Dear András,

Your question touches a delicate point for RG. I think, RG tries to establish a huge scientific database. The tool for this is a forum, where scholars enjoy taking part. Valuable scientific information is highly specialized – providing it is hard work. It is laborious. It should be paid. RG cannot pay for it. So there is a “cross-subsidization” with the sector of a less specialized, relaxed way of taking part in a forum.

The idea was to create a database without paying for it – the content should be provided as an “epiphenomenon”, a side effect of a forum, where people enjoy being watched while showcasing their knowledge. And it works. Now there is the problem for RG, how to filter the valuable contents out of the less specialized sector. They want to do it with down votings and they are facing some problems, because researchers realize it and they are not amused. 

This question has some more interesting aspects – good for another post.

Dear András,

you meet my thoughts. I don´t want to discuss scoring and the algorithm behind the score. More interesting for me is the trend, to discuss preferably common questions.

There is a very simple reason, to do this:

In your own field you don´t have to ask for principle details, you hopefully already know them. If you are interested in scientic fields, that are not your original job, you have to be "common". Otherwise you would be overchallanged by complexity and unknown details.

As for me, I try to help young students with "field" answers, when ever I´m able to do it. On the other side, I follow the "common" questions in order to learn and to widen my horizon. It´s a good motivation to share discussions and to learn to know other participants.

RG members prefer to respond to general questions (Q's) because each one is so busy.  If the knowledge is at hand, it's a lot easier and quicker to give a response.  But if it's a specific, research related Q that I can respond from my knowledge base, I would also place an answer.  I'm quite willing to search for a link that provides more info to the Q and to myself, but at  times this extra effort isn't even appreciated.  So I just do my best and leave things to the objectivity of the RG community, to upvote or not.

But I also ask Q's that are research related and I appreciate the usefulness of the answers, the upvotes and downvotes, that directed me to the right advice, right action, and facilitated my research.

Dear András,

Your question touches a delicate point for RG. I think, RG tries to establish a huge scientific database. The tool for this is a forum, where scholars enjoy taking part. Valuable scientific information is highly specialized – providing it is hard work. It is laborious. It should be paid. RG cannot pay for it. So there is a “cross-subsidization” with the sector of a less specialized, relaxed way of taking part in a forum.

The idea was to create a database without paying for it – the content should be provided as an “epiphenomenon”, a side effect of a forum, where people enjoy being watched while showcasing their knowledge. And it works. Now there is the problem for RG, how to filter the valuable contents out of the less specialized sector. They want to do it with down votings and they are facing some problems, because researchers realize it and they are not amused. 

This question has some more interesting aspects – good for another post.

Dear Andras,

I agree with Hanno, that about our own research field  we know a lot of details, have the knowledge. We also know where to find more. Putting general questions, rather than narrowly specialized, creates an interdisciplinary platform for dialogue and learning, where such threads are treated with due care. I think the specialists of QUALITY discourse on the RG (the staff) will try cause us to share in our exclusively related disciplines.   We were already behaviorally disciplined by temporary ranking and labels of "demotes".  Logic dictates that this is the right way but everything beyond logic as experiences, creativity of human beings and habitus, says that such demand is slightly tying our hands and blocking interdisciplinary learning.  I have read a piece of text on Tchernobyl by Hanno (physicists) and I could learn something about the radiation. Constantly I'm impressed by questions and  abilities of initiating the discourse  by Debi, Nageswara, Mahfuz. Thanks to them I could read interesting comments on the HR or organization cultures, employment matters etc. Abdalla and Kamal, posed open questions concerning the health, about the ecosystem and learning asked Miranda. When I put generally formulated questions, they are usually well-established in cultures and/or cultural contexts, whom I do not explain. They of course seem trivial to many participants. My question of "Does poetry matter in your life?"(163 answers + demoted label) gave participants (in my opinion) a lot of valuable poetry to read as well as interpretations. Some commenters were finally thankful for the non-scientific question.

Is the RG already becoming Facebook? It's hard to say. I do not know how do you define Facebook dear @Andras ? We can only care for rejecting banality and boredom from our comments or treating even the most obvious threads with deeper attention of our knowledge and skills. How to recognize banality ? That's the other question.

Dear Beata,

You have touched a subject what is indispensable for our human development and our personnel fulfilment. Unfortunately, RG accept(ed) but with difficulty that a scientific forum must reflect also artistic demands and interests of specialised scientists because there is no scientist without cultural desires and a certain part of traffic should be sacrificed to this!

Dear All,

A was glad when I read your comments which showed the real value of RG opportunities: the diversity and richness of opinions!

No, RG is (fingers crossed) not becoming FB and the day they start advertising here, I'm gone (as I was there). 

I think, general questions are part of liberal arts, which is in many educational systems a well-represented and useful field of study. So, the scope as such is not dubious. Maybe, Andras is pointing at peers who deliberately pose this kind of question to hype their feedback on RG. 

Dear Cecilia,

This is one of the most thoughtful and reflective contributions I have seen in the last time.

Dear András,

I think that it depends on the participant and his/her specific mood every day.

Some days we like easy questions, just to share our thoughts, other days we want specialized and technical ones.

As for comparing RG with FB, I think that RG is close to YouTube: Replace the music industry of $20 cost CD's with the publishing industry of known drawbacks and you have a perfect view of the quiet revolution that is being done now, here.

If I remind you that RG now gives you the opportunity of a DOI per publication, then the enigma is almost solved.

Of course some issues are still open, like the 'serial killers', e... sorry I wanted to write the 'serial downvoters', but probably they will fix it too.

Dear Michael, dear Demetris

I think RG is not 100% non-commercial (job offers; industry?) – But this touches another and very general problem:

Will valuable contents on the web remain free of charge? - Should they?

Please, read Jaron Lanier’s “Who owns the future?” It is discussed here, with the consequences:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Non-payment_culture-will_it_shrink_the_economy?_tpcectx=profile_questions

Dear Demetris,

I agree with your remark.  Asking questions and choosing some to give the answers is relative and depends on mood. Maybe current needs too as inspirations for further explorations, instrumental knowledge of methods or just  jump from own specific field to feel needed distance and new "content".

Dear Martin,

The problem about valuable contents  meant as our publications uploaded, was introduced by our colleague Patric Low, expert in extraordinay (for me)  spiritual approach to bussines and management, who's account was closed because of Patric's questions concerned the death associated issues. When Kamal (as surgeon) asked question of differenciating the living body from the dead one, question was deleted and in following days his account was closed temporarily too.

I do not intend mention right now the oppressions, but in this two cases we, who stayed discussed initiated by Patrick issue of developed data base. If we will be deleted from RG under different conditions, who and how ? will manage in coming  years a lot of free scientific data ? Patrick and Kamal had a lot of professional publications uploaded on RG.  Btw. I do not share idea that we should be paid for uploading on RG or for our comments.

Dear Beata,

You have raised two interesting topics. The taboo subjects and the real or marketing values of our publications uploaded here. And I have not even mentioned a lot of (scientific and technological) ideas which can be selected from the vast material of the discussions.

What is the fate of this pile of information?

Dear Andras,

I like your conclusion about taboo topics. I noticed lot more excluded topics, but your category fits well. Thank you.

Dear @Andras, You hit the target! RG score is not the goal, but the consequence- the result of scientist's work (publications, questions, answers,...)!

Wrong approach to RG score methodology  is the main reason why most of us take part in the general discussions. As You remember, it was not at the early beginning! For two years of my active participation in Research Gate, I have  followed these general discussions more and more. So I gained a lot of friends, not only virtual!

Sometime, I do answer/discuss some technical issues, rarely,  but these questions were asked by our younger colleagues. Rare are the questions in our expert fields (topics) where we meet our real colleagues!

General Practice Specialists with Google skills and speed can make a "good" results in the RG score! But that is not the goal, the primary goal, right! You have noticed well, it is RG Score Addiction!

So, until the RG policy of Questions and Answers remains the same, we will keep on taking part in general discussions!

Dear Ljubomir,

I agree perfectly with you. We can say we are on a forced orbit (in spite of the many good friends and the fun) because active participation needs a lot of time, too much time and often we cannot focus on our special field or other tasks. RG score is a conservative mainstream characteristic which does not respect but impact points. Other publications or the interests for these publications (downloads, publication views, profile views, question traffic) do not matter really. Interestingly, there is no democracy or equitability regarding the up-votes: up-vote of participants with a higher RG score is worth more but nobody knows the proportions or the operation of the scoring evaluation. Impact points are permanent but our direct, immediate and individual contribution is only an ephemer (temporary) result and we should more and more perform to keep the record. How long can one continue this? Certainly, we can step out from this treadmill. Now, I paint aquarelle pictures every day. It is more useful and intelligent than to keep on infinite over-sophisticated discussions in vain.

Dear all, I remember a movie with the next story:

It was a hotel of dead people that had simple, good, better and luxurious rooms. The distribution of its 'residents' at the rooms was made upon the references to them by the alive people: When alive were talking about someone dead, then his/her reputation increased and he/she installed in a better room.

(If somebody remembers the exact title, please let write it.)

A similar situation is RG score and other impact factors...

Good analogy. dear Dematris.  I noticed  when we use professional jargon we are more recognizable by analytical programs as a promising users of RG. The programs get fever when appear words tabooed historically or culturally. Btw. the movie seems interesting.

Dear Demetris,

Who are the dead and who are the living persons?

Dear Cecilia,

Many thanks for your fine mini-essay. Courtesy is important. It determines atmosphere of or our milieu. What you have written on the students’ assignment practice is interesting, however without normal polite behaviour elder colleagues will not waste their time on elementary questions. In summary, some students use RG like an intelligent answering machine.

As to RG score change: I have experiences that continuous efforts and activity often has decreasing scores. This is a demoralisation impact, and the too high demand for more and more answers providing only ephemeral scores cannot be a healthy policy. Regarding the FB phenomenon, I think it is a real danger which may decrease the quality.

Dear Demetris,

we are social beeings and it´s quite normal, that we are collecting reputation like in your movie by beeing discussed, contradicted and at least noticed by a community. The only wish I have, I want to stay alive.

Dear Andras et al., I agree with you heartily: 'As to RG score change: I have experiences that continuous efforts and activity often has decreasing scores. This is a demoralisation impact, and the too high demand for more and more answers providing only ephemeral scores cannot be a healthy policy.'  

But the ONE best thing about RG is that we all MET ONE ANOTHER HERE and I have found friends, besides fellow researchers, who share our ups and downs.  CHEERS.

My dear @Andras, as You have said: "Now, I paint aquarelle pictures every day. It is more useful and intelligent than to keep on infinite over-sophisticated discussions in vain.", I do hope that You will attach some of them here, or I may have a hope to get one when I come to Hungary to meet with You!

RGers prefer general or common questions because the ideas that they communicate reach the largest possible audience.  A specialized question always risks provoking answers that never or hardly ever get read.

Dear Hanno,

I do share with you the same hope and I wish you to live healthy as long as you desire!

Keep walking!

Dear András,

I think that my example was not the best I could find.

Anyway, I wanted to write that RG score is variable, since our participation -of every kind- is also variable.

Dear Cecilia et al., I think it's up to us to make the Quality of our answers a significant reason for our upvotes.  So I upvote answers that come with useful links and info.

I also realized that RG is full of opinions; so I decide that I will now endorse opinions that are backed up by science.  Someone has to do the science (please include humanities).  If we all do this, upvote objectively, then the USEFUL answers will become the popular answers.  What do you all think, Andras, Beata, Ljubomir, Demetris, Hanno, Abdalla, Guiseppe, Martin et al?

Dear Miranda,

When up-voting a comment, its originality, clear logical order and the relationship of the scientific and/or human truth (of course as I imagine it) matters for me. It occurred that I expressed with up-voting my agreement but the subjects were generally imperative ones.

Your decision is useful and exemplary. How many RGers will follow you?

Dear Ljubomir,

Thanks for your confidence. I will do both with pleasure but I need some time to scan them or an opportunity to meet you here. I wanted to participate in a conference in Serbia in this November but our (institutional and personnel) budget cannot afford my going there.

Dear Andras, and Miranda,

While analyzing the reactions on RG threads, I found that unfortunatelly behavioural treatment is effective for the RG managers. Many of our answers went deeper. Some of us stopped to formulate questions at all. Kamal noticed once publicly, that he is afraid of asking questions to not be perceived as "vaugue" by RG staff. Ahed unfortunatelly formulates questions very seldom.  Recently we cannot even re-edit and make corrections in our answers. Such option was blocked. So RG got better qualities only by showing us the puzzled value of our threads. The confusing thing was not knowing the grounds for evaluation. What next ?  If such an assessment has blocked our intellectual vigor and  spontaneity to such an extent ?  Are we constantly behaviourally manipulated? We are now opressed, not creative and so miserably submissive. 

P.S. Of course we are on vacation too.

Dear Beata and friends, I noticed that when I want to edit my response, I can't do it even though I waited and waited.  Just now on Mahfuz question, I forgot to put in 1 more sentence.  Finally I had to make a second post because I couldn't edit.  It could be that the server is slow.  

Yes, I notice that Prof Kamal, Raoof and some others haven't been asking questions.  I think he needs a rest, so I try my best to keep an eye open for his questions, make some posts to keep the thread active.  Although I can't do so much, that's what friends are for.

Dear Miranda,

I have the same experience when trying to correct typing errors in my answers. May be we should ask RG.

Dear All,

 You are right, the correcting function does not work or the server is like a snail.

Dear @Miranda, @Hanno, @Andras and other colleagues, I have posted a thread on problem of editing, link is attached! Join and comment in order to get back fine edit/delete option!

https://feedback.researchgate.net/responses/editing-does-not-work-in-q-and-a

Dear Miranda,

Thanks for your good heart and your help to keep the thread open just in case someone needs a rest. That’s what friends are for!

Martin.

Dear Martin, they are very special friends, and not just virtual.  We have all been through some difficulties together.  They have been kind to provide info and advice, and we aren't on RG with the desire or need to increase scores all the time!  So I do my best to keep threads active for them. 

Dear Beata, Andras, Ljubomir, Martin and friends: I remember you said 'Recently we cannot even re-edit and make corrections in our answers. Such option was blocked. So RG got better qualities only by showing us the puzzled value of our threads. The confusing thing was not knowing the grounds for evaluation. What next ? If such an assessment has blocked our intellectual vigor and spontaneity to such an extent ? Are we constantly behaviourally manipulated? We are now opressed, not creative and so miserably submissive.'

Today, just now, I was able to edit!  And please continue to post your Questions, dear friends.  I'm happy Valentina has posted a Q even though on vacation :)  Let's encourage one another!  That's what friends are for.

Dear Miranda,

It is nice, we can re-edit our answers. I saw Valentina's question asked in right moment in August. This is special time of breaking the routines. I hope so.

Dear András, as contrast to facebook atleast on RG science is discussed mostly and general questions being mostly entertained by many reflects in some our emotions and sentiments as well as what we as researchers need actually, apart from laboratory and research places / works - RG makes in some way relaxed, it is an excellent platform giving opportunity for sharing of thoughts of brainy fellows.

Sometimes seeing your upvotes - makes your mood good too .... as like somebody is praising your thoughts ---- and some happiness likewise

I hope in due course of time some more analyses of data / indexing in some specific ways and using softwares some good advances reflecting a true impact of a researcher / RG score would be achieved.  

Dear Kuldeep, RG isn't telling us how they measure impact of a researcher.  It just says our score is based on those who interact with us and with our content.  So some of my friends are active, sincere, encouraging and helpful; but our scores seem to oscillate and dip even when we are active, as Andras and some others pointed out.  

Some have spent hundreds of hours on RG; and so are quite discouraged.  So the best thing is not to look at the scores (are they a good measure), the real impact is who we managed to uplift and encourage, whose research we facilitated.

Dear All,

Could anybody add anything to the already concerned advantages of general threads? And what about the disadvantages of general subjects personally and point of view of the RG development?

We have already touched the simplicity, the fun, the building of human contacts, elementary knowledge increase, the easiest way to get up-votes, the increase of popularity as advantages.

Disadvantages may be becoming RG addict, scarcity of time, wasting time for not specialised and so more useful scientific areas, being frustrated because of wasted time and energy and because this virtual world becomes and becomes like our immediate human environment.

What are your thoughts?

Dear Andras, some of us are aware that family and friends around us are far more important.  If anything happens to any of them our blogging stops.  So I have a thread on this matter that I share with you, and friends here.

Having said that, at times we come across RG friends (of different time zones) who become more than virtual, the same degree of helpfulness and concern as friends around us.  Have a look at the 'disadvantages' on this thread, thanks.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_much_time_are_we_spending_on_social_networking_sites_including_FB_and_RG_Does_it_have_negative_effect_on_deeper_relationships_in_our_families?_tpcectx=profile_questions

Dear Miranda,

Dear All,

I do not use FB at all. My addictions are: reading belles-lettres, painting and RG. I am glad I use more time for painting than RG. I try to do everything for my family and my friends. I organise with my university mates now the anniversary of finishing of our university studies. I sample alfalfa fields and hedges, identify insects and do wood work and cooking often. Even I go often for a walk with our dog.

Dear András,

I am glad you paint and do not waste your time answering RG questions that force unilateral answers out of respondents: "Isn´t my homeland wonderful for producing such-and-such a scientist?." or that state positions and aren´t really questions at all. "Answer X is true." On the other hand, questions that challenge your creativity and have many possibilities for answers may invite you to leave your paintbrush aside-- but I sincerely hope you keep painting!!!

Dear Nelson,

Thanks for your lines. This is not a pure politeness but because I like your style as it is plus because of your human and humorous side. I like what is useful, interesting and may be a challenge. Painting is a challenge, in addition it is a creative activity too. I am still at the beginning of it and I have to work still a lot. Now, I paint so called studies: flowers, birds, landscapes and simple portraits. I prepare 1, 2-3 small pictures each day. And regarding flowers, they are not too difficult – at my level - to paint. Today 5 minutes ago I finished the portrait of my wife. I feel I am lucky because I look for aquarelle paper because of my increased “production”. The lovely little girl taking your hand – must be your grand daughter? My congratulations! It was a pleasure to change words with you!