Timeline for What do we need more of during this private beta?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3, 2017 at 8:41 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/ with https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 1, 2012 at 0:29 | comment | added | jonsca | @Gilles Before you think that I complained and walked, I'm still around, but I've just been on the busy side. Hehe. I have a couple of tags hanging open to get some background to try and ask a question on agent-based computing as that's something that I haven't seen here and I'd like to know more about. | |
| Mar 17, 2012 at 7:05 | comment | added | Artem Kaznatcheev | @jonsca The question on neurogenesis was meant as an engineer accompaniment to my similar question of cogsci.SE. I decided to test the waters here with a vague neural networks question, lets see if it generates any interest. | |
| Mar 17, 2012 at 6:53 | comment | added | jonsca | @Artem I'll have to look at those in detail. The one on neurogenesis is particularly interesting and would warrant more science. | |
| Mar 17, 2012 at 6:51 | comment | added | jonsca | @Artem Yeah, I'd enjoy seeing some ML here for sure, the ML beta was a fiasco and everything ended up on Cross Validated. It's tricky to separate what might be good on here that's not necessarily good on SO. Obviously, more theory oriented questions would thrive here, but something that's too theoretical may not be an "actual problem." | |
| Mar 17, 2012 at 6:49 | comment | added | Artem Kaznatcheev | Shameless self plug, but I feel these questions (originally asked on ML.SE but that got disbanded and merged into stats) are more about the science-y approach: 1, 2, 3. Unfortunately I have not had time to reflect on the answers and think of follow up questions. However, I would like to see questions like this on cs.SE. | |
| Mar 17, 2012 at 6:43 | comment | added | Artem Kaznatcheev | Of the fields I have come in contact with: machine learning, AI, and Bioinformatics tend to be more science-y. There is definitely a community of computer scientists that practice science as opposed to math, unfortunately I am not super familiar with them or their methods :(. | |
| Mar 17, 2012 at 6:41 | comment | added | jonsca |
@ArtemKaznatcheev (and @Suresh) thanks for the feedback. What would you consider to be a 'science-y' topic?
|
|
| Mar 17, 2012 at 6:38 | comment | added | Artem Kaznatcheev | I think non-theory questions are more than welcome here. It is just an artifact of the a number current experts on the site having come from sites like cstheory and bring the theory mindset with them. Unfortunately I have only asked and answered very theory-like questions myself, but I REALLY want this site to go towards the science part of computer science and I think everyone should be encouraged to ask more science-y questions instead of the typical math-y questions on cstheory. | |
| Mar 17, 2012 at 5:40 | comment | added | Suresh | I completely agree with the sentiment of this answer. we need many more questions that are NOT related to theory: where are the interesting DB/OS/graphics/data mining/AI questions ? To be honest, I've been trying to think of nice level-appropriate questions to answer in these areas and so far have failed :( | |
| Mar 17, 2012 at 1:26 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | Thanks for the clarification. (And yes, I know the feeling.) I think I'm the only frequent poster so far who's not a CS student or professor… We'll have more applied questions if people ask them! (Hint, hint.) I, for one, know nothing about graphics or NLP or many other applied topics. Ok, and admittedly answers tend to verge towards theory; that is something we need to watch. | |
| Mar 17, 2012 at 1:13 | comment | added | jonsca | You can't expect me to get my ideas out and have it make sense in one fell swoop. | |
| Mar 17, 2012 at 1:12 | comment | added | jonsca | @Gilles Please see my edit, it's more that I thought there would be more applied questions. Sorry for the ambiguity there. | |
| Mar 17, 2012 at 1:11 | history | edited | jonsca | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Last para clarification
|
| Mar 17, 2012 at 1:05 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | I don't follow your answer. The description has only been tightened, the site is still for CS “students, researchers and practitioners”. Is “a more undergraduate friendly collective for theory” what you want? (In which case the site does have questions in this vein.) Or do you want more applied questions? (We do have a few, but clearly there's a strong theory bias in the people who participate in the beta.) I feel you want something different, but I don't understand what. | |
| Mar 17, 2012 at 0:52 | history | answered | jonsca | CC BY-SA 3.0 |