« first day (1246 days earlier)      last day (1903 days later) » 

1:10 AM
What's your general impression of this physicsoverflow site, physicsoverflow.org/trollsouthere14, that's starting up after midnight on Friday?
 
1:21 AM
@Physikslover Good for them. $5 says it fails within 3 months
3
 
1:51 AM
@Physikslover I don't really care about them one way or another
 
 
3 hours later…
vzn
4:39 AM
wow that looks like a lot of work.
clicked around but couldnt figure out who is behind it.
might have seen that guy complaining around se... there was a guy complaining very loudly about the failure of theoretical physics se... saw a meta post by him somewhere....
wonder where they got the software....
also, the legality of importing se questions/answers seems murky...
they are also trying to link id's to se id's somehow but dont see how that can be done exactly without se cooperation.
am presuming they are totally unaffiliated with se...
because of the importing, will be tricky/difficult to figure out how much traffic is really going on the site...
think the general idea of an advanced physics site is worthwhile but maybe the audience is much smaller than say mathematicians... so, difficult to achieve a community...
on other hand cstheory.se is a fairly small community & it generally works out...
& failure of theoretical physics se awhile back does not bode well for that site...
 
 
1 hour later…
6:14 AM
@vzn yes, there were a couple of people complaining about the failure of TP.SE and what they perceived as inappropriate moderation on this site, who are behind that site. I don't know what software they are using but there are several free SE clones out there.
The legality of importing questions and answers is not murky, though; it's explicitly allowed (given sufficient attribution) by the Creative Commons license. They're required to link to the original posts and user profile pages on the SE site they got the content from.
3
 
 
6 hours later…
12:33 PM
@vzn Note that one of the creators of PhysicsOverflow asked about doing so on Meta.SO, so they're not doing this behind the scenes.
 
 
2 hours later…
2:57 PM
I wonder, though, if I can ask them to remove my information from their site...
 
@vzn I think the site looks OK, but not as professional looking or as organized as Physics Stack Exchange. The fact that there seems to be only three active people on there in the private beta doesn't bode well for its future. Plus their moderators have been suspended on here in the past lol.
@KyleKanos you could ask for your profile to be removed by posting a question on their meta.
 
vzn
3:47 PM
do not like how the creators of the site are mostly anonymous, there seems to be zilch info on their identities.
also their rationale is hard to follow. they ought to articulate why their site is going to succeed where theoretical physics "failed".
agree that se moderation can be heavyhanded at times but doubt it has ever actually been the reason behind low activity on a site.
bottom line it can be difficult to get ppl to engage anywhere in cyberspace...
 
4:25 PM
Holy crapola:
John Rennie has gained 12k rep in 3 months...
 
 
3 hours later…
7:40 PM
@Physikslover Who are the creators of that site?
 
@hwlau AFAIK, it's only Dilaton, Dimension10, and RonMaimon. There could be others, but it's not something I'm well aware of.
 
7:59 PM
@KyleKanos I don't think they can attract enough people to use their sites.
I can't really think of a good reason to use it
 
8:24 PM
@KyleKanos I think the Creative Commons license has a part about users having the right to request anonymization of their content. You can't remove the content itself, but you should be able to have your name removed from it. I'm not sure how strong this clause is, and if you can actually force them to remove your name, you'd need a laywer for that.
 
It does include this:
> If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as required by Section 4(c), as requested.
 
I know that SE honors requests to remove attributions, I just never looked deep enough into the licence to check if they are actually required to do so
 
Yeah, it would appear that they are required to. But I'm no lawyer.
 
9:26 PM
@hwlau Dilaton and Dimension10 seem to be the main driving force behind its creation, with a retired computer scientist doing most of the modification of the Q2A open software via plugins etc. The private beta has been going on since January, with only Ron Maimon, and possibly one or two others joining. It could work if they manage to get just one or two academics to consistently post there at the start.
 
vzn
dont understand their gripe with Physics... seems not worth reinventing the wheel...
 
@vzn there was a tug of war at the start of the creation of PSE with some wanting it to become like mathoverflow, and others wanting it to become like math stack exchange
@Dilaton how's the launch going?
 
@KyleKanos your account, together with the corresponding posts and comments has now been deleted on PhysicsOverflow, as this seems to be what wished.
@vzn it goes well, but I am slighly busy and came just here to address Kyle' request ...
@Physikslover I meant ...
 
@Dilaton posts belong to everyone under the common license agreement, don't they?
 
vzn
9:34 PM
seems amazing you "separatists" dont seem to have a single readily available essay stating your position.
on Dimension1n0's profile he does point to this post by motl
he doesnt summarize anything only invites discussion in the comments
am all for high quality/expert physics... but...
all this energy... couldnt it be channeled into something more... productive? :\
"dissidents"
 
@vzn physicsoverflow is meant to be the physics equivalent of math overflow. It's meant to resurrect the failed TP.SE, but without the pressure to succeed
 
vzn
"without the pressure to succeed" lol
 
@vzn lol, yup ;)
 
vzn
however, do want to express some agreement with ... disadvantages of the se model eg in general & wrt scientific communication.
saw this comment on motls post:
> Well, am going to leave the entire SE network... tired of the whole opinion over science thing going on several sites. Any wonder many academics that I know do not regard SE as a viable scientific site —"H"
 
@vzn any physics equivalent of math overflow will always have problems with numbers, because physics isn't as popular as maths. When the theoretical physics site failed, they were getting roughly 1 question/2 days
 
vzn
9:39 PM
have investigated se dynamics/policy somewhat over several yrs, various sites, & found some of it unappealing.
sometimes feel mods have too much power etc
yeah question volume is a big deal metric by se, but maybe a different model without lots of question volume is still viable...
not to be forgotten, they started out with stackoverflow which eclipses all other sites as far as volume...
 
@vzn good reliable mods like the ones on Physics stack exchange, are critical for the success of any site. They need to have that power
 
vzn
think that mods are valuable/indispensible but not always sure the software mechanisms channel that energy best
like the idea of experimenting...
wish se would support smaller experimental ideas... "mini-ses"... area51 doesnt really support that structure...
any of you heard of michael nielson? read his book recently.
he literally wrote the (highly influential) book on qm computing...
this is a neat book, recommend it. some alignment with the idea of major new paradigms/structures emerging in scientific communication etc
gotta blog on this sometime
it will be hard to beat se software which is highly finetuned/evolved, but it seems not controversial to consider that it might not be "best fit" for all kinds of (diverse) communities...
 

« first day (1246 days earlier)      last day (1903 days later) »