Use this category to discuss anything and everything related to Active Focus.
Why was it considered necessary to create two new categories?
@NottNott Same question as Hannie …? I do not remember this point beeing discussed among the staff team, but maybe I missed something?
I have some doubts about the benefits of creating more categories. If I remember well, the idea was to keep it as simple as possible for the members and for the staff team. In fact, new categories can mean more staff work to check the threads are open in the right section, or to relocate them if necessary, to keep some order.
The active focus threads were posted in the Questions & Answer or in the General section, some in the How to’s. Are you going to relocate all the previous active focus topics in here? Probably not, as this would be a huge work. But then, won’t that be confusing for the newbies or complicate their search?
I’m a bit more open about the science section but still, I think we should really limit the number of categories and keep it very simple.
Just some thoughts, of course
I have the same reservations about the science category. The science might be part of a topic that might be more suitably housed under general or something that already has several threads in the general category and would be more suitably posted there. .
Made the two categories without discussion, in thinking they would be a good idea.
The problem is that the general category has become a catch-all for everything, especially now that there are so many science threads and discussions being created. There are a lot of science threads, most of which are irrelevant to practical vision improvement and should be cordoned off to some extent, at least in my opinion. It’s kind of at the point where half of the general category is scientific discussion.
Maybe the Active Focus category is not necessary, but given there’s an Astigmatism and Cylinder category too I’d imagine why not. AF is very important to the process, many of the threads share similar themes and it can help people coming aloing to read threads specifically on this subject. I think it’s a net positive. Getting rid of the AF category for the sake of simplicity would mean in my mind also getting rid of the Astigmatism category. We shouldn’t start a big category reorganisation as that’s not a good use of time, but we shouldn’t be afraid to make new categories in the future for which there’s a purpose because of a discrepancy in categorisation of old and new threads.
I can’t think of any other categories that need to be added aside from these two
Isn’t that exactly what general implies? There seems to be some anti-science bias leaking out here. Down with STEM? I hope not…
No anti-science bias, just a pro-practical approach to vision improvement, and to try and keep overcomplications out of the way if unnecessary. We should do away with categories entirely under that logic.
Thanks for your reply and explanations
As I said above, a science section could be interesting, to facilitate the search of scientific articles and sources. Still, Hannie’s point is valuable.
About the active focus category, I maintain my position. Yes, AF is an essential subject of the Endmyopia journey. But very often, the topics contain mixed questions (AF and other subject like low myopia, choosing normalized/differentials, double vision, etc). In this context the Questions & Answers category seems to match enough IMHO. And if we follow your logic, there are a lot of other important subject that would require their own category: low myopia, last diopter, normalized, differentials, equalizing, etc. It’s endless.
I’m not afraid to test new things, modify the forum in a useful way, if that’s not creating more work or confusion. But because we all have different points of view, it could be interesting to first share your good ideas with the staff team so that we can discuss the pros and contras
For sure. I think the Science category is by far the more essential of the two new categories. I’m really not too for, or against an Active Focus category, as per your reasoning. Whatever the other mods can chip in with can help figure things out a bit :memethinking:
Scientific research being overcomplications? That’s a bit steep for a method that claims to be based on science.
A lot of people get on perfectly fine not reading any studies, and just with practical information on how to fix their eyesight. For them, pages of scientific discussion is positively extraneous. Also, the creation of a new category =/= remove scientific discussion.
There is no captive audience on a forum. People can just ignore these posts. We could also start any such posts/discussions with a trigger warning.
With the addition of a neon pink square of ‘
do not read’ ‘Science’ next to all of those posts, that becomes easier than ever.
If you really want answers, better to open a message in the moderators inbox. Not all mods have the time or desire to read all new subjects. So not much chance they’ll see this post…
Is that your idea of an adequate trigger warning?
Seriously, I do not think it such a good idea to separate the science from practice. If I want to counter what I see as a misconception about ‘perpetual’ ciliary spasm, I would like to support my position with some science. Ditto for making a distinction between clinical blur adaptation and the EM use of the term ‘blur adaptation’.
Nobody is taking away your hard-fought after references to clinical studies in opposition to misconceptions about “‘perpetual’ ciliary spasm”. I couldn’t think of a higher travesty.
But, 99% of people are not eyesight nerds. They just want results.