Two ways for Q&A

If you have ever tried to figure something out on your own, you will know that it is a lot harder than doing something that you already know. It is hard because it is new to you. But just because it is new to you, doesn't mean that it is new to everyone else. And now, in a time when it is easier than ever to connect with everyone online, a new kind of scarcity is emerging. Helpfulness.

How not to get an answer to your question

For better or for worse, I follow more than a dozen discussion groups on LinkedIn. Why? I believe that candid discussions are important and enriching, so I sign up eagerly for the action. Signing up to a discussion group is like showing up at a cocktail party. Maybe you will get noticed alongside other people and brands worth noticing. There is hoopla, and echoing, but I don't think there is any real value being created for the members. If anything, it's a constant distraction you put up with to hedge against the fomo. 

Click to enlargeYet, hoards of users flock to these groups with questions that are clearly more appropriate for technical hot-lines, or at least an honest attempt at reading the manual. Users helping users is a great way to foster brand loyalty, but not if the technical help desk failed them first. On LinkedIn, even on the rare case a question is sufficiently articulated, users can't upload a screen shot or share a snippet of code. Often times I think people are just fishing (not phishing mind you) and haven't put in enough ground work to deserve the attention of helpers.

What is in it for me?

Stack Overflow is a 'language-independent' question and answer site for programmers. If it is not the first place I land on with a google search, it is consistently the place from which I bounce back to the terminal with my answer. Also, nearly everything that I know about open-source GIS has come from other people taking part in Q&A on GIS Stack Exchange. The reason Stack Exchange works is because there is value and incentive for each of the three types of people that show up. Something for the asker, something for answerer, something for the searcher.

It is easy to see what is in it for the asker. They have got a problem, and they are looking for help. Similarly, it's easy to see what is in it for the searcher. They might find something they are looking for, without even having to ask. But what is in it for the answerer? There is no payment, there is no credit, at least not of the monetary kind. The answerer gets practice being helpful. They willingly put themselves into other people's business to put themselves to the test. How awesome is that? The site, in turn helps the helpers by ensuring the questions contain just enough context to garner meaningful answers.

Imagine if applied geoscientists could incorporate a little more of that.

Journalists are scientists

Tim Radford. Image: Stevyn Colgan.On Thursday I visited The Guardian’s beautiful offices in King’s Cross for one of their Masterclass sessions. Many of them have sold out, but Tim Radford’s science writing evening did so in hours, and the hundred-or-so budding writers present were palpably excited to be there. The newspaper is one of the most progressive news outlets in the world, and boasts many venerable alumni (John Maddox and John Durant among them). It was a pleasure just to wander around the building with a glass of wine, with some of London’s most eloquent nerds.

Radford is not a trained scientist, but a pure journalist. He left school at 16, idolized Dylan Thomas, joined a paper, wrote like hell, and sat on almost every desk before mostly retiring from The Guardian in 2005. He has won four awards from the Association of British Science Writers. More people read any one of his science articles on a random Tuesday morning over breakfast than will ever read anything I ever write. Tim Radford is, according to Ed Yong, the Yoda of science writers.

Within about 30 minutes it became clear what it means to be a skilled writer: Radford’s real craft is story-telling. He is completely at home addressing a crowd of scientists — he knows how to hold a mirror up to the geeks and reflect the fun, fascinating, world-changing awesomeness back at them. “It’s a terrible mistake to think that because you know about a subject you are equipped to write about it,” he told us, getting at how hard it is to see something from within. It might be easier to write creatively, and with due wonder, about fields outside our own.

Some in the audience weren’t content with being entertained by Radford, watching him in action as it were, preferring instead to dwell on controversy. He mostly swatted them aside, perfectly pleasantly, but one thing he was having none of was the supposed divide between scientists and journalists. Indeed, Radford asserted that journalists and scientists do basically the same thing: imagine a story (hypothesis), ask questions (do experiments), form a coherent story (theory) from the results, and publish. Journalists are scientists. Kind of.

I loved Radford's committed and unapologetic pragmatism, presumably the result of several decades of deadlines. “You don’t have to be ever so clever, you just have to be ever so quick,” and as a sort of corollary: “You can’t be perfectly right, but you must be mostly right.” One questioner accused journalists of sensationalising science (yawn). “Of course we do!” he said — because he wants his story in the paper, and he wants people to read it. Specifically, he wants people who don’t read science stories to read it. After all, writing for other people is all about giving them a sensation of one kind or another.

I got so much out of the 3 hours I could write at least another 2000 words, but I won’t. The evening was so popular that the paper decided to record the event and experiment with a pay-per-view video, so you can get all the goodness yourself. If you want more Radford wisdom, his Manifesto for the simple scribe is a must-read for anyone who writes.

Tim Radford's most recent book, The Address Book: Our Place in the Scheme of Things, came out in spring 2011.

The photograph of Tim Radford, at The World's Most Improbable Event on 30 September, is copyright of Stevyn Colgan, and used with his gracious permission. You should read his blog, Colganology. The photograph of King's Place, the Guardian's office building, is by flickr user Davide Simonetti, licensed CC-BY-NC.

Update on 2012-10-07 10:12 by Matt Hall

I was surprised to find no Wikipedia article on Tim Radford, so I created one. If you know anything more about Mr Radford, please add to it (with citations, of course!).

I also made an edit to this post: I changed the wording of my reference to Radford as Yoda, to better match the tweet.

Turning students into maniacs

In Matt's previous post, he urged people to subscribe to Jimmy Wales' vision of expanding collective intelligence. And it got me thinking about why the numbers aren't as high as they could be (should be), and why they might be dropping. Here are a few excuses that I have plucked from the university-student mindset and I submit them as a micro-model of this problem. And let's face it, we are all students, in a loose sense of the word.

STUDENT EXCUSES

• I don't know where to start: Students, those most adequately positioned to give back to the knowledge base of which they are at the forefront, don't know where to start. Looking out towards the vast sea of what already exists, it is hard to imagine what is missing. Walking up to a blank page, pen in hand, is way harder than being handed an outline, a rough sketch that needs some filling in and filling out. 
• I didn't sign up to be a volunteer: Being a student has always been, and always will be, a selfish endeavour. To do anything outside what is expected is essentially volunteering. Most students, don't see it as their job, their problem, or haven't yet learned the benefits and advantages it brings.
• Someone else is better than me: Sounds timid and insecure, which I suppose may require some creative coaxing. Surely, there is probably somebody else out there more suited to draw seismic polarity cartoons than I, but volunteers don't wait for someone else to volunteer, if that were the case, there would be no volunteering at all. 
• Institutions stomped out my collabortive spirit: It might not be spoken this way, but the student has a number of forces acting against the survival of their natural collaborative and creative tendencies. You'd think they would be the first to "get it", but the student mindset (bright, ambitious, curious, tech-savvy, etc) has been ratcheted into one of discipline and conformance to the academic status quo. One filled with traditional notions of text books, unaffordable publication subscriptions, bureacratic funding and research processes.
• Peer review is better than the commons: Students are not allowed to use Wikipedia in their research. Instead, it is reinforced that a handful of expert editors set the standards of academic diligence, which is supposedly superior to thousands of editors in the fray of the wiki. I say we place too much confidence in too few peer reviewers. Sure wikis have trust issues, but that may be deservedly detrimental to those who are too credulous. Has anyone been massively led astray by incorrect or sabotaged Wikipedia content? I doubt it.

Making maniacs

Of these excuses, all of them but the first have to do with the culture of traditional learning. But for the first, for people who want to get involved but really don't know how, maybe all they need is to be handed a few stubs. Give me a stub! Imagine a questionaire or widget that takes a user profile, and quasi-intelligently suggests sparse pages in need of work. This stub needs chippers, and you fit the profile. Like a dating site that matches you not with another person, but with gaps in the content web.

It occurs to me that the notion of studentship will transform—for those who want it. For some it will be a choice, and a privilege, to act less like a student, and more like a maniac.

J is for Journal

I'm aware of a few round-ups of journals for geologists, but none for those of us with more geophysical leanings. So here's a list of some of the publications that used to be on my reading list back when I used to actually read things. I've tried to categorize them a bit, but this turned out to be trickier than I thought it would be; I hope my buckets make some sense.

Journals with mirrored content at GeoScienceWorld are indicated by GSW. 

Peer-reviewed journals

• SEG Geophysics — GSW — RSS, or subscribe to a specific topic! — Old school. Subscription only.
• EAGE Geophysical Prospecting — RSS — Kinda old school. Subscription only.
• CSEG Canadian Journal of Exploration Geophysics — recently revived after more than a decade off the shelf. Support Canadian geophysics and submit your manuscripts! All of the archives are freely accessible (though not 'open').
• EAGE Near Surface Geophysics — no RSS — Subscription only. Niche.
• AAPG Bulletin — GSW — RSS (doesn't work for me) — has lots of articles relevant to interpreters.

Technical magazines

• First Break — indispensible news from EAGE and the global petroleum scene, and a beautifully produced periodical to boot. No RSS feed, though. Boo. Subscription only.
• The Leading Edge — GSW — RSS — SEG's classic monthly that You Must Read. But... subscription only.
• Recorder is brilliant value for money, even if it doesn't have an RSS feed. It is also publicly accessible after three months, which is rare to see in our field. Yay, CSEG!

Other petroleum geoscience readables

• SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology — all the news you need from SPE. It's all online if you can bear the e-reader interface. Mostly manages to tread the marketing-as-article line that some other magazines transgress more often (none of those here; you know what they are).
• CWLS InSite — openly accessible and often has excellent articles, though it only comes out twice a year now. Its sister organisation, SPWLA, allegedly has a journal called Petrophysics, but I've never seen it and can't find it online. Anyone?
• Elsevier publish a number of excellent journals, but as you may know, a large part of the scientific community is pressuring the Dutch publishing giant to adopt a less exclusive distribution and pricing model for its content. So I am not reading them any more, or linking to them today. This might seem churlish, but consider that it's not uncommon to be asked for $40 per article, even if the research was publicly funded.

General interest magazines

• IEEE Spectrum — RSS — a terrific monthly from 'the world's largest association for the advancement of technology'. They also publish some awesome niche titles like the unbelievably geeky Signal Processing — RSS. You can subscribe to print issues of Spectrum without joining IEEE, and it's free to read online. My favourite.
• Royal Statistical Society Significance — RSS (seems to be empty) — another fantastic cross-disciplinary read. [Updated: You don't have to join the society to get it, and you can read everything online for free]. I've happily paid for this for many years.

How do I read all this stuff?

The easiest way is to grab the RSS feed addresses (right-click and Copy Link Address, or words to that effect) and put them in a feed reader like Google Reader. (Confused? What the heck is RSS?). If you prefer to get things in your email inbox, you can send RSS feeds to email.

If you read other publications that help you stay informed and inspired as an exploration geophysicist — or as any kind of subsurface scientist — let us know what's in your mailbox or RSS feed!

The cover images are copyright of CSEG, CWLS and IEEE. I'm claiming 'fair use' for these low-res images. More A to Z posts...