42 replies to this topic

[brokenportal]

Do you guys remember the ask jeeves forums that they used to have about 7 years ago? They had some great, super great features, Ill try to remember them all tomorrow, but some were that in topics if you responded to a persons specific response then it would appear as a sub response under that. It managed digressions pretty well. They also had 2 or 3 lists like the "last 10" I forget exactly, I think one was topics that have new responses to your responses and another one was topics that you started.

They also had a brilliantly effective incentive system that gave people a ranking for the number of good posts they made. Then they showed a daily, weekly, and monthly top 20 leaders list. It encouraged people to create more good posts in order to raise in the ranks. Im working on a similar ranking project for volunteer tasks in the google doc on line 30 if anybody wants to help with that. I told you about that didnt I light owl? I hope I did as we were big on discussing that before, thats where the project came from.

[brokenportal]

Posting privileges would be by approval from a peer review approach but also open to any paying member subject to peer review if they violate the somewhat stricter posting guidelines, however everyone should be able to read it. Also a member that got restricted from posting in the science zone would not necessarily lose all posting privileges, unless they violated the bylaws. But this is an area where registered users might be allowed to post too on an individual basis.

For example Jay Olshansky is a registered user and a scientist. He would be granted permission to post in the science area and would not have to be a paying member to do so.

The members only area can also have a science round table area that included perhaps a file sharing aspect for advanced journal articles, not subject to general public viewing.

Great ideas, I agree. Not exactly sure why peer reviewed publications tend to be locked but Im sure theres a reason and over all I agree.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by "exposure expedition minded people" but the whole point of this exercise is to reduce the amount to which one category buries another and in that respect we are all on the same page. We only differ on nuance.

Well, there is the science aspect of the cause, and then just as or even more importantly, the advocacy or "exposure" part of the cause that we need to expedite.

[Lazarus Long]

For example Jay Olshansky is a registered user and a scientist. He would be granted permission to post in the science area and would not have to be a paying member to do so.

I just want to make it clear that posting privileges are out of the scope of this project. Any posting privileges must be set on a forum basis, so if a zone is to be restricted to posting from specific members, it must consist only of forums that are governed by those special restrictions. The Forum Portal will not be able to technically intervene in the functions of the general forum.

It would however be possible to change permissions on forums depending on zone designation in the portal, but that would have to be done with special attention so as not to disrupt normal forum operations.

I agree.

We can tailor permissions now by grouping the member category. The easiest thing to do with someone that passes the vetting for posting privilege would be to create a special category. Also when I say peers they might not only be scientists on that peer review but also groups like the BoD directors and general leadership. We do not want to just turn into another Old Boy network of self congratulating consensus seekers that just become another example of parochialism instead of innovation.

However portals can be tailored too, and there would be a popular level of science forums that anyone should be able to post to and these would help establish the quality of a poster's contribution in many cases more than a reviews of their private data (credentials).

[Lazarus Long]

Do you guys remember the ask jeeves forums that they used to have about 7 years ago? They had some great, super great features, Ill try to remember them all tomorrow, but some were that in topics if you responded to a persons specific response then it would appear as a sub response under that. It managed digressions pretty well. They also had 2 or 3 lists like the "last 10" I forget exactly, I think one was topics that have new responses to your responses and another one was topics that you started.

I am not sure but I do not think we can thread and unthread the view with our software. I participate now in forums where that is possible but I suspect it requires a different software package entirely or else a switch much be thrown I have not yet seen in admin.

They also had a brilliantly effective incentive system that gave people a ranking for the number of good posts they made. Then they showed a daily, weekly, and monthly top 20 leaders list. It encouraged people to create more good posts in order to raise in the ranks. Im working on a similar ranking project for volunteer tasks in the google doc on line 30 if anybody wants to help with that. I told you about that didnt I light owl? I hope I did as we were big on discussing that before, thats where the project came from.

I would like to see more of this in the supps and noots perhaps but I am a little nervous about encouraging a scientific discussion designed around crowd appeal. The pandering this often encourages is more about politics than science and the history of science demonstrates again and again that ideas which are often of the most important scientific *truth* are also many times the least *popular*.

I do think popularity ranking has a valid place in some discussions like projects and intros for example or many of the other social and philosophical fora, even the reposted Immortality Meme articles.

[Lazarus Long]

OK here is one more refinement.

On the very front page we can leave the active topics button alone if no one wants to have four buttons there but when you click it you go to a page that describes the ones I am suggesting instead of all the topics, in the same manner you get when you press the Imminst forums button above. It opens on a list of ALL the forums with the most recent post in each below but a *zone page* would open with this suggestion and all four principle zones would appear with ONLY SOME of the most recent few forum areas with the single most recent post in that area listed below it.

You can click the Zone category and go to an Active topic listing of the entire zone, you can click the forum area and go directly to the index list of topics just like you do now, you can click the title of the post and go directly tot eh front of the topic, or you can click view last and go to the last post just like now.

Also once off the front page there is ample space for multiple buttons on the same menu line above so that too would allow a fast jump to the same Zone Pages we have been discussing and I still like the idea that an all of the above option replaces the button for the zone you are in once there and throws you back to the main zone page just like the button on the front portal page.

BTW there is also space to allow the entire front portal to be widened slightly without eliminating the 360 degree border and then all the buttons would be shrunk in size slightly to make more space available for more buttons on the front page menu but that is a different issue of front page redesign that is doable but another additional task.

Also slightly widening the entire central information *kiosk* a little would help in presenting the information already listed and scrolling there.

[brokenportal]

One the very front page we can leave the activ topics button alone if no one wants to have four buttons there but when you click it you go to a page that describes the ones instead of all the topics in the same manner you get when you press the Imminst forums button above. It opens on a list of ALL the forums with the most recent post in each below but a *zone page* would open with this suggestion and all four principle zones would appear with ONLY SOME of the most recent few forum areas with the single most recent post in that area listed below it.

I think what your saying is, link to 3 or 4 "zones" through the active topics button. When you click on active topics, then those sub forum zones would appear at the top of active topic right? I think thats one of the best ideas too if thats what your saying. Then have it so you can either click on one of those zones, or view them all mixed together underneath in the main active topics list right?

I participate now in forums where that is possible but I suspect it requires a different software package entirely or else a switch much be thrown I have not yet seen in admin.

What forum is that? It probably is a common software package, I think Ive seen it elsewhere too.

I would like to see more of this in the supps and noots perhaps but I am a little nervous about encouraging a scientific discussion designed around crowd appeal.

Exactly, maybe supps and noots, then probably for sure in stuff like philosophy, society, projects, and general, but then probably not in science.

vetting for posting privilege.......... ............. not want to just turn into another Old Boy network

I agree again.

[Lazarus Long]

One the very front page we can leave the activ topics button alone if no one wants to have four buttons there but when you click it you go to a page that describes the ones instead of all the topics in the same manner you get when you press the Imminst forums button above. It opens on a list of ALL the forums with the most recent post in each below but a *zone page* would open with this suggestion and all four principle zones would appear with ONLY SOME of the most recent few forum areas with the single most recent post in that area listed below it.

That actually should have said:

On the very front page we can leave the active topics button alone if no one wants to have four buttons there but when you click it you go to a page that describes the ones I am suggesting instead of all the topics, in the same manner you get when you press the Imminst forums button above. It opens on a list of ALL the forums with the most recent post in each below but a *zone page* would open with this suggestion and all four principle zones would appear with ONLY SOME of the most recent few forum areas with the single most recent post in that area listed below it.

I think what your saying is, link to 3 or 4 "zones" through the active topics button. When you click on active topics, then those sub forum zones would appear at the top of active topic right? I think thats one of the best ideas too if thats what your saying. Then have it so you can either click on one of those zones, or view them all mixed together underneath in the main active topics list right?

Almost, when you go to the primary index page that you get when clicking ImmInst Forums above a page appears with every primary forum category listed and the visible active topics of one or a few recent topics below it. I am suggesting a similar format for this division that would work the same way but describe four forum *Zones* and under that would be a few of the most recent active sample fora topics. It does not have to be too restricted but also should not provide too many topics either. The pointis that you click the forum zone there and a separate active topics page in the traditon format opens up and there you find the selective topics we have been discussing.

This makes it a more strealined search view based on generally associated content. You all of the above function would exist in the topic and index window above where is says active topics now but would only appear inside the zone as a replacement for the now redundant active topics button for that zone. I guess it could be a 5th button on that bar too when you are in a topic. There is more than enough space on that bar to have multiple zone buttons, including one that returned to *All Zones* and gave the same page you are familiar with now.

I participate now in forums where that is possible but I suspect it requires a different software package entirely or else a switch much be thrown I have not yet seen in admin.

What forum is that? It probably is a common software package, I think Ive seen it elsewhere too.

There are a variety of them. One is Tribe.net

However that is a very differnt software package than we are using.

I would like to see more of this in the supps and noots perhaps but I am a little nervous about encouraging a scientific discussion designed around crowd appeal.

Exactly, maybe supps and noots, then probably for sure in stuff like philosophy, society, projects, and general, but then probably not in science.

vetting for posting privilege.......... ............. not want to just turn into another Old Boy network

I agree again.

Then on these points we are in accord. Anyone else want to weigh in?

Lightowl, what do you think? Is this looking doable?

[lightowl]

Lightowl, what do you think? Is this looking doable?

I have a hard time visualizing your suggestions as I am quite busy now and only have time to skim them. I think I will have time next week to create a very preliminary/basic version of the portal. My opinion on visual impression and layout is that it can be easily modified in an ongoing effort to optimize usability. The technical implementation is what I will be focusing on in the beginning, but suggestions on visuals/interface are welcome.

Regarding visual/interface suggestions: It will make it much easier to understand if everyone with an idea could put together an HTML or Image mock-up. That leaves no ambiguity. I realize that takes a bit of time, but it would spare me a great deal of time trying to figure out exactly what is being proposed.

Edited by lightowl, 06 December 2008 - 05:38 AM.

[brokenportal]

So how is this coming along? Any more ideas anybody? or any more people want to help try to program something like this?

[Lazarus Long]

I wanted to follow up on Lightowl's request but I am unfamiliar with how to set up the mock pages we have used in the past.

Is there a template that I can access through admin for this set up?

[lightowl]

Sorry. I got sidelined by my mom visiting me for 3 weeks and holidays etc.. I will get this moving ASAP.

Lazarus Long, you can use any page producer or imaging program you feel most familiar with. It does not have to be HTML/JavaScript compliant, since it is basically just a visual representation of ideas. Keeping functionality out of a mock-up also makes it easier do changes.

[modelcadet]

We have already lost more than a few serious scientists and science grad students BECAUSE they couldn't get a word in edgewise over the hyperbole and they have said they do not want to be associated with sites that threaten their reputations because of some of the *kookier* posters.

They will also roll their eyes and go look somewhere else if the science is getting mixed with religious issues. There are thousands if not millions of sites for the religious minded but only a scant few that allow lay folk to learn about science at the cutting edge in a participatory manner. Our mission is to be one of the latter while preserving some space for the ethical and social debates to continue on a more disciplined plane. Spirituality is a social reality that deserves a place at the table of topics here but it, along with lifestyle concerns, society, and politics should not be allowed to drown out the serious discussion of the sciences, or for that matter internal issues of projects, member topics and member social development through intros, news sharing etc.

All I am saying is that if we could filter the areas apart some then we could better meet the needs of both our diverse members AND better stay on task with the core mission. Serious students of science and professionals will simply leave for other sites if they are going to have fundamentalist interfere with a scientific discussion on say genetics or stem cells by debating with ethical and political arguments that belong in a different category.

That unfair competition for preeminence is effectively what happens by default when all the topics are forced to compete to be at the top of the same active topics page. Newbies cannot understand the nuances and intricacies of navigating forum areas around here and they shouldn't be expected to, we need to make the initial navigation experience more user friendly and that is why we need to split the active topics into *zones*. I still think four such *zones* are better but I could live with 3 if I had to.

And yes my understanding is that when you track a topic an email is sent to you whenever someone posts to the topic. Though your idea of making a separate tracking function that creates a special list of tracked topics is probably possible too and would be useful if it can be done.

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said there was a significant difference between ImmInst and SingInst. Let's be honest guys and gals: BOTH IDEAS ARE F@#$ING NUTS! To most people, anyway. Both ideas are viable. Both should be pursued, certainly. On the large, there's a lot that SingInst is able to do specifically because of what it is NOT doing. Some of those things are important. I myself alienate many of these 'scientific' or 'economic' wonks because I'm patronizing. Don't forget us! We certainly try to understand their value, but we grow despondent when they don't try to understand ours.

I believe we should experiment with interfacing; interfacing infrastructure is vastly critical for manipulating memetic structures. Essentially, you work in the same dimensionality as the n-dimensional manifold meme. Well... it's a little more complicated than that... but not if you're Nova Spivack! I wish he were reading this right now. Twine sucks compared to what it could be, with his patent. Oh well. Anyway, ImmInst should certainly make better interfaces for both new users and existing, repeating users. Here's the thing: There's a limit on how much you can alter the interface with existing users (can't teach an old dog new tricks). BUT, you don't have that with new users. And, if something is successful with new users, it'll naturally find it's way to old users. Certainly old users innovate (I don't remember seeing any new users post on this topic, although they should, and tell us what they would most want!). So let's try a new interface, add a little content, and then game Digg and Twine (if Nova's reading, he can help!) to get some new users to test the interface and see which parts of it stick!

Basically, what really needs to happen, if we want this movement to take off, is that we need to spread ourselves across multitudes of interfaces. Ok, let's break it down really simple: Why art? What purpose is art? For this reason also, we should be nimble if we wish to share our meme.

Edited by modelcadet, 09 January 2009 - 04:13 AM.

[brokenportal]

We have already lost more than a few serious scientists and science grad students BECAUSE they couldn't get a word in edgewise over the hyperbole and they have said they do not want to be associated with sites that threaten their reputations because of some of the *kookier* posters.

They will also roll their eyes and go look somewhere else if the science is getting mixed with religious issues. There are thousands if not millions of sites for the religious minded but only a scant few that allow lay folk to learn about science at the cutting edge in a participatory manner. Our mission is to be one of the latter while preserving some space for the ethical and social debates to continue on a more disciplined plane. Spirituality is a social reality that deserves a place at the table of topics here but it, along with lifestyle concerns, society, and politics should not be allowed to drown out the serious discussion of the sciences, or for that matter internal issues of projects, member topics and member social development through intros, news sharing etc.

All I am saying is that if we could filter the areas apart some then we could better meet the needs of both our diverse members AND better stay on task with the core mission. Serious students of science and professionals will simply leave for other sites if they are going to have fundamentalist interfere with a scientific discussion on say genetics or stem cells by debating with ethical and political arguments that belong in a different category.

That unfair competition for preeminence is effectively what happens by default when all the topics are forced to compete to be at the top of the same active topics page. Newbies cannot understand the nuances and intricacies of navigating forum areas around here and they shouldn't be expected to, we need to make the initial navigation experience more user friendly and that is why we need to split the active topics into *zones*. I still think four such *zones* are better but I could live with 3 if I had to.

And yes my understanding is that when you track a topic an email is sent to you whenever someone posts to the topic. Though your idea of making a separate tracking function that creates a special list of tracked topics is probably possible too and would be useful if it can be done.

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said there was a significant difference between ImmInst and SingInst. Let's be honest guys and gals: BOTH IDEAS ARE F@#$ING NUTS! To most people, anyway. Both ideas are viable. Both should be pursued, certainly. On the large, there's a lot that SingInst is able to do specifically because of what it is NOT doing. Some of those things are important. I myself alienate many of these 'scientific' or 'economic' wonks because I'm patronizing. Don't forget us! We certainly try to understand their value, but we grow despondent when they don't try to understand ours.

I believe we should experiment with interfacing; interfacing infrastructure is vastly critical for manipulating memetic structures. Essentially, you work in the same dimensionality as the n-dimensional manifold meme. Well... it's a little more complicated than that... but not if you're Nova Spivack! I wish he were reading this right now. Twine sucks compared to what it could be, with his patent. Oh well. Anyway, ImmInst should certainly make better interfaces for both new users and existing, repeating users. Here's the thing: There's a limit on how much you can alter the interface with existing users (can't teach an old dog new tricks). BUT, you don't have that with new users. And, if something is successful with new users, it'll naturally find it's way to old users. Certainly old users innovate (I don't remember seeing any new users post on this topic, although they should, and tell us what they would most want!). So let's try a new interface, add a little content, and then game Digg and Twine (if Nova's reading, he can help!) to get some new users to test the interface and see which parts of it stick!

Basically, what really needs to happen, if we want this movement to take off, is that we need to spread ourselves across multitudes of interfaces. Ok, let's break it down really simple: Why art? What purpose is art? For this reason also, we should be nimble if we wish to share our meme.

So is what your saying that dividing the active topics into two and all the other stuff that lightowl is working on may not be as fruitful for getting more action orientated discussion as interfacing?
You may be right. I propose we do both. We have a team getting ready to fully launch itself. Its the digg, twine, blog, youtube team that we will probably be calling the internetworking team unless people want to discuss other names. Its beginning outline is on line 39. here. When it moves to its official spot in the wiki it will probably be at imminst.org/wiki/internetworking. I was chatting with thughes about it today and along with Kostas and whoever else wants to help we may get it launched today. Hopefully at least with in a week. Basically the team will have, to start off with at least, lists for those 4 things. People on the team will then have to add or do at least one thing with that list per week. It could be any of a variety of things. They could digg one article in the list, they could add an article from digg for people in the team to digg, they could add an article to digg, they could add a blog link, they could write a blog and then link it, they could comment on a youtube video, make a youtube video and link it etc.. They all have to be related to the cause though of course. And if a person comments on say, a life extension youtube video but its not a link in the team wiki then it wouldnt count, they would also have to link the video. There would be a team captain or two who over see all this stuff and schedules meetings and all that.

As for this stuff being nuts, its not nuts, people like us just havent persuaded everybody well enough yet. This reminds me of Kennedies Rice Stadium speech he made before they undertook to go to the moon. Im looking for interest in discussing rewording it with a life extension theme for the same kind of purpose. Its a powerful speech in persuasion of why we should work on bold endeavors.