(1). I think, it is a good idea. (2). But since the questions are selected, to be fair to the general readers who are still interested in the filtered message, it is a good idea to post these messages in the filtered messages area, so that readers interested in it can continue their conversation there. (3). Since the filtering process is carried out for the readers, their names should be replaced by the webmaster only. In other words, in the messages posted, whether it is a question or an answer, only the webmaster's name can be used.

Patrick,

There could only be one excuse for posting very basic questions (some of which we have seen here in the last few months). It is lack of resources. Most often, (I am guessing) people asking such questions are students. They have access to their faculty, library, text books etc. Why then should they not use them.

Of course, there are always those who do not have a choice. Eg. i) person working on non-CFD related areas in industry and is interested in knowing about CFD ii) students with no significant CFD resources (I am sure there are universities with very ill-equipped libraries). However, it is highly unlikely that such people would know about this forum.

My view is that this forum is useful to people with some working knowledge of CFD or fluid mechanics. If one is starting out and wants to learn basic facts, this forum is a very inefficient choice.

> My view is that this forum is useful to people with some working knowledge of CFD or fluid mechanics. If one is starting out and wants to learn basic facts, this forum is a very inefficient choice.

I agree 100%. Some questions that are supposedly CFD related are truly very fundamental questions on fluid mechanics. Surely, one should know "just a little" fluid dynamics before using CFD.

Also, when someone asks the same question that has been asked so many times on this very forum, then recommending that they check previous posts is not at all arrogant. It should have been their responsibility, in the first place, to make the "minimal" amount of effort. If the objective of the poster is to learn from the posted messages, then let them learn from the vast archival data on this very forum. I sure have in the past. It is a very painless process

One poster compared this forum to a university. When was the last time students were encouraged not to think on their own first (and not to do their own research) before asking others. It is very convenient to just throw in questions without having given it some measure of thought/effort, isn't it?

Adrin Gharakhani

(1). There are 21 Gurus listed in the resources section of this forum. (2). In the last three years, I don't remember seeing their names in the questions and answers here. (it is still possible that they were using other names here.) (3). If the forum recognized Gurus are not answering questions here in the last three years, then it is hard to address the quality of this forum. (4). By the way, CFD is not in trouble, CFD online forum is not in trouble. The persons using cfd codes are in trouble, and the companies using people running cfd codes are in trouble. (5). To solve that problem, post your CFD questions here is the best idea to save you and your company.

Jonas,

You have the statistics of the number of people who post on this list and the range of questions asked (in broad categories). I agree with you that by dividing the list in small groups you will be diluting it.

Let's look at the average number of posts per day. It is not so high to justify splitting it. I like to see all the subjects in one listing because it exposes me to ideas and subjects that I may not be looking for directly. This way, I pick and choose which subject I wish to read. I have no problem with the so-called bandwidth clutter (that might have been true if we got thousands of posts per day). I think the idea of creating separate fora for commercial softwares was great and helped this list quite a bit, but it does not make sense to divide the list further.

Adrin Gharakhani

(1). Move the "post a new message" button to behind the "search" button. (2). When a reader click the "post a new message", display a suggestion message to reader, such as (a). "click here to save your time to view previous messages in the related subject", and bring the reader into the search mode, (b). " click here, I have reviewed the previous messages already". (3). In this way, you will give the reader one more chance to do the search first.

I like the proposal by John very much.

I suppose one can go one step further and "robo-moderate" the questions. When a question is being posted, it may perhaps be an "easy" exercise to automatically parse the content of either the "subject line" or the message itself for keywords or key phrases and match existing discussions in the archive. Then before the question is finally posted, the poster receives a list of previously posted articles on the subject and is recommended to check these articles first. The poster may opt to continue posting at that stage or delay it until (s)he's had a chance to go over the suggested material.

It may be easier said than done, but it will hopefully reduce redundancy!

Adrin Gharakhani

(1). Don't forget the reason why people are visiting the forum: people don't like the ATM machine, they don't want to tell you their problems, but they want you to answer their questions. (2). So, for the person who is going to ask questions, it is all right to use a different name. As long as it is used within the same thread. In this way, there is no personal connection and it is much easier to get the discussions going. After a while (a few conversations later), I am sure that the real question will be answered. (3). That's the art of asking a question. So, the point is to keep the question clear and visible, at the same time, keep your identity invisible.

(1). Good ideas. (2). Keep working on it. At the same time, I will be busy reading my "great true spy stories", compiled by Allen Dulles. (3). The other thing is, I am running out of my free Internet time already. I'll be back when I decide to extend my Internet time.(I need to pay for it myself) (4). Hope there is something new in my next visit here.

I think you need to have your own critical filter. It is true that some of the responses we get are often patronizing (e.g. (1) "turbulence modelling is a part of fluid mech. (2)... " sort of answer), but this is an open forum!

When I contribute, I do try to be precise and quote interesting ref. I may have, esp. in the area of my PhD, but we cannot close ourselves from the larger audience and anticipate and kick out whoever is going to post rubbish. Additionally what may be an interesting answer for someone might be to be plain evidence to somebody else. So we also have to respect one another's ability and knowledge (provided they do), and be able to learn from others as well.

Regarding the structure of the forums I think it is quite good as it is. It would probably be difficult for Jonas and us all to be more specific. I would like to read more about turbulence, aero and hydrodynamics etc., but other users might focus on meshing, mathematical solution techniques, chemical reactions etc. This would become a nightmare to maintain (and read). As it is I open the main or CFX forum and read through the messge titles and does my own filtering. I think that provided the message titles are explicit it is really good.

Maybe we could sign a code of good behaviour and promise to have clear explicit titles.

Hi,

Pleased to meet so much people in the same main/thread. I agree with Hervé in that Jonas' policy is excellent (but I wouldn't make any promise for my title to be an explicit one.)

My suggestion would be: just mention in the forums' home page that these are stored as a searchable archive, where most answers to `candides' questions might be found; as are availables comments to introduce any of the forums.

Note: I went rather surprised to understand that Jonas owned any content of the CFD-online website. Couldn't it be dangerous to do so without any obvious disclaimer, and what about some will at republishing parts of it ?

Thank you very much, anyway.