Nineteen days ago, we published a request for your suggestions on the future development of Swift, as well as a call for freelance writers and columnists. Lots of people requested writers' guidelines, and we got a handful of really excellent stories. Thank you to Sean Sturgeon, Matt Fiore, Penn Bullock, Naomi Baker, and Luke Doug Haines. (Send more!)

As a result of your suggestions, we'll operate a little differently from now on. The very first thing we'll do is disable or severely modify the Vote Up/Vote Down button in the "Comments" section.  That button has buried a great many worthwhile thoughts, and it'll be gone within the week. My apologies to those whose opinions have been stifled.

Second, we're going to begin networking with other blogs so that we may cross-post their best pieces and vice-versa. We're a non-profit, and uninterested in "exclusive" stories. We're interested in getting out information, sharing ideas, and growing the global skeptical community. If you have a regularly updated blog that deals in skepticism and critical thought, or if you know of one with which we might productively collaborate, please drop a line.

Third, we're going to post more JREF stuff. In the past, we've felt a little guilty about posting too many self-referential articles. Commenting on hate mail or talking about Randi's latest adventures feels like the easy way out, since the material is readily available and publishing it requires very little effort. I don't think anyone in the office, least of all Randi, had any idea that people cared about the profoundly unglamorous and frequently frustrating day-to-day operations of the JREF. Apparently, you do. Thanks for that. In the coming week, we'll figure out how to get Randi/JREF-related information posted here without distracting Randi too much from work on his book. (It's called A Magician In The Laboratory, and it's gonna be huge.)

Disabling buttons, dishing about Randi's exploits, and coordinating with other blogs are all relatively simple things, and we can do them quickly. Some of your other requests are trickier. Establishing regular columnists takes time. So does creating original multi-media content, cleaning up the website's template, finding intelligent pro-woo writers brave enough to defend their positions here (good idea, Gazcam), devising a "Resources" page, and building an online skeptical resource for kids.

But we will do those things. We have a tentative launch-date for a new, improved, richer version of the website that will incorporate almost all of these suggestions. And though I'm not yet allowed to divulge that date, I can tell you this: you will all see the new Randi.org well before our civilization is destroyed on December 21st, 2012.

In the meantime, please have patience while we line up new writers; create new content and arrange new content-swaps; experiment with new columns and try to revive some old ones. And, if you would, please take a minute to answer a few burning questions:

Should Swift cover only those lapses of critical thought involving the supernatural? What about unsubstantiated claims regarding science, history, politics, and ethics? Should Swift publish only material germane to the JREF's mission, or should it publish anything of likely interest to those visiting the site? (For example: the JREF has no official position on the existence of deities, but we bet most of the site's visitors are interested in the Vatican's attempts to keep contraceptives out of Africa. Should we cover that?) And which articles are better: funny ones, snarky ones, scholarly ones, sober ones, sad ones, or celebratory ones? Or should we publish them all?

Please let us know. And remember, if you'd like to contribute to Swift, you may request a copy of the writer's guidelines by emailing Swift@Randi.org.

Thank you very, very much. - BKT

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (27)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Pay to your strengths
written by embulf@yahoo.com, November 22, 2009

I like to think of the JREF as the Greatful Dead of the skeptical movement: ie, the JREF is the best at bringing people together, both at TAM and on the forum. Randi is a bit of a folk hero to many of us, an international player taking on the biggest swindlers of his time and bringing the brightest minds to TAM to inspire the rest of us. These are the greatest strengths of the JREF and the activities which are key to its survival and growth. All the rest is gravy.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +9

I'm not sure...
written by Alencon, November 22, 2009

I'm not sure about the disabling of the Vote Up/Vote Down button.

Smacks of another move toward pretending our differences are piddling little things. Let's face it, there are some severe differences of opinion floating around and we're not likely to get in a circle and sing Kumbaya anytime soon. I figure expressing the differences is way better than throwing rocks and the buttons sort of help to do that.

They're kind of an easy way to express your agreement or disagreement. How about you just disable hiding posts that get lots of thumb downs?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +47

...
written by Steel Rat, November 22, 2009

They're kind of an easy way to express your agreement or disagreement. How about you just disable hiding posts that get lots of thumb downs?

I think that would be preferable too. Though it's probably a Joomla add-on, and doesn't have that kind of control.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +8

A little bit of everything
written by KingMerv00, November 22, 2009

I'm a big fan of big tents. I think anything related to critical thinking should get in. Focusing solely on the supernatural, while interesting, can get repetitive. I think the JREF should stand up for reason in all settings. If a politician says something stupid about the holocaust, he should get called on it. If Oprah has Jenny McCarthy on her show, we need to speak out. If the news spins reality, someone needs to correct them.

I'd also like to see a variety of tones. Educational, snarky, or even ranting. We are better off with them all. Every skeptic has their own voice and trying to shoehorn everyone into a single style will decrease the impact and reach of Swift.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +25

Rather, a narrow focus!
written by Reed, November 22, 2009

I'd respectfully disagree with KingMerv00 and suggest that SWIFT focus narrowly on content that is pertinent to the mission of the JREF.

By covering too broad a range of topics, that mission will get lost in the noise and SWIFT will be indistinguishable from any other opinion/news blog.

Those who do want that broad range of topics can look to other sources, even aggregating themselves using a newsreader and subscribing to RSS/Atom feeds of their choosing.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by Snixtor, November 22, 2009

The vote-down hiding comments is an unfortunate side-effect. Typically whenever I see a lowly rated comment, I click to see it. I want to see what people react to with scorn. If a comment reflects a persons misconception, I want to know about it! Yet these are the sorts of comments that typically get voted down and hidden. As thrilling as it is to watch your own well considered comment skyrocket with positive votes, I've been just as equally bamboozled when receiving negative votes when there's no comment relaying a reason. I think it's too easy for people to hide behind the vote system. If you agree with a persons position, come out and say it, if you disagree, let them know why, let us all know why.

Now maybe things would be better if the vote system was not anonymous and required a comment. But as it's probably easier to just turn it off, I'm happy with that choice.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

Big Tents
written by Amos M., November 22, 2009

KingMerv00: I agree with you for the most part, but I do have a few concerns. While reason has a place in everything, the JREF is of course at risk of alienating more on-the-fence people for every category of woo it attacks. I think they should be critical of all woo anyway, but they need to be careful and smart about it:

- They should try not to rag on any particular group too much at a time, especially if that group is not specifically a woo-based group, but rather a group which has a lot of woo in it (For example, they can go after homeopaths all they want, but should be careful not to go after Republicans excessively without also going after Democrats.)

- They may want to try and keep a lot of the material more general (Simply discussing the basic ideas of skepticism and rational thought, for instance), or focused on something which most people would agree is bunk. If you can show someone that dowsing doesn't work, and the ways in which people trick themselves it does, this can be a more effective method for education than trying to go after some dearly-held belief, such as religion. Again, the JREF SHOULD be addressing religious woo, but keeping a good proportion of the content fairly neutral and inoffensive could go a long way towards keeping people from putting up their woo-defenses.

As for tone, again I agree that more voices are always better, but I think they shouldn't try and be inclusive at the cost of quality. Image is important when educating the public, and making the site look better won't mean much if the content doesn't measure up. "Rants", for instance, might tend to be a bit more emotional and disorganized than is desirable. This varies by rant, of course, but in general the JREF should try and maintain professionalism. The world needs all the voices of skepticism it can get, including the emotionally ranting ones with bad grammar, but we don't need all of them on the JREF's front page. Some more rant-y and snarky articles getting included would be a good thing, but the editors need to make decisions carefully. This is also another case where I think proportions might be good to keep in mind: if the site ends up with a majority of snarky articles, it will be a very entertaining read for skeptics, but probably less likely to reach anyone else.

In short, all things in moderation.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +5

Vote Up/Vote Down
written by Matt_D, November 22, 2009

I agree with the comments about Vote Up/Vote Down. The option should stay, but shouldn't affect whether comments are visible. There's a "report abuse" button for when that jackass who spams the comments pops up, or for if someone posts something truly inappropriate.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +16

...
written by Otara, November 22, 2009

I would rather people spent 10 seconds to make a point than clicking on a plus/minus button. If it just has to remain, Id rather see a total plus count and a total minus count as it would give a much better idea of how comment is being received, particularly with polarising posts.

As in +7 sounds a lot more popular than 50+ and 43- etc.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +12

...
written by JimD, November 22, 2009

I think you should monitor quantity though. If you open the gates to everything we could all be overloaded with new posts. Try and keep it to one a day. I preferred the old format of one multi-subject posting per week, but since that's gone at least keep it moderate.

The vote up/down buttons: I don't mind the votes, what I disliked was having posts hidden after six readers had marked it down. It's an obvious idea, but would it be possible to change the hide threshold from six to something like sixty-thousand? That way a post that doesn't get many responses (ie it says what everyone is thinking) can get a load of "Hear Hear's" without having a load of 'Yeah that' and 'me too' posts?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +6

...
written by latsot, November 23, 2009

Content-wise, I prefer a bit of everything involving critical thinking. Any area where people habitually delude themselves seems fair game.

The JREF's traditional focus on the supernatural is part of its charm and what has set it apart from some other critical thinking sites in the past, but I don't agree that widening the scope a little would destroy that. For example, more reporting on the JREF's activities could preserve that focus or you could use different feeds or tags to help people pick the content they're interested in.

And which articles are better: funny ones, snarky ones, scholarly ones, sober ones, sad ones, or celebratory ones? Or should we publish them all?

I'd vote for publishing them all. As you start to bring regular columnists into play, we'll start to get a feel for their style and what to pay attention to. Same goes with different feeds, tags etc.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by latsot, November 23, 2009

I'm not too concerned either way about the voting buttons, because I don't pay much attention to the votes a post gets anyway. I agree with the hide threshold being annoying, though. This is partly a matter of principle: we're hardly a community that's scared of criticism or which shies away from argument. Neither is it one that seeks to marginalise views we don't agree with. The thresholding business has a slight taste of that, albeit unintentional. It's also partly a matter of convenience: I'm more likely to read the discredited comments than the others, just to see what blithering statements have caused them to be voted down It's annoying to have to click to open them when it doesn't seem to serve much purpose and it's inevitable that I'll click anyway.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +5

...
written by JeffWagg, November 23, 2009

The vote button was added to help combat certain trolls. I've since found other ways to deal with that, and we'll be at the very least removing the "hiding" feature.

I have had several people ask for the entire thing to be removed, as people use different criteria for judging. Some vote based on whether they agree or not, some vote on how well something is written, and others vote on other criteria.

In the end, we'll probably go with popular opinion on whether the feature should stay or not. Which, ironically, is a form of voting.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +5

Voting
written by GusGus, November 23, 2009

I'm in favor of keeping the voting without the hiding. I like the suggestion for counting the "up" and "downs" separately, if possible. In addition, many times I have wanted to agree with an article without posting a comment. It would be nice to have a vote up or down on the article itself. If there is no other way to do it, use the programmer's way of providing the service: "fake out" the system by having a meaningless comment accompany each article, the purpose of the comment being a vehicle to receive the votes.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +10

By the way
written by RobbieD, November 23, 2009

If you want an article that eloquently rebuts the December 21st 2012 nonsense, follow the link at:-

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/69774827.html

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by LovleAnjel, November 23, 2009

I like the vote buttons. It does draw attention to a comment or commentor is they are minimized, and have a tendency to see what all the fuss was about.

If there is a field I would avoid, it would be politics-- mostly because we would be inviting a whole new breed of troll infestation.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +5

...
written by Gnardude, November 23, 2009

I would rather see shorter comments so that we can argue specific points instead of long rambling posts that are too long to respond to properly. See the climate change debate thread for a good example of people trying to win a point by cut and pasting everything but the kitchen sink in there. It's like arguing with Theists, they begin every argument by trying to assert a bunch of crap before your turn to speak.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +3

I HATE the vote button
written by pxatkins, November 23, 2009

There's no standard reason for clicking either way. Some people have told us they vote down poor grammar and spelling. Some vote down humour they don't get; some vote up esoteric snippets apparent only to the 'in crowd'; one member (no, not me) for sure gets voted down on just about anything he offers, I think because he pissed almost everyone off with a comment a year ago. It would be OK if there was a rationale included, but as there is not, what value does voting have when it means different things to different people?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by Otara, November 23, 2009

The main reason I dont like the scoring is because its inevitably a form of (admittedly mild) social pressure to change ones views to fit the majority, rather than pressure to change ones views on the basis of strength or weakness of argument. It just doesnt sit well with me on principle, theres an intellectual laziness to it that grates a bit.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by minusRusty, November 23, 2009

And which articles are better: funny ones, snarky ones, scholarly ones, sober ones, sad ones, or celebratory ones? Or should we publish them all?

A mix of styles makes the forum more interesting, IMO, with snark tending to be reserved for particularly obnoxious situations.

As regards the vote buttons, I think it would be helpful to have total votes for/total votes against (and net votes), rather than just a net vote. Sometimes, a particular comment might elicit strong feelings both ways, and that can be useful information, too. But don't know how easily it would be for you to include that functionality.

-Rusty

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +3

...
written by Throckmorton, November 23, 2009

Second, we're going to begin networking with other blogs

Third, we're going to post more JREF stuff.

These two goals are related.

The internet is huge and there are now many choices for news of interest to skeptics - you could easily get bogged down trying to cover it all. And the whole time you are competing with your peers for our attention. There's no need for that. I am a firm supporter of the idea to post more JREF stuff. That's who you are and what you do. Nobody else has that content. So play to your strengths and network with other sites for the other stuff.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by RobWills, November 23, 2009

Should Swift cover only those lapses of critical thought involving the supernatural? What about unsubstantiated claims regarding science, history, politics, and ethics?

You need to cover all of these topics. Learning the scientific method and questioning the truth regarding the latest audio device will eventually lead to applying those same methodologies to the supernatural. At least, that is how it worked for me. Simply addressing the supernatural will keep some people from even considering your message. Anyway, it helps to have more than one entrance to the skeptical room.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by GeekGoddess, November 23, 2009

Yes for posting more stuff about JREF. That's why we're here.

Yes for keeping a broader range of topics, and posting on things of general interest to skeptics, and not just keeping on a narrow focus.

Some particular subjects may not be as interesting as others, but by posting on topics that incorporate critical thinking, even if it is not specifically on paranormal or pseudoscience, you bring in more people. I see JREF as an umbrella. I believe the reason attendance at TAM continues to climb is that it presents a wide variety. Whether it was Jeff in a Denny's, or a review of a book from a science/skeptic viewpoint, or unusual things that someone ran across in his day-to-day, they all add to the collective voice. Every article will not be outstanding, but the overall assortment should keep everyone fed.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by CasaRojo, November 23, 2009

"Or should we publish them all?"

YES.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by steenkh, November 24, 2009

I do not think that it would be a good idea for SWIFT to lose focus on skepticism alone. There are plenty of social sites around, and I do not think that offering what everybody else is also offering will bring in more readers, or even keeping the readers that come now.

I would not personally mind seeing skeptical articles on non-paranormal subjects, but again, I fear that this will bring about a loss of focus. Anything that smacks of politics or religion will only tend to divide the readers, and we come here because we have something in common.

Finally, I think that the vote-buttons just open up for abuse. In fact, I would even disable the entire comments section, because the JREF has a fine forum where all topics can be discussed, but I know that comments sections are all the rage, so I am sure it would be sorely missed, though not by me

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

The voting button...
written by Griz, November 24, 2009

...is a juvenile popularity contest that is used to anonymously stick to people who don't toe the party line around here. Let's disagree out in the open and discuss it personally. At the very least the comment hiding should go away. I'm content to continue ignoring the voting, but I would prefer to see the voting go away as well. I can't think of a single constructive purpose that it serves.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -1

...
written by Gazcam, November 30, 2009

Thanks for picking up on some of my suggestions . Really looking forward to seeing the new revamped site.

I can see that one of the suggestions I'd made, (inviting proponents of woo to debate their position here at the JREF to generate discussion) could certainly be time-consuming for the small staff of the JREF - I can certainly appreciate that. So how about, perhaps as a quick way-in to this in the meantime, hosting recent YouTube posts from woo-woo proponents, and annoucing on the YouTube comments that this video will be debated live at the JREF at a given time? Those interested in the topic might be attracted to this forum in the hope of a more informed debate than would typically occur on YouTube. That way, you're inviting those who do not follow critical thinking, and wouldn't ordinarily visit this site, to participate in debate with us, and in attracting them to the JREF, we may stand some chance of getting at least some of them to reconsider their views. Again, the issue I'm hoping this addresses is extending the impact of the JREF beyond preaching to the converted: that is, for those who already chose to frequent the JREF site, Randi's mission is already achieved - we need to attract those who disagree with us if we want to have real and meaningful impact.

I'm really glad you also picked up on my suggestion of a kids section of the JREF - I really hope that happens, and I look forward to the day I can call upon the JREF as a way to introduce my young son to skeptical thinking. Perhaps linking up with the excellent Camp Quest in the UK (http://www.camp-quest.org.uk/) and in the US (http://www.camp-quest.org/) would be a good way to get started on this?

As for the question of diversity of content, I agree that a focus on the supernatural gives the JREF a unique perspective that it has a long and established reputation for, and that's not to be thrown away lightly. Long may it continue. However, I can't hold back in picking up on one point that is alluded to in the article, and that is that I think this focus could appropriately be extended beyond some of the traditional boundaries the JREF has previously self-imposed. I'm specifically harking back to the position taken on religion (since it was restated in the current article that the JREF has no official position on this). Without wishing to re-open that debate again (or at least, not specifically on this thread as it would derail the main discussion here), Jeff some time ago re-posted an article from Randi on this topic from 2003, and what was of crucial relevance was that in opening, Randi stated that he "used to" see this as beyond the JREF's remit, and thus by implication, no longer has (for the past 6 years, since 2003). I would strongly encourage the JREF to take this to its logical conclusion, and issue a firm and clear stance on this: an organisation such as the JREF, which exists to challenge unsubstantiated supernatural beliefs, but has no official position on deities (which, by definition, itself involves beliefs in unsubstantiated supernatural entities) is incongruous with the JREF's purpose. The ridicule Bill Maher has come under for his anti-vaccination stance since his Richard Dawkins award from the Atheist Alliance International organisation is testimony to the fact that the principles of critical thinking must be universally applied, and where there is an indication of inconsistency, or at least a failure to apply those principles to all areas equally, then the person/organisation can quickly become discredited, and their legitimate views drowned out in the ensuing accusations of hypocrisy. This should not become the fate of the JREF whose importance is far too great to risk on the basis of not offending the sensibilities of the religious majority in the US. Stand up for what you believe in JREF - we're all behind you!

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1