UFOs: What do you think of the format?

  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Format
In summary, the conversation mainly revolves around the format for UFO discussions on the forum. Sting suggests limiting UFO discussions to dedicated threads to prevent it from dominating the forum, while others prefer the item by item format. There is also a discussion on the entertainment value of UFO topics and whether they should be separated from serious discussions. Some suggest that only threads with a strong viewpoint should be posted, while others argue that people are more interested in back and forth conversations rather than just FYI posts. There is also mention of the unpredictability of responses and the difficulty of having strong reactions to every story.
  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,142
1,755
What do you all think about the format for UFOs? Sting was trying to limit the UFOs to the dedicated threads to prevent this from dominating the entire forum. Personally, I tend to appreciate the item by item conversations. What are your thoughts?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I find the item by item format to be easier because then I can more easily see new issues as they come up. Otherwise I have to check the UFO post to see weather it's a new topic or just a conversation on an old one.
 
  • #3
Which is the reason why I gave up on moderating this Forum. My lack of interest in the subject prevents me from being able to tell the difference between one UFO story and another.

By the way Ivan, you might want to regenerate that vampirism thread. I think I killed it by trying to incorporate statistics into it.
 
  • #4
Erm... Sorry but I still prefer a single update thread, which may then seed topics that deal with specific stuff, to avoid single topics of the ludicruous type (Ie. Organsm aliens) with precisely 0 replies swamping the forum. IMHO, of course.
 
  • #5
Originally posted by FZ+
Erm... Sorry but I still prefer a single update thread, which may then seed topics that deal with specific stuff, to avoid single topics of the ludicruous type (Ie. Organsm aliens) with precisely 0 replies swamping the forum. IMHO, of course.

By the number of hits I was assuming that these posts are appreciated for their entertainment value. You feel this is inappropriate for the forum?
 
  • #6
Ouch! Loaded question! I don't mean entertainment is inappropiate...

I am asking that we divide the entertainment value from the serious interest. The best (only) way I can see this done is to originate the discussion in a single topic, and then branch out if someone feels it is worthwhile to talk about in depth.
 
  • #7
Originally posted by FZ+
Ouch! Loaded question! I don't mean entertainment is inappropiate...

I am asking that we divide the entertainment value from the serious interest. The best (only) way I can see this done is to originate the discussion in a single topic, and then branch out if someone feels it is worthwhile to talk about in depth.

Whoops. Sorry, I didn't mean to ask you a loaded question. I just wasn't sure about the motivation for your objection.

I know a lot of this stuff is pretty far out to say the least! I even cringed and hesistated a bit myself when posting the (Ie. Organsm aliens) story.

Please keep the ideas and objections coming. Over time I will adjust things and see how it goes.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Although I read almost every
thread you start by posting a
news story, I find many of them
to be inert as thread starters.
All too often there just seems
to be nothing to say.

It would make for juicier threads if you only posted those
stories which elicited some strong
response from you which you would
include in the first post to get
the conversation going.
______________________
I don't feel the need to have UFO
threads ghettoized, myself. As
long as people are interested and
participating, what's the harm in
thread overlap? The hot topics
stay on the board and the ones that don't appeal to the current
users sink to the bottom. No one
who wants to post a ghost or
Nessie thread is denied their
chance for attention because of
UFO threads.

-zooby
 
  • #9
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Although I read almost every
thread you start by posting a
news story, I find many of them
to be inert as thread starters.
All too often there just seems
to be nothing to say.

It would make for juicier threads if you only posted those
stories which elicited some strong
response from you which you would
include in the first post to get
the conversation going.

This brings up another good point. I have had some mixed comments on this. Some people seem to enjoy the links FYI. Others object in a similar fashion to threads without conversation. I just never know what people will find interesting. I have posted threads expecting a huge number of hits and discussion, or virtually none, only to observe just the opposite of that expected. Believe it or not I do actually filter a bit, but very little as you can see. I dunno... Of course, I never would have expected 20 hits from you on the orgasmic alien thread either.
 
  • #10
Ivan,

You said:

I have posted threads expecting a huge number of hits and discussion, or virtually none, only to observe just the opposite of that expected.

Yes, the response is not predict-
able. My suggestion is to only
start threads with links to stor-
ies when you, yourself, have some
strong reaction to something in
the story which you would describe
in your original post, in order
to get a conversation started.

People are more interested in back
and forth conversation than FYI
and I believe it greatly increases
the chances of a conversation be-
ing started when a viewpoint is
clearly expressed. I often don't
bother to say anything because it's clear you, yourself, don't have much interest in a story.

-zoob
 
  • #11
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Ivan,

You said:

I have posted threads expecting a huge number of hits and discussion, or virtually none, only to observe just the opposite of that expected.

Yes, the response is not predict-
able. My suggestion is to only
start threads with links to stor-
ies when you, yourself, have some
strong reaction to something in
the story which you would describe
in your original post, in order
to get a conversation started.

This would be very difficult. In order to sift through all of this stuff, I have learned not to have strong reactions to much of anything. I do have some opinions, but I really try not to address opinions. I scan the story for the point. If it has particular relevance to something of interest I then re-read it very carefully. I may then investigate the story further; or not. I may then log this information in whatever manner is most appropriate.

People are more interested in back
and forth conversation than FYI
and I believe it greatly increases
the chances of a conversation be-
ing started when a viewpoint is
clearly expressed. I often don't
bother to say anything because it's clear you, yourself, don't have much interest in a story.

-zoob

I will leave this point open for discussion. Let's see if we get any further comments on this for now. I truly resist filtering based on my own values. I am just passing along the stories that pop up. I find nearly all of them interesting for one reason or another. Again, I point to my phenomenonal success with you and the orgasmic alien story.
 
  • #12
That only gives you something like
a 5% success rate, and, as soon as
I responded to it you announced
you were closing the thread.No
discussion, no amusing banter.
Inert.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
That only gives you something like
a 5% success rate, and, as soon as
I responded to it you announced
you were closing the thread.No
discussion, no amusing banter.
Inert.

The subject can be continued in the Hall of Fame. I just can't allow duplicate threads. The HOF is not a napster; this is not intended to limit discussions. I am trying to appease our skeptics a little by addressing at least the most outrageous claims with the Hall of Fame.
 

1. What is the scientific consensus on the existence of UFOs?

The scientific community does not have a definitive answer on the existence of UFOs. Some scientists believe that there may be potential explanations for reported sightings, such as natural phenomena or human-made objects. However, there is not enough evidence to support the existence of extraterrestrial spacecrafts.

2. Can we trust eyewitness accounts of UFO sightings?

Eyewitness accounts can be unreliable due to human error and biases. Without concrete physical evidence, it is difficult to verify the accuracy of these accounts. Additionally, many sightings can be attributed to misidentified natural or man-made objects.

3. How do scientists approach the study of UFOs?

Scientists approach the study of UFOs with skepticism and critical thinking. They collect and analyze data, conduct experiments, and search for natural explanations for reported sightings. Many scientists also believe that further research and evidence are needed before making any conclusions about the existence of UFOs.

4. Is it possible that UFOs are alien spacecrafts?

It is possible, but highly unlikely, that UFOs are alien spacecrafts. There is no concrete evidence to support this claim and the vastness of the universe makes it improbable that extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth.

5. How does the media's portrayal of UFOs affect scientific research?

The media's sensationalized portrayal of UFOs can create misconceptions and fuel conspiracy theories, which can hinder scientific research and progress. It is important for the media to present accurate and evidence-based information to avoid misleading the public.

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
416
Replies
9
Views
872
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
584
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
982
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
120
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
962
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
956
Back
Top