Is the Integration of PhysOrg.com Links a Bug or Intentional Feature?

[Greg Bernhardt]

ooh, Greg, you've done it already!

that was quick! ​

some of it

 

[Redbelly98]

Minor quibble about style: it looks kind of silly for Saturn's southern hemisphere to be lopped off for no apparent reason. This only looks sensible if there is some text right below the logo:

. [PLAIN]https://www.physicsforums.com/misc/physorg1.gif
PhysOrg.com... instead of:

PhysOrg.com
. [PLAIN]https://www.physicsforums.com/misc/physorg1.gif

(It looks better when the background color matches the logo, of course.)

EDIT: this looks better I think:

 

[Moonbear]

I don't like having it plunked inside threads. It's distracting, and looks like an advertisement. I don't see any relevance of the links to the threads I'm reading (for example, in all the threads I open right now, one of the links is to something about Nissan vehicles). And it's ugly.

 

[berkeman]

I don't see any relevance of the links to the threads I'm reading (for example, in all the threads I open right now, one of the links is to something about Nissan vehicles). And it's ugly.

Which forum was that in Moonbear? At least in the EE forum and some of the others I frequent, the links appear pretty interesting:

PhysOrg.com
physics news on PhysOrg.com

>> Dark Energy From the Ground Up: Make Way for BigBOSS
>> Physicists to study attractive and repulsive forces crucial in designing nano-machines
>> LHC to run at 3.5 TeV for early part of 2009-2010 run rising later

 

[berkeman]

And from the Posted Science Jobs forum:

science news on PhysOrg.com

>> Cut marks on bone suggest burial rituals of Early Britons
>> Researchers propose ambitious new strategies for AIDS vaccine research
>> Gov't reassures schools on staying open with flu

 

[berkeman]

And from Intro Physics in Homework Help:

science news on PhysOrg.com

>> Psychologists say longer lives can still lead to happier golden years
>> Two lines account for most human embryonic stem cell research
>> Model suggests how life's code emerged from primordial soup

Okay, Greg, I need to change my answer now. I'm spending too much time reading those links! As if I didn't already spend too much time here!

 

[Moonbear]

I guess it was just the links at the time I commented.

I'd actually be more likely to check out some of those links if the links were placed someplace other than the second post in every thread. At that point, I'm interested in reading the thread I opened, not haring off to some other site to read an article about something unrelated to the thread.

Since they've appeared, I'm noticing some other odd things with the site...not sure if it's related or not. For example, sometimes a button will appear as text instead of as a button (i.e., "Quick reply to this message" is often displayed instead of the quick reply button on the first post of a page) and up on the top border of the page, I see "image" at the end of the bar that has the quick links on it, and then it overruns the right side of the screen.

If we have to put up with the links to some other site within the threads, can they be at the end of the thread, so you only run into them when you're done reading a current thread? Maybe that would be less distracting and more likely to inspire someone to visit the other site?

 

[NeoDevin]

Since they've appeared, I'm noticing some other odd things with the site...not sure if it's related or not. For example, sometimes a button will appear as text instead of as a button (i.e., "Quick reply to this message" is often displayed instead of the quick reply button on the first post of a page) and up on the top border of the page, I see "image" at the end of the bar that has the quick links on it, and then it overruns the right side of the screen.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=328997"

 

[NeoDevin]

I think there should be a "show once" option, and a "hide" option. I'm sure many people here already subscribe to the RSS feed at physorg, and it doesn't provide any benefit to see the links again, with fewer details.

 

[Moonbear]

I think there should be a "show once" option, and a "hide" option. I'm sure many people here already subscribe to the RSS feed at physorg, and it doesn't provide any benefit to see the links again, with fewer details.

That would be nice. I probably wouldn't be bothered as much if I just saw the links in the first thread I opened on a visit to the site, or a particular forum, and then had them go away once I'd seen it for that session. Seeing the same thing repeated in every thread is feeling like more of a reason to purposely avoid going to that other site...I'm not fond of being beaten over the head repeatedly with information I was capable of reading the first time. And, it seems others here are simply learning to ignore the ads for physorg entirely.

 

[Kurdt]

One of the main reasons this has happened, please remember, is to give PhysicsForums a lot of exposure on another site. Since the site is dedicated to science news, we may get a lot more quality discussions and threads from new members on the forum. its a small price to pay if you don't like the ads.

 

[fluidistic]

One of the main reasons this has happened, please remember, is to give PhysicsForums a lot of exposure on another site. Since the site is dedicated to science news, we may get a lot more quality discussions and threads from new members on the forum. its a small price to pay if you don't like the ads.

Ok. I'm getting used now to the physorg.com links in all threads, but even though the links are generally interesting for me it might not be true for all.
I wonder, why don't we do the same as we do with Scientific American new articles? I mean, the physorg.com "adds" in the first page instead of in each thread right under the first post.
I read all Scientific American entries and I might do the same for phyorg.com even if their links does not appear in each thread.

 

[Vanadium 50]

. its a small price to pay if you don't like the ads.

True. But remember, some people have paid real money to receive no ads. They may not be happy with interpreting "no ads" as "only those ads that we think are really, really important."

Personally, I think the idea is good, but would prefer a less intrusive implementation.

 

[sylas]

I read all Scientific American entries and I might do the same for phyorg.com even if their links does not appear in each thread.

I agree. They don't belong INSIDE the thread. To one side, or above, or below, anything. Not in the middle of the thread, between posts.

 

[Moonbear]

True. But remember, some people have paid real money to receive no ads.

Exactly. Honestly, I'd rather have the little text ads back at the top of the page than these things interrupting threads. It's far more obnoxious than the little google ads at the top. What's the point of people contributing to get rid of ads if they still get their threads interrupted with ads for another site?

 

[FredGarvin]

I personally do not like them. I would prefer that they were off on the side, similar to how the links are in the main forums page. If there was anything like a "flow" to the threads, it certainly gets destroyed by having an advertisement in them.

Perhaps if they were smaller or just one link to take you to another page?

 

[cristo]

I would prefer that they were off on the side, similar to how the links are in the main forums page.

I think if they were at the side then they would have more of a (negative) effect since they would effectively reduce the width of the page.

Anyway, I'm sure greg will take all comments onboard, especially of the gold members since you guys really are appreciated, and in fact he mentioned that he was going to introduce a "hide" feature. He's away at the moment, but I'm sure he'll get onto it when back.

 

[fluidistic]

I think if they were at the side then they would have more of a (negative) effect since they would effectively reduce the width of the page.

I do not believe so. There's still a bigger (about twice as big) place than the one occupied by Scientific American's new articles. I don't see how the Physorg.com titles would change the width of the page. I might be wrong of course.

 

[Hootenanny]

I do not believe so. There's still a bigger (about twice as big) place than the one occupied by Scientific American's new articles. I don't see how the Physorg.com titles would change the width of the page. I might be wrong of course.

I think cristo was thinking of the case where the Physorg.com advertisement would be placed to the side in the actual threads, rather than on the home page as the Sci. Am. links currently are.

 

[Moonbear]

I think cristo was thinking of the case where the Physorg.com advertisement would be placed to the side in the actual threads, rather than on the home page as the Sci. Am. links currently are.

Since the links included are associated with the specific forum one is reading, how about if it was a sidebar on each forum's thread index page? Is there room for it there without squashing thread titles too much? I'd rather have thread indexes compressed more than the posts in threads themselves.

 

[Redbelly98]

Or it could be above or below the thread posts, not off to the side. Then everything could be kept the same width.

 

[sylas]

Or it could be above or below the thread posts, not off to the side. Then everything could be kept the same width.

I like this idea, and produced an image of what it might look like, in [post=2293138]msg #25[/post].

 

[nvn]

I agree with some comments by Vanadium 50, Norman, dx, Moonbear, and others. I love a bare-bones page, without distractions and bloat. E.g., I prefer only a thin, plain-text navigation bar across the top of pages (no wasted space). And no side bars, not even on forum thread index pages. The current physorg.com link is interruptive, out of place, and annoying. This link should be only a small hypertext link at the bottom of the page (as is already there).

 

[Kurdt]

I don't think that was in the terms of the partnership unfortunately. In exchange for our exposure on their site, they get exposure on ours. I doubt they'd be happy with a tiny link at the bottom of the page.

 

[dlgoff]

I don't think that was in the terms of the partnership unfortunately. In exchange for our exposure on their site, they get exposure on ours. I doubt they'd be happy with a tiny link at the bottom of the page.

I agree. This is Gregs site and he's done a great job so far. So let's keep it visible and see if our membership grows as a result.

 

[turin]

Just throwing in my opinion: It seems that this physorg ad is annoying me more than other members. I have refused to visit any of the advertised links in disgust. The visibility has an effect (on me) that is probably opposite to the intended effect. Why must that ad interrupt every single individual thread? I have greatly reduced my forum activity in order to reduce the number of times I see that ad. I don't think that annoying people with something is a good way to promote it.

 

[Evo]

Please take the time to read a thread before posting. As has been stated a number of times, it's not an ad. We have entered into a partnership with physorg.

 

[lisab]

Just throwing in my opinion: It seems that this physorg ad is annoying me more than other members. I have refused to visit any of the advertised links in disgust. The visibility has an effect (on me) that is probably opposite to the intended effect. Why must that ad interrupt every single individual thread? I have greatly reduced my forum activity in order to reduce the number of times I see that ad. I don't think that annoying people with something is a good way to promote it.

Actually, the links aren't for ads. http://www.physorg.com/help/about-us/" page for PhysOrg.com. It's a news service.

 

[turin]

I'm not talking about the links. Please forgive me for using an unapproved term to refer to the block just below the first post that advertises the links. I just thought it would be more concise to call it an "ad". BTW, I spent 20 minutes reading the thread, so please don't rebuke me for negligence just because we don't agree on terminology.

Hey! It looks like my poll has been deleted. What rule did I break?

 

[Evo]

Hey! It looks like my poll has been deleted. What rule did I break?

We don't allow starting threads on a topic that is already open. You are free to complain here all you like.

It's really sad to see people complain about this. Greg does so much work to keep this forum going. I, for one, appreciate his hard work and hope he doesn't decide that it's not worth the effort and just shut it down.

 

[turin]

I'm sorry; I was complaining a bit. I just wanted my tiny little voice to be heard, in case Greg (I guess he owns the server?) wanted to count votes. I totally understand that this forum does not cost us little guys anything, and so in the end I of course respectfully defer to Greg's decision. I just thought that Greg, and possibly even physorg, should consider that the current implementation is counterproductive for at least one member.

 

[Evo]

I'm sorry; I was complaining a bit. I just wanted my tiny little voice to be heard, in case Greg (I guess he owns the server?) wanted to count votes. I totally understand that this forum does not cost us little guys anything, and so in the end I of course respectfully defer to Greg's decision. I just thought that Greg, and possibly even physorg, should consider that the current implementation is counterproductive for at least one member.

This is the place to voice your opinion, and Greg is taking all feedback into consideration. He's out of the country right now, so don't think he's not paying attention. As a homework helper, you might be spared in the near future, so hang in there.

It bothered me too at first, but now I don't even notice.

 

[Redbelly98]

I was looking around at physorg.com, to see how they promote our site. PF has a presence, but not an intrusive presence, at physorg.

They do not put us "in the middle" of their articles, instead we are off to the side so as not to interrupt the flow of the article:

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/redbelly98/PhysicsForums/physorg01.gif
(image is very wide, and displaying it here could mess up the display of this thread for some users)

Also, notice the "Hide" feature so that users who do not wish to be troubled with the Physics Forums links do not have to view it.

I think we could safely:

• Put the PhysOrg link in a less intrusive place, say at the bottom of page 1 of a thread, and
• Add a "hide" feature

with no cause for complaint on physorg's part.

After a week of seeing these links, I do find they are somewhat intrusive as currently implemented. On the other hand, I have been interested enough to read 2 or 3 of the articles.

p.s. Here is the full physorg article that I took the above image from:
http://www.physorg.com/news169725980.html

.

EDIT:
Hey, just wanted to throw in my 2 cents on the "it's not an ad" issue.
Okay, I understand that it isn't an ad because physorg does not pay money to Greg or PF to promote their site. But you could argue that this difference is transparent to the user. I think this may be the source of frustration on the part of some members here.

p.s. As I said before, I'm all for anything that helps Greg pay the bills. This hopefully attracts more membership to PF, some percentage of whom like PF enough to become Contributors.

 

[lisab]

p.s. As I said before, I'm all for anything that helps Greg pay the bills. This hopefully attracts more membership to PF, some percentage of whom like PF enough to become Contributors.

I'm sure Greg will track the data to see if we get a bump in the number of Contributors which can be attributed to the PhysOrg partnership.

OK, maybe just correlated to the partnership.

 

[berkeman]

I noticed an interesting link in an EE thread tonight and followed it:

engineering news on PhysOrg.com

>> Watching over the water system: Engineers design sensors to monitor pipes after earthquakes
>> Electronic medicine, without borders?
>> Braille Displays Get New Life With Artificial Muscles

The first link lead me here (sorry, I'm not copying all the links):

http://www.physorg.com/news169818899.html

This is an issue that our local emergency services agencies have been looking at in detail. As you can tell from my footer, emergency preparation is pretty important here so close to the Hayward Fault, and our water supply crosses the fault. We're working on improving the infrastructure of the water supply lines that cross the fault, and I'm going to forward this link to my agencies that are doing that work.

Thanks for the link.