24-04-2025, 04:42 PM
Hi Davidd, welcome to the forum!
I completely understand what you are saying. The thing with a forum is that it is by definition "ad hoc" driven. It's basically a long archive of conversations that were had for whatever reason. A lot of what is said in those conversations is valuable and interesting, but due to the dynamic nature of the medium, this often gets buried. Unless someone remembers a particular thread at the right moment, or someone successfully uses the limited search function (which presupposes knowing the exact term that was used in advance).
This could be remedied by making a curated thread of "useful topics" or something, but this has not yet been undertaken. It should be though.
Rene's website You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the closest we have to something like this. But it is also quite sprawling, and naturally focuses a lot on the areas Rene is most into.
Regarding collaboration vs. individualism, Voynich research as a whole is extremely individualistic. Several people complain about this, but it's kind of what you get when the field consists for 99% of amateur researchers who do this in their spare time. Specific to Voynich research is that many people who want to solve the MS are actually writing their own fiction. It often happens that theorists seek help and collaborators, but this just never happens. Nobody wants to participate in someone else's delusion.
The example of Stephen Bax you mention is a bit different in the sense that he had a more professional and reasoned approach to the MS, and many people took his research seriously at the time. Nowadays, the "meta" has really shifted far away from substitution ciphers though, and you won't find many people who find Bax's research worth pursuing further.
That said, I do believe we have a great community here and sometimes collaboration works really well. The caveat is, in my experience, that you have to be very concrete. If you present the forum with an actual problem you're facing in your research, they are very likely to want to help. There are also many examples of a couple of people working together for example to write a paper.
Bigger collaborative projects entirely on the forum are possible, but the challenge there is that you'd need to:
I think the Voynich is just an incredibly tough nut to crack. In my opinion, the most satisfying projects, whether collaborative or not, are those that leave you feeling like you contributed something to the study in general rather than advancing any one theory.
I completely understand what you are saying. The thing with a forum is that it is by definition "ad hoc" driven. It's basically a long archive of conversations that were had for whatever reason. A lot of what is said in those conversations is valuable and interesting, but due to the dynamic nature of the medium, this often gets buried. Unless someone remembers a particular thread at the right moment, or someone successfully uses the limited search function (which presupposes knowing the exact term that was used in advance).
This could be remedied by making a curated thread of "useful topics" or something, but this has not yet been undertaken. It should be though.
Rene's website You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the closest we have to something like this. But it is also quite sprawling, and naturally focuses a lot on the areas Rene is most into.
Regarding collaboration vs. individualism, Voynich research as a whole is extremely individualistic. Several people complain about this, but it's kind of what you get when the field consists for 99% of amateur researchers who do this in their spare time. Specific to Voynich research is that many people who want to solve the MS are actually writing their own fiction. It often happens that theorists seek help and collaborators, but this just never happens. Nobody wants to participate in someone else's delusion.
The example of Stephen Bax you mention is a bit different in the sense that he had a more professional and reasoned approach to the MS, and many people took his research seriously at the time. Nowadays, the "meta" has really shifted far away from substitution ciphers though, and you won't find many people who find Bax's research worth pursuing further.
That said, I do believe we have a great community here and sometimes collaboration works really well. The caveat is, in my experience, that you have to be very concrete. If you present the forum with an actual problem you're facing in your research, they are very likely to want to help. There are also many examples of a couple of people working together for example to write a paper.
Bigger collaborative projects entirely on the forum are possible, but the challenge there is that you'd need to:
- Find a question that needs an answer
- Have enough people who are interested in that particular topic
- Create a framework for cooperation
- Preferably have some kind of stated goal to work towards
I think the Voynich is just an incredibly tough nut to crack. In my opinion, the most satisfying projects, whether collaborative or not, are those that leave you feeling like you contributed something to the study in general rather than advancing any one theory.