Should we have a thread to refer theorists to?

[Koen G]

It happens quite regularly that someone comes to the forum having solved the manuscript. It's always in a different way, yet always kind of in the same way as well.

And then we go through the motions of explaining them about confirmation bias and one way ciphers and why Google translate is no good and that Latin actually has grammar beyond dictionary forms and that translations should be repeatable and so on. 

Might it be useful if we had a thread with all these points, so we could refer people to section 2.4 of the "So you solved the Voynich manuscript" thread?

My perhaps naive hope is that if we show that we actually predict their methods because we have seen them so many times before, maybe they will understand more quickly?

Or do you think a thread like this would be a waste of time and have no effect at all on the mind still high on the sword in the stone syndrome?

[pjburkshire]

I think it is better to have the information on a website and not in a message board. I think that is a better format. Several already have a good start.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[Emma May Smith]

Just have a bingo card. Ask the would-be decipherer how many they got.

If they avoid every single square then we can talk...

[RobGea]

"So, you solved the Voynich..."

Hehe, Bingo card is a fun idea.
Some possible bingo squares:

• I am certain / convinced  my theory is right
  
• I solved it in 2 weeks
  
• Muahahahaha...
  

Yes , a thread/ sticky post, like that is a good idea. Though the reailty is that you would simply be pi... errrm..whistling in the wind.

Come to think of it, tavie made a post somewehere about VMS theory warning signs or red-flags.
Anyway something like that would be good to have.

[pjburkshire]

The way I see it, it is not just the new people showing up with new ideas. The way I see it, there are many who have been around for many years and still consistently disagree on even small issues.

[Koen G]

I've thought before that we should play theorist bingo. We each get a differently arrange board and the first one to get a line wins.

But then I remember I'm a moderator and I probably shouldn't encourage this kind of thing :p

[ReneZ]

My perhaps naive hope is that if we show that we actually predict their methods because we have seen them so many times before, maybe they will understand more quickly?

Or do you think a thread like this would be a waste of time and have no effect at all on the mind still high on the sword in the stone syndrome?

Without giving away which I think is the more likely answer.....

The people proposing solutions usually say "I found the solution" and almost never "do you all think I am right?".

[bi3mw]

Even if it is difficult due to the constant repetition, we should continue to try to respond to each "solution" individually. A quasi "automatic forwarding" to another thread seems inhospitable, especially to new members. There is also the hope that some will take the hints seriously and thus develop further. With a blanket reference, there is probably less willingness.

[MarcoP]

Most solvers prefer writing over reading, IIRC some even brag about it. These people are not affected by anything others write. But a "basic solution evaluation" page could still be useful for those who enjoy reading Voynich research.

[Koen G]

Even if it is difficult due to the constant repetition, we should continue to try to respond to each "solution" individually. A quasi "automatic forwarding" to another thread seems inhospitable, especially to new members. There is also the hope that some will take the hints seriously and thus develop further. With a blanket reference, there is probably less willingness.

You are right that if we were to do only that, we would even undermine the purpose of the forum. As I see it, a thread like this would be more like a tool. Something to be referred to in an individualized discussion. For example: "many people struggle with noticing how an interpretative step exponentially increases the number of possible translations, effectively making their method unrepeatable. This is so common that it is in our list of common problems. See 'thread'".