Welcome to HPFGU-Feedback

[a_reader2003]

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Hebby Elf" 
<hebrideanblack at e...> wrote:
X-Original-Yahoo-Groups-Redacted-From: "a_reader2003" <carolynwhite2 at ...>
X-Original-Yahoo-Groups-Redacted-X-Sender: carolynwhite2 at ...
X-Original-Yahoo-Groups-Redacted-Return-Path: <carolynwhite2 at ...>

> If you could change one thing about HPfGU, what would it be?
> 
> Should there be some formal recognition of good/long-time posters?
> 
> If past experience is any guide, we'll be getting a surge of new 
> posters next June when the PoA movie premieres. How should we deal 
> with it? 
> 
Hi, I've been a member since July 03, and was delighted to find such 
an educated discussion group. I'm really keen to see its quality 
preserved, so thanks for having the courage to start this 
experimental feedback group. Hope it does some good.

The one thing I would like to see changed is a simpler, and more 
effective way of finding out what has been posted before. Searching 
85000 messages is becoming impossible. I sent a detailed proposal to 
the admin team in August outlining one way this might be achieved, 
but despite a prompt acknowledgement, never heard any more. It was 
only a suggestion, but if deemed useless, I would nevertheless like 
to know what else was being considered to solve this problem, either 
via FAQs or the Fantastic Posts sections. (I can re-post my proposal 
here if anyone wants to see it - tell me if this is permitted).

In response to both your other points, one idea I had was that 
experienced/long-time/interesting posters could be requested to use a 
debating forum that all members could see and follow, but couldn't 
join in with unless they met certain quality criteria. A sort of 
glass cage, I guess.

In following through the recent admin row on OTC, one of the most 
upsetting things for me was to see confirmed that there was a small 
group of long-term/original members who had formed their own inner 
sanctum to discuss ideas. I had heard this rumoured before, but 
thought it was just one of the usual conspiracy theories. Mainly I 
found it upsetting because I would just like to read what they were 
thinking. Personally I wouldn't dare try to join in such rarified 
discussions unless I had done a lot of thinking and research.

This two-step concept of membership would allow all new members to 
continue to have the pleasure of posting things and responding to 
each other in the normal way, as an outlet for their burning desire 
to discuss the books which prompts most people to join in the first 
place. However, it would also allow more dedicated/thoughtful members 
a less high-volume environment to continue to develop their ideas, to 
the benefit of everyone.

I leave it others to determine what the criteria for membership of 
the smaller group might be. (Will you have OWL and NEWT levels she 
wonders nervously... will there be written and practical exams..will 
I need a wand ?? <g>).

One further point. Despite all the thunderous messages from the elves 
about the rules for posting, it seems to me that they are violated 
all the time by newbies, and I can't understand how this happens as 
surely most of them must still be on moderated status ? Has the 
system broken down completely ?

Carolyn