>
>I would also like to suggest that rather than attempting to change the
>character of this list, a far more successful proposal might be to set
>up a separate list for asking questions to encourage quick response from
>experts.
I have been thinking more about this whilst running errands and waiting
for the dial tone to return to my telephone line.
There are several problems with the list right now, but lets first look
at the positive points:
We have a lot of members - somewhere about 200.
We have a varied background. Some are new to the internet, or new to
gerbils. Other have varying amounts of experience.
We have people from all over the world.
We are a long established forum.
We have a good number of posts. In my opinion we have neither too many,
or too few.
We have some simple rules that are designed to help discussion, not
hinder it. The rules are simple to follow and are of long standing.
The problems can be summarised as:
a) It can be difficult to find and answer questions due to the number of
social posts.
b) Many of the more experienced users have left in the past eighteen
months, and those that remain post less often.
c) There appears to be a different view of what the list is for amongst
people of differing age groups or experience.
d) Some people post when their question could be easily answered by
consulting either the archive, or one or two of the relevant webpages.
e) There are one or two minor breaches of the charter.
I think the first two are connected, as are the latter two.
Taking the problems in reverse order I suggest that we do the following.
Not looking at existing resources, and not following the charter are
minor problems in my view, and we should all attempt to encourage people
to better use the Internet's resources and to read the charter. I know
this can be frustrating but everyone should try and be patient and
acknowledge that especially when dealing with new people they may not
understand what is expected of them. Setting up a separate list will
simply create another place where people will not follow the guidelines.
Turning to the age/experience problem, I think this is inevitable
whatever we do. I like to think of the list as an adult place, because
that is how it started, but I can't see how, or why we would want to
discourage younger people from feeling free to use it.
Although I tend to skim through a lot of the posts, I am pleased to see
such a variety of conversation here.
Lastly, I turn to the first two points. As I have said elsewhere, I do
not see a social list as a solution. I think it will take far more from
the GML than it will add. What I think would be more appropriate would
be to encourage people to cross post questions to an expert list (EGML)
where people who only want those sorts of discussions could subscribe.
This might encourage more participation from the experts as it would be
easier for them to find those posts that interested them.
The advantages over creating a separate social list are:
1) Only people who dislike GML for some reason need to subscribe to the
new list as GML is open to outside posts when they post a response.
2) No new charters or FAQs are needed as reference to EGML can be added
into the existing documents.
3) People who do not cross post to the new list will not get their
questions answered so there will be an incentive to do it.
4) Anyone who wants to real all posts only has to subscribe to one list.
5) Issues of cross posting are eliminated as all messages to one list
will be cross posted.
The disadvantages I can see are:
1) If you subscribe to both lists then some messages will be downloaded
twice (but as the new list will only have messages that were also sent
to GML there should only be a need for most people to post to one list
or the other.)
2) There will be a learning curve as people realise that they need to
cross post.
3) People may try and keep discussions in the EGML without cross
posting. If crossposting is made a condition of use then responders can
simply make sure the message is posted as a quote in their reply.
I am interested in what others think. In particular, what do Karin,
Esther and others who seem to keep their heads down these days have to
say?
Finally, I have a little story about what happened on my employer's
intranet.
A discussion area was set up with effectively three bulletin boards:
Discussion of a large reorganisation
Discussion of IT issues
Discussion of supplies management and procurement issues.
After a very short time of operation there was concern that people were
clogging these business based discussions with social chat. The employer
could have just said, no social chat and we will take disciplinary
action against those that disobey. Instead, it was decided that a fourth
"Social Chat" board would be created.
Overnight the Social Chat exploded. The number of posts increased to
levels that was threatening the entire network due to the number of
people posting and reading messages.
If that was not enough, the conduct of people in Social Chat dropped to
the lowest common denominator. Because it was "social" it became
impossible to police. By its nature, social interaction has very few
rules. The moderators were kept very busy deleting messages that were
either against the organisation's equal opportunities policies, or
simply eliminating personal abuse.
After eight weeks of the experiment the social chat area was closed
down.
My point is not to suggest that any Social GML will go this way but to
point out some lessons that may be relevant:
a) A social chat area reduced, but did not eliminate social chat in the
existing discussion areas.
b) Simply because it existed, it encourages social discussions that were
even more pointless than had occurred before.
c) The conduct of people in a "social" environment was less controlled
than before.
d) Because it is "social" it is impossible to draw up sensible rules of
what is, or is not, acceptable.
e) Eliminating the social chat did not result in this chat moving
elsewhere (as users had threatened).
This suggest to me that unlike matter, social chat can be created and
destroyed.
--
Julian
************************************************************************
* Jackie and Julian *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* National Gerbil Society *
* http://www.gerbils.co.uk/ *
************************************************************************
