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

Michael Hanke michael.hanke at gmail.com
Thu Aug 27 15:08:19 CEST 2015


On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>

> 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
> effects?

Yes, it does. It is not uncommon that I have to correct information obtain
from "somewhere on the internet" to help solve somebodies problem. But it
seems that when help is needed "passive search" is way more frequent than
active outreach. And then the question is: will a "random" search hit in a
mailing list archive be more effective than a (somewhat) vetted answer on a
Q&A site? I don't know...

But at least theoretically, it is easier to update an answer on a QA site
long after the original post was made, than it is to revive an old thread
and do a post-mortem change of the original conclusion in the light of new

However, neither of that seems to make it more likely that people become a
more active participant in a community.


Michael Hanke
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/neuroimaging/attachments/20150827/489fbae8/attachment.html>

More information about the Neuroimaging mailing list