Why is Classical Physics Broken up again?

[gmax137]

Why is the Classical Physics forum now broken up into sub-fora? I finally got used to the combined version!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Just got used to the combined version? It was in its previous state for many years

Testing to see if adding more structure improves user experience in finding content they are interested in, rather than the one huge bucket. If it's a positive experience we'll see where else we can do the same.

 

[gmax137]

It was in its previous state for many years

Well, time flies when you're having fun!

I like the huge bucket approach. But, I'm adaptable :)

Thanks!

 

[gmax137]

Here's a thread discussing the change I was thinking about.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-new-physics-categories-are-puzzling-to-me.971448/

 

[Frabjous]

The multiple levels complicate generic browsing.

Overly specific bins make it harder to stumble on something interesting that one didn’t think was interesting. I think that there is an upper limit to the total number of bins, but the number is open to interpretation.

 

[robphy]

Instead of these bins, could one have some small selection of suggested tags that the questioner could select and have displayed color-coded on the list of threads (like the Chemistry, Engineering, Challenge tags visible on the home page)? Then, one can see the categories at a glance and maybe filter for them.

The tagging would allow topics that would overlap with multiple bins.

I see there is a tagging setup...
but maybe presenting a small selection of tags would encourage its use.

 

[jasonRF]

I'm personally not a big fan of the change. Since we clearly need to keep the 'general' classical physics forum, I don't see what value there is in further increasing the number of forums in which a given thread can fit, as well as the number of ways it can be misplaced. For example, I wouldn't be surprised to find a recent thread on Hohmann transfer orbits in general engineering, aerospace engineering, mechanical engineering, classical physics, classical physics->mechanics, other physics topics, and maybe even astronomy/astrophysics. But right now it is in classical physics->electromagnetism.

I'm sure part of my issue is that various aspects of my graduate specialty, plasma waves, can conceivably fit in all of the classical physics sub-forums depending on a given person's perspective. I sure hope they end up in the 'general' classical physics forum, though. At the same time I do realize I am probably in the minority, so will of course happily work within the new framework.

jason

 

[Wrichik Basu]

There are still a number of threads in the "general" classical physics section that can be moved to the mechanics sub-category. Also, I feel that maybe "Mechanics" could be renamed to "Mechanics and Dynamics".

 

[jasonRF]

There are still a number of threads in the "general" classical physics section that can be moved to the mechanics sub-category. Also, I feel that maybe "Mechanics" could be renamed to "Mechanics and Dynamics".

If we have sub-forums, I agree it should be clear what each encompasses. To me "mechanics and dynamics" is also ambiguous, since it isn't clear whether it includes continuum physics. Likewise, it isn't clear what topics should be in electromagnetism and what should be in optics. In my mind they are the same thing, probably because the topics I am most knowledgeable about easily fit in either bin. That is part why I favor a generic 'classical physics' category.

EDIT: or at the very least, combine all of electromagnetic theory (including optics) into one bin.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I did a search of messages since the change. Roughly 1/3 of the messages that should be in a subsection are. Some (thermodynamics) are better than others (mechanics).

Conclusions:

• Members are unclear on where to post their messages.
• Mentors are unclear on where to move them.

Is this a success?

 

[Bystander]

Is this a success?

Not in my opinion.