7

Many users are keen to change the welcome message from the current version

This is a collaboratively edited question and answer site for practitioners and research professionals of the cognitive sciences.

In that previous meta discussion, reasons were outlined for the change.

However, there was still some disagreement about the exact wording that should be used.

Thus the question, What welcome message should we have?

Suggest new welcome messages as answers, starting with the welcome message itself, followed by any pros and cons or other discussion.

Please vote up your favorite welcome message! According to the team, we need more consensus on this in order to make this change, so that means more votes!

4

I still think this is really long - but it turns out that it is possible to change the welcome message by itself:

New welcome message

...so, that's been done. If you think the description should also be changed everywhere else (the /about page, stackexchange.com, etc.), that can still be done also, but since the primary concern here was for the welcome message I'm marking this .

  • 2
    Awesome. Thanks so much for that. I think it would be great if the "about page" and "stackexchange.com" listing could also be updated to be consistent with the welcome message. – Jeromy Anglim Aug 23 '12 at 0:56
  • Thanks Shog9! I believe it's only logical to change the description everywhere, but let's see what the community thinks – Josh Aug 23 '12 at 14:08
8

This is a collaboratively edited question and answer site for practitioners, researchers, and students in cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry.

I think we should explicitly include students, shorten the confusing 'research professionals' to 'researchers', and list the fields.

  • 3
    +1 I really like all these changes. (1) I like "researchers" rather than "research professionals"; it's more concise. (2) I like the idea of including "students". I know there is the argument "target the experts and the novices will come". However, in reality, our novice questions appear mainly to be coming from the general internet community and not from students; I actually think that it would be great to have more student-level questions. – Jeromy Anglim Jul 8 '12 at 3:46
2

This is a collaboratively edited question and answer site for practitioners and research professionals in cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry.

Itemise the four disciplines and mention practitioners and research professionals

  • I like this one too as long as shog9 doesn't think that it's too long. – Jeromy Anglim May 4 '12 at 5:42
  • 2
    Those that are initially concerned about what we offer will likely take the time to read the message, so I like that this includes everything. – Chuck Sherrington May 4 '12 at 7:03
  • Also, given that others seemed to value the retention of the word "practitioners", I like this one. – Jeromy Anglim May 4 '12 at 7:14
  • what does the term 'practitioners' mean? And why 'research professionals' instead of 'researchers'? – Artem Kaznatcheev May 15 '12 at 22:59
  • 2
    Could we nix "research processionals" for "researchers"? A better term than practitioners would be ideal as well but I'm drawing a blank – Ben Brocka May 16 '12 at 19:19
  • 1
    It might also be better to mention 'students' explicitly. – Artem Kaznatcheev Jul 8 '12 at 1:54
  • 1
    actually, to avoid editing and vote confusion, I simply suggested a new answer based on the comments. – Artem Kaznatcheev Jul 8 '12 at 1:58
0

We're going to punt this discussion to a later date. Currently, we don't feel like there's enough participation on this question to warrant action on our part.

I realize this is a bit of a chicken-egg problem: you want more participation from the right audiences, but the site title/welcome message are potentially off-putting for a new user. I understand this, and sympathize, but this specific meta post just doesn't have enough support either way for us to take any action.

However, feel free to bring this up again in a couple of months. In the mean time, focus on cultivating and deepening the engagement of the users here currently. :D

  • 1
    I understand. Thanks for letting us know.I think we do have consensus on the idea of itemising the disciplines "cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry" instead of using the term "cognitive sciences" in the welcome message. It's the details of phrasing which is still being discussed. Personally, I don't mind which initial phrasing we use. I think the important thing is that we use terms (like psychology, neuroscience, etc.) that the target audience recognises. – Jeromy Anglim May 22 '12 at 23:35
  • 2
    I'm starting a strong push for more consensus now Aarthi... Let's see how that goes. – Josh Aug 21 '12 at 23:50
  • 1
    @JoshGitlin Excellent idea. The narrow scope that our name elicits (meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/390/…) could be improved by several simple steps. The change to the welcome message would be a great start. I think artem's welcome message would be a great change in clarifying to new users what this site is about: meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/394/52 – Jeromy Anglim Aug 22 '12 at 1:10
  • I agree completely. Our members are anxious to have the site renamed, which I think means we need the welcome message changed first. If the team doesn't approve of something as small as a welcome message change, we have little hope of a site rename. – Josh Aug 22 '12 at 1:54
-1

This is a collaboratively edited question and answer site for researchers in cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry.

Itemise the four disciplines and just mention researchers.

  • I like this one because it's short, but I think the longer one "practitioners and research professionals" is fine too. – Jeromy Anglim May 4 '12 at 5:42
-5

This is a collaboratively edited question and answer site for practitioners and research professionals of the cognitive sciences.

Keep it the same as before.

  • 1
    I don't like this one because I believe people new to the site who are in non-cognitive psychology, neurosciences, etc. will not identify themselves with the description. – Jeromy Anglim May 4 '12 at 5:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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