How to make Ripperology better?

[Magpie]

The cartel has all this in hand,

Don't worry about it.

Monty

The cartel? Dammit I wrote "cabal" on my calender.

You're sure it's not the cabal? It'll make a difference when I call the caterers.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Correction

Three words: Statistical Social Science

We need a quant-focused criminologist who actually understands the case to use big data to shed light on major questions relevant to the case. We could, for example, calculate the chance that a killer would change MO the way the killings changed from Chapman to Stride to Eddowes to Kelly, test whether the old assertion of "facial multilations = the killer knew the victim" actually holds up over a large data set, etc.

Ripperologists today seem like mostly historians by methodology, and while I respect this, the answers aren't out there in some archive. Every once in a while a passing social scientist takes a Tabram-like stab at the question, but always on the basis of a simplified understanding of the case.

What that guy said too. Yeah.

[Phil H]

Ripperologists today seem like mostly historians by methodology, and while I respect this, the answers aren't out there in some archive. Every once in a while a passing social scientist takes a Tabram-like stab at the question, but always on the basis of a simplified understanding of the case.

On the contrary, a social scientist or a criminologist may have useful insights, but it IS in the archive and by using the established historical methods that any proposed solutions will be shown to be accurate.

I think the evident answer to the question posed is that no action should or needs to be taken:

Fair enough

Phil

[martin wilson]

I think it might be useful to know where posters are coming from regarding the case, nobody need post information gleaned through hard work or some expense, and opinions change, but it might be interesting to know their take on the case as a reference for new posters.
Obviously it would not be a discussion thread, just 'here's what I think' and inevitably would involve purely speculative opinion.

[Chris]

I am in favor of sections devoted to the results of serious research. A kind of repository, for reference. All too often someone comes up with a real gem, or a potential gem, but you try to find it 18 months later.

The Wiki section of Casebook should be ideal for this purpose, but for it to work either people need to get into the habit of putting new information into the Wiki as well as posting it to the boards, or else there need to be some volunteers willing to copy new information from the boards (and elsewhere) into the Wiki.

[bolo]

Hi Ally, all,

I wouldn't dream of calling myself a researcher, I'm just an average guy interested in the Ripper case who likes to discuss his views with like-minded people, even though it's kinda difficult to actually become part of a discussion, probably because the stuff I write is too 'casual' for those who know the case and its many details like the back of their hand, but that's my personal problem I guess.

Anyway, I think it would be wrong to introduce sub-forums closed to the general public or install new and more strict rules for posting. I've been a member of other discussion forums where such measures (specially the closed sub-forum thing) had been introduced and in most cases, they withered and died off in less than a year. Most of the time, it's not the influx of a loud-mouthed and clueless plebs which makes high-profile information exchange difficult but ego massaging and dogmatism, and that's something you can't regulate by technical means or new rulesets, at least not effectively.

Just my tuppence.

Regards,

Boris

[Wickerman]

There is one small revision to Casebook I would love to see implemented, and that involves the Press Reports Search feature.

When looking for a personal name in the Press Search, I want to see ONLY the results from Newspapers NOT, ongoing threads, and NOT Dissertations, NOT related pages, JUST the Press Reports.

Very, in fact extremely, annoying!

Pretty please!

[Ally]

There is one small revision to Casebook I would love to see implemented, and that involves the Press Reports Search feature.

When looking for a personal name in the Press Search, I want to see ONLY the results from Newspapers NOT, ongoing threads, and NOT Dissertations, NOT related pages, JUST the Press Reports.

Very, in fact extremely, annoying!

Pretty please!

Hey can you tell me what you mean? I just did a search with press reports feature using "Kelly" and "Watson" I figured those would bring up board discussions, but the only thing that showed were press reports. Can you tell me what name you searched that produced inaccurate results?

[DGB]

Wiki

As has been previously mentioned on the thread, if the wiki was used correctly it would negate the need for separate forum. The wiki would become the repository for research, old and new, and the forums would be a place for discussion of that research.

This would mean that information is easy to find and can be edited by informed persons to ensure that personal arguments do not muddy the waters.

It would also ensure that the real research can be contributed to by new authors or new students of the case, not just those who are previously published or who are acceptable to the powers-that-be. I don't believe in any cabal or cartel (does anyone really?) it is a figment of the imagination of people who don't like their ridiculous theories being questioned. However, the idea of an elite group selecting who is or isn't worthy of providing research, is something that fills me - someone who has never published - with dread.

Unfortunately I believe there will always be people in the field who want to gain attention, not through quiet, insightful research - nor by publishing monumental, overarching tomes which give a complete background on the case - but by expounding unrealistic and unbelievable theories which, when questioned, they respond with insult and accusation. If an elitist forum is introduced, these people will not go away, but will continue to post in the only place available to them: entry-level, cattle class alongside the new students to the field. If that doesn't put off the new blood I don't know what will.

[Ally]

So I have been reading over all the responses, and mulling them and formulating a reply. However I am having some difficulty because my brain works by comparison and analogy and it's kind of hard to make comparisons or draw analogies without seeming like you are attacking how other people do things when there is the appearance of competition between two entities, whether it is real or merely perceived. So I just want to state at the outset, no ill will is intended towards any other party, though it may appear that way, and there's really nothing I can do to avoid that.

On the subject of closed/private boards, I do to a large part agree it's not a good idea. Recently, elsewhere, a contentious thread was removed to a private "members only" section and I asked one of that places participants what the purpose of that was. Their response was something along the lines of "probably so as not to scare off newcomers with the fear of being called a ****". Whether this was in fact the reason, I don't know but my response was, "what so we lure them in with candy and sweet, sweet lies and once they are suckered in, rip off the veil to expose the rot beneath"?? My point is that, the goal isn't to actually make things better, just to make them look better to outside view? And I am not bagging on that other place, I am simply thinking about what standards to apply here.

Of course there is a slight difference in that, we are discussing privatizing what we would hope to be the best of the field, not the worst, which is kind of ivory tower thinking, and probably not workable either. People claim they want elevated standards, but in reality I am not sure they do. If a contentious poster that everyone deplores as dragging down the field is banned from Board A, the argument merely follows them to Board B and they drag down the field there. People can choose to rise above the fray, but I think most of us, myself included, are just too seduced by the fray to bother. We can change the structure of the boards all we want, it's not going to change the people.

So possibly as Chris suggests the idea is to take the research and put it into the Wiki, where the research stands alone, untainted. Then allow the discussion to continue unfettered here, in the muck with the rowdy masses. I do think a link/thread on the boards should be made whenever something new is added to the Wiki, so people know what's being added. Right now the two entities exist in isolation from one another. I think there needs to be more promotion. There is a board devoted strictly to research that has higher standards for posting under General Discussion, but not many people take advantage of it. Maybe that should be the Wiki depository. Anyway just the ramblings of my slightly hungover and sleep deprived brain.

PS.. Editing to add, WHAT HE SAID, above, since we cross-posted. LOL

[Fleetwood Mac]

How to make it a more cooperative, shared effort and less dog-eat-dog?

There's nothing wrong with oneupmanship and competition. It's what lends toward improvement. Co-operation and competition are two sides of the same coin.

Don't think I've necessarily seen dog-eat-dog on here. I have seen bickering but I'd call that stupidity rather than dog-eat-dog.

I dip in now and again. Take a passing interest and not serious about it.

From my experience reading this board, I think you can rely on certain posters to post with a large degree of fact and reason. Then you have other posters who come out with abstract ideas with no basis in fact and beyond reasonable belief - in my opinion these types of posts simply serve as a hinderance.

I've never been a believer in conspiracy theories nor wild unsubstantiated ideas - the truth is quite simple as human beings are quite simple.

So, in sum, less of the a priori justification and more of the research based opinions. And, again, absolutely nothing wrong with antagonism between two well versed posters - these are the people who will discover hitherto unknown facts.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Ally, all,

I dont see that Ripperology is in such bad shape that it warrants some kind of revamped method so students can exchange ideas without the emotional clutter. I think the clutter is inevitable when people are offering up what amounts to personal opinion..there will always be someone who disagrees,.. the subtext there is that they believe that their own ideas are correct.

Ive enjoyed the sharing of ideas and data with other members, and have found the egocentric arguments that often crop up can interfere with the imparting of important information or the introduction of provocative ideas, but the issue I find most detracts from the educational component of the discussion boards is the belief by some that there are questions about these crimes that have been answered to a large extent, ...i.e., the number of victims that can be reasonably and legitimately assigned to one killer, the possible culprit or culprits, what the evidence says about the probable motivation for any of the murders....

Ive resolved myself to studying these crimes without setting some long term goals....I dont expect to be able to solve all the riddles to my own satisfaction and I dont expect that I will see revelations from other posters that adequately deal with all the questions for me,...in fact I believe its virtually impossible to answer these questions without additional information.

That being said, I think open discussion influences thinking, and Im not in favor of segregated discussions. There is no test that one can take to prove that they are an expert in this field, because these cases have no absolute answers. There are some members that have read very little about the crimes, times and players....some are well read, some are very well read, and some have published their own take on these crimes. But there is no-one here, or on any board, that has answered some of the basic key questions to any scientific standard.

So lets continue to share ideas openly....discuss and argue about them about them civilly, and accept that the only real differences between posters is their knowledge and perspective.

No-one has proven anything yet....so, it makes sense that anyone still could. I think the newcomers to this study should be able to continue to interact openly with those that have a deeper knowledge and understanding of the known facts in these cases. Some of the "teachers" could use some fresh thinking.

Best regards Ally, all.

[Wickerman]

Hey can you tell me what you mean? I just did a search with press reports feature using "Kelly" and "Watson" I figured those would bring up board discussions, but the only thing that showed were press reports. Can you tell me what name you searched that produced inaccurate results?

Hiya.
I notice Firefox & Explorer sometimes offer a different sequence of articles found, I am using Firefox.

Ok, one quick example, type in 'Isaacs', the first page of any search normally gets you the results you are looking for.
Look at the top of page 2.

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Star - 31 August 1888

There is no 'Isaacs' on that page at all.
What it picked up was 'Isaac' in the Related Pages section below the news article, its a Dissertation.

Try another.
Type in 'Mary Kelly', on the first page do you see:

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Star - 9 November 1888

There is no 'Mary Kelly' in that article at all.
They are all in Related Pages, below, or on a Thread (left side column).

Further down look at:

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Marion Daily Star - 10 November 1888

No 'Mary Kelly' there either, they are all in Related Pages below.

Thankyou for asking!

[Ally]

Got you. That's a programming feature, entirely beyond my ability to answer but I'll pass it on and see if there's a fix. Can't promise anything, as I really haven't the vaguest idea when it comes to programming.

[Wickerman]

No-one has proven anything yet....

Hallelujah!

(sorry, wrong thread)

Got you. That's a programming feature, entirely beyond my ability to answer but I'll pass it on and see if there's a fix. Can't promise anything, as I really haven't the vaguest idea when it comes to programming.

Oh, for sure it's a programming issue. I didn't expect 'you' to fix it, I know you have 'people'
I should have mentioned it sooner, though I'm not aware of anyone else who has noticed it.