+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Tasks (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-28.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich tasks (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-32.html)
+---- Forum: Positions we can agree upon (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-53.html)
+---- Thread: [Generic] Evaluation of the project so far. (/thread-748.html)
Pages:
1
2
Evaluation of the project so far. - Koen G - 14-09-2016
It's always a good idea to try something and then see what can be improved. I have a couple of remarks about the way the project works so far and what might be improved.
Positive:
I really like the debate and the fact that everything is reconsidered and concrete evidence is compared. I still fully support this project and I think it could help us and the study of the manuscript a lot.
Problems:
- People vote before the debate starts. Sometimes details emerge that could change one's vote, but not everybody will keep reading the thread after voting.
- Not everybody is qualified to judge everything. For example, I did not know exactly what defines a palimpsest. Some others were clearly not familiar with the definition of "religious iconography" and so on.
- People can vote "no" and shoot down an idea without any explanation whatsoever.
Since we are trying to build solid foundations, I think it's worth a try to circumvent these problems.
My proposal for a solution:
1) Don't start with a statement, but a question: is the MS a palimpsest? Is there any conventional religious iconography?
2) Debate follows, evidence is gathered.
3) If a consensus is reached or it looks like everything has been said, an editor closes the thread and distills a statement from it. In this statement there can be room for nuance if necessary. The statement is presented in a new thread and people can still suggest to have it changed.
I believe this will lead to a better, more comprehensive result. These are of course just suggestions, so feel free to suggest an alternative as well
RE: Evaluation of the project so far. - Anton - 14-09-2016
I stick the thread so as not to mix it with the regular proposal threads here.
Quote:- People vote before the debate starts. Sometimes details emerge that could change one's vote, but not everybody will keep reading the thread after voting.
First of all, the procedure suggests that the poll be cast only when no new essential arguments are proposed (I guess that in the existing threads David posted polls at once with the sole purpose of users getting accustomed to polls).
Second, it is possible to re-vote.
Quote:1) Don't start with a statement, but a question: is the MS a palimpsest? Is there any conventional religious iconography?
If the submitting person is not sure in the proposed block/statement, it is better not to propose it, in the first place. Mind that the task is not to discover new facts, but only to filter facts already established.
RE: Evaluation of the project so far. - MarcoP - 14-09-2016
I think the three "blocks" submitted so far were very well chosen. Yet they are difficult to state in a way that is both brief and unambiguous. Also, I think we are in part penalized by non being English native speakers. It's hard work
I see as a technical problem the fact that the poll title is the most visible part of the block. Yet I don't think it can be edited. And it is definitely too brief to be meaningful. I can't think of a workaround for these problems.
RE: Evaluation of the project so far. - Helmut Winkler - 14-09-2016
(14-09-2016, 10:49 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's always a good idea to try something and then see what can be improved. I have a couple of remarks about the way the project works so far and what might be improved.
Positive:
I really like the debate and the fact that everything is reconsidered and concrete evidence is compared. I still fully support this project and I think it could help us and the study of the manuscript a lot.
Problems:
- People vote before the debate starts. Sometimes details emerge that could change one's vote, but not everybody will keep reading the thread after voting.
- Not everybody is qualified to judge everything. For example, I did not know exactly what defines a palimpsest. Some others were clearly not familiar with the definition of "religious iconography" and so on.
- People can vote "no" and shoot down an idea without any explanation whatsoever.
Since we are trying to build solid foundations, I think it's worth a try to circumvent these problems.
My proposal for a solution:
1) Don't start with a statement, but a question: is the MS a palimpsest? Is there any conventional religious iconography?
2) Debate follows, evidence is gathered.
3) If a consensus is reached or it looks like everything has been said, an editor closes the thread and distills a statement from it. In this statement there can be room for nuance if necessary. The statement is presented in a new thread and people can still suggest to have it changed.
I believe this will lead to a better, more comprehensive result. These are of course just suggestions, so feel free to suggest an alternative as well
I think you are quite right, I was thinking of a similar proposal
RE: Evaluation of the project so far. - Anton - 14-09-2016
Quote:I see as a technical problem the fact that the poll title is the most visible part of the block. Yet I don't think it can be edited.
The text of the poll title can be edited. Its position also can be edited in theory but in practice it is complicated.
But the poll is just to approve or disapprove the proposed statements (or to choose between different proposed variants of statements), so I don't think that the poll title wording is of much importance. For clarity, it can be made purely formal, such as "Do you approve the statements proposed in the title post?"
RE: Evaluation of the project so far. - MarcoP - 14-09-2016
(14-09-2016, 03:30 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:I see as a technical problem the fact that the poll title is the most visible part of the block. Yet I don't think it can be edited.
The text of the poll title can be edited. Its position also can be edited in theory but in practice it is complicated.
But the poll is just to approve or disapprove the proposed statements (or to choose between different proposed variants of statements), so I don't think that the poll title wording is of much importance. For clarity, it can be made purely formal, such as "Do you approve the statements proposed in the title post?"
Thank you, Anton.
I think that it can be misleading if the title is not edited while the statements are.
"There is no traditional religious iconography within the manuscript" is certainly less clear than the corresponding statements.
But I think this is a marginal problem. It's more important that people pass, vote no (without leaving a comment) and then don't check again. This is the nature of an internet poll and (upon reflection) it's difficult to expect anything different.
As proposed by Koen, delaying voting until most aspects have been discussed could possibly help.
RE: Evaluation of the project so far. - davidjackson - 14-09-2016
Yes, these are sensible ideas which I am also thinking.
Upon reflection I shouldn't have opened the poll along with the statements but in my defence I wanted to see what happened
The correct procedure is for a statement to be proposed, then discussed and finally accepted or rejected.
It is at the acception point that the poll should be opened.
I am also minded to keep the poll question to : do you accept or reject the statements contained in this thread? Yes I accept them / no I reject them.
I think that is clear enough for everyone.
So go on, who is going to propose the next statement?
RE: Evaluation of the project so far. - Koen G - 16-09-2016
I have started a number of basic level threads about the imagery.
It would be good if someone more familiar with the script and its study launches some statements about that (Anton? JKP? Thomas Coon?)
Same for the other subjects like provenance.
RE: Evaluation of the project so far. - Diane - 17-09-2016
Anton,
Quote:But the poll is just to approve or disapprove the proposed statements
You could put up a poll saying just about anything you liked, and people would still vote according to what they believed, or what "felt right".
The chronic difficulty with this whole effort to study the manuscript is that it is very difficult to re-examine the fundamental assumptions and habits. Such as the habit of calling the botanical images "a herbal" and of presuming it a work in the Latin European tradition. Ask people to vote on whether the "roots and leaves" section is a "pharma" section and I guess you'd get close to a 100% voting "yes".
There's no real argument ever been made for the botanical folios being a "herbal" - it's just presumed and all the effort has gone into trying to prove that hypothesis; almost none into investigating its basis. Even more so for the 'roots and leaves' section.
So whether or not the random group of people assembled here happen to believe, or not believe, one of the old ideas, isn't going to do much except inhibit the sort of basic re-think of those ideas which so badly needs doing... and which is exactly why Koen proposed, and I supported the establishment of this forum.
Because everywhere else that open questions are proposed for research, the line of enquiry so soon de-rails or is bogged down by a return to yet more images from an incredibly limited geographic range and one medium, from Latin Europe.
The "Yes/no" sort of poll can't prove anything so; and "what we all agree" can only then make open investigation of any historical, or iconographic issue seem like a disturbance of the peace.
I agree with Koen. It would be great to put up a research question - such as: what is the evidence for, and against, our habit of describing the 'roots and leaves' section as a "pharma" section. Not "commonsense" or "obviously" - because 'commonsense' isn't evidence.
Anyway - I'm on hols. so that's all I can contribute here.
RE: Evaluation of the project so far. - Anton - 04-10-2016
I believe those are issues that could be countered by these two mechanisms that we employ:
- high approval threshold: 80% required is not something easily gathered for "just about anything one likes"
- the poll is not simply a poll, but a poll following a thorough discussion (it's just few sample threads where a poll was added from the very beginning)
Anyway, we are in the process of trying and exploring here, so let's see how it goes.