Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Topic summaries

Cyrus - 29-6-2004 at 21:50

This may be way out there, or require way too much work, but I think that it would be much easier for the average searcher if, instead of having to go through 10 pages of silly posts like mine, they could click the "summary" button, and be taken to a short, terse, and useful description of the best way to do whatever the topic is about. I realize that this would not be easy, it is just an idea though.

Any comments?

The_Davster - 29-6-2004 at 22:12

I had just thought this today also. However, as threads grow, old info is disproved, new evidence is realized, modifications to procedures are made. This makes sense once a thread has reached the "end" but that end is not always clear.

I had been reading that monstrous PETN thread on the E&W today and that is definatly a thread where some sort of sumary should be made. Something containing the best yielding synth, uses, charges. You get the idea. Obviously this does not completly apply here because of how we are not concerned with practial applications, but that thread was just the best example I could currently think of.

I think that very few threads here have the size that would warrant a sumary. But some perhaps a thread where a well working synth is came up with, would benefit well from a summary of the best preforming synthesis. Off the top of my head, the chlorobutanol thread.

These summaries could then be placed in the MSDB library. We would have some origional works in there then.

It would be a big job making these summaries, so perhaps it would be best to have the member who obviously knows the topic best write it, but with the input of others.

Polverone - 30-6-2004 at 09:18

Projects-by-committee never seem to go anywhere. If you want to write a topic summary, write it. I'll look it over and place it in the Library if I'm satisfied with it. Otherwise I'll give you some editorial tips, but it can't be too close of a collaboration. You should be able to write reasonably well and without technical (spelling, grammar) errors to tackle this job.