# Inviting members from the larger community

+ 0 like - 5 dislike
30 views

I was thinking of sending out invitation letters to listed members of Inspire and other databases (excepting experimental physicists).

Would this be a good idea, or should we wait for some time to gauge how our site progresses - maybe three months or more?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Sep 16, 2011
Please don't. It is likely to turn people off the site before we even begin. A far better way to grow the site is word of mouth recommendations. Most of us personally know a large number of physicists, and people who find this a useful tool are likely to mention it to colleagues.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
True. Well, it was just a proposition. :)

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I agree, word of mouth would definitely be preferable to unsolicited spamming.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

+ 9 like - 0 dislike

I'm not sure if this will be appreciated, it could certainly come off as spam. In my opinion a better way is to talk to people you know personally about the site.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Sep 17, 2011 by (550 points)
Couldn't agree more.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
+ 6 like - 0 dislike

Once you're out of private beta, get high profile bloggers (Michael Nielsen/Aaronson/the n-cafe folks/Peter Woit/Sean Carroll and others) to mention the site if you can. that can be quite effective.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Sep 21, 2011 by (1,535 points)
I'd add Quantum Pontiff blog to this list.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Marcin: The pontiff is no longer the pontiff. But one of the committers to the site has taken over one third of the reigns.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Suresh: You got +1 from me, but I think I should note that there is a bit of a difference between our situation here and that of cstheory. As far as I can tell the computational complexity blog is mostly frequented by people working in TCS and related fields. The same is not true of some of the big physics blogs, like Peter Woit's and Sean Carroll's blogs. There is a huge number of what I might call physics enthusiasts out there who are not really in a position to contribute to a research level site.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
We also have the crackpot problem at a scale unprecedented in other fields. Math and TCS certainly have crackpots. P vs NP certainly attracts a lot, as does the Collatz conjecture and there are any number of snake oil merchants centred on compression and crypto, but in physics the scale is just different. There are vast swathes of people who will swear blind that everything we've learned since the late 1800s is wrong, and there is an endless procession of self-proclaimed experts appearing in the media and tell people that quantum mechanics means you can alter reality simply by thinking hard.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysicsOverfl$\varnothing$wThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.