Should the Reactions Count Include Quotes of a Post?

[Nugatory]

I used to have over 10,000 posts but as some point Greg changed the way the count is done.

Changed how? Mostly just curious and @Greg Bernhardt can likely answer if you don't

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Changed how? Mostly just curious and @Greg Bernhardt can likely answer if you don't

Nothing comes to mind, but since Ivan has been around since near the beginning, there may have been some platform changes that affected counts early on.

 

[BillTre]

To give a serious answer. On the homework threads, the OP's posts are almost always replied to with the next comment, hint, correction. To take an example:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ing-beam-in-two-different-directions.1005257/

What would be the point of counting all that toing and froing over a homework problem?

To answer this question, I would consider anything that promotes positive interactions on the site a positive. therefore, it would be reasonable to have quotes and counter-quotes to count positively.
This would also provide a positivity boost to those laboring so selflessly in the homework sections.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Changed how? Mostly just curious and @Greg Bernhardt can likely answer if you don't

I think a bunch of my posts were no longer counted after I left and the S&D forum was eventually eliminated.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Nothing comes to mind, but since Ivan has been around since near the beginning, there may have been some platform changes that affected counts early on.

Yeah, things back then got a little dicey. But when I retired I think my post count was still over 10k. I thought it was the elimination of S&D that did it since the posts were moved into GD.

 

[mfb]

I have noticed that anomaly too.

Not an anomaly, that's the intended behavior.

Trophies cannot be lost and the conditions can change over time, so we have some users with trophies they wouldn't newly get now. The 8000 likes trophy was originally at 5000 or so and many people with 5000-8000 got it, and kept it when the requirement was raised to 8000. Most of them reached 8000 in the meantime.

 

[PeroK]

Not an anomaly, that's the intended behavior.

That's precisely what an anomaly is!

Anomaly:

an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.

an incongruity or inconsistency.

Anomalies may be intentional or unintended.

 

[pinball1970]

I think a bunch of my posts were no longer counted after I left and the S&D forum was eventually eliminated.

S&D?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

S&D?

That was the forum I ran for about ten years - Skepticism and Debunking

 

[Wrichik Basu]

That was the forum I ran for about ten years - Skepticism and Debunking

Must have been a really difficult task.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Must have been a really difficult task.

I wouldn't know where to start.

There are two religions involved: True believers and true non-believers.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was going to use the sad icon, but that wouldn't have added to your like count; and I thought losing all those posts was bad enough!

They weren't lost; just moved into GD where they don't add to the post count.

S&D was a nightmare to moderate. It required a lot of time and no one was ever happy. It required a great deal of dedication. I think a few people tried to revive it a bit after I left but at some point they gave up. And generally PF is much more narrow now than it was. Note the site mission:

"Our goal is to provide a community for people (whether students, professional scientists, or hobbyists) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community."

S&D was all about the identification of credible unexplained phenomena. By definition that is not "science" as it is currently understood. It was all about that not understood or explained by science.

Personally, that not explained has always interested me more than that which is explained. And ultimately that is what we need to consider. But that doesn't change the practical problem of moderating a forum like that.

 

[BillTre]

S&D was all about the identification of credible unexplained phenomena. By definition that is not "science" as it is currently understood. It was all about that not understood or explained by science.

Personally, that not explained has always interested me more than that which is explained. And ultimately that is what we need to consider. But that doesn't change the practical problem of moderating a forum like that.

I think the most obvious and credible unexplained phenomena are those identified by some branches of science (such as biology or psychology), but not easily explained by the "harder" branches of science (physics and chemistry).

The explanations connecting these different fields remain to be discovered.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the most obvious and credible unexplained phenomena are those identified by some branches of science (such as biology or psychology), but not easily explained by the "harder" branches of science (physics and chemistry).

The explanations connecting these different fields remain to be discovered.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. ;)

 

[dlgoff]

S&D was a nightmare to moderate. It required a lot of time and no one was ever happy. It required a great deal of dedication.

I remember it well Ivan. I don't know how you managed, but you did a good job of it.

 

[mfb]

That's precisely what an anomaly is!

Anomaly:

an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.

an incongruity or inconsistency.

Anomalies may be intentional or unintended.

Many (most?) forums have such an area or even multiple areas. Nothing odd about it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the most obvious and credible unexplained phenomena are those identified by some branches of science (such as biology or psychology), but not easily explained by the "harder" branches of science (physics and chemistry).

The explanations connecting these different fields remain to be discovered.

Here is a nice safe example of an apparent credible mystery
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ela-scientific-american-dec-18th-1886.492074/

 

[BillTre]

Here is a nice safe example of an apparent credible mystery
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ela-scientific-american-dec-18th-1886.492074/

Its interesting.

However, in all these cases of the unusual (low probability of happening of being seen), especially in the past, the witnesses are almost always indirect second or third hand sources.
This limits questioning.
Also, a lack of any modern CSI type stuff (fornesics) to figure out what happened.
Need more observations.
Or, figure out what it is and make one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Its interesting.

However, in all these cases of the unusual (low probability of happening of being seen), especially in the past, the witnesses are almost always indirect second or third hand sources.
This limits questioning.
Also, a lack of any modern CSI type stuff (fornesics) to figure out what happened.
Need more observations.
Or, figure out what it is and make one.

Almost always? Why are you generalizing? We are talking about one report. And the author describes events that are indicative of radiation poisoning; before anyone knew about radiation poisoning. That certainly makes it interesting. Is it proof of anything? No. But in science we falsify, we don't prove.

You said there are no unrecognized mysteries. This is a report that challenges that assumption. And this is one of many thousands. You have to be willing to look if you are to see anything. Blinding yourself to anything that can't be tested in a lab is to miss much of the wonders of existence.

What you want to argue is essentially that we know everything. Okay, prove it.

 

[BillTre]

Almost always? Why are you generalizing?

I'm talking about unusual observations in the more general sense.
Applies to a lot of things, like Bigfoot, until now with the ability to determine with hair and feces come from.
With just testimonials, mistakes can be made.

You said there are no unrecognized mysteries. This is a report that challenges that assumption. And this is one of many thousands. You have to be willing to look if you are to see anything. Blinding yourself to anything that can't be tested in a lab is to miss much of the wonders of existence.

What you want to argue is essentially that we know everything. Okay, prove it.

I don't think I said that. I just have my own way of thinking of things.

If you think you have a observation of radiation from a glowing humming ball, fine then explain how it might happen (for example, maybe a rapidly spinning bunch of plasma, with a rapidly spinning electromagnetic field, somehow making radiation that kills dividing cells) (and ideally make one).
I don't know what more you want.
However, I womder about the quality of the clinical observations (timing of events, type and location of lesions).

Might be, but I don't give those kinds of unquestionable observations the highest credibility.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

 

[berkeman]

Thread has run its course and now is veering off into the weeds. Thread will remain closed.