Posted: Oct 28, 2011 5:38 pm
Paul wrote:Brain man wrote:Whats unbelievable is that this discussion of fringe work is taking place “Again” in pseudoscience. This is a disgrace. If I google these authors names in a few weeks, most of their peer reviewed works will be supplanted in google by this forum branded as pseudoscience , even though it is clearly fringe. Due to the huge backlinking from the regressive political activism going through here. There is a healthy back and forward interplay between fringe and mainstream advancement as we all know, so whats going on here is damaging and regressive to that processs.
There is action being taken about this, all of those responsible will be named and shamed online, with a permanent site SEOd so it stays under the listings for this forum. Just like this site, there can be no libel, because it can be hosted anywhere.
There will be no appeal to this forum to make a separate section for fringe and pseudoscience, because steps have already been tried and met with ridicule. Those statements will be put online. Its clear to everybody they the staff here aren’t even going to think about this till there is website underneath ratskep in google pointing out the litany of shameful misrepresentation against hard working theorists.
If google shows up discussions here, then the searcher can make up their own mind about the topic in hand.
If the fact that a discussion is taking place under the pseudoscience section here influences someone's opinion about the validity of a topic, rather then the discussion itself, well then they're pretty bloody stupid.
Does the fact that googling "homoeopathy" brings up countless pro-homoeopathy sites, that support it, and claim that it is scientific, make homoeopathy valid?
thats not how it works in professional circles. people are hurried and have to make quick decisions. They google somebody see this, and may switch off right away, as this forum "looks" respectable. Google does not even aggregate the links from here. If i search on some theorists it comes up with pages of peer reviewed works interspersed with a link to each of one page of one of these threads, with Pseudoscience as the most prominent word.
However an SEO expert analyzed its backlinks and found almost all the activity around here is concentrated on athiest activism, not science. Its a political forum that can hike a thread above peer reviewed works from nature and other top journals.
The history and underlying activity of this forum is going to be made clear on a separate website. How it came to be basically and the true agenda underneath the placid looking professional graphics. richard dawkins threw you out. For good reason it appears and this is the result. More trouble.
Well it should not concern anybody but the owner of this site. The SEO info i get also says the value of this site is accruing at £16,000 a year (at very least). It takes work for that to happen. I will need to get a deeper report on whether the backlinking was crafted to increase market value. If so then maybe on that basis the owner is looking at this site as a financial investment and can be reasoned with privately.