4

Please write a short sexy site description for the info section of the cogsci.SE Facebook page.

The text should:

  • address our target audience of "researchers, academics, students ... in the "cognitive sciences": i.e., cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry" (from the site description)
  • not be longer than short

You can look at some other pages to find inspiration: https://www.facebook.com/pages/

Edit, if I forgot something.

Related: Let's create a Facebook page for cogsci.SE

1

As can be seen in my answer here, I chose the following description:

A question and answer site for researchers, students, and enthusiasts in cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry.

1

A question and answer site for researchers, students, and enthusiasts of the cognitive sciences, including neuroscience, neurobiology, psychology, psychiatry, and human–computer interaction. Like all sites in the Stack Exchange network, we offer expert answers to questions at all levels, and reward contributors with progressively unlocking moderation privileges.

This builds on @what's version, which is quite a nice alternative; consider mine the longer option for now. I'm not sure how much of this is worth adding, but here's an itemization of the differences:

  • Hmm hmm. +1 but I'm not sure about the moderation privileges. I'd hook people with their interest in the site topics and the expert answers, but not go into the functionality of the site. They will see it, as soon as they arrive here, and trying to understand and think about "moderation privileges" might be off-putting. It would keep me away, I think. – user3116 Mar 14 '14 at 8:24
  • Fair point. I was thinking more of reminding people who'd already been here that there's an incentive for them returning and staying active...but I could see it being a little overwhelming and off-putting for newcomers. – Nick Stauner Mar 14 '14 at 8:28
  • Is "enthusiast in" wrong? I adapted my text from the actual site description: cogsci.stackexchange.com/tour but must have made a mistake. – user3116 Mar 14 '14 at 8:39
  • I wouldn't say it's wrong, but I'm honestly not sure. I'd bet either alternative is acceptable. – Nick Stauner Mar 14 '14 at 8:46

You must log in to answer this question.