Suggestions/gripes/ideas:

* Extend your reach to those who have neither the interest nor time to visit the website. In other words, don't skimp on the RSS/Atom feed -- it should be full text to cater to those who are using readers/aggregators. Include ads in the entries if you feel it's necessary.

* If you're going to have a list of regular contributors, remove those who aren't contributing. It's a betrayal (however small) of your reader's expectations.

* Switch to decent blogging software. The current Joomla-based site is awful in terms of usability. Examples: this editing box is only seven lines high! The body text of the article is a small serif font that is barely readable. Do many readers use the "Set as favorite" features? Would they miss it? If not, then remove that distracting clutter.

* Invest in good design. Having a polished and welcoming site can reinforce good content; a dated and awkward design detracts from it. Skeptic magazine is kicking ass here.

* Regarding editorial content, do you want or need all original content? Perhaps a mix of original and syndicated content would work better. For example, republish good blog articles that might not otherwise be seen. RSS/Atom is your friend in this world.

* License for wide distribution. Keep the copyright on the original articles, but license with Creative Commons to encourage distribution and syndication. In some cases you might want to use one of the licenses to promote derivative works, such as translations to other languages.

Hope that helps! Votes: +22

There are a lot of skeptical blogs out there these days and they tend to pick up on the same stories. To compete for attention, they need a unique selling point. This can be the overall style and attitude (e.g skepchicks) or the personality of the blogger (pharyngula). Alternatively, a site could act as a digest of the various stories and relevant blog posts from around the web, but without adding much comment of its own (RDF).

I think what's always made Swift stand out in the past has been its focus around the JREF challenge and the sort of people and activities the challenge is aimed at. It gave a real sense of the work the JREF does in combatting unreason. I feel that this has changed a little in the past few months. There are still good and thoughtful articles, but they are the kind of opinion pieces you can find in many places.

I suggest refining the focus a little so it highlights the people and work of the JREF, covering the challenge, the various TAMs and the JREF's other work. I think this will help to promote a sense of community.

In the past, Swift also included more articles which were based around letters and emails sent to Randi, with his comments. These could be enraging, uplifting, depressing, inspiring but always interesting. It made the blog seem more personal and again led to a strong sense of what the JREF does, which I think has been lost in recent months. Perhaps by highlighting the people and their particular interests and specialities, the more personal approach could be recaptured. Perhaps this could be done with a set of explicit themes or regular columns, which could sit alongside the more general digest-like material and guest articles.

I hope this helps. Votes: +25

Extend your reach to those who have neither the interest nor time to visit the website. In other words, don't skimp on the RSS/Atom feed -- it should be full text to cater to those who are using readers/aggregators. Include ads in the entries if you feel it's necessary.

I was going to say this too, but I forgot. Seconded. Votes: +1

I second everything that Reed said above. About the look of the site: it generally seems cluttered, especially on the front page. For instance, the bar to the left has, like, fifteen things, all of which could at least be nested into a "more links" tab at the top with the others (not saying that's the best idea, but it would be a start). Also, the Amazon ad, Randi emblem, "Death from the Skies," share it! buttons, etc. are all justified differently. It's just really distracting. The site could also use a palette swap (the tan and brick reminds me of a Windows 95 preset). Votes: +3

Sorry to post again. I wanted to say I also like latsot's idea of the regular columns (I used to love reading Randi's responses to letters!). I would also say some more multimedia stuff on a regular basis, even if it's just a video from the vault, i.e. a talk from a past TAM or something. Diversifying the content could really elevate the experience. Votes: +1

Having been quite negative about the JREF recently (see the discussion on the witchcraft piece, and also the Denny's article and resulting discussion on religoun), I also appreciate and gladly take the opportunity to be positive about this site. I read this forum because I strongly support the principle of the work the JREF does. It's extremely important to challenge people's unfounded beliefs. I don't tend to meet many religious people or those who believe in alternative medicine or other woowoo, so it can be easy to deceive oneself that such ideas are finally beginning to have less traction. However, I was recently reminded that this is clearly not the case, when discussing with my son's teacher that his baby sister may have colic, only for her to vigorously recommend chiropractic!! Has Simon Singh's case achieved nothing??!! I was rudely awoken from my false expectation that most educated people had rejected such ideas, and this was quickly followed by a recent UK poll showing that 54% of the population believe that Creationism should be taught in schools; a figure similar to that reported for the US, which was a huge surprise to me. The battle for reason is as necessary as ever, and the JREF are a prominent and critical part of that, and long may they remain so.

The challenge I think the Swift blog faces is one of preaching to the choir. More often than not, we as sceptics, will be in broad agreement, and if you look back at the archives, the threads that have generated most discussion are those in which people disagree on some restricted point within the article, but not the main thrust itself. Isn't homeopathy silly, yes of course it is; can you believe people are taken in by Scientology - no, it's so obviously made up; how can astrologers hope to reduce the fate of the entire human race down to 12 categories - I know, it's barking mad... The list goes on, but it doesn't really generate much debate, since we're all fundamentally in agreement here. As a corollary, what we are not doing is engaging those who would tend to disagree with us, since they simply wouldn't be motivated to visit a site like this, and therefore the impact of the JREF's work becomes more limited, since it's message only goes to those who would already have agreed with it in the first place.

My suggestion to address both points is this: some of the most entertaining video clips I've seen are where Randi takes on proponents of woo-woo. I like to hear their side, because it gives me an opportunity to refine my own arguments; I like to hear Randi's dismissal of their points, since he will often bring up things I hadn't thought of, or present it in different ways. So, it generates debate which is informative and entertaining (rather than having people constantly agree with each other which can quickly end any discussion), and also, it has the possibility of bringing in the advocates of these people, and that provides an opportunity to educate them, and changes minds.

At Swift, I think this is something we could usefully seek to emulate. My idea is this: how about the JREF hosts regular sessions in which websites promoting supernatural claims are invited to give a video presentation of their beliefs. We could then have someone at the JREF provide the counter argument. The comments section would then be a meaningful discussion of two sides that fundamentally disagree, and the outcome might be informative and entertaining. For example, imagine having a homeopathist, or a chiropractor, or an astrologer present a 10-20 minute video outlining their beliefs, followed by a similar video from a JREF member countering their argument. The woo-woo proponent would be encouraged to advertise the debate widely amongst their members to generate support (which they would surely be motivated to do), and people who would otherwise not be drawn to this site could be engaged in debate. Many would undoubtedly leave with the views they came with, but some of them would have been given many things to think about, and undoubtedly, some may change their mind, having been exposed to arguments contrary to their beliefs, perhaps for the first time.

Of course this would only work if a respectful level of debate could be maintained, which isnt easy on internet sites, so I think it would require posts to be moderated before being posted, and that requires the time of the JREF staff, but perhaps volunteers could be recruited to such roles, and that would also serve to increase the active participation of its membership. You could imagine, for example, having a policy that all posts require joint approval from a moderator on both sides of the argument, before they are posted. That way, our opponents would be given some protection that they are coming here for a real debate, not simply a mud-slinging match or an opportunity to be ridiculed.

Anyway, just a thought - would be interested to know what people think? Votes: +7

I would really appreciate a link that would bring up a reading list for skeptics. I am new to this and would like to learn more. I'm not sure where to start. A list of suggestions would be really useful. Votes: +2

I would like to see more "ways to take action" included with postings on SWIFT. This way, if someone is reading about a topic you've posted, and the reader's blood begins to boil to take some action in support or defense of the SWIFT position, you provide those means. For example, "Share on Facebook" (which I do often), or a link to "sign an online petition" or links to congressional contacts, and other such links to where the passionate reader can get involved at some level.

At a minimum, this will help readers promote SWIFT entries across the various social networking sites we all travel, as well as provide ways to engage these issues at a more active level.

I love the idea of expanding, and opening up to more contributors. Thank you for continuing to support the debunking of woo-woo and helping educate us all.


-Doug Votes: +7

I would definitely like to see links to other sources of skeptical media including but not limited to The NESS or SGU and other similar sites. Votes: +2

I'd like to see you provide an educator toolbox with customizable lesson plans. "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man," based on quotation by Francis Xavier.

And remember the audience is more than just the USA. Votes: +3

Emailed "swift@randi" as suggested. Skeptics among clergy? Think about it. Votes: +1

I thought Phil Plait had taken over as JREF President. Why doesn't HE write all the Swift blogs? Votes: -5

I would like to see a logical dissection of woo writings. Maybe have a professional English scholar describe in thorough detail how some woo-sters writing is flawed from the logical standpoint.

I wish that I had been taught about "logical fallacies" and such when I was in high school. It's never to late for education!
Votes: +4

I agree that you need better software. How about vBulletin? Only certain people have the right to start threads, anyone can add a post to an existing thread.

Just discovered to increase the size of the input box click on the word bigger located at the bottom left hand side of the box.

You can import some of the good stuff from the forum to Swift with links. Votes: +0

occasional, that was never the plan. Swift was a weekly compilation of writing from Randi, but with him wanting to concentrate on writing his books - and also with the web changing, the advent of blogs, and so on - it made more sense to make it a daily blog with multiple authors. Randi still writes, as do others. It gives Swift a broader reach and an ability to cover more and different topics. Votes: +2

One (of many) thing that I think Skepchick does well is draw in viewers with the daily feature "Afternoon Inquisition." Similarly, SGU has the "Science or Fiction," and " Name That Logical Fallacy" segments. These are very engaging for readers and listeners. I don't know if this would improve outreach beyond regular readers.

Although I like the idea of a Randi/woo-person interview, a debate forum is not a good way to communicate science. Witness the terrible misogyny and ad hominem directed at Amy Wallace of Wired magazine for an example of how the other side rolls.

Keep at it! Votes: +0

Well, Brandon, I enthusiastically support your approach to making SWIFT livelier. However, I recently posted an item that fell nicely into the category of

original reportage, controversial commentary, intelligent critiques of critical thought (or its conspicuous absence)

with the immediate result of getting voted to invisibility by fellow readers, who apparently took umbrage at my grumbling commentary. The will of only six narrow-minded or easily offended people can easily guarantee that certain views disappear from the comments, once the over-five point of negative votes accumulate. This weakness should be dealt with, as others have stated previously. If you're going to retain such a criterion, at least raise that limit to a more reasonable number- 10, for example. Votes: +4

Thanks in large part to James Randi and associates, I’m fairly good at recognizing woo when I see it. However, I’m not a good writer.

I’ll never write an article or engage in an email dialog that will be reposted on a skeptic site.

But, what if I could submit an idea, or post a link, that another writer or researcher could pick up on? Could someone with better writing, logic, research, debate skills bring the topic to a forum for greater exposure?

Example: Just this morning one of my family members gave birth, but a c-section was required, partially due to the mother having strep-b. I’d never heard of strep-b, so when I googled this, the first article I saw was http://www.americanpregnancy.o...ction.html

This article gave a good explanation for strep b.

Then, I read the Frequently Asked Questions:
"Do I have to take antibiotics, or is there a natural alternative? It is your choice if you want to take antibiotics. There are certain herbal methods that you can take 2-3 weeks before delivery that a midwife or homeopathic physician can provide for you."

After reading the dangers of this infection I was appalled that the “American Pregnancy Association” was suggesting homeopathic prescriptions could be offered as reasonable options.

Here’s the bottom line. I could never really write a good article on this topic. Could I post this link, topic, suggestion, to an “idea center” where those with the skills to take on a topic could run with it?
Votes: +7

I agree with this. Not all of us are eloquent writers or have time to participate in that degree. But being able to notify about such breaches of reality to be investigated and written about is a good idea - maybe as a compendium of related notifications. There are plenty of loose acceptances of woo practices in places where they shouldn't. These acquiencenses by accepted authoritative sources should be our front-line attacks on irrationality. It may be difficult to quell the upsurgence of woo sources in general but capping it at accepted sources may start to curb public acceptance. We need more stringent talk about this. Just look at England and CAM! Once it gets a foothold as authoritative acceptance it is hard to remove. Treat this as a spreading infection and stop it before it reaches vital organs! Votes: +5

What will the difference be between a rewritten SWIFT and this forum http://forums.randi.org/forumindex.php?? Anyone can join and discuss any skeptical issue, either by creating new threads or participating in existing threads on the forum. Votes: +0

Long time reader, occasional poster.
Lots of great ideas so far.

I do think SWIFT has become more impersonal since Randi has taken a lower profile. Phil is great, but he's got as much on his 'plait' as Obama, so I understand why he doesn't post here often. Randi's unique turn of phrase, and the details of his dialogues with idiots were what made JREF unique and more personal. With all the new writers recently, I don't feel I know any of them. With Randi you always felt he was a friend, and he even answered a few of my emails.

I prefered the old weekly update. It was part of my Friday ritual to check out SWIFT. Now that its updated daily, I actually find I miss more articles as I don't check in on a regular basis. Also, the way to view past articles is kind of clunky.

I've been spending more time at blogs like Science Based Medicine and also posting a lot at Yahoo Answers recently, which is a good place to practice your arguments. I agree with some of the comments that there needs to be a way to draw the woo-meisters to JREF, otherwise we are just preaching to the choir. JREF needs to raise its media presence as well, I think it should be a "go to" source anytime there is a skeptical topic and they need an expert from our side.

I'd be interested in researching and writing...but have a hard time coming up with fresh ideas when so many have been dealt with so thoroughly by all the other skeptical bloggers. One thing Science Based Medicine has recently started doing...at our suggestion from TAM7 I think...is to compile their blogs on topics under headings, but also have a general overview of the topics for people who are new to it, before diving into the nitty gritty of the blogs. Votes: +2

I miss the old format where Randi use to comment on some of the letters he had received as well as posting about whatever took his fancy. What I like about the new format is that articles are now separate which means each can be longer and more in-depth. Please bring back some of the letters and JREF viewpoint on them, I miss that personal touch. Votes: +1

@daveg703 The items are not removed, not censored. However, having the 'hide when lowly rated' is effective in that spam or trolls can be dealt with quickly without constant intervention by Jeff or someone. I get the impression from reading comments that people think that the JREF has a large staff, or that Jeff or Phil sits around next to a computer all day and night, writing blogs and maintaining the site. I would think most people are like me- that if they are interested in a thread of comments, they are going to look at the hidden ones anyway. I, for one, have found that the hidden comments are usually not adding anything materials to the conversation. Of course, I also skip comments after the first couple sentences if I see that.
Votes: +1

@GeekGoddess
I appreciate your comments, and I know there is no staff censorship operating when "lowly rated" is employed. However, it only takes a half dozen people out of many dozens that might respond to an article, to make someone effectively invisible, because it is easy to slide over that single line of "lowly rated". When emotions are running high on some topic, six people shouldn't have the power to remove a comment from view, especially if that comment comes early on.

One step that could be taken would be to put the name of the commentor (apparently this is not a word, but should be) along with the lowly rated label. We learn quickly who the trolls are, so we would happily ignore them anyway. Also, what would be the harm in making it necessary for there to be a minus 10 score to he the point where "lowly rated" would kick in? Votes: +1

As far as post ratings go, it would already be an improvement if it wasn't just additive. There is a marked difference between getting 5 down votes and no up votes and getting 20 down votes and 15 up votes. A proportional approach might be better, e.g. if (#votes >= 5 && #upvotes/#votes Votes: +1

Huh, that didn't post quite as I planned. The software probably saw the smaller than sign as the start of a html-tag. Oh well.

To continue, another suggestion is to simply separate hiding a post from people's approval. And give a separate option for people to say whether they think it is unworthy of being seen. After all, just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you can't defend people's right to say it. The distinction good post/bad post isn't the same as spammy post/non-spammy post.

Votes: +0

Completely agree with the objections to the use of the voting system to hide posts. There's a good example of this on the thread following the witchcraft article here: http://www.randi.org/site/inde...ition.html

The main thrust of the discussion in the thread is regarding the legitimacy of the JREF posting video footage of human sacrifice via burning. I am the only poster in disagreement with this, and almost all others have argued against me. That's completely fine with me - I'm not here seeking approval, and if people disagree with me, that's the nature of debate, no problem. But instead of people using the voting system to downgrade and thereby hide spam posts, they're using it to downgrade my posts, to indicate their disagreement, which means that they often get hidden, and without them (since I'm the only one arguing this case, and most posts are in response to this), the thread makes no sense. This continues, despite other posters on the same thread urging people not to do this.

On the other hand, some spammer has posted advertising for hair-straighteners, and this post has not received the required 5 negative posts to hide it!!!

Surely this thread alone is illustration enough that the voting system is not a good way to moderate a thread. I understand that it's a self-regulating method, and therefore doesn't require a moderator, but if there are other ways of doing this that could be implemented which similarly require a lack of human intervention, it would be improve the quality of the site I think.

(please feel free to vote down this post, in an act of comic irony!!) Votes: +3

Also, I'm sure you will have noticed, that the voting system doesn't work the other way either, that is, positive votes are no indication of a good post. On almost every thread (including this one!!), the positive ratings are high for the first few posts, where people have read the initial article, and voted up one of the first comments, but then don't follow the subsequent comments, which therefore don't get rated. A highly positive rating is therefore a predictor only of how soon the post follows the original article, and not of its quality.

(please feel free to vote up this post in a further act of comic irony, or vote it down in sarcastic rebellion!!) Votes: +2

What's the point of rating anyway? Does anyone actually use the ratings to decide which comments to read? I don't pay much attention to them. Votes: +1

Last night, I was watching PZ Myers' lecture at AAI 2009 (see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...r_embedded - highly recommended). He was asked about the best way of combatting unfounded beliefs (in connection with religion, but it need not apply only to this), and he replied that when his students get to him, as a college professor, it's too late by then; they've already been indoctrinated in their beliefs. But the greatest gift a children's teacher can give his/her students is the capacity for critical thinking. Start them early; not teaching about atheism, or in PZ's case, receptor tyrosine kinases, but to think critically. As a father, I'm constantly reinforcing this in my young, 4year old son, and burst with pride when he challenges me, after having told him something, to 'show me your evidence for that daddy'!!

As an educational foundation, there could be no greater way for the JREF to further its cause than be making critical thinking available for the education of young children. If the JREF could make a section on its website which was dedicated to children, and could use materials aimed at their level, they will have achieved an enduring scepticism in our children which will have far greater success in challenging woowoo than any attempt to reverse unfounded beliefs in adulthood could hope to achieve. Votes: +3

Not everyone goes to the forum from here. I have read Swift for years before ever trying the forum out. I can imagine there being a lot of people that still don't.

I have a suggestion. When there are topics that need to be written about, will there be assignments handed out? I would volunteer to research and write articles here, if that was the case.

BTW, send to editor? Who, may I ask, is the editor? Votes: +0

@gabriel If you look to the left hand side of the randi.org home page, you will see an icon marked "JREF Library"- I keep track of this, and list books that will generally be interesting to those interested in skepticism and in science-related topics. The JREF does not endorse the items listed, but I enter them based on reviews, recommendations, hearing the author interviewed, and so on. You might look there for some reading ideas. Also, within the JREF forum, there is a thread on book reviews, which is forum members personal reviews of books.

Another resource is librarything.com. People who list their books there supply their own tags, but you could search on key words such as 'skeptic' or 'critical thinking' and perhaps find ideas as well. Votes: +1

That "JREF Library" icon thingy may not be visible if people, for instance, use firefox, have NoScript enabled, and haven't allowed Amazon to run scripts.

I'm not sure a list of over a hundred books is a good starting point for burgeoning skeptics, though. Because then the question remains, where to start?
Personally, I'd say Michael Shermer's "Why people belief weird things" is a good book to start with. It will set you out on the right foot as a skeptic (although you may get into arguments with other skeptics that would rather believe the answer to the books title question is "they're idiots"). Votes: +0

I'm hoping for a swift transition here. Votes: +0

If you join our wonderful forum here, you will find a section that has reviews of all the various books you may be interested in. You could see from the reviews whether it is a worthy read, or if it is the topic you are looking for. Votes: +0