Neutrino speed thread moderation

[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*.

 

[Char. Limit]

I could pick any of many posts to berate, but I choose this one.

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

This has already been rebutted above, so I won't bother.

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.

Was that supposed to be a question? Whatever. First, the mentors here are not "pandering" to the will of the critics. They did exactly what they said they did: cleaned up the thread and removed repetition and obvious crackpottery. It's really quite nice of them, and totally ungrateful of you to respond in this fashion.

Second, if these results "pan out", THEN we'd discuss them as mainstream science. Not before. You see, Physics Forums is not a place to discuss your brand new theory, but to discuss existing mainstream 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.

You mean that (gasp) Physics Forums is obeying forum regulations against speculation!? Why I never! You... didn't read the rules when you signed up, did you?

And as for "narrow-minded minority", you really have no proof that your faction is in the majority. To me, you look like an extreme minority.

If only from an historical viepoint irrespective of the eventual results.

I don't even know what this means.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... 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?

TT, you know I do almost everything for you, but this is asking for too much, and as you may have noticed; some users have reacted on this.

This information is *CLASSIFIED*.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

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

One of the damn best quotes I've ever read on this forum!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

One of the damn best quotes I've ever read on this forum!

Hey! Don't mock. It was

 

[DevilsAvocado]

 

[Buckleymanor]

I could pick any of many posts to berate, but I choose this one.

Likewise

This has already been rebutted above, so I won't bother.

Suite yourself, though I don't understand your answer.

Was that supposed to be a question? Whatever. First, the mentors here are not "pandering" to the will of the critics. They did exactly what they said they did: cleaned up the thread and removed repetition and obvious crackpottery. It's really quite nice of them, and totally ungrateful of you to respond in this fashion.

I ain't ungratefull,just concerned, the road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions.

Second, if these results "pan out", THEN we'd discuss them as mainstream science. Not before. You see, Physics Forums is not a place to discuss your brand new theory, but to discuss existing mainstream science.

If that were the case the thread should not have got past the mods in the first place,you can't have it both ways.

You mean that (gasp) Physics Forums is obeying forum regulations against speculation!? Why I never! You... didn't read the rules when you signed up, did you?

And as for "narrow-minded minority", you really have no proof that your faction is in the majority. To me, you look like an extreme minority.

I imagine the majority of decent people are against cencorship.Or is this over speculative to you and deserves to be deleted.

I don't even know what this means.

Well you might have to trawl through the removed posts at a later date if they are still available to find out.

 

[ThomasT]

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

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

TT, you know I do almost everything for you, but this is asking for too much, and as you may have noticed; some users have reacted on this.

This information is *CLASSIFIED*.

I hate to seem overly lame (OK, we've probably passed that), but now I'm really intrigued. What the heck are you people talking about?

 

[PAllen]

I hate to seem overly lame (OK, we've probably passed that), but now I'm really intrigued. What the heck are you people talking about?

Someone originally made the typo:

"Lorentz transformations come from considering that spacemite has a flat lorentzian metric"

and this triggered lots of joking about spacemites, leading to DevilsAvocado famous post you can see by following the link on #18 of this thread (and paging down a bit; while it lasts).

It also infected other threads for a while, e.g.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3528285&postcount=79

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Please note, I did NOT have a relation with that woman, Miss Pelling, and I did NOT start this!

 

[Evo]

Please note, I did NOT have a relation with that woman, Miss Pelling, and I did NOT start this!

Uh huh, SURE, we believe that.

Love your new avatar, BTW.