Welcome to A Cosmology Group - Click Here First!

[RedshiftDrift]

This is the public ACG forum on Discussions, please bookmark the link https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions.

Discussions:

To post new messages and receive email notifications, you must:

• Create a personal GitHub account at https://github.com/, and
• "Watch" the acg repository https://github.com/a-cosmology-group/acg by clicking the top-right button Watch --> All Activity.

To customize your email subscription, click (top-right)Your Profile Picture --> ⚙️Settings --> (left column)🔔 Notifications and check or uncheck the appropriate boxes under Subscriptions and System. See also here.

Equations can be written directly on the forum, GitHub renders equations written in LaTeX (see Writing mathematical expressions). This is useful for e.g. the FLRW redshift-distance equation:

$$D_C(z) = \int_0^z \frac{{\rm d}z'}{\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z')^3 + \Omega_\Lambda}}$$

which appears as

$$D_C(z) = \int_0^z \frac{{\rm d}z'}{\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z')^3 + \Omega_\Lambda}}$$

For more details about the Markdown syntax, see Basic writing and formatting syntax.

Website:

The ACG website is deployed from the acg repository and visible at cosmology.info.

Members are encouraged to modify the website repository by following these instructions. This is where an author can drop a piece of work, people can comment and all reviews stay with the work.

MathJax3 automatically translates LaTeX equations into .html webpages. Webpages written in Markdown .md are encouraged, but .html and .pdf documents are also accepted.

[Francois-Zinserling]

If I clicked the "Watch --> All Activity" under repository, will I also get notification of all discussions, including new ones?

I did not click this before because 'Repository' seemed like a separate category, and something I might want to follow at a later stage. I think I might have misunderstood.
Have clicked now but nobody is commenting so I can't see if it works! 🤣

[ftessier]

Yes, Watch → All activity will send you an email for all new discussions and comments, at the email address associated with your github account.

If you get this message by email, then it works! The best way to read discussions and participate is via this web address: https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions, but you can also reply by email.

[Francois-Zinserling]

Replying by email … czech1,2 Note: I received the message below via email, but not your edited version. Point I’m trying to make, I think some people (like me) might have thought joining was all that was required, and “Watch → All activity” was optional for repository only. “Watch All” is crucial because this whole thing IS the repository. Not a Github user, so I didn’t know that! Doing the “Watch All” makes it very similar to the email group we had before, and I don’t think there’s a problem with the Github solution. Maybe it takes time for people to rejoin, but that would be the case with any new platform.

[ftessier]

Thank you for trying it out, and for the vote of confidence. It is very helpful to understand what the hurdle is, thank you for pointing out that the Watch setting seemed optional to you!

(Note that there is a link View it on github at the bottom of the email, to get to this discussion directly)

@marmetl, given this comment (and the preceding discussion), perhaps in the Fall one tack would be to ask members to send you their github handle (by email). You can then invite them as collaborators on the repo: they would then only need to "accept", in which case the Watch setting is automatically set to All activity.

[budrap00]

Hi Frederic,

One of the problems with the github to email system is that it does not include in the email thread comments made on the same thread by you (the person receiving the email) in git hub. For instance a couple of weeks ago I received an email update to an existing thread consisting of a remark by Louis that was clearly commenting on something someone had said but I could not find the context in the email. When I went to github the context was obvious - he was commenting on a comment I had made - a comment that was not in the email thread. It is not unusual in ACG for comment responses to have a lag time of several days, so this behavior is going to be a further source of confusion for new users.

In Gaggle Mail, your comments were added to the email thread by GM whether you made them in email or using the mail tool. This resulted in a double entry when replying via email - annoying perhaps but less confusing than no entry at all when using the github mail tool. Hopefully this is just a forwarding-rule setting that can be switched off/on. Thanks for all your work on this.

Bud

[ftessier]

Thank you for this report and explanation, your are right. My perspective was biased then, because my habit is to click on the "View it on github" link at the bottom of the email. I presumed, wrongly, that others would do the same...

[RedshiftDrift]

Paradigm Shifts are difficult because people resist change. The transition of ACG to GitHub is an easy paradigm shift that all ACG members should easily accept. The assumption here is that If you can't figure out GitHub, then you can't figure out the Cosmos.

As @Francois-Zinserling said, I don’t think there’s a problem with the Github solution.

One motivation for the transition to GitHub is to enable users to post webpages with a summary of their thoughts and their papers, and improve these pages through discussions. ACG members now have to upload their own articles themselves. @clmarchesan posted this webpage, but is still waiting for comments.

@budrap00

extract the discussion page from the coder's environment it is embedded in

This is not possible, GitHub Discussions are all about the code. From ACG's perspective, Discussions are all about cosmology as presented on the website.

the default setting for all viewers should be cosmology discussions only. Admin discussions should only be seen by those who want/need to see them

GitHub determines the default settings, but you can change your personal settings. I expanded the instructions on how to do this in this discussion. However, I would encourage receiving notifications about website modifications so you know when new article/improvements appear on the site.

put a direct link to the discussions on the cosmology.info page

Good idea, I added the link to Discussions at the top-right of the webpage and in the left-column menu.

@ExpEarth

the 'feel' of the website might not have been as personal as before.

This is done on purpose, this is the ACGroup website.

a computer code site, and loaded with jargon (I still don't know what a pull request is, for example), and there wasn't a clear roadmap to using the new site

The new site allows users to edit the webpage. This is done with "pull requests" which are documented on hundreds of websites indexed by Google and modeled by ChatGPT. See the ACG wiki.

Perhaps ACG could exist as a subgroup of Reddit

Reddit doesn't satisfy the group's requirement to render equations. @khuramonline inserting equations in a text is extremely inconvenient and time consuming. Also, some users read their emails as 'character only' text, so they don't see the images.
The web version of GutHub discussions provides a standardized platform and renders all discussions in the same way for everybody.

@ftessier

one way to channel attention to cosmology.info would be via the Cosmology Calculators... I would extract them from the "Code" section, put a link on the home page, and ensure that they show up in search engine

Good idea, I'll replace Code with Cosmology Calculators in the website menu.

one task would be to ask members to send you their github handle. You can then invite them as collaborators on the repo

More work for me and there is no point forcing people if they are not interested. As Stacy McGaugh wrote "You can lead a theorist to data, but you can't make him think."

@ExpEarth

...I can send to Roy and Craig Fraser and others. We need to get Ray Fleming and Chantal back.

Yes, it would be good to have Roy, Craig, Ray, Chantal, etc. back. I have done my part, but anyone can invite them again with the link https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/15.

[budrap00]

The assumption here is that If you can't figure out GitHub, then you can't figure out the Cosmos.

Louis, you should be ashamed of your self for even thinking that.

[Francois-Zinserling]

My thoughts were the same though, and I actually had a good giggle at that one. 🤣

[ExpEarth]

Yes, it would be good to have Roy, Craig, Ray, Chantal, etc. back. I have done my part, but anyone can invite them again with the link https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/15.

I wonder about inviting new members though. This page is not too inviting, a bit intimidating actually. And if we were to invite someone using the link to the Discussions page, it is also not so clear what the new reader should do. Instead of "Click here first", how about "Join"? Then when they click on that they would see the instructions. But these could still be improved in their general appearance. Sorry to say, but a little more web design is needed!

Also, there seem to be a few issues regarding the ACG name. First off, there is another ACG in GitHub, which is a computer group: (url) https://github.com/acgtic211 (url). There is also the "Alternative Cosmology Group", the precursor to this group I think. As well there is the Amsterdam Cosmology Group. My point is that we might not be so easily visible on the web.