List Members, I am currently a "Lurker". Didn't used to be. I've been working to much the last year, badly broke my foot which keeps me from wading and therefore have nothing to report. So I feel, just maybe my current lurking is justified... If this hadn't been stated, then it looks like I could have been automatically unsubscribed. Maybe I still will!
I don't think judgements can be passed. There are people that just don't feel comfortable in responding. There are others that frankly shouldn't talk as much as they do. That said, this is a list and if parameters which Wes has set up (which includes allowing lurkers) are being observed, then so be it. My two cents. Hopefully I will be fishing again by spring of 2002, then I'll throw in a report or two if I'm still on the list. Paul Neel In a message dated Thu, 8 Nov 2001 7:59:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, Kent Lufkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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
