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,

Because scientists are never wrong!

Good question

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

Re:

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!

I want to meet...

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

Re:

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

Re:

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.

Re:

Scientists are sometimes wrong, but non-scientists blowing smoke out of their @$$ are wrong considerably more often. I understand that having scientists and engineers review videos falls short of a well-managed "peer review" process, but it should act a

Re:

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.

recommended intro science videos for kids

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

Re:

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.

Re:

Hey! Stop downloading. Your not an Australian tax payer. The ABC is funded by tax payers. That is why shows like the chaser's war on everything [abc.net.au] have to place a silly statement on their downloads page:

This video podcast is made available for use by persons located in Australia only. If you are not located in Australia, you are not authorised to use this podcast. The ABC grants you a licence to download these audio-visual files for your private, personal, domestic, non-commercial use only. You may not use these audio-visual files for any other purpose (including but without limitation downloading, editing, or using these files for the purpose of (a) distribution to a third party; or (b) promoting, advertising, endorsing or implying a connection with you (or any third party) and the ABC, its agents or employees). The ABC will not be liable for any loss or damage (including but without limitation any costs charged by your service provider incurred by you in receiving the download) which you may suffer as a result of or connected with the download or use of these files. Please note that qualifying educational institutions may be able to use these audio and audio-visual files in accordance with Part VA of the Copyright Act 1968 as amended. For more information, please contact Screenrights ([e-mail]).

The ABC are very supportive of having their content in

Finally!

A porn site I can feel dignified visiting!

Re:

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?

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:

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 edi

Re:

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

Re:

I wrote to the creator(s) of this site and expressed similar concern, telling them that without identifying the reviewers, there is no way to tell if it's a second year undergraduate or a fellow of the Royal Society and thus no way to determine the validi

The Media

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

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.

Re:

Yup. I know a couple of people who are leading experts in their space-related field. When they're interviewed for "popular" articles, their statements are often (more than half the time, I think) heavily edited or completely dropped by the author. Somet

more links

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]

Re:

No spring break webcasts though...

Something seems wrong

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

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!

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

Dr Quantum

What makes ScienceHack unique is that every video is screened by a scientist or an engineer to verify the video's accuracy and quality.

Like Dr Quantum: quantum physics [sciencehack.com]

Where's Bill Nye?

This site is missing the best science videos ever created.

Re:

Bill Nye is the greatest! (And a nice guy...I met him a few years ago in Milwaukee.)

This site is still pretty freaking awesome though. I already lost an hour to its physics and chemistry categories.

Re:

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 ast

I like it already

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 Synth

PARC Forums

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

This site proves God exists

and he loves us science loving nerds and wants us to stay amused.

Not very well screened...

I checked this site out and while it sounds like a good idea my cursory look suggests it is not what it claims.

I clicked on 'Ten Dimensions' and found a video by Rob Bryanton proporting to explain them. Rob Bryanton is not a scientist but (from Wikipedia)

Uh oh..

sounds eerily like godtube.com

External solution for internal YouTube problem...

Seems like the real solution to this is to allow members of YouTube to vote on the relevance of tags for videos. I recall searching for "Bugs Bunny" a while back and getting some of the most annoying, weird crap. Oh wait, let me rephrase that. Some of t

SciTalks.com

Another science video site is SciTalks [scitalks.com], which I helped launch last week. Users can vote videos up or down, submit links and videos, and create (and share) playlists. It's a pretty cool site.

Site Down

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

This site will

This site will really get a lot of teenage boys off :p