With respect: what the hell difference does it make if someone who posts here has the “title” SDSAB? I mean, really? :rolleyes:
CarnalK, I hereby rescind most of the mean stuff I’ve said about you in the past. If you can actually get Ed to keep the SDSAB in check, you can’t be all bad.
Bwaaaaaaaaaah!
::: wipes tears of laughter away from eyes.:::
May I suggest that you go read some GQ questions, ignore the jokes, and just pay attention to the stupid answers. There are plenty.
for my two cents worth, keep the Staff Reports.
No. I just think he’s demanding a strange amount of accountability out of people who write a column he’s not obligated to read, and that that particular piece of information which is apparently one of the credentials he requires is amongst the strangest of them. I feel like his only real reason for asking is because he wants to know – which is, hey, fine, but don’t gussy it up like it’s some kind of major thing, you know? – and the rather random inclusion of gender in the list is an example of how ill-thought out it is.
Say, Ed, if regular member wants to go about writing a report, how would this occur? Is there some repository of questions somewhere that one could take a whack at?
Dex, you can’t determine what is relevant to the readers.
I wish I had known a long time ago that the standards were set that low. I don’t mind it so much in Staff Reports where sources are given. But that honorary title sticks to the user name in other forums where sometimes I have been expecting accuracy and logic and not getting it.
I am not speaking of anyone specifically. But there have been times when I have seen mistakes that flash like neon signs and I wonder why that person has an “SDSAB” after her or his name.
The procedure is to e-mail C K Dexter Haven and tell him what subjects you have knowledge and/or experience in, and he can give you some questions to look into if there’s something available.
Staff Reports are supposed to stand on the basis of their factual accuracy and sources, not the name or credentials of the person doing the report (with the exception being if someone is relating personal experience and/or original research in a field).
There’s also the “willing to devote several unpaid hours of time researching and writing the paper, then going through revisions if needed, and answering follow-up questions” parts of it as well.
Lots of people on here can write lengthy screeds about the latest Bush “atrocity” or something stupid their “always-witty” family members did. Many can essentially steal things from Wikipedia, the first couple of Google hits, or whatever teenager’s blog they like to read, and cobble together a lengthy GD post that sounds impressive. Few can write a lengthy, fairly complete, and as unbiased-as-possible answer to a question, with sources. Fewer have the time to do it, and fewer still the inclination. And even less, the ability and inclination to do it multiple times on more than one subject (some great reports have been one-shot efforts).
Is it a low standard? Doubtful, and despite the fact that Dex has been posting on here for 8 or 9 years what the qualifications are and how to get in touch with him to write for the Straight Dope Staff, folks don’t exactly bust down his door to offer.
Thanks!
Low standard? Hmmmm. I dunno, we’ve got at least five Ph.D.s amongst our crew, possibly more, I don’t keep track. Plus several professionals such as lawyers, computerologists, etc.
Ah, but those people don’t necessarily answer questions on their specialised fields, as you and **Bricker ** have noted. A Ph.D. may certainly imply a good ability to write and in general research, but you can’t really hold up such qualifications as being evidence of high standards unless they only answer questions on the topic they’re qualified in.
Anyway, my own opinion would be this; i’d prefer the SDSAB to have considerable knowledge in their field, but it’s not as important to me as knowing what the extent of their knowledge is. I think the automatic assumption is - and it was in my case, unless the report in question makes it clear - that the writer in question is someone with experience in that field. I would be worried that the reports can come off looking more authoritative than they actually are. I’m not so sure a full bio is a good idea, since requiring one would probably drop the level of people interested in being SDSAB even lower than they apparently are, but I don’t think letting people get a general idea of how knowledgeable a person is on a subject is really a bad idea.
Some of our writers are definitely experts in their field, and write about that field. Doug, frinstance, is a professional bug-ologist, and usually writes his Staff Reports off the top of his head, without special research at all. Other of our writers just know how to research and digest. But, frankly, we often answer questions that don’t fall into traditional “fields”: I’ve written Staff Reports on the Man in the Iron Mask, wicked witches and water, Sadie Hawkins, and Humpty Dumpty. It’s not like one can find an expert in those fields to write up these reports.
Ed Zotti first let me say I appreciate you thinking about this and addressing it. I will admit that I kind of knew this belonged in this forum, but I still shook my fist at the sky when Czarcasm moved it here. I expected a “Well we’d like to invite you to have a big cup of STFU Jimmmy ; Our Board our rules, we will designate royalty how we like” and a locked thread.
So thank you for taking it under advisement. I appreciate it and if you decide not to do anything, [and I’d urge you to think a bit about the high level CVs], well I still appreciate the hearing and the attitude you showed.
Loach and CK Dexter Haven: I guess I think there is a special talent being a Big League writer and taking information and distilling it for the masses - like we all agree that the SDSAB does.
It is what Cecil does so well and what Science Staff writers do for the NYTimes and Washington Post do. It is a worthy thing and a special skill set. You know what these people, who have these talent at this high level like yourselves, don’t do though? They don’t dub themselves a “Science Advisory Board”. “Straight Dope Cub Reporters”(which may sound insulting but I wonder about Reader allowing folks here to be ‘reporters’)? “Straight Dope Staff Writers”? these are titles that I think your posts more properly point to, if the PTB think we need to designate folks specially.
jacquilynne I think it was my incipient sexism showing through. I am sorry. The thread was taking a dangerous turn - like I had requested that the home addresses and Social Security Numbers of the SDSAB be posted. I wanted to quash that as quickly as I could. So on the fly, I said "No just general stuff like I dunno … "waved my hand in the air and I spat out some things and I included Gender which was a mistake and, again, I am sorry.
On the other hand, I and others much more eloquently than me, made the case that it is kind of important. And it is beyond “Hey I’d like to know.”
**Contrapunctual **I am sorry you took anything personally, It wasn’t my intention to upset you. I am sorry that happened.
**Rick **I am not sure I have an answer to you.
The problem isn’t that some are experts in their field and some aren’t, at least to me. The problem is that I have no way of telling the difference. If I know nothing about a subject, and I go read Doug’s report on bug-ology, I can consider myself educated from an experienced source. If I go read Doug’s report on, say, rare Belgian cheeses, I can know that while there’s been at least some research done on the subject*, it’s not based on first-hand knowledge.
But I can only do that now knowing that Doug’s a professional in one area and not the other. Before, and for all the SDSAB for whom I don’t have a reference like that, I either have to assume they’re uniformly experienced people in all the subjects they write about (that can have professional experience, as you point out), or that they have none on any of the subject of their reports. **Doug’s ** report on bugs and on cheeses are equally valid to me - and on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, it seems reasonable (to me, at least) that i’m not given a false impression of the authority or lack of of the Staff Reports.
So i’m left with the problem - do I assume all the Staff Reports are written by keen amateurs? Or by experienced professionals? Without knowing about them, it’s one or the other.
*I’m not calling into question Doug’s researching, here, just to be clear.
Edit: This was in response to CK, to be clear.
I remind y’all of the warning at the bottom of each Staff Report:
I don’t know quite how to respond to some of your comments: it is what it is. Usually, we provide references and resources for those wanting more information. When we get an astronomy question, we’ve got a couple Ph.D. astronomers on board, but that doesn’t mean they don’t need to research the question. We’ve got ornithologists and actuaries, but mostly we’ve got people willing and able to do research. We’ve never done an April Fool type of joke (like the infamous Snopes “Mr Ed was a Zebra”); we’ve occasionally had later research dispute what we’ve said, and we’ve usually published retraction or correction. We don’t tend to tackle things on which there’s really a lot of dispute (“Is there a God?” isn’t gonna be on the table); we sometimes do take on things where there’s different viewpoints, and we try to present the prominent ones. We’re not trying to be Wikipedia, nor a science journal – we want to be able to take on topics that don’t fit standard academic disciplines, like the Necronomicon or Sherlock Holmes. There’s no way to have experts in such fields on staff, there’s no way to call upon them to write for us (for free), and so we are where we are. Them as likes the Staff Reports can enjoy them, them as wants academic professionalism can find it elsewhere, I’m sure.
I still say it is a tempest in a teapot. Someone must have gotten a nose bent out of shape somehow. Getting all upset because the people who write the “Staff Report” articles get to have a “fancy” title here on the message board is quite silly.
It should be sufficient to know that the SDSAB titleholders are not in anyway “officials” with respect to the Message Board. Once that is clear, and the corollary, that the opinion of someone from the SDSAB expressed on here has no more inherent value than an opinion expressed by me, is understood, the issue should be stillborn.
I haven’t read this whole thread, but I think the OP’s premise is flawed.
Cecil Adams is more an unknown quantity than the average SDSAB member. If they’re to be retired, why not sack Cecil?
I actually enjoy the SDSAB columns more than the Cecil columns. They’re, well, they’re actually serious.
Exactly. Me, I think perhaps the apparently confusing title issue could be resolved, as well as shortened considerably from its new, current form, by simply changing it to SDSAB Writer. Clear, concise and accurate. If anyone can still manage to confuse that with board Staff or assume they had authority with respect to the boards, then they’d probably be happier on a different message board, anyway.
Why the hell would we want to do away with the SDSAB?
The whole idea behind the Straight Dope is you send your question on any topic you want to some guy you’ve never met before, and he researches it and gives you an answer. The idea behind the SDSAB is you send your question on any topic you want to somebody you’ve never met before, and he or she researches it and gives you an answer. You really trust “Cecil Adams” more because it’s the pseudonym of a syndicated columnist? The SDSAB is typically at least as good as Cecil in citing their sources.
Even if you do think Cecil’s columns are so much more trustworthy or better written than the SDSAB’s, there’s a simple solution: just don’t read the SDSAB columns! Why should those of us who enjoy those columns no longer have the option of reading them just because you don’t like them?
I personally don’t believe that the fact that there are fewer posts in the SDSAB forum than in some of the others is evidence of a lack of interest in the SDSAB columns. Personally, I read any column on the front page that has a title which remotely interests me, as I’m sure many users of the site do. If the board admins are seriously worried that there aren’t enough people reading the SDSAB columns to justify the time spent on them, then the simple answer is just to put up a poll: Click here if you’re reading the SDSAB columns and want to keep them around. I predict such a poll would immediately generate a high number of “yes” responses.
If you really think that the GQ board would generate as thoroughly researched answers as the SDSAB if only the SDSAB wasn’t stealing their thunder, I think you’re kidding yourself. I’d bet less than 1% of GQ responses are as well researched as the typical SDSAB column.
If your real objection is just that the SDSAB members get a fancy title, I submit you’re making a big deal out of nothing. I always figured the title was mostly a joke, anyway, to make them sound like some sort of crazy think tank.
That’s a worthwhile suggestion. Of course, since we’re apparently going to have fewer “Straight Dope Science Advisory Board [Members/Writers/Whatever]” and more “Guests” soon, it may simply cease to be an issue. That said, I like your thinking here.