Suggestions, Comments and Support

I think it's been a long time since we last discussed rep points, specifically negative reps. Originally, I thought they were a useful tool, but now think they cause more harm than good. This is because people seem to be using them more and more as arrows to reinforce their position in a discussion, and when several posters do it to someone in a minority position, it appears they are being subjected to mob justice. This is happening between long-time members who know each other well. It's striking me now as a petty weapon, rather than a device to moderate uncivil behaviour and other social negatives by generally less comitted newer posters. Nothing will be lost just havin…

At https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/126544-why-did-i-lose-60-on-my-proof-of-generalized-vandermondes-identity-what-was-amiss/, 1. The tags antecede "Beneath is my proof graded 2/5". So why isn't it standing apart and alone? 2. Under ""Beneath is my proof graded 2/5", The 2nd quotation should stand alone and apart too.

Pls see screenshot below.

Is there a way to block a specific thread that I'm not interested in but it crams my All Activity page?

I am a new member, but already have benefited significantly by the forums. Posting my questions and answering or replying to others, have helped me to clarify my thoughts, to get new insights, and in one case even to solve an old problem. Understandably and unavoidably, there is a lot of noise there. It is not too difficult to filter it out and to get a positive effect. Thank you to the members and to the moderators.

The title says it all. This never used to happen when I am logged in. Some adverts at the top, fair enough. But this blighter suddenly blots out my text input box in the middle of typing.

My most recent post in politics prevented me from adding a link to the start of the post to a .gov reference of the Elizabeth Holmes case. I looked for an edit HTML option, but there was none.

Without watching the movie, it is not possible to answer. In my opinion rule 2.7 has some nonsense. On one side people should not click any link and watch movies, on the other side it is told that videos should accompanied with enough text to set the tone of discussion. How to discuss a movie it its not allowed to watch. I think you have to check the rules for reasanable using. Or you are saying its not allowed to post any videos. Especial the topic of ways to dying.

Hi. Somewhere shows 'Primate' and somewhere shows 'Molecule' in the user profile. ? What is the current 'ladder' of ranks ?

Noob question: I've seen these used at other forums, where they use either Like or Upvote, and they mean approval/agreement to that posting. Here, both seem to be options, so I'm just getting clear on what the distinction is. Does upvote mean more that we approve the posting's opinion, while "like" is more that we like the style or approach even if we disagree?

Congratulations to the moderators/administrators for vaccinating ScienceForums against cranks. Today's clearout provides evidence of > 90% success against all cranks and 100% against 'anti-vaxxers'

Can anyone tell me why the new update has change the way the list of members online is presented ? I didn't realise just how useful the popup of what they are looking at really is until now.

Yes I have, it is your tendency to act like a bully, I've seen it before, dealt with bullies before, this is what I see in your behavior. And if the criteria is to be a woman then that's the end of the matter, they cannot participate because they do not meet the criteria, this isn't hard.

Would it be possible to list the blog author along with the title on the index page ? I've been trying to find ( and struggle to read ) all of AJB's blog entries. The only clues are the words 'manifold' and 'bundle' in the title. Otherwise I have to click and open each and every one.

I've been continually accused of not following protocol .for not engaging in a scientific disscussion when I've never been asked a question ..but demands that I'm wrong simply because of because ... it's the moderators who not allowing a discussion by other members it may be of no interest to you ..my point is a serious scientific question and you are been disingenuous in not allowing it .....show me how I went wrong your guys I need to convince !

Please consider altering the page setup so that "Edit" becomes an option at the bottom of the page right next to "Quote" (which is already there). This could reduce the likelihood of (me at least) mistakenly clicking "Quote" and posting what I think is an edit, only to have messed up the entire post. Thanks

I would like to write an introduction of myself on an entirely separate forum here called Introductions. It can even be a subforum in The Lounge forum.

Saw this on twitter and it reminded me of all the folks who say the titular phrase. Just missing the technical details.

I made an observation and I felt I would like to share it. The thread "Isolated rotating unbalance. Why is there a vibration?" was aired not even for 24 hours. You didn't give me time to respond as also if you go back to that thread you will read several inconsistencies coming from other members. Who cares anyway! I would suggest to the mods of this forum, the following that will benefit everyone: Just for the Speculations Section, please allow members to open a thread in order to discuss their idea (even if it they are wrong) but give them a maximum time of 7 days (1 week) to comply, meaning to develop his/her arguments and answer your questions. If he/she cann…

To question what the news and media tell us and to investigate ourselves what may or may not be true. I use to watch conspiracy theories on YouTube as a kid and some seemed real 'out there' but others seemed some what legit based on evidence they examined and provided. Now I just recently read that YouTube started removing these conspiracy theory videos for some reason... do you think that is a good idea (all I see is what the major media companies have to say)? Don't you think we should have different opinions out there and stop putting an imagine on the world "conspiracy theories" to mean "crazy/tin-foil hat/nuts" but instead to mean a voicing of opinions. And you got t…

Yes. The admins of this site are engaging in a conspiracy to silently delete my posts.

There seems to have been a spate of new members posting a short question and, following an answer or two, ending with the very scientific phrase "issue got solved" Is there any significance in this ?

I’ve had a bunch of randos who’ve never even once posted here start “following” me in the last few weeks... I am notified when they begin following. My understanding is that the follow function is basically a subscription to get updates every time I post. My intuition is that it’s not being done for any positive purpose or because they wish to learn from me etc., and may in fact be a coordinated effort to learn more about me and plan for a social engineering attack of some sort. Maybe (hopefully) I’m wrong, but I’d simply rather not have followers. Can followers be blocked? Can I disagree to their desire to follow me, or be given an option to Approve/De…

This is considered a real topic that doesnt deserve to be moved to speculations? Moderators, following rules like random quarks.

Look admins, why do you think I come here? In my thread titled the spirit of science someone suggested going through previous posts and pointing things out to make my case. I have read through this one : Everybodies approach is the same, to jump in and start critising things before actually understanding them. There are small comments aimed at me like implying I am just making things up. This is prejudice, you are making judgements without first considering my case, I am expecting you to ask questions about it and understand it before you start critising it, otherwise your critisms entirely miss the point. But I dont think you realise you are even doing it…