Well said Kent. Thank you for an excellent summary. EH In a message dated 11/12/01 9:36:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Subj: Lurkers discussion summary > Date: 11/12/01 9:36:58 AM Pacific Standard Time > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kent Lufkin) > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > With over 50 responses and counting, my lurker post of last Thursday > generated a landslide vote of support for the status quo. Not to > mention prompting first-time posts by newly 'delurked' subscribers, > some of whom weighed in with reports. > > In past lurker debates, restriction advocates pointed to a relatively > small proportion of regular posters to the list, expressing the fear > that too small a 'core' group of posters would cause the list to > implode. > > But today, the number of core posters is actually larger than the > entire list was just 3 or 4 years ago. Clearly the list is in no > imminent danger of folding due to disinterested subscribers. Growth > in the number of subscribers also parallels the growth in popularity > of flyfishing among the general public as a growing, increasingly > urbanized population seeks to connect with the outdoors. > > On the other hand, several messages protested that there is no real > information of value posted to the list, hence there is no need to > restrict it. > > If that is the case however, why then do any of us subscribe? In > short, because the list operates on many levels. > > It allows for quick and easy communication in a virtual community > with a shared interest; it provides a sort of cathartic release for > those wishing to share their experiences with others; it facilitates > answers to an individual's questions from a large base of collective > experience; it provides a vicarious fishing experience to those of us > unable to find the time to do so ourselves. > > The list does indeed provide value. Perhaps not the > fish-here-use-that-fly kind of value, but value of a better kind, the > type that shares experience to build confidence and enjoyment for all. > > Wes was right: our periodic re-examination of the lurker question > generates a flood of passionate responses and the end result is the > same - 'It ain't broke, so don't go trying to fix it.' > > So we won't. > > Thanks to all who shared their opinions. Your posts made for a lively > debate that was remarkably polite and courteous. But above all, your > collective input provided a clear answer to my question. > > Kent Lufkin > >
