Not so frequently asked questions

[Incnis Mrsi]

From the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=617567 page one can conclude that this forum is owned by Greg Bernhardt, a Web designer. It is not a bad thing to have a Web designer in control of the server, but how the policy is decided? Some professional researchers and acknowledged experts (such as Arnold Neumaier) are present here, but to which extent do they influence the policy?

An organization allegedly in charge of the forum is certain “Bernhardt Media LLC”. Has it any achievements but development of Android software and partnership with Scientific American? Has it connections with academic institutions? Ī can infer that the main mission of the site is popularizing physics among Android users, and popularizing the site itself, whereas better understanding physics is something of low priority.

At https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506643 certain Neumaier’s thread is mentioned numerous times, but nobody posted a Web link. Are these data destroyed? Ī’d asked there if moderators weren’t close the thread.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

From the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=617567 page one can conclude that this forum is owned by Greg Bernhardt, a Web designer. It is not a bad thing to have a Web designer in control of the server, but how the policy is decided? Some professional researchers and acknowledged experts (such as Arnold Neumaier) are present here, but to which extent do they influence the policy?

Welcome to Physics Forums! I do own the website. It's under Bernhardt Media LLC for legal reasons. It's true I am primarily a web developer. We have lots of professionals and experts here. The staff is 20+ strong and they are integral to the planning of policy here. We also have a nice group of Science Advisors and Homework Helpers who provide much needed feedback and input.

An organization allegedly in charge of the forum is certain “Bernhardt Media LLC”. Has it any achievements but development of Android software and partnership with Scientific American? Has it connections with academic institutions? Ī can infer that the main mission of the site is popularizing physics among Android users, and popularizing the site itself, whereas better understanding physics is something of low priority.

I'm interested in why you bring up andriod? We have an app, but we are not an andriod developer. We have a loose connection with Scientific American. Recently we were added as a sponsor for the Wisconsin Science Festival which is run by the University of Wisconsin Research Foundation. I have good contacts with them.

I think the longer you stay around, the more mistaken you'll feel about your last statement :)

At https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506643 certain Neumaier’s thread is mentioned numerous times, but nobody posted a Web link. Are these data destroyed? Ī’d asked there if moderators weren’t close the thread.

Mr. Neumaier is a respected member here. I'm not sure what thread is being talked about.

 

[Borek]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=490492

 

[phinds]

Ī can infer that the main mission of the site is popularizing physics among Android users, and popularizing the site itself, whereas better understanding physics is something of low priority.

That is an utterly absurd contention.

 

[PhizKid]

If he really wanted to popularize the site so badly (and make "understanding physics" a "low priority"), he'd just bring back the Philosophy section and allow crackpots to post..

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

If he really wanted to popularize the site so badly...

And make no mistake, it's not an either-or situation. We can achieve popularity with our target audience with the above average quality controls. :)

 

[Nick O]

I'm not sure where these questions are coming from... have you noticed some administrative policy that you feel is contrary to the development of a strong scientific community? If so, you should certainly voice your concerns. I do not think I have noticed any such policy, however.

 

[Fredrik]

An organization allegedly in charge of the forum is certain “Bernhardt Media LLC”. Has it any achievements but development of Android software and partnership with Scientific American? Has it connections with academic institutions? Ī can infer that the main mission of the site is popularizing physics among Android users, and popularizing the site itself, whereas better understanding physics is something of low priority.

Why would it matter if it's connected to a specific academic institution? Your conclusion is very wrong, and also very strange. It's hard to guess how you came to it. To look at this site and say that it's not about better understanding physics is like looking at a cheese slicer and say that it's not about cheese.

At https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506643 certain Neumaier’s thread is mentioned numerous times, but nobody posted a Web link. Are these data destroyed? Ī’d asked there if moderators weren’t close the thread.

It's very likely that this is the thread that marcus mentioned: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=490492. It looks like it was closed automatically due to a long time of inactivity.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

It looks like it was closed automatically due to a long time of inactivity.

That's true. Threads are often closed after 2 years with no further replies.

 

[Incnis Mrsi]

I'm not sure where these questions are coming from... have you noticed some administrative policy that you feel is contrary to the development of a strong scientific community? If so, you should certainly voice your concerns. I do not think I have noticed any such policy, however.

The only nasty thing Ī noticed was denial to register with an Email in my own domain. Ī attributed it to information leaks due to an earlier registration at a physics-related mutual admiration site, subsequent conflicts and possibly one private mail From:ed with it, although it might be simply a piece of local paranoid policy for somewhat other reason. But if my negative publicity on rotten sites really can cause such a crap, then Ī obviously “feel it contrary to the development of a strong scientific community”.

Why would it matter if it's connected to a specific academic institution? Your conclusion is very wrong, and also very strange. It's hard to guess how you came to it. To look at this site and say that it's not about better understanding physics is like looking at a cheese slicer and say that it's not about cheese.

Do you know other ways to save communities from degradation? Let’s put aside Internet projects made initially for mutual admiration and look at democratically governed physics.SE. Why the site became infested with megametres and kilotonnes of rubbish? Namely because it is governed not scientifically, but democratically. This site hasn’t such awkward form of democracy… good. But what does it have? Which structure controls processes? Of course, it’s the busyness of a software developer to construct and manage a site, but not to lead a scientific community.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The only nasty thing Ī noticed was denial to register with an Email in my own domain.

This is regrettable. We've had to block certain email providers and even IP blocks of countries where spam was coming from. In PF 4.0 I'm hoping we won't need to do that.

Other members will have better answers to your other questions, but note we are not a democracy. We use a benevolent overlord system and it's worked well for 13 years. Stick around and you'll find out.

 

[Fredrik]

This site hasn’t such awkward form of democracy… good. But what does it have? Which structure controls processes? Of course, it’s the busyness of a software developer to construct and manage a site, but not to lead a scientific community.

Greg manages the site. This includes choosing which users to give the title of "mentor". The mentors routinely delete crackpot posts and spam, and ban users who post such things. They also do their best to get people to follow the other rules. They move, merge and split threads to keep the forum better organized. They shut down discussions that have drifted far off-topic, or into petty bickering between two people.

There are also users with the title of "science advisor". They are chosen by the others who were given that title before them. The title is supposed to show that this is a person who writes a lot of good replies. When someone posts a question, there will typically be some bad replies and some good replies. The science advisor title is supposed to indicate that this is a person worth listening too. If a science advisor says that the previous replies are wrong, they usually are.

The mentors are usually, but not always chosen from the group of science advisors, to ensure that there's a high level of competence within the mentor group. When a mentor feels that he doesn't know what do do with a thread, because of insufficient technical knowledge or any other reason, he asks for input from the others.

This system is far from perfect, but it works well enough to make this the best place on the web to discuss physics, math and a few other topics, at least at the undergraduate level.

 

[Borek]

This includes choosing which users to give the title of "mentor".

Greg has the final word, but in general if any of the mentors (often including those retired) objects, that is enough to shut down a nominee.

 

[Incnis Mrsi]

When someone posts a question, there will typically be some bad replies and some good replies. The science advisor title is supposed to indicate that this is a person worth listening too. If a science advisor says that the previous replies are wrong, they usually are.

Sounds reasonable (although Ī do not believe in absolute truth). But how does the system distinguish high-quality posts of commoners?

Greg has the final word, but in general if any of the mentors (often including those retired) objects, that is enough to shut down a nominee.

This inner-circle-like system is inherently irresponsible and prone to a slow, albeit steady, degradation. Were academics or respectable external communities ever invited to assess achievements of mentors?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Sounds reasonable (although Ī do not believe in absolute truth). But how does the system distinguish high-quality posts of commoners?

At the moment we struggle with that recognition. In a month we'll have a "like" system that will help with that. It's important to understand that with our quality controls you can, within reason, be confident, that posts are being written honestly and with at least fair quality. If someone is wrong, they will be corrected sooner than later. PF is a community which is unlike SE. We aren't after sterile answers. We want a thought out discussion. We want sound opinions and ideas.

This inner-circle-like system is inherently irresponsible and prone to a slow, albeit steady, degradation. Were academics or respectable external communities ever invited to assess achievements of mentors?

You have been here all of a day. You can't make that statement yet. If you knew PF's history, you'd understand every year PF gets better. The mentors all work together and we are often not slow to respond to needs. In fact, I usually get heat for acting too quickly :) Members and staff are judged on what they do within the community, not outside.

 

[Evo]

Just a history of accurate posting, good manners, and a helpful, friendly attitude are what we look for. We are not afraid to admit when we are wrong, and welcome being corrected, no one is automatically 'correct' just because of a designation.

Also, we don't look at non-staff as 'commoners' BTW. Many 'non-staff', could be staff, many have been offered staff positions but turned them down for personal reasons, many are on the list, but we just don't have enough positions. We respect all of our members.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Sounds reasonable (although Ī do not believe in absolute truth). But how does the system distinguish high-quality posts of commoners?

By "the system" do you mean the forum? That's all down to the quality of our members. Many years of operation have created an environment that many academics appreciate; namely the strict rules regarding speculation on pseudoscience.

This inner-circle-like system is inherently irresponsible and prone to a slow, albeit steady, degradation. Were academics or respectable external communities ever invited to assess achievements of mentors?

Out of the mentors (and retired mentors) I think around half of us are academics, or work in industry. But that's slightly bye-the-bye, our academic achievements aren't as relevant to mentor work as one might think. To be a good mentor takes commitment to building and maintaining a healthy community as well as being qualified to moderate our respective sub-forums.

 

[Fredrik]

This inner-circle-like system is inherently irresponsible and prone to a slow, albeit steady, degradation.

In my opinion, this is completely wrong. In particular, the knowledge levels of mentors and science advisors keep going up. I don't see any reason to think there will ever be a steady degradation.

Were academics or respectable external communities ever invited to assess achievements of mentors?

Not formally, but they are certainly welcome to comment on the quality of our posts, or just write better posts.

 

[Evo]

Out of the mentors (and retired mentors) I think around half of us are academics, or work in industry.

I believe all of the mentors are either in academia, a science related industry or engineering.

 

[Incnis Mrsi]

It's important to understand that with our quality controls you can, within reason, be confident, that posts are being written honestly and with at least fair quality.

Sounds just like an advertisement speech. Mentors provide quality control, Ῑ agree it’s a reasonable solution, probably the best the humankind can present. But Ῑ do not see why can’t the system be overrun by a Wikipedia-style irresponsibility and incompetence. They (Ῑ mean en.wikipedia) had a nice start, they had once a great community, better than you can hope ever to build… but now it became a social network where “quality” is an archaic word.

By "the system" do you mean the forum? That's all down to the quality of our members. Many years of operation have created an environment that many academics appreciate; namely the strict rules regarding speculation on pseudoscience.

Do you mean “some academics like to speak here”? Or… ?

… our academic achievements aren't as relevant to mentor work as one might think.

Ῑ do not care about academic achievements of the mentors. Ῑ care about academic supervision of the mentors. Sooner or later, many of you will understand Ῑ give a valuable and timely advice.

To be a good mentor takes commitment to building and maintaining a healthy community as well as being qualified to moderate our respective sub-forums.

Many people have good-faith delusions about what a “healthy community” ought to be. There are two types of common delusions. First is to mistake a comfort (either personal or collective) for health. It begins just where the conscience ends: humans are biological beings and, hence, homeostatic organisms. Second is to mistake a (successful) remedy for the Most Dangerous Disease for health. Different communities have different most dangerous diseases: it was spam for Usenet, trojan scripts for IRC networks, trolling for Wikipedia, junk posts for StackExchange, and pseudoscience for PhysicsForums. But isn’t a community healthy just because it managed to cure one of its diseases.

 

[StevieTNZ]

To be honest, I don't know what to make of your posts.

What are you trying to get at?

 

[ShayanJ]

I think as a PF member, I should say something.

To the OP, you're a newbie here.I don't mean that means you don't have the right to say such things, I just want to say you should wait. Imagine a mathematician who sits in his room and builds different theories without getting attention to experimental data. Then he objects others' theories because they are in contradiction to his. That's simply wrong. Reasoning and speculation is respectable but that doesn't mean it always give you the right answer. That's why you should wait and "observe" this community and when you see a problem, mention it and propose your theory about its reasons and solution. Not now that you just came to this site and don't know enough about it.
I also should say that the design and rules of this site, clearly suggest that its purpose is helping its members to get better and better at what they're doing in science. And for that, PF is providing a proper environment for students and scientists in the world to have interaction with each other and improve themselves through that interactions. Then, PF staff tried to minimize distractions so that the site only does that, and also does that well! And I think they're good in that.
When somebody posts a question here, there may be many different answers. Some of them may be wrong. But the OP won't get the wrong idea because thanks to the great number of PF members, there is always at least one member to dispute disputable things. Also, the atmosphere is somehow that you can easily know people who really know what they're talking about but PF staff didn't stop there and provided the science advisor program so that there are people you can easily trust. And I assure you they all deserve that title. Its possible that somebody doesn't get any answer, but its really improbable to get a wrong answer at the end.
About mentors, although they're usually of high education, I don't think they have to be. They only should have a minimum amount of knowledge and a good level of responsibility which they seem to have. I've seen undergrad mentors here that are doing good.
These things are enough for me as a member. Because in almost 6 years that I've been a member here, this site has been very useful to me as a physics undergrad ( I joint here when I was at high school) and so I thank PF's founder and its staff, even its members!

 

[russ_watters]

...a science related industry or engineering.

I resent that!

 

[russ_watters]

Sounds just like an advertisement speech.

You started this thread and are the one asking the questions!

But Ῑ do not see why can’t the system be overrun by a Wikipedia-style irresponsibility and incompetence. They (Ῑ mean en.wikipedia) had a nice start, they had once a great community, better than you can hope ever to build… but now it became a social network where “quality” is an archaic word.

Opinions on wiki aside, there is a key difference between us: mentors are handpicked whereas anyone can edit a wiki. So while we actively control the quality, wiki merely hopes that the majority wants quality.

Ῑ do not care about academic achievements of the mentors. Ῑ care about academic supervision of the mentors. Sooner or later, many of you will understand Ῑ give a valuable and timely advice.

Again, this site is about 13 years old and you've been here for a few days. "Timely" is a weird claim, but given that your understanding of how PF works is very, very thin -- much of it clearly wrong -- it is hard to see any advice you can provide at this point having value. But hey - I guess anything is possible.

(caveat to this: I don't see any coherent advice, just vague, and as I said mostly wrong complaints.)

And I agree with Steve: I don't get your point. You seem to be rambling and complaining, but most of it is wrong and I don't see any actual point to it. Please get to it.

 

[Incnis Mrsi]

Science Advisor

… but PF staff didn't stop there and provided the science advisor program so that there are people you can easily trust. And I assure you they all deserve that title.

Ῑ also read the following thing:

Science Advisor Medal: The science advisor medal is a merit awarded medal as well. As such, it entails responsibility beyond that of the average poster. In order to be considered for a science advisor medal a member must:

………

Due to the amount of effort science advisors devote to keeping high quality scientific discussions on PF, they are listed under the "Staff" link at the top of any PF page along with Homework Helpers, Mentors, and Administrators. Science Advisors also from time to time participate in policy/structure discussions.

Not clear neither how are these guys motivated nor who monitors activity of such member when s/he already has the badge. Also isn’t clear how conflicts between expertise and social skills are resolved. In scientific communities expertise has a priority; what about PF?

 

[russ_watters]

Not clear neither how are these guys motivated nor who monitors activity of such member when s/he already has the badge. Also isn’t clear how conflicts between expertise and social skills are resolved. In scientific communities expertise has a priority; what about PF?

The mentors are the moderators.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Not clear neither how are these guys motivated nor who monitors activity of such member when s/he already has the badge. Also isn’t clear how conflicts between expertise and social skills are resolved. In scientific communities expertise has a priority; what about PF?

SAs are subject to the rules like any other member so they're monitored by the mentors. We also moderate ourselves, there's enough of us with differing opinions that it's just not an echo chamber when it comes to managing the site.

If by conflicts of expertise you mean two or more members disagreeing in a topic the way we deal with it at PF is to let them talk it out, this is a forum after all! Flick through thousands of threads and you'll see members having a back and forth discussion on a topic. If any rule violation is thought to be going on members can report it for mentors to review. We don't have to step into correct things (though obviously we all enjoy partaking in technical discussions where we can), just ensure that the rules are adhered to.

 

[Nick O]

I resent that!

I almost posted those exact words, but I'm just a lowly engineering student :p

To the OP:

You are trying to postulate the existence of a problem where years and years of data suggest quite the opposite. Unless you cite reliable sources (such as peer reviewed studies or evidence from this site itself), this discussion is about your own theory. There are actually rules in place about the discussion of personal theories, and that is one of our many quality controls.

Now, out of curiosity, why do you put a macron over I (that is, )? My instinct when I see that is to pronounce it like "ee" as in "screen", because I associate the macron with foreign languages such as Latin and Japanese. My second reaction is to read it as if it were italicized, bold, and underlined: heavily emphasised.

 

[Fredrik]

Not clear neither how are these guys motivated

They like to hang out here and to provide good answers to other people's questions.

nor who monitors activity of such member when s/he already has the badge.

The mentors. Greg is the one who would take action if action is needed, but he always let's the mentors give advice, and as far as I know, he has never gone against their advice in such matters.

Also isn’t clear how conflicts between expertise and social skills are resolved.

We've seen a few members who have more than enough expertise to be SA's, but are easily irritated and often get rude in their posts. These people don't get titles.

In scientific communities expertise has a priority; what about PF?

What does that even mean? Are you suggesting that we should allow bad behavior if the person is good at something in mathematics or physics?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I feel we're at the point where we are unable to convince you with rhetoric. This is something you must experience. So I hope you stick around and do. :)

 

[micromass]

Not clear neither how are these guys motivated

Yes, we are totally different from stacexchange here. Stackexchange has this entire collection of different medals you can get. Good for them, and I do think it makes their site better. But it won't work here. People here are motivated mostly by helping the other person, not by getting some arbitrary medal.

 

[Dale]

Also isn’t clear how conflicts between expertise and social skills are resolved. In scientific communities expertise has a priority; what about PF?

I think that this is a misconception. The scientific community is a community and social skills are valuable there also. A brilliant expert with extremely poor social skills may run a lab but is unlikely to be in charge of anything larger.

 

[Incnis Mrsi]

DaleSpam, as was clear from the context, Ī asked about “science advisors”. Yet one quote:

1)Offer reliably correct explanations for scientific questions posed in the various forums of PF. Science Advisor medals are awarded to those members who have demonstrated an unmistakable expertise in a certain field of science discussed on PF.

How is this requirement related to

A brilliant expert with extremely poor social skills may run a lab but is unlikely to be in charge of anything larger.

indeed? Not to say Ī prefer “experts with extremely poor social skills”, but one history where PF resolved a problem in favour of expertise (instead of social skills, Wikipedia’s determined outcome) would convince me better than eloquence.

 

[Evo]

Like they say, "No need to fix what's not broken". Things are working fine.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

indeed? Not to say Ī prefer “experts with extremely poor social skills”, but one history where PF resolved a problem in favour of expertise (instead of social skills, Wikipedia’s determined outcome) would convince me better than eloquence.

We are nothing like Wikipedia so I have no idea how that applies. This is a forum. People come with questions, members help answers those questions and discuss amongst themselves any issues or conflicts. If you want an example go read some threads. Misinformation and pseudoscience are dealt with by mentors reviewing said posts and issuing notices as well as occasionally deleting nonsense posts.

 

[Nick O]

Why would we ever need to choose between social skills and expertise? This forum is big enough that it's easy to find people with both.

Final communication from me in this thread: just wait. If you see a real problem, and not just the perceived potential for a problem, then say something in private to the staff. Public speculation that there *might* be a problem, but Heaven knows what it may be, is pointless. How do we correct problems that can't be identified or even observed?

 

[Intrastellar]

indeed? Not to say Ī prefer “experts with extremely poor social skills”, but one history where PF resolved a problem in favour of expertise (instead of social skills, Wikipedia’s determined outcome) would convince me better than eloquence.

Incnis Mrsi, if you point out a problem that we did not know it existed, and then PF recognises it and solves it, then we would be really thankful to you.

Exactly as Nick O said, please stick around a bit longer, and if you notice a situation where social skills was favoured rather than expertise, please point it out as soon as possible, we would really appreciate it.

Final communication from me in this thread: just wait. If you see a real problem, and not just the perceived potential for a problem, then say something in private to the staff. Public speculation that there *might* be a problem, but Heaven knows what it may be, is pointless. How do we correct problems that can't be identified or even observed?

 

[AlephZero]

People might like to do a Google search on "Incnis Mrsi". Unless it's a very common name, I think the results were interesting in the context of this this thread.

 

[davenn]

People might like to do a Google search on "Incnis Mrsi". Unless it's a very common name, I think the results were interesting in the context of this this thread.

haha so he comes trolling here instead

 

[Dale]

DaleSpam, as was clear from the context, Ī asked about “science advisors”.

Sure, and I feel that your question about science advisors was well answered by others. I am not attempting to add to their answers.

In the process of asking your question you also made a statement about how scientific communities function. I am addressing that statement, which I believe is incorrect. I know of no study supporting your statement and it is contradicted by all of the anecdotal evidence I have from about 15 years as a member of various scientific communities.

I think that the standard by which you are judging PF is based on a misconception about how scientific communities work.

 

[Incnis Mrsi]

So, if the problem really doesn’t exist here, then PF experts are happy people.

I know of no study supporting your statement and it is contradicted by all of the anecdotal evidence I have from about 15 years as a member of various scientific communities.

I think that the standard by which you are judging PF is based on a misconception about how scientific communities work.

Which statement: about imminent degradation of closed circles? About usefulness of academic supervision? About social beings in Wikipedia who throw the expertise to recycle bin along their own rules? Ī’m sure for each of three points there are peer-reviewed publications (but not in physical journals).

 

[ShayanJ]

the problem

Grammatically you shouldn't use «the» there, because it means all people involved in the conversation know what problem you're referring to, which isn't the case here!

 

[Incnis Mrsi]

Grammatically you shouldn't use «the» there…

Typographically you shouldn’t use guillemets of East European (or Greek?) fashion there because this conversation occurs in English. If DaleSpam, Fredrik, Greg Bernhardt, Evo, Nick O, and montadhar roughly understand what am Ī speaking about and unanimously debunk its existence, then my grammar is successful enough to discard this quibble.

 

[Borg]

Typographically you shouldn’t use guillemets of East European (or Greek?) fashion there because this conversation occurs in English. If DaleSpam, Fredrik, Greg Bernhardt, Evo, Nick O, and montadhar roughly understand what am Ī speaking about and unanimously debunk its existence, then my grammar is successful enough to discard this quibble.

Since your original questions have been answered and everyone has unanimously debunked the existence of what you are speaking of (whatever that means), what is the goal of continuing the thread?

 

[Borek]

what is the goal of continuing the thread?

Good point, no point.