Neutrino speed thread moderation

[Vanadium 50]

I have just done a massive cleanup of this thread.

I removed hundreds of messages that were either:

• Overly speculative
• Off-topic
• Repeats of points previously raised.
• Discussions of the "is not! is too!" variety.

 

[gvk]

I have just done a massive cleanup of this thread.

I removed hundreds of messages that were either:

• Overly speculative
• Off-topic
• Repeats of points previously raised.
• Discussions of the "is not! is too!" variety.

Do you completely deleted other messages, or put them in some kind of archive?
Personally I intended to copy all of them, because most of them contain some interesting points and simply deleting is not wise.

Unfortunately, I do not know how to do it at ones: thread tools "Show Printable version" shows only current page and saving 74 pages requires huge amount of time, which I don't have. If you know how to do this pls explain.

Actually, I do not agree with you, there were no much "speculations" in this thread. And even the results of neutrino speed wasn't originally published in peer-reviewed journals, this, if it will be proven (!), is definitely Nobel's prize result. Chance for this is low (personally my opinion!), but the discussions of such challenging experiments are very useful for a new generation of physicists.

 

[lalbatros]

Massive deletion is definitively a lack of respect for all those people who contributed with good faith to the discussion.

 

[kaonyx]

I am gobsmacked by the arrogance of the moderators here. At the very least an archive should have been created. Some minimal warning would also have been a COMMON COURTESY. There are a number of posts that I want to download and study. There is plenty of real talent amongst the contributors where a useful synopsis of the discussion could have been made to replace the lengthy thread, and I am sure there are plenty of talented people here capable of making one. Your actions are a disgrace and you have just alienated a large proportion of your target audience, if indeed you have any idea what that is.

 

[Borek]

Read through what was left, comment later. Most of the discussion was off topic and consisted of constant repetition of the same questions and answers over and over again, not to mention cranky comments. Many users were criticizing us for leaving too much of those posts untouched. Apparently it is impossible to please everyone.

Deleted posts are still in the database, they were not deleted permanently.

 

[rorix_bw]

Un-lurking to say thank you for removing the crackpots and others. This is a serious science site after all, and it's hard to read and learn stuff if the signal to noise ratio is too high. Of course now the mods have to delete this too for being offtopic, but that's fine. I just want them to know at least some of us support them on this.

 

[deuticomet]

I completely agree, Kaonyx. They have managed to irritate a lot of readers, and has caused that many people won't post anymore. It is my personal decision that I will not contribute with any more Physics commentaries. And rorix_bw, if you call me crackpot by proposing a common sense idea which may be legitimate, well, it is your right, as well as it is my right to say that the publicity mass media circus of CERN-Gran Sasso is so red-facing that if the results are disproved, any CERN funding should be removed immediately. We are involved in a serious economical crisis, and we don't need to waste money on people who don't know how to measure a distance.

 

[kaonyx]

Actually I relish problems with broken software systems, they represent an opportunity for something better. As a software developer and designer, this episode (and others I have experienced here) lead me to suggest that the PF model is in fact badly broken. It all needs to be brought forward into the 21st century. Even a kind of Wiki associated with a discussion, that summarises the progress of the discussion, on an ongoing basis would be an improvement, so that when somebody finds the thread, the first thing could then do is to go to the wiki to catchup. Moderators need clear job descriptions, which are plainly lacking at present. Contributors need some way of declaring themselves wrt their background and knowledge. The value of participating in a highly technical discussion is immense from an educational perspective, and I think contributors would be happy to declare themselves if there was a mechanism. I am reminded of the world of chess where grandmasters coexist happily with wood-pushers without this antagonistic atmosphere. Beginners are always encouraged and mentored, not dismissed and ridiculed. I would be happy to know how much credibility to give to a posting.
A mechanism of peer moderation by other members would operate by tagging posts wrt the wiki. This old fashioned vBulletin system needs a bit of social engineering, there are good models for voting posts up in rankings, or liking them etc. In short anything would be infinitely preferable to the current autocratic censorship model that devalues the educational process.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I am gobsmacked by the arrogance of the moderators here. At the very least an archive should have been created. Some minimal warning would also have been a COMMON COURTESY. There are a number of posts that I want to download and study.

The easiest way is maybe to print or save anything you find important at once, nothing is forever (they say).

However if there’s a post where you remember some of the content and/or username, it should be fairly easy for you to obtain that thru http://www.googleguide.com/cached_pages.html". Use this search:

site:physicsforums.com "Re: CERN team claims measurement of neutrino speed >c" [username] [content]

And then click on the link Cached (under the 'main link' in the result). Voila!

Now maybe your friend deuticomet could also calm down a bit...

 

[turbo]

You can delete mine, as well, especially since the OP was drawn from the popular press with NO detailed analysis. Of course that would leave me ineligible for the fabulous cash prizes.

I sound like Rain Man.

 

[PAllen]

I hope there is some way to memorialize "A Brief History of Mite" with accompanying picture. I see it is gone. Funniest post in all pf PF that I've seen so far.

 

[PAllen]

The easiest way is maybe to print or save anything you find important at once, nothing is forever (they say).

However if there’s a post where you remember some of the content and/or username, it should be fairly easy for you to obtain that thru http://www.googleguide.com/cached_pages.html". Use this search:

site:physicsforums.com "Re: CERN team claims measurement of neutrino speed >c" [username] [content]

And then click on the link Cached (under the 'main link' in the result). Voila!

Now maybe your friend deuticomet could also calm down a bit...

I was about to suggest wayback machine, but for some reason it has not crawled PF since July of this year.

 

[lalbatros]

By the way, if the moderators have the right to massively delete our posts,
do we have, by reciprocity, the right to remove our own posts, or are they the property of the PF?

 

[TrickyDicky]

From PF rules:
"Neither member accounts nor a member's posts will be deleted on demand. It is up to the discretion of the forum owners and admins. Posts are for everyone's benefit and should be thought of as permanent."
Borek, you seemed to imply that the massive deletion had been performed due to users complains (including mentors), IOW, on demand. I'm not sure that agrees with PF rules as they are written.

 

[Borek]

Borek, you seemed to imply that the massive deletion had been performed due to users complains (including mentors), IOW, on demand. I'm not sure that agrees with PF rules as they are written.

It wasn't on demand. People were complaining about the discussion in general, not about single posts (although some posts were reported as they were breaking forum rules - but these were deleted on the fly, not now).

PF is what it is because of the moderating policies enforced, not despite of the moderating policy.

GPS accuracy discussion was started several times, and each time it was repeating the same arguments ad nauseam.

Sagnac effect was mentioned early in the thread and estimated as way too low to explain 60 ns difference. It didn't stop identical discussion to repeat over and over again.

There were many more similar problems.

What Vanadium did was aimed at cleaning the discussion from repeated claims and explanations and from off topic side discussions which made the thread impossible to follow.

Please note this discussion is again off topic - I am going to move OT posts to Feedback subforum.

 

[jtbell]

[Borek finished his reply before I did.]

"Neither member accounts nor a member's posts will be deleted on demand. It is up to the discretion of the forum owners and admins. Posts are for everyone's benefit and should be thought of as permanent."

That rule was intended to apply to people asking us to remove their own posts. We have a special problem with this in the homework help forums, because people sometimes ask us to remove their questions and the answers that they have gotten, perhaps because they don't want their classmates to see them, or they were cheating on a test.

In general, people may request that posts be deleted. It is solely up to us to decide whether to actually do it (unless of course Greg gets a court order or something ). And we reserve the right to clean up redundant, distracting and inappropriate posts in this manner, on our own initiative.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Just for the record:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380"
...
Overly Speculative Posts:
One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Non-mainstream or personal theories will be deleted. Unfounded challenges of mainstream science and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.

[my bolding]

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I hope there is some way to memorialize "A Brief History of Mite" with accompanying picture. I see it is gone. Funniest post in all pf PF that I've seen so far.

Thanks PAllen!

Nothing is forever but http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=60l893l0l1915l3l3l0l0l0l0l225l425l1.1.1l3l0&q=cache:TyhepiqAifgJ:https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3528018+%22I%E2%80%99m+going+to+write+a+new+beast-seller%22&ct=clnk" .

I was about to suggest wayback machine, but for some reason it has not crawled PF since July of this year.

The machine is probably banned by some very cruel moderator...

()

 

[Borek]

Nothing is forever but http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=60l893l0l1915l3l3l0l0l0l0l225l425l1.1.1l3l0&q=cache:TyhepiqAifgJ:https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3528018+%22I%E2%80%99m+going+to+write+a+new+beast-seller%22&ct=clnk" .

Sep28-11, 12:29 PM - that's the information that will help to dig the post in future, without a need to read everything again.

 

[micromass]

The moderators have made a very good decision on this. It will keep the discussion scientific and academic. Repeating the same arguments in a thread is simply annoying.

 

[deuticomet]

"Sagnac effect was mentioned early in the thread and estimated as way too low to explain 60 ns difference. It didn't stop identical discussion to repeat over and over again."

That is the problem. You ineptly confused my idea (which was independently written by Kaonyx later) with the Sagnac effect.

I believed that the moderators were fluent in Physics or physicists themselves. My mistake.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The mod actions that took place are in accordance with the guidelines. If you have a sincere grievance with staff actions, then let them be known in a professional manner. We will listen to you, but will not debate our actions.

 

[humanino]

I for one would like to take a few seconds and express my gratitude for the enormous workload the moderators take on themselves to make this place so special. The expectations of many among us users depend on their benevolence, and I believe the majority of us recognize this service for its essential role.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Sep28-11, 12:29 PM - that's the information that will help to dig the post in future, without a need to read everything again.

Thanks Borek, "Sep28-11, 12:29 PM" works just fine.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I for one would like to take a few seconds and express my gratitude for the enormous workload the moderators take on themselves to make this place so special. The expectations of many among us users depend on their benevolence, and I believe the majority of us recognize this service for its essential role.

Agreed 100%, without this help we would very soon run into wackocalypse...

Thanks!

 

[PAllen]

Thanks Borek, "Sep28-11, 12:29 PM" works just fine.

Ok, how do you find it using this information? I tried several ways of searching the forum using this date, to no avail.

 

[deuticomet]

There is no proffesional manner of protesting an action which was not justified, completely arbitrary and with clear oblivion from the moderatos. From my own personal expertise, the Sagnac effect, which was commented, did not deserved to be published in the first place. In fact, it was one of my first back-of-the-envelope checks, along with general relativity issues. Supressing the commentary of this other effect and with no possibility of recovery is, IMHO, a mistake, and very unrespectful.

 

[Evo]

Ok, how do you find it using this information? I tried several ways of searching the forum using this date, to no avail.

What are you searching for?

 

[Borek]

Ok, how do you find it using this information? I tried several ways of searching the forum using this date, to no avail.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. You don't - mods and admins can use it to locate deleted posts. It is much faster to browse them when you know when something was posted.

As I explained earlier - posts where not physically deleted, they are just hidden from mere mortals.

 

[berkeman]

There is no proffesional manner of protesting an action which was not justified, completely arbitrary and with clear oblivion from the moderatos.

It was not arbitrary; that is the point. Please re-read the Rules link at the top of the page. You agreed to abide by those rules in your posts here on the PF.

 

[Evo]

Please remember that this thread is not for making new posts on the Cern topic, those should go in that thread if they are appropriate.

Thanks.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Ok, how do you find it using this information? I tried several ways of searching the forum using this date, to no avail.

Ah sorry, my fault...

I thought Borek was talking about my http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=60l893l0l1915l3l3l0l0l0l0l225l425l1.1.1l3l0&q=cache:TyhepiqAifgJ:https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3528018+%22I%E2%80%99m+going+to+write+a+new+beast-seller%22&ct=clnk" and using Google’s cache (post #9 and #20), but he wasn’t. Anyway, it did work because the string was unique enough to take you to the right place, i.e. once you know it...

But it doesn’t work anymore since now I have typed "Sep28-11, 12:29 PM" several times...

Check out post #9 on how to do it properly.

 

[phinds]

I suppose there might be a few deleted post that one could argue over, but I for one would like to thank the mods for taking the time (non-trivial, I'm sure) to clean up what was clearly a thread run amuck and getting it back to readability. I got VERY tired of wading through the extreme repetition and occasional crackpottery.

 

[Pengwuino]

I approve of this thread.

On a more serious note, every time I went back to that thread, I would see new people asking THE SAME QUESTIONS or posing the SAME (wrong) SOLUTIONS. People blame the mods for deleting repetitive posts and say it's "disrespectful" (ha!), but as Vanadium constantly noted in the thread, the actual disrespectful acts were people who didn't bother to read the thread for answers to their questions.

 

[JDoolin]

The trouble is that any really likely answer to the question is going to require some speculation. Eliminate the impossible and the plausible, no matter how strange, is likely the answer.

Question: Did you delete my last contribution to the thread? It doesn't show up in my list of posts.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Read through what was left, comment later. Most of the discussion was off topic and consisted of constant repetition of the same questions and answers over and over again, not to mention cranky comments. Many users were criticizing us for leaving too much of those posts untouched. Apparently it is impossible to please everyone.

Deleted posts are still in the database, they were not deleted permanently.

Well they don't have to read them do they, they can simply ignore the posts that are objectionable to there inherent sensibilities.
Does it not occur to the moderators that in pampering to the will of these critics that if these results pan out you might well have thrown out the baby out with the bathwater.
No doubt it won't be easily possible to tell.
I find it incredulouse that a topic of great interest has been mauled in such a destructive manner to appeal to a narrow minded minority.
If only from an historical viepoint irrespective of the eventual results.

 

[DaveC426913]

I find it incredulouse that a topic of great interest has been mauled in such a destructive manner to appeal to a narrow minded minority.

The judicious and time-consuming attention given to the quality of postings is the single most significant factor in bringing a quarter of a million people to PF. You've come here because the quality has been kept so high. (And I'm not just saying that. I've watched it grow for 6 years as Mods put thousands of person-hours in.) And that means having a stringent set of content guidelines and adhering to them.

This is not a free-for-all. You all read and agreed to the rules when you signed up. (Did you think they were just for show?)

 

[berkeman]

Well they don't have to read them do they, they can simply ignore the posts that are objectionable to there inherent sensibilities.

That is not how the PF (or mainstream scientific publications) work. You don't have to skip over overly speculative articles as you read through mainstream scientific journals, do you? That would be a huge waste of time, and would discourage serious scientists from reading the journal and contributing to real science.

I find it incredulouse that a topic of great interest has been mauled in such a destructive manner to appeal to a narrow minded minority.

That "minority" would be mainstream science? Why do you think scientific journals use referees to check article submissions? Mainstream science has high standards. So does the PF, for the same reasons.

 

[PAllen]

Would it be possible /allowed to start a thread in Beyond the Standard Model (or somewhere else?) for collecting references to, and discussing more reputable suggestions of the "what if it were true" nature. At first glance, it appears all of these were removed from the CERN thread (at least the ones I contributed were, and I thought I only posted proposals by those with peer reviewed track record - though the given papers may not be submitted to journals).

While I think the probability of the result being true is near nil, such discussion is still useful IMO. Hell, with no experimental hints at all, peer reviewed articles regularly appear proposing tiny failures of longstanding theories as part of some new model (failures of SR, quantum mechanics, GR have been proposed). This is good - it keeps experimentalists busy and physics honest.

 

[Buckleymanor]

That is not how the PF (or mainstream scientific publications) work. You don't have to skip over overly speculative articles as you read through mainstream scientific journals, do you? That would be a huge waste of time, and would discourage serious scientists from reading the journal and contributing to real science.

Indeed not, mainstream publications consult with the different authors before deciding what to publish and what not to.
They act in an inclusive, not a unilateral manner.

 

[JDoolin]

It has a bit of a chilling effect on the conversation. For instance, regarding Milne's kinematic model of the universe. As long as someone says bad things about the Milne model, then they're permitted to say whatever they want, but if I start to play with the idea that Milne's model deserves another look, it becomes "original research" on Wikipedia, or "overly speculative" on Physics Forums.

Instead of discussing it in a fair manner, the moderator who I'm discussing it with may delete it and give me an infraction for bringing it up.

What are the reasons that I use this site over other sites?
(1) Ability to use a LaTeX equation editor
(2) Ability to use animated gifs and diagrams.
(3) Ability to edit my posts for a few hours, to fix errors and (occasionally) bad conduct.

While it is nice that your moderation prevents people from spamming and flame wars, it's rather a bother when the moderators delete posts because they don't understand them. If I could find an unmoderated website supporting LaTeX, gifs and diagrams, and editing posts, I would probably make the switch.

 

[DaveC426913]

The simple fact is, the site is what it is. And it's that way for a purpose. It can't please everyone. That task is left for all the other sites resulting in a much lower signal to noise ratio.

I [STRIKE]think[/STRIKE] know you guys underestimate what is required to keep a high signal to noise ratio.

Show us a site that does better and maybe you'll have a case.

 

[micromass]

it's rather a bother when the moderators delete posts because they don't understand them.

This is not why posts are deleted.

 

[vela]

It has a bit of a chilling effect on the conversation.

I know you meant this to be taken as a negative, but this is exactly what the moderation is intended to do. The idea is to keep the noise out of the forums, to eliminate "conversations" about chemtrails or about how "Einstein was wrong because time doesn't exist!" or that "Intelligent design IS science!" Yes, sometimes the moderators may have to make a judgment call about whether a post or thread crosses the line or not. Perhaps they occasionally make a mistake, but in my opinion, that's a small price to pay in return for the generally high quality of the posts here.

 

[Dembadon]

Indeed not, mainstream publications consult with the different authors before deciding what to publish and what not to.
They act in an inclusive, not a unilateral manner.

If I understand your analogy correctly, then you're in favor of including the general populace of PF on what gets deleted and what doesn't? I don't know what else to infer from your post since the mentors already include each other on decisions that are made.

If my interpretation of what you meant is correct, then I don't understand how you can believe this to be a reasonable suggestion. Letting members cast their votes on what to keep and what to throw away will rarely yield objective opinions.

 

[cobalt124]

The moderators have made a very good decision on this. It will keep the discussion scientific and academic. Repeating the same arguments in a thread is simply annoying.

The mod actions that took place are in accordance with the guidelines. If you have a sincere grievance with staff actions, then let them be known in a professional manner. We will listen to you, but will not debate our actions.

I for one would like to take a few seconds and express my gratitude for the enormous workload the moderators take on themselves to make this place so special. The expectations of many among us users depend on their benevolence, and I believe the majority of us recognize this service for its essential role.

...but as Vanadium constantly noted in the thread, the actual disrespectful acts were people who didn't bother to read the thread for answers to their questions.

The judicious and time-consuming attention given to the quality of postings is the single most significant factor in bringing a quarter of a million people to PF. You've come here because the quality has been kept so high. (And I'm not just saying that. I've watched it grow for 6 years as Mods put thousands of person-hours in.) And that means having a stringent set of content guidelines and adhering to them.

This is not a free-for-all. You all read and agreed to the rules when you signed up. (Did you think they were just for show?)

The simple fact is, the site is what it is. And it's that way for a purpose. It can't please everyone. That task is left for all the other sites resulting in a much lower signal to noise ratio.

I [STRIKE]think[/STRIKE] know you guys underestimate what is required to keep a high signal to noise ratio.

Show us a site that does better and maybe you'll have a case.

Agree with above. This is a good decision by the mods. I was reading the thread with great interest until the repeats and the speculation crept in. Then I stopped. I've been waiting for it to pick up again but it hasn't yet. Sometimes there's just nothing to say and you have to wait. I've been reading PF since around 2006, and the unwavering quality of the site since then tells me that basically these guys n gals know what they are doing and can be trusted to do it well FOR FREE. Thankyou all Mods. The reasons that mods contribute are the same reasons that bring people to the forum. Abide by the rules, read the whole thread before contributing, and reap the rewards.

What are the reasons that I use this site over other sites?
(1) Ability to use a LaTeX equation editor
(2) Ability to use animated gifs and diagrams.
(3) Ability to edit my posts for a few hours, to fix errors and (occasionally) bad conduct.

From my perspective, your reasons seem trivial to say the least and you miss the point. Isn't PF more than that? I keep asking this question to myself, I've never bothered to search for an answer as I don't need to - is there anywhere else on the internet where you would get this quality of posting? And if not, why not? I'd chisel on rock to get the quality of response you get on this site.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

FOR FREE

Thanks cobalt124, this is something that I suspect the 'moaners' has forgotten completely. PF is not a government sponsored "speaker’s corner":

And I also suspect that they have not considered the full implications of an "anything-goes-freedom-of-speech-policy". Someone might be very interested in discussing a "flat-earth-hypothesis", but is completely drowned in thousands of posts promoting a "square-box-earth-hypothesis".

There’s no guarantee at all that one’s own "personal speculations" survives in a noisy anarchy...

 

[ThomasT]

Thanks cobalt124, this is something that I suspect the 'moaners' has forgotten completely. PF is not a government sponsored "speaker’s corner":

And I also suspect that they have not considered the full implications of an "anything-goes-freedom-of-speech-policy". Someone might be very interested in discussing a "flat-earth-hypothesis", but is completely drowned in thousands of posts promoting a "square-box-earth-hypothesis".

There’s no guarantee at all that one’s own "personal speculations" survives in a noisy anarchy...

I agree with you and cobalt124.

By the way, you have the word "spacemite" in your signature. Did you mean "spacetime"? If not, what does "spacemite" refer to?

EDIT: And who's Miss Pelling?

 

[DaveC426913]

By the way, you have the word "spacemite" in your signature. Did you mean "spacetime"? If not, what does "spacemite" refer to?

Oh jeez. Don't get him started...

 

[Evo]

By the way, you have the word "spacemite" in your signature. Did you mean "spacetime"? If not, what does "spacemite" refer to?

EDIT: And who's Miss Pelling?

There's a post on the infamous *spacemite*.