Request For Contributions

[Cindy C.]

Abigail lamented:

> By the way, I think it's time we declared the request for 
>contributions program an unqualified failure.  I haven't seen one 
>entry on the database or one post on the archive group.  I think we 
>should continue to post the request on a regular basis.  Tom 
>suggested weekly, at least to begin with - that may be a bit much.  
>Any thoughts?  


Cindy sits erect in her office chair, fingers poised over the 
keyboard.  Any minute now -- aaaaaany minute -- someone will send a 
Fantastic Post recommendation.  And Cindy will instantly drop what 
she is doing to acknowledge it with the dropping of balloons and 
tossing of far too much confetti, slobbering all over the first 
brave soul who sends us *anything* at all.

She waits . . . and *nothing* happens.  Not one post is 
recommended.  Something must be wrong.  People are posting, and the 
odds that every single post *sucks* are quite low.  

"What could the problem be?" she thinks, drowning her sorrows in yet 
another glass of Kool Aid.  How can we get through to the list so 
they will cheerfully do our work for us?  It *can't* be that people 
don't like the "Fantastic Posts" site -- Paul has the stats to show 
that people *love* it.  Members have stated publicly that they want 
us to get cracking, bemoaning that the FPs are out of date.  Yet 
they won't nominate Fantastic Posts.  What to do, what to do?

*****************

I've been *brainstorming!*  ;-D

My guess is that our problem is that we may be asking main list 
members to do too much.  We've asked them to read a lengthy ADMIN.  
We've asked them to e-mail us a message number with a description of 
the post at an e-mail address that they cannot remember without 
searching for the ADMIN we posted.  Alternatively, we've asked them 
to go to a database and enter information in four fields.

Maybe we ought to think about making things so easy that a chimp 
could comply with our instructions.  Like:

1.  Perhaps we shouldn't have two options for people to nominate 
posts.  Personally, I think we should dispense with the main list 
database.  If I were a member, I might be deterred by the prospect 
of clicking back and forth between the web-view screen and the 
database to get the columns filled in.  I assume that e-mail and 
digest readers may be unable or unwilling to log onto the main list 
to access the database as well.

2.  Also, most people are very active on the list as newcomers, and 
then their interest drops off.  Newcomers, however, are very likely 
not to be familiar with the Yahoo database features -- it was a 
while before I understood them myself -- and they may not be willing 
to take the time to sort it out.  Forwarding a message via e-mail or 
webview, on the other hand, is something everyone *gets.*

3.  I think we should ask for the minimum amount of information we 
need to find the post in question.  We don't even need a message 
number, really.  If someone forwards a post without a message 
number, we can find it easily using Paul's Magical Spreadsheet or 
the Yahoo search function.  So perhaps we should just ask that 
entire posts (or the message number) be forwarded.  When a 
recommended post comes in, perhaps one or two designated individuals 
could enter it into our own database on this list.

4.  Maybe we should drop our explanation of what makes a 
post "fantastic."  At this point, we probably ought to be willing to 
take a post that meets *anyone's* definition of "fantastic."  It is 
possible that members find this requirement intimidating:  "Oh, 
dear!  I'll look like a moron if I recommend something that doesn't 
measure up."  Further, I'd be willing to let people nominate their 
own posts.  Similarly, we might be able to dispense with the part 
where we explain that we might not use the post.  After all, most 
people won't remember what they nominated by the time we churn out 
some FPs, and they wouldn't be able to check the database to refresh 
their memories.

5.  I think we might want to find a way to keep the "Fantastic 
Posts" e-mail address at our members' fingertips.  This will be 
difficult.  But I think there is an automated way to add something 
to the footers of posts promoting this or that.  Perhaps the link 
could added to the footer (and home page) so that members see it 
(which would require the approval of MEG)?  I suppose that all 37 of 
us could put the link in our sigs when we post, but maybe that would 
look like we're plumping for a nomination ourselves?  I dunno.

6.  It would be great if we could think up a snappy, HP-related name 
for the project.  I'm drawing a blank right now, though.  

7.  This might be controversial, but I'll risk saying it anyway.  I 
think we have a secret weapon here that we haven't used to full 
advantage.  If we're concerned that people might not have read the 
ADMIN, maybe we should have someone post it who is *very* popular on 
the lists.  Someone whose posts pretty much everyone reads.  You 
know, the sort of person whose absence from the community is the 
source of hand-wringing on OTC and whose reappearance prompts hoots 
of celebration.  

<glances nervously in the general direction of the Pacific 
Northwest>  

Maybe if Elkins could be persuaded to post the ADMIN, maybe it would 
draw a few more eyes to our request?  

Anyway, that's all I can think of.  JMHO, of course. 

Cindy -- who can't recall the "Fantastic Posts" Yahoo group address 
off the top of her head even though she created the thing