Doug, As far as I know, I am the only one in the NY office who did not unsubscribe from the group. Looks at the stats ( provided by Tim) or just go to the group page. Also, the number of users if I remember it correctly has been in 9K for at least 6 month - meaning you have the same number of people in and OUT - obviously you need to ask Matt if he has more detailed stats on unsubscribes count. Regards, Anatole
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Doug McCune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, this is worth going back to, because your initial email said > that the group was "stagnant" and has plateaued with the number of new users > and questions. Except your reason for bringing it up is that the traffic has > gotten too much for you to read every message. So clearly the level of > traffic isn't stagnant. Unless what you're saying is that about 6 months ago > the traffic reached a critical level where you couldn't deal with the > traffic but then it stopped growing. > > So I guess I'm saying I question the claim that this list is "stagnant". > Almost 10,000 members and an average of 100 messages a day. Are you saying > that these stats have been the same for the past 6 months? And even if that > is true (although I'd like to see numbers before I accept that) then I don't > even necessarily think that this indicates that there's a problem. There's a > simple fact that a ton of questions have already been accurately answered by > this list. I would hope that the archived knowledge of the list serves to > answer more and more questions that newcomers have, meaning they don't need > to post the questions over and over. > > What is the real problem? I haven't heard anyone say that the traffic on > this single list has stopped them from asking any questions (although I'm > open to the possibility that this is true, and just hasn't been voiced). And > largely I think that the number of people answering questions has remained > high and the response times are still good. I have heard that the traffic > level has stopped people from reading the questions that others ask (I > certainly skim and sometimes skip entire days). I'd argue that a combination > of self-moderated subject tagging, as well as more aggressive pointing > repeat questions to cached answered (and then tagging the entire thread as a > repeat) will largely solve this problem. > > So do you have numbers that indicate the stagnation you are worried about? > > Doug > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Anatole Tartakovsky < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Matt, >> Let us review the goal - in the original post I explained that single >> group causes stagnation. If you agree with the numbers and reasoning behind >> it, let us look at the proposition in that light. IMHO, the mentioned >> measures while staying within the same single group would probably extend >> the number of users by 20-30% byhoping to reduce number of posted messages >> by the same percentage - but it is hardly the goal we are trying to achieve >> here. >> >> Realistically Adobe should be looking for place public pace to exchange >> ideas and networking as well as getting trivial help. The product and >> community are just too big for one group. Let us split it up and let each >> subgroup speak their own language. I would gladly moderate standalone >> enterprise/j2ee/best practices track. But looking few times a day @ the >> whole stream to fish out what might be related to the topic and having some >> messages falling through the cracks might be not the recommended "best >> practices" solution. >> >> Sincerely, >> Anatole >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Matt Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Hey folks, let's calm down a little here, K? >>> >>> Alright, based on what I've been seeing people say, here's my suggestion. >>> >>> 1) Let's get an FAQ going that can be edited by moderators or members of >>> the community. This will be about common problems that folks run into. One >>> suggestion of course from me would be that we use the Cookbook for "how-to" >>> type questions. But for things that don't seem like they're cookbook >>> appropriate, we can put them in the FAQ. I like the idea of doing it in >>> Buzzword, though Buzzword docs won't come up in Google. Long-term I think >>> the right place might be in whatever we set up in the Adobe Developer >>> Center. But for now how about we just allocate a page off of the opensource >>> wiki. We can pick some moderators who can edit the page and I will get them >>> added so they can take care of it. We can also add the link to the FAQ to >>> the bottom of every email. >>> >>> 2) Some folks suggested that you either mark in the body or in the >>> subject something that indicates what you're talking about. Seems >>> reasonable. We could use some of the topics that were being suggested. [UX], >>> [Enterprise], [Data Services] [Announce], etc. We don't need to limit this, >>> but by following a convention of placing the general area of discussion, >>> folks will know if they're going to be capable of getting involved in the >>> thread. The more people follow this convention, the more efficient it will >>> become. >>> >>> 3) We can get aggressive on the moderation. Rather than just scanning for >>> spam, moderators can actually look at the posts by new users and decide if >>> they meet the general criteria for asking a question. If they don't, the >>> moderator can reject the post and point the user to the forum FAQ which has >>> posting guidelines. >>> >>> 4) We can update the flexcoders FAQ (which is actually linked at the >>> bottom of every single post) to include the updated posting guidelines and >>> remove the common questions section so that the forum FAQ is only about >>> forum etiquette and the coding FAQ is about the actual problems. >>> >>> If this sounds OK then what we need are the two kinds of moderators: >>> >>> 1. moderators for the forum itself who are willing to really look at all >>> posts that are in moderation and analyze whether they should be passed >>> through. If it is a poorly formed question, the post should be rejected with >>> a pointer to the forum FAQ. >>> 2. moderators for the FAQ who can pay attention to common questions and >>> update the FAQ as appropriate. >>> >>> If we're all on board, send those moderators to me and we can get things >>> set up. And folks can start following the tagging convention instantly in >>> the meantime. >>> >>> Matt >>> >> >> > >
