|
|
Post by breesfan on Jan 6, 2015 4:26:12 GMT
Are you going to keep the cover photo the way it is or will you change it?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 6, 2015 11:42:50 GMT
Question, what cover photo?...
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 6, 2015 12:56:19 GMT
Question, what cover photo?... Turn off AdBlock Plus and you'll see  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 6, 2015 13:04:53 GMT
Question, what cover photo?... Turn off AdBlock Plus and you'll see Ahh.. that one... no I wont turn off the addblock, I think I remember the one now. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 6, 2015 15:30:49 GMT
Wow. I forgot how ugly the board is with ad-block turned off.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 6, 2015 15:43:26 GMT
Thats why I dont want to turn it off.
Last time I did, it too 3 seconds to load the parts I wanted, and 30 seconds to load all the adverts......
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 6, 2015 15:48:20 GMT
Thats why I dont want to turn it off. Last time I did, it too 3 seconds to load the parts I wanted, and 30 seconds to load all the adverts...... I don't seem to have a speed problem loadings the adverts, it's just how the layout of the board get's all broken up between the picture, bricks etc. that makes it hard to read. With ad-block on, all that background mess goes away and it's much, much, easier to read and navigate the board. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 6, 2015 17:38:43 GMT
Are you going to keep the cover photo the way it is or will you change it? You mean the banner, which currently shows the build team and Adam and Jamie? I will be changing that when I have the time and can find a suitable picture. Work hasn't allowed me the time to do either yet I'm afraid. |
|
|
|
Post by breesfan on Jan 6, 2015 21:16:25 GMT
Are you going to keep the cover photo the way it is or will you change it? You mean the banner, which currently shows the build team and Adam and Jamie? I will be changing that when I have the time and can find a suitable picture. Work hasn't allowed me the time to do either yet I'm afraid. Yeah, the banner. I just thought of it as a cover photo. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 6, 2015 22:11:23 GMT
It is something I've been meaning to deal with, but finding an alternative picture that will fit the space isn't that easy. OK, there is the small matter of trying to remember how the damn system works, as its not something I've needed to play with for a year and a half.
|
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Jan 7, 2015 2:45:51 GMT
It is something I've been meaning to deal with, but finding an alternative picture that will fit the space isn't that easy. OK, there is the small matter of trying to remember how the damn system works, as its not something I've needed to play with for a year and a half. You can either upload a logo in Themes > Theme Manager > Images or you can change the banner background in Themes > Colors & Theme Creator by linking or uploading a picture in the Banner Image field  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 7, 2015 18:32:49 GMT
or you could just consider it a legacy image and ignore it for another three or four seasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on May 18, 2016 22:01:52 GMT
Random idea:
Citadel Source Library
The library itself would be an entirely separate section of the forums, much like "Technical Aid" or "Movie Myths".
One thread would be for us to propose websites that could be used as reliable reference sources, at which point we could debate their validity.
The other threads would represent a specific topic - such as "Health & Medicine" - and include those sources that you, the admin team, decide are valid enough.
If the library is made visible to the public, then it could represent an archive of websites that could be referenced when discussing various topics, either here or elsewhere on the internet.
I figure that by doing this, we could get the word out about sites that are informative and thus spread the information accordingly, making for more informed discussions.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 19, 2016 6:06:21 GMT
^^^ I like that idea.
Instead of just using Wikapedia as a sort of starting place, we could build, by topic, another database of other databases that have good reference material worth the read.....
I could just uploads my whole bookmarks folder on the subject, but that may just break the upload limit?... heh heh heh heh.. dont tempt me....
And all I have is myth sources.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on May 19, 2016 9:37:06 GMT
If we were to make such a thing, this part would be extremely important:
As a forum that tries to uphold the MythBusters legacy of finding the truth whatever that may be and wherever it may lead, we have to be extremely careful that we don't let our own confirmation bias dictate what sites we deem "reliable". Almost any topic you can think of can be discussed from a factual and an emotional/opinionated standpoint and the line between the two is often heavily blurred - especially on the Internet.
Just look at the climate change debate. We've had that one here several times and even though 98% of scientists who have studied this extensively agree that human beings are at least partly responsible for the rising temperatures on Earth, it's still being debated. Problem is that just because 98% of all experts agree on something, that doesn't mean they won't someday be proven wrong. After all, more than 99% of all scholars used to believe Earth was the center of the Universe, but the fringe 1% who didn't turned out to be right.
First thing we'd need to do is agree on a definition of what a "reliable reference source" is and as I see it, there's more than one answer to that, because it depends heavily on what kind of "facts" you're looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 19, 2016 14:15:57 GMT
maybe instead, we should have a library of unreliable reference sources...
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on May 19, 2016 17:32:49 GMT
If we were to make such a thing, this part would be extremely important: As a forum that tries to uphold the MythBusters legacy of finding the truth whatever that may be and wherever it may lead, we have to be extremely careful that we don't let our own confirmation bias dictate what sites we deem "reliable". Almost any topic you can think of can be discussed from a factual and an emotional/opinionated standpoint and the line between the two is often heavily blurred - especially on the Internet. Just look at the climate change debate. We've had that one here several times and even though 98% of scientists who have studied this extensively agree that human beings are at least partly responsible for the rising temperatures on Earth, it's still being debated. Problem is that just because 98% of all experts agree on something, that doesn't mean they won't someday be proven wrong. After all, more than 99% of all scholars used to believe Earth was the center of the Universe, but the fringe 1% who didn't turned out to be right. First thing we'd need to do is agree on a definition of what a "reliable reference source" is and as I see it, there's more than one answer to that, because it depends heavily on what kind of "facts" you're looking for. I'm talking about things like the CIA World Fact Book, Caffeine Informer.com, and the University of Texas - Austin's Perry-Castaneda map collection, references that are factual and respectable. We could then follow it up with a second tier of sources like Snopes and Know Your Meme.com, sources that may have bias but are generally regarded as authoritative and comprehensive when dealing with their subject matter. A third tier would then be various news outlets, like the websites to various newspapers and television stations. These could easily be biased, but are still on the front lines of current events and other issues and so shouldn't be overlooked. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on May 19, 2016 17:52:57 GMT
In fact, just to kick-start things, here are a few suggestions: AlmanacsCIA World Fact Book -> This is an annual publication of the CIA. It serves as an in-depth analysis of individual countries, and is complete with such information as national vital statistics, summations of issues facing each country, and details concerning such matters as infrastructure and public health. Health & MedicineCaffeine Informer -> Formerly known as "Energy Fiend.com", this website lists the caffeine content of various food items and beverages, even going so far as to supply a milligrams per ounce tally so that the content of various products can be directly compared. Kaiser Family Foundation State Health Facts - This website provides vital health statistics for the 50 American states, allowing readers to search along various health issues and causes of death. GeographyUniversity of Texas - Austin's Perry-Castaneda Map Collection -> This website represents a digitized version of the historic and current maps contained within UTA's map archives. Internet Culture, Urban Legends, Et CetraSnopes.com -> One of the oldest and most respected sites on the internet dealing with the topic. It may not be perfect, but it's a good starting point for research and discussions. Know Your Meme.com -> This website primarily focuses on internet memes and the events that launch them, but it's also surprisingly good when it comes to current events that affect the internet and popular culture, like the Allison Rapp controversy and Gamergate. However, much like Snopes it's not perfect. Additionally, some of the memes being discussed - and quite a few of the images hosted online as examples of these memes - are not work-safe. Military Topics & TechnologyMilitary Times -> A series of four sister publications by Gannett that focus on issues and news relating to the American military. Federation of American Scientists -> Although primarily focused on scientific issues, it devotes a considerable section of the website to military-related issues, including weapons systems and WMD capabilities. World.Guns.RU -> This website serves as an encyclopedia of firearms and ammunition types from the 1900s and 2000s. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 19, 2016 20:34:58 GMT
Not a bad idea, although as noted there is the question as to how reliable sources and sites are.
BTW; you forgot NASA.
I'll consider how to do this without overworking us mods, or ending up with a confusing mass of posts with links. Which would kind of defeat the intention. I'll check to see if I can set individual threads to only allow staff to post there, allowing copy pasting and simpler organisation.
As I said though, this could end up being a lot of work for the mods so we'd have to discuss the specifics.
|
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on May 19, 2016 20:54:07 GMT
On the other side of the coin... it may not be a bad idea to also list known opinion sites. Example: theonion.com or worldnewsdailyreport.com (you're welcome Loki) so junk doesn't start getting believed.
|
|
