2010 - A New Year to Improve

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

We are coming to a new year. It seems it would be good to ask our existing HDF readers where we can improve. Many of us post frequently; understanding what is valued and what is not is reasonable to consider.

That is,

In terms of topics offered i.e. subject matter, what more would an HDF reader be interested in ?
What posts are valuable and what is not ?
How to improve overall, etc. with individual posts? approach? We asked this question in 2007; a condensed results list is shown below , along with the original HDF post addresses that queried for input.

From March 2007, these points were considered important:

Reading (something) does not insure comprehension. Explain your POV.
Cut 'n paste is high on the list of 'unattractive' posts. There is little value to a cut 'n paste from another site that does not add definition, conclusions and points of reason one is to be considering.
Quality is king - Many see HDF other then a message board. Some great ideas and insights are available to you. So you may consider how one adds value to the conversation, a POV, etc.
Please Define your terms - if Sanskrit is offered, or Latin, or other language, provide the English rendition, and maybe root words of its origin, this is for learning purposes.
Respect, humble, & openness to others and their ideas... a 'no spanking policy'. Recognize good work. We will do this via compliments, and applause. The intent:- catch people doing something right and acknowledge their good work. Make corrections to thinking, but not at the expense of ones good nature or mental health.The posts below outline the initial thinking if there is interest to see the audit trail.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1142 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1142)
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...48&postcount=1 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=9648&postcount=1)

Please add your comments as you see fit.

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté


Idea 1
I thought to offer the 1st suggestion. I have found the long posts with multiple subjects are just too difficult to follow. If one could consider breaking up the posts into groups of ideas that would help with comprehension.
That is, sometimes it feels like I am drinking out of a fire hose with the amount of information offered at one time.

What would I do differently? If I had a long post, take an idea or 2, for post 1. Then add additional ideas for posts 2,3, etc. This allows the reader to comment and comprehend the subject matter in series.
Inform the reader that there will be multiple post to follow...

For me, this would be beneficial - I then can follow the conversation a bit better, comment where it adds value, and when I go back to re-read a post, I can quickly scan the post in question for ideas and/or comments I wish to make.

Idea 2 ( which is no new idea :) )
Define your terms. We must note not all of our esteemed HDF members read saṃskṛt ( or Hindi, or Tamil, or ...). If you use a word, give its definition. This allows us to comprehend and to learn.


praṇām

[kshama]

Namaskar Yajvan Ji and all,

Though relatively I am a new member compared to many of you here, I'd like to channel few things that could be taken into consideration.

1) Decorum. Always maintain decorum of the forum. Whether Hinduism endorses universality or not, a good trait in Hinduism is to tolerate. No name calling amongst ourselves, as these varnas we are in, are not solely decided by birth. All things are impermanent in this world. Respect people, especially new converts to Hinduism and people of other faiths.

2) Partiality. There are many nasty things overlooked without an admin note. This is not healthy. In praise or censure everyone should be treated the same. I see a trait, where, some senior members do not even respond when there's blatant breach of decorum, Though it's your wish to respond or not, but one must remember, without anyone highlighting the mistakes, no one would learn.

3) More participation. We ourselves are our guru, though not literally. So much of things happening in life makes us wiser, by the progress of age, we have learnt to discern well, by our travels we came to know few more things, by reading and observing we become more knowledgeable. So, whenever you see a post or a thread that you can respond to, do post your replies. There are some threads and post in threads ( I looked in the archives) that are so good and thought-provoking. It's sad it's left uncommented.

Namaste.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté



Namaskar Yajvan Ji and all,

Though relatively I am a new member compared to many of you here, I'd like to channel few things that could be taken into consideration.


Good input - I hope others share their ideas.

praṇām

[devotee]

Namaste Yajvan ji,

My suggestion is only one which somewhat echoes first issue indicated by Kshama in the earlier post :

Let's respect even the contradictory views without becoming personal. In some of the threads, I felt that some members felt happy by cornering one/two member(s). Attacks after attacks ... attacks after attacks ... (Fight in the name of Allah ?) ...... !! Most of the times, Satay does an excellent job by putting a full stop to these senseless attacks abruptly ! :)

I don't know ... it may sometimes give a sense of "victory" to some ... but it is not worth the time we invest here.

I agree that we are all humans & are prone to err. However, we can always make efforts to develop healthier traits ... there is no harm in that.

That said, it is time, I ask all my friends here on this forum to forgive me if they have any time felt hurt by any of my posts. Though I am careful but again I still am human. :)

Quality-wise, I find, it is, perhaps, the best forum on Hindu Dharma on the internet.

OM

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté devotee,



I agree that we are all humans & are prone to err. However, we can always make efforts to develop healthier traits ... there is no harm in that.


Well said.

So, for feedback we have content suggestions and conduct suggestions.

Content - how the material and subject matter is presented and offered.
Conduct - how we view and respond to others.

I have another idea. As we have new members join HDF, I would have them consider a 'suggested reading list' of say 10 posts. These 10 (+/-) would be selected to offer a ~sample~ of ideas that are found here at HDF.

The 10 or so posts would give the reader a flavor on what is discussed, how it is presented, the content offer, etc. - A simple introduction.

Once the 10 are read, then the person can begin to post. Consider it an 'orientation', a 'get acquainted' period.
What should it offer:

Samples of a good post - well written, easy to read, etc.
Posts that start with a salutation, a hello to others to set the stage of friendly approach ( or professional approach).
Posts that generate ideas and additional comments/reply's.
etc.The intent is simple - the posts would represent a sample of what is considered valuable here on HDF.

And perhaps the orientation would assist them with how to search for subjects, how to quote from another post, etc. A functional use of the tools. This I would think would be something satya could create? I do not know.

praṇām

[saidevo]

namaste Yajvan and others.

HDF has as of this moment, over 33,700 posts. Searching them precisely is a problem since the search result throws up a considerably large list which is difficult and time-consuming to wade through.

• I understand that there can't be a perfect, overall index that can match every need. We already have an Archive arranged in the hierarchy form->subforum->threads->posts. In addition, perhaps we can have an Archive list on the model of the Advaita Forum at http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ with the facility to browse along the lines of thread, subject, author and date and possibly a download option. They don't have a search feature in this archive, which if possible, we might have.

• Another feature we can finetune is perhaps the 'Reputation Points', which currently indicates the popularity index of a member by virtue of the overall contents of his/her posts. This index is in no way indicative of the scholarship of a member. I feel a member should have a scholarship index that could indicate the extent of expression of his/her knowledge and scholarship. We might perhaps have a discussion about the way to design this index.

• Some forums have a list of 'best posts'. What do our members think about having such a list that can serve as a valuable reference?

• Since we discuss so much of our scriptures with quotes, I would desire the quotes to be presented in Unicode Sanskrit as well as transliteration as much as possible, so the posters and members can have an idea of the original text looks like and learn some Sanskrit thereby.

• Possibly we might have a Sanskrit-learning forum--not formal learning but one by interaction about key words, phrases, conversational and writing tips and so on.

[satay]

Namaskar,

Thanks Yajan for starting this excellent topic.

I am wondering if anyone here is bothered by the google ads on HDF?

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté saidevo,
some excellent ideas... I hope satay reviews your post and tells us what is possible what is not . Here are the things I found intriguing from your list:

a better search approach, perhaps from a meta-file?
a 'best of HDF posts' - I have a few ideas on how this can occur, but will wait for others to voice their POV.
Reputation points... yes I see your POV here and it makes sense. I recall the request to turn it off completely ( for those that cared to) with no remnants remaining. I think satay informed us that it would not be possible; but that said ...
scholarship points is interesting. May I offer a slightly different view? Maybe called vada वद - speaking well.
This infers insight, knowledge, etc. and IMHO would be a bit more inclusive for those with innate wisdom, but perhaps not one with a scholarship orientation? Just a thought.
A saṃskṛt learning forum - I think this would be rewarding ( at least for me); I think just a basic approach for the proper sound for each vowel and consonant would be valuable as a start. We have some of sarabhanga's work, and can stand on that if we wish, then take it further.Other ideas I would like your/others comment and view on is the following:

A mentor program - for those that wish extra guidance on some of the subject matter offered on HDF.
A guest speaker invitation from other sites that some of us would go and pursue - to bring to HDF for a special topic to discuss. There would be no obligation for this person to remain a HDF member; the intent is new views by invitation. Offer a subject or the invitees area of expertise to comment on, then HDF members can comment ( under good behavior methods :) as one would invite a guest over to your home)I have a few more, but let me stop here... I think the two above require a healthy critique. A key concen is not the initial investment of time, but one of maintenence. How the programs stay fresh and valuable for HDF to 'consume' with interest.


praṇām


words
vada वद - speaking well vs. vāda meaning dispute , contest , quarrel argument discussion in controversy or contest

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


Namasté







from saidevo's list

a better search approach, perhaps from a meta-file?
a 'best of HDF posts' - I have a few ideas on how this can occur, but will wait for others to voice their POV.
Reputation points... yes I see your POV here and it makes sense. I recall the request to turn it off completely ( for those that cared to) with no remnants remaining. I think satay informed us that it would not be possible; but that said ...
scholarship points is interesting. May I offer a slightly different view? Maybe called vada वद - speaking well.
This infers insight, knowledge, etc. and IMHO would be a bit more inclusive for those with innate wisdom, but perhaps not one with a scholarship orientation? Just a thought.
A saṃskṛt learning forum - I think this would be rewarding ( at least for me); I think just a basic approach for the proper sound for each vowel and consonant would be valuable as a start. We have some of sarabhanga's work, and can stand on that if we wish, then take it further.Other ideas I would like your/others comment and view on is the following:

A mentor program - for those that wish extra guidance on some of the subject matter offered on HDF.
A guest speaker invitation from other sites that some of us would go and pursue - to bring to HDF for a special topic to discuss. There would be no obligation for this person to remain a HDF member; the intent is new views by invitation. Offer a subject or the invitees area of expertise to comment on, then HDF members can comment ( under good behavior methods :) as one would invite a guest over to your home)I have a few more, but let me stop here... I think the two above require a healthy critique. A key concen is not the initial investment of time, but one of maintenence. How the programs stay fresh and valuable for HDF to 'consume' with interest.


More info, ideas and opinions are encouraged.


praṇām

words
vada वद - speaking well vs. vāda meaning dispute , contest , quarrel argument discussion in controversy or contest

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

I was thinking of another idea... that of siddhānta vāk ( the final word).
I see many conversations/debates go on-and-on. It becomes more of a contest of will, then the unfoldment of truth or insight ( IMHO).

Often it is a debate of personal opinion which is good and healthy... yet it seems sometimes that debate is more about winning the argument then discovering the truth behind the words.

So , how would siddhānta vāk work or be applied? Here's an idea for your kind consideration.

After due course of commentary and/or argumentative debate ( called jalpa = dispute, also called vāda meaning dispute ) the moderator (satay, or a properly appointed member) would call for siddhānta vāk to occur.
The final words would be between the opposing views ( Person A and Person B). They would be required to:
State the other persons position ( as they see it) and their issue or refute.
The refute can be by logic, personal view point, and/or the offering of a śāstric verse that supports one's views or position.
This śāstric verse can only be offered with the person's understanding/translation of it and how it applies.
The śāstric verse cannot be self-standing , it requires interpretation as it is applied to the discussion at hand.
This avoids mindless cut 'n paste with little value.
The other person then responds in kind
Both parties get final words on their or the other's position to bring closure to the conversation.
The conversation is then considered closed between those to in question. IF a 3rd party wishes to enter this process, he/she will wait till the closure occurs, then interject their concern, POV, issue. This approach ( as I see it) allows for closure of some issues that after some time get sour and can just be a point of grief for those concerned. Perhaps this approach or some form of siddhānta vāk may be useful for the forum.

I am open to all critiques of this idea....

praṇām

[devotee]

That is an excellent idea, Yajvan ji ! This will make this place a better place to have Satsanga !! :)


OM

[sringeri]

Namaste,

Thank you for bringing this up.From my side I have been having few predicaments.

1.To have access to subjects of my interest.Let me elaborate : In yoga, there are so many branches that to go into areas like specific asana / pranayama techniques I wade thro' the available information in our site before zeroing in on what I want.Is it possible to match our query with what is in the forum ?
2.I come to this forum time and again to learn, gain understanding.And would definitely like a mentor as suggested by our member.Some of the topics are going well over me.ex:astrology
3.For best posts :what will it based on content , relevance,simplicity,...

Pranams

Sringeri

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste, Vanakkam all:

I thank everyone for their ideas. Yajvan, your idea on how to close a discussion is excellent, but I'm not sure if combatitive egos would agree to following it. I recall humorously (now) when I sat on a committee where two people had had the legal training of the last word is the most powerful. That was fun.

Personally, if I had a wish list for HDF, it would be something like this.

1) wider range of topics beyond scripture ... daily sadhanas, Hindu ethics, more on pilgrimage sites, temples, sharing of information on this, in other words more practicality, music, dance, clothing, hints for destinations
2) continuing non-combat tone
3) more personal opinions and less scriptural quoting
4) more topics on the lighter side, funny anecdotes etc.
5) instead of questioning or complaining, suggesting topics, and posting.. I notice we have a lot more readers than posters
6) some kind of better index to find where its all been done before
7) in some cases a greater wisdom portal to get away from the narrow views that sometimes pop up now and again
8) more people welcoming newcomers.... if you look at the membership list, you see so many "One post, no response, and I'm gone.' Why is this?

Aum Namasivaya

[satay]

namaskar and pranam yajvan,
I like this idea. Though I think it will hard to implement, we can try it on a discussion. Let's pick a topic and apply it and see how it works out.



hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

I was thinking of another idea... that of siddhānta vāk ( the final word).
I see many conversations/debates go on-and-on. It becomes more of a contest of will, then the unfoldment of truth or insight ( IMHO).

Often it is a debate of personal opinion which is good and healthy... yet it seems sometimes that debate is more about winning the argument then discovering the truth behind the words.

So , how would siddhānta vāk work or be applied? Here's an idea for your kind consideration.

After due course of commentary and/or argumentative debate ( called jalpa = dispute, also called vāda meaning dispute ) the moderator (satay, or a properly appointed member) would call for siddhānta vāk to occur.
The final words would be between the opposing views ( Person A and Person B). They would be required to:
State the other persons position ( as they see it) and their issue or refute.
The refute can be by logic, personal view point, and/or the offering of a śāstric verse that supports one's views or position.
This śāstric verse can only be offered with the person's understanding/translation of it and how it applies.
The śāstric verse cannot be self-standing , it requires interpretation as it is applied to the discussion at hand.
This avoids mindless cut 'n paste with little value.
The other person then responds in kind
Both parties get final words on their or the other's position to bring closure to the conversation.
The conversation is then considered closed between those to in question. IF a 3rd party wishes to enter this process, he/she will wait till the closure occurs, then interject their concern, POV, issue. This approach ( as I see it) allows for closure of some issues that after some time get sour and can just be a point of grief for those concerned. Perhaps this approach or some form of siddhānta vāk may be useful for the forum.

I am open to all critiques of this idea....

praṇām

[satay]

namaskar,

A lot of you want a better search utility so that relevant posts can be found faster and easily. This is a limitation of the software.

I know that there is a new version of this forum software that just came out. I will find out the new features and see if the search utility in the new version is improved.

[kshama]

Namaste, Vanakkam all:

1) wider range of topics beyond scripture ... daily sadhanas, Hindu ethics, more on pilgrimage sites, temples, sharing of information on this, in other words more practicality, music, dance, clothing, hints for destinations
2) continuing non-combat tone
3) more personal opinions and less scriptural quoting
4) more topics on the lighter side, funny anecdotes etc.
5) instead of questioning or complaining, suggesting topics, and posting.. I notice we have a lot more readers than posters
6) some kind of better index to find where its all been done before
7) in some cases a greater wisdom portal to get away from the narrow views that sometimes pop up now and again
8) more people welcoming newcomers.... if you look at the membership list, you see so many "One post, no response, and I'm gone.' Why is this?

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste All Members and Vanakkam Eastern Mind Ji,

The above suggestions by Eastern Mind Ji will appeal to the masses, especially to the new-converts and people who are born-Hindu but lost their tradition due to various circumstances.

I am not sure whether the suggestion number 2 will be easy, but it can be if we all treat people with respects.

About point number 8, I think because they cannot fit in, sometimes I find some segments of HDF too scholarly and can be understood only by people who studied and dwelled deep into the scriptures etc.

About funny anecdotes, I recall in Audarya Fellowship, some jokes were targetted to certain people, sometimes sexist etc, so if it can be done without any of these, it will be good.

Namaste.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté EM,



your idea on how to close a discussion is excellent, but I'm not sure if combative egos would agree to following it. I recall humorously (now) when I sat on a committee where two people had had the legal training of the last word is the most powerful. That was fun.

Personally, if I had a wish list for HDF, it would be something like this.

1) wider range of topics beyond scripture ... daily sadhanas, Hindu ethics, more on pilgrimage sites, temples, sharing of information on this, in other words more practicality, music, dance, clothing, hints for destinations
2) continuing non-combat tone
3) more personal opinions and less scriptural quoting
4) more topics on the lighter side, funny anecdotes etc.
5) instead of questioning or complaining, suggesting topics, and posting.. I notice we have a lot more readers than posters
6) some kind of better index to find where its all been done before
7) in some cases a greater wisdom portal to get away from the narrow views that sometimes pop up now and again
8) more people welcoming newcomers.... if you look at the membership list, you see so many "One post, no response, and I'm gone.' Why is this?
Aum Namasivaya

You have offered a reasonable list... If I may let me reflect on a few and see what you think.

regarding siddhānta vāk ( the final word) and closing out a conversation. Maybe a better name is siddhānta vicāra - final reflection. I would think satay would modify the 'rules of the road for HDF' . It would say that this siddhānta vāk is the normal course of business here, and ask the new member ( and existing ones) for their agreement/assertion/commitment that they will comply with this guideline. One can bow out of a 'final word' conversation, yet it seems once one gets a head-of-steam going they are ready to state their case and look for closure ( as I see it). My notion here is more of venue for the contesting parties to vent in a mature way that also brings closure.
Regarding personal opinions vs. scriptural quoting. From my point of view, I like both. What I find, there is a tendency to offer a scriptural quote without one's opinion or insight on what the hymn or śloka says, implies, and/or how it applies to the conversation at hand. Because we (I) look to the wise for guidance, me thinks scriptural quoting with opinions are a good mix. I then can say ' here's how I view this hymn' and others can comment on my views. ( just my approach I guess).
Greater wisdom portal - is a good idea. I would hope a HDF member would enter with an open mind, yes? No bashing.
Better index seems to be a common theme on searches.
Non-combat zone - I cannot say enough about this. For me, it makes me exit the conversation when a battle ( not just a difference of opinion) issues. I think it does little good. Others may think it's part of the forum. I think saidevo offered the wisdom, We are looking for unity and uniformity. It is okay to have differences, but to the point of name-calling and a condescending approach I believe is beneath the dignity of this forum.
Regarding new members leaving - I think that is okay. Maybe this 'flavor' does not suit them. I'd prefer them to stay, but if there is little value, maybe another site will fit their needs. Yet you are correct, a warmer welcome is always a good policy.
More readers then posters. I have had some write me directly ( which is fine and warmly welcomed) , as some did not want to post an idea - they thought it would cause consternation with other members. I applaud their discretion. Yet it is okay to post and test ideas, and see how they go... but this DOES tell you something about a new HDF member seeing a combative tone, and wishing not to join-in or be the author of a ruckus.
Wider range of topics beyond scripture. I think some of this is there, but not in mass amounts. I see many differernt topics of this nature, but again not a daily diet. That said, for myself, my heart-and-mind are in the śāstra-s, etymology , sādhana and various techniques, ayurved, jyotish, etc. If I write outside of these my interest wanes quickly. That does not mean I will not read the posts or participate in them.thank you for taking the time to offer your valuable ideas.

praṇām

[Eastern Mind]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté EM,




You have offered a reasonable list... If I may let me reflect on a few and see what you think.
regarding siddhānta vāk ( the final word) and closing out a conversation. Maybe a better name is siddhānta vicāra - final reflection. I would think satay would modify the 'rules of the road for HDF' . It would say that this siddhānta vāk is the normal course of business here, and ask the new member ( and existing ones) for their agreement/assertion/commitment that they will comply with this guideline. One can bow out of a 'final word' conversation, yet it seems once one gets a head-of-steam going they are ready to state their case and look for closure ( as I see it). My notion here is more of venue for the contesting parties to vent in a mature way that also brings closure.
Regarding personal opinions vs. scriptural quoting. From my point of view, I like both. What I find, there is a tendency to offer a scriptural quote without one's opinion or insight on what the hymn or śloka says, implies, and/or how it applies to the conversation at hand. Because we (I) look to the wise for guidance, me thinks scriptural quoting with opinions are a good mix. I then can say ' here's how I view this hymn' and others can comment on my views. ( just my approach I guess).
Greater wisdom portal - is a good idea. I would hope a HDF member would enter with an open mind, yes? No bashing.
Better index seems to be a common theme on searches.

I think you are excellent at also providing your point of view, and I agree wholeheartedly. For me, I usually am just able to provide my point of view, as I am not really into scripture. I hope that is also okay. Perhaps I have a double standard here when I'm asking for a point of view from those that just quote scripture, when I am unable myself to quote scripture.

In regards to the wider portal, I have realised that it truly is Hindu religions, not Hindu religion, and am now using this phrasology to more accurately reflect how I actually see it.

Aum Namasivaya

[saidevo]

namaste Yajvan, Satay, EM and others.

I think Yajvan's 'siddhAnta vAk/vichAra' is an excellent idea, provided we don't lose sight of one of the cardinal principles of Hinduism so emphatically stated by KAnchi ParamAchArya: "The goal must be unity, not uniformity." Many of our scriptures are in the form of vivAdam--debate; Shankara resorted to it to establish the concept of Advaita backed by bhakti, so vivAdam is a powerful tool and a fruitful opportunity to learn, however hot it gets into, so long as personal opinions are avoided/edited by moderation.

That said, IMHO, a more suitable name for the resolution of a debate might be 'vivAda nirNayam'--'completing assessment/verdict of a debate'. I agree with the method of implementation suggested by Yajvan. In the end, where there is need, we might even have a voting session with a timeframe, fixing a minimum number for the total and required votes. But even with all these steps towards finality, the members who are for and against a subject should bear in mind that, as BhagavAn DAs says, 'the truth is not in the extreme, but somewhere in the middle.'

I also agree with EM's idea of practical hints to spirituality plus information on pilgrimage sites, temples and fine arts. I shall however need to have even more scriptural quotes and explanations because they are the final word against the finest and wisest of our personal opinions.

As for our having much more readers as against posters, I think it is the case with any forum. Some forums award a rating based on the number of posts: we might perhaps find a way to encourage more and more readers to post. I admire the realistic and accurate view counts displayed in the page "Search: Posts From Last Day": the count does not get incremented by the poster repeatedly viewing his/her post for review/editing, or even by the click of a reader not logged on. Satay, may we know under what circumstances does the view count is incremented?

Yes, more members should welcome newcomers, but if this could be done more specifically by directions to some essential threads on the basics, it would be fine. Perhaps this can be done by a thread having an index of threads for the newcomers in the forum "New to Sanatana Dharma", so the newcomers could be advised to have a glance of those threads to learn. Any new posts explaning the basics for a newcomer/beginner that qualify for such an index might be added on by the moderator.

[saidevo]

namaste Satay, Yajvan and others.

vidyA-saMkhyA--Scholarship Points

I have some ideas about implementing the vidyA-saMkhyA--Scholarship Points system. Let me share them here for further discussion.

As I said in post #7, every member should have this vidyA-saMkhyA besides his/her Reputation Points--kIrti-saMkhya, as a possible index of assessment of expression of ideas, innate wisdom, and knowledge of scriptures.

My own RP remaining persistently--even embarrassingly--among the highest, I often make a self-appraisal of what I really possess by way of knowledge, scholarship and wisdom to deserve such abundant grace of reputation points that I receive repeatedly from maybe twenty or less members who are happy with my posts.

I would like to share something from what I know of myself, which would throw some light on the necessity of our identifying and recognizing HDF's most learned and wise scholars such as Yajvan, Atanu, Ganesh Prasad, Sudarshan, Arjun, and many others among the senior members, and possibly many among the newcomers that I don't readily know of, who are reasonably well-read in the Hindu ShAstras, more Sanskrit-literate, wiser and practice dhyAna--meditation and the niyama--restraints in daily life.

When Sarabhanga was present here, he was generally acknowledged to the most learned (although the finality of his words were many a time questioned), and naturally commanded the highest score of Reputation Points which was in alignment with his scholarship and wisdom. In his absence, I find Yajvan to be gradually taking his place, displaying even larger wisdom and humility, and less emotion than SB. Atanu is one-pointed, with some really deep learning, personal insights and original thinking, although I find him to be easily upset at contradictory views. Ganesh Prasad is a scholar with wide and deep knowledge in Hindu scriptures although he only shares them occasionally with us. In the past, Sudarshan, Arjun and many others that I may not readily know, have done exceptionally well in sharing their knowledge and wisdom.

Among the later and more recently joined members, the names of Devotee, Eastern Mind, EkAnta, KD Gupta, smaranam, brahman, Harjas Kaur and Spiritual Seeker readily come to mind, as known from the scriptural and wisdom content of their posts. I am sure I have omitted many other names, and this is one reason I want an index of scholarship points!

Where do I stand in my own assessment against the larger-than-life image of scholarship and wisdom that my high RP creates here?

Well, I have stated time and again that my own svAdhyAya--study of scriptures, is nowhere upto the mark; I pursue my studies only intermittently. I am not much Sanskrit-literate either. Although Yajvan and some other members easily find me to 'speak with wisdom' in many posts, personally I know that most of my posts are by way of compilations, recasts and translations; that I am more of an ardent researcher (with some original/lateral thinking on what I find) than a scholar of the scriptures. But I do take sincere efforts to recast (not just cut and paste) the material I post, expand the quotes where necessary, make the piece more readable with its key points presented conspicuously, give the credit where it's due, and add my own impressions about the author's key points, wherever I can.

With this background, let us discuss what we need to have in an index of vidyA-saMkhya--scholarship points, and the ways to accord it:

Requirements to earn scholarship points

Below is a list of some requirements for a post for consideration of awarding scholarship points. I have also suggested sample unit scores to accord where specific requirements are satisfied in a post.

Members may add any others, to enable Satay and Yajvan and other people at the helm to arrive at a final decision.

Clarity of expression

• 10 pts. for clear indication of the author's POV
• 10 pts. for clarity in the structure of presentation
• 05 pts. for words and phrases used

Wisdom in expression

where the member adds value by showing innate wisdom which can be expressed in many ways:

• 10 pts. for personal experiences
• 10 pts. for a good analogy or illustration
• 10 pts. for efforts of reconciliation of conflicting views
• 05 pts. for any other

Use of Unicode Sanskrit Text

We need to appreciate use of Unicode Sanskrit Text, especially in the quotes from scriptures, for all the strenuous efforts it takes to do it, for the willingness to learn and use Sanskrit, and the original look of what is quoted.

• 10 pts. for using scriptural quotes with precise textual reference
• 05 pts. for using scriptural quotes with only vague textual reference
• 10 pts. for padArtha--word by word meaning of the quote
• 05 pts. for using transliteration of the quotes
• 05 pts. for using English translation of the quotes

• 20 pts. for dhAtu--root analysis of words and phrases
• 10 pts. for explanation of words and phrases outside the quotes

Brevity and Context

Quotes from the scriptures are easy to give from the Net sources, in these days of copy-paste culture; and more often than not, unnecessary text is given surrounding the quote in context. We need to recognize the context and censure the verbosity that carries no explanation.

• 10 pts. for precise and contextual scriptural quotes
• -05 pts. for long and unnessary quotes surrounding contextual reference without any explanation for their need.

Original/explanatory articles: on the books of/on scripture or specific scriptural texts

Sometimes, a member may post an article about the content of a scripture and the approach to it. Or a specific textual portion in the scripture such as a mahAvAkya might be taken up and explained in detail. We need to appreciate any narrations and explanations with the member's orignal thinking that adds value to the conventional knowledge.

• 05 pts. for synopsis/introduction of a book of scripture
• 10 pts. for recasts of texts and essays or portiions thereof, giving member's clear understanding of the subject.
• 10 pts. for exposition of verses and passages that add to conventional knowledge.
• 20 pts. for translation of publications in other languages.

Knowledge about other Indian religious texts and spiritual works

• 15 pts. for clearly-presented knowledge about other religious scripts
• 10 pts. for using quotes to effectively prove a point of view

Knowledge about other Abrahamic religious texts and spiritual works

• 10 pts. for clearly-presented knowledge about other religious scripts
• 10 pts. for using quotes to effectively prove a point of view

Ways to accord scholarship points

The Reputation Points system is subjective: the more the rep. points the more a member can accord to a post. Any member can accord rep. points. To accord them, a member clicks a button and then optionally enters a text in the text box that pops up.

As against this, the vidyA-saMkhyA--scholarship points needs system to be objective. Only members with a minimum required scholarship points can accord these points, but they can accord it to any post of any member, subject to the above requirements.

When an eligible member chooses to accord scholarship points to a specific post, a button is clicked, a new window pops up and a form is presented that contains the above requirements as check boxes where they are distinct (for selection of many boxes), and radio-buttons where they are related (so only one can be selected)

• Any member having the required minimum scholarship points or more can accord these points to a post from any other member.

• The member accords the points by using the check boxes and radio-buttons in the scholarship reputation form and submits it.

• The sample points given above are only unit scores. A suitable weight might be added to them based on the present scholarship points of a member who accords points to a post.

• Unlike the rep.points system where a member can accord points to the same member only after 'spreading the reputation' amongst five other members, the scholarship points system may permit a member to be accorded points by the same member for another post without the need to spread it.

• However, the same post attracting points for the same features from multiple members should be prevented. This means that once a specific feature in a post has been accorded points by a member, another member cannot accord points to the same post on the same feature, although a different feature may be considered.

If the present system of awarding points for multiple features in a post is felt to quickly boost and bloat the score, we might consider the alternative of giving points only to ONE DISTINCTIVE FEATURE PER POST (so all features will be radio-buttons) and ONCE A POST EARNS POINTS, IT CAN'T BE CONSIDERED AGAIN by another member for another feature felt distinct therein. It seems to me, this alternative could be a wiser approach.

• Top ten scholarship points holders might be given the privilege to accord extra points to a post on an ad hoc basis. After all, there is a difference between an ordinary member considering a post scholarly and a scholarly member considering it in the same way.

Where do we start?

It is NOT fair to give a clean slate to all members in the scholarship points system. The existing scholars should be recognized and weighed. The only way to do this is to cull out scholarly posts from their posts that have earned them reputation and accord points for the features described above. The scholarship points history relating to these posts might be saved in the database in the same way the rep.point texts are saved. The sum total of points accorded for the scholarly posts might be taken as the base scholarship point of a member.

The scholarship points must be prominently displayed below the Reputation points. The reputation remark such as 'you are guru, you are an avatar' might be removed and that place used for displaying the scholarship points.

Finally, a HDF Scholarship Index may also be described adjacent to the scholarship points. This could be the percentage-share of a members scholarship point out of the sum total of the points of all members.

Presented for active consideration and suitable early implementation!

**********

[kshama]

Namaskar Blessed Members,

I am a bit confused why there should be scholarship points or pointers? Though it might serve as an indicator of one's scholarship and knowledge, it indirectly can make one's ego grow. This applies to reputation points also.

What would one accomplish by a statement or seal of scholarship beside their profile? I find it not necessary at all. For this is not a precise way to grade people. In a school, students were given tests to see how they fare, and those who mark their papers are scholars to an extent, so the evaluation is just and acceptable. But is this scholarship rating system like that? Some people even do not know abt the topics that are being discussed, yet people vote based on their logic, this logic too might be right or wrong. How can these people evaluate the topic. Merely parroting back scriptures, quoting back scriptures in a forum does not necessarily make people full of wisdom, any Tom, Dick and Jerry can do that, with little modifications here and there, cut and paste from other available sources without even knowing what they are copying about. Say instances like these occur, are the reputation/scholarship pointers reliable and precise? Wisdom doesn't necessarily come from reading and analyzing scriptures, if God wishes, any non-educated man can become a jnani.

Another thing, people can be biased when making judgments. People might favour voting for people they are comfortable with or know well. I give you an example, there are some people who never fail to quote scriptures but they do not even have manners and proper decorum in a forum, yet they have good reputation points. See how one can vote based on partiality and biases? Say, these bad characters do quote it rightly, but are they fit to be labelled scholars? That too a religious scholar?

Say, a new-convert to Hinduism or a born Hindu who lost their traditions trying to grasp the essence of Hinduism, they will definitely read posts by these bad characters with good reputation points or scholarship points. I admit, there are many good people here with good reputation points, but what if these aspirants take the point of views of members with questionable decorum yet with good reputation points or scholarship points? These aspirants might arrive at a conclusion abt a certain topic based on false premises.

Now, my views is not to degrade any members here and members that really are scholars here. I am trying to give you some angles that should be looked. I am not in anyway a guru, a moral police or people of profound knowledge. There's a Tamil saying that says: Katrathu Kaimann aLavu, kallathathu ulaga aLavu (What you know is as big as the size of sand in your palm, what you do not know is as big as the size of the universe). So these reputation and scholarship points are imprecise and not even nearer to the truth.

This whole reputation system is not just, in my humble opinion, I am open to hear any views. I am sure, as per usual my views will be taken out of context, but do please read carefully and come to your conclusions. Namaste.

[Eastern Mind]

kshama: I totally agree with you. The term 'senior member' is enough for me. This indicates the person has made several posts. Another thing that you failed to point out is that this is just the internet. It is not life. One could be living a fairly adharmic life outside of this place, yet be seen here as wise. I try not to judge people at all, but there are lines. At the same time as trying not to judge, scriptures and wisdom tell us not to associate with low-lifes. In my real life, I avoid gamblers, drinkers, adulterers, cursers, etc., for they have a vibration that sort of rubs off. Scriptures tell us time and again to associate with high-minded pure people. (Dharma comes more into play with family members.) And yet any one of the above could be posting here.
Wisdom also comes in a realm of ways. You can be a sanskrit scholar with no wisdom. Christians can be versed in study of the Vedas, or ancient Tamil literature. Within the realms of the intellect, anything is possible. I know people who are illiterate who have more wisdom than most of us here by far.

I would like to see perhaps a 5 star wisdom rating, or nothing at all. if you come on long enough, you get to know who you can trust re wisdom.

Aum namasivaya

[satay]

Namaskar everyone,

Please note that the forum software only has a 'reputation' feature. There is no additional feature that can be used as 'schloarship' points. The reputation feature can be turned off but I recall there might be a problem with it.

You can turn off your reputation points by going to 'User CP' then to 'Edit Options' and then unchecking the 'Show My Reputation Level'.

Edit: yes, it seems like there is a problem with the 'turning off' of reputation. It doesn't seem to be working. Let me look into this more.

[kshama]

@ Eastern Mind Ji,
Vanakkam, thank you for your views. Thank you too, for reminding abt points that I have missed out. I agree completely with you.

@ Satay Ji,
Namaskar. Thank you for the info.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté,

First let me say I can see saidevo's POV - his intent ( as with the intent of this overall string ) is to make HDF a better place to visit and contribute. I see at the crux of the idea, that giving credit for expended effort, knowledge, pondering, applicible wisdom, sādhana, etc. is worthy of merit and is to be recognized.

Yet in a perfect world reputation points would include saidevo's vidyA-saMkhyA--Scholarship Points, and perhaps today, this is not the case.
It suggests the following: vidyA-saMkhyA + reputation points = a creditable contributor that others on HDF perhaps find value in their postings, or writings have merit ( again within the HDF confines).

Now that said, based upon saidevo's idea and its robust point system, the question remains if this could even be accomplished in the HDF-based software application... if not, then we are talking academically.

Hence satay's post above suggest we are into academic's.

I think rewarding ( via reputation points) a person's opinions have merit. Opinions are fine, yet become more robust ( IMHO) when they are anchored in the śāstra-s. Why so? Pure opinion is bound/influenced by the existing conditions (space, time, cultural values, etc) and this is fine. Yet the śāstra-s give us an anchor which is timeless. This Does Not suggest opinions are not valued - they are. I revel in the notion of opinions that have been shaped by truths that are timeless...


kshama offers the following:


Though it might serve as an indicator of one's scholarship and knowledge, it indirectly can make one's ego grow. This applies to reputation points also.

Yes, no doubt. As long as we are unrealized beings, the ego will be there. Ego ebbs and flows accordingly. Should we encourage 'ego' - I say no. With or without points, the ego survives.


Another thing, people can be biased when making judgments. People might favor voting for people they are comfortable with or know well. This whole reputation system is not just, in my humble opinion

People are biased because they ( as I ) am still influenced by their past impressions ( vāsanā-s). This will continue until these vāsanā-s are no more - when one is possessed of the Self. This will continue with or without a point system , in their writings and communications.

Last, and I think this is most important and relevant - no matter how many points you accrue via any point method, once you step away from your computer and key-board you are who you are. Those points go no where, do nothing. The points do not bring you any closer to the truth of Being.
Those points do not wash away any of the blemishes ( moha) of ignorance. Yet the knowledge here on HDF just might contribute to some insight some aaahh! that allows one to connect to a higher truth, a clearer vision of reality. That is the benefit or residing here.

If there is a 'swelling of the head' because someone has accrued a mass amount of rep points, where is the wisdom in that? Painted cakes do not satisfy hunger say the wise i.e. no amount of points can be turned in that will crush the ignorance of being attached to the body (ātmānātma vivekaḥ¹ Self and not-Self).


praṇām

words and references

ātmānātma vivekaḥ for more on this notion see HDF post http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4033 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4033)
vāsanā - the impression of anything remaining in the mind ; the present consciousness of past perceptions , knowledge derived from memory

[kshama]

@ Yajvan Ji,

I too can see Saidevo Ji's intent. He has valid points too. The problems with such ratings systems is that it will never show the real credibility of an individual.

Another problem that might occur, just because a person, say A, has good scholarship/reputation points, people will throng to see what A has to say in every thread. Nobody will care to see what B, C, D will have to say. This reputation system though useful will indirectly be will bloat A's ego. B, C, D though having wisdom, might get demotivated to opine anymore and leave the forum.

As you say, we are not realized, what if A has some kind of prejudices, some kind of biases and some kind of narrow-mindedness when stating his/her points. Laymen, aspirant, newcomers might take their words as if it is the truth.

I think the format that HDF has now is ok. Perhaps if one really needs a scholar's view, why not invite a real scholar (university proffesors, Swamis, Drs, etc,) to opine several topics. That will be more interesting.

Namaste.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté kshama,

@ Yajvan Ji,

Another problem that might occur, just because a person, say A, has good scholarship/reputation points, people will throng to see what A has to say in every thread. Nobody will care to see what B, C, D will have to say. This reputation system though useful will indirectly be will bloat A's ego. B, C, D though having wisdom, might get demotivated to opine anymore and leave the forum.

As you say, we are not realized, what if A has some kind of prejudices, some kind of biases and some kind of narrow-mindedness when stating his/her points. Laymen, aspirant, newcomers might take their words as if it is the truth.


You have stated how the world is, outside or inside of HDF, thank you. Skill comes in negotiating in these waters - skill in action , as given by the Bhāgavad gītā.
My point is simple - no matter in-or-out of HDF we have prejudices, likes and dislikes - this will not change with or without points appropriated. That is my POV. To opine over it is fruitless as I see it ( I am not saying you are doing this).

You have offered a reasonable and convincing POV and I respect your position. Yet as I see it 'fairness in toto' will not occur until our esteemed society, let alone HDF, is rooted in Truth. For this we have some work to do... in the interim we do the best we can.

praṇām

[devotee]

I think the format that HDF has now is ok.

Ditto ! :)

OM

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

satay writes,


I like this idea ( re: siddhānta vāk ). Though I think it will hard to implement, we can try it on a discussion. Let's pick a topic and apply it and see how it works out.

I propose that we puruse that of siddhānta vāk ( the final word). ( or siddhānta vicāra or 'vivAda nirNayam as saidevo offers) be applied to the next post that becomes highly contested.
We will go over the guidelines ( offered in post 11) and ask the parties to apply them. Lets see if it adds value.


satay also writes,


A lot of you want a better search utility so that relevant posts can be found faster and easily. This is a limitation of the software.

I know that there is a new version of this forum software that just came out. I will find out the new features and see if the search utility in the new version is improved.


thank you,

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

what then have we decided?
1. we pursue that of siddhānta vāk ( the final word). ( or siddhānta vicāra or 'vivAda nirNayam as saidevo offers) ?

2. Reputation points - they have been dis-engaged. For me it makes no difference either way. Yet is this the decision we wish to go with?

3. What of the mentoring program?

4. Better posts via:
a. Cut 'n paste rules apply
b. Define your terms
c. Avoid excessively long posts

5. Courtesy rules

I also suggest a welcome letter that goes to new HDF members stating expectations . I think this is done today? I think the introductory letter would outline:
a. Guidelines
b. What is expected in terms of HDF post quality
c. What is not expected
d. etc. etc.

6. Starting a 'best of HDF' folder - this would have copies or pointers to the best posts we think have occurred on HDF - this would be used as an example in the Guidelines intro letter ( point 5 above) as a good place to start reading i.e. orientation on quality.

That said, if we count the people that responded to this request ~ 7 people responded out of a potential 1,346 total members or 0.05%.
Being more realistic there are about 30 to 40 active members ( posting regularly) so the 7 people represent 20% of this total.

Doing nothing is also a vote suggesting what ever people decide I (we) are okay with it , until it craps our style , then we will take issue ans say ' nobody asked me'. There is even action in inaction!

So, we move forward, modify or change any of the recommendations?

praṇām

[smaranam]

Namaste Yajvanji

I liked all the ideas you had proposed. Siddhanta VAk, the mentoring program and interactive Sanskrt learning seem like great ideas.

I shall keep in mind that posts should stay short and define terms as much as possible. I do this along with the word sentence (in brackets) , and sometimes try to list terms in the end.

The format of your posts is a very good model.

PraNAm

[saidevo]

namaste Yajvan.

AUM to all the six points you have collected above. As for the Reputation Points, I don't mind Satay restoring its display and sanction, if he feels that it could be an incentive to the junior members and give them confidence about sharing their knowledge, and even if one member wants it restored. Since the vidyA saMkhya can't be implemented, I have no reservations now about the RP and its restoration.

I would like to add one more point: Members who have read well in the Hindu texts, may give a synopsis about each text they are familiar with, so this thread can serve as an introduction to Hindu texts and also introudce texts that are read rarely by the average Hindu, such as the Tantra works, minor upanishads, classical six darshanams and so on.

[satay]

namaste Yajvan,
Thank you for the post.

I like all of the points listed here. I can definitely improve the welcome letter that goes out to new members. Currently, it points them to a post you had written long back. I can add more content to the welcome letter based on the suggestion given on this thread.

I need to understand a bit more about point 1, 3 and 6.

What exactly is expected from adiminstration point of view?

For the "best Posts", a new thread can be created where members can post links to the posts that they think are 'best'. ? I can then create this thread into a sticky i.e. it will show up at the top of the forum? Or are you guys thinking of a 'new' forum and I will have to copy/move the 'best' posts? I think that would not be a good idea because the best posts should stay in the thread they originally belong to so moving them won't work as it will take them out of context if we move them to the 'best posts' folder/forum.

There are a lot of new members here now, who wants to become their mentor? Is this based on volunteer basis? Should we ask the new members if they need a mentor? Who among the senior members have time to do this activity?

Please advise.
Thanks,

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

what then have we decided?
1. we pursue that of siddhānta vāk ( the final word). ( or siddhānta vicāra or 'vivAda nirNayam as saidevo offers) ?

2. Reputation points - they have been dis-engaged. For me it makes no difference either way. Yet is this the decision we wish to go with?

3. What of the mentoring program?

4. Better posts via:
a. Cut 'n paste rules apply
b. Define your terms
c. Avoid excessively long posts

5. Courtesy rules

I also suggest a welcome letter that goes to new HDF members stating expectations . I think this is done today? I think the introductory letter would outline:
a. Guidelines
b. What is expected in terms of HDF post quality
c. What is not expected
d. etc. etc.

6. Starting a 'best of HDF' folder - this would have copies or pointers to the best posts we think have occurred on HDF - this would be used as an example in the Guidelines intro letter ( point 5 above) as a good place to start reading i.e. orientation on quality.

That said, if we count the people that responded to this request ~ 7 people responded out of a potential 1,346 total members or 0.05%.
Being more realistic there are about 30 to 40 active members ( posting regularly) so the 7 people represent 20% of this total.

Doing nothing is also a vote suggesting what ever people decide I (we) are okay with it , until it craps our style , then we will take issue ans say ' nobody asked me'. There is even action in inaction!

So, we move forward, modify or change any of the recommendations?

praṇām