Just post a correction ...

 Just post a correction in the thread where the information is wrong, instead of trying to find a general solution to all the challenges of user generated content.

 A polite factual correction in the right thread is less likely to cause a flame war than a general sigh over people who post wrong information.

 Smile,
 Stein

You are correct

It will continue. Human nature. I have seen attempts at corrections but you know where that leads. Administrators can only correct so much. The old sometimes inaccurate info remains and many have no idea on how to edit their discussion.

When I do any kind of internet search, I see all kinds of info that could have been deleted from the internet that is no longer useful or accurate but you have started another good discussion thread that I suspect will be locked eventually. Not really about model railroading.

Rich

The Jack Webb solution

Andy,

This is a relatively large problem; It is good that you bring it up.

May I suggest that we (not just the moderators) encourage reference information for any viewpoint ( "Just the facts", as Sgt. Friday was reported ((incorrectly)) to have repeatedly said in "Dragnet").  An example would be Joe Fugate's discussions of scenery, where he continually mentions to work from photographs (the facts), to get the colors and appearance of textures correct.

And there is the greater difficulty:  to encourage without lambasting.  That takes work, a desire to do good, and forethought; and maybe the patience to wait a day to respond.

Regarding the self-correcting mechanisms, It would be nice to have a defined scheme on this forum.  That, though, requires an MRH staffing level that I don't believe is available.    Occasionally there are the edits by the poster of an opinion, where he acknowledges newfound wisdom, and changes the post to correspond.  Again, it requires work, a desire to do good, ...

More Visible

Misinformation and contrasting opinions on how things should be done have been around, I'm willing to bet, as long as model railroading itself. As you pointed out, even "experts" in the field wander off into the weeds from time to time.

The internet and forums like this one provide us with largely unfiltered information. That's a good thing in my opinion. I feel it is incumbent upon those of us viewing that information to use that gray matter between our ears to evaluate, for ourselves, the validity and/or usefulness of such information, prior to its use. 

George

Jack Webb

If people cite their sources, it sure helps a lot to winnow out the suggestions and ideas.

A lot of us have learned things years ago -- techniques that might work fine but aren't necessarily the state of the art in the hobby now.  Just a line that says "I learned this at the Podunk Train Club in 1996" can be a help in sorting out advice. Or, if they say, "I found this in the Encyclopedia of Building Steam Locos from Scratch" you get a better idea.  Even, "this is how I do it and here's a picture" makes a big difference.

Myself, I don't always pay much attention to advice on modeling unless there is a photo or something -- too many people repeat things they think they heard but have no personal experience.

I think some of it depends on people learning how to read forums and to evaluate all the opinions and statements.

Teach them

As has been said, the best solution is to respond with a correction, complete with explanation and references if practical.  If you can explain why and how someone has their facts wrong, you may educate them, and you will probably educate someone who comes along afterward.  You cannot prevent or prohibit people who are stubborn or misinformed, but you can try to prevent them from being a problem for others.

We prefer the low road

The joke about forums

Yeah....I'm going to say no.

Sorry guys, but I'm going to throw out a differing opinion.

This is based on the facts that I re-joined the hobby in 2008 (which makes me new - I hadn't even touched a toy/model train since 1989), and since 2008 I've built a 4x8, a chainsaw (3x16) , and a 12x10 C shaped layout (the later two hand laid). I've also been around the interwebs since the mid '90's. Perhaps the definition of a newbie should be refined?

As a newbie, I got my information from the web initially, than ordered books (I have a slew of Kalmbach books I picked up, not to mention my prototype historical references) to round things out. It didn't take more than a few months to decipher which posts were useless, and which contained useful information. Nor for that matter, which posters had information you could trust, and those you couldn't.

Good and bad, I read it all. I'd wager that I pulled about 20% useful information from what I read, but that may be an exaggeration.

I'd suggest you may be discounting the new hobbyist;  we're well into the second decade of the 21st Century, and I would presume (mistakenly?) that no single forum or publication can, or should be the single source of inspiration.  A wandering thread here may simply encourage the new researcher (hobbyist) to look elsewhere, and confirm or deny content.

My suggestion, to compliment Andy's, is to not concern the forum with the qualitative value of certain content (I feel it will correct itself, either internally or through external means), but it instead watch for what we've seen recently, the aß-holio-quotient.  In order to make a friendlier forum, members as a whole should react to the aß-holio sooner than later, and politely guide the conversation back to a useful one. No management can do this, I can point out plenty of companies who have failed and given up on this effort — it requires community effort.

So I'd say stand up. Correct when another poster is incorrect - and acknowledge when you're wrong. Stand up to the aß-holio when necessary. Say enough, without sinking to their level. If we do that, we can allow for the forum to grow along a model that will encourage new hobbyists to at least check back in - and find accurate information.

Issues

Incorrect data stays on the Internet and some grab the info and run with it. They do not check for accuracy. They may see the info in a thread or as the result of a search link and not look at the complete thread. I have seen that a quite a few times.

My loco does not run too good. Oh, put a capacitor on it. I saw that somewhere. No details.

As an example, DCC has complicated this a lot. Loco's and track wiring. The move from DC, analog, to DCC, digital control. Many have DC as a back ground. Does not always compare.

Many do not understand the electronics involved.

Rich

Buyer Beware

Free advice is worth what you paid to get it.  Sometimes it's worth twice that!  I think most people looking for information on the web know that, and those that don't..  well, I can't feel too sorry for them.

We all make mistakes.

On my first layout when I came back to the hobby in the late 1980's, I asked all sorts of advice at my local hobby shop from the guys in the train dept.  I bought a number of layout planning books including one of the Atlas track planning books that I picked out a plan to build.  I knew not to make a tight "S"curve, but did not realize that when connecting 2 Atlas Snap Switch together by the diverging routes, it is easy to get a tight "S" curve.  I discovered the problem when I had 6 axle locos derailing at any speed trying to get through that section.  The point being that beginners will make mistakes.  I'm not sure that information or misinformation found on any one forum will bew a significant deterrent to most beginners.  The person that does find it an insurmountable obstacle probably will not stick with the hobby anyway.

Virtual or Real, Doesn't Matter

IMHO forum information is no different than face-to-face conversations with friends and acquaintances. Sometimes the information is good, sometimes just OK, other times just plain BS. Consider the source always.

FWIW the original example of 90 degrees vs same degrees will yield the same results. A beginner would have success with either answer even though the phrase "has to be" makes one answer wrong in part.

Getting it right

A real engine would shake itself to pieces if the drivers weren't exactly quartered, so "has to be 90 degrees" is correct if you want the engine to be realistic.  "Has to be consistant" is correct if you don't want the rods to bind, so both are right in their own way.   The best thing is to make sure they are always 90 degrees, then both conditions are met.  The fact is, quartering wasn't even in the OP's question, so we are off in the weeds again anyway... (I like that phrase "off in the weeds" ; thanks for that, Joe.)

I know that I have sometimes been guilty of expressing a belief only to have it challenged by another poster.  This can be a chance to learn something new for me, so I take my lumps and concede my error, if it becomes apparent that I'm mistaken.  There are a lot of urban legends and other misinformation floating around the hobby, so these threads can be a chance to clear the air.  Waiting for someone to come up with indesputable documention would only leave a lot of questions unanswered altogether.

Spending a little more time in the weeds

While balance is affected by quartering, and they definitely did cross-balance locomotives, it's not the point of quartering.  In fact, many locomotives had balance weights which were not 180 degrees from the crank pins, in order to better balance the rotating and reciprocating mass.  It definitely would have been possible to properly balance an engine with quartering other than 90 degrees.  Of course, with that being said, if you took an engine meant to be quartered at 90 degrees and had it way off, it would definitely be rough.

Also, there were engines with 3 cylinders which were "quartered" at 120 degrees instead of 90.

Quartering had two major purposes.  One was to space the piston strokes evenly, so that when one piston is at the end of it's stroke, the opposite one is in the middle of the stroke.  The other is to keep the wheels running properly, since if the rods were set at 0 or 180 degrees the wheels could get out of sync and bind.  90 degrees, being half way between those, gives the best resistance to binding, but almost anything other than 0 and 180, or a few degrees to either side of those, will work.

There we go again

I stand corrected; a locomotive can stand a little imbalance in its stroke timing.  It just wasn't done though.  

I'm somewhat familiar with the balancing challenges on some exotic steam engines.  The counterbalance weights on three cylinder locos are odd to look at because the driver hosting the crankshaft for the third cylinder has different dyanamics to deal with, so the weight is skewed compared to the others on the same side of the locomotive.  It's facinating to try to figure out what's going on with them sometimes.  I think I've seen some that had an extra set of valve gear on one side as well, though the ones I usually deal with must have had inside valve gear for the third cylinder.

Misunderstanding of mechanics

I'm under the perception that many modelers don't really understand how a steam engine functions versus how electric powered steam engines, such as our HO or what have scales, function. The real steam engine uses steam in the piston to drive the wheels. Quartering is necessary for the engine to run as efficiently as possible. They will run if not quarter correctly. I've heard a 1 1/2" scale live 4-8-4 steam engine running that was not quartered correctly. It sounded like a horse on a slow gallop.

Now our electric powered steam engines is powered through a worm drive on one of the driving wheels that then pushes on the rods to make the other wheels turn. So as Ken eluded to that if you're off a few degrees either way it will not make any difference as long as all wheels are close. Plus the slop in the rod itself on models is large enough to over come those slight differences. I'd be willing to bet my $500 Little Joe electric that you could take and time the wheels on an electric driven engine 180 degrees and it would run. Remember the mechanics are different from a steam driven engine. Want to prove me wrong? Do just what I said and see if your electric powered steam engine will run.

The problem with all this talk is the lack of mechanical understanding from some of the members. Some will not even go as far as to do their own research. Not all answers can be found on the net. Some take a bit of field work to do and time to figure out.

Bernd

What's a degree amonst friends?

Reasoning for my statement "A beginner would have success with either answer". Doubt a beginner will be doing live steam.

I'll take the challenge

I may take you up on the challenge, though I'm not especially interested in the Little Joe.  I really do not think it can be made to work reliably.  Would you accept a mechanical analog (wheels in a frame), or does it have to be a complete steam locomotive?

We need an exotic quartering thread instead now

This topic seems to have been pretty clearly answered.  e.g correct politely once, but don't go back for any fiery seconds if rebuffed, seems like a good consensus.

As to the magic of quartering and getting rich on testing, I'd propose starting a sensibly title new thread to explore it. That way it'll show up in the index for reference.

Having grown up with a typical Brit boy's Meccano set, I don't want to spoil anyone's fun.

The 180 degree quarter won't

The 180 degree quarter won't work, the undriven wheels won't turn. Been there done that.

Harold

Oh dear!

At this point this thread is starting to confuse old hands in the hobby...

Test Bed

I hadn't considered you Rick . I know your talents and I would loss.

This is my suggestion to any body that wants to test the theory. Take a piece of channel narrower that the wheel set. Let's use an 8 coupled engine. And just for figures lets space the wheels an even .500" inch center to center. Now draw a line down the center of one leg of the channel, mark off at half inch increments and "precisely" drill a hole a bit larger than the wheel axle. Next take two pieces of, lets say, .250" wide by .0625" thick brass strip. Layout holes for the crank pins using the .500" spacing. Now attach one of those strips to one set of wheels. This will keep the drive pins all aligned. Next attach the second set of wheels to the other strip and mount these wheels 180 or there about from the first set. I think as long as all the wheel sets on one side are rotating about that .500" center that the engine frame will roll.

What is your idea Rick?

Bernd

P.S. can I retract that bet. I really do like that engine.

Harold

Were all wheels quartered to the same degree? If one is at 90, another at 85, another at 95 and another at 91. No, then it won't work. But I believe that if they are equally quartered to say 180 that it will work.

I'm going to give it a try.

Bernd