Randomised Requests: Tick All Proposals You Agree With

  • Thread starter FZ+
  • Start date
In summary, the majority of the people on the site agreed with the proposal to make politics a forum in its own right.

Pretty please, Greg!

  • Rename Skepticism... to Fringe Claims (or other)

    Votes: 5 41.7%
  • Make politics a forum in its own right

    Votes: 4 33.3%
  • Combine Classical Physics with Atoms...

    Votes: 4 33.3%
  • Combine some Engineering Forums

    Votes: 7 58.3%
  • Bring back the PF stats page!

    Votes: 10 83.3%

  • Total voters
    12
  • #1
FZ+
1,604
3
Tick all the proposals you agree with.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think the political suby should be a forum and I thought stats page was nice too.
 
  • #3
Yes to everything but politics. Down with politics!
 
  • #4
Atoms most definitely should not be combined with Classical Physics. If anything, it should be combined with Quantum Physics. But I vote for keeping it seperate.

As for Engineering, you'd have to be more specific. I think it's OK as is, myself.
 
  • #5
Well, I'm just looking through to see which ones haven't been touched for a long while. The trouble with atoms etc is rather that it overlaps with two of them. People who want to talk about electrodynamics, energy levels and so on would more likely go to quantum where they get more attention, and people who want to talk about the rutheford experiment, chemical properties would go other places. If you look around, it's not like no one is interested in atoms and molecules - just that other forums have rendered it redundant.

Engineering is similar. The forums in it have the lowest post density (posts per forums) in PF... The factor again is that the forums provided overlap greatly, and usually the field is ambiguous so people just post in general instead. I understand the idea of making things easy to search, but in my opinion things are too specialised down there. For example, someone who wants to talk about the design of bridges would end up torn between Engineering design, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, material engineering and just General Physics. The point is that these categorisation are good for University courses where you want a good deal of core learning, but don't work so well for a forum.
 
  • #6
Originally posted by FZ+
Well, I'm just looking through to see which ones haven't been touched for a long while.

It really hasn't been a long while yet. People are still getting used to the new format, I think. I also think that some people don't post in some forums just because they don't know what should go in there. I am working on some threads to fix that, so people have some examples.

The trouble with atoms etc is rather that it overlaps with two of them. People who want to talk about electrodynamics, energy levels and so on would more likely go to quantum where they get more attention, and people who want to talk about the rutheford experiment, chemical properties would go other places.

But even so, atoms should not go under classical physics.

For example, someone who wants to talk about the design of bridges would end up torn between Engineering design, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, material engineering and just General Physics.

That's a pretty clear cut case of Civil Engineering.

The point is that these categorisation are good for University courses where you want a good deal of core learning, but don't work so well for a forum.

I think it's still too early to tell. Most of the members of PF are still in high school, and they just don't know where to put some topics. But this format change is just one half of a 2-pronged initiative to upgrade the quality of the site. The other half is recruiting more professionals here. And when they get here, they will know what to do with the new format.
 
  • #7
Make politics a forum in its own right
Question : How Can I Object on that ?
 
  • #8
I think the Skepticism forum should be renamed, but I won't take to strong a position on it, since I never post there anyway.
 

1. What is the purpose of randomised requests?

The purpose of randomised requests is to gather unbiased feedback and opinions from a diverse group of individuals. This helps to ensure that all perspectives and ideas are considered when making decisions or creating proposals.

2. How are the requests randomised?

The requests are randomised by using a computer-generated algorithm that selects a random sample of individuals from a larger population. This helps to eliminate any potential bias in the selection process.

3. Why is it important to tick all proposals we agree with?

Ticking all proposals we agree with helps to accurately gauge the level of consensus on a particular issue. It also allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the different opinions and perspectives within a group.

4. Can I only tick proposals I agree with?

Yes, you are free to only tick proposals that you agree with. However, it is encouraged to also consider proposals that you may not initially agree with in order to get a more well-rounded understanding of the topic at hand.

5. How are the results of randomised requests used?

The results of randomised requests are used to inform decision-making and shape proposals. They can also provide valuable insights and perspectives that may have not been considered previously.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
7
Views
544
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
44
Back
Top