[Neuroimaging] When to use neurostars, and when not to

Matthew Brett matthew.brett at gmail.com
Thu Aug 27 14:43:40 CEST 2015


On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Chris Filo Gorgolewski
<krzysztof.gorgolewski at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Chris Filo Gorgolewski
>> <krzysztof.gorgolewski at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > My 3 cents: Matthew, Bertrand - I would encourage you to give neurostars
>> > a
>> > try. It really helps building the community and makes questions more
>> > discoverable. There are some rough edges, but nothing we cannot work
>> > around.
>> But my assertion (of course possibly false) is that the problems I'm
>> talking about are structural to the approved answer format.   Do you
>> think that's possible?
> I don't think anyone pays attention to the "approved answer" on neurostars
> right now since it's rarely used and there are only few cases with multiple
> answers. However even if we turn off the "approved answer" feature it would
> work better than a mailing list. At least in my opinion.

Sure, I understand that it is in some sense more effective in getting
searchable answers to the consumer, I don't think that's
controversial.  My question is - could it have other and undesirable



More information about the Neuroimaging mailing list