Science Videos Search Engine

Rami writes "ScienceHack is a search engine for science videos. What makes ScienceHack unique is that every video is screened by a scientist or an engineer to verify the video's accuracy and quality. ScienceHack focuses on many topics including physics, chemistry and biology. If you go to YouTube to search for videos, you will get spam videos and comments and many conspiracy and low quality videos. ScienceHack has none of that. ScienceHack currently supports videos from YouTube, Google videos and Metacafe."
http://sciencehack.com/

Finally what we all need,

[kaufmanmoore (930593)]

Because scientists are never wrong!

I want to meet...

[PrinceAshitaka (562972)]

...the scientist that OKed a Brainiac clip. Please. That is not science.

Re:

[aliquis (678370)]

My first thought was: Will intelligent design videos show up or not?

Re:

[Goaway (82658)]

And here I thought Slashdot was the place where people made fun of christians for being anti-science.

No, wait, that's right, all those people moved to Reddit.

Good question

[benhocking (724439)]

If I didn't hear chemistry explained in wrestling terms, would I have ever understood it? Would a video of some college kid explaining it be screened from ScienceHack?

A good question, but as I understand it, such videos would be welcome - as long as they were accurate and of good quality. That's a somewhat sticky measuring stick, however, as what one scientist might call "simplifying", another might call "dumbing down" or just "wrong". I suspect they will not be overzealous about such screening, however.

Re:

[bhiestand (157373)]

Are you kidding me? The attitude on Slashdot is that the scientists/experts are always wrong.

No, no, no! That is totally wrong. Scientists are either right or wrong depending on who funds them!

recommended intro science videos for kids

[artifex2004 (766107)]

I suggest videos from Professor Julius Sumner Miller [abc.net.au].

Re:

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

I hope Professor Miller has exceptional server capacity. Thanks to your posting that link he's probably over his bandwidth allotment for the month. I got one video out of ScienceHack just now, and that was that.

DDOS at it's finest.

Finally!

[grimdawg (954902)]

A porn site I can feel dignified visiting!

Re:

[Idbar (1034346)]

You mean you are aiming for the "gynecology" section and how you can provide significant support in that area.

As a slashdotter, I think we all know, with every single detail, the "theory".

Peer review?

[Christianson (1036710)]

There's nothing on the site, as far as I can see, that gives any details about how they select the scientists who are going to moderate the videos. The closest I can find is their blog [sciencehack.com], which suggests that their criterion, however, they find them, is just that they be at least a current undergraduate student in a science-related discipline.

Given that Sciencehack is only really aiming to be a Youtube for science, maybe this doesn't really mean very much. Still, a little more openness about the process would have been encouraging.

Re:

[Varun Soundararajan (744929)]

I just tried a few queries where the result I know is in Google Videos. None of them turned up. It was related to science but the results were irrelevant.
eg:
1) Near Death Experience gave - Using a spatula..
2) Time travel gave -- Introduction to CSS editing using Firebug | How many times the ball is passed between the white players? |

This is totally retared.. My Pegions [google.com] would pick better search results any time.!

--
the purpose of carping is always to improve its standard. -Myself

Re:

[RichardX (457979)]

I once had a near death experience using a spatula, you insensitive clod!

The Media

[Threni (635302)]

Perhaps the various news organisations can run their mobile phone/wifi/cannabis etc scare stories past this before wasting anymore airtime on unfounded nonsense.

Re:The Media

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

Yeah, no kidding. Although, when you get right down to it, the media people aren't necessarily stupid or ignorant ... what they are is self-serving. They have numerous sources they could use to check their content, and I'm sure they do. But they go ahead and publish that unfounded nonsense anyway because it makes money, and it makes money because We, The People, would rather be entertained than informed. That's going to cost us.

They say we get the government we deserve: I guess that also applies to our news organizations. Not that I perceive much difference between the two any longer, given the number of serious domestic issues we're facing right now that get little or no coverage in mainstream media. Or if they do get covered, they get it exactly wrong.

Back on topic, ScienceHack is an interesting idea, with some promise. I mean, wow, a site with science videos reviewed by actual scientists? Well, maybe almost scientists (grad students and so forth), but still, that's pretty cool. Granted, all scientists are not of equal caliber, but nevertheless having at least the obvious crap weeded out is a good thing for anyone interested in the subject. Certainly YouTube isn't going to bother filtering out the baloney.

more links

[kunzy (880730)]

Some more links:
A lot of very good Berkeley lectures http://webcast.berkeley.edu/ [berkeley.edu]
Lectures and science videos http://freescienceonline.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Something seems wrong

[laejoh (648921)]

I search for "paris hilton" and got:

Size Comparison of Various Celestial Bodies [sciencehack.com]

First of all, she doesn't have a Celestial Body. My girlfriend has, Hilton has not!

Second; size? What size???

What's going on?

Partial matching

[benhocking (724439)]

I had to see if you were lying or not, and unfortunately, you weren't. The searching technique relies on partial matching, so "paris" is found in "comparison", and an OR match is used to "hilton" is not required. Thankfully, searching on "paris hilton" in quotes returns no hits.

At last!

[VikingBerserker (546589)]

A site where I can find hundreds of videos of Diet Coke and Mentos geysers!

Where's Bill Nye?

[kaufmanmoore (930593)]

This site is missing the best science videos ever created.

Re:

[Workaphobia (931620)]

Just remember that only the videos directly linked seem to be screened. The ones listed as related in the menu (I guess that's a youtube feature) are as accurate a portrait into human idiocy as ever.

(I'm especially miffed at the guy who took one of the astronomy videos and replaced the music of Holst ("Jupiter") with a 50s-style western theme, calling it better music.)

I like it already

[desNotes (900643)]

I did a search on Intelligent Design and it displayed the following videos (sorry, links not included)

Cockroach Controlled Mobile Robot | Self-Replicating Repairing Robots | Acoustic Levitation Chamber | Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse | Jan Rabaey on Synthetic Biology | Jules The Robot | Turning the Place Over By Richard Wilson |

This is true intelligent design!!

No results from creationism!

PARC Forums

[north.coaster (136450)]

PARC Forums from the last couple years also available online here [xerox.com].

Site Down

[writerjosh (862522)]

As of this posting 10:49am PST, the ScienceHack site is down. I don't know if I should laugh or cry. If these "scientists" can't even keep their site up, what faith in their videos should we have. I can find a Paris Hilton video anywhere on the web -- with a reliable connection. *sigh*

Re:

[Monkeys!!! (831558)]

Be interesting to see what real moderation is like.

You know I made this awesome one liner about you been moderated troll and when I previewed the comment you had been moderated Insightful...

Thank fuck I actually previewed for once in my life.