I admit that this may look a bit premature, as we do not yet have a site online (however we are testing offline) … 😉
But to quickly get a viable and large enough community right from the start when we go online, it can help to think about in advance how the site can be made known to people who could be interested in it. As I have just learned, it is indeed important to attract the right people to the site right from the start.
In addition, among the interested people there might be some who would like to help with getting the site started, such as taking part in important discussions and polls, give advice about what additionaly has to be considered, help with technical issues, etc …, too. A notorious still open problem is for example where we can find hosting.
So to increase the number of participants in the start-up discussions here, it can be a good idea to even promote the fact that we are starting a new higher-level physics site and are serious about it, before actually having it 🙂
So this post is meant to gather promotion ideas, names of potentially interested contributors or places where we can look for them, etc in the comments.
I compilation of lists of potentially interested people who can be noted explicitly, has already been started by Dimension10 . So I’ll put them down here and complement them a bit in the course of time.
People pingable at Physics SE
– user12811
– Urs Schreiber
– Trimok
– Trung Phan
– Idear
– user26143
– Michael Brown
– David Bar Moshe
– Philip Gibbs
– Jerry Schrimer
– John Rennie
– joshphysics
– Joe Fitzmons
– annav
– user23660
– user6818
– Drake
– user27494
– A friendly helper
– Pratuysh
– Prahar
– user10001
– Dushya
– John McVirgo
– Federico Carta
– Matt Reece
– Vibert
– Twistor59
– Wet Savaanna Animal aka Rod Vance
– User 1504
– innisfree
– Danu
– ungerade
– levitopher
– Jonathan Gleason
– Sebastien Palcoux
– dbrane
– lurscher
– Ryan Thorngren
– Peter Morgan
– Heidar
– QuantumDot
– Ivan Velenik
– truebeliever1234
– Mitchell Porter
– Olof
– jose-figueroa-ofarrill
– piotr warchol
– zohar-ko
– user12345
– piotr migdal
– Peter Shor
– Magpie
– Oaoa
– Pavel Safranov
– Arivero
– ramanujan-dirac
– Frederic Brünner
– shouldknowbetter
– BebopButUnsteady
– K-boy
– Edward Hughes
– greg-graviton
– Axion
– user1708
– Bru
– Yuji
– Peter Kravchuk
– knives (the n here should be a \eta)
– gidom-mera
– user12103
– loony-physics-crank
– Neuneck
– natanael
– Pulsar
– Craig Thone
– Anthonny
– jdm
– toot
– lionelbrits
– nowyougettolearnwhataheadis
– dingo-d
– dj-mummy
– Art Brown
– B. Y
– nivalth
– stan-liou
– Michael
– user40276
–
People no longer active on Physics SE
– pho–
– Squark
– Moshe (user566)–
– Deepak Vaid/space_cadet (user346)
– Ben Crowell
– Ron Maimon
– Arnold Neumaier
– Lawrence B. Crowell
– Pratik Dioghare
– Marek
People outside Physics SE
– Arvind Rajaraman (Lubos mentioned he started sci.phys.strings with him and Urs Schreiber)
– Hendrik van Hees
– Xiao (the CMT/String Net person)
– Suresh Govindarajan (sgovindarajan.wikidot.com)
– Bernd Sonne
– MathOverflow people active in the nice physics tags they have there
– All the (non-trolling 😉 !) physics bloggers listed in Knemo’s Uduality blog ?
– People who have comitted to the Area51 TP proposal
Maybe the ones who are not pingable are at least singable, such that I can reach them by singing at them … :-D?
Note that my singing abilities are not that bad … ;-P
Oh my God, it seems he has even silently deleted his account, he was very nice and has given tons of immensely nice advanced answers, to me too …
When klicking un users and then searching for “Crowell”, it is only Ben Crowell’s profile that still turns up. I can not imagine that Lawrence B. Crowell has simply changed his display name, he was a very serious theoretical physicist posting under his real name.
Just to be sure, the two Crowells really are (or more accurately have been) two different members that should not be confused …
Ah ok, so I probably did not find him by the search because he is unregistered …
Seems Pratik Diaghore has deleted himself too …
I just added those you suggested and some more.
But when trying to make a list, I realized that it would be too long 🙂
So I guess when it is time to call people in, I will just look at the top users in my favorate tags …
Browsing through the top users of my favorite tags, it is shocking how many long term users who have been there almost from the beginning have stopped posting.
So the most important thing might be to list where we can find potentially interested people outside SE.
On PSE, many can be found among the top users of our favotite tags …
BTW at MO, a scaaaaary strict moderator 😉 has just nicely explained to me, that due to explicit promotion, they had a good community right from the start. So it may be indeed important to timely alert people shortly before going online…
I couldn’t find Mitchell Porter on the list. Definitely worth adding.
Oh yes, Mitchell Porter .. :-)!
Ok, but be prepared for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong list … 😛 😀 😉
We can add them in the course of time, and on MathOverflow (search their meta 😉 …), they have explained to me how important it is for such a nice site to alert the people right from the start .
I will have A LOT to add …
(on the PO chat room)
Sorry if this is the wrong place. I used to spectate on Theoretical Physics and was pretty sad when it was closed. I didn’t feel like joining Physics at the time, though as time passed I started contributing a bit there. I recently came across your Physics Overflow chatroom and have been just keeping track of the progress of this as I’m really very excited!
However, I’m unsure if I’ll be able to participate. I’m someone who likes to read about higher level topics on my own (failing very badly at it, I’m not that good at teaching myself). I’m sure I’ll read the posts on Physics Overflow, but I don’t know if I can contribute.
What level questions are you allowing? Is it OK if I ask stupid beginner string theory questions? I’ll continue to ask my QFT/etc questions on Physics, they probably are off topic here. But I’m getting started on reading up on ST, and I would like to help this site grow; but I’m afraid my questions would be off topic 😦
Hi, thanks for your interest !
About the level of the site, from the results on this poll: https://tpproposal.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/what-should-be-the-level-of-the-new-physic-site/ , it seems that the level is basically graduate-level physics. This is a bit broader than the TP.SE site in that
– Even QFT, and maybe advanced GR, is on-topic.
– Experimental Physics and Phenomenology are also on-topic.
So you can ask your QFT questions on Physics Overflow, too.
Oh, no, I accidentally submitted my comment before completeing it.
Yes, Basic String Theory questions are of course, on-topic too.
Great, this is very heartening 😀
My QFT questions might be basic also. I’ve not had acess to many books and I have a jumbled study of these thigns. I’m a bit scared of joining a community of high level peopl but I will try to.
Now it annoys me a bit that Dmckee has frozen the Physics Overflow chat room, as nice people like Argonut could find it by this means …
Hi Argonut,
thanks for the nice words and your interest 🙂
I second what Dimension10 says, until now it looks as most people think that the level of the new site should be graduate level upward, so you and your questions would most probably be heartily welcome 😉
Cheers
By looking at the wayback machine archives of the TP.SE profiles of Moshe and Squark, I figured out that their real names are “Vadim Kosoy” and “Moshe Rozali” (well this I knew from reading one of his/her question on PSE where he/she referred to his/her own paper).
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/vadim-kosoy/1/90a/bb5
http://www.phas.ubc.ca/~rozali/
So this makes it easier to contact them.
Now, I don’t know how we can find pho’s real name. Hopefully, after importing the users to Physics Overflow, the e-mail hash can decrypt … ?
What do you mean by email hash? From what I know of hashes, they are one way and can’t be decrypted except by brute.
When I downloaded the Physics.SE data dump, I found that each of the users’ emails are associated with a “hash”. Mine, for example, is “dc183fa5ee5f0d66aa6f1797d6992c9f”. I guess that this could probably be decrypted when importing into Q2A, maybe?
At least I hope,.
Nope. That is an md5 hash.
From looking at the Data Explorer (which is suppsed to run on dumps), I don’t think all information in the databases is preserved in the dumps, like deleted questions. It stands to reason that emails are not exposed as well. The hash is probably there for Gravatar, because Gravatar uses hashes so your email hash is public. But there will be a separate database entry for emails that is not there in the dumps.
Oh, nooooo!
Yup, maybe, even the voting records aren’t there in the dumps.
Uh, that would be bad if the vote counts are not preserved …
Concerning the email adress, our technical supportar said too that they can not be restored. And there will be an issue with the login data of the former TP.SE members too, if we dont want to make them accessible to everybody.
Maybe we would have to proceed in a similar way as MathOverflow did when joining SE: Some people lost access of their original account too and unintentionally created a new one. The two accounts did then have to get merged, such that people could access their original accounts again.
Maybe a Meta thread where people can say in the answer’s that they’d need access to their original TP account could do the job, when the time has come …
Not sure if and how two accounts can be merged in Q2A, will look for this on the support site.
If I’m not wrong; the *vote counts* *are* preserved; but the voting *records* (like, who voted on it) aren’t, unless the vote was a favourite.
The meta thread is a good idea, I’m sure it’s possible to merge accounts.
http://question2answer.org/qa/25060/merging-2-users?show=25060#q25060
Good news, my nice technical supporter now knows how to import the TP.SE data (the votes are there too) … :-)))
But he seed it was really not straight forward and needed an informatics specialist to be successful …
Cheers
Yay! Now we need to just import the PSE data dumps, which can be found here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-8OJgRrs5NIeGFyOHdvM0VPd3M/edit?usp=drive_web .
The vote counts are obviously there, but we can’t find out who voted for what, so it wouldn’t be possible to ensure users don’t double-vote : ( .
Now, we need to *mass-delete* a lot of bad questions (From Physics.SE, of course) by their tags.
On stackapps, I saw a userscript that lets users mass-burninate tags: http://stackapps.com/a/4236/21593
Howefver, what we need to do is to delete the questions associated with them. For this, there would probably need to be a modification of this script.
Hendrik van Hees can not help us with hosting, but he wrote a nice reply and is interested in contributing as soon as we are online 🙂
\begin{quote}
Hi,
I don’t see any way that I could help hosting your webpage, but of
course, I’d be interested in participating in asking and answering
questions, if that helps you.
Cheers,
Hendrik.
\end{quote}
Hey, I have some experience with these things. I used to work parttime as a sysad,
I can’t provide hosting for this, but I strongly suggest you try https://www.digitalocean.com/. It’s reasonably cheap ($5/month), and gives you a lot more control of the system than other hostng providers. Most other providors make it very hard to set up your own things, they restrict the amount of configuration you can do. Digital ocean gives you direct root access to the droplet and you can run pretty much whatever you want.
I also would like to help you set it up if you want.
Thanks a lot,
Digital Ocean’s $5/month plan seems to be for 20 GB of SSD disk.
Physics.SE, which has a much wider scope, has a data dump of just 339 MB since a lot of years.
So, yes, that seems to be a great option, at least for a looooooong time.
Thanks again.
Hi Argonut,
many thannks for this good hint and also for the kind offer to help with setting up the site there 🙂
Some issues still have to be resolved we’d like to make work first on our offline test sites, before seriously moving to the server we want to use for the real site …
I will forward your suggestion for hosting to our technical expert 🙂
Do you mean joshphysics.com? That runs wordpress, so he probably got his own domain and used one of those sites where they let you run wordpress for free if you buy a domain because thats a very cheap way to run wordpress. If thats the case he has no control over the actual server, jsut the wordpress setiings.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
Yep I have already encountered him 🙂
… he once told me to RTFM and not post questions there of which the answer can be found in the Polchinski bible, LOL 😀
He was basically right of course, and it is good for them to keep things straight …
I saw you added me as an author here,
I think I’ll probably firstly write a post on how to give attribution, basically just something like the recent TRF comments of mine.
However, should I wait for a few days (to get the current latest post enough attention), or start writing the post now?
After all, even with a new post, new visitors will probably not stop visiting the old posts, will they?
And besides, as you said, it may be a good idea to additionally (apart from the people mentioned in the post) look at some of the most recent OR top posters in the interesting tags.
I think new posts coming often enough (and only every blue moon) is good for people to see that the project is alive and thriving 😉
Adressing the topic of attribution is fine.
For the TP questions it is probably simpler, as explained here
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/195920/is-it-allowed-to-read-the-data-dump-of-a-closed-se-site-into-a-clone-se-site-mod
And as also said on TRF, we have to be very careful with the attribution, as our new site might not be received well by everybody. It is possible that there will even be people who will attack it:
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/203887/184300
So it might be a good idea too to emphasize that PhysicsOverflow is NOT meant to be a threat or competitor to Physics SE, but a higher level complement in the same way as MathOverflow nicely complements Math SE.
I hope that certain things, as for example inserting links to Area51 for TP questions, to fullfill the attribution can be automated.
Will have to talk with polarkernel (our nice technical expert 😉 …) about this too …
I’ll create a new category for legal issues, to post about attribution will then fit into this I think.
BTW did I already say thanks to you for your continuous help … ;-)?
Cheers
Ok, thanks for the reply. I’ll probably write it today or tomorrow morning, hopefully today.
Yep, and Axion and user1708 are nice too 😉
In particular, user1708 (a long-term user since 3 years) is not particularly amused about Manishearth’s answer to a question about the final purpose of SE
http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5174
Which explicitely says among other things the Physics (and any other site) SE should make the internet better which defined (by SE) as being exclusively useful to the large (mostly unknowledgeable) crowd of random googlers and NOT to the community of regular contributors (such as physicists and good students) who actually write the content of the site and are there to learn and enjoy physics together …
Exactly THIS spesific SE point of view is orthogonal to the needs of a free academic community and it is the reason why the SE network is absolutely not appropriate for building up high-level expert communities and never will be …
Exactly THIS is why we urgently need a new physics site!
The “n” in “knives” should be a \eta, not a \mu
Those who commeted to TP.SE on Area51
http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848?phase=commitment&committers=totalreputation#tab-top
Pulsar, too.
Ok, I once disagreed with him about something, but as I have forgotten what it was exactly it could not have been that important … 😉
I have disagreed with him on his severe rejecting of suggested edits once, but seriously, disagreeing should not be a reason to not let them participate.
Anthonny
http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/3956/anthonny
[…] beginning we will have to deal with the handicap that there is not yet a large community (or promotion of the site will have to work exceptionally well) and many or most of us will not yet have the rep […]
I think when we are online we should our site also promote here, it that room can be unfrozen:
http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/1350/theoretical-physics
Maybe it was not a typo … 😀
Michael
http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4337/michael
And we should contact John Fitzsimmons because he gave the following answer to the TP meta question
Where do we go from here?
As I mention in the comments above, I would be happy to set up such a site if people are interested. I don’t mind paying for hosting and using one of the available Q&A systems. The only question is whether there is interest in such a move.
It would have potential advantages in being run by the physics community, rather than the more diverse interests in the stack exchange network.
If you think this is worth doing please let me know, either here or on G+ or by email.
If it is something we want to do, then my suggestion would be that I could contact various interested people (the ex mods from here, some high rep users etc.) and we could figure out what platform we wanted to go with, and how to structure such a site.
I am not sure, if we should contact him very soon (the TP people could take part in our discussions 🙂 …) or only after the site is running, such that they can join if they want to?
Now I have left him a comment here:
http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/3209/a-subset-of-theoreticalphysics-se/3219#comment20085_3219
but I am not sure, if he will see it …
Maybe you should have pinged him at CStheory, he’s more active there.
Done
http://meta.cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/1418/theoretical-cs-birthday-celebration/1429#comment6839_1429
I hope he does not feel desturbed by my off topic comment … 😉
Hm, you forgot to add the Digital Ocean link to “this”.
Now he has seen my message on Area51 🙂
http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/3209/a-subset-of-theoreticalphysics-se/3219#comment20125_3219
user40276
http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/32339/user40276
Niel de Beaudrap
http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4976/niel-de-beaudrap
levitopher
And he seems to have a nice blog too, even though Lumo would probably not approve all his research interests 😉
http://levitopher.wordpress.com/
Stringpheno
http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1892/stringpheno?tab=activity
Such people are the ones who should have the power on Physics SE, and not politicians and knownothings …
High (research?) level and endagered because such questions are ignored by the crowd today:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/89324/2751
Wrong place : ) I’m sure you meant the “Endangered…” post.
VM9
http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/35354/vm9
Another Dan
http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/27661/dan
Mark Eichenlaub
http://www.quora.com/Mark-Eichenlaub
A nice Mathematician … 😉
http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/35846/mathematician
http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/17137/brianwa
He has given a nice answer to one of my question, asking if the twistor (now amplituhedron) approach to calculate scattering amplitudes can be usefule in renormalization calculations too … 🙂
I will see that I can import them, he seems to be slightly interested in a “broader notion” of quantum gravity I have seen when following the link in his profile and looking at his institute :-). To me it seems perfectly legitimate mainstream theoretical physics, if you dont ask Lumo … 😛
But of course we both know that the current crop of most active reviewers is not able to discern between legitimat mainstreem physics and crack, just thinking about the attack on Urs Schreiber last year …
…. done 😉
Thanks for recognizing the need for this. I’ll never read or write another word on Physics SE.