home
 
 
 
Preparation for Practice Science Discussion

Could we Try out our Various Ideas for Improving Discussions HERE? I'm referring to Ideas we've been discussing at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16016

CHATROOM: If needed any time, here's the chatroom: Chat Room

Page: 1  2   3   4   5   6 
'15-11-04, 00:15
 
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
 
 
This is as good of a place as any. ;)
'15-11-04, 23:03
 
Lloyd
St. Louis area

Okay, then I'll copy below part of your message on the TB forum from http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16016#p108972

[Evaluating a Paper?]

If the objective is just to find the points of interest, ... just post the paper to be reviewed to QDL. Then users read it, and whatever statements they find debatable, they select with the mouse, and then they add a comment. The comment will appear at the end of the paper, but the statement in question will get a footnote number next to it. So if somebody has commented on a statement, it's obvious — you don't have to read the whole paper, and then all of the comments, to find out if somebody commented on that statement — if there is a footnote number next to the statement, somebody commented. And the comment itself is visible if you hover your mouse over the footnote number.
- If you want to discuss the same statement, and/or somebody's comment thereon, you just click the footnote number, and it takes you directly to the comment, and then you enter your comment tacked onto that one. All such comments appear at the end of the main paper being discussed, but the point is that you can go directly into the discussion, without any prep work. And you can follow the train of thought in the discussion, just by following the links, if you don't want to read the whole paper, or all of the comments. So you're automatically building the structure of the debate.

[Questionnaires]

Jeffrey's idea of doing multiple-choice questionnaires, which I implemented, seemed to work nicely, to get an overview of who agrees or disagrees with what, at least in terms of the most general ideas.
- link to it: QDL / Topics / Science / Questionaire
These are easy for users to set up — you just do a bulleted list, with the answers nested under the questions, and you mark it as a questionnaire.

[Theories Comparison?]

Here's an example of a folder containing multiple hypotheses that attempt to explain a set of phenomena:
QDL / Topics / Science / Astronomy / Stellar/Solar Models / Stellar Formation / Hypotheses
- Aside from being able to add sub-points to each hypothesis in nested sub-folders (including criticisms), users can rank each hypothesis. Then, a summary page can be created, that automatically displays the averages of all of the rankings. For example, here's the rankings for everything in the Astronomy folder. The initials of the modeler are across the top, and the topics are down the left side. If the modeler weighed in on a particular topic, there will be either a number, which will be the average of all of the rankings, or a tilde ("~") if nobody ranked the hypothesis yet.
QDL / Topics / Science / Astronomy / Conclusions / Rankings

I think the first thing I want to learn is inserting footnote comments. Then I'd like to make a questionnaire. I'll see if I can figure those two out from your instructions above.

'15-11-05, 00:46
 
Lloyd
St. Louis area

I went to a Saturn Theory article at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-5079-9454-12984-6886-7285.17048&action=afterSubmit#anchor and I highlighted a few words, then I went to Reply and the highlighted words were there and I added a comment under it and the footnote appeared in the text, but the highlighted words were attributed to danh instead of to me or Talbott.*17060 And the footnote number did not appear at the bottom.*17061 I went to Metadata and changed the Reply to Add Comment and that helped a little.

The footnote is hard to find in the paper. Could it be made red or something?*17062 And there's no easy way to tell where the footnote would appear at the bottom.

Charles, do you want to do something similar there and show me what you did?

'15-11-05, 01:40
 
Lloyd
St. Louis area
  • Which Teams' Topic/s are you most interested in?
    • Science Improvement Team
    • Catastrophism Team --------
    • Physical Sciences Team ---
    • Electric Universe Team ---
    • Aether Team ----------------
    • Miles Mathis Team --------
    • Paranormal Team ----------
    • Planetary Science Team --
    • Tornado Team -------------
  • Which Team, if any, would you like to join?
    • Science Improvement Team
    • Catastrophism Team --------
    • Physical Sciences Team ---
    • Electric Universe Team ---
    • Aether Team ----------------
    • Miles Mathis Team --------
    • Paranormal Team ----------
    • Planetary Science Team --
    • Tornado Team -------------
  • How do you want to participate mostly?
    • Discuss in Forum Threads
    • Discuss in a Chat Room
    • Discuss Another Way
    • Write Articles or Papers
    • Edit Articles or Papers
    • Attend Meetings Online
    • Do Online Research --
    • Do Field Work ---------
    • Be a Moderator -------
    • Be a Webmaster ------
    • Do Fundraising --------
  • When do you want to participate?
      • Weekdays
      • Weekends
      • Sundays
      • Mondays
      • Tuesdays
      • Wednesdays
      • Thursdays
      • Fridays
      • Saturdays
      • Evenings
      • Middays
      • Mornings
      • Nights
      • Often
      • Seldom

    '15-11-05, 01:49
     
    Lloyd
    St. Louis area

    I managed to make a questionnaire*17064 at Questionnaire

    It didn't seem to work here in the thread though. I mean it did work at that link above, but not in this thread.

    So I got those two things mostly figured out.

    This section of the SITeamSpace is called Public Discussions. Does that mean anyone can join in our discussions here?*17063 Or do they have to join the SITeam first? If they'd have to join, then maybe we should continue this discussion in a more public area. Eh? I'd like to be able to try out ZZ's and your ideas with several people at about the same time, I mean on the same day at least. Wanna do that? I'll discuss on the TB forum thread now to look for more participants.

    '15-11-05, 04:12
     
    Charles Chandler
    Baltimore, MD
     
    Lloyd said:
    but the highlighted words were attributed to danh instead of to me or Talbott.
    I see the result that you got — it should have been attributed to you, not danh (and not Talbott, 'cuz QDL doesn't know him). But I can't reproduce the problem, so I'll just add this to the bug list, for further review.
    '15-11-05, 04:19
     
    Charles Chandler
    Baltimore, MD
     
    Lloyd said:
    And the footnote number did not appear at the bottom.
    That's correct — there aren't any footnote numbers where the actual post appears at the bottom. You can see the text of the footnote just by hovering the mouse over the footnote number in the source, and you can get to it by clicking the footnote number. So do we need the footnote number at the bottom?*17085
    '15-11-05, 04:24
     
    Charles Chandler
    Baltimore, MD
     
    Lloyd said:
    The footnote is hard to find in the paper. Could it be made red or something?
    When you're trying to find a footnote, it would be nice if they stood out. But when you're trying to read the paper, it would be distracting*17093 if the salient characteristic of the paper was the footnote numbers. ;) I really should do something like the way Wikipedia gives you links to click on, in their References block at the end, to go to where the references were cited in the text.*17081
    '15-11-05, 04:27
     
    Charles Chandler
    Baltimore, MD
     
    Lloyd said:
    This section of the SITeamSpace is called Public Discussions. Does that mean anyone can join in our discussions here?
    Yes — any registered user can join in.
    '15-11-05, 04:30
     
    Charles Chandler
    Baltimore, MD
     
    Lloyd said:
    I managed to make a questionnaire
    I pasted a link to the questionnaire into this thread*17086 — it "should" work inside a thread. But you'll have to add me as an editor (in the Metadata) for me to participate.
     
    BTW, that's another design question — should questionnaire participants have to be designated as editors, or should I make it such that people who only have adder rights can take questionnaires?*17084
    Page: 1  2   3   4   5   6 


    ← PREV Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite
    © 2010~2024 SCS-INC.US
    NEXT →