Possible forum changes

[gavin]

Here are my suggestions. Thanks Alex for supporting the idea of a separate area for discussions on the science. I'm tempted to go ahead with this but will wait a day or so to see what people make of it.

Under 'More ..' down below, an area called 'Science and beekeeping.' Thread initiation to be *moderated* so that only the best topics go up for discussion. Initiators must write a paragraph explaining why this issue is important to kick off the discussion, and must be willing to write up the outcome of the discussion after a period (a month?) with a view to offering it to the Scottish Beekeeper. I'll email Nigel S to see if he is up for linking the magazine and the forum in this way. I suspect that I may be starting more threads than most. Maybe we should even make this a monthly feature, with the best topic going forward for that month after its month's airing?

The topics? Either a single, pivotal paper with wide beekeeping implications, or a single topic that a number of different papers or talks have impacted upon. Hot topics in the news particularly welcome. Perhaps even something a bit broader could be the issue for the month - such as, 'What is the scientific justification for the recent press campaign on pesticides and beekeeping?'. But that is a big topic scientifically and if we are not focussed on single, smaller issues the debate will be too far ranging. We can still do those big topics elsewhere. Another topic might be research projects with which the SBA has got itself involved ...

After the month (or whatever) the topic is left up for continuing debate and - hopefully - will become an internet reference of value for beekeeping as a whole.

Second change.

Perhaps just a forum management issue. These conspiracy theory rants. If they are on pesticides or GM I (or fellow moderator) really ought to just move them when they start to the right place, huh? That 'Beekeeping and the Environment' area. And when other threads meander in that direction I (or colleague) should be harder about cutting the discussion and moving it there.

Just some thoughts. Any views, folks? We do have a few non-Scottish Beekeeper subscribing contributors. Maybe the text of any articles published could be presented here too.

[gavin]

I had wondered about a new 'Room 101' into which all the posts with dafter ideas would be put, for correction and, if necessary, ridicule. But that is a part of the function of the Environmental area I think? Or is there a role for this, and to tackle not just daft posts but daft ideas out there in general? The media claims of continuing declines in bee numbers? Einstein? Any bee or GM related conspiracy theory you care to mention, leaving the Environmental area for sensible discussion?

[chris]

Firstly Gavin, when I read the post by Alex, I was thinking, yes, yes, yes.
Certainly these topics should not be in the main beekeeping thread as is now the case. One problem I see, is that "scientific" discussion will be reserved for "scientists" apart from me asking daft questions, and others, pertinent ones. Won't it be a 2 or 3 man thread? Perhaps good for learning, perhaps bad for feeling part of a discussion forum.
Last thing, I believe, perhaps naively, that environmental issues can and should be discussed sensibly,even when the content is "less scientific, more philosophic". A Hyde Park corner forum for ranters will keep other places clean, if careful moderation is applied. And that's the problem- you need the moderators to moderate rather than yourself, otherwise you'll become a target .This is to be avoided.
A few first thoughts.

[Jon]

Hi Gavin
Good idea. I am all for it. You know me - a sucker for any kind of argument or debate.
As Chris says, there are not too many science boffins on the forum, just yourself and Jimbo I think, but I don't think that is a problem as neither of you are patronising to the rest of us who have a keen interest but little or no formal training.
Personally, I have learned a lot from various debates here and elsewhere as I start to get anxious when I realise how little I know about something I ought to know about and I go away and start doing some more reading - or just ask more questions.
Even the recent fracas on the bbka forum re pesticides taught me quite a bit as I have a much clearer idea in my head of the distinction between field and lab studies plus the limitations of the latter.
If you take the fact that any claims made should be properly referenced you soon work out who knows what they are talking about and who is bluffing.
There is also a lot of circular referencing going on with stories fed to the press which is then used as a reference to justify the claim being made in the first place. But then I would not call that science.

[Neils]

Gavin. Just to mostly play devil's advocate:

I don't really think that the forum needs another section. There's nothing sadder than a huge forum with a post here, a post there and 25 sections that haven't seen a new post for weeks. I also think you're asking a lot, both of yourself and the other moderators and of the regular contributors to the forum in terms of how posts to the science section should be formulated. Being fresh back from today's IBRA conference, is it really necessary for me to write out a justification before I write a precis of the point I want to discuss and whatever the conclusion is I wanted to make about it?

Moving posts into the relevant section(s) I've no problem with whatsoever. I think it is quite telling at the moment that the appetite for cut and paste rants appears to be on the wane but my fear with something like the Avaast (yaar!) petition gubbins for example is that it might be easy in the middle of a campaign like we're seeing at the moment to mistake a ranty ranty post with a genuine question or opinion. I also think that putting certain topics into a moderated status plays right into the hands of people who'll have no hesitation to use that as a stick to beat you with.

I'd like to think that I'd be free to come on here and, in the relevant section, espouse my belief that Pot Noodle is a very effective varroacide. It might be decided that Bee Health, perhaps, isn't the best place for that thread and it belongs elsewhere, but I'm not sure it should have moderator approval before going up on the forum.

I do think that the idea of having perhaps a "hot topic" of the month that might be suitable to be turned into an article for the Scottish Beekeeper is a good one though, but I'm not sure within the framework that you've laid out so far that it would necessarily get that far.

Just my thoughts.

[Trog]

I agree with Nellie.

I would like to ask if there is a particular flavour of pot noodle which is most effective for controlling varroa and whether the bees have any say in the matter

[gavin]

Devil's advocacy is fine by me ... umm, well, you know what I mean! Feel free to put the other view. It is by such debate that we move forwards.

Thanks everyone so far. Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that the special topic or discussion of some science area should actually be moderated. Only the initiation of threads in that section, so that there wasn't a proliferation of topics but a focus on one issue until its time was done. That could mark out the discussion as something valuable for the community in the long term. Anyone could post within them although, of course, rants would be likely to be transferred elsewhere.

Also, this wouldn't be the only place science could be discussed - just a better way to use the forum to get a focussed, shared discussion doing something productive. Anything you like could still be raised in the other areas.

Yes, we all need to be on guard about getting fired up and therefore giving an inappropriate response to someone posing an innocent question. And I'm acutely aware that there are one or two people looking out to point fingers at forum maladministration and run off and complain to anyone who will listen. I've already had one complaining email tonight from a forum watcher who was probably tipped off by a disgruntled poster (no, not yours S, but another!). So this place will remain uncensored, but I hope that a bit of thought on management will improve the value of the place.

Yes, perhaps we have too few contributors to make something like that work. Yes, we have a very small number of scientists, but in my view anyone with commonsense should be able to contribute to such discussions, perhaps with a little help on the technical matters sometimes.

Anyways, thanks for your thoughts, and if there are more out there I'd be glad to see them.

G.

[Neils]

Even so Gavin, that'll be put forward by some as a form of censorship especially if you take longer than 2.5 milliseconds from submission to allowing the post through and there'll be people who'll send pointless stuff through just so they can whinge that they were censored even if they could just as easily have posted it elsewhere on the forum.

I think as we've perhaps seen on other organisation websites recently, it's not that hard to put the staff on it in a position where they've got no choice in the matter even when they're trying not to get involved so why give someone an easy avenue to back you into a corner?

I think if this was a forum at wwww.gavinsbeekeepingforum.fictional then there'd be no issue, you can do what you want, but here there'll be people who'll be off whining to all and sundry that the Scottish Beekeeping Association is stifling debate that it doesn't agree with even if it's obvious to anyone who cares to look that it's a little less simple than that.

Oh and the Bees prefer Chicken and Mushroom, but the Bombay Bad Boy knocks Varroa down so fast Top Gear wanted it to be the new stig.

[gavin]

Oh, I'm discovering tonight that people will moan at you for a whole variety of things. As long as you're trying to do the right thing for the greatest number of people, I can brush off criticism.

But I don't think that it is sensible to stop developing the forum in useful directions just because there will be someone somewhere wanting to make trouble out of it. What I had in mind was just more organised discussion, that's all. It would be hard to turn that into a complaint that anyone would seriously listen to.

On that other forum you mention, there was a choice and that was one both you and I promoted to no avail. The agent provocateur was great at stringing himself up and should have had a continuing supply of rope, not had it taken away. Never mind, it was a difficult position, as you say.

So .... any more views?

[Neils]

I promise I'll stop after this.

Absolutely don't think you stop trying to evolve the forum but, just to throw a suggestion in the air to be shot down too , I think that personally I'd rather see something along the lines of a school of thought, a forum guideline even, documented or not, that it is fine to quote an article, but not verbatim. Provide a link to it and quote the pertinent paragraph that you want to make a point about. Straight cut and paste jobs can go in the bee blether forum or somesuch.

I think it's a hard balance to strike otherwise and the quality of discussion here, generally speaking is pretty high.