it when back.

 

[fluidistic]

I think if they were at the side then they would have more of a (negative) effect since they would effectively reduce the width of the page.

I do not believe so. There's still a bigger (about twice as big) place than the one occupied by Scientific American's new articles. I don't see how the Physorg.com titles would change the width of the page. I might be wrong of course.

 

[Hootenanny]

I do not believe so. There's still a bigger (about twice as big) place than the one occupied by Scientific American's new articles. I don't see how the Physorg.com titles would change the width of the page. I might be wrong of course.

I think cristo was thinking of the case where the Physorg.com advertisement would be placed to the side in the actual threads, rather than on the home page as the Sci. Am. links currently are.

 

[Moonbear]

I think cristo was thinking of the case where the Physorg.com advertisement would be placed to the side in the actual threads, rather than on the home page as the Sci. Am. links currently are.

Since the links included are associated with the specific forum one is reading, how about if it was a sidebar on each forum's thread index page? Is there room for it there without squashing thread titles too much? I'd rather have thread indexes compressed more than the posts in threads themselves.

 

[Redbelly98]

Or it could be above or below the thread posts, not off to the side. Then everything could be kept the same width.

 

[sylas]

Or it could be above or below the thread posts, not off to the side. Then everything could be kept the same width.

I like this idea, and produced an image of what it might look like, in [post=2293138]msg #25[/post].

 

[nvn]

I agree with some comments by Vanadium 50, Norman, dx, Moonbear, and others. I love a bare-bones page, without distractions and bloat. E.g., I prefer only a thin, plain-text navigation bar across the top of pages (no wasted space). And no side bars, not even on forum thread index pages. The current physorg.com link is interruptive, out of place, and annoying. This link should be only a small hypertext link at the bottom of the page (as is already there).

 

[Kurdt]

I don't think that was in the terms of the partnership unfortunately. In exchange for our exposure on their site, they get exposure on ours. I doubt they'd be happy with a tiny link at the bottom of the page.

 

[dlgoff]

I don't think that was in the terms of the partnership unfortunately. In exchange for our exposure on their site, they get exposure on ours. I doubt they'd be happy with a tiny link at the bottom of the page.

I agree. This is Gregs site and he's done a great job so far. So let's keep it visible and see if our membership grows as a result.

 

[turin]

Just throwing in my opinion: It seems that this physorg ad is annoying me more than other members. I have refused to visit any of the advertised links in disgust. The visibility has an effect (on me) that is probably opposite to the intended effect. Why must that ad interrupt every single individual thread? I have greatly reduced my forum activity in order to reduce the number of times I see that ad. I don't think that annoying people with something is a good way to promote it.

 

[Evo]

Please take the time to read a thread before posting. As has been stated a number of times, it's not an ad. We have entered into a partnership with physorg.

 

[lisab]

Just throwing in my opinion: It seems that this physorg ad is annoying me more than other members. I have refused to visit any of the advertised links in disgust. The visibility has an effect (on me) that is probably opposite to the intended effect. Why must that ad interrupt every single individual thread? I have greatly reduced my forum activity in order to reduce the number of times I see that ad. I don't think that annoying people with something is a good way to promote it.

Actually, the links aren't for ads. http://www.physorg.com/help/about-us/" page for PhysOrg.com. It's a news service.

 

[turin]

I'm not talking about the links. Please forgive me for using an unapproved term to refer to the block just below the first post that advertises the links. I just thought it would be more concise to call it an "ad". BTW, I spent 20 minutes reading the thread, so please don't rebuke me for negligence just because we don't agree on terminology.

Hey! It looks like my poll has been deleted. What rule did I break?

 

[Evo]

Hey! It looks like my poll has been deleted. What rule did I break?

We don't allow starting threads on a topic that is already open. You are free to complain here all you like.

It's really sad to see people complain about this. Greg does so much work to keep this forum going. I, for one, appreciate his hard work and hope he doesn't decide that it's not worth the effort and just shut it down.

 

[turin]

I'm sorry; I was complaining a bit. I just wanted my tiny little voice to be heard, in case Greg (I guess he owns the server?) wanted to count votes. I totally understand that this forum does not cost us little guys anything, and so in the end I of course respectfully defer to Greg's decision. I just thought that Greg, and possibly even physorg, should consider that the current implementation is counterproductive for at least one member.

 

[Evo]

I'm sorry; I was complaining a bit. I just wanted my tiny little voice to be heard, in case Greg (I guess he owns the server?) wanted to count votes. I totally understand that this forum does not cost us little guys anything, and so in the end I of course respectfully defer to Greg's decision. I just thought that Greg, and possibly even physorg, should consider that the current implementation is counterproductive for at least one member.

This is the place to voice your opinion, and Greg is taking all feedback into consideration. He's out of the country right now, so don't think he's not paying attention. As a homework helper, you might be spared in the near future, so hang in there.

It bothered me too at first, but now I don't even notice.

 

[Redbelly98]

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:

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/redbelly98/PhysicsForums/physorg01.gif
(image is very wide, and displaying it here could mess up the display of this thread for some users)

Also, notice the "Hide" feature so that users who do not wish to be troubled with the Physics Forums links do not have to view it.

I think we could safely:

• Put the PhysOrg link in a less intrusive place, say at the bottom of page 1 of a thread, and
• Add a "hide" feature

with no cause for complaint on physorg's part.

After a week of seeing these links, I do find they are somewhat intrusive as currently implemented. On the other hand, I have been interested enough to read 2 or 3 of the articles.

p.s. Here is the full physorg article that I took the above image from:
http://www.physorg.com/news169725980.html

.

EDIT:
Hey, just wanted to throw in my 2 cents on the "it's not an ad" issue.
Okay, I understand that it isn't an ad because physorg does not pay money to Greg or PF to promote their site. But you could argue that this difference is transparent to the user. I think this may be the source of frustration on the part of some members here.

p.s. As I said before, I'm all for anything that helps Greg pay the bills. This hopefully attracts more membership to PF, some percentage of whom like PF enough to become Contributors.

 

[lisab]

p.s. As I said before, I'm all for anything that helps Greg pay the bills. This hopefully attracts more membership to PF, some percentage of whom like PF enough to become Contributors.

I'm sure Greg will track the data to see if we get a bump in the number of Contributors which can be attributed to the PhysOrg partnership.

OK, maybe just correlated to the partnership.

 

[berkeman]

I noticed an interesting link in an EE thread tonight and followed it:

engineering news on PhysOrg.com

>> Watching over the water system: Engineers design sensors to monitor pipes after earthquakes
>> Electronic medicine, without borders?
>> Braille Displays Get New Life With Artificial Muscles

The first link lead me here (sorry, I'm not copying all the links):

http://www.physorg.com/news169818899.html

This is an issue that our local emergency services agencies have been looking at in detail. As you can tell from my footer, emergency preparation is pretty important here so close to the Hayward Fault, and our water supply crosses the fault. We're working on improving the infrastructure of the water supply lines that cross the fault, and I'm going to forward this link to my agencies that are doing that work.

Thanks for the link.

 

[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.