Sciencemadness Discussion Board - post whores like me - Powered by XMB 1.9.11 (Debug Mode)

post whores like me

chemrox - 28-1-2008 at 15:53

I'm a post whore according to a certain faction here. That's because I see the forum as an ongoing conversation about chemistry, apparatus and related matters. It's an ugly term that implies pernicious attention seeking as a primary motive for posting. I'm curious to know how it started and what those who use it feel posting should be limited to? There's probably a balance somewhere between responding daily to multiple threads and just posting information that hasn't been offered here before. However, is there a problem with frequently writing in on threads and if so what is it?

ScienceGeek - 28-1-2008 at 15:56

I think it's wonderful you are a post whore

I bet a lot of people on this forum (including me :S) often know the answer to something, or has something to say, but doesn't because "I'll do it next time"

My point is: Be a proud post whore!

BromicAcid - 28-1-2008 at 16:32

Being a post whore doesn't imply at all that you are creating or replying to a large number of topics in and of itself. Some post whores only post occasionally maybe a few posts every few days. What differentiates them as a post whore is that...

A) They don't add anything to further the topic-

E.g. "Oh, I had one of those once!" Or "I've heard of that before, but I don't remember where..." Or even "I agree!"

Occasionally those sorts of responses are appropriate though, such as when a topic is relatively obscure and your confirmation helps to reaffirm the validity of the mother post. However when those responses are used by the same person over a number of topics they can lead to the affliction known as post whoring.

B) Their reply to the topic is off topic, hardly relates to the topic, and serves to answer its own line of questioning-

E.g. "I never got gassed with HCN before but one time I got hit with some hydrogen chloride, I coughed for like an hour."

Again, this type of answer is not in and of itself post whoring, however used compulsively it could be indicative of a post whoring lifestyle.

C) They reply with one word (Two at the most) or an emoticon-

E.g. "Okay." Or "I understand"

That sort of reply is not conducive toward a conversation, it helps to stagnate the forum especially when you really don't understand or are just humoring someone. What do you understand and why didn't you understand it before? As with previous examples this is an acceptable reply, however when used en-mass it can serve as evidence of post whoring.

NOTE! "Nice job!" and many compliments are not examples of post whoring if the accolades are truly deserved.

D) UTFSE! -

E.g. "UTFSE!" Or "Next time UTFSE!" Or "Gahhh! Why are people so lazy, UTFSE!"

Some of us here are sick of the influx of people not willing to use the search engine. I'll admit that I am one of them. However to go around brandishing that as an answer to multiple topics in a given day is post whoring of the highest degree. It contributes nothing to the post, discourages the poster, and since it takes no time/effort/thinking on the side of the poster and only serves to increase their post count, it is an irrefutable example of the post whoring art form.

Now, I will admit that this list is not all inclusive. And as I have stated in most of these explanations these responses for the most part are not proof positive of post whoring. One word answers and such do have their place on the forum. However it is when these are all used together, time and time again, where a poster adds nothing to the topic and fulfills the ideals of post whoredom by not contributing anything relevant to a topic that they have crossed over that line and the trash filling their brain is uncontrollably spilling out onto the keyboard with the simple minded goal of increasing their post count for the sake of increasing their own post count.

This is not an instant message conversation, this is a discussion forum, posts are not made just to let the other person know you're still there. Each post should add or be relevant to the previous, like adding to a novel, you don't just put crap there to increase it's length, posts should be thought out and structured and have a point.

Other examples of postwhoredom are welcome!

Also of note is that post whores are not post whores forever. Redemption is not impossible.

[Edited on 1/28/2008 by BromicAcid]

chemoleo - 28-1-2008 at 18:26

The above post is mandatory reading for all members, including some very 'established' ones.

During the past 6 months, I've received complaints about a large proportion of posts without purpose or real information (which very much relates to the contagious phenomenon termed 'postwhoring').

This has been perceived as leading to a decrease in quality of the forum for the past year or so.

This is clearly not in anyone's interest.

From this point forward, crappy and useless posts will be deleted, subject to a moderator's discretion. Continuous infringements may lead to posting bans.

Please do contact a mod or admin if you notice infringements.

It is time to get this forum back on track!

It is about QUALITY not QUANTITY!

Chemrox, this post will make a sticky in Forum Matters. Thank you for raising this issue, and making a valuable contribution!

[Edited on 29-1-2008 by chemoleo]

BromicAcid - 28-1-2008 at 19:02

I think that might be a conflict of interest.

Since we're on topic let me point out another related and relevant thread/poll:

Should the posts of post whores and other irrelevant posts be deleted from the forum?

Where this was somewhat covered before and a majority of people already agreed with Chemoleo that irrelevant posts and examples of post whoring should just be deleted. Granted we might accidentally loose some good posts in the process, however if the post did contain useful information my thought would be that the poster might be compelled to attempt to express it in a different way so as to better get their point across thereby making their information more valuable.

12AX7 - 29-1-2008 at 12:24

I think it's funny that, within months of NBK's death, we're seeing a tightening of censorship *here*. But I'm sure that's coincidence.

I suggest moderators should PM the removed post to the poster when it is removed, along with a concise explanation of what and why. This will facilitate the process: "the poster might be compelled to attempt to express it in a different way".

Tim

[Edited on 1-29-2008 by 12AX7]

BromicAcid - 29-1-2008 at 14:33

Tightening of censorship? This topic was covered years ago and people then agreed that low quality / irrelevant / off topic posts detract from overall topic quality. And what the heck does this NBK person have to do with things? I'm not the one that started this thread, I was just the one that replied. And that was just me venting about some of the low quality posts that have been popping up lately. It wasn't a direct shot at chemrox, or ScienceGeek, or even you (unlike the linked thread) it was simply an opening for me to express some thoughts I've had on the subject for some time.

I do agree with you though that people who's posts are deleted might need some kind of notification, otherwise they might wonder where their post went and post pointless replies to the thread in question asking readers where their post went, thereby degrading topic quality.

vulture - 29-1-2008 at 14:56

Quote:

I think it's funny that, within months of NBK's death, we're seeing a tightening of censorship *here*. But I'm sure that's coincidence.

You have WAY too much time on your hands to produce such a conspiracy theory.

Quote:

I suggest moderators should PM the removed post to the poster when it is removed, along with a concise explanation of what and why. This will facilitate the process: "the poster might be compelled to attempt to express it in a different way".

Cunning attempt, but no. What you're saying is that I'd have to explain to a postwhore what they actually wrote and why it is crap? That way a compulsive postwhore would just overwhelm the moderating squad with an exercise in futility.

chemrox - 29-1-2008 at 15:01

I wanted to get agreement on what "post whoring" is. If we went with Bromic's definition I'd be comfortable. I know a member who divides the number of posts by the time on the forum and draws a conclusion. I can't agree with that.

I started this thinking about how the forum could be a better place and some concerns about censorship were involved. I think that some self-assessment along the lines indicated by Bromic and less subject oriented censorship would help. I would like it if more experiments were reported, successful and otherwise. I would add this to Bromic's: if you feel you have to use the moniker, "SWIM" this isn't the place to discuss it. That should be sufficient censorship. I haven't seen too much of the pointless nannering chemoleo referred to but I suppose it happens.

[Edited on 29-1-2008 by chemrox]

12AX7 - 29-1-2008 at 15:32

Quote:

Originally posted by BromicAcid
Tightening of censorship?

Yes, that's the topic being discussed: censorship == suppression of words. Censorship doesn't have to mean a bad thing, it's just a word. (Though I implied it's bad in my statement!)

Quote:

I'm not the one that started this thread, I was just the one that replied.

I never addressed you specifically?

Quote:

I do agree with you though that people who's posts are deleted might need some kind of notification, otherwise they might wonder where their post went and post pointless replies to the thread in question asking readers where their post went, thereby degrading topic quality.

I post the same here as I do at numerous other forums. The others are very comfortable places, but for some reason, this forum has always carried a certain disagreeable odor with it. And I think it has to do with these two things: the forced assumption that newbies need to know things ("UTFSE!" seems to be an ever-increasing phrase used as this forum grows), and the censorship advocated, and now enforced, by the moderating staff.

I still don't understand what it is, psychologically or otherwise, about so-called "post whoring" that is so annoying. Vulture appears to be immensely concerned about the amount of work he has to do here; the most optimal solution, then, would be none. What's wrong with this? Obviously, some moderation is necessary to maintain an advertisment-free forum, but we're talking well above and beyond that level of activity.

As concerns work, by far it's quite obvious that the best solution is none. Consider: if this plan is in fact followed to its logical conclusion, then there will be 1. MORE posts started in regards to acceptable posting (this whole *thread*, and many others related, would never exist if the subject weren't a concern); 2. following a "whore post", avid members will declare in subsequent posts "that was a whore post", until the offending post is removed; 3. you will have to do *considerable* work drawing and maintaining very specific rules over what is and is not a whore post, because you KNOW such a strict action will require strict regulation to follow. And 4., you have to enforce all those rules, in a way sensible for maintaining it (e.g., telling that poster why).

If "no work at all" is too little, then it would be most effective, in the long run, to explain why certain posts are undesirable. Why? Because people learn. It's far easier to send perhaps three detailed messages over a few weeks than to delete five hundred over the next year -- per active user! The choice is obvious.

My mention of NBK is of course absurd; the name merely came to mind in regards to a rather remarkable example of censorship, that most are familiar with in some way.

Tim

BromicAcid - 29-1-2008 at 16:19

Quote:

I still don't understand what it is, psychologically or otherwise, about so-called "post whoring" that is so annoying.

Then you've missed all of my points above regarding the subject. A post whore is not just a person that posts lots and lots of messages. But it is a person that does so while adding nothing to the discussion. Their posts actually serve to detract from the focus of a thread, trying to lead it off in other directions, or stop it entirely. For example, someone posts a thread asking about the potential for replacing the chlorine atoms on 1,4-dichlorobenzene to give benzene. A few moments after their initial post another member posts the following answer.

"This has been discussed before, UTFSE!"

Note, there have been examples where the UTFSE acronym was pulled out and it was later determined that such use of the search engine gives no useful information. That can be one outcome. Secondly other members who may want to reply to the topic are deterred, they after all feel the need to post in the mother thread that the member referred to when they stated that it was in the search engine somewhere. And finally if they are new enough they may be dissuaded to the point where they leave the forum.

Now, all of these are possible negatives. However the real negative is the post whore that gave the response. The response takes zero intelligence to give. Anyone on the forum can say 'UTFSE' in any thread. You add nothing by doing this and the possible negative connotations are listed above. This is post whoring. You have debased your posting in order to say something everyone on the forum already knows.

But why? I have no clue. A reasonable response would show some work. Even so little as finding the thread for the person and posting a response such as:

"This has already been covered [link]"

Now some people might look at that and say, "Why am I doing all the work? If I do that for everyone I just enable them to be slackers." True, so you know, it might be better to not reply at all than just reply with a mindless response.

So basically all I am saying is that post whoring in a malicious act centered on the very destruction of this forum. It is not innocent. Post whores dilute the useful information, cut off interesting topics, and overall act as a disruptive force to the forum.

With regards to my statement about not starting this thread, just being the one who replied it was simply my admission of guilt for turning the thread from more of a praising of post whores, which is where it could have been heading, to a militia against them.

I am sorry that this forum has rubbed you wrong from the start, but obviously something must be keeping you around so I don't have much to apologize for.

Now, let's all donate money to sciencemadness!

chemoleo - 29-1-2008 at 17:41

The issue does not reside with the moderator, it resides with you and yourself alone, for you choose to write what you write. (edit: This comment refers to a post by 12AX that was deleted in the meantime)

If you choose to post irrelevant crap, time and time again for hundreds or even thousands of posts, with sadly only a minority of true gems interspersed, you will not receive the gratuity of being informed, for it is too tiresome.
Sorry to single some people out but you were and are asking for it.

Members who are less infringing will of course be politely notified, and these numbers should remain low.

This has been going for years now, and the buck will stop here.

The issue of censoring has been raised before, and explained many a time. It becomes a rather tiresome and stale argument.

Let me say this: We'd rather remove crap (mark this, crap alone) than having a beautiful and unique forum being diluted and violated by that very thing. Quality over quantity, as simple as that. Noone minds the one-off, but unfortunately the one-off sometimes becomes a perpetuum mobile, when the one-off turns to always-on, discouraging many (including new) members.

Newbies are more than welcome, this is why there is a Beginnings forum. And if you are to look in that forum, people are generally more than helpful.
There is a forum called 'Whimsy' where anyone can post whatever he or she likes at your heart's content.

What is so difficult about this?

Let me re-emphasise:

The forum other than whimsy is NOT a conversation, it is a documentation of topic-related experiences, knowledge, and advice so that it may be of use to others.

For the former use Whimsy or an instant messaging service.

[Edited on 6-2-2008 by chemoleo]

vulture - 30-1-2008 at 14:30

Quote:

The others are very comfortable places, but for some reason, this forum has always carried a certain disagreeable odor with it.

Sheesh! I wonder how many posts you would have made if this forum was comfy to you! Anyway, you're free to leave if you desire.

Science is never comfortable. It's often messy and interspersed with setbacks. If you want to be comfy, go out and have a drink instead of posting here.

Quote:

Vulture appears to be immensely concerned about the amount of work he has to do here;

What exactly are you implying here? If you want to say something, say it, instead of some halfassed attempt at slander.

Quote:

1. MORE posts started in regards to acceptable posting (this whole *thread*, and many others related, would never exist if the subject weren't a concern);

This is forum matters you know. Anyway, you're posting in this thread, so you obviously don't have a problem with threads like these.

Quote:

2. following a "whore post", avid members will declare in subsequent posts "that was a whore post", until the offending post is removed; 3. you will have to do *considerable* work drawing and maintaining very specific rules over what is and is not a whore post, because you KNOW such a strict action will require strict regulation to follow. And 4., you have to enforce all those rules, in a way sensible for maintaining it (e.g., telling that poster why).

Very touching that you are concerned with our workload (although your previous remarks imply otherwise), however you are forgetting one thing: we have something called a report button. That is the best and fastest way to contact the mods. It works. So no excuses there.

As for censorship and all that political correct crap, once you post here you are already censoring yourself and others by posting in a certain section on a certain subject.

12AX7 - 30-1-2008 at 22:55

Quote:

Originally posted by vulture
Sheesh! I wonder how many posts you would have made if this forum was comfy to you! Anyway, you're free to leave if you desire.

I try my best nonetheless. Leaving would be the easy way out.

Quote:

Science is never comfortable. It's often messy and interspersed with setbacks. If you want to be comfy, go out and have a drink instead of posting here.

I disagree. Science can be exciting and challenging. It needn't be uncomfortable!

Quote:

Vulture appears to be immensely concerned about the amount of work he has to do here;

What exactly are you implying here? If you want to say something, say it, instead of some halfassed attempt at slander.

I'm implying nothing, I'm making an observation on something I have percieved about you. The most recent statement I might use to illustrate this is above:

Quote:

That way a compulsive postwhore would just overwhelm the moderating squad with an exercise in futility.

Not a perfect example of course, since you phrased that as an extreme case, which is intentionally to your case as most people would avoid such work.

A better general example might be the proclivity for "UTFSE", by yourself and others, which is easier for members to say, but very hard on newbies. On other forums, I've gotten used to the fact that "UTFSE" is impractical for newbies, and instead I write a short, concise reply, which is easy as common topics (e.g., "how to wire LED?") let you optimize such replies. It's not much more trouble than such threads as "UTFSE", "i searchd but fuond nothing", followed by "Learn to spell!", and further wastefulness. Spoonfeeding? Sure. But not everyone learns as well on their own as you and I do, either!

Quote:

1. MORE posts started in regards to acceptable posting (this whole *thread*, and many others related, would never exist if the subject weren't a concern);

This is forum matters you know. Anyway, you're posting in this thread, so you obviously don't have a problem with threads like these.

Well, no, I'm not; you are. It illustrates some irony in your concern, wouldn't you say?

Quote:

2. following a "whore post", avid members will declare in subsequent posts "that was a whore post", ...

Ah, but you (the staff) can't police the forum all 24 hours of the day. A smattering of members around the world views the forum approximately around the clock, however! It's quite likely that faulty posts may take hours to days before they are cleaned up, in which time some members may see them, and some of them may respond for whatever reason.

Quote:

As for censorship and all that political correct crap, once you post here you are already censoring yourself and others by posting in a certain section on a certain subject.

You'll have to explain -- I'm not getting a clear mental picture of what thought process wrote that. In any case, as far as censorship is concerned, you'll realize I never claimed that absolutely no censorship is a good thing; that would be anarchy, and the forum would be flooded by spam and cooks within weeks. No, the problem is striking the right balance -- and I think you are tipping the balance too far.

Tim (damned be le Chatlier, my postcount is changing the equilibrium! -- How's that for a chemical analogy?)

MagicJigPipe - 31-1-2008 at 00:44

Quote:

censoring yourself and others by posting in a certain section on a certain subject.

You might consider this "post whoring" but I really would like to know what you meant by this as well. I suppose if you stretched the definition of censorship, maybe.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you on some things but I really just don't get that statement.

Also, I think we should ALL just relax a little bit. This is just an online forum. Maybe would could put all of this energy into the chemistry sections, eh?

froot - 31-1-2008 at 06:58

Just keep things simple, splitting hairs between what postwhoring is and what's borderline and what's acceptable is wasting everyone's time. To the tune Chemoleo is whistling, I say if a post does not benefit anyone and the topic in any way, chuck the rubbish and keep the topic progressing as intended. Mods don't have to explain themselves to anyone and if they feel the necessity to get a topic back on track then so be it for the benefit of the rest of us. If your post gets removed, shame, there was obviously a reason for it so think before you type next time. If you are still not sure, there is the Detritus section that may give you a little direction. Simple.
The term UTFSE is there for a very good reason, just like the FSE is there for a very good reason. Take that MEKP topic for example, it's becoming contaminated with crap from people that can't get their synths right which has been discussed before. Using this board to eliminate errors in their working while straying from the synth in the first place is bullshit. "I managed to synthesise it in a different way like this" is far more appealing to me than "it won't work, why?" UTFSE - simple.
I am very impressed with the quality of this board and have learned plenty here, from a scientific and a forum ettiquette point of view. Appropriatly I remember a similar topic as this on here years ago where someone quoted this gem.
http://www.netalive.org/mirror/wanker.html
Can't remembr who it was but I have kept it close by since then and used it on my site before to 'direct' things a little. Thanks to whoever it was for that link.

MagicJigPipe - 31-1-2008 at 13:39

"UTFSE" gets thrown around a lot when it doesn't apply. Not to mention it's just plain fucking rude. "Use the fucking search engine you fucking piece of shit!!" is what I get from it. Maybe we could just say UTSE please, you know?

One example is the first post I made on this forum. I searched the forum and google for my answer and found nothing but the first thing I was greeted with was "UTFSE!". I just don't think it's a good way to "welcome" people to this forum. Many people that come here have never used an online forum before and they make mistakes. We shouldn't expect them to know everything about forum etiquette right off the bat and because of that we shouldn't chastise them for doing something wrong. I just don't see what is so hard with politely saying, "Hey, we don't do this sort of thing here and here's why, please take note of this in the future".

Also, yes, moderators don't have to be polite or allow people second chances without tearing new assholes but I consider it general human decency to start out with politeness. Then, if the person keeps it up maybe get a little more stern.

I don't know, I've always just been really easy going and I don't understand why people would want to be assholish about anything. It only causes static. Things just seem to run more smoothly in a relaxed but semi-strict atmosphere. That's the key I think, let's just relax and enjoy talking about chemistry and if someone seriously impedes on that, then punish them without being an asshole.

vulture - 31-1-2008 at 13:57

Quote:

Also, yes, moderators don't have to be polite or allow people second chances without tearing new assholes but I consider it general human decency to start out with politeness. Then, if the person keeps it up maybe get a little more stern.

I also consider it general human decency to start out with:
- using various search engines properly (FAR less effort than registering and posting)
- putting some effort into your posts; like spelling & grammar to start with
- putting in some effort of yourself, don't have us make your homework or write your research project
- not demanding people to email the answers (now that is RUDE on a discussion board)
- posting in the right section
- not crossposting your question or repeatedly demanding answers

Unfortunately, this is usually too much to ask for.

MagicJigPipe - 31-1-2008 at 18:12

Yes, I agree but I don't think we should scream at someone simply because it appears like they want to be spoonfed. When I first came to SM it had been years since I participated at an online forum and I was clueless as to how to act and how to post. If I wasn't so interested in chemistry, I would have left and never looked back because of the "abuse" I endured. I don't think we should make people feel like they should leave just because they don't have forum experience. It's not something you can learn by just reading a list of rules.

It's kind of like being the new kid at school. Of course you will fuck up but if people are nice about helping you learn the ropes, hopefully, you won't become an outcast.

Now, the completely obvious stuff that people do to abuse the forum is different. That behavior should be delt with appropriately but you can't expect everyone to know exactly what is acceptable and what isn't as soon as they make their first post.

IMO, so called "post whoring" should be delt with by deletion of posts only if the post adds ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the conversation, otherwise, it should be considered unacceptable censorship. Just as "post whoring" can become out of control so can deletion of posts and should be done with the utmost restraint.

The line between censorship and losing control is a difficult one to walk. If only there was a way to run a "democratic" forum where people could vote and express their concerns before questionable posts (not obvious trash posts) were deleted or censored or before people were banned (or topics placed in detritus). Unfortunately, I don't see that as being practical with the current forum software and/or beliefs of some of the mods.

Maybe we can already do that by only deleting things that are reported a certain amount of times?

BromicAcid - 31-1-2008 at 18:30

Honestly I think the report button is a much more civil option than most larger forums have. On some if the report button is dinged multiple times for a single post it gets deleted without intervention, at least here there is the human element where someone will actually look at the post and see if it is crap or not before deleting it.

I think it has been established that if a post adds nothing to a discussion or detracts from a topic (i.e. by being completely off topic) that most people agree it should be deleted. I don't even know why the matter is still being debated by some, per the Sciencemadness FAQ:

Quote:

They (the moderators) are here to discuss Mad Science and to maintain an atmosphere conducive to that discussion. They have the power to move misplaced threads, lock or delete inappropriate threads, and (as a last resort) delete/ban existing accounts.

They are permitted to do what is necessary to 'maintain an atmosphere conducive to discussion' I.e., if your post is crap, if your post tries to derail a topic, if they think that your post hurts the thread, they can delete it, heck, they can even ban you. Having an account at this forum can be considered a privilege that you can loose, and there have been members who have lost that privilege.

Really I mentioned the UTFSE example as a post whoring trait because it hurts the new members. We are not out to punish new members. They make mistakes, post in the wrong forums, etc. But they are expected to learn because if they don't have the gray matter in their heads to learn from simple mistakes like that, then maybe they should practice some softer more forgiving science like free-style poetry.

This may be a form of censorship, but those censorships exist in all media. You don't say the F-word on public television and you don't post crap on sciencemadness. And if you feel your freedom of speech is being cramped, believe it or not you have the freedom to leave the forum, or start a website berating sciencemadness for infringing on your ability to express yourself.

Get to it mods, delete the crap, and I think the only people that will miss it are the ones posting it.

[Edited on 1/31/2008 by BromicAcid]

One more clarification

chemoleo - 31-1-2008 at 19:21

Quote:

Yes, I agree but I don't think we should scream at someone simply because it appears like they want to be spoonfed.

This is mostly a matter concerning our very members, rarely that of the 'staff'. I'd still insist that this is rarely the case.

Let me just explain one thing - the issue of deleting posts has come up before, and it was quite unanimously 'voted' that crap posts should be deleted, see one of the above linked threads.

This indicates that this is a generally perceived problem.

In reality, I regret to say, this happened extremely rarely; I for one deleted no more than a handful of posts over 24 months, and these were atrocious.

However: The problem hasn't disappeared.

Many people have been complaining, rightly so. I noticed the deterioration, particularly the change over 6 months whilst I had no internet. This is like seeing your old brother after several months/years, and noticing several good and/or bad changes. You speak to him about it.

And this is the time.

It's time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

All the bickering about definitions of a good post et cetera, boil down to one thing alone:

The forum other than Whimsy is NOT an IM conversation where you can write anything random that just pops into your head, it is a documentation of topic-related experiences, knowledge, and advice so that it may be of use to others.

Write good informative posts and you have ZERO REASON to complain about potential deletions, in any threads of any nature.

Write bad, unrelated, outrageous (within limits hehe) whimsical posts, put them into Whimsy (Please don't make me explain this any further :-/ )

Write bad useless posts in forums other than Whimsy, many times, then face their deletion. And don't you dare complaining.

Again, what's so difficult about it?

No excuses.

Welcome back to a quality forum!

MagicJigPipe - 1-2-2008 at 08:03

Okay, good. One more thing to clear up though.

If someone is not an "expert" in a particular field of chemistry should he/she be excluded and/or refrain from posting in threads related to that field?

For example: Let's say I frequent a sports forum and someone makes a post on American football and in that thread someone says "Joe Montana was the greatest quarterback that ever lived". So, I, realizing that not everyone knows about football or even who Joe Montana is, say "Joe Montana played quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers and the Kansas City Cheifs from the 70s to the early 90s. A quarterback is an offensive position that usually calls the plays in huddle, after which he receives the ball and can run down the field or pass to another player on his team".

Then someone says "You are an idiot, everyone already knows that and your post doesn't help at all. Everyone who is interested in football should know who Joe Montana is and the definition of a quarterback is standard information".

Is he correct and if so, should I have refrained from making that post?

[Edited on 1-2-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

woelen - 1-2-2008 at 12:00

If you really want to write something obvious, of which you think everyone knows, then just don't write it. If someone else really does not know, but is interested, then that person can add a message to the thread and then you can respond. Of course, if someone is asking for something really obvious, like asking the chemical formula of water, then such a person may be warned about that and asked to do some searching next time. In such situations, I give the answer, but at the same time also ask him to change behavior next time.

It is all a matter of common sense, and there is not a single answer, which fits all situations. With every post, think twice and reread your post before you press the "Post reply" button.

MagicJigPipe - 1-2-2008 at 12:36

Okay, do most people on this forum consider peptide chemistry and the related reagent abbreviations and structures standard knowledge and/or completely obvious?

vulture - 1-2-2008 at 13:29

Where the hell are you going with this? I'm sure you can come up with exceptions till we're all having violent fits.

[Edited on 1-2-2008 by vulture]

BromicAcid - 1-2-2008 at 15:15

Seriously, the posts in question.... they are so out in left field, or so worthless that the person posting in the first place has to at least realize that what they are posting is a waste of space. We are not splitting hairs here, it's as Wolen said, 'common sense' this isn't McDonalds, we don't need warnings to say that things are hot, we're thinking people here. The additude should be, "So what if my reply was deleted, must have missed my mark on that one, better try again, this time better make myself clearer." Or "Hummm, I guess that really didn't fit in that topic."

The point being, this is nothing to get riled over, if for some reason several of your posts in a row start being deleted, I bet someone will contact you. If only to try and guide you on the path to enlightenment. It seems to me the only people who would fight this measure are those people who want to defend their right to post crap.

:mad:

MagicJigPipe - 1-2-2008 at 16:25

Okay. The reason I asked (I will admit this only happened once and without further incident) is because I posted a structure and stated the full name of an abbreviation and was chastised for it by chemoleo because apparently it was "standard information" and it "wouldn't help anyone". I just thought it was a general rule to define an abbreviation at least once because not all abbv. are standard for everyone.

Where is the line here? If someone types an abbreviation that is "standard" for a certain field of chemistry is it out of line to define it and post the structure? I just don't see how that could possibly hurt anything. I could be completely wrong but I just didn't see anything wrong with what I did.

I think it went something like this:

XXX: "PyBOP is and diisosomething(?) can be formed with blah blah etc..."

Me: "Please define acronyms at least once. Also, PyBOP is [gave IUPAC name] and here is it's structure"

Chemoleo: "Don't tell people what to do. That is a standard reagent used in X chemistry field and your definitions and structure won't help anyone." (Except I believe it was much more rude.)

Me: "Okay, next time I will stay out of your priviledged discussions"

NOTE: Those are NOT exact quotes.

Was I really in the wrong? That is all I need to know. Also, is that "post whoring".

Thanks.

chemoleo - 1-2-2008 at 18:54

Let me reiterate, for I think you didn't get it.

Peptide chemistry is complex, and totally non-standard in every-day chemistry (although this is becoming less so, admittedly)
Telling people (who are clearly in the know) quite authoritatively to inform what an acronym is, is useless without the context of the overall reaction.
Do you honestly think anyone will understand amide - carboxy couplings because of the structure of PyBOP you posted, which was the only bit of real information in your post? You gotta be damn well specialised for that. And I'd wager that no-one, including yourself, was any wiser with that very information - therefore it likely amounts to posting for the sake of it.

Ultimately I was trying to say (not only once), that if you quite strongly tell people what to do, then at least provide the real answer to the question - which here is how this type of coupling works, explaining the role of PyBOB etc. You can in fact download PyBOP/HoBT coupling schemes from the internet that are of some help.

But don't tell people what to do whilst your own answer contributes nothing to any real understanding.

Similarly, you wouldn't go up to your prof/superior/boss/chef telling him, dude, tell me the acronyms, at least once, without understanding what they'd do in the first place - whilst you are trying to keep the job and make sure everyone is impressed of you.
No, instead any sane person would shut up, look it up, and then make an informed response.
That's all I'm asking for.

Anyway, no more hair splitting please.

[Edited on 2-2-2008 by chemoleo]

12AX7 - 1-2-2008 at 20:40

Bleh, undefined acronyms are an endless source of hair-pulling!

Most papers are intelligent enough to state in at least one place WTAA (What The Acronyms Are), like this. Somewhere in the thread, preferrably in an easy to find place, like the first page, some terms should be defined. It's a courteous thing to do.

And incidentially, acronmys would be defined within the first few posts in a perfect world. Sometimes, people don't feel it's necessary (sometimes it isn't; everyone here does know what "HBr" is), or they forget to, or they just assume that EKWTTA. These situations are iffy to rude. There should be a general allowance for clarifying these things, wouldn't you say?

This forum is completely open. I can read and post in any public forum, from inorganic to biochem, whether I know anything about that subject or not. It's rude to hide yourself way in a specialist cocoon rattling off "PyBOP/HoBT" and such nonesense, when there may be curious readers following the thread, not knowing WTF you're on about. And it's even more rude to snap at that curious reader directly with "Use The Fucking Search Engine"! If you want to hide yourself away, go to a forum that's more specialized than this one. Subscribe to a journal or professional association (you pay for the priviledge of the service in these media). But be kind when someone's just asking a damn question!

Tim

("Everyone Knows What They're Talking About". I'm just not rude enough to make up an acronym and leave it a *complete* mistery.)

chemoleo - 1-2-2008 at 21:06

Well then, make the acronyms meaningful by saying what they are used for, what their role is. Don't just demand them, post a useless tidbit, and feel magnanimous & righteous for doing so sparingly little. And, I must say, the most frequent posters in this thread seem remarkably apt at this - providing posts of minimal info for minimal effort, whilst their screaming is by far the loudest and righteous.

That's got to stop (the minimal/no info posts). You can scream all you want, within reason

Make a serious contribution, explain what it means, and everyone will just lap it up. You'll be a hero in no time

Bye Bye shitty posts!

Not hard eh?

[Edited on 2-2-2008 by chemoleo]

Polverone - 5-2-2008 at 14:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Rosco Bodine
Well you old catfish wrangler you , just saddle up and
dig in the spurs and watch that thang porpoise through
the waves ....yeee haaa

Hey boss , where's the trim tabs on this damn thing

She's hot coming out of the hole , but it shore is a bouncy ride ....yeee haaa .......ride'em cowboy !!!

This was just excised from the "PC PSU to laboratory PSU" thread. Note its horrifying emptiness and be sure that you never approach this Platonic ideal of no-content posting.

MagicJigPipe - 6-2-2008 at 00:30

I would have to say that having a post that has a small amount of info is better than not having that info there at all. It's like saying, "No information is better than a little".

This ends my participation in this discussion for I am tired of arguing.

woelen - 6-2-2008 at 03:36

It is information density which counts. No post is better than a post with low information density.

Rosco Bodine - 6-2-2008 at 09:43

Somebody familiar with the signal trace on a waveform analyzer would understand the analogy which I was making to the oscillatory pulse response of an unstable circuit , the porpoising effect compared with a boat
having its throttles opened when there is too much
positive trim . An inside joke perhaps , but not at all devoid of content . Got boat , has power trim

Of course there's much to be said for sailing .
Especially with those ladies who have learned the
secret of a life without affliction by tan lines

Now that's engineering !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZelKmTJz0Q4

[Edited on 6-2-2008 by Rosco Bodine]

Ephoton - 11-3-2008 at 03:04

this forum is changing a lot of late. once it was a place were people were interested in hobby
chemistry making many things from the things we found in every day life. this was useful for
both parties the bee's and the pyro's that began this place. all of a sudden a heap of ex pro
chemists that have nothing better to do than argue about what is right and wrong and give excellent
chemical advice that requires a damb merck account. I still like this place but alas it is loosing it
childish and special charm that it had right from the start. yes the rules were kind of strict and some
were not happy with them but they had good reasons to be. just look at other forums that were
hosted for the two parties (not including old retired and bored chemists) no longer are we
braking ground in the home chemical field like we were (well as quickly anyway) instead
its all way to pro and way to bullied. delete what eva you like of mine delete it all for all I care
just please lighten up and get back to building shit and making things for the average person.
other wise its just not amateur chemistry in my book its an off shoot of after hours pro chem.

[Edited on 11-3-2008 by Ephoton]

ScienceGeek - 11-3-2008 at 03:47

Amen!!

Sauron - 11-3-2008 at 04:00

You'd like some of us to drill holes in our heads and let some knowledge, education and experience leak out and run down a drain somewhere?

Get off it. This is a chemistry forum, stop complaining because some real chemists have shown up and you can't keep up with them.

You have two choices: hit the door, adios, or, stick around and you might just learn some chemistry, accidentally, and through no fault of your own I'm sure.

There are a lot of VERY bright scientists on this forum. I won't even try to list them, for fear of forgetting some and thereby offending. As far as I am aware, none of them posts about their professional chemical activities, part or present. This was, is and remains an amateur chemistry forum.

Polverone owns the forum, and he was trained as a chemist. Maybe he makes his living as a chemist, I don't know. Do you want to disqualify all here who have formal training? I was trained as a chemist. Never did I work as a chemist once out of school. Would you like me to forget everything I learned and did?

Ozone's up for his Ph.D. in chemistry.

C'mon, YOU lighten up, enough with this bullshit reverse elitism. If you are feeling inadequate - try reading a chemistry book.

Ephoton - 11-3-2008 at 04:24

been to uni have a huge library including a lot of gmelin all osyn origonal inorg syn trans metal treaties god knows what else a huge library lots of gear to my man. studied a double in fact
but thats my bizz oh an ive made money from my chemistry and not from drugs. you would sell the world that
dislexia is a horrid condition that needs to be punished on a daily basis. who are you to say such
things. a few good chemists have just come on to the site. mate there were heaps of great chemists
on the site the whole time just most of them were interested in doing it the old fashioned way
so as every one could do it. yes I can buy shit from merck if I wish or other suppliers but thats
not what its about this hobby thing otherwise its just a rehash of what a lot of us not so good chemists as your self have done in our past or present employment.
as a programmer as well do you know what hobby code is

I tell you now its not going out and build a company database other wise I would want money for it. why becouse im a good coder
and any one good in there fields that are not doing something for the fun of it well they get paid.
to me and many trying to make sodium and even trying to make silicon tetrachloride are
a heap more fun than going to my book and going how damb cool am I to order this to do
a reaction so as I can post about it or what not. if this is not the case well maby your "research"
is not so amateur as the title of this site leads us to belive it contains.
there is nothing amateur about ordering from a cataloge or reciting well known textbook reactions.
TCT how many chemists in the industry use it. HEAPS what about sulfur chlorides. now thats
an amateur compound. if your a pro you look down on amateurs and go man thats amateur why
use that I would use this. even in the music industry this is so. but only truly a master can be
a pro and then step back for a minute enjoy the peace and tranqual state of mind of going
now I shall be amateur and do it the hard and old way just for fun just for kicks just to see
it done.

get a job mate your a great chemist in your own right but merck is far from amateur even you
must agree and your statement above was totally proving it. soften up mate we do like
the pro stuff but this is a hobby site well it always was before maby some of us would like it
to be a pro site.
in all honesty only a person who views this as pro chemistry would consider a persons education as paramount to a hobby. I dont know bromics education but I tell you what that
potassium in a can sure sparked a lot of peoples passion hats off to him the purple flame rocked.

YT2095 - 11-3-2008 at 04:34

oh Great!

now it devolves into a Dick Waving competition, PATHETIC!

Ephoton - 11-3-2008 at 05:20

you are right I am sorry sauron I have baited you and said some mean and nasty things as
I felt hurt and slighted not by your chemistry but rather by your need to voice personal opinions
and prejedous remarks about others pressence and posting matters on this site.
I shall refrain from baiting you anymore it is childish of me and far from productive.
I ask only one thing if you find a post that you do not like rather than getting down a dirty
and telling the world why your better than every one please just use the report button and
let the ever so kind administration of this place look into it. as I have said I could not care
if all my posts are deleted infact that would mean I was totaly anonymous I got the questions
I wanted answered and did not have to give anything for them.
I shall also if you can be so kind as to do this refrain from showing the rest of my lovely and
cute Thai vocab.

fair is fair I shall leave you and this whole pro hobby bee pyro and fogy gang thing alone.

after all a post whore is some one in my opinion who is posting so as others think something of them. ranks are nothing to those who enjoy there hobby and in all honesty I share most of my
joy with people face to face or over email or pm.
I dont often go into this political shit but I kind of could not help my self this time.

sorry I shall do my best to leave the personal shit out of my posts.

Sauron - 11-3-2008 at 07:14

Actually. yesterday all I did was to question the thread author's spelling of Pamona, California (there is no such place, there is a Pomona, Ca.) and to merely arch an eyebrow - no more than that - about your having resuscitated a thread dead for five long years.

Actually, I can swear much more colorfully than that in Thai. But this is not the Thai profanity forum.

[Edited on 12-3-2008 by Sauron]

12AX7 - 11-3-2008 at 09:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
Actually. yesterday all I did was to question the thread author's spelling of Pomona, California (there is no such place, there is a Pomona, Ca.)

Hilarious! I thought the same thing.

Sauron - 11-3-2008 at 10:20

To be fair there does seem to be confusion as there IS a Pamona community college but the official name of the city is Pomona not Pamona.

But the error was in the profile of NeverSleepy the thread author who is long gone. Nothing to do with Ephoton.

But he went postal on me anyway.

Nicodem - 11-3-2008 at 11:10

Please do not allow this thread to fall victim to post whoring!

Sauron, it would help a lot if you would not provoke other members whenever there is opportunity. That thread was not a place where to discuss geographic dilemmas and there is no need to always express your dislike with other member's posts, being because they resuscitate an old thread or whatever other reason you manage to find.

Ephoton, you better start using a spell checker and write comprehensible posts or else you risk more and more anger and provocations instead of appropriate replies. If you would know how much effort it takes me to read what you write you would probably think my tolerance has no limits (but you would be wrong!).

Sauron - 11-3-2008 at 11:27

Nicodem, I must demurr. My sole comment directed to Ephoto was:

Let sleeping threads lie.

Which was polite advice. And good advice in general. I fail to see how that can be construed as "provocative". I was a suggestionm and not a command.

His response was to shout MOTHERFUCKER! at me (in another language). Now that was provocative, and uncalled for. But I did not rise to the bait (and Ephoton now admits publicly to baiting me.) Did I? All I did was quite properly report his post.

Kindly detail how I am being "provocative" and to whom, so we can all know. It's a mystery to me.

It's a forum. Are members not free to express themselves as long as they do so with courtesy? There was NOTHING discourteous in my remark - only in his reply.

[Edited on 12-3-2008 by Sauron]

len1 - 12-3-2008 at 05:18

Quote:

this forum is changing a lot of late. once it was a place were people were interested in hobby
chemistry making many things from the things we found in every day life. this was useful for
both parties the bee's and the pyro's that began this place. all of a sudden a heap of ex pro
chemists that have nothing better to do than argue about what is right and wrong and give excellent
chemical advice that requires a damb merck account. I still like this place but alas it is loosing it
childish and special charm that it had right from the start. yes the rules were kind of strict and some
were not happy with them but they had good reasons to be. just look at other forums that were
hosted for the two parties (not including old retired and bored chemists) no longer are we
braking ground in the home chemical field like we were (well as quickly anyway) instead
its all way to pro and way to bullied. delete what eva you like of mine delete it all for all I care
just please lighten up and get back to building shit and making things for the average person.
other wise its just not amateur chemistry in my book its an off shoot of after hours pro chem.

- the viewpoint of a number of people

The definition of an amateur is one who has little equipment, little time, or little money, but certainly not one who has little brain - for then he is a complete loss, and be better spending his time on something more suitable to him.

In fact the amateur compensates for lack of funding by having more brain. Hall's process for aluminium is a prime example.

MagicJigPipe - 5-9-2008 at 18:19

I always thought the definition of "amateur" was someone who does something and doesn't get paid for doing it (as opposed to professional).

From Dictionary.com:

1. a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons. Compare professional.

3. a person inexperienced or unskilled in a particular activity: Hunting lions is not for amateurs.

Surely we don't want to identify with number 3! However, I think our definition of "amateur" is simply our creation.

chloric1 - 5-9-2008 at 18:51

Yes a chemical equivolent of #3 would be a noob preparing hydrogen sulfide by the liter and trying to liquiify it!

A noob mixing any sulfide with a chlorate or burning magnesium near open containers of water.

heheh...Jeez.

Sauron - 5-9-2008 at 21:39

The entire amateur/professional thing is inherently divisive, and a lot more complex than implied by any silly-ass dictionary entry.

What about people who are both amateurs AND professionals?

What about ex-professionals?

Stop trying to divide the forum into disparate camps. IMO anyone who says he is an amateur IS an amateur. It's a state of mind. No one who has formal chemical training and/or experience should have to apologize for it on this forum or anywhere else. Amateurs lacking such credentials should welcome such chemists into their midst if they have a lick of sense.

MagicJigPipe - 7-9-2008 at 07:48

Okay, but that can be said for any other word in our language. No one (including me) said that you couldn't be both at the same time. However, just because you don't agree with the definition doesn't mean the dictionary presenting it is "silly". Would you consider the Oxford English Dictionary silly?

Quote:

-a person who engages in a pursuit, esp. a sport, on an unpaid basis.
-a person considered contemptibly inept at a particular activity: that bunch of stumbling amateurs.
-engaging or engaged in without payment; nonprofessional: an amateur archaeologist.
-inept or unskillful.

(actually this is the "pocket" dictionary but it's written by the same people, I can't afford a copy of the real dictionary as it's around $6000)

Okay, I gained access to the full OED through my school's database. Here is the entry (I only include the one that is still in use today, there are several different meanings that are no longer used):

Quote:

2. a. One who cultivates anything as a pastime, as distinguished from one who prosecutes it professionally; hence, sometimes used disparagingly, as = dabbler, or superficial student or worker. See also quot. 1861.

1786 European Mag. Dec. 421/1 Dr. Percival..writes on philosophical subjects as an amateur rather than as a master. c1803 REES Cycl., Amateur, in the Arts, is a foreign term introduced and now passing current amongst us, to denote a person understanding, and loving or practising the polite arts of painting, sculpture, or architecture, without any regard to pecuniary advantage. 1807 Edin. Rev. X. 461 It was not likely that an amateur..should convict these astronomers of gross ignorance. 1827-39 DE QUINCEY Murder Wks. 1862 IV. 15 Not amateurs, gentlemen, as we are, but professional men. 1861 B. HEMYNG in Mayhew London Lab. Extra vol. (1862) 221/2 This class [of prostitutes] have been called the ‘amateurs’, to contradistinguish them from the professionals, who devote themselves to it entirely as a profession. 1882 Boy's Own Paper IV. 807 Our amateurs are improving, and the interval between them and the professionals is growing beautifully less.

And professional:

Quote:

b. Of an event, activity, occupation, etc. (now esp. a sport): undertaken or engaged in for money; engaged in by professionals (as distinct from non-professionals or amateurs).

1779 Remembrancer Public Events 1779 109 A question arises..if a national land defence [of conscripted men] was once fairly established,..whether any other professional army would be necessary. 1789 C. BURNEY Gen. Hist. Music IV. 676 Bach and Abel..opened a subscription, about 1763, for a weekly concert... The same concert now subsists in a still more flourishing way than ever, under the denomination of the Professional Concert. 1851 J. PYCROFT Cricket Field iv. 56 The chief patronage..was..in London. There the play was nearly all professional: even the gentlemen made a profession of it. 1884 Cyclist 13 Feb. 247/2 A rule prohibiting the holding of professional events at amateur athletic meetings. 1919 Vanity Fair July 23/1 At the top of the list came Professional Golf, closely followed by the best Amateur Golf. 1947 Partisan Rev. 14 258 He concealed his fear most of all from himself by means of his devotion to professional sports, major league baseball especially. 1950 J. DEMPSEY Championship Fighting ii. 11 Punchless performers who can win amateur or professional bouts on points. 1994 Sports Illustr. 22 Aug. 3/1 The Hermosa Beach event was only the second known appearance of professional beach soccer in the U.S.

So, according to the OED (which is probably one of the best sources of info on the English language) an amateur is basically the opposite of a professional. And a professional is someone who does something for money.

Now I did say that our version of amateur was "simply our creation". However, you turned it around on me to make it seem as if I was trying to be divisive. I was simply pointing out the contrast between our definition and the "true" definition.

And I suppose technically "ex-professionals" would be exactly that.

I really don't think it is too complex until you throw in different groups' definitions. I mean, it seems simple to me. If you have a "chemistry career" and you also do home experimentation, you are both. If you just do it at home you are an amatuer in the sense that you don't make money (but in another, less used definition you are a professional if you are skilled at what you do). So, they obviously aren't mutually exclusive/inclusive. But, like I said, I think it's simpler than you are saying.

Sauron - 7-9-2008 at 09:03

Who cares?

You persist in advancing unnecessary divisiveness.

My point was, stop it. If you want to argue definitions go find a philology forum. Unless the definitions are chemical ones.

Personally I'd rather know too much about chemistry than too little, I'd rather have too much equipment than too little, too many reagents than too few, and too much skill than not enough. Formal education and training and professional experience do not hinder, they help.

JohnWW - 29-7-2009 at 10:52

I was just wondering, how many posts does one have to have to qualify as a "post whore"? I have just passed the 2,000 mark, many of which are in the References section, which works out at an average rate of about 1.35 per day.

12AX7 - 30-7-2009 at 00:17

Evidently, closer to 3.

Ephoton - 22-9-2009 at 01:18

if I become a post whore does that mean I will get laid

hissingnoise - 22-9-2009 at 02:27

If you become a post whore you've already been laid. . .

1281371269 - 23-9-2009 at 11:16

By a post

entropy51 - 23-9-2009 at 16:29

Quote: Originally posted by 12AX7

Evidently, closer to 3.

I think it's based on the Harlotry Index (HI)

HI = N /(C + R)

N = number of posts per day
C = Content of posts
(extra points for citing a pKa value or using 'nucleophile')
R = number of references posted

psychokinetic - 24-9-2009 at 15:37

Brilliant.
Mind if I use that with extra points edited to relate to given forums?

Anders Hoveland - 27-6-2010 at 12:48

Quote: Originally posted by Ephoton

if I become a post whore does that mean I will get laid

Answer: yes! ...by someone on this forum
(and considering that 99.9% of the members on a chemistry forum are male, that may or may not be as pleasant as you might have hoped for)

hissingnoise - 27-6-2010 at 13:59

Quote:

[quote ] . . .99.9% of the members on a chemistry forum are male. . .

What? That'd mean the figure for female members on SciMad is just 9. . .
Surely not?
36-24-36 looks a lot better to me.

psychokinetic - 27-6-2010 at 19:02

9-9-9 is sexy. Don't knock it. Just roll with it

JohnWW - 27-6-2010 at 19:25

AX7 said above that you have to have at least 3,000 posts to qualify as a post whore.

psychokinetic - 28-6-2010 at 13:33

JohnWW
International Hazard
*****
Posts: 2764
--------------------------------------------

Careful then, JohnWW.
Does that make you a post-slut?
Do you start getting paid at 3000?