> Agreed. Succinct and to the point.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Speaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:46 AM
> Subject: RE: Lurkers
>
>
> > I think hanging out and just reading the posts is fine. I wouldn't vote
> to
> > exclude anyone from the list based on level of participation.
> >
> > I believe the archives search tool is another matter. I think that
> password
> > protecting the archives would be nice. I know from experience in using
it
> > that there is information in it that I would rather not be known to the
> > non-C&R public.
> >
> > just my 2-cents
> > Jim Speaker
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kent Lufkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:51 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Lurkers
> >
> >
> > I just found that the WAFF list now boasts over 250 email
> > subscribers. I also learned that only about 50 subscribers post to
> > the list on a regular basis. That means that roughly 80% of WAFF
> > subscribers are so-called 'lurkers' - people who receive the list's
> > email posts but who do not respond with posts of their own.
> >
> > In fairness, I'm sure many lurkers are novice fishers, fishers who
> > don't feel that they have anything worth contributing, or are
> > otherwise just plain shy. A number of lurkers are probably
> > now-and-then fishers or are just too darned busy to post even an
> > occasional email.
> >
> > However, I also know for a fact that a number of lurkers are fly shop
> > employees or owners. They subscribe to the list, gathering valuable
> > fishing information which they then feed to their customers as a
> > 'value-added' perk.
> >
> > For whatever reason though, lurkers take but don't give anything back
> > in return.
> >
> >
> > I personally enjoy reading the posts to the list - even the
> > off-subject ones, the newbie questions that we've all heard before
> > (and asked ourselves once upon a time), the subjects I'm not
> > interested in, and even the occasional spats between subscribers. I
> > read 'em all, delete most, and respond to a few.
> >
> > Bottom line is that I've learned quite a bit more about flyfishing
> > than I would have without subscribing to the list.
> >
> > But I'm beginning to wonder about all the wonderful information and
> > advice we've been posting. It bothers me to think we've been
> > innocently sharing it with others who contribute nothing back to the
> > group in return. Not to mention the trove of past posts available in
> > the searchable archives.
> >
> >
> > Thanks to technology and the subscribers who've generously shared
> > their skills, we now have the capability of 'unsubscribing' lurkers
> > from the list.
> >
> > We can also password-protect the archives on our web site, making
> > them available only to active subscribers.
> >
> > The questions though, is should we?
> >
> >
> > The list is only as good as the information that subscribers post to
> > it. If lurkers don't contribute to the group, their absence won't be
> > felt.
> >
> > On the other hand, restricting the list smacks to me as just another
> > form of elitism, the same kind of smug, 'I'm-better-than-you-are'
> > attitude that others think characterize we flyfishers in general.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> >
> > Kent Lufkin
> >
> >
> >
>
