-4

I feel like this site and Health share the same fate: there are core users who put so much effort to change it, but:

  • the traffic is just not enough
  • good answers are not upvoted enough, bad answers are not downvoted enough

This site seems to has a better performance, and does improve over time as Jeromy points out, but when a mod loses their interesting, it is a big alarm.

I think this site and Health have the same characteristic: people come here for personal questions, but only experts can have enough knowledge to answer and vote. Does this nature fits Stack Exchange modal?

Here are a couplet that I really like:

Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things
Poetry is the art of giving different names to the same thing

Are Psychology and Health just different names of the same thing? If we can make sure the dying of the both sites are just coincident, not really because of the nature of the fields, then I think there can be a hope. Again, my main point is not whether this model fits us (this topic has been brought out so many times in both sites, and basically an in any sites), but to question whether there is a fundamental relationship between the two sites, as I have never seen anyone bring the similarities up to the table besides of not having enough traffic.

  • Further -what is your question exactly? Yes, both sites have communal problems – AliceD Apr 16 '18 at 9:33
  • 1
    I believe we have discussed something similar in the past before. The problem is asking questions is infinitely easier than writing up a good answer (maybe this is something quite specific to these fields). One of the reasons we tightened the requirements for asking here recently. – Steven Jeuris Apr 16 '18 at 9:36
2

Are Psychology and Health just different names of the same thing?

No. We are a site merger and have a long history of trying to find a proper niche. It began with a merger of Cognitive Sciences with Psychology and Psychology & Psychiatry. Cognitive Sciences was basically kept to emphasize the science aspect. Now we broadened our scope and explicitly included Neurobiology, itself a subject of years of debate whether it should be included here. We have embraced it, and changed the tag's name recently into a more appropriate Neuroscience, something I really appreciate and see as a giant leap forward to a more professional name for basically the same thing. Our site's name now is Psychology & Neuroscience. My personal preferences have swept here and there, but after all, I'm really content with this.

Psychology is science, but also harbors non-science material like Freud, with a long-standing history of impact on the field. Neuroscience is clear - this adds a more fundamental, hard science part to the site. In all, I love it. The broadening and dualistic approach was necessary, because of low site traffic indeed, as you mention.

I'm not very active at Health, but Health is anything but Psych&Neurosci. After years of hard work we have a definite scope and we are coping. I had to wake up people with that dreaded post, but it's for the greater good. We need a new mod, another person that sifts through the posts and heavily votes (up and down) to keep this site afloat. And we need to stay awake and vigilant to filter the bad stuff and nurture the good posts. Health is a site on health, we are a site on Psych&Neurosci. They are different, very different. Psychiatry and mental illness will definitely be the point of overlap, as well as head trauma, brain health etc etc. But I see more differences (Neuroscience, Psychology) than I see common themes.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .