From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long)

Fri Jul 30 06:09:44 UTC 2004

23401
From:  "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...>
Date:  Tue Jul 20, 2004  5:11 pm
Subject:  No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education )

Shaun wrote: <snipped>
> I confess to being just slightly annoyed with HPFGU at the moment -
> I sent a very large post, which I put a lot of research into, to
> the main list last week, and received virtually no comments about
> it at all. No reason I should I suppose... it's just very
> disappointing - especially when I see that far less detailed posts
> on the same types of issues spark a lot of discussion.
>
> Maybe I should have posted it here (-8.

Carol responds:
I think almost everyone, even those who dutifully spend every evening
posting to the list, are overwhelmed by the number of posts on the
main list right now. I, for one, have had to skip whole days' worth 
of
posts and still am nowhere near caught up, even skipping SHIPs and
FILKs. I have to be very selective about the posts I respond to as
well. When I do post, I generally put a lot of effort into it (as you
do, too) and even when I don't need to check canon, it's a very
time-consuming process.

Carol

P.S. When no one answers one of my posts, which happens fairly often,
I console myself with the thought that I've presented an unanswerable
argument, the last word on the subject, and no one has anything to
add. (It isn't true, of course, but the ban on "I agree" posts at
least makes it plausible.) ;-)

23403
From:  "Shaun Hately" <drednort at ...>
Date:  Tue Jul 20, 2004  5:35 pm
Subject:  Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] No responses on the main list (Was: 
Wizarding Education )

I think part of the problem is how large the list is getting - not
that I have a solution to that problem - but because probably
everybody is having to skim messages, a huge amount that people are
writing probably isn't even being read by most of the list.

I don't have any type of solution to that problem - but if I'd
posted that message a year ago, I'm almost certain I'd have had a
lot more comment - back when the list had about 5000 members, it
seemed to me that most things got read. Now it doesn't.

> So it's not that I don't appreciate the time and thought that went
> into your long post. I just put my own time and thought into other
> topics--like the POV in the books or analysis of events and
> characters. I think that many posters are in a similar position at 
the
> moment.

Yes, but I suppose my point is best illustrated by the fact that it
seems likely you didn't even notice my large post, because you're
commenting here about an entirely different post.

The post I'm referring to was the largest post sent to HPFGU since
September last year (as far back as my current HPFGU mailbox goes.
It represents approximately a month of fairly solid research, and
was heavily referenced.

And it looks like you didn't even notice it existed (-8

Now, that's hardly your fault - if anything is causing that, it's
the volume of the list caused by the lists success.

But, to be frank, if I write anything similar again, it's unlikely
I'll bother to post it to HPFGU because it seems to be a waste of
time. When I joined HPFGU, it wouldn't have been. I'd have been
fairly confident it was being read - even if nobody commented.

I'm not saying HPFGU isn't working - because it is, I've got a
great deal out of other discussions - but when I joined HPFGU, it
seemed to be a place where detailed, in depth discussions, and
detailed posts were pretty welcomed. It just doesn't seem that way
to me anymore.

Short posts tend to get read. Long posts now get ignored.

Being concise is fine when you're dealing with simple issues, or
when you don't mind spreading out a detailed discussion across lots
of posts, but sometimes you can't say something in a short way.

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought

23422
From:  "tonyaminton" <TonyaMinton at ...>
Date:  Wed Jul 21, 2004  9:21 am
Subject:  Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding 
Education )

Shaun wrote: <snipped>
> I confess to being just slightly annoyed with HPFGU at the moment -
> I sent a very large post, which I put a lot of research into, to
> the main list last week, and received virtually no comments about
> it at all. No reason I should I suppose... it's just very
> disappointing - especially when I see that far less detailed posts
> on the same types of issues spark a lot of discussion.
>
> Maybe I should have posted it here (-8.

Shaun,

I would have to agree with all the responses to your "slightly
annoyed". I enjoy reading as many of the great posts as I can and
responding when I have something useful to say. Most of the time my
useful thing to say has been said already by someone who read the
post earlier then I did. I also need to say that I have to be
selective as to what posts I read because of time constraints. We
are all adults here on the list and from what I gather we all have
families, jobs, and other stresses that keep us otherwise occupied.
I myself put my family first, then job stresses and then Harry. But
I have to admit that after working a 10 hour day, spending time with
my three year old, taking care of household needs, I am wiped out.

I hope that you do not take the lack of response your excellant post
personally. For me I always read all of your posts I love your point
of view. Please keep posting I know I am reading your posts even if
I don't have anything useful to add!!

Tonya (Who hopes the cheering charm I have put on Shaun works well!!)

23430
From:  "a_reader2003" <carolynwhite2 at ...>
Date:  Wed Jul 21, 2004  1:17 pm
Subject:  Re: Problem of list vol (was No responses on the main 
list )

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately"
<drednort at a...> wrote:
>
> I think part of the problem is how large the list is getting - not
> that I have a solution to that problem - but because probably
> everybody is having to skim messages, a huge amount that people are
> writing probably isn't even being read by most of the list.
>
> I don't have any type of solution to that problem - but if I'd
> posted that message a year ago, I'm almost certain I'd have had a
> lot more comment - back when the list had about 5000 members, it
> seemed to me that most things got read. Now it doesn't.
>

Carolyn:
Its a problem that a lot of people are experiencing. It actually does
need addressing, because otherwise the character of the list will be
permanently damaged, IMO.

Heretical suggestions in no particular order:
(1) close this list to newcomers and start a new one for new members,
resulting in current list over time becoming a calmer place to post

(2) start a new list for longer, more thoughtful posts, with tight
rules to ensure proper discussion, excluding people who have not been
a member for xx months

(3) introduce/tighten up draconian new rules on this list, eg
limiting number of posts per person, and insisting on more
substantive replies, proper reference to old posts and ideas,
eliminating FAQ & OT questions etc

Probably this should be on the Feedback list, so if it gets picked up
and moved by Admin, hope people might come over and debate it there.

Carolyn

From:  "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at ...> 
Date:  Wed Jul 21, 2004  4:17 pm 
Subject:  Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding 
Education )
Shaun wrote:

> I think part of the problem is how large the list is getting - not
> that I have a solution to that problem - but because probably
> everybody is having to skim messages, a huge amount that people are
> writing probably isn't even being read by most of the list.

The evidence of the posting record is that it's not the size of the
list per se that drives the posting rate, but the rate at which new
people join, and the incidence of external factors to write about.
jkrowling.com is now providing a fairly steady stream of comment-
worthy material, and in particular recently recommended the Lexicon,
which in turn recommends HPFGU. So there has been a massive spike
in new members.

If you look at the home page of the main list, you will see that the
join and post rates have already begun to fall off slightly.
Posting was up at almost 1400 a week - 200 a day - but is now below
1000. At about 160, the join rate is still high (about a dozen a
day would IIRC be normal for a quiet period), but I think it has
declined. Unfortunately, Yahoo keeps a poor record of membership
numbers (list administrators can in theory reconstruct them from the
records of people joining and leaving though it would be quite a bit
of work, I think), so it's hard to see this, but, say in late 2000
the post rate was not very different to now with about 10% of the
membership. Even allowing for the hiving off of OT and movie lists.

> I don't have any type of solution to that problem - but if I'd
> posted that message a year ago, I'm almost certain I'd have had a
> lot more comment - back when the list had about 5000 members, it
> seemed to me that most things got read. Now it doesn't.

> But, to be frank, if I write anything similar again, it's unlikely
> I'll bother to post it to HPFGU because it seems to be a waste of
> time. When I joined HPFGU, it wouldn't have been. I'd have been
> fairly confident it was being read - even if nobody commented.

This will probably be cold comfort, but my own experience is that
people sometimes comment, on or offlist, months or even years later,
on posts that raised scarcely a ripple at the time.

We are all pushed for time, and have three activities on the lists:
reading, posting substantive thoughts, and posting to acknowledge
others. I think it's probably pretty accurate to say that for most
of us, the acknowledgement activity gets brutally shoved into a
distant third place as far as priority is concerned.

> Short posts tend to get read. Long posts now get ignored.

It would be interesting to see if there's any objective evidence of
this.

It is a longstanding summer HPFGU tradition to whine about how the
list is going downhill. The fact that people have crawled out of
the woodwork bang on cue says to me that the continuity in all this
far outweighs what is new. In 2000, there was oldbie eye-rolling by
August about how newbies would ask about Dumbledore's gleam - less
than two months after GOF was published.

There was no golden age.

David

23435
From:  "a_reader2003" <carolynwhite2 at ...>
Date:  Thu Jul 22, 2004  3:22 am
Subject:  Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding 
Education )

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley"
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> Shaun wrote:
> > Short posts tend to get read. Long posts now get ignored.
>
David wrote:
> It would be interesting to see if there's any objective evidence of
> this.
>
> It is a longstanding summer HPFGU tradition to whine about how the
> list is going downhill. The fact that people have crawled out of
> the woodwork bang on cue says to me that the continuity in all this
> far outweighs what is new. In 2000, there was oldbie eye-rollingby
> August about how newbies would ask about Dumbledore's gleam - less
> than two months after GOF was published.
>
> There was no golden age.
>

Carolyn:
If it happens every summer, shouldn't we try and do something about
it? It can only get worse, not better over the next few years. What's
the point of regularly dis-affecting half the membership?

Every group needs constant renewal, older members burn out
constantly; it's just a question of managing the process. A regularly
updated consensus on what was a FAQ might stem the flow of some types
of post (provided there was an effective mechanism to catch these
posts before they got on to the list, and an easy place you could
refer people to to find the answers).

Controlling the number of posts per day might also be worth
considering if it is not possible to come to an agreement on how
large the group should be overall.

And although a peruse of the archives certainly reveals no golden
age, nevertheless, there is no doubt that when groups of members get
used to working with each other, and are familiar with each other's
points of view, some amazing threads can result. People stack ideas
on ideas in ever-more entertaining houses of cards.

Although the same groups also tend to fly too near the sun in their
excitement and fall to earth eventually, its great while it lasts,
and leaves a permanent legacy of great theories to be picked over and
re-mastered, or indeed, trashed by other people.

It's very rare for that kind of exhilarating thread to be generated
by totally new people, so sorry if you think its whining, but I think
it is quite important to try and strike a balance between the
interests of older members and those who have just joined.

Carolyn

23440
From:  "jimlaming" <jlaming426 at ...>
Date:  Thu Jul 22, 2004  11:52 am
Subject:  Re: Problem of list vol (was No responses on the main 
list )

"Shaun Hately" wrote: <snip>
I think part of the problem is how large the list is getting - not
that I have a solution to that problem - but because probably
everybody is having to skim messages, a huge amount that people are
writing probably isn't even being read by most of the list. <snip>

Carolyn:
Its a problem that a lot of people are experiencing. It actually does
need addressing, because otherwise the character of the list will be
permanently damaged, IMO. <snip>

Jim chimes in:

I joined almost 2 years ago and only started posting in the last 6-8
months or so. Unfortunately, I have now stopped reading regularly as
I just can't keep up with the volume and the discussions seem to be
revolving with very little new thought. Currently, I come back to
research a topic I have questions or ideas about and when I have a
few spare hours (LOL). There is a wealth of knowledge in the
archives if you can get through the search engine.

The HPfGU discussion board was my first HP site. As I have
progressed in my obsession, I have found other formats that enhanced
my study and understanding. Perhaps one of these could help solve
the volume crisis.

There is the synopsis format where a moderator (committee) has boiled
down the theories (al la; Hypothetic Alley: HPfGU's Wildest
Speculations) and presents the theories in all their spender. They
have noted major disagreements, flaws, interrelationships to other
theories and variations on a theme. To my knowledge, there have been
no new updates to the "Fantastic Posts and Where to Find Them" site
since OOP came out. I would love to see that branch of HPfGU
reactivated. Posters like me would ask fewer stupid questions and
have that "wealth of knowledge" organized and easily accessed.

Another format is to subdivide the topics into separate discussion
boards. Snape, Harry, Molly, Quidditch, Hogwarts, magical creatures,
FILK, SHIP, JKR interviews and appearances, etc
 Then we can review
the subject we are most interested in. Divide and concur, I mean
conquer. ;-)

I agree that something needs to be done to regulate or organize the
flood of posts. We are drowning in our own success. I don't pretend
to have all the answers. There are a lot smarter people than me out
there. I hope we can find a way.

Respectfully,
Jim Laming

23441
From: "heiditandy" <lists at ...>
Date:  Thu Jul 22, 2004  12:32 pm
Subject:  Re: Problem of list vol (was No responses on the main 
list )
Carolyn wrote:
> Its a problem that a lot of people are experiencing. It actually 
does
> need addressing, because otherwise the character of the list will 
be
> permanently damaged, IMO. <snip>

Carolyn - I don't want to sound dismissive, and I hope that what I
am about to say doesn't sound that way, but people have been saying
that for *years*. Right now, the main list is very different, and
yet no different, than the way it looked when I first joined HPfGU
over three years ago. Damaged? I don't think that's a fair way to
look at it - if you go back and look at the posts at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/messages/1, you'll see a
universe that's somewhate recognizable, but in a way, it's not.

I remember the list before the proliferation of acronyms. I remember
the list before coming up with a New and Unifying Theory was the be-
all-and-end-all of disucssion. I remember the list when one was
allowed to use an original narrative - or even fanfiction to make a
point about something in canon. And oh, do I remember the first
volleys in the ship debates (pretty much Oct-Nov, 2000).

The list is a changing animal, and people have a tendency to think
that The Way It Was When They Joined Or First Became Involved is how
it should be - and sometimes they're right, and sometimes, things
need to develop and grow and yes, they change.

Now, I haven't been on the mod side of things on this list in over a
year - but there were discussions in 2001, in 2002 and in 2003 about
closing the list to newbies; as it stands now, newbies can't post to
the list without having their first posts screened by a mod. That
wasn't the way things were three years ago - or even two. But it's
the way things are now, and it's caused a change in how the list is.

Then Jim chimed in and said:
> I joined almost 2 years ago and only started posting in the last 6-
8
> months or so. Unfortunately, I have now stopped reading regularly 
as
> I just can't keep up with the volume and the discussions seem to be
> revolving with very little new thought. Currently, I come back to
> research a topic I have questions or ideas about and when I have a
> few spare hours (LOL). There is a wealth of knowledge in the
> archives if you can get through the search engine.
>
> The HPfGU discussion board was my first HP site. As I have
> progressed in my obsession, I have found other formats that 
enhanced
> my study and understanding. Perhaps one of these could help solve
> the volume crisis.
>
> Another format is to subdivide the topics into separate discussion
> boards. Snape, Harry, Molly, Quidditch, Hogwarts, magical 
creatures,
> FILK, SHIP, JKR interviews and appearances, etc
 Then we can review
> the subject we are most interested in. Divide and concur, I mean
> conquer. ;-)

There are other forums in the fandom that do things this way - it's
much more organic and natural on a message board than it is on a
mailing list. My own site, FictionAlley, has forums for discussion
of every character
(http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/forumdisplay.php
?s=&forumid=11), book
(http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/forumdisplay.php
?s=&forumid=10), interview
(http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/forumdisplay.php
?s=&forumid=38), SHIP
(http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/forumdisplay.php
?s=&forumid=36) or FILK
(http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/forumdisplay.php
?s=&forumid=33 although admittedly, the area for filks has an
abundance of youthfulness about it; all filks, however, are
appreciated!). Some people find the subdivision of concepts a handy
way to engage in discussion, and among the million-plus posts, a
wide range of discussions are taking place.

But it's all about, really, how you like to read and discuss. I've
always enjoyed turning arguments into stories, but others prefer to
use traditional debate and forensic league styles
(http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/forumdisplay.php
?s=&forumid=164).

heidi

23442
From:  "arrowsmithbt" <arrowsmithbt at ...>
Date:  Thu Jul 22, 2004  12:57 pm
Subject:  Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding 
Education )

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" 
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
>
> It is a longstanding summer HPFGU tradition to whine about how the
> list is going downhill. The fact that people have crawled out of
> the woodwork bang on cue says to me that the continuity in all this
> far outweighs what is new. In 2000, there was oldbie eye-rolling by
> August about how newbies would ask about Dumbledore's gleam - less
> than two months after GOF was published.
>
> There was no golden age.

Possibly, but that's no reason to not aspire to one.

And yes, although I've been a member for little over a year I too 
think the
standard of the average post has declined. I was part of the big 
influx in
response to the forthcoming publication of OoP - more numerous than
the current intake, I think. But there's a not-so-subtle difference 
this time
- they're (mostly) not a response to the books, but to the release 
of the
film. And judging by some of the posts a proportion of them have 
never
bothered to read the books properly. Doesn't stop 'em posting, 
though.

I've had mails querying my posts - "because it didn't happen that 
way in
the film" and "the clues in the film say different." Since I've not 
seen the film
and have no intention of doing so, I'm not able to comment except to 
point
out that the films aren't canon. To which I received replies -
 "canon is
boring"; "canon doesn't matter"; "forget canon, the film is more 
fun."
OK, they might be exceptions (I hope), but it doesn't give me a 
great deal
of confidence for the future if more than a handful with this 
attitude post
with any regularity. Makes you wonder if it's worthwhile grafting to 
put a
reasoned post together if make believe, adolescent fantasy and the 
view
through Warner Bros. story filter are seen as more desirable.

Never had that sort of mail previous to the past month. Could well be
straws in the wind.

So call me a whiner - better to my mind than airily dismissing 
concerns
from the lofty eminence of 4 years on site. One stance is concerned 
about
maintaining reasonably adult standards; the other sees no cause to 
worry.
Sorry, I think you're wrong. The complexion of the membership is 
changing,
and not in a way I feel comfortable with.

Kneasy

23443
From:  "Dina Lerret" <redina at ...>
Date:  Thu Jul 22, 2004  1:30 pm
Subject:  Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Problem of list vol (was No 
responses on the main list )

heiditandy said:

> But it's all about, really, how you like to read and discuss. I've
> always enjoyed turning arguments into stories, but others prefer to
> use traditional debate and forensic league styles

The HPFGU groups do offer an interesting alternative, but I'm more 
of a
slasher and not even close to a literary intellectual. Truthfully, I
haven't read a single HPFGU message in weeks; I just skim subjects.

I'm happiest on mailing lists (multiple technical reasons that no 
forum or
journal has yet to compensate) where folks are free to killfile me 
or jump
into a discussion. I can think for myself but it's interesting to 
have a
second viewpoint.

If the complaint was about folks being 'buried under the masses', 
join the
club. Fanfic writers are especially paranoid. For example, since I'm
replying to Heidi's message, the FA domains could be a 'graveyard' 
for
some fics or forum posts because of the huge amount of work they're
competing with.

Hm, create your own 'clique'. Find folks you want to converse with 
and
*privately* invite them into a smaller group. Elitist, yeah, but 
that's
what some of y'all are suggesting anyway.

Dina,
a last year 'newbie' on HPFGU that's probably still on moderated - I 
can
chat freely here and on the HPFGU movie list and I'm happy with that

23444
From:  "Amanda" <editor at ...>
Date:  Thu Jul 22, 2004  1:31 pm
Subject:  Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding 
Education )

David, who is correct:

> > There was no golden age.

Idealist!Kneasy responds:
>
> Possibly, but that's no reason to not aspire to one.
>
<snip>

> So call me a whiner - better to my mind than airily dismissing 
concerns
> from the lofty eminence of 4 years on site.

Not quite four in my case, but close, so I feel qualified to comment.

Part of what you may be experiencing might honestly have nothing to
do with the quality of the posts. I was an enthusiastic poster for
quite a long time--in fact, in the old stats lists I topped the chart
for quite some time. My participation has tailed off for a couple of
reasons. One, of course, has to do with increased time demands from
other aspects of life. But another has to do with "list life."

By that I mean a natural progression of participation. I call
it "natural" because I have observed and discussed this with other
old listmembers--I don't feel I'm describing a phenomenon unique to
me.

Fact is, when you come onboard you are bursting with ideas and
theories and delighted to find a place to share them. If you stay,
though, after about a year--about the time you say you've been 
onlist-
-it starts to be the case that there are no new ideas (or it seems
not). Enthusiastic new members come on after you and bring up
theories and ideas that you've already had, or already discussed, or
already explored.

At first, you respond and participate, and when relevant, point out
aspects from the earlier discussions (or provide a thread name, or
message number of interest). And you strive not to quash these people
just becaus you've heard this "new" idea four or five times. It's a
new thought to *them,* and you remind yourself it's not their fault
you're tired of it.

And after a while, you stop responding to so many posts, because if
you participate you feel obligated to *fully* participate, and the
cumulative weight of those earlier discussions and the desire to make
newcomers aware of brilliant past insights begin to seem conflicted
with a desire to make them welcome and let them explore and discuss
for themselves.

And you might end up pretty much lurking, stepping in now and then to
make a comment.

In this progression, in the "whiny" phase (no offense), there's a
feeling of letdown. At least for me, I used to be a major poster and
my ideas were discussed and valued. Then it seemed like nobody was
reading my stuff anymore; I called myself a list dementor because all
I had to do was comment and the thread died. Or I'd post a good
discussion of something, with a fun sig line--and the substance would
be totally ignored, while spinoff comments on the sig line thrived.
This was my experience of the whiny phase, and I did in fact whine
about it (hence no offense, I've been there).

What I'm saying--In that time, when the list doesn't seem quite the
same and you're trying to figure out why, don't think it's entirely
externals. There have been discussions upon discussions of whether
the quality of posts was declining. The quality of posts has always
fluctuated. As David pointed out, we're coming off a spike, which
probably accounts for this particular fluctuation (if there is one).

But don't overlook, in analyses of how the list is changing, how your
interaction with the list may be changing and maturing as well.

~Amanda

23445
From:  Suzanne Chiles <suzchiles at ...>
Date:  Thu Jul 22, 2004  1:32 pm
Subject:  RE: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: No responses on the main list 
(Was: Wizarding Education )

Perhaps what we need is a canon-only,
no-film-mention-at-all sublist.
Personally, I was happier before we were allowed to
discuss film-related
issues on the main list.

Suzanne

From:  "entropymail" <entropymail at ...>
Date:  Thu Jul 22, 2004  1:56 pm
Subject:  Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding 
Education )

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt"
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley"
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> <snip> There was no golden age.

> Kneasy:
Possibly, but that's no reason to not aspire to one. <snip> And
judging by some of the posts a proportion of them have never bothered
to read the books properly. Doesn't stop 'em posting, though.

Entropy:

True, Kneasy. The problem may be two-fold: I am frustrated lately by
not just the caliber of the posts, but by the subjects themselves.
First, if I'm going to entertain a theory (or post one myself), it's
got to be chock-full of canon and common sense; a simple post stating
a theory and a sentence from Book 3 to back it up just isn't going to
do it for me. And second, I'm personally getting a bit tired of being
asked to entertain the same theories over and over again. (No offense
to all of you Vampire!Snape diehards out there, but do we really need
to be re-hashing that one again? )

My concern is not so much that the list is getting too big or too
busy, or too whatever, but that it is in grave danger of stagnating.
In my mind, the older posters have (rightfully so) a "been there, 
done
that" attitude: they've done the research and collaborated on the
theories and drawn their conclusions, and don't really have much
interest in watching the newbies start at square one all over again.

>Kneasy:<snip>So call me a whiner - better to my mind than airily
dismissing concerns from the lofty eminence of 4 years on site. One
stance is concerned about maintaining reasonably adult standards; the
other sees no cause to worry. Sorry, I think you're wrong. The
complexion of the membership is changing, and not in a way I feel
comfortable with.

Entropy:

Once again, Kneasy, I agree. Whether or not problems have been
brought up in the past is no reason to dismiss them now. Perhaps the
complaints were unfounded in the past; or, perhaps those complaining
two or three years ago simply saw then what has now reached critical 
mass.

In any case, it doesn't seem out of line to consider somehow 
splitting
the list. Although someone suggested that other lists have been
divided by subject (Snape, FILKS, Ships, etc.), I don't think 
anything
that drastic is necessary. Simply splitting the list into two groups:

(1)newbies who are excited about discovering older theories for
themselves and
(2) oldies who have a certain amount of time put into the group (or a
certain number of posts)

seems to me to be a fair way of keeping newer members happy and older
members interested.

Elves, are you listening?

:: Entropy :::

23449
From:  "arrowsmithbt" <arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com>
Date:  Thu Jul 22, 2004  3:26 pm
Subject:  Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding 
Education )

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at ...m, "Amanda" <editor at t...> wrote:
>
> Not quite four in my case, but close, so I feel qualified to 
comment.
>
> Part of what you may be experiencing might honestly have nothing to
> do with the quality of the posts. I was an enthusiastic poster for
> quite a long time--in fact, in the old stats lists I topped the 
chart
> for quite some time. My participation has tailed off for a couple 
of
> reasons. One, of course, has to do with increased time demands from
> other aspects of life. But another has to do with "list life."
>
> By that I mean a natural progression of participation. I call
> it "natural" because I have observed and discussed this with other
> old listmembers--I don't feel I'm describing a phenomenon unique to
> me.
>
> Snip>
>
> What I'm saying--In that time, when the list doesn't seem quite the
> same and you're trying to figure out why, don't think it's entirely
> externals. There have been discussions upon discussions of whether
> the quality of posts was declining. The quality of posts has always
> fluctuated. As David pointed out, we're coming off a spike, which
> probably accounts for this particular fluctuation (if there is 
one).
>
> But don't overlook, in analyses of how the list is changing, how 
your
> interaction with the list may be changing and maturing as well.
>

Maturing? Me? Hardly. I'm growing old disgracefully.

Oh yes, I've tried to take into account the rush of enthusiasm that
carries you through the first few months, usually followed by a more
selective approach to posting. That is a natural progression, I 
agree.

After you've been around awhile it's natural to grunt when some old
relic of a topic is resurrected for the umteenth time - not that 
again!
But take the time to read these re-animations and you'll possibly see
that the way they are composed and the handling of the subject
matter is starting to change. This is the bit that worries/annoys me.

Where before canon was quoted, possibilities put forward, questions
framed, ideas exchanged and modified it's often not so now. I get the
feeling that there is an increasing tendency for the mind-set of
"I want it to be like this." Refutation with hard canon makes no
difference; the perception is fixed - and then others join in with
"Ooh! What a lovely idea!" Fortunately, up to now most of it has
concerned trivial items, posts and subject matter that you can flip
past without feeling that you're missing something. To make an
analogy, it's as if the wishful whimsy of SHIPpers is spreading to
other areas.

And no, I don't want a hanging committee to adjudicate on the
worthiness of the subject under disussion. Humour, a light touch
and even the inconsequential are to be valued on a site like this.
But how it's handled and presented does influence posters,
responses and threads that follow after. Careless and sloppy
breeds the more careless and even sloppier follow-up.

A year ago, if I made a balls-up, there was always somebody who
would adminster a boot up the backside - a strip publicly torn
off for submitting such tripe, quoting chapter and verse to enlighten
my ignorance of what the books really said. Haven't seen that 
recently.
Pity.

BTW, there was a post today wondering at the ages of the posters;
it's crossed my mind too.

Kneasy

23452
From:  "(Mrs.) Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force)" <n2fgc at ...>
Date:  Thu Jul 22, 2004  6:37 pm
Subject:  RE: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: No responses on the main list 
(Was: Wizarding Education )

From: entropymail [mailto:entropymail at ...]
| Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004
| > Kneasy:
| Possibly, but that's no reason to not aspire to one. <snip> And
| judging by some of the posts a proportion of them have never 
bothered
| to read the books properly. Doesn't stop 'em posting, though.
|
| Entropy:
|
| True, Kneasy. The problem may be two-fold: I am frustrated lately 
by
| not just the caliber of the posts, but by the subjects themselves.
| First, if I'm going to entertain a theory (or post one myself), 
it's
| got to be chock-full of canon and common sense; a simple post 
stating
| a theory and a sentence from Book 3 to back it up just isn't going 
to
| do it for me. And second, I'm personally getting a bit tired of 
being
| asked to entertain the same theories over and over again. (No 
offense
| to all of you Vampire!Snape diehards out there, but do we really 
need
| to be re-hashing that one again? )

[Lee]:
Of course, if everyone would read the FAQ files and such before 
posting,
this probably wouldn't happen so much.

Now, I've got to admit, I joined the HPFGU Main List in--uh--hmm--
April, I
think?...well, anyway, I did *scan* the FAQ files and tried to 
absorb the
acronyms with little success. :-) There's just sooo much info to read
through fully. But I at least felt pretty comfortable popping in.

When I posted, I tried to devote a great deal of care to my posts 
and did
all I could to adhere to List Protocols, and had lots of fun.

As of late, however, some of the thrust of some of the threads makes 
me
wonder if I've read the same books as some of the posters out 
there...no
offense, but some of the stuff just totally eludes me. Perhaps I'm
too--uh--concrete in my thinking that not every line has to allude 
to or
foreshadow something...like the "stalagmite & Stalactite" thing. I 
admit
I've got to wonder about all the time-travel stuff...a bit too way 
off the
deep end for me. Etc., etc.

[Entropy]:
| My concern is not so much that the list is getting too big or too
| busy, or too whatever, but that it is in grave danger of 
stagnating.
| In my mind, the older posters have (rightfully so) a "been there, 
done
| that" attitude: they've done the research and collaborated on the
| theories and drawn their conclusions, and don't really have much
| interest in watching the newbies start at square one all over 
again.

[Lee]:
Well, on the Battlestar Galactica list which I moderate, sometimes if
there's enough lag, old things wax new again and a fresh spin can be 
put on
something that older-list minds didn't see but one of the newer-list 
minds
comes up with. Then, things can get interesting.
|
| >Kneasy:<snip>So call me a whiner - better to my mind than airily
| dismissing concerns from the lofty eminence of 4 years on site. One
| stance is concerned about maintaining reasonably adult standards; 
the
| other sees no cause to worry. Sorry, I think you're wrong. The
| complexion of the membership is changing, and not in a way I feel
| comfortable with.

[Lee, breaking in]:
Been there, done that on the BSG list. That's why I went from full-
mod to
co-mod; I thought perhaps another voice, new blood, would be able to 
handle
the change of dynamic, climate, whatever you wish to call it. We 
were a
very close-knit, tight group who shared a lot; now, I don't feel I 
really
know that many of the posters as well as I used to. Of course, our 
volume
and numbers are no way as big as HPForGrownups!
|
[Entropy]:
| Once again, Kneasy, I agree. Whether or not problems have been
| brought up in the past is no reason to dismiss them now. Perhaps 
the
| complaints were unfounded in the past; or, perhaps those 
complaining
| two or three years ago simply saw then what has now reached 
critical mass.

[Lee]:
Or, perhaps, those complaining just lurk or left.
|
[Entropy]:
| In any case, it doesn't seem out of line to consider somehow 
splitting
| the list. Although someone suggested that other lists have been
| divided by subject (Snape, FILKS, Ships, etc.), I don't think 
anything
| that drastic is necessary. Simply splitting the list into two 
groups:
|
| (1) newbies who are excited about discovering older theories for
| themselves and
| (2) oldies who have a certain amount of time put into the group 
(or a
| certain number of posts)
| seems to me to be a fair way of keeping newer members happy and 
older
| members interested.
|
| Elves, are you listening?

[Lee]:
A newby list might be a good idea or maybe if there's someone with 
all the
information at hand who newbies can write to...who knows. These,
unfortunately, are situations which probably always arise when 
running
lists. <Sigh.> Like I say, been there, done that

One most important thing is *Consistency*. Examples:
Any OT posts, for example, should either be 1) replied to off-list 
or 2)
directed here to the chatter list.
Movie & Canon comparisons might need their own list, I don't know.
People who are basing their views on the films instead of the books 
should
be redirected to the Movie list.
Whichever way one goes, absolute consistency is paramount. IMO this 
goes
for the list-veterans as well as the newbies.

Anyway, I've still found some interesting threads to read and am 
certainly
enjoying the banter on this list.

The other thing to consider is that sometimes we get a case of "list
burnout". That means that one needs to lay off for a couple months 
and give
it all a rest, then come back and see what the climate is. 
Unfortunately,
as a Mod, I can't leave...I'm trapped on the BSG list! <BEG> But 
I've seen
listers do this...take a sabbatical for a couple months, then come 
back and
test the waters.

Anyway, there's no clear-cut answer; what will please some won't 
please all
and that's just the way it is. I have to applaud the Elves; this 
isn't a
small group and takes a heck of a lot of work, I'm sure, to keep 
everything
running as smootly as it is. Being a List Mom/Mod/Elf can be almost 
like
having a full-time job which can be rough, especially if one has an 
active
RL, too.

So, please, Elves, know that I understand and thank you for your 
efforts.

Cheers,
Lee :-)

.

23455
From:  "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at yahoo.com>
Date:  Thu Jul 22, 2004  7:20 pm
Subject:  Suggestion: A Guide for posts in HPfGU (Was: No responses 
on the main list)

> Entropy:
><snip>
>Simply splitting the list into two groups:
>
> (1)newbies who are excited about discovering older theories for
> themselves and
> (2) oldies who have a certain amount of time put into the group 
(or a
> certain number of posts)
>
> seems to me to be a fair way of keeping newer members happy and 
older
> members interested.

Neri:
I have a suggestion that, I think, can be carried out whether or not
any splitting or other actions take place.

I personally doubt the success of any method involving strong
centralistic control and governing the members, such as (say)
limiting them to a max of two posts per day, or preventing newbies
from posting for several months after joining, or splitting the
group. I think we need a positive approach, something that will be a
refreshing alternative to all those short newbie posts like "does
anybody also think that The Other in the prophecy could be Neville?"

I think it is high time that the post-OotP HPfGU will have a Guide.
I'm not thinking about anything neat like the "Fantastic Posts" site
(this is impossible in the current very dynamic situation of the
group). I'm thinking about a "favorite links" page that will replace
the horrible search engine of Yahoo. It should be easily accessible,
so most newbies, instead of posting "does anybody think that The
Other in the prophecy could be Neville", will instead search the
guide for this theory, and then will post only if they have a new and
interesting thought.

I think such a link page can be easily assembled with a minimum
effort by the list elves (or anybody who will volunteer to edit it. I
personally would be glad to help). The trick is to delegate the
tedious work of searching and sifting the good posts to the members.
Simply ask the members to send links to posts from the last year
(theirs or of other members) that they think are original, canon-
based, well-written and/or started an interesting thread. Each
submitted post should include the link, a single line describing its
subject, and another line listing several key words that did not make
it to the subject line (these key words are in order to help readers
to find posts in the subject that they are interested with). To make
the work of the editors even easier, the members should also
recommend possible sections where this post might logically be 
placed.

So for example, if I submit one of my recent posts it will look like
this:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/106729
Bellatrix, Andromeda and Narcissa according to the Black's family
tree.
(12 Grimmauld Place, tapestry, Sirius, Rudolphus Lestrange, Ted
Tonks, genealogy)

Possible sections: "The Black family", "Minor characters", "Time
lines"

The editors of the Guide will only have to sort these links according
to the sections suggested, or any other classification they will find
convenient. I expect sections such as "Prophecy
Interpretations", "The Gleam in DD's Eyes", "Severus Snape", "Neville
Longbottom", "Minor Characters", "H/H SHIP", "Flints and
Inconsistencies", "Life in the WW", and so on.

I won't be surprised if the ensuing list will contain links to
several hundred posts, but it will still be easy to search, using the
browser's "search in page" function or according to the sections. The
link for "The HPfGU Guide" should be placed in the opening page of
the website in a noticeable way, and newbies should be encouraged by
ADNIN to search it before posting.

The Guide can be important for demonstrating to newbies what is the
style of the group and what are the qualities of a good post. It may
also encourage even old timers to go into the effort of writing a
well thought-of post, so it will be worthy of Guide status. In
addition, I'm hoping some members will use the Guide to
write "review" posts that cover many posts of a whole subject, such
as Elkins' memorable Memory Charm symposium. Perhaps in the future
when the Guide will (almost certainly) become too large for
convenient searching, such review posts will be able to serve as a
Guide to the Guide.

I'm sure other members can improve this idea further.

Neri,
who was a newbie less than a year ago

From:  Lanthiriel S <isilvalacirca at ...>
Date:  Thu Jul 22, 2004  7:48 pm
Subject:  RE: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: No responses on the main list 
(Was: Wizarding Education )

--- "(Mrs.) Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force)"
<n2fgc at ...> wrote:
> Now, I've got to admit, I joined the HPFGU Main List
> in--uh--hmm--April, I
> think?...well, anyway, I did *scan* the FAQ files
> and tried to absorb the
> acronyms with little success. :-) There's just sooo
> much info to read
> through fully. But I at least felt pretty
> comfortable popping in.
>
> When I posted, I tried to devote a great deal of
> care to my posts and did
> all I could to adhere to List Protocols, and had
> lots of fun.

Well, I'm definitely no authority on the workings of
the main list and I don't feel that I have the right
to criticize or complain, but I do have a few
thoughts. I joined only a few weeks back and I now
have about 500 unread daily digests sitting in my
newly expanded Yahoo inbox. The volume is part of what
has me so behind, but also the feeling that I rather
"missed the boat" - that the people on the list all
know one another, are familiar with each other's
personal theories, pet peeves, and interests and that
I as a new member have nothing to add - or, at least,
nothing that anyone will really care to read.

I know the rules are absolutely necessary, and they do
help familiarize new members to some extent. And I can
completely understand the frustration of having new
people pop up and ask the same old tired questions
that have been discussed a million times before. But
even with the ability to search the archives for
specific topics, the sheer amount of posts - and the
length of time over which they may be spread - makes
it very, very difficult to read everything that has
been said on a given subject.

In short, joining the main list can be a very daunting
proposition to some new members, and if there is a
lack of "new blood" as has been mentioned, that might
be a reason.

> As of late, however, some of the thrust of some of
> the threads makes me
> wonder if I've read the same books as some of the
> posters out there...no
> offense, but some of the stuff just totally eludes
> me. Perhaps I'm
> too--uh--concrete in my thinking that not every line
> has to allude to or
> foreshadow something...

Yes, this may also be a bit off-putting to some new
members. I don't mean to say that everyone shouldn't
have the right to bring up such theories - that's part
of the fun of these books - but if some members have
theories which they'd like to share which are... a bit
less complex, they may feel they're going to get booed
off the stage by members who have studied the books
much more intently.

> [Lee]:
> A newby list might be a good idea or maybe if
> there's someone with all the
> information at hand who newbies can write to...who
> knows. These,
> unfortunately, are situations which probably always
> arise when running
> lists. <Sigh.> Like I say, been there, done that

I think the idea of having two lists is a great one.
One list for newer members who might be interested in
rehashing the old theories that - even though they're
adult fans - may be completely new to them. The second
list could be for the more established members, those
who have exhausted such topics and - after having made
a certain number of posts or being nominated by a mod?
- desire to join in different conversations. The idea
of having a moderator very familiar with the
discussions on the main list is also a very good one.
That way new members could e-mail them, run a topic by
them, and - if it were the vampire Snape theory, for
instance - the moderator could advise them not to
bring it up and perhaps where they could read about it
in the archive.

People are often pressed for time and, while it's
completely reasonable to search the archive and read a
few posts on a topic of interest, I don't think anyone
has time to wade through hundreds upon hundreds of
messages to familiarize themselves with the
intricacies of a particular theory or long-running
conversation. This is especially true when people are
excited and eager to express themselves. They're more
likely to end up not posting at all, too worried that
they might get a negative reception for broaching the
subject. Again, I understand that this has to be
weighed with the absolute need to avoid pointless
posts asking the same old questions - but it can also
be very intimidating.

Just my thoughts, Lanthiriel - who thinks the
"Fantastic Posts" page is also wonderful, but who
still feels rather lost

23458
From:  "saitaina" <saitaina at frontiernet.net>
Date:  Thu Jul 22, 2004  7:51 pm
Subject:  Posting value, ages and genral comment (was: Responses ont 
he Main List)

Steve wrote:

<However, I suspect the Moderator were hoping that
the thread would eventually pull back on track. >

I think we're still holding onto that hope.

Very, very difficult. For example, if we
pull one thread but let one stay, we run the
risk of one going way off topic, one turning
into a flame war, or the people we move
flooding our inboxes with howlers. We have
to balance the needs of the list with respect
for list members, adding in a dash of common
sense and hope that we make the right choice
in the end.

Not to mention, there are thirty (more or
less) elves trying to make this decision at
once so we too seem to be ignoring things
when we're actually trying to figure out what
to do. Please note that this applies to
everything we do, not just pulling lists.

Oh, you were one of those? :o)

<Although, is there really
any point in reponding to a post that was
made in 2000?>

Reviving dead topics is a hobby in HPfGU's
worlds. I fully support anyone who wants to
go back and revive dead topics so long as
they're not the gleam in Dumbledore's eyes
one (sorry, pet peeve of mine). New faces,
new voices often have different views and
opinions which lead to interesting
conversation.

Kneasy wrote:

<BTW, there was a post today wondering at
the ages of the posters;
it's crossed my mind too. >

Someone's probably mentioned this but there
is a poll near the main list that addresses
this question. The average age, last time I
looked, was 18-25, but we do have younger
members. I myself almost joined young (then
I waited a year and joined).

Heidi wrote:

<but there were discussionsin 2001, in 2002
and in 2003 about
closing the list to newbies>

Still ongoing.

As Dave has said though, lulls in posting
quality and volume happen, and have happened
for years, and as Heidi pointed out, the list
is ever changing. Heck, I remember a time
before -OTC and -Movie (goddess, does anyone
remember HPfGU-Food?). I would never give up
HPfGU, no matter what the change in
quality/volume because I've been out there in
the wilds of the HP fandom.

You guys think this is bad...go join some of
the other HP lists, and tell me when you can
translate the netspeak, bad plot theories
(and yes there are some worse ones then what
we come up with), the posting style that will
make you go cross eyed trying to figure out
what's being said, and so forth.

Give it time, as we all do. It'll go up,
it'll go down...it may even go sideways, but
it'll still be the HPfGU we know and love.

Saitaina
Not speaking as an Admin Team member, but a
list member who happens to be on the Admin
Team (and if you think that's confusing you
should see what I first wrote)
****
"I laugh in the face of death...maybe not
laugh more like a snicker...a quiet snicker,
and I wouldn't do it directly in death's face
so, it's more like a quiet snicker behind
death's back. "

http://www.livejournal.com/users/saitaina

"No, one day I'm going to look back on all
this and plow face-first into a tree because
I was looking the wrong bloody way. And I'll
still be having a better day than I am
today."

23465
From:  "Phil Boswell" <phil_hp7 at ...>
Date:  Fri Jul 23, 2004  6:01 am
Subject:  Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding 
Education )

Lanthiriel S <isilvalacirca at y...> wrote:
[snip]
> The volume is part of what
> has me so behind, but also the feeling that I rather
> "missed the boat" - that the people on the list all
> know one another, are familiar with each other's
> personal theories, pet peeves, and interests and that
> I as a new member have nothing to add - or, at least,
> nothing that anyone will really care to read.

I agree. Many of the "threads" come across as almost-private
conversations between good friends to which the rest of us are
graciously allowed to listen.

I also get discouraged by the lack of logic and rigour in many of the
arguments. I commented on this, in connection with the time-travel
mania some while back, saying that it felt as if many posters each 
had
their own pet mcguffin which they were determined to interject into
the discussion regardless of whether there was any support for it in
canon.

Some people are desperate for a time-travel story, so they will try 
to
work that into the HP series, disregarding all the warnings about it
stated within canon. Suggesting that Dumbledore *must* be Ron Weasley
sent back in time, despite all the back-story about DD in canon, and
the absurdity of such a prominent figure springing up out of nowhere,
is a prime example.

Some people like the idea of good literature about gay relationships,
which includes myself (emphasis on the "good" there, and I include
various books by Misty Lackey amongst my "favourite ever" list). But
there's no reason to jump up and down insisting that Lupin and Sirius
*must* be lovers, for example. Maybe JKR will incorporate a character
who is openly gay, maybe she won't. I don't happen to think it will
make the books bad literature if she never does.

Actually I think the main "miscreants" are those who have chosen 
their
favourite character, or at any rate their *interpretation* of that
character, and are prepared to defend their opinion to the death.

As for what I think about people who haven't learnt what "snippage" 
is
and just quote entire posts because they're too lazy to edit, I'm
afraid as a long-ago Usenet freak, my opinion is well-nigh
unprintable. It just gets impossible to read a conversation when the
individual posts are badly formatted and too convoluted to follow. I
just scroll past most of this stuff.

Sorry, this started out as a quick comment, and seems to have turned
into a minor rant. Lunchtime beckons :-)
--
Phil

23466
From:  "(Mrs.) Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force)" <n2fgc at ...>
Date:  Fri Jul 23, 2004  7:32 am
Subject:  RE: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: No responses on the main list 
(Was: Wizarding Education )

[Phil B., on a roll, wrote]:
|
| Some people are desperate for a time-travel story, so they will 
try to
| work that into the HP series, disregarding all the warnings about 
it
| stated within canon. Suggesting that Dumbledore *must* be Ron 
Weasley
| sent back in time, despite all the back-story about DD in canon, 
and
| the absurdity of such a prominent figure springing up out of 
nowhere,
| is a prime example.

[Lee]:
That's one of the things that makes me wonder if I've really read 
the same
HP books as everyone else. <LOL>

[Phil]:
<Snip>
| As for what I think about people who haven't learnt 
what "snippage" is
| and just quote entire posts because they're too lazy to edit, I'm
| afraid as a long-ago Usenet freak, my opinion is well-nigh
| unprintable. It just gets impossible to read a conversation when 
the
| individual posts are badly formatted and too convoluted to follow. 
I
| just scroll past most of this stuff.

[Lee]:
Yes, and the lack of proper attribution on some of the posts makes it
difficult to know who's speaking, especially for those of us with 
screen
readers, unless I manually cursor through and look for all the 
prefix marks.
I do think the policy on correct attribution is really a great one; 
let's
all hold to it.

And spell-checkers...I'd be lost without mine, for sure. Not that 
I'm a
terrible speller, but when typing fast, errors can occur and the
spell-checker is my friend. I've taught it a lot, too, between HP and
Battlestar terminology. <LOL>

And, of course, there's post signing...something I'm always 
attacking my BSG
list people about, for all the good it does. <Sigh> :-)

[Phil]:
| Sorry, this started out as a quick comment, and seems to have 
turned
| into a minor rant. Lunchtime beckons :-)

Hmm--I just had breakfast at the frightfully early hour of 8:30 
A.M., which
is almost unheard of in this house! <Grin>

Rants are not necessarily a bad thing, for you never know who may be
secretly ranting with you and just afraid to post it for whatever 
reason.

However, at this point, I shall disband and march my little self 
downstairs
for my second coffee...or third...or... :-)

Later,

Lee :-)

23468
From:  "ameliagoldfeesh" <ameliagoldfeesh at ...>
Date:  Fri Jul 23, 2004  7:57 am
Subject:  Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding 
Education )

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lanthiriel S
<isilvalacirca at y...> wrote:
<BIG HUGE SNIP (something else I notice that has been missing on a
number of posts (AG)>

> I think the idea of having two lists is a great one.
> One list for newer members who might be interested in
> rehashing the old theories that - even though they're
> adult fans - may be completely new to them. The second
> list could be for the more established members, those
> who have exhausted such topics and - after having made
> a certain number of posts or being nominated by a mod?
> - desire to join in different conversations. The idea
> of having a moderator very familiar with the
> discussions on the main list is also a very good one.
> That way new members could e-mail them, run a topic by
> them, and - if it were the vampire Snape theory, for
> instance - the moderator could advise them not to
> bring it up and perhaps where they could read about it
> in the archive.
> <SNIP>

> Just my thoughts, Lanthiriel - who thinks the
> "Fantastic Posts" page is also wonderful, but who
> still feels rather lost
<SNIP>

A. Goldfeesh says...(this isn't personally directed at Lanthiriel)

The only problem with having two lists-especially one that could be
seen as exclusive- is that some posters would feel discrimminated
against. I recall the whole debacle right after OOP was released
when an ex-member with a grievance dropped the hint that some of
the "classic" posters had made their own list. Many excluded
posters felt angry and betrayed just by not being in the "in group"
and imagining that the posts on the exclusive group were essays of
brilliance that were being withheld from HPFGUs. It was just an
ugly, bitter time that can be read about in OT and in the Feedback
forum. Splitting, I don't think, is an answer.

Personally, I don't think list quality has really dropped too much
from when I first joined in Nov. 2001. I have been on a long hiatus
from the main list. However, in the last week I've read the first
half (or less- but it feels like half) of July since I'd like to see
what's going on on the main list again now that I have enough space
on Yahoo to get individual messages. Having 100mbs allows a few *g*
messages to pile up before overfilling the mailbox.

Some (well, many) of the topics are the same but it is interesting
to see some new spins put on them. The Snape/Sirius discussions
have been going on even before I joined the lists, the Prank is
still discussed I find, with The Worst Memory thrown in as
well. "Everything old is new again" along with "there is nothing
new under the sun." *S* I do agree, though, that an easier way to
find old posts or even threads is needed as a supplement to
Yahoo's "search engine". It would also be nice to see
the "Fantastic Posts" updated to include OOP. I'm sure volunteers
would come out of the woodwork if the call were made.

A Goldfeesh (who hadn't planned to be anywhere near this verbose)

23470
From:  "Erin" <erinellii at ...>
Date:  Fri Jul 23, 2004  8:34 am
Subject:  Pet Theories (Re: No responses on the main list )

Phil wrote:
... it felt as if many posters each had their own pet mcguffin which
they were determined to interject into the discussion regardless of
whether there was any support for it in canon. <snip> I think the
main "miscreants" are those who have chosen their favourite
character, or at any rate their *interpretation* of that character,
and are prepared to defend their opinion to the death.

Now Erin says:
I don't know, Phil. I've been with HPfGU a year(I don't post much),
and I think that people willing to defend their theories is one of
the things that makes the list great. A lot of times this is the
only way a new theory gets any attention; if someone is willing to
stay with it and plug it at every opportunity until it gets some
discussion.

I agree, though, that people should definitely be citing canon in
their arguments, or at least include a link to an earlier post if
their theory has one defining post where they've laid out all the
canon. I point to Pippin on the main list as someone who always does
the thing correctly, no matter how many times she's done it before.

Done properly, people defending theories is the cornerstone of this
list. Without it, all we'd have would be a bunch of newbies sitting
around going "Say, did you notice that gleam in Dumbledore's eye?
What d'you suppose *that* means?"

Now Phil gives some examples