| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
Rador Labs
Harmless
Posts: 5
Registered: 30-11-2014
Location: Global
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
There is now a Rador Labs account, as you can see. It will be used primarily for posting submissions anonymously in future subjective challenges (more
info on that is to come later) as well as being a general outlet for Rador Labs members to use on the forum.
This account is open to be used by members of Rador Labs, the outreach collaborative for
amateur chemistry.
You can contact us via U2U, or by emailing us at radorlabs@gmail.com
We're also on Twitter, YouTube, YouTube for raw footage, and there is a dedicated thread on the forum.
Be sure to check out the current competition: Chemical Conflagrations which is now in the voting stage. Voting finishes on March 28th 0000h UTC
|
|
|
forgottenpassword
Hazard to Others
Posts: 374
Registered: 12-12-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Great to see more usernames with massive signatures. Fill the forum with crap.
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4516
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
If it makes you more comfortable, perhaps a smaller font size is in order? But really, why do you even bother to comment on it?
[Edited on 11-30-2014 by zts16]
|
|
|
forgottenpassword
Hazard to Others
Posts: 374
Registered: 12-12-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Because I read 2 lines of text, then 4 lines of signature. Now your post is one line of text and 5 lines of signature. I bother to comment on it
because it looks completely stupid. There are numerous forums on the internet completely ruined by idiots with stupid flashing animated signatures.
This forum used to attract more intelligent people who had no time for such crap, but slowly but surely the immature attention seeking egotists are
taking over. Why not just talk about chemistry and science without thrusting GIVE ME BITCOINS in red in everyone's face and stupid RADOR LAB OUTREACH
BULLSHIT COLLABORATIVE. It's a steaming pile of shit and it makes the forum look like it's inhabited by stupid attention seeking kids, which largely
it ISN'T.
So that's why I bother commenting. Maybe other people are too polite to tell you the truth, but I have no such problems. Are you here to discuss and
share your interests in chemistry and science or to be attention whores. Frankly it looks like the latter -- and this whole thread is testament to
that. Don't get annoyed. This is constructive criticism.
[Edited on 30-11-2014 by forgottenpassword]
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4516
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by forgottenpassword  |
So that's why I bother commenting. Maybe other people are too polite to tell you the truth, but I have no such problems. Are you here to discuss and
share your interests in chemistry and science or to be attention whores. Frankly it looks like the latter -- and this whole thread is testament to
that. Don't get annoyed. This is constructive criticism. |
This isn't constructive criticism. This is flaming.
I'd love for people to tell us if they have helpful suggestions, but when you go straight to the CAPSRAGE calling our efforts bullshit, you're the one
who looks like an immature idiot, and that's about all there is to it.
[Edited on 11-30-2014 by zts16]
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6229
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Unmoved
Member Is Offline
Mood: Organised
|
|
I don't mind a short sig. But I agree that this thread in particular is distracting to read with everyone contributing having multiple lines.
Can I propose a stylistic compromise -- Grey back the sig lines so that they aren't so prominent. The info is still there if it is needed but it
makes the thread more readable. I think this is a better solution than small font.
I think Rador Labs is onto a good thing but it is still embryonic. I understand that its goal is to get out on multiple platforms which requires
multiple links. It might be possible to achieve the goal while dialling back the self-promotion a bit.
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4516
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1 | I don't mind a short sig. But I agree that this thread in particular is distracting to read with everyone contributing having multiple lines.
Can I propose a stylistic compromise -- Grey back the sig lines so that they aren't so prominent. The info is still there if it is needed but it
makes the thread more readable. I think this is a better solution than small font.
I think Rador Labs is onto a good thing but it is still embryonic. I understand that its goal is to get out on multiple platforms which requires
multiple links. It might be possible to achieve the goal while dialling back the self-promotion a bit. |
Thank you, that's the sort of advice that's good to hear.
Also, you're definitely right about Rador Labs being embryonic. Currently, yes, it's a rather disorganized little mess, but I think with time and
effort and a little better organization it will reach its full potential. I know that most of us are clearly inexperienced with organizing groups, and
it really shows.
Additionally, I don't really see the point of Rador Labs members using signatures in this particular thread anyway, so from now on, I won't, and I
encourage others to follow suit.
|
|
|
Brain&Force
Hazard to Lanthanides
Posts: 1302
Registered: 13-11-2013
Location: UW-Madison
Member Is Offline
Mood: Incommensurately modulated
|
|
Here, does this help? (I moved the bitcoin thing into the left corner, but then I hid the whole sig here.) I'm going to do even more stuff to my sig
to trim it down, if it's not too annoying.
j_sum1, thank you for dealing with this calmly. Yeah, we are trying to get the word out—one of our goals is to give amateur chemistry a voice. I do
like the small font idea better, though, as they save space while maintaining visibility.
We definitely are a bit of a mess in terms of organization, but we are organizing a charter to get ourselves in alphabetical order by height, if you
know what I mean.
forgottenpassword, constructive criticism doesn't involve flaming or aggressive language. Also, would you like to explain how Rador Labs is "bullshit"
without going into full capslock rage? We can use some help with getting the word out.
There are no rules against large sigs here, as long as they don't screw with the formatting. If the mods care to speak on it, I will kindly oblige to
their recommendations.
And who even notices sigs anyway? They're well-ignored, to say the least, though I will follow zts16's lead here.
[Edited on 30.11.2014 by Brain&Force]
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4516
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
I cut my signature down to three gray lines, two of which are reduced font size. That's as small as it's going to get, and nobody should have a
problem with it. I edited the one for the Rador Labs account too, in a similar fashion.
[Edited on 11-30-2014 by zts16]
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
Considering really that the Rador Labs account will probably only post in this forum, our competitions, and possibly a couple of others, there's a
simple solution, forgottenpassword: If you hate us so much, stay out of our threads and don't go looking for fights in the first place. Why one would
choose to spend so much time around "a steaming pile of shit" beats me.
If the cause of enforcing shorter signatures is really that dear to you, make a new thread and obtain some kind of following; at least then you'd have
a leg to stand on.
Oh, and Don't get annoyed. This is constructive criticism.
|
|
|
forgottenpassword
Hazard to Others
Posts: 374
Registered: 12-12-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I first joint this forum in 2006 on the recommendation of a post-doctoral researcher at Oxford University. He recommended it to me as one of the best
places on the internet for intelligent discussion about chemistry, and at the time I was inclined to agree.
Still to this day there are a great number of highly intelligent and knowledgeable members on here. I say only that these branded "projects" are a
steaming pile of shit -- not the forum, and not your chemistry/science contributions. They are truly "projects" -- projections of what the forum
already is; re-cast into the smaller and more-self important image of the authors.
Do you not see that the FORUM ITSELF is the "outreach collaborative"? It is bigger and better and involves more people than your Rador Labs banner
ever will. Frankly I see that banner, and those who chose to fly and defend it -- who have all come to it's defence to various degrees -- as akin to a
cancerous growth. You damage the forum on which you grow by lowering the tone of the conversation to the level of "I'm not with sciencemadness, I'm
with Rador Labs -- which is better." All contributions are under that banner. "This isn't just a chemistry contribution as a member of a large and
excellent forum, it is a Rador Labs contribution." It is as meaningless as it is pervasive.
"Rador Labs" is not a pearl, is a self-serving and ego-inflating "give me money" nonsense, frankly. Why are you not content just to contribute to the
forum as though you were equal members of the forum? Why single yourselves out as special members of a special sub-group, working towards something
different from the rest of us?
Mimicry is the highest form of flattery, so thank you for that! Genuinely, I say this not out of hate of dislike of any of you, but out of dislike for
your signatures and the effect that it has on the overall appearance of the forum -- specifically the dumbing down that it produces. By all means view
this as a savage and unwarranted attack, or see it as a sincere recommendation from someone who cares about the quality of the forum.
As I said before, most people are too polite to say this to you; so if you wish to persist in damaging the forum then you will get away with it in the
name of tolerance. Personally I had the same issue with the moderation of bfesser -- I found him a rude, patronising and belittling shit who talked
down to adults and treated them like children. He got away with it (for a while) because people want peace and concord rather than disharmony. I've
said my piece. Either act on it or don't; it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. I come here to help people with their chemistry as a
professional chemist; just like most people do. If I see that others are coming here for their own self-promotion rather than to help or to be helped
then I'll say so -- I only bother to say anything because there is a positive change that can be made. If left unchecked then maybe it will come to a
point where the forum is irredeemably lost to flashing animated banners of your usernames; and perhaps the occasional anime character! I've said my
piece.
|
|
|
Brain&Force
Hazard to Lanthanides
Posts: 1302
Registered: 13-11-2013
Location: UW-Madison
Member Is Offline
Mood: Incommensurately modulated
|
|
I am failing to resist the urge to respond to this. I'm going to use this opportunity to clarify what Rador Labs is - and isn't.
| Quote: Originally posted by forgottenpassword | | I first joint this forum in 2006 on the recommendation of a post-doctoral researcher at Oxford University. He recommended it to me as one of the best
places on the internet for intelligent discussion about chemistry, and at the time I was inclined to agree. Still to this day there are a great number
of highly intelligent and knowledgeable members on here. |
Couldn't agree more.
| Quote: Originally posted by forgottenpassword | | I say only that these branded "projects" are a steaming pile of shit -- not the forum, and not your chemistry/science contributions. They are truly
"projects" -- projections of what the forum already is; re-cast into the smaller and more-self important image of the authors. |
I'm not entirely sure what your issue is here. We credit ourselves as Rador Labs when we have projects which we work on together. We don't do it
because we want to promote ourselves.
I will, however, clarify, that we don't hold any reservations against promoting Rador Labs. I've done so several times.
Of course we do. Our goal is NOT to replace Sciencemadness - if anything, we recommend this site to anyone interested! We desire to extend
Sciencemadness.
Just for clarification, here are our goals:
To encourage the practice of amateur chemistry
To encourage chemistry education
To facilitate collaborative projects between members of the amateur chemistry community around the world
To produce materials that may help amateur chemists with their projects
To end the problem of chemophobia
There's plenty of overlap, but we do many things that Sciencemadness, as a whole, does not:
Tweet or reach out to social media
Produce videos and output raw footage
Run competitions
There are also things that Sciencemadness does that Rador Labs likely will not do:
Run a forum
Accept articles for prepublication
Host a library
If Sciencemadness.org wants to perform these activities for itself (i.e. have a dedicated outreach wing), our most likely course of action is to
simply merge with it. We have no desire to compete with Sciencemadness. We just extend to different outlets - social media being the most prevalent.
That's OK. We don't care about how big we are, we just want to move towards our goals.
| Quote: Originally posted by forgottenpassword | | Frankly I see that banner, and those who chose to fly and defend it -- who have all come to it's defence to various degrees -- as akin to a cancerous
growth. |
I don't see how we are damaging Sciencemadness. How are we inhibiting the forum from performing its activities? We are not drawing away from its base
- we try to promote the forum, because it is a resource that is both extensive, and, more importantly, open.
| Quote: Originally posted by forgottenpassword | | You damage the forum on which you grow by lowering the tone of the conversation to the level of "I'm not with sciencemadness, I'm with Rador Labs --
which is better." All contributions are under that banner. "This isn't just a chemistry contribution as a member of a large and excellent forum, it is
a Rador Labs contribution." It is as meaningless as it is pervasive. |
You make several blatant errors here.
Nobody says Rador Labs is better than Sciencemadness (at least not that I know of). If someone does, they probably don't even know what
Sciencemadness is in the first place.
Rador Labs and Sciencemadness are not mutually exclusive. All Rador Labs members have Sciencemadness accounts (though this is not a
requirement).
We credit ourselves as Rador Labs when our ideas are developed as a community.
We haven't asked for donations, as a collective. We run the competitions as non-profit events - all the money in our competition pools goes directly
back to amateur chemists. I will also add that donating to the competition is optional - we don't put things behind paywalls. Everything we have done
has been done with money from our own pockets.
We do consider ourselves equal members of the forum! What makes you think otherwise? Rador Labs does not have a "we are better than the rest of
Sciencemadness" mentality.
For hopefully the last time - we have THE SAME goals. We simply bridge what I personally perceive to be a gap between the relatively underground world
of serious, cutting edge amateur science and the rest of the public.
| Quote: Originally posted by forgottenpassword | | Mimicry is the highest form of flattery, so thank you for that! Genuinely, I say this not out of hate of dislike of any of you, but out of dislike for
your signatures and the effect that it has on the overall appearance of the forum -- specifically the dumbing down that it produces.
|
Dumbing down? I don't see how this is "dumbing down" the forum. Certainly we use the signature to blast our opinions to everyone, but a) you are free
to ignore them (I thought I was the only one who ever paid attention to sigs!), and b) they may affect the quality of the forum's appearance in some
people's opinions, but we are not lowering its intellectual quality.
| Quote: Originally posted by forgottenpassword | | By all means view this as a savage and unwarranted attack, or see it as a sincere recommendation from someone who cares about the quality of the
forum. |
I don't lash back at criticism, preferring to take it seriously no matter how aggressively it's presented, but I personally feel that this is highly
misguided.
| Quote: Originally posted by forgottenpassword | | As I said before, most people are too polite to say this to you; so if you wish to persist in damaging the forum then you will get away with it in the
name of tolerance. |
Note to any moderators or administrators reading this:
If you feel that Sciencemadness is a bad place for Rador Labs to perform activities or promote itself, please let us (me, zts16, No Tears Only Dreams
Now, and plenty others) know. As I've already stated countless times, we are not here to take over or replace Sciencemadness. We have no problems if
people choose not to join us. We are here for the benefit of amateur science and to broaden its visibility.
| Quote: Originally posted by forgottenpassword | | Personally I had the same issue with the moderation of bfesser -- I found him a rude, patronising and belittling shit who talked down to adults and
treated them like children. He got away with it (for a while) because people want peace and concord rather than disharmony. |
This is far off-topic, but I will say that bfesser has probably been one of the best moderators the forum has ever seen. Yes, he ran a tight ship, but
he wasn't unreasonable or rude, from my experience.
| Quote: Originally posted by forgottenpassword | | I've said my piece. Either act on it or don't; it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. I come here to help people with their chemistry
as a professional chemist; just like most people do. If I see that others are coming here for their own self-promotion rather than to help or to be
helped then I'll say so -- I only bother to say anything because there is a positive change that can be made. |
| Quote: Originally posted by forgottenpassword | | If left unchecked then maybe it will come to a point where the forum is irredeemably lost to flashing animated banners of your usernames; and perhaps
the occasional anime character! I've said my piece. |
What does this have to do with anything, flashing banners and anime?
I don't care about what this forum looks like. I do like the fact that it's relatively simple and free of the extensive graphics that make so many
other forums cluttered and difficult to navigate. But that's not the point.
The point is that there are PLENTY of contributors who have done good for the entire amateur chemistry community. Many names come to mind - woelen,
Pok, NurdRage, blogfast25, MrHomeScientist, and DraconicAcid, to name a few (and not forgetting the Man Who Started It All, Polverone). They've all
come here and done plenty of good, making Sciencemadness a respectable community. I can't say I've been a major contributor to this site, but I know
that I want to help any way I can, and this is a sentiment that all of us at Rador share.
Of course we don't want to look like a complete and utter joke. But then again, we are not a community of professionals. For many of us, this is just
a hobby. We goof off, have fun, get into flame wars; act a little kewlish. We all have different interests, but amateur chemistry unites us all. We
don't behave by a set of strict rules, we behave by a culture (which, I might add, CAN and WILL change, for better or worse). Sure, if we do happen to
break forum rules, or the whole community thinks we have a terrible idea that will ruin the state of amateur science and we see evidence of it, we'll
reduce our involvement here and rethink our goals. We don't hide problems. But our actions are for the benefit of the community, and as long as we see
that we are not harming it, we are here to stay.
|
|
|
The Volatile Chemist
International Hazard
Posts: 1981
Registered: 22-3-2014
Location: 'Stil' in the lab...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Copious
|
|
I don't entirely agree with B&F about the existence of such a 'Rador Labs', and I have discussed such privately with him (and thus I agree with a
few things forgottenpassword stated), but Rador Labs has profit, and what you typed above is a fine FAQ, Mission statement, and outreach poster for
your 'Rador Labs'. I certainly don't think this thread is the place for discussion.
Besides, not everyone can be a woelen. He seems the most 'together' in regards to what he does, but not everyone is like him.
Forgottenpassword, you have a good point on 'subprojects' of the SM forum. The main reason I can see for sub-projects is for better organization. I
attempted to start such things as a forum and wiki for chemistry a few years back, before I was on the forum, but no-one visited them, of course.
Everyone wants to have their own project. It's natural. Obviously you are a grown - up adult from the chemistry field, while we are not, so you find
us as repulsive and 'lesser'. But don't spew such comments as the above at us.
[Edited on 12-1-2014 by The Volatile Chemist]
But, really, the fact you have an account for rador labs is, well, kind-of stupid. Just make someone the head of Rador labs and have them post
announcements, or GET A WEBSITE for crying out loud! 
[Edited on 12-1-2014 by The Volatile Chemist]
|
|
|
Brain&Force
Hazard to Lanthanides
Posts: 1302
Registered: 13-11-2013
Location: UW-Madison
Member Is Offline
Mood: Incommensurately modulated
|
|
We're actually putting together a charter for all the rules and we hope to have a website sometime early next year! If only there were a free way to
get a domain name...
At the end of the day, simulating atoms doesn't beat working with the real things...
|
|
|
bismuthate
National Hazard
Posts: 803
Registered: 28-9-2013
Location: the island of stability
Member Is Offline
Mood: self reacting
|
|
I am rather concerned though. If anybody doesn't like rador labs or something about rador labs please don't hesitate to speak up (in a less hostile
way hopefully).
|
|
|
Mesa
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 2-7-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I'm kinda lost as to how forgottenpassword came to some of the conclusions he did. I've glanced over probably most of the Rador labs labelled threads
since it's inception(may have missed one or two) and got the polar opposite impression regarding the mentality/philosophy behind it.
My impression was that they identified themselves as SciMad members(i.e. I completely missed any overtones of an "us versus you" mentality) trying to
promote more discussion on these forums through the various projects/challenges.
That being said, B&F's last post does alter my assumptions somewhat.
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4516
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by The Volatile Chemist | | But, really, the fact you have an account for rador labs is, well, kind-of stupid. Just make someone the head of Rador labs and have them post
announcements, or GET A WEBSITE for crying out loud! |
There is a definite purpose for that account actually. Some of the future competitions that we will run involve more subjectively
judged entries than the one currently active that must be submitted anonymously, and thus, Rador Labs members who are not involved in the competition
may use that account to post those submissions in a neutral manner. That is the primary reason it was created, and we did discuss it in the Skype
group (which you are in). I was just saying in that earlier post that it could be used for other stuff too. Also... am I mistaken that you were one of
the two people, along with B&F, who originally suggested the creation of Rador Labs? I realize that you aren't super involved now, but why is it
that you all the sudden act like you have nothing to do with it?
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4516
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Mesa | I'm kinda lost as to how forgottenpassword came to some of the conclusions he did. I've glanced over probably most of the Rador labs labelled threads
since it's inception(may have missed one or two) and got the polar opposite impression regarding the mentality/philosophy behind it.
My impression was that they identified themselves as SciMad members(i.e. I completely missed any overtones of an "us versus you" mentality) trying to
promote more discussion on these forums through the various projects/challenges. |
I'm happy to hear that you got that impression. That's what we were going for. As said previously, it isn't some exclusive club. In fact, anyone who
is interested can join.
If you're referring to the website,
it's something we need as a better hub than for the organization than this thread. A lot of people on Sciencemadness have personal websites or blogs
where they post information about their projects, so think about it like that, except for a group instead of a single person.
|
|
|
Brain&Force
Hazard to Lanthanides
Posts: 1302
Registered: 13-11-2013
Location: UW-Madison
Member Is Offline
Mood: Incommensurately modulated
|
|
I'm thinking of using the site as a compendium for amateur chemistry. There will be plenty of SM references on the site, as well as recommendations of
things to do and see. Basically I envision us as a stepping stone to the cutting edge of amateur chemistry.
The reasoning for the charter is to a) organize our activities and b) have things set up if we turn ourselves into a real-life organization, which I
just might do, if there is enough interest.
Of course, these are my ideas, I don't know what others think.
We are still SM members. We have ZERO us vs. them mentality - it's more like us and even more of us. We're just another extension to the amateur
chemistry community..
At the end of the day, simulating atoms doesn't beat working with the real things...
|
|
|
Mesa
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 2-7-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I wasn't meaning to imply anything negative with that comment, only that the announcement/intent is new information that wasn't immediately
apparent.
|
|
|
Jylliana
Hazard to Others
Posts: 126
Registered: 3-10-2014
Location: The Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bubbly ^-^
|
|
I like the idea of a website, but I think we should also state that we are SciMad members, as equals.
I am on another large forum which is recommended in various books on the forum subject and also is well-known all over the (Dutch) internet. Does that
make those books, the fact that people wrote a book about the subject, make them better than the forum? IMO no, because they state that's the place
that 'taught' them.
Rador Labs started on SciMad, and the whole project is grateful for such a treasured place like this forum. We say that in our video's. It's just
another branch(/twig for now  ) in the giant tree that is amateur chemistry.
Imo no need for hostility.
[Edited on 2-12-2014 by Jylliana]
|
|
|
Praxichys
International Hazard
Posts: 1063
Registered: 31-7-2013
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Coprecipitated
|
|
Thoughts about Rador Labs
Things that RL is good for:
- Getting the armchair chemists to actually get to the lab
- Giving members reasons to contribute
- Creating more threads with people posting things they've done rather than things they plan to do (which is a problem these days...)
- Funding small labs through redistribution of donations and science supplies to participants
Things that RL can do that will anger people:
- RL SHOULD NOT turn a profit from this. Not only is this illegal (unless you want to fill out the tax forms), but is unnecessary and selfish.
- RL should be a way for members to get their work seen, as individuals. Nobody wants to de-brand their own work for the Rador Labs name. There's no
incentive.
- RL needs patience, and a system of government. Our last challenge was a farce. It was poorly thought out, ill-researched, released a day early under
a different title, and the rules have been open for editing since it began.
RL = Sciencemadness
What really is RL? RL is SM. It just uses a different name to make decisions independently from the people who own this website physically.
The data therein is owned and shared by the members - without members, there is no board. If the SM members who call themselves Rador Labs want to
host a challenge on SM, why not call it a "ScienceMadness challenge?" Rador Labs is really just the "ScienceMadness Outreach Program." If RL drafted a
charter and had standard modes of operation, we could easily convince SM owners that we have the sense to run such a program properly, on behalf of
SM, as the SM members we are. Heck, we already have the SM wiki going strong. As members, we all have a say in which direction this place goes. Let us
continue with this enthusiasm, with real proposals for change, without having to hide. It will come as a benefit to everybody. In the meantime, RL
will have to prove both useful to SM and also independent from SM to stay afloat as a separate entity. Remember that a team is greater than the sum of
its parts, and if we want to set the pace for ALL online amateur chemistry, it might be better to keep this enthusiasm with SM. We just need to
structure something to create these positions of leadership in order to focus the enthusiasm towards useful endeavors.
For the Old Folks
I think many of the older (2009 and less) members, myself included, are becoming frustrated with the change in quality of the posts on this board. It
seems that younger folks no longer have the fortitude to think before they speak. I remember being afraid to post anything unless it was useful, and
it was good. The forum now is much more like a chat room than the real collaboration it used to be, filled with one-phrase posts containing simple
opinion or an already-answered or google-ready question with no useful content.
Maybe we are a little jaded by the glory days of the internet. Maybe we are all just getting old, and are coming down with the "darn kids these days"
syndrome. Either way, we should be trying to correct it rather than just be mad at it, and I think Rador Labs could do that. Face the facts -
They will choose their own direction unless some heavy-hitters get involved to keep hem in a direction that benefits everybody, old folks included.
They need the experience, and we need post quality to improve. If Rador Labs can capture the attention of the young folks and show them the
gratification that comes with posting a writeup, or posting some information that can be of use, then I am all for it. Let us take control of the
situation by supporting their motives, set standards by example, keep the inexperienced safe, and above all keep ourselves worthy to be looked up to.
For the supermods: Member Publications and The Versuchschemie/Lambdasyn model
The Germans have it right. We need to start publishing the "prepublication" section. I notice that nothing has been contributed to "member publications" for many years. Why not open that up? Table out the HTML for "title", "author(s)", and "notes" and accept submissions. I know
of many great writeups, lost deep inside threads, that I am sure would make shining examples of the hard work our members put into their hobby and
this board. If Brain&Force wants a project, let him dig through threads, .pdf all the writeups with pretty pictures, and publish them by post
author, "prepared by B&F", or "RL" or whatever. (Assuming the original author is no longer around)
@ B&F
Be careful where you trod with your "compendium for amateur chemistry." I recall an earlier attempt that was made here on SM which caught much
criticism and ended badly. That said, I like the idea of separating synthesis and references from general congratulatory/speculatory discussion. You just need
to find a way to do it while treading on the fewest feet. We already have a section on SM for this (see above) which has fallen into disuse, and I
seen no reason why the compendium should not end up there. If it came down to it, RL could repeat published experiments and write them up more
completely for publication elsewhere. Realistically, it is not going to go down well to publish a website as an index of another.
[Edited on 2-12-2014 by Praxichys]
|
|
|
Brain&Force
Hazard to Lanthanides
Posts: 1302
Registered: 13-11-2013
Location: UW-Madison
Member Is Offline
Mood: Incommensurately modulated
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Praxichys | Thoughts about Rador Labs
Things that RL is good for:
- Getting the armchair chemists to actually get to the lab
- Giving members reasons to contribute
- Creating more threads with people posting things they's done rather than things they plan to do (which is a problem these days...)
- Funding small labs through redistribution of donations and science supplies to participants |
Yup, pretty much. (Although I am guilty of being an armchair chemist - it sucks to do chem where I live.)
| Quote: Originally posted by Praxichys |
Things that RL can do that will anger people:
- RL SHOULD NOT turn a profit from this. Not only is this illegal (unless you want to fill out the tax forms), but is unnecessary and selfish.
- RL should be a way for members to get their work seen, as individuals. Nobody wants to de-brand their own work for the Rador Labs name. There's no
incentive.
- RL needs patience, and a system of government. Our last challenge was a farce. It was poorly thought out, ill-researched, released a day early under
a different title, and the rules have been open for editing since it began. |
Rador Labs will not turn a profit off of anything. We may need to register ourselves as a nonprofit organization, if necessary, but as of now
that's not even important.
Completely agreed - we use this to promote amateur chemistry as a whole - not individuals.
We're currently working on a charter with regulations and things. Some stuff is OK, but we still need input. We also NEED meetings on Skype and
other places. All of our communications are disorganized.
I admit, I screwed up a few things with the challenge. I did say 15 November at 0000 UTC - which just happens to be the 14th for us, and I should have
clarified it beforehand. I think we need to have an independent, dedicated group of challenge organizers, as well as a rules freeze when the challenge
starts. We're already working on a competition right now - this one should be much clearer and easier to handle.
| Quote: Originally posted by Praxichys |
RL = Sciencemadness
What really is RL? RL is SM. It just uses a different name to make decisions independently from the people who own this website physically.
The data therein is owned and shared by the members - without members, there is no board. If the SM members who call themselves Rador Labs want to
host a challenge on SM, why not call it a "ScienceMadness challenge?" Rador Labs is really just the "ScienceMadness Outreach Program." If RL drafted a
charter and had standard modes of operation, we could easily convince SM owners that we have the sense to run such a program properly, on behalf of
SM, as the SM members we are. Heck, we already have the SM wiki going strong. As members, we all have a say in what direction this place goes. Let us
continue with this enthusiasm, with real proposals for change, without having to hide. It will come as a benefit to everybody. In the meantime, RL
will have to prove both useful to SM and also independent from SM to stay afloat as a separate entity. Remember that a team is greater than the sum of
its parts, and if we want to set the pace for ALL online amateur chemistry, it might be better to keep this enthusiasm with SM. We just need to
structure something to create these positions of leadership in order to focus the enthusiasm towards useful endeavors.
|
And again, this is why we're drafting a charter. I decided to just separate ourselves because we aren't Sciencemadness mods or admins, and we make
decisions independently. If everyone wants us to be Sciencemadness's dedicated outreach wing, we can be so.
The only thing is that I may get some members in this project who aren't on SM (though I will encourage them to join).
| Quote: Originally posted by Praxichys |
For the Old Folks
I think many of the older (2009 and less) members, myself included, are becoming frustrated with the change in quality of the posts on this board. It
seems that younger folks no longer have the fortitude to think before they speak. I remember being afraid to post anything unless it was useful, and
it was good. The forum now is much more like a chat room than the real collaboration it used to be, filled with one-phrase posts containing simple
opinion or an already-answered or google-ready question with no useful content.
Maybe we are a little jaded by the glory days of the internet. Maybe we are all just getting old, and are coming down with the "darn kids these days"
syndrome. Either way, we should be trying to correct it rather than just be mad at it, and I think Rador Labs could DO that. Face the facts - They
will choose their own direction unless some heavy-hitters get involved to keep hem in a direction that benefits everybody, old folks included. They
need the experience, and we need post quality to improve. If Rador Labs can capture the attention of the young folks and show them the gratification
that comes with posting a writeup, or posting some information that can be of use, then I am all for it. Let us take control of the situation by
creating the standard, and keeping ourselves worthy to be looked up to. |
I apologize for my crappier posts in general...
Yeah, hopefully we can show the benefits of having large, detailed write-ups. I also hope having an SM skype group will help move the more chatty
things to the thread, and keep the serious discussion on the forum.
| Quote: Originally posted by Praxichys |
For the supermods: Member Publications and The Versuchschemie/Lambdasyn model
The Germans have it right. We need to start publishing the "prepublication" section. I notice that nothing has been contributed to "member publications" for many years. Why not open that up? Table out the HTML for "title", "author(s)", and "notes" and accept submissions. I know
of many great writeups, lost deep inside threads, that I am sure would make shining examples of the hard work our members put into their hobby and
this board. If Brain&Force wants a project, let him dig through threads, .pdf all the writeups with pretty pictures, and publish them by post
author, "prepared by B&F", or "RL" or whatever. (Assuming the original author is no longer around) |
Totally agree! This isn't specifically Rador Labs stuff, I would say, but I'd like to see us recompile syntheses and things, no matter how simple.
| Quote: Originally posted by Praxichys |
@ B&F
Be careful where you trod with your "compendium for amateur chemistry." I seem to recall an earlier attempt that was made here on SM which caught much
criticism and ended badly. That said, I like the idea of separating synthesis and references from general congratulatory/speculatory discussion. You
just need to find a way to do it while treading on the fewest feet. We already have a section on SM for this (see above) which has fallen into disuse,
and I seen no reason why the compendium should not end up there. If it came down to it, RL could repeat published experiments and write them up more
completely for publication elsewhere. Realistically, it is not going to go down well to publish a website as an index of another.
|
The compendium I had in mind isn't SM-specific. Granted, there will be many links and references to Sciencemadness, but it certainly won't be the only
site we link to. It would be more of a set of great links for beginners spanning both different sites and different languages.
At the end of the day, simulating atoms doesn't beat working with the real things...
|
|
|
The Volatile Chemist
International Hazard
Posts: 1981
Registered: 22-3-2014
Location: 'Stil' in the lab...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Copious
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by zts16 | | Quote: Originally posted by The Volatile Chemist | | But, really, the fact you have an account for rador labs is, well, kind-of stupid. Just make someone the head of Rador labs and have them post
announcements, or GET A WEBSITE for crying out loud! |
There is a definite purpose for that account actually. Some of the future competitions that we will run involve more subjectively
judged entries than the one currently active that must be submitted anonymously, and thus, Rador Labs members who are not involved in the competition
may use that account to post those submissions in a neutral manner. That is the primary reason it was created, and we did discuss it in the Skype
group (which you are in). I was just saying in that earlier post that it could be used for other stuff too. Also... am I mistaken that you were one of
the two people, along with B&F, who originally suggested the creation of Rador Labs? I realize that you aren't super involved now, but why is it
that you all the sudden act like you have nothing to do with it? |
Ok, so I get the purpose for the account. My initial thought was that 'B&F doesn't need another account...', but I get it's purpose.
Haha, in regards to starting the Idea of Rador Labs....:
B&F noticed a while back that I had started a conglomerate between my own productions 'facade company', PTL (http://ptp.x10.mx) and a friend's. I joked about it being a sort of mad science organization, and B&F asked if he could join. It was actually
just a sort of joke allignment between PTL and 'Project K', my friend's website, for mutual funds sharing with our own personal and joint projects.
Thus I explained this to B&F. I suggested he start a similar group for chemistry mad scientists (non-profit, instead just a conglomerate). He,
within a day, had a name, and got started. Once I realized that Rador Labs was basically the same thing as my PTL (Standing for Peppertree Labs) PLUS
publicity and actual members, I got a bit jealous (Which is why I agree with forgottenpassword that personal glory could be a motivator for
such projects.
The reason I don't participate in Rador labs, and don't help much with the wiki is because I get upset thinking about my own attempts to start such
things, and their failures. In regards to the wiki, twice I tried to make a chemistry/chemicals wiki, without success. The first one I close down
because of a lack of (Any) usage (this was before I was a part of Sciencemadness forums), the second time because of too much spam, and no help.
I still hope my name will be among the many credits on your new site for who started this great idea (even if it wasn't original(obviously a few
people have tried such groups before, myself, the international order of nitrogen, etc.)).
In regards to publishing, My website is open to any who want to publish chemistry procedures under the producers 'Peppertree Labs' (But this is an honest offer).
-Nathan P., TVC
[Edited on 12-3-2014 by The Volatile Chemist]
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
What I can say to you, TVC, is that Rador Labs is still young; you can still put in the effort and be the backbone of something great(if we ever
become something, we'll have to see about that). I think that the relatively more successful formation of the new wiki and Rador labs is mere
coincidence; Several people within the same age group joined the site around the same time and things just happened.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
