Update of E@H Web pages
14 Jan 2011 10:33:57 UTC
Topic 195580
(moderation:
Every time when I'm looking at the E@H web pages, I'm womdering, when there will be an update. My overall impression is, that the pages got a little dust on their surface and could be refreshed and updated.
Some examples:
The last entry in the "Science Information and progress reports" section on the home page is from Aug 27. Meanwhile the ABP search is finished and I would expect a final summary about the search, including an update of the (re)discovery page.
Same at the Server status page. There we can still find the ABP search progress block, where nothing happens. I would expect, that this will be replaced by a BRP3-Parks search progress block, which should display how many of the Parks Data records have been processed and how many are remaining.
I personally would be interested in getting more scientific background information, like Mike's Fourier Stuff thread (many thanks mike - very interesting), e.g. what impact has the "current non finding" of GW to the theory of GW.
Am I wrong with my view? Comments welcome.
Cheers
Update of E@H Web pages
)
My understanding is:
The reality is scientific research take years to generate some kind of result versus regular operational projects that have specific result-time structure.
But even some researches take many years then forgotten then 80 years later some one discovers shocking huge result out of that.
For Boinc projects even scientific handlers turnover is pretty common as through other projects which likely either lengthen the result timing or shorten.
The question/view is fine,
)
The question/view is fine, but assumes stuff that you're probably not aware of. Some background perhaps is useful. What follows is not an official viewpoint or statement, just my osmotic understanding from observations during the time I've been here.
E@H is an opportunistic outgrowth of LIGO/LSC, meaning it wasn't planned or budgeted for in any initial/formal planning phase. The funds for GW research are 'well painted', as you'd expect from government gifts, so can't be diverted off plan. Dr Allen, probably by observing SETI and knowing of Dr Anderson, thus considered distributed computing via BOINC to fill the need for data processing within his research purview - the Continuous Wave subgroup of LIGO/LSC ( I include both organisations as I've never been quite sure of the distinction b/w the two ). I suppose I'm implying that the data processing load was not as well anticipated/accounted/funded compared to the detector design and manufacture.
Anyhows the volunteer approach thus pervades what you see here ( eg. a country doctor in an ad-hoc role of teaching maths ), but with the professional advice and backup ( Bernd, Oliver and others ) for the moderation requirements. It was mooted a couple of years ago for E@H to have a paid position for PR etc, but that evidently didn't fly.
As for an intellectual return on the data crunching : our results go further down the pipeline to an analysis phase then writing of papers, peer review etc. My loose understanding is that LIGO/LSC scientists are bound by such processes, thus the lag that entails. I'm pretty sure these scientists have many other hats to wear also ( teaching, other research .... ). The 'C' in LSC is 'collaboration', but I'd predict the usual issues of 'ownership' and attribution to apply.
Specifically the current 'non GW' finding is no biggie as the instruments are not yet down to the ultimate design specification anyway. The expected magnitude has not been reached to exclude GW's if they should have been there. NB this is due to the 'gravitational coupling' being so low ie. G is so tiny compared with the other force types. Hence the elaborate interferometer setup and careful signal analysis.
My understanding of the developers is that they are already at much of a pace to exclude 'lesser tasks' ie. they remain, as they should, with focus on the immediate data processing issues of the day and near future. The screensaver, nice though it is, hasn't changed in years either - I'm working on that too. :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
But hopefully some new blood
)
But hopefully some new blood young scientist might mine encouraging new results from old mined data in the future. (like that 10 year old girl did)
Mike, thanks for your
)
Mike, thanks for your comment. Writing the text, I assumed,that all is a matter of budget and ressources and it is also a matter cost/benefit ratio. That's always the case, anywhere.
Referring to Dr. Allens message http://einsteinathome.org/node/195234&nowrap=true#105447 it seems to be important, to keep volunteers crunching for E@H and to get new ones.
So how to do this, with the budgetary limitations. there is already a discussion in the thread, where the above message was referred.
From my point of view and from my experience, the cheapest way is information. And I do not mean the really great support of all of you in the message boards and software development. I'm thinking of the eye catcher at the home page.
The home page is the one that makes the first impression. This is the site, that leads persons to either click away or to go into details. Remember: You'll never get a second chance for a first impression.
Having jumped over this hurdle, it is important to have some further eye catchers placed all over the web presence, with the purpose to trigger persons to click through all sites. That's all relativly easy and needs not much budget.
Just an indicator, of what I mean (but there are many other approaches):
Two stories and a statistic on the homepage
Statistic to BRP3....beems processed, candidates of last month and total, redections of last month and total, new discoveries of last month and total
Story with monthly news about the status of the second discovery i.e. actions last month, result last month, next actions.
Story about the GW detectors. Actual updates at the detectors, plans for the next scientific run, produced data for eveluation....
May be, I'm a little bit to naiv and also to critical. But competing with all other boinc projects to get volunteer ressources, some kind of services for the volunteers might be a key success factor.
Cheers
Bernhard
RE: Mike, thanks for your
)
Criticism of the constructive type that you have just demonstrated has always been welcome here at E@H! :-)
I'm sure you're right about there being excellent scope for 'selling' the project better, but I think the scientists ( no disrespect intended ) won't have been selected for abilities in that area. Hence the suggestion a couple of years ago to get someone PR oriented/trained to provide such skills - and starting at the 'front door' of the project as you say. FWIW what you see is based on common BOINC style sheets and a framework/set of PHP page hierarchies ( I heard they were going to Drupal once upon a time ). Meaning that the site is an evolution upon a generic plan, so I guess it was simplest to drop into that plan. That doesn't excuse choices of information content however.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Information about pulsars is
)
Information about pulsars is stuck to August. Can we have some more information? I've read about the Crab Pulsar emitting also gamma ray bursts. This means that even long known pulsars have some surprising tracts.
Tullio
Yes Mike. Scientists need
)
Yes Mike. Scientists need other, than selling skills. I'm not a scientist, but the situation is similar. I was never trained for that and I really hate it, when I have to do it.
But there are some simple things, that can be done and that not need much effort. Just like keeping the Home Page actual. One short article for each eye catcher topic per month
Update the old links (e.g. eliminate the "NEW LINK" markerwhen they are almost one year old)
Some NON-IT, but scientific result statistics, which ideally are updated (semi)automatically, e.g. the (re)discovery page.
And that's it. Therfore you do not need a PR specialist. It's just a matter of creativity (scientists MUST have this) and discipline. And believe me. I know, how hard long term discipline is :-). But scientists MUST have this also