[HPFGU-Feedback] Re: From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long)

[Shaun Hately]

On 13 Aug 2004 at 17:46, estrilda_wolfegg wrote:

>  The thought of a list made up entirely of short, 
> > > conversational posts gives me the shudders!  I can't think of 
> > > anything more... teenybopper.  
> 
> I think my suggestion for short, organized opinions, and summaries 
> linked to a categorized archive might have been misunderstood by 
> some of the responders.  For context, please note that my favorite 
> way to read posts is to message index and then expand messages so 
> that they all line up in full down the page.  This is not possible 
> on the main list because of posts that scroll on literally for feet 
> beyond that which would make Hermione blush. 

Well, with respect, I'm not exactly sure that the entire list 
should be changed to conform so it fits your 'favourite way to read 
posts' - especially as I would guess it's a rather unusual way of 
reading them.

Please understand that many people probably have some opinion about 
what should and shouldn't be on the list, that doesn't conform with 
the way the list actually functions. At the end of last year, I 
gave my opinions on TBAY posts, which quite a few people disagreed 
with (although, it does seem to be that my prediction that TBAY was 
going to wither away without its own list seems to have come true - 
unless it has moved somewhere else, without me noticing).

We can't expect the list to *only* have posts we are interested in 
reading. I certainly think it's legitimate for people to express 
their views - that's what this forum is for. But this list has a 
lot of different types of posts, and that's part of its strength.

> I do love the insightfulness of many of the theories on the list, 
> but frankly, from my background as an undergraduate instructor of 
> research and writing (really), although many of the longest ones 
> cite sources to support ideas, they are obviously rough drafts that 
> have never been proofread, organized, or edited by the author. Many 
> long posts include lengthy text from canon and from other essays 
> that could be much more easily cited to the source if we used an 
> archive.  And don't even get me started on the sophistry involved in 
> many of the three thousand word essays suggesting a simple theory.  
> Shorter posts (even a 1000 word suggested limit) and archived posts 
> (inspiring more author investment in proofreading and organization?) 
> lend themselves more easily to self-correction and less circles.

Well, assuming some long posts are the way you describe.

I'm (all modesty aside, because I need to make a point) a fairly 
skilled writer. I am trained in technical writing - a huge amount 
of my work involves writing official reports and research reports. 
I have had a novel accepted for publication, as well as having 
written a chapter of a textbook which is being published in the 
United States next year, so I can write across quite different 
styles as well. 

Even if it's true that many long posts aren't particularly well 
written, by whatever measure is used, it would seem to me a rather 
hamfisted solution to simply ban long posts.

Frankly, a great many short posts aren't particularly well written. 
In fact, I would go so far to say that the ratio of poorly written 
short posts is probably considerably higher than the ratio of 
poorly written long posts (for given values of 'long' and 'short').

Also understand that just because posts can be archived *doesn't* 
mean they shouldn't be posted - the long post I recently posted, 
will eventually be archived, and also placed on my website. This 
hasn't happened yet, because a couple of people suggested points I 
want to add, and also because a couple of my references were 
incomplete (I didn't have the page numbers).

If the post hadn't been sent to HPFGU, I almost certainly wouldn't 
have any reason to realise that there were two other areas people 
wanted to know more about. That's part of the reason for posting 
there.

I always intended that my post would be archived eventually - but 
it will be archived when I am *completely* happy with it. I'm 99% 
happy with what I posted to HPFGU - but I never make the mistake of 
assuming something is perfect and completely finished.

Also, while some long posts may be far longer than they need to be, 
this certainly isn't true of all. Taking 3000 words to say 
something you could have said in 1000 words is not good. Taking 
1000 words to say something that really needed 3000 words to 
explain it, though, is every bit as bad.

> It is also a Herculean task to find a specific theory on the board 
> any length of time after the thread waned.  I am not suggesting we 
> start flip discussions.  I am suggesting that perhaps members could 
> present their more verbose opinions by referencing a section of an 
> archive discussing similar ideas (thereby avoiding rehashing worn 
> out ones), and posting research marvels somewhere we can read them 
> at leisure and actually find them later.  
> Estrilda

Sure, that's not a bad idea (and it's generally my intention). But 
that doesn't make it a bad idea to post the original post once as 
well.

People shouldn't be posting them over and over again - but posting 
it once so people can easily comment on it on the list is a good 
idea, in my view.

And the fact that HPFGU was one of the very few Harry Potter forums 
that respected posts that people had put a lot of effort into is 
one of the reasons it has become so popular. Such posts are fairly 
rare - but if they didn't exist, HPFGU would wind up virtually 
indistinghishable from dozens of other forums.

Most Harry Potter forums are similar - or at least 90% of the posts 
sent to them are similar.

It's the ten percent (say) of posts that are *different* from those 
seen on other forums, that makes a forum special, and sets its 
reputation and tone.


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at ... | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia