Forum Merger Issues (was "Impending Forum Name Change")

[R.A.F.]

What this calls for is a celebration, not an overly-curmudgeonly snit because we didn't get editorial rights on the branding. You know, getting a grant is not easy. Sharing it.... priceless.

As previously mentioned, there have been numerous posters offering assistance with costs....those offers were always refused.

[Van Rijn]

I'll be happy as long as the standard BAUT forum sections continue without additional restrictions. Some naming changes wouldn't be a big deal to me, additional rule restrictions would be.

The citizen science aspects sound interesting, and always have been a great idea as far as I'm concerned.

[slang]

Do we really need to keep derailing this thread with discussion about which science is important, when there is such a clear distinction between objective importance, with respeoct to other scientific endeavors, and subjective importance, which just boils down to anyone's personal preference or value system?

[Jim]

It's a joke?...does that mean I can't get an application to the Gillianren cult?

Darn it....

Yeah, I'm kinda disappointed, too.

[Gillianren]

Does that mean I should start devising application forms after all, or should I be taking resumes?

I appreciate that the board isn't cheap. I appreciate that, in the end, we are all here under sufferance. I'm just not sure this is the best idea. I am also entitled to that opinion.

[Tobin Dax]

I made no mention of astronomers, I was commenting on the "citizen science" done on the cosmo board.

Nereid mentioned work done by astronomers in the post you quoted, so your response seemed dismissive of them as well. Thanks for the clarification.

[Ara Pacis]

Nereid mentioned work done by astronomers in the post you quoted, so your response seemed dismissive of them as well. Thanks for the clarification.

I dunno. If the work is only done by bored ne'er-do-wells, then perhaps, but if it's a way for youngsters to get interested in STEM programs who may grow up to be astronomers, then perhaps it's more important than some realize.

[tnjrp]

So, I take it nothing much has happened yet since I'm still here throught the old URL?

[Jeff Root]

I'd expect the old (current) URL to be useable for at
least a year after the change, if not several years.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Tensor]

I dunno. If the work is only done by bored ne'er-do-wells,

Doesn't this describe most of us here Ara?....Oh, wait, bored, not board. Sorry.

[pzkpfw]

I'd expect the old (current) URL to be useable for at
least a year after the change, if not several years.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Do you mean you expect Fraser to maintain it, and have its DNS entries point at the new forum?

[tnjrp]

Somehow I doubt that will happen for any considerable length of time.

[mutleyeng]

I dunno. If the work is only done by bored ne'er-do-wells, then perhaps, but if it's a way for youngsters to get interested in STEM programs who may grow up to be astronomers, then perhaps it's more important than some realize.

is there a shortage of astronomers then?

[Trebuchet]

is there a shortage of astronomers then?

More of a shortage of funds to pay professional astronomers. And their assistants. And their computers.

[antoniseb]

is there a shortage of astronomers then?

There are projects that are impractical to do by computer, but require hundreds of thousands of hours of eyeball time. People can do it with only modest training, and no degree. I find it a more rewarding passtime than solitare or sudoku... And the result is useful toward advancing science. Crater counting for better age estimations, and solar system history. Ice hunters for identifying where New Horizons should go after Pluto. These are cool projects, and more will follow.

I suspect that R.A.F. Is stuck in a defending an earlier off the cuff statement, and does not feel that strongly as to actually have intended to insult all of us who have done this.

[mutleyeng]

oh i am all for citizen science. I understand its use and its usefulness.
You do have to be a little careful of what attributes it has though - not to over state the case.
I very much like what cosmoquest was saying about how it intended to be different from the "Zoo" franchise of projects.
I would point out though that so far it hasnt really achieved that position.
Its fairly new so it should be given time to mature - i appreciate that.
The online classes were a start in that direction - although i was a little disappointed just how much they are going to cost

[R.A.F.]

I suspect that R.A.F. Is stuck in a defending an earlier off the cuff statement, and does not feel that strongly as to actually have intended to insult all of us who have done this.

No, that was not my intention, and the arguments for "citizen science" have not fallen on deaf ears.

...in other words, my opinion is evolving based on everyone's contribution to this thread

[Ara Pacis]

is there a shortage of astronomers then?

I used astronomers as a proxy for any STEM related field.

[Jeff Root]

I'd expect the old (current) URL to be useable for at
least a year after the change, if not several years.

Do you mean you expect Fraser to maintain it, and
have its DNS entries point at the new forum?

Yes. There is hardly anything to "maintain" aside
from continuing to pay for the domain name.

Ummmm....

I hadn't thought about this. Links will continue to
work indefinitely, won't they? There must be a huge
number of links to various threads and posts on BAUT
on web pages that will never be edited again. For
example, I first came to BAUT through a link on the
Astronomy Picture of the Day website to specific
discussion of that day's picture. Making such links
unuseable would be a devistating loss.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[pzkpfw]

... aside from continuing to pay for the domain name.

Yeah, that's the bit I was thinking about.

(From your original comment, it wasn't clear to me whether you thought it would "just happen". It's now clear your use of the word "expect" was based on your expectation of what Fraser would do.)

[Tobin Dax]

Yes. There is hardly anything to "maintain" aside
from continuing to pay for the domain name.

Ummmm....

I hadn't thought about this. Links will continue to
work indefinitely, won't they? There must be a huge
number of links to various threads and posts on BAUT
on web pages that will never be edited again. For
example, I first came to BAUT through a link on the
Astronomy Picture of the Day website to specific
discussion of that day's picture. Making such links
unuseable would be a devistating loss.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

That link is likely already broken (or fixed, by now) since the BAUT merger didn't happen until late 2005.

[Swift]

I hadn't thought about this. Links will continue to
work indefinitely, won't they? There must be a huge
number of links to various threads and posts on BAUT
on web pages that will never be edited again.

I wonder about internal links, like when we link to another thread. IIRC, last big software upgrade, they were all messed up. I wonder if that will happen again with the merger?

[swampyankee]

If too many internal links are broken, people will just consider the board to be so ill-maintained as to be useless; they won't come back. If external links to the board are broken, people will just assume the board is dead. Heck, if a board's down more than a few days, I assume it's dead and don't bother looking any more.

[caveman1917]

Yeah, that's the bit I was thinking about.

There's a big difference between paying for the domain name and paying for the server and bandwidth needed for maintaining a forum. Keeping the domain name with a simple forwarding to the new site would cost 2 dollars a month at most, so i don't think that would be insurmountable.

[stu]

FYI, I was notified that a test server is being set up for tomorrow to test the merger and try to break it.

[pzkpfw]

There's a big difference between paying for the domain name and paying for the server and bandwidth needed for maintaining a forum. Keeping the domain name with a simple forwarding to the new site would cost 2 dollars a month at most, so i don't think that would be insurmountable.

Of course it's not insurmountable *1. Yes, it can be done *2.

{*1: I have (pay for and maintain) a domain for my own business, as well as running a server in my home office and paying for space with a hosting company. I do know how this stuff works.}

{*2: In fact I'd be little surprised if it wasn't, if only to stop someone else pouncing on the BAUTFORUM domain name and starting a "UFO's are real!!!" site with it.}


But it's not nothing, and does need some level of organisation. And my original participation in this strand of the thread was raised by this (my bold):

I'd expect the old (current) URL to be useable for at
least a year after the change, if not several years.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

It's that tacit assumption of what Fraser might or might not do (for the next few years) that rankled a bit.


Most of us (me too (I hate that cosmoquest name, and I don't like the way the merger was handled)) seem a bit upset over the forum merger. But to be fair to the "owners" of BAUT, we all do seem to make a few of these (in my view, slightly unfair) assumptions about what "level of service" they provide, and how they should run the place.

[R.A.F.]

Most of us (me too (I hate that cosmoquest name, and I don't like the way the merger was handled)) seem a bit upset over the forum merger.]

I think I've figured out what the difference is between when BABB became BAUT, and this current merger.

Phil took the time to answer questions, and assure us that "things" wouldn't be that much different after the merger, and except for the fact that he stopped posting, he was essentially correct.

That's the difference...no effort has been made whatsoever to make this any easier on the members of this board, in fact just the opposite. We are told that our input into this board is irrelevant, because we don't "own" it.

Well, we could have "owned it" on any number of occasions when "help with costs" was offered, so I am not impressed with the "she owns it" argument.


aside...I really am trying to get all this "complaining" out of my system before the merger...although I do not promise that I will stop after.

[Ara Pacis]

I think I've figured out what the difference is between when BABB became BAUT, and this current merger.

Phil took the time to answer questions, and assure us that "things" wouldn't be that much different after the merger, and except for the fact that he stopped posting, he was essentially correct.

That's the difference...no effort has been made whatsoever to make this any easier on the members of this board, in fact just the opposite. We are told that our input into this board is irrelevant, because we don't "own" it.

Well, we could have "owned it" on any number of occasions when "help with costs" was offered, so I am not impressed with the "she owns it" argument.


aside...I really am trying to get all this "complaining" out of my system before the merger...although I do not promise that I will stop after.

If you don't like the way this board is run and you're willing to pay the costs, then just start your own.

[R.A.F.]

If you don't like the way this board is run...

Please don't put words in my mouth...I said nothing like that. If I didn't think the mods/admin did a overall good job with this board, I'd be outta here in a flash.

...and you're willing to pay the costs...

Didn't say that either, what I said was numerous posters here had made offers of help that were always rejected.

...then just start your own.

So anyone not satisfied with how this merger has been "handled" can just "go away"?

[tnjrp]

Ultimately, if one is not satisfied with how the board is being run* that's the only solution that works I'm afraid, for those who are not the board owners. Admins and moderators may have a little more leverage but it's decidedly limited based on what I've seen.

---

*) Of course how a merger is done is just one part of that.