Member Questions to Administrators, Matters related to the Forum Options

[climber]

Emily & Helvick, thanks... And I've got the point.

[helvick]

Some long term info for those interested in the volume of traffic over time.



If you want to dig into the data a bit more you can play with the chart a bit and see the details, including the most popular topic for each month since UMSF began by following this link:
UMSF Monthly Stats Posts, Topics, Registrations and Views

I'm trying to find an easy way to show traffic by day for those interested in specific events but for the record the top 3 busiest days ever in terms of posts have been:

Aug 6th 2012 - 569 ( MSL Landing )
May 26th 2008 - 499 ( Phoenix Landing)
Jan 19th 2006 - 369 ( New Horizons Launch )

MSL has caused an enormous spike in traffic. We had more topic views on MSL on the 6th of August than we had on the entire board between April 1st and August 5th.

For a more general snapshot of how MSL has affected traffic here are some comparisons of our August traffic vs cumulative traffic over the past year or two as reflected in the number of views per topic, sorted by popularity for the given period. I'm still trying to figure out how to present these in a sustainable way but if you are just interested in the trending stuff this will give you some answers.



Two final bits of info.

The all time top 3 Topics in terms of views are:
Opportunity: 8,198,261
Spirit: 4,917,572
Cometary and Asteroid Missions: 2,559,320

MSL is currently #13 at 1,246,743 ., age clearly counts for something.

I'm using the term "Topic" here the way the IP-Board admin panel's stats page does because that is giving me the numbers. We usually call them Forums or sub-forums and refer to individual threaded discussions as Topics but I'm not using the term that way here. Just in case anyone is confused.

[Explorer1]

And that's pretty much exactly what I was asking for. I wonder how much bigger the current spike will get over time.
Thanks again helvick!

[3d_mars]

Would discussion of this relatively recently published paper be banned here due to potential astrobiology content?

[elakdawalla]

Yes. Try NASASpaceflight.com, the BAUT forums, or the Yellow Forum.

[stevelu]

I noted the reminder about rule 1.3, so I reread it.

I'm pretty sure that it used to say astrobiology *could* be discussed ONLY within the strict context of specific, related mission goals.

Am I misremembering? And if I'm not, can someone say something about the problems that caused the tightening up?

Lastly, I appreciate the acknowledgement that a future change might be appropriate. I do understand the tsunami you are keeping at bay, but the idea that the very concept of "organics" cannot be discussed in a forum devoted to a mission looking for them is...quite remarkable, whatever the provocations that spurred it.

Cheers.

[mcaplinger]

I noted the reminder about rule 1.3, so I reread it.

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...ic=7514&hl=

[stevelu]

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...ic=7514&hl=

Thank you for the pointer. I looked for that context but was unable to find it.

A personal message highlights that I was unclear above. When I said "forum devoted to" I was referring to the rule applying to the MSL forum, devoted to Curiosity. Sorry about that. Though I'm not very active, I have been around here for years, following Oppy & Spirit -- and sometimes even non-Mars missions! 8^)

I would be very interested in a reply to Floyd's question, which he asked in response to the rule-modification notice you kindly linked to above:
My only question is about organics. I can see not trying to link detection of organic compounds to astrobiology, but does this remove all discussion of compounds containing Carbon? Are we not to discuss minerals containing carbonate? Does this mean that Juramike's fantastic lessons on atmospheric chemistry are unwelcome. Maybe you could clarify this a bit...

Edit: maybe make a distinction between organic compounds as in organic chemistry and biological compounds as in biochemistry... No need to kill carbon, it is a perfectly good element.

[djellison]

but the idea that the very concept of "organics" cannot be discussed in a forum devoted to a mission looking for them is...quite remarkable, whatever the provocations that spurred it.

This place was founded long before MSL even left the drawing board - it's certainly not 'devoted' to MSL. It was started as a place for people to share/compare/discuss the processing of imagery from Spirit, Opportunity and then Cassini. Yes - it has well grown outside that remit - but that remains the core purpose of UMSF. It was never nor is it 'devoted to' MSL.

In many respects - what you are saying is that it's remarkable that there's no soccer game being played in the middle of a cricket pitch.

The astrobio rule (and latterly the manned spaceflight rule) were put in place and maintained to maintain UMSF as a home for the discussions for which it was intended - without the flame wars, arguments and other digital blights one can see on any number of other internet venues when the question of astrobiology arises. That is the provocation that spurred it - to defend the core founding purpose of UMSF from the fringe theories and craziness that often blights places that invite those conversation. It was never intended to be all forums for all people. That's how and why I founded the place and currently, how the admin team are running the place.

Will rules have to be tweaked and adjusted to accommodate sensible discussion - no doubt. But history tells us that people will abuse that opportunity and generate unnecessary work for the admin/mod team.

Remember - this is not the only forum on the web. Many other forums exist for the discussions of spaceflight, MSL, astrobiology and so on. If anyone feels a compunction to discuss things outside the remit of UMSF - they are, of course, free to have that discussion elsewhere.

[mcaplinger]

does this remove all discussion of compounds containing Carbon?

I'm not a moderator, but not all carbon compounds are considered organic. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound, "a few types of carbon-containing compounds such as carbides, carbonates, simple oxides of carbon (such as CO and CO2), and cyanides, as well as the allotropes of carbon such as diamond and graphite, are considered inorganic."

That said, rule 1.3 says no organics, and modern chemistry gives an adequate definition of what "organic" means IMHO.

[JRehling]

Two of MSL's four science goals are strictly astrobiological, so clearly they run outside the rules here.

http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/ScienceGoals/

However, whatever the goals are, that doesn't translate into a proportional breakdown of mission activity or relevance to the day-by-day activities. I think it's clear that MSL's intended activity will generate enough data to write a few books purely on the geological aspects of Mars. The single greatest focus of its activity will be to characterize what is expected to be a past era that was warmer and wetter and Ph neutral. Assuming it operates successfully, that will leave a vast amount to say within the context of this board. Not to mention all of the other eras it may give us a peek into as it climbs higher: The history book of Mars's early geology and the corresponding climate. That's quite a broad set of topics.

[elakdawalla]

You're right; that's a major contrast between MSL and Viking. When I was interviewing Matt Golombek for my articles on MSL, I asked him if MSL was "Viking on wheels," since they're similar-size spacecraft with similar-sized payloads, and he said sort of, but mostly not; Viking "swung for the fences" in life discovery, while MSL has different science goals, and an instrument suite to back them up, that will produce major scientific results no matter what it discovers.

[nprev]

What Emily said.

And my cheap two cents worth:

We aren't touching astrobiology. We're just not. Not indirectly, not obliquely, not for love, and not for money.

I hope by now that is abundantly clear.

If it's not...please feel free to PM me for clarification, and esp. before posting anything related to the subject...but please be sure to read rule 1.3 first.

[iMPREPREX]

Hello. I'm having a problem viewing the last posts in a thread (any thread). Here is a screenshot of what I see. Please let me know what's up. I have sent a message to a mod with no response, yet. Thanks.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Astro0]

Looks like your viewing options have been changed to Outline mode.
Look under the 'Options' button upper right and change the Display Mode to 'Standard'.
That'll fix it.