From Cw22005 at cw22005.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 6 10:28:53 2005 From: Cw22005 at cw22005.yahoo.invalid (cw22005) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 10:28:53 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU Message-ID: The following paper was sent to Admin in mid-December last year. There has been a lengthy discussion of the points made, and their response is given as a postcript at the end of the paper, together with a further response from me. The intention in re-posting the documents here is mainly for Admin to see what other list members think, and to further explain the issues as they see them, and discuss possible solutions. However, if there are points you would like the authors to clarify, I will respond ? as many of you know, Kneasy is no longer active on the HPfGU lists and won't be participating in this debate. Finally, the paper makes mention of the catalogue project. This is an ongoing endeavour to index all of the past HPfGU posts in a way that will hopefully defeat Yahoo!Mort, and make it possible for people to find relevant posts on every conceivable Potterverse subject that has been discussed in this group. ****************************************************************** WHAT PRICE SUCCESS? How to encourage quality posting on HPfGU Carolyn White & Barry Arrowsmith Summary The process of cataloguing thousands of posts is salutary. One alternates between amusement, despair, boredom and (occasionally) thrills. The extraordinary range of our backlist is both awe- inspiring, and a cautionary tale for children as to what happens when adults have time on their hands. But, inevitably, you also get a perspective on posting quality. The purpose of this paper is to distil some of those thoughts, and to suggest ways of using them to improve discussion on the current list. Is there a problem? It's been a long time since the last book, and there's been a lot of water under the bridge since the list was first started. Many might argue that the current level of discussion is as interesting as it ever was. Others might argue that it is intrinsic to the nature of such lists to be a mish-mash of good, bad and indifferent posting which invariably declines in quality over time, until some new event brings an influx of new points of view and reinvigorates discussion. Although these are all valid points, we feel that the sheer volume of people now involved in this fandom, and the ever-expanding archive of back posts requires some more decisive management, if the best aspects of HPfGU are not to be lost when the deluge that is Book 6 hits us sometime mid-year 2005. Specifically, the core issues which we think need addressing are: ? Range of topics discussed ? What makes for quality posting ? Controlling posting volume Was there ever a `golden age' ? In our view, no. Just as the editor of a British satirical magazine, when told that his jokes `weren't as funny as they used to be', quipped: `they never were', people's memories of past glories are always highly selective, and coloured by their excitement at coming across ideas and people for the first time. Cataloguing the archive shows that different groups of people certainly did create highly- entertaining, novel and incisive runs of posts and threads from time to time, but nevertheless, interspersed amongst the good stuff is an almost unchanging backdrop of dross, thoughtless repetition, muddle and mistakes. The different waves of ideas did, however, build on each other to a certain extent and this is relevant, because by this point in the series, it means the challenge of coming up with a new idea is extremely difficult. The honour inevitably has to go to those that were there first in many cases, and newcomers must often make do with suggesting brilliant syntheses, rather than original thoughts most of the time - or challenging past assumptions, of course, as new information becomes available. This view of how the site has developed does see it as loosely- evolving discussion, focused on trying to understand what the HP series is about from numerous perspectives. However, it is probable that many members would not recognise this description, nor be very interested if it were explained to them. For many, HPfGU is undoubtably simply an opportunity to chat about HP and state their opinions and preferences without much reference to what has gone before, and making little distinction between what may or may not be canon. When the group was smaller and younger, such distinctions hardly mattered, but nearly five years later, they do become important when trying to meet the needs of thousands of people. The standard answer to the problem of uneven quality is that if you don't like what you read, ignore it and move on. Well, perhaps, but we feel that some more overt intervention is required to maintain HPfGU's reputation as an adult HP discussion site. If people are allowed to ramble on unchecked, or good posts are allowed to sink without trace whilst swarms of newbies continually re-invent the wheel, the character of the site will change, and not for the better in our opinion ? especially if the cultural norms of the majority are permitted to obliterate voices of dissent. RANGE OF TOPICS ` something that the older inhabitants of the village still liked to discuss when topics for gossip were scarce. The story had been picked over so many times, and had been embroidered in so many places, that nobody was quite sure what the truth was any more.' One of the most wearisome aspects of the site for regular readers is the constant focus on a handful of topics ? usually involving Snape ? and the lack of new subjects for discussion. Although this is somewhat inevitable as the wait for the next book continues, it doesn't have to be this bad. A few posters do independently make the effort to start new threads, but it is hard work to maintain the momentum. At present, the only intervention that Admin organises in this area are the Chapter summaries/questions that appear from time to time. We think there are numerous other possibilities. 1. Topic debates An ever-changing group of rabble-rousers should be tasked to post a piece of good-quality, provocative analysis on a weekly basis. Subject-matter and orientation as wide as you please, but it has to be sharp, well-referenced and demanding. One person should lead, and a couple of others shown the piece in advance, to enable them to respond in similar quality each time (purely to get the discussion moving, and set the tone, not to stifle the debate ? they should be selected from different points of view anyway). To bring old and new members up to speed, hot links should be provided to relevant past posts. Enormous effort should be made to ensure that posts are originated by people from as diverse a background and outlook as possible. The subject matter for these posts could be decided by Admin, or by a group of people drawn from the membership. Additionally, the catalogue has over 500 sub-categories, and we are able to see as we work how popular various topics have been in the past: these statistics might provide another guide. 2. Special guest posts Guest authors could be invited in to write op-eds. These could be authors of books about HP, other authors, journalists, commentators etc. It's not much of a deal for the person to become a Yahoo/HPfGU member for the occasion, if they'd like to follow and participate in the subsequent debate. Or, the piece could simply be posted by Admin with suitable attribution. 3. Revisiting FPs Good posts from the past could provide an endless source of discussion. Each week a new one could be selected for debate. If the author is still around, they could be asked to provide an update or further thoughts, or someone else (possibly from an opposing point of view) could be asked to write some questions in order to kick off the debate. NB This idea may be a way of drawing many long-standing members out of retirement and back into posting again. Of course, identifying FPs is problematic. The group at present has a hit and miss approach. There is a set of funny and entertaining, but out of date summaries in the FP section. There are a couple of databases for member nominations, and a less-than active FP/FAQ group. The cataloguers have an FP button to hit if they come across something they feel is memorable. None of these approaches is ideal, but there will be a better solution available once a significant amount of the backlist has been catalogued. When that is done, it should be possible to scan the posts within every category and spot those few that are particularly good for nearly every subject. 4. Digests of off-list discussions Posters quite often continue discussions about topics offlist, especially if the topic is a bit specialised. It is usually easy enough to identify who those posters are likely to be from a thread ? why not contact them, and not only encourage them in that offlist discussion, but then also ask them to post a suitably-cleaned up version of their emails, for further discussion on the main list? WHAT MAKES FOR QUALITY POSTING? Creating fantastic posts ? and the rest Though welcomed and admired, it's recognised that quality posts are infrequent and are likely to remain so. They are hard work, they require thought and a certain level of familiarity with expressing ideas on paper. However, if posters can be encouraged to pause and think before writing, and then review and edit before posting, then standards would rise significantly. It's reasonable to consider that 'good' has different meanings to different groups. Firstly there's what Admin might consider as good - that it complies with the rules and guidelines as listed in the HBF - snipping, one liners, "me too", causing offence, etc. Then there is what the readers may consider to be a good post - its content and how that is expressed and presented. Mostly there is no conflict between the two, though just occasionally a really witty humorous one line post says more than three paragraphs. But they're rare. The rules for snipping can be a bit restrictive too, requiring as they do that the snipped original be at the head of the response. Fair enough - until responding to a multi-point post or response to multiple posts. Better to treat such monsters as if they were chapters in a book, each chapter with it's own snipped heading rather than as a single essay. Many posters are too gentle in their snipping; some don't bother to snip at all and one is presented with page-long blocks of deja vu. It would be reasonable for Admin to request/require that posts are snipped to *no more* than say, ten lines of the original - enough to give the gist of the subject under discussion. With multi-point posts it should be less for each point. But it's the content of a post that its quality is usually measured by - though how it's constructed and presented can either enhance or detract from its readability or comprehensibility. A post represents an idea - be it opinion, theory or analysis. In the best posts: * the idea is supported by canon, logical thinking or extrapolation of theory * presents a hitherto unconsidered subject for criticism/comment (unlikely right now - but just wait until the new book arrives) * casts new light on an old subject or re-assesses old ideas * uses the theory, idea or opinion to link disparate canon events or characters and perhaps modify or confirm a plot trend/plot arc * demonstrates that previous posts on the same subject have been read and considered, giving references where appropriate * invites responses, both pro- and anti- * eschews presenting RL personal experiences as having relevance to a work of fantasy fiction * does not pretend wishful thinking is a compelling argument * low emotional intensity - humour preferred to passion * complies with acceptable standards of grammar and spelling * is well presented. This last point is key to encouraging high quality posts, especially those that are longer. (Query - are there any FPs that are short?). The best posts aren't just written, they're constructed, with an intro, argument, evidence, possible consequences, conclusion. The reader is led step by step to the conclusion. Paragraphs divide the whole into manageable sections, give the reader a chance to pause and reflect *and* help isolate those points he wants to expand on or rebut. There is little more off-putting than a solid block of text sliding down a screen and having to cut and paste a disjointed argument from a macedoine of thought. Asides or discursiveness (so long as it refers to matters HP) can be of benefit. A reader may see something of interest there and run with it - a sub-thread is born. What makes for a good thread? New topics and new voices are one thing, but a great post will sink without trace unless some adequate ground rules are in place to encourage vigorous debate. HPfGU strives for a friendly environment, in which all members views are respected ? not least because Yahoo will close the group otherwise. But what should be the rules governing discussion between adults ? And what cultural perspective should prevail ? Although the membership demographics are not known for certain, from the evidence of the various polls, it appears that the site is 80% US, 10% UK/European; 80% female; 40% in the 22-34 age group, 40% aged over 35; 75% white; 80% hetero; 48% Christian; 26% agnostic or atheist; 45% leftish leaning, 30% centre-rightish (alas only 3% describe themselves as anarchists). Although the total number of people voting in these polls is very small compared to the apparent membership of the group (and some of the polls are very out of date), even if halfway true, these statistics are not very promising from the point of view of encouraging diversity of opinion. Perhaps the second most wearisome aspect of the site after paucity of subject-matter is the similarity in cultural outlook from the majority of posters. It's a problem that's difficult to perceive unless you are an observer from a different perspective. Good, varied or interesting responses are the life blood of a thread. It's important that it should not keep covering the same disputes/arguments/points ad nauseam, or assume any consensus of opinion amongst readers. In other words the thread should develop and expand ideas - sometimes by adding support from other canon, or by questioning assumptions and re-assessing accepted theory that may impinge on the subject under discussion. Here's a checklist for what makes a good thread: * subject matter of interest to readers from widely diverse backgrounds * multiple points of view * dissent or agreement based on canonical or at least on logical grounds * originator of thread willing to defend/justify stance * right to differ respected * subject matter amenable to expansion or branching out into tangential subjects/discussions * emotional temperature kept below boiling point * repetitive posts kept to a minimum So what, if any changes should Admin make to the way they work which would help create more great posts and great threads ? Admin already step in to prevent flame-wars, but that is an extreme circumstance. We believe they should also consider the following: - intervention when posters are making repetitive points that add nothing to the argument - move arguments on, by the timely posting of details of relevant old posts - rejecting posts which wander too far from canon-based argument - contacting established posters known to have an interest in a particular topic, to alert them to make a contribution if they wish CONTROLLING POSTING VOLUME The list has been characterised over the last two years by uneven bursts of posting in the summer. The group was created in August 2000, and monthly posting averaged a fairly even 1500-2000 per month until Jun-Aug 2003, when the publication of OoP generated over 20000 posts in three months. The posting rate subsided back to 2000 per month until Jun-Aug 2004, when nearly 12000 posts went up. It would be reasonable to assume the same pattern will be repeated in summer 2005, especially if (as seems likely) it coincides with the release of HBP. During these four years, the overall number of members has apparently grown from a few thousand to the current 13000+, but the majority of these members follow a pattern of joining, sometimes posting for a few months and/or then disappearing for ever, or become long-term lurkers. Few bother to unsubscribe. In fact, the overall number of members who do post is estimated to be less than 500 people at any one time (even including very occasional posters), although the statistics also show that more posts are put up by non-moderated people than moderated. The problems of controlling list volume are therefore three-fold: ? drastic emergency measures to be put in place at times of peak posting, which apply to everyone ? controls on newbies ? controls on un-moderated members Peak posting controls 1. The most drastic approach of all would be to accept no new members during June-August each year, and limit all existing members to a quota per day or week. Older members could also be allowed a larger quota of posts than newer ones. 2. A second approach would be to create a second list for existing members only, with quite tight posting controls, which acted as a quieter discussion group, leaving the main list as a free-for- all. 3. A third approach would simply be to arbitrarily limit the number of posts per day, on a first-come, first-served basis, but this would be difficult to implement fairly because of time zone differences. Some people would have to post at very unsocial hours in order to `compete' for a slot. Implicit in this thinking is what kind of site do members want? Do people want a site whose *main* characteristics are those of a glorified chat room, or of a message board or of a discussion group? Unless you are crystal clear about this, it's difficult to determine the rules for type and style of posts. Many of the new members on the site have come to HP via the films or JKR's website; many have only a casual interest in the text of the books, still less in looking up past opinions of other members, even within a current thread, let alone the archives. There is no point in having tough rules if they are simply of no interest to the majority of the people using the site. Controls on newbies Given that the typical pattern for newbies is to post a lot and then possibly drift away or become lurkers, the most obvious way to control their output is simply to either prevent them from posting until they have been a member for perhaps 1-2 months and have had a chance to read and learn from other posters, and/or significantly extend the period of time they are moderated. Preventing people from posting entails setting them to `read-only' status, which Yahoo can do automatically on joining, in the same way that all new posters are automatically set to moderated status. The problem is that it is not possible to automatically take people off either `read-only' status or moderated status after a certain period of time ? these settings have to be changed individually for each person, which is time-consuming for Admin to monitor for a lot of people. The solution seems straightforward. All new members should be set to `read-only' automatically, and in the joining rules it should be clearly stated that this will be in place for a minimum, say, of 1 month. Then, if they do decide they want to start posting, they should be asked to email their welcome-elf, who can switch their status from `read-only' to moderated, and their posts can then be monitored for a further minimum period ? defined in terms of number of posts/posting quality as now, but perhaps with a capped quota per week or month for, say, their first 2 months, to encourage new posters to be selective and careful in what they put up. This approach has the additional benefit that many posters may never apply to have the `read-only' setting changed ? they may only ever want to read and never contribute. It would be very useful if these rules were transparent to members. Does Yahoo offer the technology to enable people to click on their own `membership details' screen, to see whether they were still on read-only or moderated status, how many posts they were allowed per week etc ? Controls on un-moderated posters Even if all these new controls on newbies were in place, it would not solve the problems caused by non-moderated members. Not only are the majority of posts put up by people who have been taken off moderated status, but established list members often don't post in accordance to the rules, which leads newer members astray. If we continue with the existing system, there appears to be not much alternative but to impose stronger sanctions ? faster howlers, putting people back on mod status after one offence, back on to read- only after three offences etc. Tough rules need to be in place, but they cause stress to enforce. There is another way. New approach to controlling list volume Although all these methods work to a certain extent, there is an element of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. We have a simple and more radical proposal, which would deal with both moderated and un-moderated posters alike. All posts should be subjected to a delay of up to 24-hours before they appear on site. With a reasonable number of Elves in place, it should be possible for any average day's posts to be monitored and read *in advance of posting*. Poor posts which infringe existing rules can then be caught and returned to their authors for correction, and inappropriate ones (which maybe should be on OT or movie) never appear on site in the first place. There are many other useful benefits: ? Authors could be asked to fix their headers, so as to actually represent the content of the post ? Posters could be asked to combine multiple responses to a thread instead of putting them up one by one ? Some posts could be rejected entirely on the grounds of the question being a FAQ, or a factual error, or simply a matter of looking something up in the books rather than asking it on site. ? When the catalogue becomes available, some posters could also be told to go back and do some background reading before posting a repetitious idea or question (particularly newbies) Although this approach may seem draconian, in many ways it does give the Elves the chance to do more friendly elfing/guidance than the kind of after-the-event firefighting that currently takes place, often in an atmosphere of recrimination and upset if a flame war has broken out. It also provides a vital opportunity for Admin to keep in touch with all the new ideas as they go up. Pending duty often seems to be a task to be avoided, but taking some of the time pressures off the job, and making it more creative might make it more interesting, and possibly attract a wider range of people to help. It is worth noting that the delays in posting may also be much less than 24hrs when the list is quiet. Most people will object to this idea on the grounds that it will limit the spontaneity of the exchanges on site, but we feel this is a small price to pay if it improves the overall quality of the posts which do go up, and cuts out many posts which should not have appeared in the first place. But admittedly the concept is based on seeing the site as a discussion forum, rather than a chat group, and this may not be what the majority of members want .as DD says `it's our choices..'. ACTION Is there a crisis ? No, not yet ? but there will be one come next summer, and in the interim, conditions are bad enough to need addressing. Our priority list for Admin would be as follows: 1. Review the current posting rules ? bring them up to date if they need it 2. Introduce the new 24-hr read and review process ? recruiting more elves as required 3. Review the list of suggestions for introducing new topics for discussion. Act on some of them. 4. Draw up a plan for how you are going to handle HBP. Make it real tough. Tell the members in advance. 5. Recruit enough help so that more of you can start posting again yourselves; everyone in Admin needs to be visible quality leaders. PS to original paper: Just to illustrate how the list could be improved on a day to day basis, we have taken the 71 posts put up on Wednesday, 8th December and analysed them for content. We first organised them by thread, and then, in each case, we have commented whether: ? They would have been considered for inclusion in the catalogue (this is not the same thing as whether they meet posting rules) ? Whether they should have been allowed on the list at all ? Whether they could usefully have been combined with other posts from the same person in the same thread As you will see from the list, it's an exercise worth doing (and only took about an hour). Note: ? The repetitive Snape content (three separate threads) ? The number of posts which add nothing but personal opinion, and certainly don't discuss canon ? Two short threads which should not have made it on to the list at all ? The number of posts which could have been combined ? The incorrect thread titles being used ? The number of posts put up by just a few posters in one day A final suggestion If all posts were delayed for reading before they went on to the main list, there is really no reason why they could not be released on to the main list in groups according to thread title. Just looking down the list created here shows how useful it is for following the discussions you are interested in, and ignoring the rest. **************************************************************** POSTSCRIPT ? RESPONSE FROM ADMIN & FURTHER REPLY FROM CW >>Dear Carolyn and Barry, Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to put together your thoughtful ideas on how we can improve the posting quality on HPfGU.<< Dear Phyllis (and the rest of the Admin team), It was good to receive your response at long last, and to hear that the paper had been extensively discussed. As you know, since we sent it, Barry has dropped out of active involvement on the HPfGU lists. What follows, therefore, are my personal comments rather than a joint reply. Admin: >>We really like your ideas to hold weekly topic debates, invite posts from special guests and repost Fantastic Posts.<< Carolyn: This is encouraging, and I am glad to hear it. I would urge the following: - that the proposed subject areas are made fairly public, so that it clear to everyone that all interests will be catered for over a period of time; - that the teams of people managing the selection are drawn from the whole of the international membership rather than just from the majority US membership. Admin: >>With regard to your recommendation to limit the number of posts per person per day, as a first step in our efforts to manage list volume, we have decided to ask the list membership to voluntarily limit their posting rate to three posts per day.<< Carolyn: I have not yet seen this come into operation on the list, but it will certainly make a big difference. It can only improve posting quality. Admin: >>>We are also discussing other ways in which we can keep the list manageable after HBP is released, and would welcome any additional thoughts you have that would be feasible within our current staffing constraints.<<< Carolyn: One of our recommendations was to accept no new members between June and August each year, and especially this year with the release of HBP on July 16th. I would still be interested to know if Yahoo Group rules would permit you to do this. Admin: >>>Our primary concern about a number of your other recommendations is that the HPfGU list administration team is a small group of individuals managing a very large, ever-growing membership with an extremely high posting rate. While we make routine and repeated efforts to recruit and retain individuals to help us with this task, our success in this regard has been limited, and the significant workload usually falls on a rather small number of shoulders.<< Carolyn: As you were kind enough to include me in your last round of invitations, and I refused, perhaps my personal opinion may be relevant here. Firstly, the `job' is scarcely described in an interesting or attractive way. Although I understand the reasons for all the tongue- in-cheek humour about slavery and tea towels (ie, that there really is a lot of work involved and you only want to attract committed people), IMO the entire job needs re-thinking, and the job offer made more compelling before you will get more people signing up. In particular, there should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. Different people suit different tasks, and should be recruited accordingly, just as in any other organisation. Secondly, I found the (lengthy) legal T&C about excessive secrecy extremely offputting and reminiscent of the worst kind of government officialdom. This is a discussion site about a series of fantasy books, for heaven's sake, not some branch of the CIA. The more open discussion by Admin about the decisions they are taking, and why, the better, IMO. Admin: >>>We agree with you that the elves should be on-list leaders whose main list posts set a high standard. Unfortunately, however, we have burned out too many elves on list management and many of us who stay don't have much time for posting. Increasing the workload without bringing in more reinforcements would only exacerbate these problems.<< Carolyn: I am increasingly of the opinion that day-to-day involvement of elves in threads is the only way forward, long term. There is absolutely nothing so effective as someone saying bluntly things like: `This discussion is no longer about canon', or `please make clear this is your personal opinion, not a statement of fact', or `the tone of this exchange is becoming inappropriate' or `this was discussed yesterday/last week, please read up on that thread before replying', to publicly nip threads in the bud that will otherwise quickly deteriorate into wearisome, bad-tempered, repetitive flame wars that interest no one except their direct participants. I would suggest that some elves are relieved of all other duties except this task on a rota basis, or that interested ex-elves are asked to undertake this task. List members routinely ignore general Admin instructions ? this way the message gets through at the point when it is most immediately needed. Admin: >>>One way in which we might be able to get more elves on board is if there is enthusiasm from the list members for implementing your proposals. Accordingly, we invite you to post your proposal on the Feedback list so we can see if there is support for your ideas and the willingness to pitch in to implement them. << Carolyn: I will take you up on this invitation and post the paper on Feedback. I would also like to post the text of this email as a postscript to the paper, if that is acceptable? Admin: >>We have had extensive discussions about your idea to screen all posts before they reach the list, as we agree with you that this would significantly increase list quality and would snuff out flame wars before they had a chance to get started. However, as we discussed this idea in more detail, we realized that we just can't make it work with our current number of elves and the size of our list volume. Again, if there is sufficient interest expressed on the Feedback list and willingness to help us implement such an idea, we'd be happy to revisit it.<< Carolyn: I am sorry you don't think this idea is feasible due to lack of elves. When I tried the exercise, it took me only an hour to review all the 70+ posts that had gone up during one day. About 50-60% of those could have gone forward for posting immediately following the review if the new system was in place. The rest did require returning to their authors for various reasons (IMO), but in many cases the same authors were involved on multiple posts. Some thoughts: - Implementing this system will be incrementally effective. As it beds in, authors will be increasingly careful about what they post, reducing the numbers of posts that need to be returned. - The contents of the pending queue should be copied and broken down into groups of posts for multiple elves to handle perhaps every 12 hours. That way, no one elf has an impossibly large number of posts to analyse. Once reviewed, the groups of posts come back in two batches ? those that can be released immediately, those that need returning to their authors. - The elf in charge of the pending queue immediately releases those that are ok. - Posts that are not ok receive standardised explanations as far as possible, but the system should also be managed so that authors with multiple posts that are rejected are handled as one item rather than a stream of individual rejects, and preferably by their original welcome elf in order to maintain a personal relationship. Some kind of database technology is probably essential to keep such as sytem running smoothly. Whilst I hear what you are saying about lack of elf power, I do think that the approach sketched above, which distributes tasks rather than allows them to become bottlenecks for one or two hard-working people is a better use of resources than the current system. Admin: >>>We also agree with you that a threaded forum would be much preferable than our current format. Since this isn't a feature that Yahoo currently offers, we are actively investigating other options. If we do decide to start using another format, your idea about dedicating a separate area to higher-level posts would be more feasible.<<< Carolyn: We were not actually suggesting a threaded forum, merely releasing groups of posts back on to the main list according to thread title, so that they appeared in clumps on the list. However, threaded forums may be a way forward. The Leaky Cauldron has recently launched its new forum, The Leaky Lounge: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/forum/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi which is based on this format, and might be a useful model. Nevertheless, although the technology is creative, I cannot help but draw attention to the yawning gulf between the quality of contributions to TLC and those on HPfGU. It is perhaps a reflection of the younger users of that site, but it would be a very sad day indeed if the quality of our list were to deteriorate that far (IMO, naturally). I don't know whether the threaded format encourages this lower quality posting ? it shouldn't, but it so often seems to. I would also like to make clear that the second list which we suggested (or `separate area for higher level posts' as you refer to it), was not intended to be elitist in any way. It was merely intended to be a different forum, with tougher posting rules which anyone could participate in if they complied with those rules. Admin: >>>We also investigated whether we can establish a read-only period for newbies. Unfortunately, with Yahoo, there is no way to automatically set new members to read-only status. In addition, implementing this proposal would require us to monitor each member's length of time on the list and manually change the member's setting. Again, these are workload issues that might be feasible if we could add a significant number of additional new elves, but aren't do-able with our current number of volunteers.<<< Carolyn: Our suggestion was that the welcome elf should set the read-only status when initially contacting the new member, and that the member themselves should initiate the request to lift the read-only status. This doesn't seem much extra work. It also should be possible to maintain a simple Excel database with all members put on it as they join. It would take a matter of seconds to search this on a daily basis for all sorts of purposes ? releasing from moderation, from read-only status, whatever. The actual work of changing their status then becomes much simpler ? someone works from a list and deals with status changes in batches, maybe once a week. Admin: >>>>We'd like to take this opportunity to touch on our list philosophy, as it relates to your proposals to limit newbie posting and to establish a second list with tight posting controls for existing members only. In our view, we are here to provide a forum for intelligent, in-depth discussion. We want to be equally welcoming to excited newcomers as long-time enthusiasts, recognizing that some of our best posters were themselves once awkward newbies. We believe trial and error is a good teacher; indeed, that is the purpose of putting new members on moderated status. Newbies won't become better posters, develop creative new ideas or stick around if they aren't permitted to post. *We* may be tired of certain topics, but we permit newcomers to retread old ground because *they* are excited about it and retreading that ground often leads to new ideas, and we don't want to discourage that.<<< Carolyn: I have not snipped your response here, as I thought it useful to leave it as a statement for others to read. The difficulty that I perceive is that whilst this is all fine and good in principle, the actual problem is that wherever the posts are coming from ? either excited newbies or badly-behaved older members ? there are too many of them, and too few elves to enforce even the existing rules, let alone provide much-needed quality leadership. The net result is a list which is less and less worth reading. To address this, our paper should be seen in three parts. The first part focuses on stimulating new and interesting debate, to try and provide a little variety alongside the many repetitive topics that continually crop up. The second part focuses on what makes for great posts and threads. It is a noticeable that your reply did not respond in any way to this section, which is a pity, as it lies at the heart of what makes a great site. The third part was mostly about ways of enforcing existing site rules in a more effective way, partly with the assistance of some more technology and partly by rethinking the way the elves currently work. Admin: >>[We] look forward to participating with the larger list membership in discussing your proposal on the Feedback list. Sincerely, Phyllis for the HPfGU List Administration Team<< Carolyn: It's generous of you to provide this opportunity. Perhaps some good will come of it, although I am not optimistic. From Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 7 12:25:18 2005 From: Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:25:18 -0000 Subject: Valky on Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU (other list/catalogue proposal) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Fellow HP Grown Ups, You know me as Valky, I have been a member for about two years (including a break somewhere midway). I thank you for the invitation to join this discussion, as I too have been feeling concerned that the main list might be leaning too close to the edge in recent months, and being a long term member I would feel a personal loss if the HPFGU group were to run headlong into disaster. I have seen the most part of the evolution of the group since the release of OOtP, I recall being a member of a pretty large and busy group before this, but the growth since has been, to say the least, unpredictable. I would like to come forward with a proposal that addresses these following matters that appear in the paper. WHAT PRICE SUCCESS? > How to encourage quality posting on HPfGU > Carolyn White & Barry Arrowsmith ****************************************************************** ........ possibilities. > > 1. Topic debates > An ever-changing group of rabble-rousers should be tasked to post a piece of good-quality, provocative analysis > > ........ > 3. Revisiting FPs > Good posts from the past could provide an endless source of > discussion....... > Of course, identifying FPs is problematic.......... ......... what makes a good thread: > > * emotional temperature kept below boiling point > * repetitive posts kept to a minimum ....... > CONTROLLING POSTING VOLUME > > ? drastic emergency measures to be put in place at times of > peak posting, which apply to everyone > Peak posting controls > > 2. A second approach would be to create a second list for > existing members only, with quite tight posting controls, which acted as a quieter discussion group, leaving the main list as a free- for-all. > ACTION > > Is there a crisis ? No, not yet ? but there will be one come next > summer, and in the interim, conditions are bad enough to need > addressing. Our priority list for Admin would be as follows: > 4. Draw up a plan for how you are going to handle HBP. > 5. Recruit enough help so that ....... everyone in Admin .... to be visible quality leaders. > > **************************************************************** > Having been a pre OOtP member I am more familiar with TBAY and FP than some of the most active members of the present day. IMHO, I have been seeing some of these newer members have come in search of something similar to TBAY, and are unfortunately missing out due to its current barethread existence. As such, I have a humble request, that you would spare a short while to read this letter of introduction to a new concept activity for Grown Up Harry Potter Fans. Creation of this new concept is already underway. There, to my knowledge, has not been something quite like this before for HP fandom. Yahoos very *own* Row Ninety-Seven. Row 97 -- The_Prophecy_Orb at yahoogroups -- A fun and interactive catalogue of future book predictions by HP devotees veteran of some years in the community. I believe that this concept has been long awaited and given the right backing will be well recieved and useful to all in the HP web community. Here follows a brief description of the activity and concept of Row 97: Row 97 has been created in the template of a Yahoo mailing group. It will, however *not* be a group for discussion. Use of the template has been tailored to facilitate: 1. A place to store theories and single click links to theories, blogs or essays until HBP has been published. 2. Cataloguing and Classifying of the various mysteries posed by the first 5 books in connection with recommended ways and to unravel them 3. An interactive HP series OWL and NEWT exam facility (in Database) with set papers on the popular mysteries in HP Fandom classified as indicated above, and catalogued with recommendations. 4. Research Folders on the links page catalogued respective to the popular mystery they have been found useful for. 5. Invitation to members to expand and add to the exams files and the research folders. Upon the release of HBP, members of Row 97 will be invited to join in ceremony and celebration as the owners of correct HP Augurys are officially recognised and dignified with title. Owners of tragically sunk ships will be offered the opportunity to take part in ceremonial orb smashing with other members of the Seabed-a-holics Anonymous Support group. It is envisioned that honourary title's from Row 97 activities might be actively recognised in fandom, a bit like a degree in HP sleuthing. Just as a lark, that it could hold some fantastical weight tagged on the end of their discussions and essays as an endorsement that they got something right in HBP. It is also hoped that the structure of the cataloguing of mystery topics will be agreed upon and embraced by the HP web community, so that when a Row 97 laureate uses their official title, eg recipient of an O Transfiguration Owl, it is quite widely understood which topics in the world of HP plot mysteries that encompasses. The motto of the group is Enjoy Every Moment. ------- Having read the extensive paper written by Carolyn and Kneasy, and in humble gratitude for the great joy I have gleaned as a HP fan, off the backs of the HPFGU Admin, so many of you whom I personally admire and others I have yet to meet, I would be glad to offer my concept as a part solution to the HPFGU main list Pre - HBP intervention. I hope that in some way this concept, at least, will provide some positive and imaginative inspiration to solve the main lists HBP objectives. I will continue to develop the Row 97 site and you are welcome to check it out, discuss it with me further, and make suggestions that you feel could tweak it into a realistic part of the solution. Please don't hesitate if you are only impressed with the creativity, but cannot see Row 97 offering HPFGU a solution, I have done the work to create Row 97 so far quite alone and I am well capable of tailoring a creative solution to the specifications you might have. ( I already have imagined a newbie transition phase which would be creative and interesting and far more positive than message blocking.) Heres hoping that HPFGU will meet the challenge of HBP as a champion. >From Valky From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 7 21:19:20 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:19:20 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hoo boy! This is a long one ? and a good one ? which deserves a great deal of consideration. Carolyn & Kneasy [hereafter C/K] wrote: Specifically, the core issues which we think need addressing are: ? Range of topics discussed ? What makes for quality posting ? Controlling posting volume Was there ever a `golden age' ? In our view, no. SSSusan: I'm glad to see this point being made. I've been rooting around some in the early days of the archives, and what struck me was the frequency with which some of these same issues came up then: poor grammar [often handled in a joshing way]; OT stuff; "me, too" posts; one-liners. The group was smaller and more able to handle this stuff, it seems. C/K: If people are allowed to ramble on unchecked, or good posts are allowed to sink without trace whilst swarms of newbies continually re- invent the wheel, the character of the site will change, and not for the better in our opinion ? especially if the cultural norms of the majority are permitted to obliterate voices of dissent. SSS: I find the use of the phrase "allowed to sink" very interesting. I understand the frustration of putting out something which seems really insightful or thought-provoking and receiving little response. However, I don't know about how one *makes* others respond. You've suggested elsewhere the notion of giving advance copies to a couple of other posters to help prime the pump, and that's a possibility. But without that, if it sinks, it sinks. Perhaps you're simply thinking that without so much to wade through [if we can get a handle on volume], the top-notch post is simply less likely to sink? C/K: To bring old and new members up to speed, hot links should be provided to relevant past posts. SSS: An excellent idea, imo. C/K: Special guest posts Guest authors could be invited in to write op-eds. These could be authors of books about HP, other authors, journalists, commentators etc. SSS: A fantastic idea, assuming enough people have contact info for these potential special guests. C/K: Good posts from the past could provide an endless source of discussion. Each week a new one could be selected for debate. If the author is still around, they could be asked to provide an update or further thoughts . SSS: This would be terrific, especially during times such as these when we're desperate for new canon or something that's not been brought to the fore for some time. C/K: if posters can be encouraged to pause and think before writing, and then review and edit before posting, then standards would rise significantly. SSS: And there has to be a notion of how to handle those who don't "accept the invitation," as it were. C/K: In the best posts: * the idea is supported by canon, logical thinking or extrapolation of theory * presents a hitherto unconsidered subject for criticism/comment (unlikely right now - but just wait until the new book arrives) * casts new light on an old subject or re-assesses old ideas * uses the theory, idea or opinion to link disparate canon events or characters and perhaps modify or confirm a plot trend/plot arc * demonstrates that previous posts on the same subject have been read and considered, giving references where appropriate * invites responses, both pro- and anti- * eschews presenting RL personal experiences as having relevance to a work of fantasy fiction * does not pretend wishful thinking is a compelling argument * low emotional intensity - humour preferred to passion * complies with acceptable standards of grammar and spelling * is well presented. SSS: I have a bit of trouble with some of this. For instance, what does HPfGU do with those who lack the time or ability or interest to do extensive research? Are they kicked off? Told to stay quiet? And to prescribe humor or prohibit RL analogies or comparisons seems to me to be unrealistic. Not everyone has the same interests, abilities or experiences. Humor is pretty much always good, but can everyone do it? Prohibiting the RL stuff seems to show a personal preference, frankly. To say that someone who's taught in a British boys' school should not bring in his experiences in a compare-and- contrast to Hogwarts seems too restrictive for my liking, for instance. C/K: Here's a checklist for what makes a good thread: * subject matter of interest to readers from widely diverse backgrounds SSS: Who gets to determine this?? C/K: * originator of thread willing to defend/justify stance SSS: This can be encouraged, but it can't exactly be enforced. It *is* frustrating when a good challenge is offered and the originator doesn't deign to respond, but one can't force him/her to do so. C/K: So what, if any changes should Admin make - intervention when posters are making repetitive points that add nothing to the argument - move arguments on, by the timely posting of details of relevant old posts - rejecting posts which wander too far from canon-based argument - contacting established posters known to have an interest in a particular topic, to alert them to make a contribution if they wish SSS: It sounds ideal, but it sure sounds like a lot of work, as well. How many elves would it take to be able to handle this? C/K: In fact, the overall number of members who do post is estimated to be less than 500 people at any one time (even including very occasional posters). SSS: That is fascinating and an important point. Membership is huge, but the # of regular posters is theoretically not unmanageable. This would seem to imply that the problem *is* with how we post. C/K suggest: Peak posting controls 1. The most drastic approach of all would be to accept no new members during June-August each year, and limit all existing members to a quota per day or week. Older members could also be allowed a larger quota of posts than newer ones. 2. A second approach would be to create a second list for existing members only, with quite tight posting controls, which acted as a quieter discussion group, leaving the main list as a free-for- all. 3. A third approach would simply be to arbitrarily limit the number of posts per day, on a first-come, first-served basis, but this would be difficult to implement fairly because of time zone differences. Some people would have to post at very unsocial hours in order to `compete' for a slot. SSS: Option 2 sounds rather drastic. I would suggest an option 4, which would take part of number 1 but not all of it. Could there not simply be a daily quota per individual, without having to refuse all new members in June-August? This would be in contrast to a daily *total* quota, which I also don't think works w/ an international and multi-time-zone membership. POSTSCRIPT ? RESPONSE FROM ADMIN & FURTHER REPLY FROM CW Admin: >>With regard to your recommendation to limit the number of posts per person per day, as a first step in our efforts to manage list volume, we have decided to ask the list membership to voluntarily limit their posting rate to three posts per day.<< SSS: I think this sounds reasonable and would go a long way towards solving a big part of the problem. I can go for 2 or 3 days without posting and then post 5 or 6 times in one day. BUT I COULD DO BETTER, and so could others, if we were told we MUST. Carolyn: One of our recommendations was to accept no new members between June and August each year, and especially this year with the release of HBP on July 16th. I would still be interested to know if Yahoo Group rules would permit you to do this. SSS: I don't think I like this idea, but I'd be curious to read other responses. I prefer a limit on number of posts, even possibly that read-only period for newbies, which would slow people down. Carolyn: In particular, there should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. Different people suit different tasks, and should be recruited accordingly, just as in any other organisation. SSS: I totally agree. I would love to be able to help in some way, but with my particular family, work & community obligations, there's no way I could give 10-15 hours per week. Could the tasks be split so that there are options for those w/ less to give? Admin: >>>>We'd like to take this opportunity to touch on our list philosophy, as it relates to your proposals to limit newbie posting and to establish a second list with tight posting controls for existing members only. In our view, we are here to provide a forum for intelligent, in-depth discussion. We want to be equally welcoming to excited newcomers as long-time enthusiasts, recognizing that some of our best posters were themselves once awkward newbies. We believe trial and error is a good teacher; indeed, that is the purpose of putting new members on moderated status. Newbies won't become better posters, develop creative new ideas or stick around if they aren't permitted to post. *We* may be tired of certain topics, but we permit newcomers to retread old ground because *they* are excited about it and retreading that ground often leads to new ideas, and we don't want to discourage that.<<< SSS: And here is the crux of the problem, as I see it. How do we get to what is desired [intelligent, in-depth discussion] while accommodating all of the newbies whose skills are growing? Some of C/K's toughing up the rules might help. People would still be allowed to post, but if they knew their posts were being reviewed or knew they were limited to 3 or 4 per day, this likely *would* lead to more thought being put into them. My final thought concerns the issue of people who DON'T have the time to give to research and writing that others do, but whose interest and enthusiasm rivals anyone else's. Will there be room for these folks at HPfGU? Siriusly Snapey Susan, newbie to Feedback, but not to HPfGU. From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 7 22:18:26 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:18:26 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > C/K: > In the best posts: > > * the idea is supported by canon, logical thinking or extrapolation > of theory > * presents a hitherto unconsidered subject for criticism/comment > (unlikely right now - but just wait until the new book arrives) > * casts new light on an old subject or re-assesses old ideas > * uses the theory, idea or opinion to link disparate canon events or > characters and perhaps modify or confirm a plot trend/plot arc > * demonstrates that previous posts on the same subject have been read > and considered, giving references where appropriate > * invites responses, both pro- and anti- > * eschews presenting RL personal experiences as having relevance to a > work of fantasy fiction > * does not pretend wishful thinking is a compelling argument > * low emotional intensity - humour preferred to passion > * complies with acceptable standards of grammar and spelling > * is well presented. > SSS: I have a bit of trouble with some of this. For instance, what does HPfGU do with those who lack the time or ability or interest to do extensive research? Are they kicked off? Told to stay quiet? And to prescribe humor or prohibit RL analogies or comparisons seems to me to be unrealistic. Not everyone has the same interests, abilities or experiences. Humor is pretty much always good, but can everyone do it? Prohibiting the RL stuff seems to show a personal preference, frankly. To say that someone who's taught in a British boys' school should not bring in his experiences in a compare- and-contrast to Hogwarts seems too restrictive for my liking, for instance. Alla: Susan, please forgive me for replying in your post, not in the original one. I snipped the points,which I agree with ( threaded topics do sound fantastic) and just wanted to say my agreement with your POV ( of course I am only speaking for myself, since I am one of those posters who loves bring real life examples into my posts). I absolutely understand the necessity of regulating the quantity of posts AND the form of what we write ( snipping, net speak, etc.) I strongly disagree with possible regulation of SUBSTANCE of what we write, except if the substance of the post is being rude to another poster ( but that is being regulated already). It is just my personal view of course , but as you are saying in your next point, who gets to determine the substantive quality of the post? It is VERY subjective, IMO. I mean sure there are brilliant writers on the list, but many people's writing is more or less the same. So, say you feel my post does not add anything new to the discussion and I feel differently, why your POV should prevail ( and my post being rejected), if my post is readable and civil otherwise AND if it is not "Me too" post of course. Rejecting the posts for the "substantive" reasons reminds me of the censorship and quite honestly I don't like it at all. Just my opinion, of course. There is enough place on the list for VERY different type of arguments, not just different topics, IMO. > Carolyn: > One of our recommendations was to accept no new members between June > and August each year, and especially this year with the release of > HBP on July 16th. I would still be interested to know if Yahoo Group > rules would permit you to do this. > > SSS: I don't think I like this idea, but I'd be curious to read > other responses. I prefer a limit on number of posts, even possibly > that read-only period for newbies, which would slow people down. Alla: Susan, I again want to register my agreement with you. JMO, Alla From miamibarb at ivogun.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 02:35:53 2005 From: miamibarb at ivogun.yahoo.invalid (Barb Roberts) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 21:35:53 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <27178658-797A-11D9-85BD-000A95DC8A32@...> Just a couple of comments. I am in agreement that some of the better posts are being buried under an avalanche of endless debates. I don't get to my email everyday, so it is easy for me to spot long threads where most of the posts are done by a couple of people posting back and forth. Most of the debates have long series of quotes where It takes a bit of effort to discern who is actually said, but it's not usually worth the effort. These rapid-fire debates need to be controlled a bit, and the snipping should be shorter and so made less confusing to the causal reader. Quotas. Unfortunately it can be tricky to place value judgments of the posts, but it's easier to apply quotas. I think that in general anyone who posts more then two posts a day should be placed on moderation unless the poster has a history of high quality posts. It scares a bit that recently a couple of posts had glaring errors that were ignored. Have we given up? As far as the low-quality debates I think most people in these debates are having fun, and deep down know that perhaps, they should think a bit before hitting the send button. Most of us know, or ought to also know, that we have not put the type of research into our posts that Steve does. I, for one, certainly don't have the time to write a large number of high quality posts. The young adults will be back again this summer and without quotas, it will be avalanche season again. IMHO, posts from Steve and Carolyn's are enlightening. Geoff's multiple posts are often written to correct annoying errors and as I said earlier this is a necessary function that is difficult to do well. This is an activity that should be encouraged. Most of the rest of us should be limited in what we submit. It seems to me that we have fewer really good posts. I think there are still topics that can be discussed, the well is not completely dry, but then again I was a lit major in college. Barbara Roberts, who believes the best lists are not accidents, but take a lot of unseen work. From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 02:58:57 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 02:58:57 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: <27178658-797A-11D9-85BD-000A95DC8A32@...> Message-ID: Barb: Quotas. Unfortunately it can be tricky to place value judgments of the posts, but it's easier to apply quotas. I think that in general anyone who posts more then two posts a day should be placed on moderation unless the poster has a history of high quality posts. Alla: Absolutely, as I said earlier I do understand the quantity control, even though I like debates very much. Guilty as charged. :) I vote for a number higher than two posts per day thought ( I can post three posts per day, but yep on weekeneds my number can be as high as eight sometimes). As Susan said though, I can control myself and do less than that, if I am told that I have to. In the initial Admin reply they mentioned voluntary limitation for three posts per day. I'd like to know when it is going to be in effect and no, I don't think if someone accidentally breaks the number, they have to be put on moderation. I think it is too harsh. I think that warning after such violation will be quite sufficient. Barbs: It seems to me that we have fewer really good posts. I think there are still topics that can be discussed, the well is not completely dry, but then again I was a lit major in college. Alla: And I consider myself to be the one who is still learning from the best writers here, but I definitely learned a lot. I will never be able to write as well as many english speaking posters, but I don't think that because of that I should be drastically limited in what I contribute to the list. Again, I am only speaking against judging posts on substance. Even though I speak for myself only, I think that there are some other posters in the same position as I am. Barbara Roberts, who believes the best lists are not accidents, but take a lot of unseen work. Alla: I agree completely. From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 15:12:17 2005 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:12:17 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Greetings, everyone. Ginger, new to this list, addressing one small point of Carolyn's post: > CONTROLLING POSTING VOLUME > > The list has been characterised over the last two years by uneven > bursts of posting in the summer. The group was created in August > 2000, and monthly posting averaged a fairly even 1500-2000 per month > until Jun-Aug 2003, when the publication of OoP generated over 20000 > posts in three months. The posting rate subsided back to 2000 per > month until Jun-Aug 2004, when nearly 12000 posts went up. It would > be reasonable to assume the same pattern will be repeated in summer > 2005, especially if (as seems likely) it coincides with the release > of HBP. Ginger: This is something that has been on my mind for quite a while. We welcomed many of our great posters during the joining glut that was OoP's release. For that reason, I would hate to see us lose other quality potential posters by having a ban on joining. OTOH, I am one who reads every post unless it is one of the ones I can't understand because it is so far above my head. During the days following OoP, I was sleep-deprived. Lists evolve and change over time with a change in membership, but this was so sudden. Overnight, people were joining and saying "Hi, here's my 234kb analysis of the book." Ok, slight exageration. Many gave up on trying to read all the posts, and just went ahead and posted. Within 100 messages, it was guaranteed that someone would ask why Neville could see the thestrals, and several people would answer. Repeat every hundred posts. I can only imagine the headaches this would have caused for the Elves. I remember having pity. Sadly, people also left at that time; I understood their frustration. Submitted for your approval: 1. Having new members wait until they are contacted by their welcoming Elf before posting. The Elf can send, with the standard welcoming letter, a standard warning of the pit-falls (see point 2) that accompany the release of a new book, which would include a strong suggestion to look around before posting to see how the group works and the standards that we have. 2. An ADMIN to all members asking cooperation with: Reading other posts before writing. Posting specific points rather than full-book reviews. Drasticly limiting their number of posts immediately after the book. 3. Creating a HBP FAQ, updated frequently, which all must consult before posting. Howlers to those who ask oft-repeated questions. These are, of course, only suggestions which may be ignored, toyed with, changed or otherwise pondered in these exciting months ahead. Thank you for your consideration, Ginger From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 19:49:16 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 19:49:16 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > We welcomed many of our great posters during the joining glut that > was OoP's release. For that reason, I would hate to see us lose > other quality potential posters by having a ban on joining. > Many gave up on trying to read all the posts, and just went ahead > and posted. Within 100 messages, it was guaranteed that someone > would ask why Neville could see the thestrals, and several people > would answer. Repeat every hundred posts. > Submitted for your approval: > 1. Having new members wait until they are contacted by their > welcoming Elf before posting. The Elf can send, with the standard > welcoming letter, a standard warning of the pit-falls (see point 2) > that accompany the release of a new book, which would include a > strong suggestion to look around before posting to see how the > group works and the standards that we have. > > 2. An ADMIN to all members asking cooperation with: > Reading other posts before writing. > Posting specific points rather than full-book reviews. > Drasticly limiting their number of posts immediately after the book. > > 3. Creating a HBP FAQ, updated frequently, which all must consult > before posting. Howlers to those who ask oft-repeated questions. SSSusan: Given that this forum, and specifically this topic, has been set up to gauge member reactions to suggestions and to gather input on them, I'm assuming it's more okay to do a "Me, too" post here than at HPfGU? With the reasoning that if someone has a great idea & others say, "Yes, that's brilliant!" then the admin team will know how popular an idea it is? Assuming I'm right about that, here goes. [And if I'm *wrong* about that, let me know, elves.] I *really like* the notion of a "You may not post 'til you hear from your welcome elf," in combination with the welcome elf specifically addressing the pitfalls, as Ginger so aptly put it, of post-book- release posting. I think a SPECIFIC mention of something so important to the list members' [and elves'] sanity in that initial contact will help reinforce it, rather than a generic sort of, "Here's our policy; please go read it and familiarize yourself with it." An FAQ specifically for HBP would be a tremendous help, if it's do- able by admin staff, especially if the first few "Why can Neville see the thestrels?" type of repeat postings were directed *right away* to the FAQ. IOW, make it an *expectation* that people turn there, and point out to them -- publicly, I think -- that they should be utilizing that resource, not that it's just a nice little extra that they maybe sorta kinda could look at some times. And back to yesterday's comments, may I reiterate that I am REALLY looking forward to the announcement that people should cut their posts to 3 [or whatever # admin determines in the end] per day? I think it will make a big difference... truly. Siriusly Snapey Susan From stonehenge.orders at kjirstem.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 20:12:05 2005 From: stonehenge.orders at kjirstem.yahoo.invalid (kjirstem) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:12:05 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm very glad to see this discussion. I appreciate the thought that Carolyn and Kneasy put into their suggestions and the vast amount of work carried out by the list elves. I am more of a lurker than a poster but I have a few thoughts that I hope will be seen as a contribution here. First, I agree with much of what was said by Carolyn and Kneasy. I was also thrilled to hear of a catalogue of posts in the works. Personally, I don't like to post unless I have read most of the recent posts and think I have something different to add to a current thread. These conditions are rarely met, largely due to list volume and Yahoo!Mort. Admin: >>With regard to your recommendation to limit the number of posts per person per day, as a first step in our efforts to manage list volume, we have decided to ask the list membership to voluntarily limit their posting rate to three posts per day.<< kjirstem: I would really like to see this voluntary quota on posts per day per poster come into effect. I think this would be good for the following reasons: 1) Potentially lower list volume 2) Potentially higher post quality since posters might spend more time on each post 3) Potentially greater diversity of opinion by leaving openings for different posters C/K: All posts should be subjected to a delay of up to 24-hours before they appear on site. kjirstem: I do not like the idea of a 24-hour delay between post submission and appearance on the list. Delays almost always have a destabilizing effect, particularly in any system involving humans. One thing that I think would happen is that many more people would reply to any given post. There would be a period during which list members wouldn't know if anyone else had replied or the content of replies, leading to duplication of post content. My guess is that this would take some kind of cyclic form, with bursts of duplicate posts followed by periods with no replies. The resulting work for list elves would be greater than it currently appears when looking at list history and might also be unpredictable. I would also like to suggest that encouragement of good posts might help with both post and discussion quality. Inclusion in the catalogue mentioned by Carolyn might be encouragement enough. Perhaps the FP and Inish Alley played this role in the past? The drawback is that encouraging good posts would require more work by list elves. On the topic of the work required of list elves, I wonder if there is any way to subdivide responsibilities into smaller chunks and involve more people? I'm sure that the pool of available volunteers would be larger if the time commitment were smaller. Like SSSusan, I couldn't commit to 10-15 hours a week, I have a job, kids, and other volunteer obligations, but 2-3 hours a week might be possible. I'm always amazed at the volunteer organizations that effectively deploy large numbers of volunteers. I don't know how they do it but surely someone does. Finally, this discussion reminded me of a recent entry in Theresa Nielsen Hayden's blog regarding conversations on the internet, http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006036.html#006036 Not exactly the same circumstances, but some points may be relevant. kjirstem - who greatly misses Kneasy's posts From ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 21:14:22 2005 From: ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:14:22 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4208E55E.25555.150AF51@localhost> On 8 Feb 2005 at 19:49, cubfanbudwoman wrote: > And back to yesterday's comments, may I reiterate that I am REALLY > looking forward to the announcement that people should cut their > posts to 3 [or whatever # admin determines in the end] per day? I > think it will make a big difference... truly. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan I think that would help out tremendously, too. Yup. I support that measure. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at ... Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 From ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 21:17:20 2005 From: ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:17:20 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4208E610.3524.15367B6@localhost> On 8 Feb 2005 at 20:12, kjirstem wrote: > On the topic of the work required of list elves, I wonder if there is > any way to subdivide responsibilities into smaller chunks and involve > more people? I'm sure that the pool of available volunteers > would be larger if the time commitment were smaller. Like SSSusan, > I couldn't commit to 10-15 hours a week, I have a job, kids, and > other volunteer obligations, but 2-3 hours a week might be possible. > I'm always amazed at the volunteer organizations that effectively > deploy large numbers of volunteers. I don't know how they do it > but surely someone does. I, too, would never be able to handle 10-15 hours a week to help out as any form of list elf, but I would be GLAD to give 2-3 hours a week. I'm positive that HUNDREDS of us would be willing and able to give that much, and that most of that hundreds would be of the quality you need for an elf. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at ... Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 From s_ings at s_ings.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 21:46:13 2005 From: s_ings at s_ings.yahoo.invalid (s_ings at s_ings.yahoo.invalid) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:46:13 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > kjirstem: > On the topic of the work required of list elves, I wonder if there is > any way to subdivide responsibilities into smaller chunks and involve > more people? I'm sure that the pool of available volunteers > would be larger if the time commitment were smaller. Like SSSusan, > I couldn't commit to 10-15 hours a week, I have a job, kids, and > other volunteer obligations, but 2-3 hours a week might be possible. > I'm always amazed at the volunteer organizations that effectively > deploy large numbers of volunteers. I don't know how they do it > but surely someone does. > Sheryll: I wanted to address this issue of time commitment, as it's now come up twice. Not all the elves put in that much time to the running of the group. Obviously, we all have real lives and our time available to dedicate to an online group varies from person to person and from time to time. To give you an example, I do both list reading and welcoming new members. I also am the person who schedules the daily tasks for the elves. I keep a database or two in good working order. I physically demod the members who are ready and send out their letters to let them know they've reached this stage. I try to contribute meaningfully to the major administration discussions buy often find my point has been made first by someone else. :) I used to be the Birthday Elf, but gave it up when my time got stretched too thin. I do work, but mostly part-time these days. Of course, I still did all that while working 6 days a week at my last job, as well as working to organise Convention Alley last year. I have a husband who tolerates my time online with raised eyebrows and a daughter off at college who likes HP, will discuss theories and search for flints in the books, but won't join a discussion group because, as she says, "I'm not *that* obsessed." How much time do I put into HPfGU? Not counting trying to skim all the posts daily? I honestly couldn't say. More than some, less than others. We all contribute what we can, when we can. I have, on average, one or two welcoming and reading days a month. Welcoming, because I've been doing it for years, I can do in 30 minutes or less, spending about a minute per email sent (not counting replying to responses). List reading can take anywhere from an hour to 2 hours each time, depending on the days volume and how much time I spend clearing my inbox at the same time. I multi-task all the time. When I'm cleaning up a database, I'm also reading email, for example. Kind of a long way to say that we contribute what time we have available. It doesn't have to be a commitment of many hours, just a commitment to do a few assigned tasks on a couple days a month. If people want to do more, we welcome it. If they need time off, we encourage it. Sheryll, speaking completely for herself and not the whole Admin team and sure that others will speak up on other issues :) From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 8 21:58:46 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:58:46 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: <4208E610.3524.15367B6@localhost> Message-ID: Tammy: > I, too, would never be able to handle 10-15 hours a week to help out as any form of list elf, > but I would be GLAD to give 2-3 hours a week. I'm positive that HUNDREDS of us would > be willing and able to give that much, and that most of that hundreds would be of the quality > you need for an elf. Alla: I absolutely agree with it. ( Me toos are allowed here, right? :)) From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 01:02:44 2005 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:02:44 -0000 Subject: Posting limits was Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: <4208E55E.25555.150AF51@localhost> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Tammy Rizzo" wrote: > > On 8 Feb 2005 at 19:49, cubfanbudwoman wrote: > > > And back to yesterday's comments, may I reiterate that I am REALLY looking forward to the announcement that people should cut their posts to 3 [or whatever # admin determines in the end] per day? I think it will make a big difference... truly. Pippin: Posting limits is going to be my pet project for awhile, along with Ali. One thing we want to do first is contact the Very Frequent Posters offlist (in case they don't follow Feedback) and let them know we're going to try this and why. Then we'd like to implement it for a trial period, say 3 to 4 weeks on a voluntary basis (ie we will monitor compliance but not enforce it.) If it's successful we'll start enforcing -- usually a polite reminder offlist is enough, believe it or not. People seldom need to be remodded. We had decided on a limit of three posts per day for the trial period. One thing I'd be glad to have input on is how we would measure success. Posting quality seems too subjective to be measured easily. Pippin (Peppy Elf) From Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 03:00:30 2005 From: Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 03:00:30 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi everyone, I have been giving this some long and serious thought, We have four? major lists, and there is still a volume problem? I thought about my own feelings a lot, and I came to the conclusion that as a member, I really actually preferred the high volume of posts here to any low volume list I have visited. As a list Elf, I can understand that one would feel differently, but to be quite honest, less posting doesn't appeal to me at all. I wondered if focusing on reducing the volume of posts would really be a positive thing to do, and I honestly decided that, No it wouldn't. It wouldn't be in the spirit or tradition of HPFGU to do so either. In the past HPFGU has placed filters on the lists which have made some subject matter and styles of posting easier to find and IMHO in doing so the list has retained a sense of positive building rather than culling to manage influx, which is quite possibly why it has become singularly most loved among HP forums. Though I fear I may not get a lot of agreement on this matter, I feel I need to make my opinion known anyhow. I truly hope that the outcome of this discussion will be a optimistic and positive plan for some growth and evolution of the HPFGU network, and not, what is IMO, a negative approach of censoring or limiting the creative contribution of each member. I would like to offer a basic plan for HBP to illustrate my position. HPFGU needs: At least, 2 more lists - One for Hypothetic Alley with an professionally calculated cataloguing plan to make finding posts easier. and One for High level discussions/debates and live research events, also catalogued and being specifically for the discussion of *one* topic at any given time. {Why/How this works.. Old and new Theories - especially the ones that still sail, are easier to find, can be read as they were intended by the author, new ones that don't initially generate interest are given further chance to get noticed by others who might be interested later (which in turn eliminates a *lot* of repetition), and it gives formal acknowlegment to a distinct and growing part of the HPFGU membership ie Long Debate and Theory.} Volunteers to moderate/create and cooperate the operation of these lists in conjunction with HPFGU main list. {Why this works.. The tasks of the ListElves are more widely spread and more specialised, so they can devote more time to the posts that they enjoy reading while doing their work, they are given more opportunity for a little creative input in their favourite sector of the HPFGU list. How this works... the listelves of the main list and each of the other lists communicate between themselves and recommend to each other post, topics and threads that could be invited to be catalogued on the two new lists, as well as members being able to recommend to each other to use the other lists for their said purposes.} A larger and carefully organised web organisation umbrella - redesign the website to navigate new members directly to the portkey where they are navigationally guided on a quick tour of the HPFGU network (and maybe the Floo network too if possible) and given every opportunity to backread - consider their posting options - and view Hypotheticals, High level discussions, and group themes and mottoes BEFORE they are navigated to the main list to begin posting. {How/Why this works... Newbies during and after HBP have an opportunity to lurk a while and take in the true immensity of the HPFGU list before they choose to join.} This is all achievable with some clever web creation and forethought, so the real question is, what do you think of the plan? Valky From ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 05:19:07 2005 From: ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:19:07 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Posting limits was Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: References: <4208E55E.25555.150AF51@localhost> Message-ID: <420956FB.30404.30C81BB@localhost> On 9 Feb 2005 at 1:02, pippin_999 wrote: > One thing I'd be glad to have input on is how we would measure > success. Posting quality seems too subjective to be measured > easily. > > Pippin > (Peppy Elf) Well, if volume goes down, then that's easy enough to check, right? And if list volume does go down, it'll be ever so much easier to actually FOLLOW the various and sundry threads, and that usually leads to more thoughtful responses, when you can actually take the time to ponder what's being said without worrying about drowning in the overflow. I have to skim the messages, at best hitting only about half the threads, and I *know* I'm missing a lot of wonderful discussion because of it, but there's just so much. If it were less, we'd all be able to read more, and more thoroughly as well. I'd count that as one measure of success. :-) *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at ... Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 From Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 06:12:10 2005 From: Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 06:12:10 -0000 Subject: Posting limits was Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > One thing I'd be glad to have input on is how we would measure > success. Posting quality seems too subjective to be measured > easily. > > Pippin > (Peppy Elf) Valky: I think, Pippin, that the sheer popularity of this list is the only measure of success we need. HPFGU must have, so far, been managed extraordinarily well considering it has 13000 subscribers and apparently, relatively few complaints. There are concerns though, and especially by those who were here during the OOtP tidal wave. All understandable, but past measures (OTChatter - FAQ) have kept a total crisis at bay for quite some time now. I think we should measure our success by how well we embrace it, not by how politically correctly we stifle it. Am I really alone on that? From zanelupin at zanelupin.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 09:56:30 2005 From: zanelupin at zanelupin.yahoo.invalid (KathyK) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:56:30 -0000 Subject: Partly on Posting limits Plus Plenty of Rambling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I was just going to discuss the 3-a-day experiment. Honest! Valky wrote: >but past measures (OTChatter - FAQ) have kept a total crisis at bay for quite some time now. I think we should measure our success by how well we embrace it, not by how politically correctly we stifle it. Am I really alone on that?< KathyK: No, Valky, you're not alone. I see your point and I agree to an extent. The rest of this isn't directed at you, but is more a general response to this and past discussions. I know you have made a suggestion, as have others, for the creation of separate lists for 'higher-quality' discussion with, as Carolyn & Barry suggested as one of their solutions, stricter guidelines for posting to said lists. Such lists would help lower volume on the main list and give posters who have placed a great amount of time and effort into their messages somewhere to post with the expectation of not just any reply, but of well constructed and considered replies. My issue with this, besides my usual dislike for anything that to me smacks of elitism, (regardless of whether such was the intent), is how exactly would this help improve quality on the main list? How will removing the well supported and thought-provoking posts to another place encourage posters on the main list to post well supported and thought-provoking messages? I love the suggestion of Topic Posts, Guest Posts, and Revisiting Old Posts. I tire quite quickly of a few oft-repeated subjects. Infusing the list with some great discussion on a range of topics would be most excellent. I'd love to help in any way I can in implementing some of these ideas. (Er, Elfly-types, speaking of helping in any way I can, did you receive my reply message I sent last week?) Considerations of Other Suggestions: ***I am firmly against preventing new members joining from June- August. If such a measure were in place when I tried to join in JUNE, I would have said, "forget you people," never to return. Not a big loss for this list, I'm sure, but there's that whole "you're more likely to tell people about a bad experience than a good one" so this sort of measure, according to my knowledge (limited to me, but what can I say? It's all I've got), would just lead to a lot of bad feelings and could create a negative reputation for HPFGU, which I would hate to see happen since this place really is great! Not to mention potential excellent posters we'd be missing out on. I am against any measure that seems to punish someone because they happened to discover HP later than others. That being said, having a new member wait for contact from a Welcome Elf seems not an unreasonable request. ***The delayed posting method seems a bit too drastic, too difficult to implement, and again, there's that objection others have brought up about filtering posts not just for formatting issues or errors but also for substance. That's just too much, IMO. ***Like Carolyn, I am all for list elves contributing more to threads and leading by example. It's something I believe I've mentioned before so I won't harp on it now. Pippin: >>One thing I'd be glad to have input on is how we would measure success. Posting quality seems too subjective to be measured easily.<< KathyK: I'll admit, lowering message volume appeals to me. A limit on the number of messages per day a member may post is something I've advocated in the past. The more I think on it, though, it may be I've been such a huge fan of it because I could use fewer posts to read through at times. So I'm thinking on it some more. It certainly is a means of controlling list volume, something that is going to be extremely important this summer. I joined HPFGU in June 2003 right before OOP's release. I had no concept of this list before OOP. I just thought this place was a madhouse and I'd have to get used to it. :-) And I said, "Wow, there are almost 60,000 messages already. I'll never catch up with those." It was difficult enough keeping up with current threads. Yeah. What was my point? Probably didn't even have one. The measure of success. Tammy mentioned the cold, hard, facts answer. If posting volume is reduced then presumably the 3 a day experiment is a success. Even that, though, is not so cut and dry in my opinion. What numbers are you comparing it with? The numbers from the preceding month, from the same month in previous years? Then there's the quality factor Pippin mentioned. Will the limit really encourage more thoughtful posts? Will it encourage longer posts? Will it cause members to weave together many posts on one thread into one response rather than one reply message per reply message? Will it cut down on what Geoff once termed "tennis" replies, the back and forth arguments that never go anywhere (one of my pet peeves)? While posting quality is a subjective measure(whose definition of quality or good posts do we use?) it is something I think must be considered in some way for this experiment. I don't have an answer as how to gauge this. I might just look to see if there is a discernable difference in how people are posting overall. There again, is that something that can be quantified or put to use in giving an answer to the success question? Pippin, have you any initial ideas on what you'll be looking for in this experiment? KathyK, who could ramble more but it will probably just be repetitive and anyway it's 5am here and Kathy needs to be up in 4 hours From Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 10:25:58 2005 From: Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:25:58 -0000 Subject: Partly on Posting limits Plus Plenty of Rambling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Valky wrote: > > >but past measures (OTChatter - FAQ) have kept a total crisis at bay for quite some time now. I think we should measure our success by how well we embrace it, not by how politically correctly we stifle it. Am I really alone on that?< > > KathyK: > > No, Valky, you're not alone. I see your point and I agree to an > extent. The rest of this isn't directed at you, but is more a > general response to this and past discussions. I know you have made a suggestion, as have others, for the creation of separate lists for 'higher-quality' discussion with, as Carolyn & Barry suggested as one of their solutions, stricter guidelines for posting to said lists. Valky replies: Actually, I am not sure that I am understood completely. The extra lists that I propose have far less to do with elitism than asking members not to post until they have something um "good enough" by the standards of others. I notice that in your post you have mentioned that the tennis debates are your pet peeve. Well, as a frequent debater myself I would also like to add that a large number of my personal list contacts were made through someone writing me personally to tell me *they* were thoroughly enjoying reading the debate. All I am saying is that in the past HPFGU has endeavoured to embrace everyone, and I credit a great deal of the HPFGU popularity to that optimism and fair treatment. Should we know be telling these people that we once embraced into our fold those feelings have changed and that they are no longer welcome? From Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 10:30:42 2005 From: Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:30:42 -0000 Subject: Partly on Posting limits Plus Plenty of Rambling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Valky wrote: > > > > >but past measures (OTChatter - FAQ) have kept a total crisis at > bay for quite some time now. I think we should measure our success > by how well we embrace it, not by how politically correctly we > stifle it. Am I really alone on that?< > > > > KathyK: > > > > No, Valky, you're not alone. I see your point and I agree to an > > extent. The rest of this isn't directed at you, but is more a > > general response to this and past discussions. I know you have > made a suggestion, as have others, for the creation of separate > lists for 'higher-quality' discussion with, as Carolyn & Barry > suggested as one of their solutions, stricter guidelines for posting > to said lists. > > > Valky replies: > Actually, I am not sure that I am understood completely. The extra > lists that I propose have far less to do with elitism than asking > members not to post until they have something um "good enough" by > the standards of others. > > I notice that in your post you have mentioned that the tennis > debates are your pet peeve. Well, as a frequent debater myself I > would also like to add that a large number of my personal list > contacts were made through someone writing me personally to tell me *they* were thoroughly enjoying reading the debate. > All I am saying is that in the past HPFGU has endeavoured to embrace everyone, and I credit a great deal of the HPFGU popularity to that optimism and fair treatment. > Should we know be telling these people that we once embraced into > our fold those feelings have changed and that they are no longer > welcome? I sicerely apologise for adding this late, but I really need to say that I did not ever espouse that any style of posting was more "high quality" than any other. Just that in all fairness someone needs to point out that the 3-a-day rule is an elistist lash at the debaters coming from a frame of mind that considers that contribution to be "low quality". Can there be a place for everyone? From Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 11:31:13 2005 From: Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:31:13 -0000 Subject: Logistics and *non* elitist objectives. (Post Quality Discussion) Message-ID: I would like to offer a general answer to this question for all, if you're not already sick of me. Kathy.K wrote: < How will removing the well supported and thought-provoking posts to another place encourage posters on the main list to post well supported and thought-provoking messages? > People will go there for a read. I recommend management put a hit counter on Fantastic Posts to see if people are willing to navigate away from the list for a read. I bet most all people here who have joined in the last two years have read and enjoyed FP. The only problem is FP is mostly many years out of date anyway, it is no longer practicable for management to keep up it fully up to date. Besides it has become rather an elitist thing itself and the foster parent of the fantasy golden age by default of more recent FP's being washed away in tides of posting. The members will keep this one up to date themselves. And it would give *everyone* an opportunity to inspire others by making available to *all* a recognised place for their thought provoking posts and not just a carefully chosen handful, some no longer even members, from the past. The theory list is *not* a discussion list, the discussion remains here, when members are done discussing their theories and want them preserved for future interest they put them there. The third list would be a place that people can *nominate* to use for debates and in depth discussion. They could book it or post a TT/Snape question to it, or management can decide to open it for a certain topic each week. Either way, in this place tennis match posting is the norm not the exception. Both lists can be unlisted in the directory with the only link being from the main list, but veiwable by the public so members need not join the extra lists if they only like to watch. My battle is with Yahoomort... Valky From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 12:05:24 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:05:24 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Partly on Posting limits Plus Plenty of Rambling References: Message-ID: <00c101c50e9f$a32f6b70$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Valky replies: I notice that in your [KathyK's] post you have mentioned that the tennis debates are your pet peeve. Well, as a frequent debater myself I would also like to add that a large number of my personal list contacts were made through someone writing me personally to tell me *they* were thoroughly enjoying reading the debate. All I am saying is that in the past HPFGU has endeavoured to embrace everyone, and I credit a great deal of the HPFGU popularity to that optimism and fair treatment. Should we know be telling these people that we once embraced into our fold those feelings have changed and that they are no longer welcome? SSSusan: If I may step in here? I'm not positive I know how to phrase this so it's understandable, but I'll try. I think there may be a bit of speaking at cross purposes going on here. To me, there's a difference between "tennis exchanges" and debate. Debate is good! Sometimes a thread does end up being primarily a two-person exchange, and as long as some real, meaty content is being put forth, with *movement* in the exchange, it can be fascinating to watch. [I think of recent Pippin-Renee or Nora-Becky exchanges as examples.] However, there *is* another type of two- or three-person exchange which gets tiresome and which serves primarily only to add to list volume, and that's Geoff's aptly-named "tennis exchange." In these, we end up with people doing a lot of, "Well, like I said before, I really think..." or "I know you see it this way, but I see it this way...." The problem is it tends to be simple repetition of the same argument, not a new perspective or additional canon evidence/support. These can even happen in situations where the posters *agree!* I can't tell you the number of times I've said [to my computer screen, my cat, or whomever happens to be around], "Why don't you take this offlist?" Since I'm not an elf, I've never felt comfortable contacting people and suggesting they take a discussion offlist, but I've hoped that the elves were doing that behind the scenes. Some people don't care for offlist notes, and a discussion will simply end. But that's the way it goes. If the discussion isn't GETTING anywhere, if it's a poster's 3rd or 4th attempt to make the same point, it's not a debate, really. Have I ever gotten involved in this kind of tennis exchange? You bet, and I feel bad about that. I'm attempting to avoid them now, because I sense that it's just adding to the overload. Or so that's my view. Siriusly Snapey Susan Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPFGU-Feedback-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From miamibarb at ivogun.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 12:17:56 2005 From: miamibarb at ivogun.yahoo.invalid (Barb Roberts) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:17:56 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Partly on Posting and Quoting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The irony is that limits on the number of daily posts that one person sends actually *raises* the changes that I, for one, will read emails from the high-volume posters. At the current time, I sort my emails by name and delete all those who have posted frequently with the exception of posts from about three to five people whose posts are almost always well thought out and easy to read. I have a strong hunch that I am not alone, although people may employ different means of avoiding threads. If fewer posts a day raises your chances that people will read what you say then I defy any charges of censorship. It may be the opposite, in reality. Another reality is that I now delete posts that contain snips or quotes that are so long that I can't figure quickly out what points are being argued. I just don't have the time to sort it all out. Barbara Roberts From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 13:37:53 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:37:53 -0000 Subject: Partly on Posting limits Plus Plenty of Rambling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > Valky replies: > > I notice that in your post you have mentioned that the tennis > debates are your pet peeve. Well, as a frequent debater myself I > would also like to add that a large number of my personal list > contacts were made through someone writing me personally to tell me > *they* were thoroughly enjoying reading the debate. > All I am saying is that in the past HPFGU has endeavoured to > embrace everyone, and I credit a great deal of the HPFGU popularity > to that optimism and fair treatment. > Should we know be telling these people that we once embraced into > our fold those feelings have changed and that they are no longer > welcome? Let me throw out a distinction that may seem too fine, but I'm willing to make it (and, I admit, generally DO when I list-read): Quality of content is subjective, to some extent. Not everyone likes SHIP discussions, for example (and some have been vocal about that). Some people click through anything bringing up RL comparisons to canon. What is not wholly subjective is the question of whether there is something *substantial* in a post. Or whether there is something OT. It's a little frustrating to go through and find multiple OT posts responding to the same topic, posted in quick succession. This is a mailing list, and part of the essence of a mailing list is the interaction model--listies post, listies respond. However, to keep it manageable and readable, we need to encourage maximum *substance* in each post. Make two points in one post rather than two separate, so a responder is not tempted to ALSO send two posts. The point of the list is not quite for the extremely rapid and short exchanges that we sometimes see. Threads of exchanges, yes--but say something. Me-toos are banned for good reason, and I myself would like to see a general rule about *no* one-line posts. The three-a- day posting limit is a way to get at this. It also seems to have the benefit of making certain posting styles change--the "I don't read the list every day but when I do I post 15 messages in a row", which can be frustrating when the person in question is with a backlog and doesn't read downthread. Then you get messages with the "Did you not see that I already answered this question?", which are preferably avoided. [I always get annoyed when this happens to me, I admit.] More substance, less chatter--on-list. Chatter is great on OTC. Chatter is fabulous off-list. I do a lot of it. Now, if we can only get the "You Shall Not Top-Post" through to everyone... -Nora gets ready to go to class... From sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 14:21:45 2005 From: sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:21:45 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Posting limits was Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c50eb2$b0101a20$0400a8c0@pensive> Hi, i've been thinking about this for several days. I wanted to try to add some good feedback to the discussion. I've read over the suggestion from Carolyn and Kneasy several times. I think some are good and some are not quite as good. I am not in favor of posting limits. I rarely post, but that has nothing to do with how often other people post. in fact, there are several members who's posts I love to read--no matter how many--even if I don't always agree. posting limits would seem to stifle the fun debates and ongoing topics. Members can always delete or skip messages on topics that don't interest them. For example, I often avoid the Snape good or bad debates. Although even then, there are some people whose posts I will always read. I will also always read posts from members whose names I don't recognize, because I've had some very stimulating thoughts from newbies. I don't have a problem with the fact that new people tend to bring up some of the same questions repeatedly. it was a question on the minds of other members, why not for these new people? Besides, as someone else mentioned earlier, it often leads to new discussion or thoughts on that subject. I like the idea of bringing back old posts or having members who had originally posted interesting, researched or even controversial topics bring them back for discussion again. I like the idea of the admin team asking certain members to post on particular topics and asking other members known to have differing opinions to post their responses, to get discussion going. However, I wouldn't like to have members required to research old posts or do other research before being allowed to post. Members still come up with new ideas or points that make me think. I would also disagree that real world experience should be avoided in discussion. As I believe SS Susan said, why shouldn't someone who attended a UK boarding school discuss the RW schools as a way to make a point about possible life at Hogwarts. As a specific personal RW example, the fact that I am disabled has a direct bearing on the way I see Lupin as a character and why I hope with all my might that Pippin is wrong about him. my 30 years of working with guide dogs has direct bearing on why I do not think Sirius is evil either. I think we all approach our readings of any books with our real world experience, even a fantasy series. I feel it's perfectly acceptable in HPFGU debate. Of course, as long as it doesn't go into the story of our lives, from birth to the present! Ok, I think that's all from me for now. I just wanted to add my sickles to the discussion. Sherry From ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 14:33:58 2005 From: ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:33:58 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Partly on Posting limits Plus Plenty of Rambling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4209D906.17238.5088382@localhost> On 9 Feb 2005 at 13:37, nrenka wrote: > What is not wholly subjective is the question of whether there is > something *substantial* in a post. Or whether there is something > OT. It's a little frustrating to go through and find multiple OT > posts responding to the same topic, posted in quick succession. > More substance, less chatter--on-list. Chatter is great on OTC. > Chatter is fabulous off-list. I do a lot of it. > > Now, if we can only get the "You Shall Not Top-Post" through to > everyone... > > -Nora gets ready to go to class... Now Tammy Rizzo: I think substance should be fairly easy to tell, even if 'quality' is difficult to pin down (though I would certainly require a minimum of spelling or grammar errors to be part of the 'quality' definition, simply from sore experience on other lists where nobody cares a whit about readability). Substance is vital on a list like the HPfGU family, which is why I rarely post to the main list (or anywhere, for that matter) -- almost anything I feel needs to be said has usually already been said better by someone else, and I really don't like adding to the volume if I can't add something to the substance in the process. Now, here on this list, we're looking for opinions on pending or possible changes, and so 'substance' is not as much of a requirement, at least for this particular discussion. One question, though, if that's all right? What is 'top-posting'? I can't seem to find that term defined anywhere. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I can't find it. Thanks! *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at ... Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 From sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 14:34:53 2005 From: sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:34:53 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Logistics and *non* elitist objectives. (Post Quality Discussion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001001c50eb4$85c92020$0400a8c0@pensive> One practical objection to having a list or group only available from the main list is accessibility for members who are blind using screen reading software. This would only affect a small number of members, but I know that I have recommended this group to several blind people I know from other reading lists. In order to join a group on yahoo, a person must enter a graphical security image. Our screen reading software cannot read these graphics to us. Even if a person is a member of yahoo, as I am, every time that person wants to join a new group, the security image comes up. The only way around this for blind people is to join by email subscription, get a sighted person to help you, be invited to join by a moderator, or wait on the not so tender mercies of yahoo customer service for assistance. Having groups that could only be accessed from the main group site would effectively limit people in this situation. Besides, call me weird, but I don't mind the tennis debates on the main list. In fact, I love the mixture of posts. I love the debate and the back and forth that happens sometimes. I also love the shorter discussions. I love the humor. It is the most entertaining list I am on, and it is the most enjoyable to read due to the usually stimulating discussion and thought provoking topics that still manage to arise. in fact, I recently started a group for discussing Tolkien, and my hope is that someday, it will be similar to HPFGU in the depth of discussion and the fun of being a part of it. Sherry -----Original Message----- From: M.Clifford [mailto:Aisbelmon at ...] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 4:31 AM To: HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Logistics and *non* elitist objectives. (Post Quality Discussion) I would like to offer a general answer to this question for all, if you're not already sick of me. Kathy.K wrote: < How will removing the well supported and thought-provoking posts to another place encourage posters on the main list to post well supported and thought-provoking messages? > People will go there for a read. I recommend management put a hit counter on Fantastic Posts to see if people are willing to navigate away from the list for a read. I bet most all people here who have joined in the last two years have read and enjoyed FP. The only problem is FP is mostly many years out of date anyway, it is no longer practicable for management to keep up it fully up to date. Besides it has become rather an elitist thing itself and the foster parent of the fantasy golden age by default of more recent FP's being washed away in tides of posting. The members will keep this one up to date themselves. And it would give *everyone* an opportunity to inspire others by making available to *all* a recognised place for their thought provoking posts and not just a carefully chosen handful, some no longer even members, from the past. The theory list is *not* a discussion list, the discussion remains here, when members are done discussing their theories and want them preserved for future interest they put them there. The third list would be a place that people can *nominate* to use for debates and in depth discussion. They could book it or post a TT/Snape question to it, or management can decide to open it for a certain topic each week. Either way, in this place tennis match posting is the norm not the exception. Both lists can be unlisted in the directory with the only link being from the main list, but veiwable by the public so members need not join the extra lists if they only like to watch. My battle is with Yahoomort... Valky Yahoo! Groups Links From sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 14:38:59 2005 From: sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:38:59 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Partly on Posting and Quoting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001101c50eb5$183c6d90$0400a8c0@pensive> ah snipping ... I think that the overall snipping does get sloppy sometimes. often I will not read a post that has so many quotes to wade through that it seems impossible to find the point the person is trying to make. I remember how nervous I was with my first few posts to the group, worried about how well I would snip and all that. I still worry about it, and it is one of the reasons I post rarely. I think a reminder of the current posting guidelines would be beneficial for all. Sherry From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 14:53:20 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:53:20 -0000 Subject: top-posting & tennis In-Reply-To: <4209D906.17238.5088382@localhost> Message-ID: Tammy Rizzo: > One question, though, if that's all right? What is 'top-posting'? > I can't seem to find that term defined anywhere. Maybe I'm not > looking in the right places, but I can't find it. Thanks! SSS: Top-posting is when someone sends a response and puts his/her own comments *above* the post to which he/she is responding. Whereas the expectation is that the responder will snip the relevant portion of the original post, then put his/her own comments BELOW. More on tennis debates or tennis exchanges. I still think we need to be careful when we weigh in on this that we're not mixing up real debate between two people and what I suspect was meant by tennis exchanges: back & forth, NON-substantive comments between two people. "Yes, it IS abuse." "No, it's NOT abuse." "Well, as I've said 300 times before, it's abuse because ...." "Well, as I'VE said 400 times before, it's not abuse because...." "Well, you're just WRONG." This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Once you've made your point, if another poster doesn't agree, reply back if you can expand or amend your argument. If it turns out it's simply a matter of differing opinions, there comes a point when it's fruitless to continue. I've heard many, many complaints about this kind of onlist bantering. I'm sure some people like it, but I'm guessing it's one of the most oft-mentioned complaints to the admin team?? Any elves care to comment on that? Siriusly Snapey Susan From ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 15:11:25 2005 From: ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:11:25 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] top-posting & tennis In-Reply-To: References: <4209D906.17238.5088382@localhost> Message-ID: <4209E1CD.3515.52AD100@localhost> On 9 Feb 2005 at 14:53, cubfanbudwoman wrote: > > > Tammy Rizzo: > > One question, though, if that's all right? What is 'top-posting'? > > I can't seem to find that term defined anywhere. Maybe I'm not > > looking in the right places, but I can't find it. Thanks! > > > SSS: > Top-posting is when someone sends a response and puts his/her own > comments *above* the post to which he/she is responding. Whereas the > expectation is that the responder will snip the relevant portion of > the original post, then put his/her own comments BELOW. Tammy Rizzo: Thank you for that definition. I *do* find that rather annoying, and it's one reason I stopped using Outlook for my email, since I couldn't set it NOT to start messages at the top. Argh. I hate doing things by hand if there's a way to automate it. ;-) > More on tennis debates or tennis exchanges. > "Yes, it IS abuse." > "No, it's NOT abuse." > "Well, as I've said 300 times before, it's abuse because ...." > "Well, as I'VE said 400 times before, it's not abuse because...." > "Well, you're just WRONG." > > This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. That's pretty much what I thought was meant by 'tennis exchanges'. Pointless back and forth, back and forth. I know some people like tennis, I mean real tennis, but I've never seen the point in the endless "are not, are too" type of exchanges. They're quite distracting and boring and really don't belong. Anywhere. Well, at least, not on an active board with plenty of topics to discuss. Although I do remember a rather amusing series of such back-and-forth exchanges on one of the Babylon 5 lists waaay back in the middle of '97 or so, when it was re-run season, and everyone was bored, and there hadn't been any new analysis in weeks, and some brilliant wit started a Drazi War ("Green!" "No, Purple!" "GREEN!" "PURPLE!" "orange?" "PLAID!") However, that did at least have some creativity and purpose, and was therefore FUN, as opposed to simple bickering. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at ... Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 From stonehenge.orders at kjirstem.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 15:30:21 2005 From: stonehenge.orders at kjirstem.yahoo.invalid (kjirstem) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:30:21 -0000 Subject: Posting limits was Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pippen/Peppy Elf wrote: > > One thing I'd be glad to have input on is how we would measure > success. Posting quality seems too subjective to be measured > easily. > kjirstem: Defining success is at the heart of this debate, completely aside from what changes (if any) are made. The best suggestion I can come up with is to take one of the recurring topics and compare what happened in that thread both before and after making a modification. What you look at in the thread depends on your aims. I wouldn't suggest number of posts alone, maybe something more like counting the number of new ideas (not historically new, but new for that discussion) per post? Maybe give points to each post for various things that are desirable, such as canon references, or count the number of sub-threads generated off the discussion? Defining what to quantify seems to me to be an elf activity, but I think that you could use the recurring nature of topics to determine whether a modification has had the desired effect. From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 17:19:36 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:19:36 -0000 Subject: FPs/catalogue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > The only problem is FP is mostly many years out of date anyway, it > is no longer practicable for management to keep up it fully up to > date. Besides it has become rather an elitist thing itself and the > foster parent of the fantasy golden age by default of more recent > FP's being washed away in tides of posting. The members will keep > this one up to date themselves. And it would give *everyone* an > opportunity to inspire others by making available to *all* a > recognised place for their thought provoking posts and not just a > carefully chosen handful, some no longer even members, from the > past. The theory list is *not* a discussion list, the discussion > remains here, when members are done discussing their theories and > want them preserved for future interest they put them there. > > My battle is with Yahoomort... > Carolyn: You are right about the FP section, Valky. It is very out of date, but before that can be put right, you need to have all the relevant posts in one place to summarise. This is what the catalogue will provide - and not just for writing FPs, but for anyone wanting to research a subject before putting a new idea or synthesis forward. The second thing I would say, having spent a vast amount of time cataloguing 'theories' over the last year, is that it is very difficult to define precisely what a theory is. They can range from full-blown set-piece arguments, complete with a neat acronym (eg LOLLIPOPS, MAGIC DISHWASHER), through entertaining TBAY discussions which play with theory concepts, to good, solid analytical posts which make an argument for something, but don't go by a specific name, right out the other end to something quite short and sweet, but really rather clever which nails a useful idea, or simply summarises some terribly relevant facts. To appreciate the full richness of what HPfGU posters have created over the years, you need to be able to find all of these types of post under relevant headings, and that's what we hope we will be providing. In addition, there will be collections of posts on a vast number of things you probably wouldn't regard as theories at all - such as the endless debates on the numbers of students at Hogwarts, or the location of Durmstrang, or the ethics of creating Mandrake smoothies. Trust me, if it has been written about intelligently, it's been captured - so far the category list has over 550 subsections, and it grows and evolves daily. Hopefully it will be a great resource. Carolyn From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 13:08:21 2005 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:08:21 -0000 Subject: Posting limits was Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pippin: > We had decided on a limit of three posts per day for the trial > period. > > One thing I'd be glad to have input on is how we would measure > success. Posting quality seems too subjective to be measured > easily. > Potioncat/Kathy I've read all the posts, lost my train of thought a few times, and decided to take on one topic at a time. Clearly, I'm in the minority here, but I don't like the idea of posting limits. (But, if it's going to happen, I do like the idea of a trial period.) Can someone tell this bear of little brain how it will improve quality? It will afterall, limit the good posters as well as the poor posters. And while there are several posters I would love to see limited, there are others I'd love see post more often. I agree with Pippin, how will the success be measured? Yes, it will decrease the volume. But is that, by itself, success? On the other hand, just getting through these posts to get to my turn was frustrating, and I think I began to get a sort of feeling of what the issue is. Would a time limit work as well? Not to post on the same thread again until a certain amount of time had passed? That would allow others a chance to get in, but would permit those who are interested to keep the discussion going. It would also allow a poster to be involved in several threads. Kathy/Potioncat From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 18:04:38 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:04:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Posting limits was Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050209180438.22457.qmail@...> Pippin: > We had decided on a limit of three posts per day > for the trial period. Potioncat/Kathy: > Clearly, I'm in the minority here, but I don't like > the idea of posting limits. (But, if it's going to > happen, I do like the idea of a trial period.) > Can someone tell this bear of little brain how it > will improve quality? It will afterall, limit the > good posters as well as the poor posters. SSSusan: To me the notion is that if people know they're going to only have 3 per day, they're going to have to THINK before posting, rather than firing off a post every whipstitch, whenever a random thought comes into their mind or whenever they see something they like but don't really have THAT much new to offer. If limited to 3, that person might decide to cut & paste a bit of that post in Word, wait for a few more posts or think about how to develop it into something more. That person might also complete the thread, snipping bits of several posts [again, using Word helps with this], and post one response to 2 or 3 posts, instead of 2 or 3 individual responses. To me, I think this really would help improve quality. It would certainly reduce the tennis exchanges. Siriusly Snapey Susan From ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 19:44:35 2005 From: ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:44:35 -0500 Subject: Posting limits In-Reply-To: <20050209180438.22457.qmail@...> References: Message-ID: <420A21D3.28545.624EB3F@localhost> > Pippin: > > We had decided on a limit of three posts per day > > for the trial period. > > Potioncat/Kathy: > > Can someone tell this bear of little brain how it > > will improve quality? It will afterall, limit the > > good posters as well as the poor posters. > > > SSSusan: > If limited to 3, that person might decide to cut & > paste a bit of that post in Word, wait for a few more > posts or think about how to develop it into something > more. > > That person might also complete the thread, snipping > bits of several posts [again, using Word helps with > this], and post one response to 2 or 3 posts, instead > of 2 or 3 individual responses. Tammy Rizzo: I think that, when the 3 posts per day trial is announced, this particular method of dealing with the limit should be announced as well, as a suggestion to those who'll be participating. It's very plain and simple, but that doesn't necessarily mean the everyone will come up with it on their own. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at ... Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 9 19:46:16 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:46:16 -0000 Subject: Partly on Posting limits Plus Plenty of Rambling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Valky replies: Actually, I am not sure that I am understood completely. The extra lists that I propose have far less to do with elitism than asking members not to post until they have something um "good enough" by the standards of others. I notice that in your post you have mentioned that the tennis debates are your pet peeve. Well, as a frequent debater myself I would also like to add that a large number of my personal list contacts were made through someone writing me personally to tell me *they* were thoroughly enjoying reading the debate. All I am saying is that in the past HPFGU has endeavoured to embrace everyone, and I credit a great deal of the HPFGU popularity to that optimism and fair treatment. Should we know be telling these people that we once embraced into our fold those feelings have changed and that they are no longer welcome? Alla: Hey, Valky. Just as you are, I thoroughly enjoy the debates and often participate in them ( yes, in tennis exchanges too. Must go iron my fingers now :o)) I am also completely for embracing everyone, because just as KathyK said, if when I was joining the rules for newbies were that stringent, I don't know if I would want to stick around. But I am not sure if I want to see division on smaller lists by topics and ESPECIALLY by "quality control", like quality control on one list is much tighter than on the other. That is elitist approach, IMO. Am I being clear? I don't think that I LIKE quantity control much either, but if I were to choose, I would rather pick fewer posts on the list, but diverse ones. To make a long story short, I want to see different types of arguments on one list, I guess. And of course I don't want the posts to be returned for "substantive" reasons, unless they are "me toos" or one liners, or just rude. Just my opinion, Alla From Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 01:21:31 2005 From: Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 01:21:31 -0000 Subject: Ooops was meant to be offlist WAS (Re: Partly on Posting limits) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Really sorry Alla and everybody, I just fell into the reply offlist trap and accidentally sent it here. Bit late now to save that fumble, I hope I don't offend anyone. Valky From Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 03:51:55 2005 From: Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:51:55 -0000 Subject: Partly on Posting limits Plus Plenty of Rambling In-Reply-To: <00c101c50e9f$a32f6b70$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Message-ID: > Valky: > Well, as a frequent debater myself I would also like to add that a large number of my personal list contacts were made through someone writing me personally to tell me *they* were thoroughly enjoying reading the debate. > > SSSusan: > If I may step in here? I'm not positive I know how to phrase this so it's understandable, but I'll try. I think there may be a bit of speaking at cross purposes going on here. > > To me, there's a difference between "tennis exchanges" and debate. Debate is good! Sometimes a thread does end up being primarily a two-person exchange, and as long as some real, meaty content is being put forth, with *movement* in the exchange, it can be fascinating to watch. [I think of recent Pippin-Renee or Nora- Becky exchanges as examples.] > Valky: Well I definitely agree with that SSSusan, (I personally Loved Nora and Betsys exchange recently, which I couldn't help joining because I was enjoying it so much.) And I have started to realise that Kathy probably didn't mean to label or judge those exchanges harshly, either. As to cross purposes I think you are spot on there Susan, I do have to admit that my position does include recognising even those exchanges as a contributor to excess volume, but I tried very hard to make the point that I really **don't** want them gone because of that. But rather that I personally want to take the side of looking at options that extend in the direction of positive building to accommodate them better. SSSusan: > However, there *is* another type of two- or three-person exchange which gets tiresome and which serves primarily only to add to list volume, and that's Geoff's aptly-named "tennis exchange." > Valky: I see this point and I recognise that there are good reasons to discourage it somewhat, not least of all that it has a tendency to heat emotions on the list. OTOH there isn't really any ideal ruling of management that will ever work IMO without also affecting the conributors to the more meaty exchanges, and that, essentially, is my main objection. From Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 05:11:46 2005 From: Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 05:11:46 -0000 Subject: Logistics and *non* elitist objectives. (Post Quality Discussion) In-Reply-To: <001001c50eb4$85c92020$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > One practical objection to having a list or group only available from the main list is accessibility for members who are blind using screen reading software. This would only affect a small number of members, Valky: Oh no not at all Sherrie, this is a *very* important consideration regardless of how many members it effects. IMO they are members and deserve to be given a fair go. Unfortunately I am not all that familiar with speaking sofware, or what it is and isn't limited by, so an informed answer I cannot give. I will however try to address your specific points in hope that it can be of aid to a resolution that suits everyone. Sherry: In order to join a group on yahoo, a person must enter a graphical security image. Our screen reading software cannot read thes graphics to us. Even if a person is a member of yahoo, as I am, every time that person wants to join a new group, the security image comes up. The only way around this for blind people is to join by email subscription, get a sighted person to help you, be invited to join by a moderator, or wait on the not so tender mercies of yahoo customer service for assistance. Having groups that could only be accessed from the main group site would effectively limit people in this situation. > Valky: I am aware, and also inflammed of the annoying GSI. I tell you even a 20/20 sometimes can't get it right.. oooh... grumble mumble -mort. but that's another matter. I am bit confused as to exactly where the blind person gets impeded from accessing the new site so I will run through using it in point form and you can insert the problem where it occurs. 1. The member is made aware of the list through HPFGU special Notice. 2. Two links to the home page of the new list are so far available to them one in the special notice and one on the home page of the main list. 3. The new list has a public archive so members of HPFGU do not have to join in order to observe and read the lists activity. 4. The list is not in the directory so that access to it is offered more directly to main listees. 5. If the member wants to join or contribute to the new list they will be required to join. 6. The new list will be monitored by a specific sector of the HPFGU mangement body to handle enquiries if needs be. One final thing... Sherry said: > Besides, call me weird, but I don't mind the tennis debates on the main list. In fact, I love the mixture of posts. I love the debate and the back and forth that happens sometimes. I also love the shorter discussions. I love the humor. It is the most entertaining list I am on, Valky: I agree so totally, and actually I guess more than anything, I would like to been seen as one who is campaigning *for* a continued existence of it much rather than against. Though I know my real point is only slowly revealing itself through this discussion. From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 11:49:36 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:49:36 -0000 Subject: Chat room vs. discussion forum (was: Partly on Posting limits Plus ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: SSSusan: > > To me, there's a difference between "tennis exchanges" and > > debate. Debate is good! Sometimes a thread does end up being > > primarily a two-person exchange, and as long as some real, meaty > > content is being put forth, with *movement* in the exchange, it > > can be fascinating to watch. [I think of recent Pippin-Renee or > > Nora-Becky exchanges as examples.] Valky: > Well I definitely agree with that SSSusan, (I personally Loved > Nora and Betsys exchange recently.... SSSusan: Thanks for the correction on Betsy vs. Becky. Ooops on my part. :-| Valky: > I do have to admit that my position does include recognising even > those exchanges as a contributor to excess volume, but I tried > very hard to make the point that I really **don't** want them gone > because of that. But rather that I personally want to take the > side of looking at options that extend in the direction of > positive building to accommodate them better. SSSusan: I believe this brings us back to Carolyn's point of asking whether the members of HPfGU want to be a large chat room or a discussion forum. To me, the tennis exchanges turn us into a chat room. You said that several people have told you they enjoy this, to which I would add that I know many people who have expressed annoyance over them. So I guess at this point I would "register my [metaphorical] vote" for HPfGU as discussion forum. Earlier I said that debate is good. Chatting is also good, but I'd like to see it take place elsewhere. We already HAVE OTChatter set up for that express purpose, and there are Sunday chats and the option of offlist chatting as well. The tennis exchanges wouldn't have to stop; they should simply take place at OTChatter. My two knuts. Siriusly Snapey Susan From Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 12:10:46 2005 From: Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid (Valka Clifford) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:10:46 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Chat room vs. discussion forum (was: Partly on Posting limits Plus ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi SSSusan, I'm sorry I just can't agree. I wonder if maybe you haven't realised, but this reads to me as almost a complete turnaround on your behalf. However, only when I try to understand your view, because for me, the fine distinction between chat and discussion is a little blurred in regard to canon debate don't you think? I can't honestly understand if you are actually saying that "oh well, I like debate but if it's a casualty of a necessary war, I can live with that." or if you are saying that "debate is not going to be affected by a three post limit, only one liners will be." I can't agree with either and I wonder if I have gotten you wrong, could you clarify for me. Valky >From: "cubfanbudwoman" >Reply-To: HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com >To: HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com >Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Chat room vs. discussion forum (was: Partly on >Posting limits Plus ...) >Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:49:36 -0000 > > >SSSusan: > > > To me, there's a difference between "tennis exchanges" and > > > debate. Debate is good! Sometimes a thread does end up being > > > primarily a two-person exchange, and as long as some real, meaty > > > content is being put forth, with *movement* in the exchange, it > > > can be fascinating to watch. [I think of recent Pippin-Renee or > > > Nora-Becky exchanges as examples.] > >Valky: > > Well I definitely agree with that SSSusan, (I personally Loved > > Nora and Betsys exchange recently.... > >SSSusan: >Thanks for the correction on Betsy vs. Becky. Ooops on my part. :-| > > >Valky: > > I do have to admit that my position does include recognising even > > those exchanges as a contributor to excess volume, but I tried > > very hard to make the point that I really **don't** want them gone > > because of that. But rather that I personally want to take the > > side of looking at options that extend in the direction of > > positive building to accommodate them better. > > >SSSusan: >I believe this brings us back to Carolyn's point of asking whether >the members of HPfGU want to be a large chat room or a discussion >forum. To me, the tennis exchanges turn us into a chat room. You >said that several people have told you they enjoy this, to which I >would add that I know many people who have expressed annoyance over >them. So I guess at this point I would "register my [metaphorical] >vote" for HPfGU as discussion forum. > >Earlier I said that debate is good. Chatting is also good, but I'd >like to see it take place elsewhere. We already HAVE OTChatter set >up for that express purpose, and there are Sunday chats and the >option of offlist chatting as well. The tennis exchanges wouldn't >have to stop; they should simply take place at OTChatter. > >My two knuts. > >Siriusly Snapey Susan > > > > From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 13:18:00 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:18:00 -0000 Subject: Chat room vs. discussion forum (was: Partly on Posting limits Plus ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Valky wrote: > I'm sorry I just can't agree. > I wonder if maybe you haven't realised, but this reads to me as > almost a complete turnaround on your behalf. However, only when I > try to understand your view, because for me, the fine distinction > between chat and discussion is a little blurred in regard to canon > debate don't you think? > > I can't honestly understand if you are actually saying that "oh > well, I like debate but if it's a casualty of a necessary war, I > can live with that." or if you are saying that "debate is not going > to be affected by a three post limit, only one liners will be." > > I can't agree with either and I wonder if I have gotten you wrong, > could you clarify for me. SSSusan: Actually, no, I have not had a turnaround in my position. Let me see if I can work on my presentation skills a bit. Out-and-out OT chatting needs to be moved to OTChatter. Period. But there's also a version of *on-topic* chatter that could (and should, imo) be reduced. It's what I'm putting in the "tennis exchange" category. One example is the endless abuse discussions. Is abuse a "fair" topic for discussion? Sure! But if a point is reached in a discussion where A knows that B holds the opposite opinion, and both have expressed their opinions clearly, and there isn't any new canon evidence to offer up or new angle to bring to the discussion, it should be DROPPED. So if Poster A thinks the Dursleys abused Harry and Poster B does not, then A might bring in examples, which B might counter. If A is out of examples or can't think of a new way to present his/her argument, it should be DROPPED. It ceases to be debate and instead becomes two people espousing their beliefs over & over. And it's really not all that important to have THE last word. Contrast this to the recent Pippin-Renee discussions of Lupin. They've been a joy to watch, imo, because each presents a position, then goes back & grabs more canon in each "round" of disagreement. The posts give the impression that they've worked hard to present their positions, including some unique ways of reading a scene. Did they come to agreement? Nope. But as long as the discussion was moving into new areas, it was real debate. If it had ever gotten to the point where each was simply reiterating previous arguments -- "But, I already TOLD you that..." "Yeah, I know, but I don't BUY that." "Well, but you SHOULD...." -- then it would have ceased to be fruitful discussion. And my opinion is that we have way too much of the fruitless discussion, as in that last sentence, above. Real & true debate works *towards* something. Canon is being discussed, details are being revealed, new thoughts are being put forth, new light is being shed. This is what I think HPfGU is about. "Me, too" posts are a similar problem -- even if the person takes 3 paragraphs to say "me, too." If nothing new is added, or if a new question isn't asked, don't post... or wait until you've got something to flesh it out further. IOW, the topic's being a canon topic doesn't make the post automatically appropriate. Here are some problems I find in posts at HPfGU: 1) knee-jerk responses 2) responses made before finishing out the thread 3) responses made to multiple posts within one thread [Note: I have done each of these myself. Not good!] I do support the 3 [or maybe 4?] post per day guideline because I believe this will force some of the people who are most inclined to engage in these kinds of posts to *PAUSE.* If you've got a limit on the day, is it "worth" sending off that knee-jerk, two-sentence, "But I don't agree" post? Maybe it will be. Maybe not. Maybe you'll set the thought aside and build upon it. If you're 150 posts behind and you see something which really interests you and are tempted to respond before following the thread to its conclusion, will you do so if you only get 3 posts a day? I think you'll be more inclined to snip what interests you and save it as you continue on. Same thing with my 3rd example. Instead of reading X's post and sending out a rebuttal, then reading Y's post and sending out another rebuttal, and then reading Z's post and sending out a third which simply directs people to what you said to X or Y, why not read X, Y & Z and then compose ONE response to them all? Each of these things would be addressed positively by a posting limit. It might seem that they are unrelated to the tennis stuff, but I think they are related. If you've only got 3 or 4 posts for the day, will you "waste" one on re-stating something you've said ten times before, or on a one-liner, or on a me-too, or on a witty aside that's addressed, really, to just one buddy? I hope that's clearer, Valky. Siriusly Snapey Susan From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 15:07:07 2005 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:07:07 -0000 Subject: Chat room vs. discussion forum (was: Partly on Posting limits Plus ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan wrote: snip > Contrast this to the recent Pippin-Renee discussions of Lupin. snip> > Real & true debate works *towards* something. Canon is being > discussed, details are being revealed, new thoughts are being put > forth, new light is being shed. This is what I think HPfGU is about. > Potioncat/Kathy: Just out of curiosity, did Renee and Pippin manage to carry out that debate with just three posts a day? I'm sorry I missed that one. This is what I'm afraid we'll lose if we set posting limits. I am beginning to agree on a limit, but I don't like it. >Susan: > Here are some problems I find in posts at HPfGU: > 1) knee-jerk responses > 2) responses made before finishing out the thread > 3) responses made to multiple posts within one thread > snipping Susan's solutions Kathy/Potioncat: I agree, but I second the motion that these solutions be explained to the members when the limits are announced. I think for many of us, we will have to change the way we read HPfGU. It may also mean we will have to decide which thread to participate in when there are several interesting ones going. As there are sure to be once HBP comes out. I vote for closing off new memberships at peak times. I think it will be very difficult to maintain quality while managing volume with a membership that is familiar with the canon-thumping debates. It would be very hard with droves of newbies coming in. I was overwhelmed in the summer without a new book out. One of the problems that was mentioned was the non-moderated members. I've just had the rather humbling experince of complaining about poor posting technique, then reading the tutorial and discovering my technique wasn't up to par. Except for friendly reminders, I'm not sure how you could correct that. There were a number of other suggestions that I just don't feel competent to even have an opinion about. I have only the vaguest of ideas of what makes this site work and can't imagine how it's done behind the scenes. Thanks to Carolyn and Kneasy for preparing the report and coming up with solutions. Thanks to the Admin for moving forward and seeking input. Kathy/Potioncat From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 16:19:14 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:19:14 -0000 Subject: Chat room vs. discussion forum (was: Partly on Posting limits Plus ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: SSSusan wrote: > > Contrast this to the recent Pippin-Renee discussions of Lupin. Potioncat/Kathy: > Just out of curiosity, did Renee and Pippin manage to carry out > that debate with just three posts a day? I'm sorry I missed that > one. This is what I'm afraid we'll lose if we set posting limits. > > I am beginning to agree on a limit, but I don't like it. SSSusan responds: Actually, *pretty* much, yes. In that Lupin thread: Feb. 4: 2 posts by Renee 1 by Pippin Feb. 5: 3 posts by Renee [one of which was responding to Neri] 3 posts by Pippin to Renee [+ one to Shaun, 1 to Neri] Feb. 6: [change in subject heading] 1 by Renee 1 by Pippin Since I've been suggesting 3 or 4 posts per day, I think this shows it could work. It *might* slow things down, yes, if the person has been involved in more than one thread, but this might(?) be a good thing -- give other posters an opportunity to join in as well? SSSusan earlier: > > Here are some problems I find in posts at HPfGU: > > 1) knee-jerk responses > > 2) responses made before finishing out the thread > > 3) responses made to multiple posts within one thread > > > snipping Susan's solutions Kathy/Potioncat: > I agree, but I second the motion that these solutions be explained > to the members when the limits are announced. I think for many of > us, we will have to change the way we read HPfGU. SSSusan: Oh, and I third that about an explanation. I think you're right, too, about this changing the way we read HPfGU, as well as how we post. I may get into deeeeeep doo-doo with this remark, but I think what this would ask of us is to be more deliberate, and less [eeek! I'm going to say it!] lazy, posters. I mean, let's face it. Can't responding w/o reading the whole thread often be explained by uncontained excitement *or* laziness? Isn't responding to individual posts instead of combining several a matter of convenience or, stated more harshly, laziness? Isn't firing off a quick "Me, too" post sometimes just laziness, too? Instead of waiting 'til a thought is more fully fleshed out or until one has his books in front of him, the poster just wants to get his opinion registered? Keep in mind that I'm one who struggles mightily to keep up. I work full time, I have two small kids, I'm super busy in my community. So "laziness" [or, more nicely stated, quick bursts of activity w/o much combining of posts] has sometimes been my modus operandi at HPfGU. The question is whether that's been best for the group as a whole, if lots of us are doing it that way. For those who favor a really informal, chat type of feel, it probably IS okay. For those who would prefer a lower volume, lots-of-content-per-post type of feel, it's probably not. Kathy/Potioncat: > It may also mean we will have to decide which thread to participate > in when there are several interesting ones going. As there are sure > to be once HBP comes out. SSSusan: And this is a very good point that I'm not sure how to answer, except as I did above, about slowing down a discussion. Kathy/Potioncat: > I vote for closing off new memberships at peak times. I think it > will be very difficult to maintain quality while managing volume > with a membership that is familiar with the canon-thumping debates. > It would be very hard with droves of newbies coming in. I was > overwhelmed in the summer without a new book out. SSSusan: And for me, I dislike this. Not that it would have been a terrible loss to HPfGU, but if y'all had closed off membership around the time when OotP came out, I'd not be here. I joined June 18, 2003, just before OotP's release date. I find cutting people off altogether more problematic than limiting posts. How many people would come back later if, all excited about the new book & joining up, they were told, "Sorry, all full"?? Other possibilities: Maybe the post limit could be effect only in the summers? Or only for a certain # of months post-book release? Siriusly Snapey Susan, not trying to offend but suspecting she might have done. From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 16:48:17 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:48:17 -0000 Subject: Chat room vs. discussion forum (was: Partly on Posting limits Plus ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan: Keep in mind that I'm one who struggles mightily to keep up. I work full time, I have two small kids, I'm super busy in my community. So "laziness" [or, more nicely stated, quick bursts of activity w/o much combining of posts] has sometimes been my modus operandi at HPfGU. The question is whether that's been best for the group as a whole, if lots of us are doing it that way. For those who favor a really informal, chat type of feel, it probably IS okay. For those who would prefer a lower volume, lots-of-content-per-post type of feel, it's probably not. Alla: Well, I am wondering why it cannot be both. I mean, I do understand that the debates were no new points are being brought up should stop eventually ( and yes, been there done that quite a few times too), but why can't we have all - in depth researched posts and chat-like debates on the same list ( and even though I said chat like, I think there can be a lot of substance in them too- your example of Pippin/Renee debate is a very good one) I guess I was never really bothered with the volume either, because I read messages on the website and simply skip the topics or posters I am not interested reading. I find it very easy to do, honestly. Having said all that, again I understand the necessity of reducing the volume ( I'd like the number to be more than three, especially if someone has not posted for a few days, but I will of course abide by Elfs' decision) SSSusan: And for me, I dislike this. Not that it would have been a terrible loss to HPfGU, but if y'all had closed off membership around the time when OotP came out, I'd not be here. I joined June 18, 2003, just before OotP's release date. I find cutting people off altogether more problematic than limiting posts. How many people would come back later if, all excited about the new book & joining up, they were told, "Sorry, all full"?? Alla: I agree with you, Susan. Susan: > Other possibilities: > Maybe the post limit could be effect only in the summers? > Or only for a certain # of months post-book release? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, not trying to offend but suspecting she might > have done. Alla: I like this one also and you definitely haven't offended me at all. From ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 10 16:58:42 2005 From: ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:58:42 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Ooops was meant to be offlist WAS (Re: Partly on Posting limits) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <420B4C72.22770.22F9450@localhost> On 10 Feb 2005 at 1:21, M.Clifford wrote: > > > Really sorry Alla and everybody, I just fell into the reply offlist > trap and accidentally sent it here. Bit late now to save that fumble, > I hope I don't offend anyone. > > Valky Actually, Valky, I really appreciated the more in-depth explanations of the proposed lists, and they sound much better the way you described them in your accidental post than they did in most of the other proposal posts. I think your accidental post was 'meant to be'. :-) I find that I can wholeheartedly support these new list proposals, as you've laid them out, when before, I was a little undecided. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at ... Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 From bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 00:35:15 2005 From: bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid (Steve) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:35:15 -0000 Subject: Quantity VS Quality Message-ID: Weighing Quantity vs Quality is a very difficult task, and I don't envy the people whose task it is to deal with this. Regarding Quantity- This is probably the most difficult problem of all to control. First, what tools are available to the moderators to impliment controls? We can fantasize all kinds of fixes, but if tools don't exist for implimenting them inside Yahoo, then we are (pardon the expression) screwed. We know that, without a doubt, we are very limited using Yahoo as a discussion resource. It's limited in the way it threads and displays discussion subjects. For a company that was founded as a search engine, it has the worst discussion group search capability I've ever seen. And I wouldn't be surprised if it has very limited management tools. In a sense, Yahoo is kind of the internet equivalent to the subruban shopping mall; it's standardized, familar, easy to find, and generic. It's really unfortunate that there isn't a way to compel Yahoo to upgrade its software features. I did a quick short survey of high volume posters in the main group, and I don't see a huge problem in individual personal volume. In addition, can we truly say that low volume with no quality is better that high volume with good quality? In other words, is personal volume really a way of measuring the quality of the group? Let's look at one recent high volume poster, who shall be referred to only as "E". On one day, Friday, "E" posted twice, but 8 people responded to his/her posts (not necessarily direct responses to one specific topic). On another day "E" posted 8 times, and generated 11 responses. But overal, across approximately a week, "E" typically posted 1 or 2 times a day. I consider myself a /moderately/ high volume poster. I'm here everyday, frequently a couple of times a day, and usually at all hours of the day and night. In the course of a recent week, I posted from 2 to 5 times a day, with a best-guess average of about 3 or 4, and typically those posts generated 1 to 5 responses per day. Another poster "J" posted 9 times on Wednesday with 2 response. On Tuesday, 4 posts; Monday, 3 posts; Sunday, 1 post, Thurs=2, Fri=2. On that one particular high-volume Wednesday, he/she only posted twice to the same thread. Note, that was not 9 posts to one thread, but 9 posts spread amoung 8 threads, 8 subjects. So, does that add up to a high volume poster, or low volume? In my view, the reason for high volume, was topics of high interest and the availability of personal time on that day. Compounding that is that recently we have had several VERY long threads. 'Dumbledore the General' generated 50 posts that splintered into 8 threads with 3 of those threads being on tangental topics. 'Single Biggest Error' generated 26 posts with four sub-thread spawning 2 tangental topics. 'Jo's Squib Error' generated 18 posts with 3 sub-threads and 1 tangental topic. And don't even get me started on 'Snape' and 'ESE!Lupin' discussions which were too long and complex to analyse in the time I had avaible. Those exeptionally long threads while certainly having a degree of inefficiency to them, are an indicator that subjects of a great interest to a great many people were being discussed, and I say again, that the high volume is related to subjects of high interest to a great many readers. That doesn't sound like something that needs to be or should be fixed. I will ammend that by saying that the standards of posting that are already in place need to be enforced, and that will improve quality and reduce redundancy and pointless posts. Believe me I don't envy the Elves who have to enforce the rules. That has to be an endless, glamourless, thankless, and difficult task requiring a combination of a firm hand and a significant degree of diplomacy. I remember when I first joined, I thought the List Elves were anally retentive and way too up-tight. Now, I admire them greatly for the quality of work they do. So, good luck with that. Quality- Snip Snip and more Snip. It's easy to justify leaving the whole original post in your reply so people know what you are replying to, but to people who get posts via email, either individually or more so in digest format, having endless paragraphs duplicated from a post they just read, is very annoying and makes reading very tedious. Please, show some mercy and SNIP your posts. Remember that if a reader is confused, they can always go up-thread, read the original, then come back to your post. Not only should you SNIP out unnecesary paragraphs but you can SNIP within paragraphs and keep the original meaning with about half the number of words. Example: Original- Reason number two could mean that the item that is pulled from the head and placed in the pensieve is a /copy/ of the memory, and DD then witnesses it from the third-person perspective via the pensieve. But reason number one suggests that the memory is not a copy, but actually the singular memory itself. SNIP-a-licous- But reason ... suggests that the memory is not a copy, but actually the singular memory itself. ...edited... As long as we are on the subject -- paragraphs and lots of them. Please, please DO NOT use paragraph indents. One look at one of your own posts should clearly tell you that paragraph indents don't work on the Internet and they definitely don't work on Yahoo. You need a full blank line between paragraphs; a full blank line. In addition, throw away the standard for high school English class paragraphs. You need to break those standard school paragraphs into 3, 4, or 5 concise bites of information. Don't look at it from a paragraph perspective, look at it from the perspective of easy reading. Make every point you want to make into a paragraph (within the bounds of common sense). That will make what you have to say infinitely easier to read and understand. Language- We are a diverse lot here, we come from all over the world, and people here are more than willing to make allowances in form, language, and style for people who don't speak English as a primary language. But, if you do speak English as a primary language then, really, try to make your writing reflect that. Poor gramma and style are usually easily fixed by a little forethought and a quick proofreading. On the subject of proofreading, it won't kill you to go back and at least reread what you wrote one time. I alway respond using the web interface, rather than by email, so I don't have a spelling checker, but I do keep my on-line dictionary at the ready, so I can look up words I'm not sure of. Although, with appropraite embarassment, I admit that I'm probably more guilty than most about not rereading before I post. Have a point and make it- Really, have a point and make it. I'm as guilty as the next, or more so, when it comes to rambling on, but I try to contain it, and when I post, I try to have something to add. Me too - sort of - On rare occassion, I think I can agree with what was said, and still add to the discussion, not my adding new information, but by adding new perspective on existing information. Recently, I was reading a discussion by two people who seemed to have a misunderstanding, but to me, a third party, they seemed to actually, at heart, agree. So I posted an 'I agree' but couched it in a restatement that I hope clarified the discussion so we could see that we were all on common ground. My point is, that posting an agreement to what has already been said, is not always bad. It's nearly always bad, but not always. This gets back to 'have a point and make it'. If you can't really add anything, then contact the person off-group and tell them why you agree. Recognise a Stalemate when you see one- Many discussion go far beyond their useful life simply because some people can't accept the idea that other people don't agree with them, and they will fight/post to the death seeking that agreement. When you have had your say, when you've countered, clarified, and qualified your position, and the other person is still fighting you, recognise that you have to agree to disagree. Realize that the discussion has reach a stalemate and LET IT GO. PLEASE, LET IT GO. Don't argue- This has a lot to do with "LET IT GO". Discuss but don't argue, if the other person really doesn't get it after all reasonable effort. Don't get mad, just shrug your shoulders, realize it's their problem, and let it go. Don't feel sad- We all love to create a post that generates lots of dicussion, it's always a great feeling. But don't feel sad it no one responds to your brilliant post. It's entirely possible that you said it so well that there is no room to respond. Keep in mind that people aren't allowed to simply say, 'I agree'. So, if you have made the complete and definitive statement about a subject, you've really done just that, and there isn't much else that others can say. All I've done here is add my own spin to the standard set of rules that govern this group. I think in fair and complete enforcement of the exiting rules, we can contain both the volume and quality of this group. Random notes: When I first joined this group, you didn't have to be a member to read, but you did if you wanted to post. If the group was still open to free reading, that would probably reduce the number of new members and thereby reduce the amount of impulsive posting. If someone who is a non-member reader gathers enough enthusiasm to join, then they must have something to say. This read-before-you-join would probably help ensure that readers did actually hang around and read for a while before they joined. That would certainly help them get a feel for the group, and a sense of the level of quality of posts. Perhaps if you don't like the reader/non-member idea, then new members might be forced into a read-only period after joining, followed my a moderated period, followed by full membership. Again, does Yahoo have the tools to do that? That's more than enough for now. Steve/bboyminn From Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 05:15:41 2005 From: Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:15:41 -0000 Subject: Quantity VS Quality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I would like to lend my support to a couple of things that you have raised Steve. > Regarding Quantity- > > This is probably the most difficult problem of all to control. First what tools are available to the moderators to impliment controls? ..... edit ... [on Yahoo mailing list template] I wouldn't be surprised if it has very limited management tools. > Valky: You guess correctly Steve, the management tools are limited, there isn't much by way of controlling quantity short of moderation or all out message blocking on individuals. This is why I find particularly impressive, the ingenuity of HPFGU's management in using a network of sites to handle the load in the past. (Fortunately distinctions were much easier to draw back then ie canon v Non-canon v Fanfiction, this time round it is not so straight -forward) Steve: >I did a quick short survey of high volume posters in the main group, and I don't see a huge problem in individual personal volume. ...... one recent high volume poster, who shall be referred to only as "E"...... across approximately a week, "E" typically posted 1 or 2 times a day. Compounding that is that recently we have had several VERY long threads. 'Dumbledore the General' generated 50 posts ...... don't even get me started on 'Snape' Those exeptionally long threads ...... are an indicator that subjects of a great interest to a great many people were being discussed ........ high volume is related to subjects of high interest... (fair bit of editing) > Valky: IMO you make a brilliant point here Steve. This has been my view, also, that it is the Threads themselves are contributing greatly to High volume floods of posting. I do believe that this is the crux of the frustration intimated in this discusson. Having to scan back through several pages of the SAME topic in order to find some particular variety of interest to yourself, can be frustrating. OTOH these massive threads and their offshoots also generate a good deal of great discussion, and they entertain people. Generally, the content is not considered to contribute to a view of 'low quality" posting, as I understand it, (with minor exceptions). So I think that, to some degree at least, reducing quantity by a blanket ruling might actually prove to not clear up the problem at all. In fact, consider these ways it could create even more frustration. If someone has *three posts* in the midst of the progression of one of these very interesting Mega!Threads there is yet a good chance that this someone would still use the majority of them on that Mega! Thread. Especially if , before the ruling, that person would often use four or more posts up one interesting subject. And even if they don't, it will *still* be several days till the Mega!Thread clears. Other subjects may simply get *less* answers from each member, probably only one, and definitely no more than two. As for multiple answer posting, well isn't that just playing into Yahoomorts hands? Once subject headers lose their ability to help us search for topics, what recourse do we have? At the moment a few members are using the style, and it causes minimal mess on this small scale. But I wouldn't want to try and project the consequences of every message having mutiple threads addressed within them. If we expect members to easily find the upthread content that the message refers to we are fooling ourselves, pure and simple. I would like to be able to say something in support of simple solutions such as 3-a-day, really I would, but I don't see anything positive about them. From Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 05:32:34 2005 From: Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:32:34 -0000 Subject: Chat room vs. discussion forum (was: Partly on Posting limits Plus ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Susan: > > Other possibilities: > > Maybe the post limit could be effect only in the summers? > > Or only for a certain # of months post-book release? Valky: sorry I am not really answering all the points you brought up, SSSusan. I have posted a response relative to them in the Quality vs Quantity thread. As to what you say above, I am going to detract again (really sorry, You knew I would, right.. *blush*) Both suggestions are excellent, theoretically. But I have applied them to my memory of post OOtP boards and I think that they miss one crucial element. HBP is not just a number of new members coming to HPFGU, It's also 680 pages of *NEW CANoN*. Post content, in the months following the book release is going to be thick with meat and juicy as **ll. Offshoot and branch subjects will simply be far too numerous and a posting limit could veritably strangle our enjoyment of the list. It would be worth it to consider a plan that encourages a more easy pace for investigating the new canon, but I am afraid a rule against fast paced investigation, could be really very painful to endure for us all. From lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 05:40:52 2005 From: lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid (dan) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:40:52 -0000 Subject: Chat room vs. discussion forum (was: Partly on Posting limits Plus ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla: > I guess I was never really bothered with the volume either, because I read messages on the website and simply skip the topics or posters I am not interested reading. I find it very easy to do, honestly. Having said all that, again I understand the necessity of reducing the volume (I'd like the number to be more than three, especially if someone has not posted for a few days, but I will of course abide by Elfs' decision) Dan: This is where some of the difficulty comes in, when one skips to posters that interest them without looking too clearly at the content. I mean, defend new members all you want, but what is your actual criteria for reading their posts? This is kind of a theoretical support for new members. Familiarity, I mean to say, can lead to tennis. The other thing is, topics overlap so much that it is perplexing to think a really cool insight on Lupin's motivation could be ignored, when it might apply to Snape's pensive scene, or Ron's Erised just as much. You know what I mean? Any number of posts as a limit, on the other point, is going to be susceptible to the same criticism. Is one enough? Is two? Is five? Three seems to be a fairly usable number of posts - especially if the threads being posted to are in fact different branches of the same topic, which of course happens daily. Join the arguements up - I personally don't see, for example, the five Snape threads of the last week (the eighteen thousand of the last 4 years) as any different at all. SSSusan: > I find cutting people off altogether more problematic than limiting posts. How many people would come back later if, all excited about the new book & joining up, they were told, "Sorry, all full"?? Dan: The issue is, what to do with the 14 hundred "OMG I just read HBP and it is awesome!" and "has anyone ever wondered what the gleam in dumbledore's eye meant?" and "has anyone ever wondered if Snape is in fact a vampire?" and "did anyone else notice Luna wasn't on the Hogwarts Express at the end of the year?" and "I don't know if this has been discussed before, but does anyone think Petunia will perform magic?" posts from people who have just joined, or the "I just want to say, SSS, your post is DEAD ON!" posts, or the "hi, i'm ~*newbie*~ nd tell me wtf is w/ harry in bk 5, he's crap nasty..." posts. From new folks on moderated status, these posts are EXTREMELY time consuming. Are form rejection letters okay? Not just at release time, but at any time? "Your post is OT." "This is a me too." In some ways, the posts from regular members asking the elves to forgive them this little OT or me too post is worse than anything else, cause folks still on moderated status see that those posts get through, and post likewise. The problem is, when folks are excited about joining the group, they don't often read what we send them, or don't think we actually mean it. They look at the list, see an OT or me too, and hit send. As SSS says, locking the door is not nice. I think having no new members for a week before and after the release is not too harsh, and the door would NEVER say "full up." How about: "Sorry, the list has been locked down for two weeks. Come back after July 23 and we'll be pleased to have you!" What if there was NO POSTING AT ALL for those two weeks? Dan aka Cranky Elf From Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 06:24:37 2005 From: Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:24:37 -0000 Subject: Chat room vs. discussion forum (was: Partly on Posting limits Plus ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > The problem is, when folks are excited about joining the group, they don't often read what we send them, or don't think we actually mean it. They look at the list, see an OT or me too, and hit send. > > As SSS says, locking the door is not nice. I think having no new > members for a week before and after the release is not too harsh, and the door would NEVER say "full up." How about: "Sorry, the list has been locked down for two weeks. Come back after July 23 and we'll be pleased to have you!" What if there was NO POSTING AT ALL for those two weeks? > > Dan aka Cranky Elf Valky: Believe it or not, IMHO this is the closest I seen to a workable solution yet. What if there was NO Posting for two weeks. Well for a start, I would become severely agitated, it would take enormous discipline to cope with, but I would support it anyway. I'll tell you why. One major management crisis I can imagine post HBP, is not being able to prepare. Now wouldn't it be nice if the elves by virtue of their elfness got advance copies of the book. (Hee!) Well it isn't going to happen, is it. So when the flood arrives, as it unquestionably will, list management only *just* found out yesterday what to expect from it, too late :( I would be in favour of a (ugh) Two week hiatus (ugh) with the understanding that list management would "use it well". Apart from taking a breather to come down from their own excitement, the break should probably serve a greater function to the list itself. Heres how I envision a possibilty: A. Reading HBP will reveal a fairly accurate list of Guaranteed Hot Topics during the flood. Say for instance HBP gives us a birds-eye view of the Prank start to finish. B. Without a doubt, a major percentage of the list will immediately start posting some fairly predictable reactions to the Hot Topics, the moment list posting is activated. (such as, with the Prank, we could predict that "What we said before"'s, "What we now know about Snape/James/Sirius"'s are bound to pop up) C. Management, therefore, could use the delegated period to prepare a list based resource for these Hot Topics. The first message of each the threads on that particular topic could then be swiftly intervened upon by elves with a list of Archive Message numbers, canon points, and suggestions on how to bring the investigation together with similar threads rather than spread it too much further abroad. Aside: [The catalogue created by Carolyn and co could certainly help this process, if it is finished by then, and especially if Archive message numbers are a part of it, which I imagine they are.] Two weeks of No Posting, in itself, will not make a shred of difference to the size of the influx after HBP, I am sure of it. We, most likely, will just sit on our hands until we can post, and when we do it will be just as frenetically and overwhelmingly as it would be if we had done it two weeks ago. However, if management was better prepared for it I can see how it will make a huge difference. From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 13:04:34 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:04:34 -0000 Subject: Chat room vs. discussion forum (was: Partly on Posting limits Plus ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla: I guess I was never really bothered with the volume either, because I read messages on the website and simply skip the topics or posters I am not interested reading. I find it very easy to do, honestly. Having said all that, again I understand the necessity of reducing the volume (I'd like the number to be more than three, especially if someone has not posted for a few days, but I will of course abide by Elfs' decision) Dan: This is where some of the difficulty comes in, when one skips to posters that interest them without looking too clearly at the content. I mean, defend new members all you want, but what is your actual criteria for reading their posts? This is kind of a theoretical support for new members. Familiarity, I mean to say, can lead to tennis. The other thing is, topics overlap so much that it is perplexing to think a really cool insight on Lupin's motivation could be ignored, when it might apply to Snape's pensive scene, or Ron's Erised just as much. You know what I mean? Alla: I am afraid I don't understand your point or maybe you misunderstood me. When I am involved in the particular topic, I read all the posts in it. You know, not skipping anyone's posts and definitely looking into the context. But there are some posters whose posts I never skip, I mean NEVER and there are few whose posts I always skip. :o) So, if I read such post in the topic I was not interested before, I will not post in it, till I familiarised myself with the topic, IF the topic is sufficiently interests me. Sure, topics overlap, but are you saying that it is impossible to post in one, unless you read all of them? Then I disagree. Dan: Any number of posts as a limit, on the other point, is going to be susceptible to the same criticism. Is one enough? Is two? Is five? Three seems to be a fairly usable number of posts - especially if the threads being posted to are in fact different branches of the same topic, which of course happens daily. Join the arguements up - I personally don't see, for example, the five Snape threads of the last week (the eighteen thousand of the last 4 years) as any different at all. Alla: Sure, Snape threads could be very similar, but threads could be very very different . For example, now on main list we have "Dumbledore as general", which tranforms into subtopics indeed, but then there is "weasley's clock", "cover artwork", "Snape lack of remorse". I don't find them to be very overlaping. I agree with Steve and Valky that topics of high interest generate the most discussion. JMO, Alla From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 13:31:54 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:31:54 -0000 Subject: Quantity VS Quality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Valky: > (Fortunately distinctions were much easier to draw back then ie > canon v Non-canon v Fanfiction, this time round it is not so > straight -forward) SSSusan: Can you explain why you believe this distinction is harder to make now? Valky: > As for multiple answer posting, well isn't that just playing into >Yahoomorts hands? Once subject headers lose their ability to help us > search for topics, what recourse do we have? > At the moment a few members are using the style, and it causes > minimal mess on this small scale. But I wouldn't want to try and > project the consequences of every message having mutiple threads > addressed within them. SSSusan: FWIW, if this is in reference to comments I was making, I was talking about the benefit of responding to multiple posts *within* the same thread in one response. So that if A, B & C have each written about Snape as a crappy teacher, and you want to counter their comments, you snip parts of all three and respond to them in *one* post, rather than in three separate responses. I agree that trying to combine multiple threads, if they are UNrelated, could be problematic. OTOH, if there are two or three concurrent Snape threads, it might not hurt to combine responses to a couple in one post (imo, of course). Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 13:44:37 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:44:37 -0000 Subject: Closing membership/stopping posts for 2 wks (was: Chat room vs. discussion forum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dan wrote: > As SSS says, locking the door is not nice. I think having no new > members for a week before and after the release is not too harsh, > and the door would NEVER say "full up." How about: "Sorry, the list > has been locked down for two weeks. Come back after July 23 and > we'll be pleased to have you!" SSSusan: I have to admit that this kind of compromise of a *short* period of closed membership never occurred to me. I find the possibility much less odious than a full summer's lock-down. Dan also suggested: > What if there was NO POSTING AT ALL for those two weeks? SSSusan: I'm still thinking about how I feel about this one, though Valky's ideas for what admin could be doing in those two weeks were quite intriguing. I hope more listees will offer up their thoughts on a potential posting ceasefire. Siriusly Snapey Susan From Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 14:13:47 2005 From: Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:13:47 -0000 Subject: Quantity VS Quality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Valky: > > (Fortunately distinctions were much easier to draw back then ie > > canon v Non-canon v Fanfiction, this time round it is not so > > straight -forward) > > SSSusan: > Can you explain why you believe this distinction is harder to make > now? > Valky: Well, yeah I 'think' I can. :D In the discussion here, in particular regarding the issue of said 'qualities' in posts, we can't just run down a list definite inclusions one way or the other, like could be done with spearating canon from non-canon. Though some, like Kneasy and Carloyn, have made a sincere and genuine effort to make a fair distinction, in words like discussion vs chat and tennis vs new concepts. So far, it seems, that someone (yeah mostly me *blush*) and sometimes more than one person, is not quite satisfied with that simplicity. (Even though it is often me, I definitely feel that my view is yet representative of an element of the whole as it were. I am probably just the loudest of them.) Basically - Tennis threads and discussion are not entirely separable. And new concepts introduced are not necessarily going to be the benefit of reduced 'chattish stuff' (sometimes its just good thought provoking challenges to one point of view.) > > Valky: > > As for multiple answer posting, > > > SSSusan: > FWIW, if this is in reference to comments I was making, I was talking about the benefit of responding to multiple posts *within* the same thread in one response. Valky: I realise that, and no this was not the part relative to your post. I intended to as a pre-emptive to a question that could come up in response the stuff above it. To be fair I do have to say that your A and B and C style makes quite good sense. I don't think I personally could do it, (without getting a headache anyway) to be honest, especially after HBP, but yeah it makes good sense. From ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 15:34:20 2005 From: ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:34:20 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Chat room vs. discussion forum (was: Partly on Posting limits Plus ...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <420C8A2C.778.708C771@localhost> On 11 Feb 2005 at 6:24, M.Clifford wrote: > Two weeks of No Posting, in itself, will not make a shred of > difference to the size of the influx after HBP, I am sure of it. > We, most likely, will just sit on our hands until we can post, and > when we do it will be just as frenetically and overwhelmingly as it > would be if we had done it two weeks ago. > > However, if management was better prepared for it I can see how it > will make a huge difference. Let's admit it, we all know that HBP is gonna be a major list crisis. Not an emergency, of course, not by any means, but it's gonna hit bigger than Hurricane Jo did two years ago, simply by virtue of being that much closer to the end of the series. I remember that, for OOP, we had a 'spoiler-free' period that was helpful, but not entirely successful. Spoilers still hit the list before the time was up, and, what I think was worse, slower readers were beat out on posting their original theories by faster readers with quicker fingers. I know I was very excited about the possibility of posting some of my own original theories, thunked up by my own little lonesome self, and I worked hard to craft them, polish them, and make them presentable to the list at large, then logged on ready to send them, only to find them already there and picked to pieces by the early birds and spoiler-jumpers. It was extremely disheartening, to say the least. A two-week no-posting period would give all of us the time and SPACE we need to read HBP, re-read it, digest it, come up with our OWN theories unsullied by other people's thoughts onlist, re-re-read, theory-tweak, research, write, and polish our messages before pasting them to the list once the ban is lifted. Should make for a fabulous Grand Re- Opening Day! And if NOBODY is posting for those two weeks, then NOBODY can say, "Hey, I was too busy reading the book to notice this was already on the list". And the elves can get everything set up the way they need it, and have the breathing room to finish the cataloging, or to tweak the archives, or whatever, and STILL have time to read the book themselves. This is, very likely, the best proposal on handling the HBP storm yet. I'm all for a two-week break, starting 24 hours BEFORE the release. That's to catch any bookstore workers who earlybird it in the back room during their breaktime. ;-) I think the break should be promoted as exactly the thing we listers need, a chance to catch up, catch our breath, recover from the shock and tears that we ALL know are gonna be there, to start to work through our grief and loss over whoever ELSE is gonna die THIS time, and find our way to the thoughts and theories we want to share with the list. It should be touted as the best thing to happen to the list, an opportunity not to be tossed away with the tissues, but to be siezed and used to its fullest, so we can all come back to the list after the pause, with our posts ready to send, prepared to cross-examine them, defend them, prosecute them, whatever. It will be a most wonderful gift, this break, and one that I fully intend to take advantage of. But only if everyone else does, too. Otherwise, I'll just be left out in the cold again, with my wonderful, original theories already having been thrashed to death before their time. And, of course, we can still accept new members during the two-week hiatus, and explain the silence to them, and urge them to take advantage of the break by getting up to speed on the Humongous Big File and perhaps wrassling with YahooMort over some of the pre- release posts. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at ... Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 16:16:06 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:16:06 -0000 Subject: Chat room vs. discussion forum (was: Partly on Posting limits Plus ...) In-Reply-To: <420C8A2C.778.708C771@localhost> Message-ID: Tammy: It will be a most wonderful gift, this break, and one that I fully intend to take advantage of. But only if everyone else does, too. Otherwise, I'll just be left out in the cold again, with my wonderful, original theories already having been thrashed to death before their time. Alla: The more I think the more I agree that two weeks no posting period for EVERYBODY can be a very good idea. Tammy: And, of course, we can still accept new members during the two-week hiatus, and explain the silence to them, and urge them to take advantage of the break by getting up to speed on the Humongous Big File and perhaps wrassling with YahooMort over some of the pre-release posts. Alla: I like it a lot. From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 11 17:54:41 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:54:41 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dungrollin: To start with, I agree with more or less everything that Carolyn and Kneasy said, though, unfortunately, I'm not convinced that there is any way of implementing their ideas fairly. On the read-only period for newbies: Having only been a member of the main list for 6 months, perhaps I remember being a newbie a bit too clearly... I support this idea, but I wonder whether too-long a period on read-only would be counter- productive. Although I would have dived into the archives and kept up with current postings and looked at the FPs, I doubt that I'd have hung around for a month waiting to post. I may have read the site avidly for a day or two, then forgotten about it, and remembered a couple of months later ? realised that I could get off read-only and posted something stupid immediately. A week would be long enough to ensure that I had at least understood the HBF and had an idea of the site, but not so long to be off-putting. Additionally, I remember Kneasy suggesting on the main list a while ago that newbies should have to complete an exam before being allowed to post. I wouldn't go *quite* that far, but perhaps a small questionnaire asking questions about the site, to show that they know how to snip, how to find an acronym in HA, to show that they've read the FAQs and the HBF, to show that they know how to find the FPs and what gems are contained therein. After a week on read-only, they email their elf with the answers to the questions and ask to be allowed to post. Ginger: Submitted for your approval: 1. Having new members wait until they are contacted by their welcoming Elf before posting. 2. An ADMIN to all members asking cooperation with: Reading other posts before writing. 3. Creating a HBP FAQ, updated frequently, which all must consult before posting. Howlers to those who ask oft-repeated questions. Dungrollin: Yes, I'm voting for Ginger. kjirstem: I do not like the idea of a 24-hour delay between post submission and appearance on the list. Delays almost always have a destabilizing effect, particularly in any system involving humans. One thing that I think would happen is that many more people would reply to any given post. There would be a period during which list members wouldn't know if anyone else had replied or the content of replies, leading to duplication of post content. Dungrollin: This concerns me too, and is it not, effectively, putting everybody on moderated status? On the three-post-a-day limit. The limit might cut down on the number of posts that simply repeat the poster's opinion, adding absolutely nothing new to the thread. It might force posters to anticipate the arguments that others will have in response to what they're writing, and cause them to put together a more thoughtful post about the possible reasons for disagreement on a subject, rather than merely stating their opinion ? which, while interesting in that it informs the rest of the list of their approach to the books, is really not very useful for generating interesting discussion ? it's far more likely to generate another argument. My pet peeve is thinly disguised `me-too' posts, which really add absolutely nothing new to a discussion. Because mee-tooing is not allowed people (rather than sending a literal `me-too' off-list as they should) have this awful habit of padding a sentence of agreement out to a few paragraphs, so that it doesn't infringe posting rules. They're a complete waste of time to read ? it drives me spare. I've just realised that SSS has posted similar thoughts ? so `me too!' But I wonder sometimes, that simple agreement without adding anything useful to the debate is not allowed, whereas simple disagreement without adding anything useful to the debate is. Could `I disagree!' posts be just as outlawed as `Me too!'? Carolyn & Kneasy: >>>- intervention when posters are making repetitive points that add nothing to the argument - move arguments on, by the timely posting of details of relevant old posts<<< Admin: >>>*We* may be tired of certain topics, but we permit newcomers to retread old ground because *they* are excited about it and retreading that ground often leads to new ideas, and we don't want to discourage that.<<< Barb Roberts: >>>Most of the debates have long series of quotes where It takes a bit of effort to discern who is actually said, but it's not usually worth the effort. These rapid-fire debates need to be controlled a bit, and the snipping should be shorter and so made less confusing to the causal reader.<<< SSSusan: >>>Since I'm not an elf, I've never felt comfortable contacting people and suggesting they take a discussion offlist, but I've hoped that the elves were doing that behind the scenes. <<< Dungrollin: I agree with all of the above. I would very much like to see more intervention on-list from the elves. I've never had a howler, and to be honest, I think I should have, a couple of times. I would love to see people (including myself) told when they're arguing in circles, told that it's becoming fruitless, or told that a subject is OT and should be taken off-list. Amanda did this recently, and it worked (at least on me). It's honestly difficult to see, you think "If I just phrase it like *this*, they'll see what I mean, - it's clear that they've misunderstood me - and it'll end the discussion..." But of course it never does, because there is a genuine disagreement. Rehashing the same arguments over and over again which effectively come down to "You're wrong, because I hate Snape" vs "Oh come on, it's a kid's book, you're *meant* to hate him..." *is* fruitless, though perhaps somewhat cathartic for those involved. I have nothing against people stating their opinions ? it's obviously an important part of discussion, and although I'm starting to get bored when the same subjects resurface time and again (particularly when it's the same posters every month or so), it's when a single thread starts repeating itself that I get really *annoyed*. When threads start going around in circles, I would like to see Admin step in with a "Please do not state and re- state and state again your opinions when nobody is interested except the one person who is arguing with you and believes the opposite, and pretend that it is 'debate'." Though phrased more politely, obviously. ? I'm not saying this only in judgement of others, I'd like to be told off when *I* do it, too. I wonder if an elf would be able to tell us how many howlers get sent per month? Do *all* one-liners result in an off-list reminder? How many people get put back on moderation? I honestly have no idea. While I was moderated none of my posts were returned or (as far as I could see) edited, and since I've never had a howler, I find the elves somewhat invisible (though, please don't accuse me of thinking they do nothing, I do appreciate that they are very busy). Effectively, what I'm saying is, I wonder if fear of more public reprimands would embarrass people into thinking before hitting `send'. Kjirstem: I would also like to suggest that encouragement of good posts might help with both post and discussion quality. Inclusion in the catalogue mentioned by Carolyn might be encouragement enough. Perhaps the FP and Inish Alley played this role in the past? The drawback is that encouraging good posts would require more work by list elves. Dungrollin: Ah yes. I'm all for positive encouragement rather than top-down enforcement of rules. But how could we make it work? A monthly `Fantastic post' poll, with butterbeer and chocolate frogs for the winner? Would that make people try harder? Pippin: >> We had decided on a limit of three posts per day for the trial period. One thing I'd be glad to have input on is how we would measure success. Posting quality seems too subjective to be measured easily.<< Dungrollin: This is excellent news. I think that Carolyn's `inclusion in the catalogue' would be a good indicator, though since posting quality and quantity varies so much from day to day and month to month, it would be difficult ensure that it is a fair comparison. I think the only way is to see what happens the next time a SnapeWar or DursleyWar starts and see whether it's calmed, and made more interesting and less aggressive by the need to limit one's posts. Posting quality *is* subjective and difficult to measure. I wonder whether an objective measure of success would be missing the point, somewhat. Perhaps after a month of the trial, there should be a poll to see whether members want to keep or scrap the idea. Those who are against the idea now may not be in four weeks time if they've stuck to their 3/day limit and found it improved their post-writing. Others who are all for the idea now may find after a trial that it's too frustrating. Try it and see, I suppose. So, sorry for the length of this, in conclusion: I like the idea of a daily limit on posts per poster. I like the idea of limits on newbies' posting, and somehow forcing them to read the FAQs and HBF, or at least making sure that they're aware of them. I would like to see the elves interfering on-list more. I would love some way of improving post quality through positive reinforcement. Dungrollin And sorry if this is a bit confused, I've got a head full of cold. From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 01:12:16 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 01:12:16 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > Dungrollin: > Having only been a member of the main list for 6 months, perhaps I > remember being a newbie a bit too clearly... I support this idea, > but I wonder whether too-long a period on read-only would be > counter-productive. Read-only on newbies is undoable through Yahoo, I believe. If you join a list you can post to it, although you are moderated automatically on this one. That means that there is nothing built in that can stop us from having to deal with newbies who join and immediately post--that post will be in the queue, so we would have to go through and reject it and send a message why. > Ginger: > > Submitted for your approval: > 1. Having new members wait until they are contacted by their > welcoming Elf before posting. See above... > 2. An ADMIN to all members asking cooperation with: > Reading other posts before writing. > > 3. Creating a HBP FAQ, updated frequently, which all must consult > before posting. Howlers to those who ask oft-repeated questions. I think an HBP FAQ would be a very good idea, and henceforth nominate Myself the Elf to write up such a thing--in conjunction with a longer moratorium on posting post-release. I personally like the two week idea. Gives me time to think about actually working on my exams. We get the biggest issues written up and then the True Newbies will be less confused. > Dungrollin: > This concerns me too, and is it not, effectively, putting everybody > on moderated status? Yes. I'm not a fan because moderated status makes the flow of posts dependent upon someone being there to man the gates constantly. > Admin: > >>>*We* may be tired of certain topics, but we permit > newcomers to retread old ground because *they* are excited about it > and retreading that ground often leads to new ideas, and we don't > want to discourage that.<<< > Dungrollin: > > It's honestly difficult to see, you think "If I just phrase it > like *this*, they'll see what I mean, - it's clear that > they've misunderstood me - and it'll end the discussion..." > But of course it never does, because there is a genuine > disagreement. Rehashing the same arguments over and over again > which effectively come down to "You're wrong, because I hate Snape" > vs "Oh come on, it's a kid's book, you're *meant* to hate him..." > *is* fruitless, though perhaps somewhat cathartic for those > involved. I agreed strongly with this Admin statement, because it fits into the nature of the life of a mailing list. We let things get run over again, such as the current Time Turner argument on list, because people want to talk about it--and it's rather lifeless to *completely* shut it down and send everyone back into the archives. Now, when arguments come down to the level of "Did too!" "Did not!", it needs to go offlist--but that is not primarily what that phrase was referring to. > Effectively, what I'm saying is, I wonder if fear of more public > reprimands would embarrass people into thinking before > hitting `send'. As an elf, I do not want to send public reprimands. I believe our current policy is that a Howler is between the elves and the recipient--and *no one* else. If we start sending out public reprimands, I absolutely guarantee you that we are going to start getting messages going "You sent that to me, but you didn't to her! You guys aren't fair!". I think procedural fairness, something we try very hard to carry out (and sometimes it takes time to work out something acceptable to the group), is best served by keeping public interjections to a minimum. Just my perspective, of course. -Nora (aka Alto Elf) From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 02:49:17 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:49:17 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dungrollin: > I have nothing against people stating their opinions ? it's > obviously an important part of discussion, and although I'm > starting to get bored when the same subjects resurface time and > again (particularly when it's the same posters every month or so), > it's when a single thread starts repeating itself that I get > really *annoyed*. When threads start going around in circles, I > would like to see Admin step in with a "Please do not state and re- > state and state again your opinions when nobody is interested except > the one person who is arguing with you and believes the opposite, > and pretend that it is 'debate'." Though phrased more politely, > obviously. ? I'm not saying this only in judgement of others, > I'd like to be told off when *I* do it, too. > > I wonder if an elf would be able to tell us how many howlers get > sent per month? Do *all* one-liners result in an off-list reminder? > How many people get put back on moderation? I honestly have no idea. > While I was moderated none of my posts were returned or (as far as I > could see) edited, and since I've never had a howler, I find the > elves somewhat invisible (though, please don't accuse me of > thinking they do nothing, I do appreciate that they are very busy). > > Effectively, what I'm saying is, I wonder if fear of more public > reprimands would embarrass people into thinking before > hitting `send'. Alla: I disagree with this part of your post. I guess I am repeating myself, but oh, well. I DON'T like Elves interfering on the substantive parts of the discussion, especially publicly. Threads do come out repeatedly and if they do, it may mean that a lot of people are interested in them. I am all for people ( of course myself included) rethinking a bit of their approach to tennis like exchanges, but doing so if they want to. I don't like anyone telling me for example not to say "I hate what Snape does to Harry" because someone else is not interested in reading it. If I am saying it ten times a day, sure listees can start throwing electronic tomatos, but if I am saying it say once or twice every week, why again should I stop? ( yes, I know I had been saying it more often than that, that is why I realise the necessity for decreased frequency :o)) There is always option of ... not reading it, in my opinion. I exercise such option very actively with almost all conspiracy theories, for example. ( ESE!Lupin not included, because I can never skip Pippin's posts, ever.) One more comment - I can definitely testify to the fact that Elves are NOT invisible and do their job quite well with moderated members. I haven't got a Howler yet ( I wonder how it looks like. :o)), but quite a few of my posts were returned to me for bad snipping, or for being "Me too" in disguise, when I was on moderation. Come to think of it, Dungrollin, you are right. I do tend to do "Me too" in disguise sometimes. Hmmm, another thing to work on. :o) Alla From Erthena at werebearloony.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 06:19:24 2005 From: Erthena at werebearloony.yahoo.invalid (werebearloony) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:19:24 -0000 Subject: Surviving Hurricane Jo II Message-ID: I have been mulling this over in my head for a few days and I think I have finally stumbled upon a fairly good answer for getting through Hurricane Jo II safely. It makes a number of assumptions which I hope are right but starts with the idea of new posts to the main list going public for the summer (I'll say June- August for the purposes of this post). This allows people to read the posts without having to join. In addition, I believe going public allows us to use google to search instead of fighting with yahoo!mort. However we would have to make all posts prior to June private in order to protect those who posted while this was a private group. As someone pointed out in a thread from awhile ago, which I cannot find, we can't just change because things people said in the past were made to a private audience and are the intellectual property of the author. They were not approved for distribution to the internet at large. Since we use the archives so much anyway could we not move all prior to June posts to an archive accessible only to members and then (again I'm assuming we can do this) go to an invitation only membership policy. We would also have to insure that the list knows that anything they post after June 1 is going to be (temporarily) in view of the general public. This allows them to protect whatever it is they have to say. Hopefully people would approve of this measure in order to keep the list under some semblance of tranquility or failing that, give us a decent search engine too plow through the haystacks of (exaggerated for my own amusement) `Y didnt hArry c the theastals (or whatever theyre called, ya know the hrose thingiges thay rode to the Ministry of Magik) at the end of Goblet of fire' posts looking for the few needles. In addition we could encourage readers to email responses they would like posted to the author of a post. This would help spread the load around because it would be up to the author of the post to determine the quality of the reply and decide whether it is up to par on the list. Hopefully if it is not they could help point the person in the right direction. This would work like (what I understand of) the pendings system anyway because every posts from people on moderated status has to be approved by the elves. Finally new people could join but they would have to be invited. I'd say by someone off moderated status (to prevent person K. from becoming a listie and inviting her whole address book to join as well) and they should be invited after posing a reply that follows the rules (through the email system). To summarize what has been a somewhat rambling post. My idea is to make all new posts to the list this summer public (with the full knowledge of the list) in order to prevent too many new members as well as to be able to use google to search the public posts. And to allow new members only by invitation after they have had an email reply posted by a listie. Then in September we go back to our current system and we have hopefully having weathered Hurricane Jo II in relative safety. ~~loony From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 11:04:46 2005 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 22:04:46 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Surviving Hurricane Jo II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <420E7D7E.32280.14431CB@localhost> On 12 Feb 2005 at 6:19, werebearloony wrote: > To summarize what has been a somewhat rambling post. My idea is to > make all new posts to the list this summer public (with the full > knowledge of the list) in order to prevent too many new members as > well as to be able to use google to search the public posts. And to > allow new members only by invitation after they have had an email > reply posted by a listie. Then in September we go back to our > current system and we have hopefully having weathered Hurricane Jo II > in relative safety. Just an observation - personally I am not in favour of public archives, but the proposal made here doesn't worry me that much - however, it is an error to think that having public archives means people can use google to search public posts. While messages from public archives at yahoogroups can show up in google searches, nowhere near all such messages appear in a google search. Only some wind up in such searches. This can be illustrated. I run a group at yahoo that has public archives dating back to 1998. These archives have always been public. The group is located at: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/dragwars Now I go into the google advanced search page at: http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en and place that URL into the domain search and search for the word 'Albion' I don't get a single hit. If you search at the group itself, you get dozens of hits. It's not that uncommon a word on that group. A lot of people seem to think that somehow google will index every single post on a publicly archived mailing list. Actually it will do relatively few. On a list as large as HPFGU, there will be some hits - but nowhere near enough to make this an effective search tool. 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 From bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 12 18:56:46 2005 From: bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid (Steve) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:56:46 -0000 Subject: Surviving Hurricane Jo II - Comment & Suggestions In-Reply-To: <420E7D7E.32280.14431CB@localhost> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > On 12 Feb 2005 at 6:19, werebearloony wrote: > > > To summarize what has been a somewhat rambling post. My idea is to > > make all new posts to the list this summer public (with the full > > knowledge of the list) in order to prevent too many new members as > > well as to be able to use google to search the public posts. And to > > allow new members only by invitation after they have had an email > > reply posted by a listie. > Shaun: > > Just an observation - personally I am not in favour of public > archives, but the proposal made here doesn't worry me that much - > however, it is an error to think that having public archives means > people can use google to search public posts. > > While messages from public archives at yahoogroups can show up in > google searches, nowhere near all such messages appear in a google > search. Only some wind up in such searches. > > ...edited... > > A lot of people seem to think that somehow google will index every > single post on a publicly archived mailing list. Actually it will > do relatively few. On a list as large as HPFGU, there will be some > hits - but nowhere near enough to make this an effective search > tool. > > Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought > Shaun Hately bboyminn: To -Loony, the public vs private access to the group, I'm pretty sure, is a switch- all-ON or all-OFF; it offers no room for posts prior to a certain date to be made private while new posts are made public. Moving old posts to the archive site would also not work. The post there are in 'Digest' format, that is, they are one huge file covering several thousand posts. Actually, it's several large files each covering many many post. So these archived posts aren't threaded in anyway, there is no subject heading link list, and the only way to find common subject headings is to text-search the file for them. I'm not implying the archives aren't useful, because they are, I've downloaded them all on to my computer. I'm just saying that their large-file all-text chronological format is limited. As far as Google, Shaun is right with regard to going to Google's website and using their 'web' search engine, but Google provides search services that you can attach to personal or professional websites to search within the contents of that one website. This, in a sense, provides you with your own private search engine. In fact, if you download the Google tool bar, unless I'm mistaken, you can use Google /services/ to search your own computer. I've often wondered if it was possible to create a website that tied Google search /services/ to our Yahoo Group. I've also contemplated the idea of moving our group to a better 'group' provider, but that move would probably mean that many years of history would get left behind at Yahoo. I've already compared Yahoo Groups to a shopping mall, it common, generic, and easy to find. So, for /ordinary/ people who engage in ordinary discussions, Yahoo might be adequate, but the extraordinary nature of the main HP for Grownups group, shows how woefully inadequate Yahoo really is. I've already said that I like the idea of making the group accessable to non-member read-only access. That's how the group originally was and I never really understood why that was changed. If it had been left as a public read-only group, we would probably have half the members, and the same number of readers and posters. Although, I do have some doubt as to whether public read-only access would /encourage/ or /discourage/ people from joining. One thing I think might help, which is similar to what someone else suggested, is for the group Administrators to periodically post single point procedural posts; like snips from the Humungous Big File. Maybe drop in a post every now and then reminding people to recognise when a discusion has reach a Stalemate. To recognise that each side is entrenched and is not budging, and that once your position has been stated, restated, clariifed, and qualified, it's time to shrug your shoulder and move on. And to also remind /certain/ people that they have to realize that sometimes the world just isn't going to agree with them not matter how hard they try. Or, to drop in a post reminding people of proper /snipping/ with examples of reasonable inner and inter paragraph snip-formatting. This would be a constant but unobtrusive reminder to us all to keep and eye on the quality of our posts. I'm speaking of stand-alone posts, other people have suggested that the moderator intervene more often on-line, assuming it can be done so appropriately and with diplomacy, and jump into threads with reminders to Snip, be nice, proofread, wrap it up, and recognise a stalemate. This method would not be used to replace emailing an individual with a reminder; it would simply be added to the moderators arsenal of management tools. This would be used in those /in-between/ times. Times when the whole group can benefit from the comment, and the comment is general enough to not appear to be attacking the individual. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 16 15:01:10 2005 From: naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:01:10 -0000 Subject: My opinion (was Re: Chat room vs. discussion forum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat/Kathy: > Just out of curiosity, did Renee and Pippin manage to carry out that > debate with just three posts a day? I'm sorry I missed that one. > This is what I'm afraid we'll lose if we set posting limits. > > I am beginning to agree on a limit, but I don't like it. > I totally agree with limiting number of posts a day. SSSusan made the case for it beautifully, and I agree with every word. > >> > I vote for closing off new memberships at peak times. I think it > will be very difficult to maintain quality while managing volume > with a membership that is familiar with the canon-thumping debates. > It would be very hard with droves of newbies coming in. I was > overwhelmed in the summer without a new book out. Rather than just closing off new memebership, how about limiting new membership? No more than - what? ten new members a day? This way new people won't feel as rejected and unwelcomed (I think). Naama From bleckybecs at bleckybecs.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 02:41:14 2005 From: bleckybecs at bleckybecs.yahoo.invalid (bleckybecs) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:41:14 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: After several hours of reading threads, and a lot of note taking about newbies (which I distinctly am!), I have a few thoughts to add which I hope are helpful. I'm not good at figuring fully worked out solutions. I'm much better at coming up with some ideas that somebody else can fully shape. Please bear that in mind when reading what I have to say. In rough response to Admin: >>>*We* may be tired of certain topics, but we permit newcomers to retread old ground because *they* are excited about it and retreading that ground often leads to new ideas, and we don't want to discourage that.<<< As a newbie, I find myself saying `if it hasn't already been discussed, and if it has please show me where' a lot. If I had been given something like a `pit falls' email when I joined, this might not be the case. I am perfectly competent on a computer, but I could really use a `how to navigate this site for dummies'! There seems such a lot of it, especially when you add in sister sites. I haven't the least idea how to search the archive and how to work out what has and hasn't been asked. FAQ would help loads, if only I could find them! An explanation of how to search archives (instead of Geoff being left to answer) would also have helped an awful lot (still would as a matter of fact). Perhaps someone with this kind of Geoff-like knowledge could be persuaded to write such a guide as a one off job. This would allow new members to reduce the number of repeated questions significantly and would also encourage us to find old posts ourselves (other than FP) to reply to / expand on etc. This should help improve both the quality and interest level of newbies posts, whilst still allowing old ground to be covered. Also, another thing to mention in `pit falls' or 'a dummies guide' would be the amount of snipping required. This is something I'm having difficulty coming to grips with, even though I am no longer moderated. One house elf (Kranky!Elf IIRC) said to me that as a general rule, we should leave in about as much as we actually write in reply (or less). A simple rule like this in a `pit falls' / 'dummies' package would have been very gratefully received as a sound starting point. Not only that, but it would let people do it more effectively themselves, rather than waste house elf time. On a slightly different note, it appears that non-mod members are as much at fault. I had an idea on this which probably won't be liked, but it's never stopped me saying something before, so it won't now. How about putting people back on moderated for a short amount of time? I'm talking about a week or less. Some people will start just to lurk, so I am talking about people who actively post. Maybe when members have been posting for 9months or a year? Or maybe they could be chosen randomly? Possibly by selecting a number of people (say 20 if the number of people posting is about 500) who have been posting for more than a year. `Out of a hat' style, or `in rotation through the list' style. It would almost be an MOT for people who've been here longer (non-UK people - that`s a check up on a car every 3 (?) years to make sure it`s in good working order). I mean it merely as a reminder of what is expected by *all* the rules, as some of the lesser rules may simply have been forgotten. (Ducks to avoid all manner of things now headed in my direction!) I would also like to say that I think the idea of no posting for a couple of weeks after the release of HBP is a good one. It might be annoying not to be able to say anything in those 2 weeks, but it would give *everyone* time to read, possibly even re-read, the book, absorb it and come up with well thought through topics of conversation. It would give people time to calm down and make good, clear points (and that's the idea of *this* discussion, right?). I agree with all the points made about that idea. It makes a lot of sense. If this was used alongside daily post number limitations, I see that as the most workable way to control the inevitable influx. Just a final (probably controversial) thought. What if the house elves came up with the basic posts they can foresee a couple of days before the ban was up and posted them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking theories here, I'm talking simple `Why can Neville see thestrals?' and `What is Hagrid`s task?' type questions. Not brand new theory type questions. I'm not suggesting that they be allowed to answer them either. I'm just suggesting that they put up the very basic, very open question. I know this would put a dampener on everyone wanting to be the first to show they spotted Luna was missing from the train (which I didn't notice!), although it does partly avoid that kind of mad rush and multiple posting. The main thinking behind that idea is to allow everyone to respond to the same questions under the same thread. It would allow more logical flow, instead of tens of different threads all saying the same thing. Those can't be completely avoided of course, but this may at least manage the worst of it. Just my few thoughts for what they're worth. So much for promising myself I'd just be a reader here! I just can't seem to help getting involved! :) Becky (who is considering changing her name to avoid confusion with Betsy!) From ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 15:11:50 2005 From: ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:11:50 -0500 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4215BF66.497.FF2210C@localhost> On 18 Feb 2005 at 2:41, bleckybecs wrote: > Becky: > After several hours of reading threads, and a lot of note taking > about newbies (which I distinctly am!), I have a few thoughts to add > which I hope are helpful. Tammy Rizzo: Welcome, Becky! It's good to meet you. :-) It's also VERY good to have a newbie here with actual feedback! It seems that most new folks don't give much feedback until they've gotten comfortable in a place, and then, well, if you're comfy, why gripe, right? ;-D Anyway, some of your thoughts require some more feedback. ;-> Here goes! > Becky: > How about putting people back on moderated for a short amount of > time? I'm talking about a week or less. ... `Out of a hat' style, or `in rotation through > the list' style. ... I mean it merely as > a reminder of what is expected by *all* the rules, as some of the > lesser rules may simply have been forgotten. Tammy Rizzo: I like this idea. It would work as a sort of 'quality control' or 'spot check', and would very likely cut down on the amount of Howlers that the elves would need to send. I know, nobody likes being moderated, but I think this is a good idea, especially if it's only for a few days to a week, just as a 'refresher'. I'd support it, wholeheartedly. > Becky: > I would also like to say that I think the idea of no posting for a > couple of weeks after the release of HBP is a good one. ... I > agree with all the points made about that idea. It makes a lot of > sense. If this was used alongside daily post number limitations, I > see that as the most workable way to control the inevitable influx. Tammy Rizzo: Yaaaay! Another supporter of the hiatus! *does a happy dance* I think, the more people consider this proposal, the more people will agree with it. I think it's the most workable, and certainly the FAIREST, plan yet put forward. And including the per-day posting limit once the break's over certainly would add another level of storm-control, though that particular idea seems to be much more controversial than the hiatus. However, I do think a daily limit is reasonable -- not many people really do actually go over half a dozen posts on any one day, anyway, right? It would only require a *LITTLE* more restraint from some of us, and hardly any at all from most of us. > Becky: > Just a final (probably controversial) thought. What if the house > elves came up with the basic posts they can foresee a couple of days > before the ban was up and posted them. ... The main > thinking behind that idea is to allow everyone to respond to the > same questions under the same thread. It would allow more logical > flow, instead of tens of different threads all saying the same > thing. Tammy Rizzo: I think this is brilliant, too. Start the list off with some 'standard' questions, but NO theories, and no answers. Just jumping-off points. *VERY* good idea! And if they're up on the list a few days before the break's over, then everyone would have had a chance to read them, too, and start to formulate their answers to them, and would KNOW where to post the answers or sub-questions. I would certainly support this, too. Would it be possible to submit questions for this jumping-off point, say by private email to the list-owner? That would very likely also help assuage any hard feelings of being left out. We could submit things like "Why couldn't Harry see the Thestrals until after the summer break?" (the HBP equivalent, of course), and the elves could sort them out and make beginning posts? If we were to have a week to just read and ponder the book, and submit questions privately to the admins (but have a deadline on when we have to stop submitting them), and then the elves were to take a few days to organize and consolidate the questions and then post them, so we would all have a couple of days to read them over without posting yet ourselves, that would certainly put some order on the re-opening madness. ;-) I know that July is still several months away, but it would be nice to know what the admin is thinking about these ideas, and perhaps even nicer to know what the rest of the list thinks. Would a poll on the main list be do-able? Oh, but wait -- a simple poll would probably not allow for the selling of the hiatus as a wonderful opportunity, as I feel it would certainly be. Hmmmm. I imagine a promotional campaign would be out of the question, huh? ;-) A nice, detailed post enthusing about all the advantages of closing the list to posts for two weeks (but not to new member sign-ups)? And, of course, there's the problem of keeping the OT-Chatter list completely HBP-free during the main list break . . . which would probably require putting everyone back on moderated status on OT. But I'd be willing to be put back on moderated status for two weeks on OT, to stay HBP-free until the main list's re-opening! I'd be more than willing to do that! In fact, I'd be very enthusiastic about it! Help sell the idea! *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at ... Check out my site: http://pageswirl.com/rotate.php?user=trnetworks [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From timregan at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 17:16:37 2005 From: timregan at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid (Tim Regan) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:16:37 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi All, Gosh, I wish I'd posted into these threads earlier. I kept being sidetracked by work stuff so that when I finally have time and decide to print off the discussion to read it runs to 106 pages! Here are my thoughts on list quality, posting volume, how to baton down the hatches in preparation for July's book release etc. Although I am a proud list elf I am writing here without my tea- towel on, just as me. (Naked posting, will I start a trend?) I think a lot of this discussion hangs on list metaphors. David started a great thread on those in December 2003 in post 202 ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/202 ). The discussion veered between seeing the list as a cocktail party, a seminar, the letters page of a newspaper, etc. Carolyn and Barry's comments strike me as wanting to see the list as a peer reviewed academic journal. All posts would be reviewed by elves before hitting the list. I spend my day trying (and mostly failing) to get published in academic conferences and journals and I really do not want to see the list go that way. I do not see the list as the place where well rounded theories are published, but the place where well rounded theories are born. This comes to all the proposals on curtailing list volume, which in general I am against. For me it's a gambling argument. If you want to maximise your chances of rolling a six then the best way is to roll the dice over and over again. Granted, good posting is not just luck, but there is still no substitute for practise. A colleague of mine ( http://research.microsoft.com/~shellyf/ ) once chastised me for spending too long in the thinking phase of a project; she said "Tim, you learn more from use than from speculation" and I think that holds true here. If we want to read twenty thousand good posts then we'll need to wade through eighty thousand bad ones. I know this from experience. I have written some good post, but I've written more poor ones. And often when I hit the send button I did not know which category the post fits into. Clearly we can introduce rules and mores that guide list members towards better quality posting (no one liners, no "me too", canon points only, ...) and the presence of a good catalogue of the best theories will help enormously but in the end it is only through the to and fro of weak threads that we sometimes see the to and fro of great threads. I am also against periods where we do not accept new members. I have a bad feeling that JKR will one day find herself at a LAN party with Philip Pullman, the Pope, the Dali Lama, and , and they all decide to sign up to an HP discussion group together. Finding ours closed they move on. However there are those that would disagree strongly with me. Clay Shirky in his piece "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy" http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html deduces that good groups attract members, become bad groups from having too much posting, loose members, and go round and round this cycle (or die). His first three conclusions pretty well match HPfGU: identities members can invest in; a way for members to attain good standing; and barriers to participation (our moderation of new members). But his last point bears out the proposals made here for closing HPfGU to new members periodically. I'll quote him as it is very well written (IMHO) even though I disagree: >>> And, finally, you have to find a way to spare the group from scale. Scale alone kills conversations, because conversations require dense two-way conversations. In conversational contexts, Metcalfe's law is a drag. The fact that the amount of two-way connections you have to support goes up with the square of the users means that the density of conversation falls off very fast as the system scales even a little bit. You have to have some way to let users hang onto the less is more pattern, in order to keep associated with one another.[...] Sometimes you can do soft forking. Live Journal does the best soft forking of any software I've ever seen, where the concepts of "you" and "your group" are pretty much intertwingled. The average size of a Live Journal group is about a dozen people. And the median size is around five. [...] IRC channels and mailing lists are self-moderating with scale, because as the signal to noise ratio gets worse, people start to drop off, until it gets better, so people join, and so it gets worse. You get these sort of oscillating patterns. But it's self-correcting. And then my favorite pattern is from MetaFilter, which is: When we start seeing effects of scale, we shut off the new user page. "Someone mentions us in the press and how great we are? Bye!" That's a way of raising the bar, that's creating a threshold of participation. And anyone who bookmarks that page and says "You know, I really want to be in there; maybe I'll go back later," that's the kind of user MeFi wants to have.<<< But metaphors are just metaphors, and each list actually has its own unique and mutable characteristics. Some of these characteristics come from the affordances of the technology used (blog vs newsgroup say), some from the membership, some from the moderation process, and some from the subject matter itself. And it is through the study of online communities that we may be able to answer Pippin's question about post quality. There are several research groups tackling online communities and there seem to be two broad approaches to understanding post quality. The first (most obvious) is to ask the members of the community what they think. Jenny Preece ( http://www.is.umbc.edu/onlinecommunities/ ) often uses observation and questionnaires in her work to get at these kinds of issues. The second approach is to take a more analytical and abstract approach. Marc Smith's Netscan ( http://Netscan.research.microsoft.com/ ) does this so that one can see quality metrics emerge from the shape of the visualization of posters or of threads (e.g. people who only ever answer, people who only ever initiate threads etc). Apparently he has a bunch of visualization tools for mailing lists so one day I'll be running them on HPfGU and see what pops out. There are fairly sophisticated models of post quality that do work. For example http://slashdot.org/ provides a mechanism for members to rate posts as worthy. The ratings themselves are also open to rating allowing key judges to emerge whose ratings are given more weight. You can filter so that you only see the posts that have been given a high ranking by worthy judges. I guess I want to air one last point, and it is perhaps the most difficult to make here. I do not think that the Harry Potter books are truly great. What makes them great for me is a combination of factors: they are well written, they are gripping, they are unfinished, and they are popular. The last two ensure that we have (in HPfGU) a large group of thoughtful adults eager to propose and debate theories about how the books will pan out. There are interesting things for academics to write about HP, but I feel that the cultural phenomena is the deepest aspect for them. So if we are too high brow, to exclusive, too driven by post quality, we will loose that which is for me the essence of HP enjoyable discussions. But even if I think many of the proposals for improving post quality are misguided, we are clearly going to be in big trouble following the publication in July of the next book. Sorry I haven't really helped move that discussion forward. While I'm apologising sorry that I haven't responded more to previous posts, or woven them in to what I've rambled about. Cheers, Dumbledad. From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 18:23:18 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:23:18 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Becky: > How about putting people back on moderated for a short amount of > time? I'm talking about a week or less. Some people will start just > to lurk, so I am talking about people who actively post Alla: Hey, Becky! Sorry, I disagree. I learned a lot during my moderated days, but I still remember how annoying it was to wait till your post appears on the list several hours later. I would NOT want to go through it anymore, no way. I am going to tell you another thing. Even if you are off moderation status and your posts keep contain same mistakes, you may still get gentle explanation from the Elf. :o) Even when I was off moderation status, I got some extra tutoring in snipping from Elves. I think I am better now. :) My point is - even if you are not moderated anymore, elves still keep an eye and try to help if you continue same bad posting habits. Becky: > I would also like to say that I think the idea of no posting for a > couple of weeks after the release of HBP is a good one. It might be > annoying not to be able to say anything in those 2 weeks, but it > would give *everyone* time to read, possibly even re-read, the book, > absorb it and come up with well thought through topics of > conversation. It would give people time to calm down and make good, > clear points (and that's the idea of *this* discussion, right?). I > agree with all the points made about that idea. It makes a lot of > sense. If this was used alongside daily post number limitations, I > see that as the most workable way to control the inevitable influx. Alla: Yes, as I said earlier I think I like this idea. From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 20:49:26 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:49:26 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'd like to follow up a bit on points Becky & Tim [Dumbledad] have raised today. I'm also a (new) member of the elf team but am shedding my elfy attire and postin' nekkid right now as Siriusly Snapey Susan. CLOSING MEMBERSHIP First off, I'd like to reiterate that I am not for closing off access to HPfGU to new members post-HBP release. Someone suggested a daily limit on new members, but I think that's still problematic. How does someone who gets up 8 time zones later than others in another part of the world ever get a shot first thing on a new day? Besides, how can you argue with such a beautiful comment as the following from Tim?? :-) >>I am also against periods where we do not accept new members. I have a bad feeling that JKR will one day find herself at a LAN party with Philip Pullman, the Pope, the Dali Lama, and , and they all decide to sign up to an HP discussion group together. Finding ours closed they move on.<< PITFALLS LIST/POSTING GUIDELINES Becky suggested a couple of possibilities today. I do think an updated FAQ or "pitfalls" area of the site could be helpful. On the other hand, when a new member signs up, s/he receives a notification which directs her/him to The Humongous Bigfile. It really *is* the member's responsibility to become familiarized with that. I know it can be overwhelming -- it's a Humongous Bigfile! -- but the *personalized* welcome letter which each new member receives from her/his elf also offers some tips about posting, some suggestions for success, and several links to helpful locations inside the HPfGU site. REMODDING DEMODDED MEMBERS Barring any really compelling forthcoming argument, I am adamantly opposed to the random or rotational remodding of old-time posters. This is not to discount the point *at all* that some of the old- timers are sloppy posters or can have tone issues. What would work better, imo, and what would be a much better use of admin's time, would be to consistently and quickly remod those old-timers who have begun breaking posting guidelines/gotten sloppy regarding one-liners, OT posts, "me, toos" and the like. Admin will have its hands full this summer anyway. Adding to that load by remodding old-timers, especially when they've done nothing to warrant it, would be a tremendous waste of a limited resource...and might royally p*ss some people off, too. TWO-WEEK BREAK/HOT QUESTIONS LIST I would still love to hear more feedback on a two-week "off" period (not a moratorium on joining but on posting) after HBP's release, as well as thoughts on Becky's suggestion of a just-before-going-live list of expected-to-be-FAQs for the new book. Siriusly Snapey Susan From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 21:19:17 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:19:17 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Tim Regan" wrote: > Carolyn and Barry's > comments strike me as wanting to see the list as a peer reviewed > academic journal. All posts would be reviewed by elves before > hitting the list. I spend my day trying (and mostly failing) to get > published in academic conferences and journals and I really do not > want to see the list go that way. I do not see the list as the place > where well rounded theories are published, but the place where well > rounded theories are born. > Carolyn: Tim, a point of clarification. The proposal to review all posts before publication was purely to enable the elves to more easily enforce the *existing* HBF list rules on snipping, headings, OT-ness, tone, FAQs etc, nothing more. Peer review journals operate by sending papers to others for comment, criticism and re-writing before publication, nothing of that sort was suggested at all - unless a post came in that flouted all the list rules, in which case the elves would probably be glad to catch it before it hit the list and caused ripples. As I understood the official response, it is an idea that can't be considered because there are not enough elves to do the job. This is a pity because in other respects it has a good deal of merit in maintaining basic standards on a large and busy list. There is also a significant technical problem in that Yahoo only allows 15 moderators at a time, whatever the size of a group. This is clearly not enough to manage a list this size, even if there were enough willing volunteer elves available in the first place. As regards your larger points about the intrinsic nature of such lists, I am inclined to agree - hence the title of our paper 'What Price Success?'. It's not easy to maintain good quality discussion in very large groups, and to pick up the party analogy, maybe not the point in the first place. Carolyn From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 18 23:01:14 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:01:14 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: Tim, a point of clarification. The proposal to review all posts before publication was purely to enable the elves to more easily enforce the *existing* HBF list rules on snipping, headings, OT-ness, tone, FAQs etc, nothing more. Alla: Respectfully, I have to say that this is not how it sounded in your original post ( to me at least). I read it more like scanning the posts for substance in them and returning them if they don't add anything to the discussion, which I find to be very subjective criteria. I also thought that you were suggesting in your original post that the arguments should be strictly construed according to specific criteria, suggested by you and Kneasy, otherwise the post is not good enough to be on the list. So, I am glad that I did not understand you correctly. I still immensely dislike the idea of moderating everybody, but I am all for continue enforcing the rules, as you clarified them. I happen to think that those rules are being enforced quite well as of now, to tell you the truth, but of course there is always a room for improvement. Carolyn: As I understood the official response, it is an idea that can't be considered because there are not enough elves to do the job. This is a pity because in other respects it has a good deal of merit in maintaining basic standards on a large and busy list. Alla: I disagree with that. Just my opinion of course, Alla From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 15:57:33 2005 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:57:33 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan wrote: I'm also a (new) member of the elf team but am shedding my elfy attire and postin' nekkid right now as Siriusly Snapey Susan. > TWO-WEEK BREAK/HOT QUESTIONS LIST http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/625 Susan wrote: I would still love to hear more feedback on a two-week "off" period (not a moratorium on joining but on posting) after HBP's release, as well as thoughts on Becky's suggestion of a just-before-going-live list of expected-to-be-FAQs for the new book. Potioncat: I planned to avoid the list until I'd finished HBP anyway. It would be nice to come back without having to wade through a mountain of posts, and it would be very nice to have "HBP topics" already set up. Allowing new members to come during this time, strongly encouraging them to catch up on the Humongous Big File, might be a good way to avoid some of the problems of the tidal wave of newbies. COMBINING POSTS: One thing I've seen already, is that a number of posters are making the effort to combine their responses to several posts into one long post. It makes for very nice reading and flows much better than the many short posts. Even though the short posts would have been well thought out, the flow is so much better! In particular, I've noticed and talked off list to Nora, Alla and Susan about their posts. It's taken all three of them to teach me how to do it. I'm a real computer dummy. (I've done it in this post, but it has been very slow work!) Could the general membership, old and new, be encouraged and taught to do that? A new section for the HBF HPfGUfDummies. POSTING LIMITS There is no doubt that if members were limited to, or restricted themselves to fewer posts the quality would improve. I've talked off list to fellow members about one concern I have with a strict limit of posts per day. From time to time there is a burst of creativity and humor, with a rapid-fire exchange of posts. Now, maybe they really are of interest to the few who actually participate, or maybe lurkers are enjoying the exchange too. Certainly they won't be of great interest to those who later are trying to catch up. But they do add flavor. I suppose this falls under the "party" view. Could this sort of thing be tolerated? If Elves are going to step in to remind the tennis players to go offline, maybe this "party talk" could be nudged off if it was out of hand? BACK TO "WHAT PRICE?" So far we've only discussed the possible rules for improving posts, but what about these ideas from Carolyn and Kneasy? (Post 556) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-feedback/interrupt?st=2&m=1&done=% 2Fgroup%2FHPFGU-Feedback%2Fmessage%2F556 Here they are, snipped a bit. Can any of these be set up? 1. Topic debates An ever-changing group of rabble-rousers should be tasked to post a piece of good-quality, provocative analysis on a weekly basis. Subject-matter and orientation as wide as you please, but it has to be sharp, well-referenced and demanding. 2. Special guest posts Guest authors could be invited in to write op-eds. These could be authors of books about HP, other authors, journalists, commentators etc. 3. Revisiting FPsGood posts from the past could provide an endless source of discussion. Each week a new one could be selected for debate. 4. Digests of off-list discussions. Posters quite often continue discussions about topics offlist, especially if the topic is a bit specialised. OK, that's it for me today. BTW, I am wearing sweat shirt, jeans, and sneakers. (trainers?) And I'm very happy to hear Susan is an elf! Kathy/Potioncat From sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 16:12:56 2005 From: sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:12:56 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002301c5169d$e04964b0$0400a8c0@pensive> hi, I've been thinking the last few days about the idea of posting limits. here is a reason why I don't really support major positing limits for the most part. For the last few days, there's been a long discussion about whether or not Draco Malfoy is evil or sympathetic. At first I wasn't reading this, because I'm not much interested in Draco. however, as some of my favorite posters got into the mix, I started reading. it was a good debate. Betsy had been arguing for the side that Draco is a sympathetic character and misunderstood. Others mostly argued the opposite point of view. But Betsy always had good points for her rebuttals against all who argued for Draco the lame or evil. Then they had good rebuttal back. Whether or not someone is interested in Draco, the debate was great! A three message daily posting limit would have seriously curtailed those exchanges. Another point is, what will be the cut off? With eh variety of time zones represented on HPFGU, how can it probably be enforced? Usually, most members are very good at making sure their subjects are clear, so it's very easy to delete whole threads that aren't of interest, without having to impose limits and limiting well thought out debate. Just my few cents on the matter! Sherry Who is glad that SS Susan is an elf! From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 21:05:31 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 21:05:31 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Potioncat: POSTING LIMITS There is no doubt that if members were limited to, or restricted themselves to fewer posts the quality would improve. I've talked off list to fellow members about one concern I have with a strict limit of posts per day. From time to time there is a burst of creativity and humor, with a rapid-fire exchange of posts. Now, maybe they really are of interest to the few who actually participate, or maybe lurkers are enjoying the exchange too. Certainly they won't be of great interest to those who later are trying to catch up. But they do add flavor. I suppose this falls under the "party" view.Could this sort of thing be tolerated? If Elves are going to step in to remind the tennis players to go offline, maybe this "party talk" could be nudged off if it was out of hand? Alla: Kathy, I so want to add my agreement to this suggestion of yours. I still think that there is no reason why we cannot have both - party type exchange and more academic style debate. Alla. P.S. I am computer dummy too, so I am very happy if I could help you with combining - from one dummy to another. ;o) From ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 19 23:28:28 2005 From: ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:28:28 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: <002301c5169d$e04964b0$0400a8c0@pensive> References: Message-ID: <4217854C.25076.335C7A@localhost> On 19 Feb 2005 at 9:12, Sherry Gomes wrote: > Another point is, what will be the cut off? With eh variety of time zones > represented on HPFGU, how can it probably be enforced? Now Tammy: This is exactly why I suggested closing off the list to new posts about 24 hours BEFORE the official release of HBP -- to allow for any time-zone confusion, as well as to allow for those posts inevitably lost in the Yahoo ether that show up hours (or sometimes days) late. Besides, who's gonna want to pass up their last chance to post to the list for two weeks, just to stand in line for some book at midnight? ;-> Better to set the whole list to no posting the day before the release, and not have to worry about it. :-D As a list owner, I know that there's a switch for toggling the lists to 'announcement only' or to 'anyone may post', so that's really easy to do. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at ... Check out my site: http://pageswirl.com/rotate.php?user=trnetworks From pengolodh_sc at pengolodh_sc.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 00:30:10 2005 From: pengolodh_sc at pengolodh_sc.yahoo.invalid (pengolodh_sc) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:30:10 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: <4217854C.25076.335C7A@localhost> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback, "Tammy Rizzo" wrote: > On 19 Feb 2005 at 9:12, Sherry Gomes wrote: > > > Another point is, what will be the cut off? With eh > > variety of time zones represented on HPFGU, how can it > > probably be enforced? > > Now Tammy: > This is exactly why I suggested closing off the list to > new posts about 24 hours BEFORE the official release of > HBP -- to allow for any time-zone confusion, as well as > to allow for those posts inevitably lost in the Yahoo > ether that show up hours (or sometimes days) late. [snip] But Sherry wasn't, in the post you're quoting, referring to the proposal to closing the list for posts for a period after the release of HBP - she was referring to the proposal to introduce a maximum number of posts each member can make per day. And with that proposal, the time-zone differences are a significant issue. It certainly will be a sizeable job for the elves to keep counting posts for each poster, counting back previous posts and figuring out when they were posted, etc. If you use a dynamic 24-hour window the elves really have a big job for themselves, while if you use a set turnover-time when the quota is reset, you get a quota-reset that's in the middle of the day for some, and in the middle of the night for others. It would also lead to situations where someone could post two quotas of posts within a short time, without legally going over the quota. Others would see that and cry out "Why is SHE allowed to go over the quota and not I? UNFAIR!" I really don't think the proposal for a daily quota of posts will be a workable solution - it will add to the workload of the elves to the point where they go batty and get admitted to St Mungo's, I fear. Best regards Christian Stub? From ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 01:07:16 2005 From: ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 20:07:16 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: References: <4217854C.25076.335C7A@localhost> Message-ID: <42179C74.15416.8DD33F@localhost> > > On 19 Feb 2005 at 9:12, Sherry Gomes wrote: > > > > > Another point is, what will be the cut off? With eh > > > variety of time zones represented on HPFGU, how can it > > > probably be enforced? > > > > To which Tammy Rizzo answered: > > This is exactly why I suggested closing off the list to > > new posts about 24 hours BEFORE the official release of > [snip] > And then Christian Stub? wrote: > But Sherry wasn't, in the post you're quoting, referring to the > proposal to closing the list for posts for a period after the > release of HBP - she was referring to the proposal to introduce a > maximum number of posts each member can make per day. Now Tammy again: OOOOooooh, I see, okay, I apologize. I'm sorry, I must've mis-read it. My bad. :-) As for what was really meant, yes, I can see the problem, too. I was assuming that it would be either figured from midnight at GMT (Goblins' Magical Time), or it would be each poster according to their own midnight. Hmmmm. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at ... Check out my site: http://pageswirl.com/rotate.php?user=trnetworks [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 14:00:46 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:00:46 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: <42179C74.15416.8DD33F@localhost> Message-ID: Sherry Gomes wrote: > > > > > > > Another point is, what will be the cut off? With eh > > > > variety of time zones represented on HPFGU, how can it > > > > probably be enforced? > Tammy again: > As for what was really meant, yes, I can see the problem, too. I was assuming that it would > be either figured from midnight at GMT (Goblins' Magical Time), or it would be each poster > according to their own midnight. Hmmmm. Actually, it wouldn't be too hard at all. You simply say that nobody can post more than x times in any 24 hours. If the magic number is 3, then you look at the third last post you wrote and if it's less than 24 hours ago you can't post. If it's more than 24 hours ago you can. That's not too hard for the list elves, either. If you've got 4 posts from one poster on one or two most recent pages on the site, you check their timing, and send an off-list reminder if necessary. It really wouldn't be hard. Dungrollin From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 20 16:10:18 2005 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:10:18 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU References: Message-ID: <003a01c51766$ac800020$c359aacf@...> Dungrollin, on checking/implementing a posting limit given global time zones: > Actually, it wouldn't be too hard at all. You simply say that > nobody can post more than x times in any 24 hours. If the magic > number is 3, then you look at the third last post you wrote and if > it's less than 24 hours ago you can't post. If it's more than 24 > hours ago you can. > > That's not too hard for the list elves, either. If you've got 4 > posts from one poster on one or two most recent pages on the site, > you check their timing, and send an off-list reminder if necessary. > It really wouldn't be hard. >From Murphy's Law, Book Three, by Arthur Bloch (1982): McGee's First Law: It's amazing how long it takes to complete something you are not working on. My point is amusement at the easy assumption that the time and/or steps involved would be easy for all relevant parties. I'm not saying it may not be workable; the point is, you're making a call without full understanding of the time already required, so making categorical "it would be easy" statements is unfair to the ones you're volunteering for this extra work. I include posters in this, too, because for some, having to go back and check when their last post(s) were would be an effort, depending on their computer setups and/or posting situations. My personal take is (1) our list volume is largely due to the sheer number of people on the list, and very much less due to a handful of individual posters cluttering it up. (2) the elves already monitor *egregious* instances of list-spam-behavior. (3) listmembers have the capability to read subject lines, *and* the technology to delete them unread, so putting the burden of controlling the flow on the list administration, when it is entirely within the power of individual listmembers to control which they choose to *read,* seems a little self-centered. Why should the content of the list be affected (and it will be) by making it harder for active posters to "portion out" their posts, and likely diluting the percentage of really engaging posts, just so people don't have to delete so much? ~Amanda From naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 21 12:48:01 2005 From: naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:48:01 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: <003a01c51766$ac800020$c359aacf@...> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" > > My personal take is > (1) our list volume is largely due to the sheer number of people on the list, and very much less due to a handful of individual posters cluttering it up. > (2) the elves already monitor *egregious* instances of list-spam- behavior. > (3) listmembers have the capability to read subject lines, *and* the technology to delete them unread, so putting the burden of controlling the flow on the list administration, when it is entirely within the power of individual listmembers to control which they choose to *read,* seems a little self-centered. Why should the content of the list be affected (and it will be) by making it harder for active posters to "portion out" their posts, and likely diluting the percentage of really engaging posts, just so people don't have >to delete so much? > I don't think that the daily quoat measure was suggested in order to cut down the list volume, but to improve list quality. A lot of the posts are not well thought out or well researched (mostly, both). When I see several posts from one listee, I tend to not read any of them - which is a pity. Three or so posts a day is plenty - I don't think it will have an adverse effect on the flow, but will encourage people to think a bit more about what they're writing. As for the technical side (counting posts each day, etc.): why do we have to be so anal about it? Why not announce the new rule, and then see whether there are listees who consistently break this rule? This can be done via weekly averages rather than counting posts daily. The checks can be done fairly randomly too, or based on impression. Often people will post several posts one after another - so it's easy to visually see that they're in excess. The important thing is not that no one ever posts more than 3 posts a day, but that *on average* people don't post more than 3 posts a day. Naama From stonehenge.orders at kjirstem.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 21 21:21:55 2005 From: stonehenge.orders at kjirstem.yahoo.invalid (kjirstem) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:21:55 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Becky wrote: >What if the house elves came up with the basic posts they can foresee >a couple of days before the ban was up and posted them. ... Not brand >new theory type questions. I'm not suggesting that they be allowed >to answer them either. I'm just suggesting that they put up the very >basic, very open question. Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > > TWO-WEEK BREAK/HOT QUESTIONS LIST > I would still love to hear more feedback on a two-week "off" period > (not a moratorium on joining but on posting) after HBP's release, > as well as thoughts on Becky's suggestion of a just-before-going-live > list of expected-to-be-FAQs for the new book. > kjirstem: For what it's worth, I like the two weeks off post-HBP idea. After waiting a couple years I'm going to take my time reading the book. (That's my intent, anyway.) The only issue I can see is that people might go elsewhere to discuss their ideas, at least for awhile. I expect all the same topics would come up around here anyway. I guess there may be some people who don't come back when the list re-opens. So, some potential list members are lost. But you know, I'm pretty sure I've seen a similar policy on other groups before and I respected that there was some thought going into managing a transient issue. On Becky's idea, reading her post I thought she meant something more like the start of a thread rather than FAQ's in a file. Either way, seems like a useful idea to me. And congratulations on your elf-hood, SSSusan! From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 00:18:31 2005 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:18:31 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <421B1507.17764.A9F12DF@localhost> I am yet another new elf, but am speaking here entirely of my own personal views. Speaking personally, I am decidedly not in favour of postings being blocked for the two weeks after the release of HBP. I've been thinking a lot about this, and personally I think it is rather a discriminatory policy. I will read Half Blood Prince the day it is released (unless something dramatic happens to stop me - which isn't impossible). By the time a two week posting hiatus finishes, therefore, a period of around 13 days will have passed in which the knowledge of the novel will become far less fresh for me, and I almost certainly will have forgotten many of the points I would be interested in raising. Other people will take the full two weeks to read the book, so they will have everything fresh in their mind. So first of all, the idea of closing the list for two weeks is, in my view, discriminatory against those who read the fastest - because they will experience a much larger gap between the time they finish the book, and the time they will be able to start discussing it on HPFGU. Second issue, somewhat related. Half Blood Prince is due for release 16th July 2005. Therefore any posting moratorium would presumably last until 30th July 2005. Now, as I understand it, these dates are generally during school holidays in both the US and the UK (somebody can correct me if I am wrong on that). Well, for those of us in Australia, the situation is a little different. It differs from state to state here. In my state (Victoria) both dates dates are during school term. This is also true for the states of Queensland and Tasmania. For other states and territories of Australia in Australia, the first date is in the school holidays, the second date is after students return to school. So a two week hiatus policy would have the effect of ensuring that many Australians would have no chance to post about the book during a school holiday period, while most people in America and the United Kingdom will. This doesn't effect everyone, of course, because for many people school holidays are utterly irrelevant - but as people have apparently identified a pattern of people joining more and posting more during the Northern Hemisphere's summer school holiday periods, it certainly seems to me that those dates are of relevance in considering any policy changes. By the same token, the proposal I have seen to shut the list completely to new members during the northern summer has the effect of being discriminatory in favour of those of us in the southern hemisphere - because while northerners would be prevented from signing up during their summer holidays, us southerners wouldn't be. I am not saying these issues should necessarily be fatal to the ideas proposed - but I do think there are real potential issues of discrimination here. And they do affect me personally, I must confess. My mid year break (at University level) runs from the 25th May to the 24th July. In other words, Half Blood Prince is being released a little over a week before the end of my University holidays. So a two week posting hiatus would mean that I am unable to comment on the book during a period I am likely to have time to do so - and the list will reopen just as my classes have started up again. 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 From sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 00:49:48 2005 From: sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:49:48 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: <421B1507.17764.A9F12DF@localhost> Message-ID: <00be01c51878$69c816b0$0400a8c0@pensive> , I agree with this post. I've been thinking about it. When OOTP came out, I hadn't yet heard of HPFGU. I was on a very different list. The list owners asked everyone to be sure to post in the subject line that the message contained spoilers, so people could avoid reading those messages, if they hadn't finished reading the book. I didn't even look at the list folder in my outlook program, till I had finished the book. For the most part, everyone was very good about being sure to mention that there were spoilers. I only remember one person putting the name of the major death in her subject line, and she admitted doing it on purpose just because she didn't like being told to use spoiler space. (the list had a lot of kids.) anyway, I think that everyone on HPFGU is mature and considerate of each other. they always indicate spoilers when they post stuff off the JKR web site, if there's new info. maybe, the elves could ask everyone to be careful of what they put in their subject lines, for a specified period of time--such as one week, or two weeks. So, if so and so dies, nobody would post a message with the subject, guess what, so and so died! In that way, people could avoid reading messages about HBP till they were ready, but people who read quickly and wanted to start talking could do that. I remember when OOTP came out, I was longing to discuss it with other adult fans. I didn't know about HPFGU, and I wasn't happy with the mostly young teenager messages on the list I was on. I would have loved to have found HPFGU at the time that it was released. But if I'd been told I couldn't join or discuss the book for two weeks, I would probably not have bothered to join at all. Sherry -----Original Message----- From: Shaun Hately [mailto:drednort at ....au] Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 5:19 PM To: HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU I am yet another new elf, but am speaking here entirely of my own personal views. Speaking personally, I am decidedly not in favour of postings being blocked for the two weeks after the release of HBP. I've been thinking a lot about this, and personally I think it is rather a discriminatory policy. I will read Half Blood Prince the day it is released (unless something dramatic happens to stop me - which isn't impossible). By the time a two week posting hiatus finishes, therefore, a period of around 13 days will have passed in which the knowledge of the novel will become far less fresh for me, and I almost certainly will have forgotten many of the points I would be interested in raising. Other people will take the full two weeks to read the book, so they will have everything fresh in their mind. So first of all, the idea of closing the list for two weeks is, in my view, discriminatory against those who read the fastest - because they will experience a much larger gap between the time they finish the book, and the time they will be able to start discussing it on HPFGU. Second issue, somewhat related. Half Blood Prince is due for release 16th July 2005. Therefore any posting moratorium would presumably last until 30th July 2005. Now, as I understand it, these dates are generally during school holidays in both the US and the UK (somebody can correct me if I am wrong on that). Well, for those of us in Australia, the situation is a little different. It differs from state to state here. In my state (Victoria) both dates dates are during school term. This is also true for the states of Queensland and Tasmania. For other states and territories of Australia in Australia, the first date is in the school holidays, the second date is after students return to school. So a two week hiatus policy would have the effect of ensuring that many Australians would have no chance to post about the book during a school holiday period, while most people in America and the United Kingdom will. This doesn't effect everyone, of course, because for many people school holidays are utterly irrelevant - but as people have apparently identified a pattern of people joining more and posting more during the Northern Hemisphere's summer school holiday periods, it certainly seems to me that those dates are of relevance in considering any policy changes. By the same token, the proposal I have seen to shut the list completely to new members during the northern summer has the effect of being discriminatory in favour of those of us in the southern hemisphere - because while northerners would be prevented from signing up during their summer holidays, us southerners wouldn't be. I am not saying these issues should necessarily be fatal to the ideas proposed - but I do think there are real potential issues of discrimination here. And they do affect me personally, I must confess. My mid year break (at University level) runs from the 25th May to the 24th July. In other words, Half Blood Prince is being released a little over a week before the end of my University holidays. So a two week posting hiatus would mean that I am unable to comment on the book during a period I am likely to have time to do so - and the list will reopen just as my classes have started up again. 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 Yahoo! Groups Links From Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 01:22:28 2005 From: Aisbelmon at valkyrievixen.yahoo.invalid (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:22:28 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: <421B1507.17764.A9F12DF@localhost> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > Speaking personally, I am decidedly not in favour of postings > being blocked for the two weeks after the release of HBP. I've > been thinking a lot about this, and personally I think it is > rather a discriminatory policy. > > So first of all, the idea of closing the list for two weeks is, in > my view, discriminatory against those who read the fastest - > because they will experience a much larger gap between the time > they finish the book, and the time they will be able to start > discussing it on HPFGU. > Valky: That will be me too Shaun. Though I have said I am willing to sit on my hands for two weeks for the sake of the list, I completely relate to the worry that you're expressing. My copy of HBP will be finished in under 12hrs. > Second issue, somewhat related. > > Half Blood Prince is due for release 16th July 2005. Therefore any > posting moratorium would presumably last until 30th July 2005. > So a two week hiatus policy would have the effect of ensuring that > many Australians would have no chance to post about the book > during a school holiday period, while most people in America and > the United Kingdom will. > Valky: Ahhhh! Oh no that's true! Our holidays only *last* two weeks because it's winter here then.... hmmm I am now thinking that over again... Shaun: > I am not saying these issues should necessarily be fatal to the > ideas proposed - but I do think there are real potential issues of > discrimination here. > > And they do affect me personally, I must confess. My mid year > break (at University level) runs from the 25th May to the 24th > July. > > In other words, Half Blood Prince is being released a little over > a week before the end of my University holidays. > Valky: HBP is released in the middle of my two week midyear break which ends on the 28th. I will be back to study by then, and my holidays will have been spent not being able to post. I am beginning to agree with Shaun, although I can be patient I really don't want to utterly miss out. From tonyaminton at tonyaminton.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 14:32:33 2005 From: tonyaminton at tonyaminton.yahoo.invalid (tonyaminton) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:32:33 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: <421B1507.17764.A9F12DF@localhost> Message-ID: Dreadnought, I am glad to hear that you are an elf. Your views I have found over the years I agree with along with your opinions. Welcome to elf hood!! I have been following this thread with much interest, although I have not put in my 2 knuts. I also feel it would be discriminatory to block posting and new members to the group after HBP. I love the flood of posts right after a book comes out. In my opinion is that we need to make it clear to both old and new members that rudeness and inconsideration will not be tolerated to the point of zero tolerance. Where people get banded from posting for a cool down period. Would it be possible to set up a poll and ask everyone to vote on a short list of ways to handle the boards after the release of HBP?? I am sure someone already thought of that, if so I am for it!! Tonya --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > I am yet another new elf, but am speaking here entirely of my own > personal views. > > Speaking personally, I am decidedly not in favour of postings being > blocked for the two weeks after the release of HBP. I've been > thinking a lot about this, and personally I think it is rather a > discriminatory policy. > > I will read Half Blood Prince the day it is released (unless > something dramatic happens to stop me - which isn't impossible). By > the time a two week posting hiatus finishes, therefore, a period of > around 13 days will have passed in which the knowledge of the novel > will become far less fresh for me, and I almost certainly will have > forgotten many of the points I would be interested in raising. > > Other people will take the full two weeks to read the book, so they > will have everything fresh in their mind. > > So first of all, the idea of closing the list for two weeks is, in > my view, discriminatory against those who read the fastest - > because they will experience a much larger gap between the time > they finish the book, and the time they will be able to start > discussing it on HPFGU. > > Second issue, somewhat related. > > Half Blood Prince is due for release 16th July 2005. Therefore any > posting moratorium would presumably last until 30th July 2005. > > Now, as I understand it, these dates are generally during school > holidays in both the US and the UK (somebody can correct me if I am > wrong on that). > > Well, for those of us in Australia, the situation is a little > different. It differs from state to state here. In my state > (Victoria) both dates dates are during school term. This is also > true for the states of Queensland and Tasmania. > > For other states and territories of Australia in Australia, the > first date is in the school holidays, the second date is after > students return to school. > > So a two week hiatus policy would have the effect of ensuring that > many Australians would have no chance to post about the book during > a school holiday period, while most people in America and the > United Kingdom will. > > This doesn't effect everyone, of course, because for many people > school holidays are utterly irrelevant - but as people have > apparently identified a pattern of people joining more and posting > more during the Northern Hemisphere's summer school holiday > periods, it certainly seems to me that those dates are of relevance > in considering any policy changes. > > By the same token, the proposal I have seen to shut the list > completely to new members during the northern summer has the effect > of being discriminatory in favour of those of us in the southern > hemisphere - because while northerners would be prevented from > signing up during their summer holidays, us southerners wouldn't > be. > > I am not saying these issues should necessarily be fatal to the > ideas proposed - but I do think there are real potential issues of > discrimination here. > > And they do affect me personally, I must confess. My mid year break > (at University level) runs from the 25th May to the 24th July. > > In other words, Half Blood Prince is being released a little over a > week before the end of my University holidays. > > So a two week posting hiatus would mean that I am unable to comment > on the book during a period I am likely to have time to do so - and > the list will reopen just as my classes have started up again. > > > Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought > Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html > (ISTJ) | drednort at a... | 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 From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 15:26:05 2005 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:26:05 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: <421B1507.17764.A9F12DF@localhost> Message-ID: As Yahoo ate my post and I'm working, I'll be brief. All opinions in here are solely my own. Super Post Combine Power--Activate! > Shaun: > I will read Half Blood Prince the day it is released (unless > something dramatic happens to stop me - which isn't impossible). By > the time a two week posting hiatus finishes, therefore, a period of > around 13 days will have passed in which the knowledge of the novel > will become far less fresh for me, and I almost certainly will have > forgotten many of the points I would be interested in raising. May I kindly suggest that is what pen and paper or Notepad are for? You could take the time to write out a substantial, well-organized, canon-cited post that covers a number of issues, rather than a lot of short responses. I have, on this list, volunteered to write up the FAQ for the book so we can try to short-circuit the inevitable flood of easily-answerable questions. The material's not going to go away, after all. > And they do affect me personally, I must confess. My mid year break > (at University level) runs from the 25th May to the 24th July. > > In other words, Half Blood Prince is being released a little over a > week before the end of my University holidays. > > So a two week posting hiatus would mean that I am unable to comment > on the book during a period I am likely to have time to do so - and > the list will reopen just as my classes have started up again. Well, I have a personal stake as well: I will be studying for comprehensives *all summer*. As I plan on being rather active in trying to keep the list from degenerating into sheer anarchy, a break would be very nice to have time to process everything and spread out the flood of commentary. We can't make everyone happy, alas. > Tonya: > > I also feel it would be discriminatory to block posting and new > members to the group after HBP. I love the flood of posts right > after a book comes out. You may; but have a thought for what has to happen to manage that flood. It was tough enough to keep up reading, but to elf that must have been insane. > In my opinion is that we need to make it clear to both old and new > members that rudeness and inconsideration will not be tolerated to > the point of zero tolerance. Where people get banded from posting > for a cool down period. The problem with this is is that it's not really tone issues alone that we're dealing with. For instance, this post of yours which I am responding to was top-posted--which is surely in the category of 'inconsiderate' per posting regulations, but isn't 'rude' in the sense per se. I do expect tempers to flare as I expect a very specific set of idols to be smashed--but that's a different animal than the inevitable lack of snipping, top-posting, poor citation, one-liners, me-toos, frivolous questions, etc. Frankly, I suspect most newbies who join in the rush would not really bother to READ what is sent out to them in their excitement, which means a lot more work in pendings. A cool- off period and the publication of a FAQ might do something to help this. (I'm not sure what a 'banded' member would look like, either...:) Perhaps one week, rather than two? -Nora gets back to cataloging sequences From ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 16:46:59 2005 From: ms-tamany at tamanynoon.yahoo.invalid (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:46:59 -0500 Subject: Polls; Hiatus timing difficulties and a possible solution (was: What Price Success?) In-Reply-To: References: <421B1507.17764.A9F12DF@localhost> Message-ID: <421B1BB3.10767.779545C@localhost> > Tonya: > Would it be possible to set up a poll and ask everyone to vote on a > short list of ways to handle the boards after the release of HBP?? I > am sure someone already thought of that, if so I am for it!! Tammy Rizzo: I had thought about a poll, but I think that, in all fairness, the ideas being polled should first be explained to the list in general, in as glowing, advertising-blitz terms as possible. For instance, in trying to 'sell' the two-week break, we could emphasise the fact that people could certainly use the time off from posting to read, RE-read, and digest the book, and that they should take notes of interesting thoughts that strike them at first read, and again at second read, and that they can use the time off to thoughtfully compose their impressions into text files, ready to cut and paste to the list on re-opening day. Also, and this would be the MAJOR point, I think, it would level the playing field between fast readers and theorisors and slow ones. I know I was crushed, nay, DEVASTATED to log in, ready to send in my wonderful theories after OOP, only to find that they'd all, *every* *single* *one* of them, already been posted and picked to pieces before I'd even had the chance to finish my book. That's just not right. Three days into this HUGE book's release, NEW canon, EVERYBODY is on unfamiliar ground, and I log in and already I'm a mere, worthless, 'me-too' wannabee?! I read as fast as I could! Three days and it's all old hat?! Giving everyone the same amount of time to thoroughly ponder their ideas, to research if they will, to take notes and expand and expound upon them, to write, re-write, polish and perfect their thoughts and theories, can ONLY be beneficial to all. It is certainly not discriminatory against anyone, and is definitely not a penalty against faster readers -- in fact, they'll benefit by having even MORE time to craft their posts! Also, it would allow new members joining up immediately after HBP to wander through the archives and the Humongous Big File and the Fantastic Posts and all those wonderful things, and get a feel for the group without being FLOODED by fresh posts right off the bat. As for the proposed hiatus' timing and it's impact on our southern members, whose schedules are so reversed from ours (especially Australia/NZ/etc, who are practically opposite GMT) . . . well, there's a wonderful little freebie program called 'iOpus BEEE' (for Windows; Better Email-Enable Everything, by iOpus software company, with whom I'm NOT affiliated) that can send text files to selected email addresses on a timer, so you could type up your posts and set the program to mail your messages right out as soon as the list is re- opened, and you wouldn't have to stay up until 0-dark:30 to post to the list, or suffer for it in class the next morning. You could even set this timer several days ahead of time, and not have to worry about missing the re-opening at all. I've used this program myself, for such things as 'email your vote every hour' polls, and it works fine. BEEE even opens a dial-up connection if needed, and closes it afterward, and can use its own smtp sevice as well, if required. Wonderful little timesaver. I think it would be just the thing, along with everyone pre-writing their posts, to remedy the 'left out' feelings from down under. I mean, I'm positive that all these well-thought-out, painstakingly constructed, wonderful posts from Shaun and others aren't COMPOSED on the website posting page. They MUST have been written as a text file first -- my Yahoo login doesn't LAST long enough for me to compose such posts before it logs me off and I lose everything in the posting page. It's simple, it's fair, and with BEEE (found at http://www.iopus.com/freeware/beee/index.htm) there would be no time difference to really worry about. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at ... Check out my site: http://pageswirl.com/rotate.php?user=trnetworks [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonyaminton at tonyaminton.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 19:29:58 2005 From: tonyaminton at tonyaminton.yahoo.invalid (tonyaminton) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:29:58 -0000 Subject: Polls; Hiatus timing difficulties and a possible solution (was: What Price Success?) In-Reply-To: <421B1BB3.10767.779545C@localhost> Message-ID: > Tammy Rizzo: > I had thought about a poll, but I think that, in all fairness, the ideas being polled should first > be explained to the list in general, in as glowing, advertising- blitz terms as possible. For > instance, in trying to 'sell' the two-week break, we could emphasise the fact that people > could certainly use the time off from posting to read, RE-read, and digest the book, and that > they should take notes of interesting thoughts that strike them at first read, and again at > second read, and that they can use the time off to thoughtfully compose their impressions > into text files, ready to cut and paste to the list on re-opening day. Also, and this would be > the MAJOR point, I think, it would level the playing field between fast readers and theorisors > and slow ones. I know I was crushed, nay, DEVASTATED to log in, ready to send in my > wonderful theories after OOP, only to find that they'd all, *every* *single* *one* of them, > already been posted and picked to pieces before I'd even had the chance to finish my book. > That's just not right. Three days into this HUGE book's release, NEW canon, EVERYBODY > is on unfamiliar ground, and I log in and already I'm a mere, worthless, 'me-too' wannabee?! > I read as fast as I could! Three days and it's all old hat?! Giving everyone the same > amount of time to thoroughly ponder their ideas, to research if they will, to take notes and > expand and expound upon them, to write, re-write, polish and perfect their thoughts and > theories, can ONLY be beneficial to all. It is certainly not discriminatory against anyone, > and is definitely not a penalty against faster readers -- in fact, they'll benefit by having even > MORE time to craft their posts! Also, it would allow new members joining up immediately > after HBP to wander through the archives and the Humongous Big File and the Fantastic > Posts and all those wonderful things, and get a feel for the group without being FLOODED > by fresh posts right off the bat. > > As for the proposed hiatus' timing and it's impact on our southern members, whose > schedules are so reversed from ours (especially Australia/NZ/etc, who are practically > opposite GMT) . . . well, there's a wonderful little freebie program called 'iOpus BEEE' (for > Windows; Better Email-Enable Everything, by iOpus software company, with whom I'm NOT > affiliated) that can send text files to selected email addresses on a timer, so you could type > up your posts and set the program to mail your messages right out as soon as the list is re- > opened, and you wouldn't have to stay up until 0-dark:30 to post to the list, or suffer for it in > class the next morning. You could even set this timer several days ahead of time, and not > have to worry about missing the re-opening at all. I've used this program myself, for such > things as 'email your vote every hour' polls, and it works fine. BEEE even opens a dial-up > connection if needed, and closes it afterward, and can use its own smtp sevice as well, if > required. Wonderful little timesaver. I think it would be just the thing, along with everyone > pre-writing their posts, to remedy the 'left out' feelings from down under. I mean, I'm > positive that all these well-thought-out, painstakingly constructed, wonderful posts from > Shaun and others aren't COMPOSED on the website posting page. They MUST have been > written as a text file first -- my Yahoo login doesn't LAST long enough for me to compose > such posts before it logs me off and I lose everything in the posting page. > > It's simple, it's fair, and with BEEE (found at http://www.iopus.com/freeware/beee/index.htm) > there would be no time difference to really worry about. > > *** > Tammy Rizzo > ms-tamany at r... > Check out my site: http://pageswirl.com/rotate.php?user=trnetworks > Now Tonya: Tammy, I couldn't cut any of your post, what a fantastic post. You have a different perspective and I think that is what this feedback list is for. I am sure that the elfs and the owners will come up with a solution to level the playing field on the main list. I know they are reading everyone opinions and they will take it into consideration. Tonya From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 22:32:17 2005 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 09:32:17 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: References: <421B1507.17764.A9F12DF@localhost> Message-ID: <421C4DA1.29956.F639AE0@localhost> On 22 Feb 2005 at 15:26, nrenka wrote: > > > As Yahoo ate my post and I'm working, I'll be brief. All opinions in > here are solely my own. > > Super Post Combine Power--Activate! > > > Shaun: > > I will read Half Blood Prince the day it is released (unless > > something dramatic happens to stop me - which isn't impossible). By > > the time a two week posting hiatus finishes, therefore, a period of > > around 13 days will have passed in which the knowledge of the novel > > will become far less fresh for me, and I almost certainly will have > > forgotten many of the points I would be interested in raising. > > May I kindly suggest that is what pen and paper or Notepad are for? > You could take the time to write out a substantial, well-organized, > canon-cited post that covers a number of issues, rather than a lot of > short responses. I have, on this list, volunteered to write up the > FAQ for the book so we can try to short-circuit the inevitable flood > of easily-answerable questions. The material's not going to go away, > after all. Pen, paper, or Notepad don't addresss the issue. I want to be able to discuss the books in the immediate aftermath of reading them - not have to wait two weeks to some completely arbitrary date (and any such date is arbitrary - there's no natural magic about two weeks). I may well write out a substantial, well-organised, canon- citing post that covers a number of issues, but even if I do that, such a post will likely be ready for posting by the Monday after the book is released. Being forced to wait another twelve days to post that, means that by the time it is posted and possibly discussed, the books will be less fresh in my mind, and my ability to discuss them will be less than it was at the time I wrote the initial post. If we're worried about list quality, I have to say I consider that you're likely to get rather mixed results by a policy that for some posters at least will mean they are trying to discuss books two weeks after they have read them, rather than two days after they have read them. I think the FAQ is a great idea for answering fairly straightforward questions that arise and tend to go around and around in circles, and that is something I think that is very worthwhile doing. But I suppose that I would say I think a 'quality list' comes from two broad places. The lowest possible number of 'low quality' posts, and the highest possible number of 'high quality' posts. A two week hiatus *might* have a positive effect by reducing the former. The problem is, I think it is likely to have a negative effect by reducing the latter over the medium term. I'm not going to say I'm a good poster, because it's not my place to say that, but I am certainly someone who has, in the past written some 'substantial' posts that I think were at least moderately well organised, and which required a lot of research in both canon and non-canon sources. Astronomy, whether or not there really was a Vauxhall Road in London, and the place of Hogwarts within the context of British public schools, are the ones that come first to my mind. So I certainly have no bias against the idea of such posts, and I would love to see more of them. *However*, even if a two week hiatus means that you get more substantial, well-organised posts in, say, the three days after the list reopened, I suspect that after that, you'll be dealing with the problem that many of the people who wrote those posts during that two week hiatus to post at the end of it, will find themselves in a situation where they are less able to expand upon, or defend their ideas, because the books are not as fresh in their mind as they were when they originally completed their post. The list is a discussion list - it's not just a place for people to throw a post out into the ether, and forget about it. At least I don't think it is. Anything that means those posters who produce 'substantial, well- organised' posts are in less of an ideal position to enlarge upon their ideas if asked, to defend their ideas if challenged, or to accept alternative evidence and change their ideas if such evidence is presented, does not seem like to enhance the quality of the list. And forcing people to wait two weeks so things are less fresh in their heads will serve for a least some people, to place them in that less ideal position. There's also the issue that, say, 20 people decide to write detailed, substantial, well-organised posts over the two week break and to post them on the day the list reopens. So on the 30th of July, 20 3,000 word essays hit the list. How many of those are likely to get read and get decent responses? Especially as there are very likely to be dozens or hundreds of smaller posts. A two week hiatus, in my view, is likely to ensure that any 'high quality' posts (however you define the term - there may be several parallel definitions, and this may apply to all of them at once) will hit the list within a 6 to 12 hour period, as opposed to over the course of a couple of weeks (or longer - the enforced hiatus period may mean people find time to write long posts that wouldn't have been written for a month or two if the list had been open, because they would have been more busy reading). That is likely to lead to any number of 'quality posts' being ignored, or lost, and it becomes less likely that many of their authors will bother to write such posts in the future. If people don't respond to your substantial well-organised post - and you can see short snippet posts getting lots of responses - your much less likely to bother next time. There's also the factor that at least some of the people who write substantial posts will have other places to post them (and those who currently don't, may well decide to look for somewhere else if there is an imposed hiatus on HPFGU). If I decide to write a substantial post on 'Half Blood Prince' I have other places I can easily post it. Even if I posted it to HPFGU after the end of a hiatus (and I probably would do so), by that stage, I've likely already chewed the meat off a lot of the points that could have been discussed about it, so even if it attracts comment on HPFGU, I am less likely to want to repeat myself in detail about issues I'd addressed elsewhere a week earlier. Now, because I have committed to trying to help HPFGU, I would do my best to still take the time to post there in a reasonable fashion, and do my best to keep the list running well, doing what I think I can for 'quality'. But the fact remains that the quality of the list in general is not likely, in my view, to be improved, if, when it comes to substantial, first-impression type posts about HBP, HPFGU has become a place to simply reiterate points the posters may have made a week earlier in another place. > > > > > And they do affect me personally, I must confess. My mid year break > > (at University level) runs from the 25th May to the 24th July. > > > > In other words, Half Blood Prince is being released a little over a > > week before the end of my University holidays. > > > > So a two week posting hiatus would mean that I am unable to comment > > on the book during a period I am likely to have time to do so - and > > the list will reopen just as my classes have started up again. > > Well, I have a personal stake as well: I will be studying for > comprehensives *all summer*. As I plan on being rather active in > trying to keep the list from degenerating into sheer anarchy, a break > would be very nice to have time to process everything and spread out > the flood of commentary. We can't make everyone happy, alas. No, we can't. But we have no control over the publication date of the book, so any problems that are created for people because they will be studing all summer, are totally outside HPFGU's control. HPFGU however *does* have complete control over whether or not there is some sort of posting hiatus - and therefore should affect responsibility for decisions of that nature that will discriminate against certain people. When I started writing my post yesterday, I hadn't even considered my own university term dates. I had considered the fact that it potentially would cause problems for the residents of five of Australia's eight states and territories. I was actually assuming at the time it wouldn't make any difference to me, because I'm in Victoria and both dates are in school term here - it only occurred to me as I was nearing completion of my post that university dates only roughly match school dates. So that's when I checked, and found it does make a difference for me. So I put that in in one example. 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 From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 22 23:20:29 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:20:29 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU References: <421B1507.17764.A9F12DF@localhost> <421C4DA1.29956.F639AE0@localhost> Message-ID: <002101c51935$199f2b70$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> SSSusan, postin' nekkid again from my non-elfy computer chair. Shaun said: >> But I suppose that I would say I think a 'quality list' comes from two broad places. The lowest possible number of 'low quality' posts, and the highest possible number of 'high quality' posts. A two week hiatus *might* have a positive effect by reducing the former. The problem is, I think it is likely to have a negative effect by reducing the latter over the medium term. So on the 30th of July, 20 3,000 word essays hit the list. How many of those are likely to get read and get decent responses? Especially as there are very likely to be dozens or hundreds of smaller posts. A two week hiatus, in my view, is likely to ensure that any 'high quality' posts (however you define the term - there may be several parallel definitions, and this may apply to all of them at once) will hit the list within a 6 to 12 hour period, as opposed to over the course of a couple of weeks (or longer.... << SSSusan: Then there's at least one simple solution. Make the hiatus shorter than 2 weeks but still a hiatus long enough to ensure: a) *most* readers have had time to read HBP; and b) Admin has had ample time to read *and* prepare for the onslaught. Admin last time had a 45-hour hiatus. Perhaps something *between* the two lengths of time would be a happy medium? Shaun: There's also the factor that at least some of the people who write substantial posts will have other places to post them (and those who currently don't, may well decide to look for somewhere else if there is an imposed hiatus on HPFGU). If I decide to write a substantial post on 'Half Blood Prince' I have other places I can easily post it. Even if I posted it to HPFGU after the end of a hiatus (and I probably would do so), by that stage, I've likely already chewed the meat off a lot of the points that could have been discussed about it, so even if it attracts comment on HPFGU, I am less likely to want to repeat myself in detail about issues I'd addressed elsewhere a week earlier. SSSusan: Nothing would prevent you from doing this. In fact, HPfGU might *benefit* from it. If you post elsewhere because you're raring to go and have a terrific post all formulated... and you do post elsewhere... and you get some great feedback... and you spend some time re-visiting the text, rethinking your position, etc.... then aren't you in PERFECT position to be able to whip off a *more* finely crafted version once HPfGU comes up? In fact, if the other place you would have been posting happens to be smaller than the 13k+ HPfGU, you might be really excited to be presenting a polished version of your super-duper post to a larger audience. Just my two knuts. Siriusly Snapey Susan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 23 00:19:33 2005 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda Geist) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:19:33 -0000 Subject: No list closure for the wrong reasons In-Reply-To: <421B1BB3.10767.779545C@localhost> Message-ID: Tammy: >I think that, in all fairness, the ideas being polled should first > be explained to the list in general, in as glowing, advertising- blitz terms as possible. I think you have just destroyed any possibility of fairness by stating your intent to influence the outcome. > For > instance, in trying to 'sell' the two-week break, Polls are not for "selling." Polls are for gathering information. > we could emphasise the fact that people > could certainly use the time off from posting to read, RE-read, and digest the book, and that > they should take notes of interesting thoughts that strike them at first read, and again at > second read, and that they can use the time off to thoughtfully compose their impressions > into text files, ready to cut and paste to the list on re-opening day. You can't legislate to people how they should enjoy their books. If that's the way you like to do it, be my guest, but what if it's not my style? That's not fair to others, who may experience the books, analyze them, build theories, etc., in an entirely different manner than you do. What sounds ideal to you, may sound like a horrible homework nightmare to them. > Also, and this would be > the MAJOR point, I think, it would level the playing field between fast readers and theorisors > and slow ones. I know I was crushed, nay, DEVASTATED to log in, ready to send in my > wonderful theories after OOP, only to find that they'd all, *every* *single* *one* of them, > already been posted and picked to pieces before I'd even had the chance to finish my book. > That's just not right. Three days into this HUGE book's release, NEW canon, EVERYBODY > is on unfamiliar ground, and I log in and already I'm a mere, worthless, 'me-too' wannabee?! Okay. By this logic, we should delay any discussion until the book has been made available in all the countries in which we have members. Because it's not *fair* if some countries' members get to read it before others. Also Braille. We need to wait until any blind members of our list have had a chance to read it as well. Anyone know when the Braille edition comes out? Oh, and audiobooks. Some blind members may prefer to listen rather than to go through the difficulty of obtaining a Braille edition. Why not just go whole-hog and make a checklist of all 13,000+ members, and require they all log in and certify that they've finished reading, before we allow discussion? So you didn't get to post something first. So the hell WHAT? With a very few exceptions, NOBODY currently on this list EVER posted anything first. It is a hallmark and standard of this list from as long as I can remember, that we allow new members to come in as excited as we were, bubbling over with enthusiasm, and post away about their discoveries. We prefer that they read things, sure, because after the first six or seven repeats of a theory, it's hard to respond politely, but the high road has always been to allow new members the same excitement and feeling of joy at finding a forum that we all experienced. It has also been a hallmark of this list that it should remain open, which for all intents and purposes, guarantees varying levels of familiarity with the books. It's not an event, where someone shoots a gun and yells "start." It's an ongoing game, where people come in, play, drop out, etc., constantly and consistently. Based on the nature of the list, and the desire to remain open and accessible above all, I categorically oppose any attempts to restrict posting on HBP for any reason related to "make it fair for everyone." The "fair" part would be spoilers, so nobody is ambushed before they finish. "Fair" to some--by making everyone wait--is manifestly *unfair* to others who prefer to jump in and start playing. If you read more slowly, enjoy the fact that you can savor, unlike people like me who are compelled to know what happens and must hold themselves back from skimming. If you are able to reread and make intelligent notes before you engage in verbal analysis with others, I applaud your restraint--but I don't share it. What you propose only makes it "fairer" for you. I believe there should be a temporary list closure, much like there was for OoP, but a short one, and for only the reason there was before. At least some of the list elves needed to have finished reading the book themselves, so that they could read and approve posts and monitor the list without having the book spoiled for them. I'd give it 48 hours from British release. ~Amanda From saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 23 00:35:52 2005 From: saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid (Saitaina) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:35:52 -0800 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] No list closure for the wrong reasons References: Message-ID: <02bf01c5193f$a2099c20$01fea8c0@...> Amanda wrote: I agree. I worked as an elf during the time of the OoTP release and it was nice to have the short respite for the elves to read the book before we were plunged into chaos but keeping it short enough that the list members were doing little dances in their eagerness to post (that is an odd mental image...) No offense but you guys think it's bad for you guys to read the list and post and whatever during a release, try being an elf. I didn't even get a chance (or time) to formulate theories and questions before my ideas were blown out of the water (or discussed to death). Saitaina **** "You may now kiss the. . . groom in a dress." "If you're going to sing in the shower, don't start with a song that begins with 'help'." http://www.livejournal.com/users/saitaina [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 23 00:45:06 2005 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:45:06 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] No list closure for the wrong reasons In-Reply-To: References: <421B1BB3.10767.779545C@localhost> Message-ID: <421C6CC2.15824.FDD3945@localhost> On 23 Feb 2005 at 0:19, Amanda Geist wrote: > I believe there should be a temporary list closure, much like there > was for OoP, but a short one, and for only the reason there was > before. At least some of the list elves needed to have finished > reading the book themselves, so that they could read and approve > posts and monitor the list without having the book spoiled for them. > I'd give it 48 hours from British release. Yes, and I should say, that to me that type of closure makes complete sense - although I must say, I'm not sure about 48 hours. I might bring my concerns about that up elsewhere. I agree that the elves certainly deserve a chance to read the book without spoilers and that pretty much necessitates some sort of delay, until some can be available to respond. 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 From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 23 00:50:22 2005 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda Geist) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:50:22 -0000 Subject: No list closure for the wrong reasons In-Reply-To: <421C6CC2.15824.FDD3945@localhost> Message-ID: Amanda Geist wrote: > > > I believe there should be a temporary list closure, much like there > > was for OoP, but a short one, and for only the reason there was > > before. At least some of the list elves needed to have finished > > reading the book themselves, so that they could read and approve > > posts and monitor the list without having the book spoiled for them. > > I'd give it 48 hours from British release. Shaun said > Yes, and I should say, that to me that type of closure makes > complete sense - although I must say, I'm not sure about 48 hours. > I might bring my concerns about that up elsewhere. I agree that the > elves certainly deserve a chance to read the book without spoilers > and that pretty much necessitates some sort of delay, until some > can be available to respond. As I recall, there was discussion on MEG, and that was the time period we came up with, within which at least three or four of us across various time zones agreed we could have read the book and would be available to service the list. It wasn't an arbitrary selection. The optimal time may vary this time, based on elf availability and time of access to the book after release. ~Amanda From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 23 00:59:14 2005 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:59:14 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: No list closure for the wrong reasons In-Reply-To: References: <421C6CC2.15824.FDD3945@localhost> Message-ID: <421C7012.13182.FEA2673@localhost> On 23 Feb 2005 at 0:50, Amanda Geist wrote: > As I recall, there was discussion on MEG, and that was the time > period we came up with, within which at least three or four of us > across various time zones agreed we could have read the book and > would be available to service the list. It wasn't an arbitrary > selection. The optimal time may vary this time, based on elf > availability and time of access to the book after release. I'm sure it wasn't arbitrary - I'll raise the issues I have a little later - I need to check some things before I post. It may well be they are already things that have been considered. 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 From elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 23 02:30:33 2005 From: elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:30:33 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU References: Message-ID: <025701c5194f$a7076e40$3c02a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP> Thanks to everyone who posted comments. So many people have commented on the same things that instead of quotes, I'll just address each topic. I tried to touch on everything, but I'm sure I missed something. I'm speaking for myself, of course. POSTING LIMITS I was initially uncomfortable with posting limits, but have come around to thinking that a voluntary posting limit (essentially a rule of thumb) is a good idea in the sense that it should motivate people to want to make their posts count, so that they will be more likely to (a) read the entire thread before posting, (b) post only if they have something new to say, and (c) combine all responses on the same topic into a single post. (I tend to find that the longer, combined posts often are more thoughtful and analytical.) In addition to the posting limit itself, amendments to the Humongous Bigfile to encourage (or require) these things would also help improve list quality. I imagine that the 24 hours would be a rolling limit (i.e., has the poster posted more than 3 times in the last 24 hours). And while the elves don't have enough manpower to count everyone's posts, frequent posters are easy to spot. HOW TO COMBINE POSTS Someone mentioned that a "how to" would be very helpful. As someone who was on the list for months before I figured out how to combine, I agree. I have drafted up some language, but it's not quite ready for prime time. BURIAL OF GREAT POSTS IN THE DELUGE One of the motivating factors for establishing a posting limit is to slow the pace at which these posts disappear from the front page. Once that happens, it's not likely to get as much response. Until the catalogue is ready for prime time, there are also two potentially helpful databases in the Database section of the list, which list posts that have been recommended as good reading by a member. It has just come to my attention that Humongous Bigfile does not mention these databases; we're going to fix this in the next revision. More importantly, I would welcome recommendations to add to the databases -- especially well written posts and/or humorous posts containing in-depth analysis, addressing unique theories, etc. I have a list of some of these (which I culled from various sources -- they're not based on my own opinion) that I just haven't been able to add yet, so yours may be on the list, but please contact me or the list owner's mailbox if you have suggestions. CLOSING LIST TO NEW MEMBERSHIP AT HBP RELEASE I understand the concern that newbies can overwhelm the list at peak times. However, probably a lot of us wouldn't be members if the list stopped accepting new members during peak times, as a very high percentage of us joined during peak periods. I'd rather focus on controlling the quality of the posts that do appear (at least the technical quality -- we can't make people write great posts!). For those who weren't around for OOP release, the list was closed for 45 hours, from midnight in the UK on Friday night until Sunday evening. We did not close the list to new members: 100 speedreaders joined on Saturday and an equal number on Sunday before the list reopened. (Our normal join rate is 10-20 per day.) As I recall, 45 hours was selected instead of 48 so that members in Europe would not all be asleep when the list reopened. Among the tools we didn't use at OOP release that we could use more aggressively this time for those who ignore posting rules: remoderating old members (too many people don't read the email account of record for their membership, so they don't see Howlers); withdrawing posting privileges from moderated members until they send us an email confirming that they've read the posting rules and the FAQ. READ-ONLY PERIOD FOR NEWBIES I personally think this is a great idea (though no more than a week, or until they have sent an email confirming that they've read the HBFile and VFAQs). To make this work, though, all members would have to be automatically set to "no posting" and I understand (I do not know this for a fact because I am a Luddite), that Yahoo does not allow this setting to be changed, so that we'd have to migrate to a new list. I do know that new Yahoogroups don't have all the space etc. as the old groups. POSTING HIATUS A two-week no-posting period has been proposed to follow HBP release. A VFAQ would be prepared and released before reopening. I believe such a long hiatus would be a bad thing, for a number of reasons. We would lose some excellent new members, and possibly some excellent old members, to other lists. While HPFGU would certainly thrive with fewer members than it has, fresh members with fresh ideas are the lifeblood of our discussions. I also don't think it would do anything to solve for list volume and repetitiveness. What if everyone prepared 2-3 posts on their most significant thoughts about HBP and they all posted when the list reopened? Instead of members being disappointed because someone has already posted their thought, we might have hundreds of near-simultaneous posts on the same topic. Everyone would instantly be thousands of posts behind, possibly with little inclination to wade through the repetition. It was bad enough when the list reopened last time, even though the slow readers and those that must juggle RL (including myself) had not yet finished reading. I think it's better if the quick readers are allowed to post right away. POSTING AN FAQ BEFORE REOPENING THE LIST The OOP FAQ was published within 3-4 days, and was written for us for someone who was not on the admin team. (We were too busy handling the hundreds of new members each day and the 300 or so pending messages from moderated members.) If we could get a HBP FAQ out within a day or so of reopening the list (otherwise we would strip some sharp-eyed member of the glory of discovering the HBP equivalent of the thestrals!), and insist that people read it, that might be a big help. We can also insist that people do a quick search on Yahoomort before posting their thestral-like questions; it's cumbersome, but not overly so if you're only going back a few hundred posts or so. I remember doing this before making my first post-OOP post. There's also the problem that some of the elves might totally miss some of the big issues, so that whatever we did, the FAQ might be deficient. I had never given a moment's thought to Dumbledore's gleam before I read it in the FAQs here. We would need much help from listmembers to spot things, and even more help to brave Yahoomort and search for previous relevant posts. Many people enjoyed the post-OOP posting frenzy. I admit that I couldn't keep up with the volume, but that was partly because I was spending a lot of my limited spare time on messages from new moderated members, many of whom clearly had not read the posting rules in advance. I wouldn't want to put a damper on everyone's excitement. For those who can't wait even 48 hours to discuss the books, we could allow discussion on OTC. POLLING THE LIST This is definitely an option. I believe we polled the list on closing for OOP. SOLICITING GOOD ANALYSIS One of the suggestions was for (1) tasking some rabble-rousers to post a piece of well-researched analysis each week, (2) special guest posts by HP authors etc., (3) revisiting some old Fantastic Posts, and (4) digests of off-list discussions. Yes, these are good ideas. Anyone want to sign up for #1 or #3? Actually, the listmembers are doing #3 on their own, and adding new questions to refocus the discussion in light of new canon. This has been a very good development, I think. Regarding #2, posting links to provocative articles would also be good, even if we can't drag someone in. We could also ask members to write reviews of new HP articles and books, something that has sometimes sparked discussion in the past. Obviously, #4 would be welcome on the list, too, except we'll have to rely on the people having those discussions to get permission from the participants before posting. And, we are planning new structured discussions now that the Chapter Discussions are finished, to begin very shortly. Finally, I want to thank Kjirstem for directing us to <> There were a couple of excellent points in this post: "2. Once you have a well-established online conversation space, with enough regulars to explain the local mores to newcomers, they'll do a lot of the policing themselves. 7. Things to cherish: Your regulars. A sense of community. Real expertise. Genuine engagement with the subject under discussion. Outstanding performances. Helping others. Cooperation in maintenance of a good conversation. All these things should be rewarded with your attention and praise.>> I think these are quite applicable to HPFGU. For example, many times a thread threatening to get out of hand has been brought back within the rules by a well-placed comment by a regular poster. At the same time, all members can help maintain the sense of community; for example, if you see a great post and have something to add to it, don't forget to compliment the poster. I've often read a post because of a positive downthread reference, even if I wasn't originally interested in the topic. It can get awkward for the elves to highlight great posts on a current basis (except to respond, which is hard to do if we agree) because it might look like favoritism, but other members have no such constraints. Thoughts? More ideas? Rotten tomatoes? All are welcome. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 23 08:03:58 2005 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:03:58 -0000 Subject: What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU In-Reply-To: <025701c5194f$a7076e40$3c02a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP> Message-ID: Debbie: > Thanks to everyone who posted comments. My thanks, too! So much great discussion, so many excellent points made, ideas raised; I'm working on some comments myself, and am going through all the messages, saving bits for comment, and it's taking a little while to get together. ;-) For now, will add some comments to Debbie's below. I've had some ideas for How To Deal with HBP percolating, heh, since we started to recover from OoP, but mostly since last summer; they've gotten refined a bit, and I still have to get them all written down, but here's one: Debbie: > READ-ONLY PERIOD FOR NEWBIES > > I personally think this is a great idea (though no more than a > week, or until they have sent an email confirming that they've read > the HBFile and VFAQs). To make this work, though, all members > would have to be automatically set to "no posting" and I understand > (I do not know this for a fact because I am a Luddite), that Yahoo > does not allow this setting to be changed, so that we'd have to > migrate to a new list. I do know that new Yahoogroups don't have > all the space etc. as the old groups. Yep, Debbie's right on both counts -- first, there's no 'automatic' read-only setting for new members. It can be done manually, member by member, but like Debbie also said, right around the time of OoP we were seeing day after day of 100 - 200 (and more, some days) new members joining. Apart from time list elves spent sending welcome messages, just going through and changing each individual to make them 'read-only' is *considerable*. So, no, not feasible. ;-) Plus, then we'd also have to manually change them so they'd be able to post at the end of the enforced read-only stint ... eesh. But, here's an idea I have: we change the main list from 'open' membership to 'moderated' membership. Open membership groups are those where you can 'walk right in'; moderated membership is like the way Feedback is set up -- you join and your membership is 'pending' until it's waved through. Now, pending members can't read the messages before they're waved in, so that's got to be remedied somehow. To do this, I can create a group (am thinking perhaps a Google group, to allow people to take advantage of the search function) that would be unlisted (i.e., not in the Yahoo groups directory, if it's a Yahoo group, or not in the directory for Google groups, etc.). Also, the created group's message archive will only be available to the members of that group -- posts will not be viewable 'by the public', iow, no one will be able to do a Google search and come across one of the posts. Furthermore, email addresses will be 'munged' so they can't be easily harvested. (Munged -- like so "kelleythompson at g...") There will be an id set up for both this created group and the main list, to be a member of both; this id will have a gmail account, and will be set to receive individual emails from the main list. Gmail accounts can be set to forward emails received, so this account will forward each main list post to the created group. With me so far? ;-) This created group will not be a discussion group -- posts can only be made by 'moderators' and this would be the created id, plus a couple elves to keep an eye on the works, help with Yah issues, etc. Okay, now when someone joins main, they'll receive the HBF with an added note at the beginning explaining what is going on, with a link to the created group: that for a period of ___ (one week is my thinking right now, though I'd like to hear other thoughts on this) they should join the other group to read messages (basically explaining read-only and why we're doing this). So, they'll be urged to join that group, they'll be able to read what's happening on main via that group, and they'll not be able to post to main for X number of days. One week (or whatever) after they joined main (we'll probably go with UK time), they'll be waved through, (whether they've joined the created group or not?) where they'll still be new member moderated, the standard way it's happening now. Now, I should add that I have *not* tested this yet; I have fooled a bit with having messages sent to a gmail account forwarded to me and to a Yah group, and that works, so I believe this could be done quite well. Decisions would still have to be made re a) what if the person doesn't check their email, doesn't see the HBF with the link to the created group, doesn't therefore join that group, etc. -- what do we do then? Not let them join main at all? (I don't like that option, but I can guarantee the elves will be seeing the "I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but..." posts in pendings.) and b) there may be some list members who will object to their posts being forwarded anywhere for any reason. Probably other decisions/issues as well that haven't occurred to me yet. So, thoughts, comments, questions, complaints? One question I have, to everyone, but particularly the folks here who joined main around OoP time, if this had been in place then, if you could have read anything and everything posted to main for one week (or X days), but could not post yourself for that week, would you have been okay with it? Given up and gone elsewhere? Thought we were out of our stinking minds? ;-) And, further, what if it had been 5 days? 3 days? Etc. Regarding Debbie's other point that newly/recently created Yah groups don't have as much message archive space as old groups, that's true; last I heard was that groups are now getting 32MB for message archives (main has/had 512MB). However, for the purposes of the created group, I don't *believe* this would be a problem (and again, if we go with a Google group, it's not a problem at all). My thinking is that this created group would only have messages forwarded to it from beginning of July (maybe even June?) until the end of August, and the read-only status for new members would only operate for that time, too. Iow, I wasn't thinking this would be something we'd begin doing permanently, but just through the HBP crunch. This could be in place for all of June, July, August, which might be a good way to go, if we do end up going with this. I have another idea, that's sort of related to the list-closing and posting volume discussions, but I'll post that separately. Quick comments on the below: > POSTING AN FAQ BEFORE REOPENING THE LIST > > The OOP FAQ was published within 3-4 days, and was written for us > for someone who was not on the admin team. Yep, that was Grey Wolf who took it upon himself to create that, and I'm still grateful to him for doing it. :-) > (We were too busy handling the hundreds of new members each day and > the 300 or so pending messages from moderated members.) Lol, *yes*. Boy, was that...something. > If we could get a HBP FAQ out within a day or so of reopening the > list (otherwise we would strip some sharp-eyed member of the glory > of discovering the HBP equivalent of the thestrals!), > and insist that people read it, that might be a big help. > There's also the problem that some of the elves might totally miss > some of the big issues, so that whatever we did, the FAQ might be > deficient. I had never given a moment's thought to Dumbledore's > gleam before I read it in the FAQs here. We would need much help > from listmembers to spot things, and even more help to brave > Yahoomort and search for previous relevant posts. Yep; before I got to the above paragraph was thinking "So, we'll just make our best guesses as to what should be in an HBP FAQ and modify as needed, or what?" But, what a good project for Feedback. ;-) Lol, re The Gleam and the idea that something in the FAQs could not be brought up for discussion on main -- I actually don't remember it being said that a topic in the FAQ *couldn't* be discussed, but we did just want folks to read through it first, in case they were going to ask something that had been asked a hundred times already. It was kind of funny at first, all the "Hey, I was wondering if anyone else noticed this, but did you all catch that gleam in Dumbledore's eye? What was that about?" -- now, I personally consider this to still be a worthwhile topic, but the annoyance was more that people had come in, obviously not read through any past discussions and threw the idea out there in a "I bet lots of people missed this" kind of way. Anyway, that was the inspiration and intention for the FAQs (I know Debbie knows this, but just tossing it out for those who'd not known). :-) > Many people enjoyed the post-OOP posting frenzy. I admit that I > couldn't keep up with the volume, but that was partly because I was > spending a lot of my limited spare time on messages from new > moderated members, many of whom clearly had not read the posting > rules in advance. YES. Me too-ing Debbie again here as I so often do, but yes, this has gotten to be more and more of an issue. My theory is that people join and, because they can post immediately, they do (though, yes, their posts go into pending rather than straight to the group). Doesn't occur to them to check the email account they joined the group with, they have no idea they've received anything from us, no idea we have posting rules. For the elves who handle pending messages, it's easiest to spot this when the messages are top-posted. Or *no* capital letters are used. At all. Or used Randomly. Or apostrophes arent used. Or so many exclamation points and/or question marks are used they outnumber the words in the post. (My personal peeves, all those. ) Anyway, the messages are returned, with explanations about our rules, or they're edited, in hopes the person will see the changes made, explanations given, and we hope and hope that the person sees them. But, quite possibly they're not thinking to check the email account they joined the group with, so never know they've been contacted, never know what happened to their post. So, if anyone has some good ideas on ways around this, I'd sure love to hear them; my best idea on this is to just regularly post the rules to the group in the form of an admin, as that would have to increase the chances they're seen, though I understand sometimes the admins get skipped over. More to come, I promise, Kelley From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Fri Feb 25 12:58:51 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:58:51 -0000 Subject: Quality, and list discipline issues Message-ID: I should make clear before getting into the meat of this that I used to serve on the administrative team for HPFGU, but have not done so for over a year now. This post therefore reflects experience but not authority or current practice. I'll start with an observation. When, from time to time, people raise the issue of the 'quality' of posting on the list, meaning the quality of the content, part of the response tends to be along the lines of "yeah, I know, I can't stand it when people don't snip/combine/attribute etc". This response may miss the point of the original poster, but it does show that, where there is general dissatisfaction, a fair portion of it stems from relatively simple infraction of our posting conventions. I do think, on the whole, we will make more progress if we keep the issue of content quality (where there is a significant body of opinion that there simply isn't a problem, or a problem worth bothering about, as far as I can see) distinct from the issue of list discipline, and address them separately. I am not denying that getting discipline right has a knock-on effect on the more elusive content quality. The rest of this post is about list discipline. I will try to address content quality issues in another (hopefully much shorter) post. 1) Principles I think we have to be careful in the way we perceive discipline issues. It's easy to see, for example, poor snipping practice as a longstanding issue, and thus to deduce that there is a reservoir of 'bad posters' about whom something should be done. ("We must do *something*. This is something: therefore it must be done.") Now, there may be a few of those, but I believe that the reality is more that there is a dynamic population who join the list and take time to get to grips with our conventions. With approximately 10 people joining every day (check the homepage), it doesn't take a very large proportion to generate posts that appear to represent a significant problem. If I'm right, then the thing to do is address the learning opportunites we provide and ask if they are the best they can be, within the natural constraints of administrative effort. This chiefly concerns the moderated status of new members, and the guidance we give through welcome letters, etc. The policy discussion is then likely to devolve to detailed matters such as the balance between rejecting and editing a pending post, the criteria for getting off (or being put back on) moderated status, etc. It's hard for those of us not actually administering this process to contribute intelligently, but I think the experience of those only recently off moderated status is very valuable indeed, particularly whether they felt helped in understanding and complying with our list conventions. 2) Snipping I would, however, like to say a bit about snipping, which I get the impression is the issue where poor practice most irritates other list members. I often get the impression that many people genuinely struggle with with it, and, when faced with a long post to which they wish to give a short reply, don't know how to snip well. They hardly snip at all, or, knowing that this can't be right, snip virtually everything, leaving the reader at sea. We then tend to get rules of thumb suggested, like 'ensure that the quoted portion is about the same length as the reply', which in my view are unsatisfactory as they don't help the poster know *which* part to snip, and still lead to posts which feel unbalanced in terms of content. They can also be plain wrong: sometimes the amount of original post needed to understand the response is much greater, or less, than the amount that is new. They tend to fail to address more complex situations, such as the marshalling of quotes from a number of previous posters. Here's what I do, which while it might be slightly harder work, is in my view simpler in principle than most of the rules of thumb, and more accurate in indicating what to snip. The starting point is the rather obvious requirement that only that which is necessary to make the post comprehensible should be left: the rest should be snipped. I'll just say that again: the principle that underlies good snipping is that that which is needed to make the post understood should be kept; all else is superfluous. It's as simple as that. So what I do is to read through each major section of the post I am replying to (including earlier quoted material) and ask myself "If this portion were removed, would my post still make sense?" If the answer is 'yes', out it goes. If the answer is 'no', then that does not mean the entire section remains, rather I then go through paragraph by paragraph, asking the same about each paragraph and again snipping the redundant ones. If after removing redundant sections and paragraphs, the quoted material seems long, I try it with sentences within paragraphs, and even clauses or words within sentences. Usually I don't feel I have to go as far as editing sentences (and of course one has to be careful not to distort the original meaning) but I have done it many times. The end result should be a post in which pretty well every word of the quoted material counts as far as the post as a whole is concerned. After a while, it has become virtual second nature, and I usually know before I start writing my own material which bits of a long post I am actually addressing. In fact, I usually know what I am responding to, and so don't have to re-read the other bits; I just snip them anyway. I hope that helps. 3) Universal moderated status My understanding of Kneasy and Caroline's proposal that posts be reviewed is that it is essentially moderated status for all members. Posts would be reviewed only for compliance with list conventions, not for whether their content is worthy of the august intellectual space that is HPFGU. I get the impression that there is very little enthusiasm for this proposal, either from list members or the list-elves, so what I am about to say may be redundant. If I have this wrong, please let me know. I think that, when the list-elves pointed out that this proposal would add unacceptably to the administrative load, that is technically true but a little misleading as to the real cost of this proposal. Yes, more man-hours would be required to review, approve, edit, or reject posts, but that is not why this proposal would be hideous to administer. The problem, as I see it, is administrative stress and conflict, not ergonomic workload. I am of the opinion that even moderated status for newbies generates quite a lot of stress for the list-elves, and tends to act both to stimulate and exacerbate conflict within the administrative team. I think moderated status for all list members would make that a whole lot worse. The reason for this is that to reject a post, or to edit it, is never easy. This is particularly the case with borderline posts, which may contain a lot that is good. Posters justly identify with their posts, and tend to take rejection personally, as everyone here who has been through the moderated process can testify. Fine judgements have to be made, and different elves will take a different view, with results that will then be apparent onlist. A rejection letter has to be written to accompany a rejected post, and if a post is edited, it is essential that a letter explaining what has been done and why be sent, otherwise the poster will learn nothing. You should try it: if you think it is easy, or that it would be quite fun to whip these newbies into shape, then I think you are very definitely bad list-elf material. I think all this generates considerable stress for the elf team. Moreover, pending posts, over time, have a way of forcing the list- elves to consider exactly what is and is not fit for the list - to what extent the movies can be mentioned; what language counts as offensive; how much fanfic material can be included, and so on. (This is of course not wholly a bad thing.) Because there is a real live pending post requiring a decision, and a rapid decision at that, stress and conflict when the elves (who are themselves posters with an interest in the movies, fanfic, etc.) address them is inevitable. However, if an unmoderated post that is borderline in one of these respects makes it to the list, all the elves have to do is note it: the chances are at least ten to one that the post will not become a precedent, and the whole thing can be forgotten. If a definite trend begins to occur on the list, then it becomes easier for the team to agree about heading it off and to use ADMIN notices and offlist reminders to control the problem. For dealing with newbies, who mostly do recognise that they are learning the ropes, this is probably a price worth paying - just. It should be obvious by now how much more difficult this would be if established posters, who probably regard themselves as the equals of the list-elves, are subjected to this process. I think the elves would be subjected to complaints of unequal treatment, of having changed the rules because there was no problem with the type of post back in 2002, of rejecting posts because they themselves are party to the thread in question, of not posting themselves to the same standard, of using the review delay to get their own posts in first... the list is endless. Some of these complaints would almost certainly arise from within the administrative team, as elves look at each other's decisions, leading to conflict. I also suspect that the additional numbers of elves needed might lead to the situation where a substantial minority is seen as sitting in judgement on the rest, with substantial representation in actual posts from both groups. I think it would be an administrative nightmare. Finally, I'll just add that any new rule, such as the one about individual daily posting limits, tends to generate unexpected new situations that have to be considered by the team, and that is a consideration to bear in mind. David From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Tue Mar 1 22:44:55 2005 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 22:44:55 -0000 Subject: Catching up on a few thoughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Geoff: I hadn't visited the Feedback group for some while and was greatly surprised to find that so many posts had arrived, mainly in February, and that I had been elevated to the status of having invented the term "tennis posts". I shall treasure that honour. A few thoughts crossed my mind on reading through many of the accumulated messages. In passing, I hope that I am not contributing to threads which are now considered to have gons off the boil. In respect of "tennis" posts, many of you picked up on my interpretation wich was that it was the type of post where we go into a "Oh yes it did"/"Oh no it didn't" exchanges without any real added contribution being made, which also gradually extended the length of the message because it often isn't being suitably truncated. Someone referred to my ability to locate an archive message. I am not always infallible but, as a guide to how I work, I repeat the following which I basically wrote in message 519; I have updated the passage slightly to allow for the passing of time: "Finally, the wretched search facility. One problem is that even if you start from an older message number, the search always begins from the latest one. The only way seems to be if you have any idea whereabouts the thread was numerically and dive in and look on the main message listing. What I have found useful is to keep my own archive. Fairly soon after I joined the group 18 months ago (my first post being 73361), I realised that the search engine was about as useful as a chocolate teapot when it came to anything more than about 500 posts back so I started to save my own posts (which have now reached about 1300 in the 52000 group posts whihc have arrived in that time) and I transfer them into Word files holding 200 posts. Let me hasten to say that this is not a display of overweening pride but it often proves to be very valuable if someone queries an older post where I had put in my two-pennyworth because I can track down something of my own usually within a few minutes. It has saved me many a frustrating session with !Yahoo's little toy." I think the trouble with the search facility is that we are a very high volume posting group. It is a pity that the Yahoo system can't work like the search method in Word where the search works forward from the point that you have reached and then offers the option of returning to the start. On the subject of limiting postings it is a fact that the volume of posts can vary considerably. I went away on holiday last week and returned home expecting to have to wade through 800 posts or so; to my surprise there were only 400. It may be that we are twiddling our thumbs waiting for the arrival of 16th July but the number of threads seems to have be quite small and there does seem to be some evidence of some tennis being played or at least warming up on the baseline. I was not a member of the group when OOTP came out but the idea of a closure to new messages seems a very worthy one - though 45 hours last time seemed a rather odd figure. Finally, on a tangent, I do find it annoying sometimes that some posters are rather cavalier with their correction of spelling errors and grammar and I am speaking of folk who I know are native English speakers. I refer to those who do it as a matter of course and not the occasional typing error which leaps out at you three seconds after you hit the Send key. I have a number of off-group contacts with group members for whom English is not their first language and problems posed by native speakers can sometimes lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations. I hope that these thoughts might add something useful to the on-going discussions. From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Sat Mar 26 02:03:51 2005 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:03:51 -0000 Subject: Hmm... Message-ID: So, what do y'all think? http://groups.yahoo.com/local/whatsnew.html Going to take some getting used to... --Kelley From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Sat Mar 26 02:27:02 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:27:02 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Hmm... References: Message-ID: <004601c531ab$4c411730$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> So, what do y'all think? http://groups.yahoo.com/local/whatsnew.html Going to take some getting used to... --Kelley Susan: Bleh. It surely is. AND take a look at our (alleged) membership number on Main. It shows a jump of over 3500 people since yesterday! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Sat Mar 26 02:39:50 2005 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:39:50 -0000 Subject: Hmm... In-Reply-To: <004601c531ab$4c411730$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "susiequsie23" wrote: > Kelley: > Going to take some getting used to... > Susan: > Bleh. It surely is. AND take a look at our (alleged) membership > number on Main. It shows a jump of over 3500 people since yesterday! Heh, yes; they've incorporated all the bouncing ids back into the regular members list. Still a separate list of the bouncing, though. I've tried fiddling with the colors, but can't get the purple background into that 'white box'. Hm. Has the messages 'backwards' too; that'll probably be the hardest thing to get used to. Plus doesn't list them according to number in the way it did before; numbers are there in each post, though. List members can search the members list now, though, which is nice... --Kelley From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Sat Mar 26 07:26:17 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 07:26:17 -0000 Subject: Hmm... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Kelley" wrote: > Has the messages 'backwards' too; that'll probably be the hardest thing > to get used to. Plus doesn't list them according to number in the way > it did before; numbers are there in each post, though. > > List members can search the members list now, though, which is nice... > > --Kelley Yeah, you hit "next" to get to the previous message, but you hit "next" to get to the *next* message index. Tuh. Annemehr From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sat Mar 26 09:18:51 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:18:51 -0000 Subject: Can't search by message number Message-ID: This is a total nightmare. You can no longer pull up posts by number. Or have I missed something? Carolyn From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Sat Mar 26 12:21:17 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:21:17 -0000 Subject: Can't search by message number In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > This is a total nightmare. You can no longer pull up posts by > number. Or have I missed something? SSSusan: It absolutely is a nightmare. I was *hoping* that they simply combined those two features such that we could type a message number into the regular search box, but, alas, not so. Steve elsewhere shared a well-detailed, point-by-point complaint e- mail he sent to Yahoo about the changes. I'm hoping he'll share it with us, too. [Hint, hint] Does anybody know whether "They" actually will listen to user complaints? Siriusly Frustrated Snapey Susan From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Sat Mar 26 12:38:44 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:38:44 -0000 Subject: Can't search by message number/partial solution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > This is a total nightmare. You can no longer pull up posts by number. > Or have I missed something? > > Carolyn ..later A very smart member of my catalogue group (dungrollin) has just pointed out that you can change the message number in the URL, hit go and thus go to a specific post. It is the most god-awful stupid apology solution to an essential requirement for us, but it does work, and I thank her for her quick thinking. These changes imposed without discussion by Yahoo Groups go a long way towards forcing this group towards becoming a chat community. That may be what the majority of members really want, but I totally deplore the development. I hope that Admin will remonstrate and campaign in the most forceful way with Yahoo to restore not only the message number search facility, but also the simple ability to hit 'next' to get to the next numerically sequential message. Plus all the wasted white space bandwidth issues that others have brought up, and the bizarre design features arbitrarily imposed on groups. Since the record of small communities winning fights with mega corporations is poor, this may be the moment to finally move the whole thing to a different host. Carolyn From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Sat Mar 26 17:47:21 2005 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:47:21 -0000 Subject: Can't search by message number/partial solution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: Carolyn: >> I hope that Admin will remonstrate and campaign in the most forceful > way with Yahoo to restore not only the message number search facility, > but also the simple ability to hit 'next' to get to the next > numerically sequential message. Plus all the wasted white space > bandwidth issues that others have brought up, and the bizarre design > features arbitrarily imposed on groups. Geoff: But what is cock-eyed is the fact that you hit "Previous" to get to the next sequential message number forwards and "Next" to get the /previous/ number. This sounds like typical UK bureaucracy - designed by someone who does not use the system. From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Sat Mar 26 18:40:27 2005 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:40:27 -0000 Subject: "Previous" and "Next" (Re: Can't search by message number/partial solution) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > But what is cock-eyed is the fact that you hit "Previous" to get to > the next sequential message number forwards and "Next" to get > the /previous/ number. Cock-eyed is right! You know, though, if I'm looking at the members list correctly, it seems that "Previous" and "Next" (along with "First" and "Last") work as they're supposed to. Can someone confirm that? If this is correct, leads me to think that perhaps the cock-eyed setup for "Previous" etc. in regards to messages is possibly a glitch. Also probably to be expected that Yah is going to be ironing out lots of wrinkles in the upcoming weeks (and months, sigh). > This sounds like typical UK bureaucracy - designed by someone who > does not use the system. Lol...methinks that's a worldwide trait of bureaucracy. ;-) --Kelley From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid Sat Mar 26 20:35:32 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:35:32 -0000 Subject: "Previous" and "Next" (Re: Can't search by message number/partial solution) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Geoff: > > But what is cock-eyed is the fact that you hit "Previous" to get to > > the next sequential message number forwards and "Next" to get > > the /previous/ number. Kelley: > Cock-eyed is right! You know, though, if I'm looking at the members > list correctly, it seems that "Previous" and "Next" (along > with "First" and "Last") work as they're supposed to. Can someone > confirm that? > > If this is correct, leads me to think that perhaps the cock-eyed > setup for "Previous" etc. in regards to messages is possibly a glitch. Alla: Yes, Kelley, for members "previous and next" seem to work in the normal order, but unfortunately I don't think that this idiotic set- up for messages is a glitch. I would love to be wrong, really. :) But I think someone on the OT chatter was right when he/she commented that they want the most recent messages to be on top. It is hard to make my brain work backwards. :) Kelley: Also probably to be expected that Yah is going to be ironing out lots of wrinkles in the upcoming weeks (and months, sigh). Alla: I would LOVE if they would iron out at least this particular wrinke. From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Sat Mar 26 21:27:31 2005 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:27:31 -0000 Subject: Complaining to Yah / Re: "Previous" and "Next" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Alla: > Yes, Kelley, for members "previous and next" seem to work in the > normal order, but unfortunately I don't think that this idiotic set- > up for messages is a glitch. I would love to be wrong, really. :) Lol, yeah, too much to ask for, right? It does seem very odd though, this inconsistency. Hm...different programmers working on different sections, maybe? > But I think someone on the OT chatter was right when he/she > commented that they want the most recent messages to be on top. > It is hard to make my brain work backwards. :) Heh, you mean that Yahoo wants them that way? It seems they do, yes, but it'd sure be nice to let the groups and/or individuals choose their own settings for stuff like that, sigh. > Kelley: > Also probably to be expected that Yah is going to be ironing out > lots of wrinkles in the upcoming weeks (and months, sigh). > > Alla: > > I would LOVE if they would iron out at least this particular wrinke. Oh, you and me both. Carolyn: > I hope that Admin will remonstrate and campaign in the most > forceful way with Yahoo Absolutely, though really, I don't have any sense that Yah listens to 'moderators' any more than they listen to 'members' of a group. So, in light of that, I encourage everyone to send Yahoo your thoughts about the changes: http://add.yahoo.com/fast/help/us/groups/cgi_alpha I've been working on creating a list of the problematic changes, so please add any you can think of (if you have a better wording for any of these, that'd be appreciated, too): Rather than seeming "streamlined", it's now bloated -- too much 'white space' / extreme waste of screen space. Restore message numbers on the Messages index. Restore search by message number. Messages index -- allow for viewing most recent messages at bottom as it was before. Messages index -- Allow for viewing only message subjects instead of brief bit of message itself. Reverse "Next" and "Previous": When reading messages, "Next" should go to the most recent message numerically -- i.e., when reading 12345, "Next" should go to 12346, not 12344. On Messages page, "First" and "Previous" should refer to earlier messages in the archive as before. When reading an individual message, clicking on Message Index was better before when it brought up the index beginning with the chosen message and going forward chronologically. Allow for viewing "My Groups" without icons -- page used to be nicely compact, now bloated. Allow for altering color of the 'white box' on home page, Messages page, when viewing individual messages. Members list should default sort alphabetically by email address, rather than by date joined -- better yet, allow groups / individuals to choose their own defaults. Members list should default to "Simple" rather than "Expanded". That's what I have so far; surely will be plenty of management problems I've not come across yet. Some folks here on FB mod groups of their own, so if y'all have noticed any problems in this regard, share that with us, too, please. Would also say it's a good idea to let them know what things we like, as well. Very nice that list members can search the members list now...hm, there must be something else... ;-) --Kelley From bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid Sun Mar 27 06:54:50 2005 From: bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid (Steve) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:54:50 -0000 Subject: Can't search by msg number - Complaint list. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > SSSusan: > > ... > Steve elsewhere shared a well-detailed, point-by-point complaint e- > mail he sent to Yahoo about the changes. I'm hoping he'll share it > with us, too. [Hint, hint] > > ... > > Siriusly Frustrated Snapey Susan Your wish is my command. Perhaps we could come up with a better complaint list and mass email it to Yahoo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subject: New Groups Format Change - What were you thinking? What were you thinking with these new cosmetic changes to the Yahoo Groups? Don't you do test market and usability studies before you roll these things out? 1.) Space INEFFICIENT - On the All Groups List and on the Groups Message List pages, how did you manage to take LESS information and make it take up more than TWICE as much space? Clean and compact is MUCH better than pointless horizontal lines, equally pointless formatting, and further pointless icons and graphics. 2.) Fonts - How arrogant are you to think that you know better than I do what fonts I want to see on my screen? 3. Sorting Messages - Why screw around with it? If you really wanted to help, instead of pointless cosmetic changes, you would actually improve the service and let each user determine their own Sorting and Threading. Barring that unlikely event, leave things the way they originally were. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 4.) Go To Message Number - Near the Search Box, there used to be a box that allowed you to jump directly to a message by typing in the Message Number. What happened to that? Certainly, it is rarely used on porn groups, but in real discussion groups with thousands of members discussing thousands of posts, that [Go To #] feature was invaluable. 5.) Message Numbers - Where are the message numbers on the Groups Message List page? Again, in porn groups who cares, but I'm a member of a group that has over 13,000 members and 125,000 posts, and we are involved in serious discussions. Those message numbers are critical to finding old posts we can reference in current discussion. 6.) Search Feature - Please explain to me how a company that made it's name as a Search Engine can have such an unbelievably CRAPPY Search feature in its Groups? It's the worst. Nearly worthless. If you really wanted to help, you would actually improve the service and expand the available features (like the Search capability), instead of dumping on us the illusion of improvement in the form of pointless inefficient cosmetic changes. Further, we, your subscribers, are not stupid, and we are not fooled into believing you have actually improved anything with superficial changes. Competition is growing, if you don't start ACTUALLY improving, you may end up seeing a mass migration to more full featured and user friendly services. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid Sun Mar 27 06:57:15 2005 From: bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid (Steve) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:57:15 -0000 Subject: Can't search by msg number - Complaint list.-Note In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > Subject: New Groups Format Change - What were you thinking? > > What were you thinking with these new cosmetic changes to the Yahoo > Groups? > > ...edited.. > > Competition is growing, if you don't start ACTUALLY improving, you may > end up seeing a mass migration to more full featured and user friendly > services. > > Steve/bboyminn bboyminn: Forgot to add this note to my post. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you wish to use this in whole or in part for your own response to Yahoo, feel free to do so. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid Sun Mar 27 07:23:23 2005 From: bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid (Steve) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 07:23:23 -0000 Subject: Complaining to Yah / Sort Order In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Kelley" wrote: > > > But I think someone on the OT chatter was right when he/she > > commented that they want the most recent messages to be on top. > > It is hard to make my brain work backwards. :) > > Heh, you mean that Yahoo wants them that way? It seems they do, yes, > but it'd sure be nice to let the groups and/or individuals choose > their own settings for stuff like that, sigh. > > > http://add.yahoo.com/fast/help/us/groups/cgi_alpha > > > --Kelley bboyminn: Here was a point I made in another post about the Sort Order (newest at the top). When I come to the group, I don't want to start and the latest message, I want to pick up where I left off, which given the volume in the main group, is somewhere in the past, then mover forward from their. This 'top down' sorting is counter intuitive to reading like that. Certainly your in a group with a more centered/singular discussion topic, that has very few posts per day, the top down might be OK. Actually that's how I prefer to sort my email. But in a high volume group with many many related but separate subject going on at one time, the 'newest on top' seem counter intuitive. I posted a list of the key things that I think need to be changed. May be we could come up with a nice concise list of Appearance and Feature Changes that we would like to see, then get the whole group to send it to Yahoo. When Yahoo was the only game in town, it was an OK place. In addition, there are some nice aspect to it. But it is rapidly becoming old and clumbsy as new alternate services appear on the horizon. And, if it wasn't for loosing the complete threaded archive of 125,000 posts of wit and wisdom, I think I would be seriously tempted to look for another group host service. What would be perfect is if the new service could transfer the entire contents of the old group into the new. For those who want to explore alternatives, here are some programs that are much like the old Usenet Newsgroup Readers, but they are custom made for Yahoo groups. I haven't checked them out in detail, but they look like they have potential. It seems as if you can sort by any parameter, and search the archives for post, etc... If anyone has direct experience with these programs I would be great to get some feedback on them. http://pgoffline.com/ Also- http://www.netwu.com/yahoobin/ http://www.groupfetch.com/ Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid Sun Mar 27 07:51:09 2005 From: bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid (Steve) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 07:51:09 -0000 Subject: Wish List for Yahoo Group Services Message-ID: If there was even a remote chance that Yahoo would listen and act, what would our Wish List be to make Yahoo Groups Services up to scratch. I'll add a few, others can add theirs, in the end we may have a list worth of sending to Yahoo to show them what is REALLY needed to improve their service. 1.) Get a real SEARCH Engine for the Groups - Serious discussion groups need a seriously functional and full feature Search capability. You should be able to search Forward or Backward, you should be able to set a range limit that you want to search (in other words, search for posts in the range 100,000 to 120,000). I'm sure there are other advanced feature, but I don't want to clutter the idea right now. 2.) EDIT - many News and Discussion groups allow the original author to go back to a post and Edit it. If you see a typo, or forget something, you simply go to that post, click the Edit button, make the changes and save it. It doesn't create a new message, it truly edits the old one. Again, many discussion groups have this feature. 3.) SORT - In many groups, you click on the Title Bar, and which ever Title you click on, that's how the post are sorted. If you use Yahoo Mail, it has this feature. You can sort by Date, Subject, Sender, or Size. What I think would work fantastic for the group is if you could have a primary sort by Username with a secondary sort by Date. That way I could find all of the post by a given user and have them all sorted by Date. 4.) GO TO - can't imagine why they got rid of the Go To Message Number feature. 5.) Compact Display - again this is related more to the new format than an actual fearture. The new format uses more than twice the room to display less information. I don't need horizonatal line, icons, or graphic; the internet is about information, so just give me the information. This is especially critical in high volume Groups, I really don't want to go page after page of ten messages each while I work my way through hundreds of messages. That's about all I can think of for now, you can either add to the list, or rank my suggestion by degree of importance. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Tue Mar 29 10:45:56 2005 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:45:56 -0000 Subject: Wish List for Yahoo Group Services In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Wow! Really looks as if Yahoo have had a rush of blood to the head!! It's certainly a step or so in the right direction. From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Sat Apr 2 18:59:31 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:59:31 -0000 Subject: Excellent news, all! Message-ID: Wonderful, wonderful news for those of us who were frustrated by the changes in YahooGroups. If one is looking at the message list, with "view" options at the upper left, if you click on "simple," it looks like it did before -- a list of BRIEF entries, with message number, subject line, poster! Also, if you click on "date" at the upper right, it will return things to what we were used to -- seeing the newest message at the BOTTOM of the message index. Anyone care to join me in both a HALLELUAH and a "thank you" post to the folks at YahooGroups?? Siriusly Snapey Susan From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid Sat Apr 2 16:56:20 2005 From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (mgrantwich) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:56:20 -0000 Subject: Downtime after release of HBP Message-ID: I just voted in the new poll (I was first! YAY ME!!!!) and I hope the decision is made for a long waiting period. There is no way anyone can actually read and assimilate a multi-hundred page book in 24-48 hours and I think a fair amount of time to gather thoughts together before plunging onto the list will benefit everyone. If people finish early, they might get some gardening done. Magda From s_ings at s_ings.yahoo.invalid Sat Apr 2 21:55:04 2005 From: s_ings at s_ings.yahoo.invalid (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 21:55:04 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Looking for A Few Good Elves! Message-ID: As all of you are aware, there's a new book coming out soon. No, no, we're not starting a party, we're looking for people to do some work. Do you have a couple hours a week to contribute to helping the list run smoothly? If so, you may be able to help us out. We're looking for elves to help us out with 2 specific tasks: 1. Welcoming new list members. This involves sending personal welcome e-mails to all of the people who join the list on your assigned day and entering the related information in a database. It also involves answering any questions that new list members may send you. If you're the kind of person who likes to help others, this may be the choice for you, helping new members get used to the way our group works and answering questions. 2. Participating in our daily list reading rota. You would read all the messages posted to HPfGU (the main list) on your assigned reading day, keeping an eye out for compliance to our list rules and noting non-compliant posts in the appropriate database. Are you a stickler for the rules, often noticing those posts that don't quite follow our rules? This might be the place for you. You may apply for one or both tasks, it's up to you. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS An elf candidate must ? Have been a member of HPfGU in good standing for at least 6 months -- "Good standing" means that you are not on permanent moderated status. (Those few who are permanently moderated have been notified.) ? Have a good sense of HPfGU's posting conventions -- You understand the basic HPfGU standards of snipping, attribution, and courtesy. (You don't need to have the rules memorized, though.) ? Have good spelling, punctuation, and grammar skills -- You don't have to be a Master Linguist, but you should know the difference between a semicolon and a hole in the ground. :-) Non-native English speakers are welcome to apply. ? Have good communication skills -- It is important that you know how to express your ideas (especially disagreement) courteously and with clarity. ? Have good interpersonal skills -- Your fellow List Elves will come from a variety of backgrounds and have a variety of communication styles. You'll need to know how to get along with people you may not particularly like or understand, how to go along with decisions with which you don't necessarily agree, and how to be discreet (not reveal confidential list business to non-admins). ? Be reasonably level-headed -- You should be slow to react when insulted, slow to jump to conclusions, and quick to forgive misunderstandings. If you are in the habit of responding in anger (instead of waiting before posting), this might not be the job for you. Patience is definitely a virtue in HPfGU list admin; a sense of humor (especially in the face of the absurd) is mandatory. ? Score respectably well on the Percy scale -- If you have some perfectionist tendencies, you'll fit right in! ? Have no life -- Just kidding! However, we do ask that your real life not be so full as to prevent you from performing your elfly duties. (You can negotiate how many elfly duties you have.) We prefer that you commit to a minimum of six months in List Admin; however, you can don clothing sooner if the need arises. The ability to keep the rest of the Team supplied with eclairs is a bonus but is not required. :-) BENEFITS Becoming an HPfGU List Elf allows you to ? Blow your Harry Potter Obsession score through the roof. ? Imbibe all the butterbeer you want (except when on duty). ? Become the target of bitter and sometimes delicious insults, e.g., "Moderator Tart." ? Acquire a stylish new wardrobe of colorful tea cozies and lurid pillowcases. ? Get immediate first aid for ears-in-the-oven-door slammings, hand ironings, foot-in-blender jammings, and other self-inflicted punishments. If a large number of candidates apply, it may not be possible to accept every qualified candidate right away. Every application will be acknowledged, and we'll keep the applications on file for future consideration unless you notify us otherwise. You can find the Elf Enslavement Application (EEA.txt) at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/ The application includes instructions on where to send the application. The deadline for sending in applications is Friday, 15 April 2005, 00:00 (midnight) Greenwich Mean Time. Best regards, The HPfGU List Administration Team From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Mon Apr 25 20:17:28 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 20:17:28 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: List Closure Poll (HBP) Message-ID: Greetings from Hexquarters! This is a reminder that there is currently an advisory poll open on the main HPfGU list on the topic of HPfGU list closure at the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. This poll will close on Monday, May 2, 2005, so if you have not yet registered your preference and would like to do so, please vote soon. The poll was announced here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/126978 You will find additional information about the list closure and links to helpful time zone information in that ADMIN. The poll itself may be found at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1748067 Please do not attempt to reply to this message to cast your vote, as poll votes are not collected via e-mail. You must go to the Yahoo! Groups site listed above to cast your vote. Thanks! Shorty Elf, for the HPfGU Admin Team From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Sat May 7 22:54:17 2005 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 22:54:17 -0000 Subject: Yahoo Help File Message-ID: Hi, everyone-- I've been working on a file that hopefully helps with the most common Yahoo problems run into by list members. What I have below represents the most common questions the elves receive, but I'm sure there are other issues that I'm forgetting. Any suggestions on that would be welcome. Also, this is meant to be easy to understand for a person with little to no understanding of the ins and outs of Yahoo, so please, if anything seems unclear, let me know. Thanks, everyone! --Kelley Yahoo Help File CONTENTS: RECEIVING EMAILS FROM THE GROUP IF YOUR POST DOESN'T SHOW UP ON THE LIST PRIVACY -- EMAIL ADDRESSES (Adding a new email account to your profile) PRIVACY -- NAMES (Changing the name shown on your posts) BOUNCING 'HATE' MAIL, HARASSING/ABUSIVE MAIL SPAM VIRUSES RECEIVING EMAILS FROM THE GROUP Yahoo Groups offers four email settings: Individual E-mails: All messages are sent to your inbox and the subjects are prefixed with the name of the list. When you hit "reply" the reply will go to the entire list. Digest: A digest is one email containing containing up to 25 posts; typically our group sends 2 - 4 digests per day (though during peak times, e.g., new canon, it's possible to see as many as 30 - 40 digests per day). Special Notices: This is like webview, except that we can send emergency e-mails to your mailbox. The List Administrators use the Special Notices feature responsibly, only sending Special Notices in the case of important ADMIN messages, so they prefer that members be on "Special Notices." *Any message with ADMIN in the subject line is a message sent to the entire group, never specifically to any individual. If you tried to reply to this message, that reply would go to the whole group, not to the elves. If you want your reply to go to the elves, make sure to replace the HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com posting address with HPforGrownups-owner at ... owner address. No Mail: Many people like to read the messages on the list Web sites. This has the advantage of not clogging up your inbox, but the disadvantage that you can't download all of the posts and then go off-line to read them. If you are particularly irritated by pop- up advertising, click on "expand messages" (which allows you to scroll through 30 messages on a single screen). You'll avoid the pop-ups. If you click on "thread" and then "expand messages" you can view a complete thread on one screen. Note: When you join a Yahoo Group, you are automatically set to receive individual messages. If you prefer a different setting you can change this yourself by going to the group online (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/) and clicking on "Edit My Membership". Note: Changes to your email settings, along with unsubscribing from a group, can sometimes take a bit of time for Yahoo to process. This can range anywhere from a few hours to a few days. Unfortunately, there is nothing for it but to be patient; the elves can do nothing to speed it up, though we can check to make sure that the new setting was saved or that the unsubbing was successful. Rejoining and unsubbing again, or changing your settings back and forth only delay the process. If the changes do not go into effect within a couple days or if you experience any trouble, please let the elves know: HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com IF YOUR POST DOESN'T SHOW UP ON THE LIST A few reasons this might occur: -It's still 'pending' - there's a period of moderated status when you join this group: your posts are automatically detoured to the pending queue and must be sent through by a list elf. We do our best to make sure posts do not languish for too long, but we can sometimes get behind. If several hours have passed since you sent your post without it coming through, please contact the elves: HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com -The email account you use for the group is 'bouncing' (see below). When this happens your post is rerouted to the list elves, and because your account is bouncing, we're unable to reach you to explain what has happened. Note: If your account is bouncing, it does not matter whether you attempt to post by email or webview; the result is the same and the message will go to the elves and not the group. -The post was 'misfired' - the email address was typed incorrectly, it was sent to a different list, was sent to the author of the post you're replying to rather than the group address, etc. -There are times when posts just 'vanish into the ether' or 'are eaten by Yahoomort' - we are unable to determine the exact reason your post never came through. Likely due to one of the above reasons, as well as possible server issues. If the problem is recurring, best to contact Yahoo via their Help links, and/or your ISP. *Since it can be so very frustrating to spend a great deal of time composing a post only to have it disappear, it's helpful to get into the habit of saving a copy before you hit send. PRIVACY -- EMAIL ADDRESSES Our groups (main list, OTC, Movie) do not have public archives, so a person must be a member of the group to have access to any posts you make. Our Announcements list *does* have public archives, so non-members can read messages there without joining that group. Email address: Yahoo "munges" addresses online, which means that someone reading posts by webview will not be able to see your full email address; what they will see is something like this: "hpfgu_elves at ..." List members can see their own full addresses in their own posts (and can also delete their own posts), and the list elves are able to see full addresses. (This goes for the messages on the Announcements list, as well.) However, full addresses are visible in emails. This means that list members who receive posts by either Individual Emails or Digests will be able to see the address in the messages they receive in their inbox. For this reason, many people choose to create a free email account (Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail, etc.) for their membership in Yahoo groups. If you use this option, please make sure to regularly check your email account, both to keep the account from being terminated or going bouncing, and to see any messages that might be sent to you from the List Elves. To add this new email address to your existing Yahoo user account, click on "Edit My Membership" via any group page and then click "Add new email address". Enter the new address, and click the button to verify the account. An email will then be sent to the new email account with a link that must be clicked to finish the process; sometimes it can take a few hours to receive the verification email, so patience once again. PRIVACY -- NAMES If you post to the group by email, the name you use for your email account will be shown in the post itself and on the Messages page (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/messages) under the "Author" column. To change this, you must change the name in your email account; depending on the email program you use, it may be found under Tools, Accounts; Mail Options; Settings; Options. (These sorts of changes happen immediately.) For those who post and reply to posts by webview, the name shown is your Yahoo ID. BOUNCING Here's Yahoo's nice explanation of just what 'bouncing' means: http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/mygroups/mygroups-07.html It refers to the email account you are using for YahooGroups; when your account is bouncing you will no longer be able to receive messages from the group and you'll not be able to reply to the group. You can access the group by webview but when you hit reply, you have two options -- your reply can go only to the person who wrote the post you're replying to, or it will go to the list elves. The 'default' is that the message will go to the list elves, and of course, as your account is bouncing, there's no way for us to get an email to you letting you know where your post has gone. The best way to determine if your account is bouncing is to sign in to Yahoo and check the "My Groups" link; if you're bouncing, there'll be a notice at the top telling you so with a link to click to reset your account. The instructions Yahoo gives are easy to follow, but if you run into any troubles, please contact the elves at HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com and we'll help you out. 'HATE' MAIL, HARASSING/ABUSIVE MAIL As disappointing as it is, in a group this size, the odds are greater that some list members behave in unfortunate ways. The elves do not have any control over private correspondence between list members, but we do hold this behavior in the greatest contempt. If you should ever receive a message of this nature, we urge you to report the sender to both Yahoo and the sender's ISP. To do this, you must make sure to not delete the message, as you will need to send a copy with the accompanying source info to both Yahoo and any ISPs. For information on how to do this, please contact the elves: HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com SPAM - Marketing Preferences One helpful way to reduce spam to your email account is to change the 'Marketing Preferences' setting on your Yahoo account. To do this, sign in to Yahoo, go into "My Account". This takes you to the "Yahoo! Account Info" page; in the "Member Information" section, there's a link that says "Edit your marketing preferences." Follow this to the next page; in the "Special offers and marketing communications from Yahoo!" section, you'll see a series of checked boxes. Uncheck them (any you do not want) and scroll to the bottom of the page where you'll see a "Save Changes" button to click. You should see a decrease in spam within a couple days. VIRUSES None of the HPfGU groups allow attachments to be sent, so you should never receive a virus from a message sent to one of our groups. However, it may happen that a fellow list member may become infected and inadvertently pass a virus on to you. This could happen because you and the list member may have had direct correspondence offlist or because the list member has group messages on their computer and the virus is sending itself to all email addresses it finds. The best protection against becoming infected: - Do not open any email attachments you are not expecting - Get an anti-virus program and keep it updated (Grisoft offers a good free program: http://free.grisoft.com/doc/1 ) *Please do not post to our main list about viruses, hoaxes, or phishing scams. From pengolodh_sc at ... Sat May 7 23:41:49 2005 From: pengolodh_sc at ... (=?iso-8859-1?q?Christian=20Stub=F8?=) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 01:41:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Yahoo Help File In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050507234149.98453.qmail@...> --- Kelley wrote: > Hi, everyone-- > > I've been working on a file that hopefully helps with the most > common Yahoo problems run into by list members. What I have below > represents the most common questions the elves receive, but I'm > sure there are other issues that I'm forgetting. Any suggestions > on that would be welcome. [snip] Based on what I've seen over some years on eGroups and Yahoo!Groups (one wonders what OneList.com was like before being bought up by eGroups, in the time before Yahoo!Groups), it might be an idea to explicitly spell out how one unsubscribes from a list. Also, go into more detail about how to manipulate how messages are viewed on the group site (as opposed to in the member's own email - the difference should be clear) - simple vs summary vs expanded view, newest or oldest on top, view by thread or view in order of posting. Best regards Christian Stub ------------------------ It has come to the attention of the management that you exist. Please cease and desist. Thank you. From saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid Sat May 7 23:45:46 2005 From: saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid (Saitaina) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 16:45:46 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Yahoo Help File References: <20050507234149.98453.qmail@...> Message-ID: <005b01c5535e$e4ab7400$01fea8c0@...> Christian wrote: <(one wonders what OneList.com was like before being bought up by eGroups, in the time before Yahoo!Groups)> The same as both the others only smaller. It does that in almost all email messages though. *points down* Saitaina **** "The new food pyramid looks as if all you have to do to be healthy in America is be gay and exercise." "If you're going to sing in the shower, don't start with a song that begins with 'help'." http://www.livejournal.com/users/saitaina [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dan at danthewebmaster.yahoo.invalid Sun May 8 12:17:10 2005 From: dan at danthewebmaster.yahoo.invalid (Daniel R. Tobias) Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 08:17:10 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Digest Number 118 In-Reply-To: <1115552899.323.6074.m20@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <427DCB06.30003.54B90ECD@localhost> On 7 May 2005 at 22:54, "Kelley" wrote: > I've been working on a file that hopefully helps with the most > common Yahoo problems run into by list members. What I have below > represents the most common questions the elves receive, but I'm sure > there are other issues that I'm forgetting. Any suggestions on that > would be welcome. You could discuss some formatting issues, especially the "Convert to HTML" option in the Yahoo configuration that accomplishes nothing useful except letting them shove more annoying ads at you, but also has the problematic effect of causing many mail programs to format replies in HTML (even if the list is text-only). http://mailformat.dan.info/config/yahoogroups.html -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ From pengolodh_sc at ... Sun May 8 14:56:20 2005 From: pengolodh_sc at ... (=?iso-8859-1?q?Christian=20Stub=F8?=) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 16:56:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Yahoo Help File In-Reply-To: <005b01c5535e$e4ab7400$01fea8c0@...> Message-ID: <20050508145620.78826.qmail@...> --- Saitaina wrote: > Christian wrote: [snip] > > it might be an idea to > > explicitly spell out how one > > unsubscribes from a list. > > It does that in almost all email > messages though. *points down* I know that - but I still think it is a good idea to include it, when the moderators are making a central help-file that is meant to contain help on all relevant topics. For one thing, many people tune out what's below the email signature as being part of Yahoo's advertisements. Best regards Christian Stub ------------------------ It has come to the attention of the management that you exist. Please cease and desist. Thank you. From saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid Sun May 8 19:16:15 2005 From: saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid (Saitaina) Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 12:16:15 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Yahoo Help File References: <20050508145620.78826.qmail@...> Message-ID: <003701c55402$6805b740$01fea8c0@...> Christian wrote: Hmm, true. Alright, you're right, they should add it. Saitaina **** "The new food pyramid looks as if all you have to do to be healthy in America is be gay and exercise." "If you're going to sing in the shower, don't start with a song that begins with 'help'." http://www.livejournal.com/users/saitaina [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid Fri May 13 17:39:06 2005 From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat) Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 17:39:06 -0000 Subject: Yahoo Help File In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Kelley" wrote: > Hi, everyone-- > > I've been working on a file that hopefully helps with the most > common Yahoo problems run into by list members. What I have below > represents the most common questions the elves receive, but I'm > sure there are other issues that I'm forgetting. Any suggestions > on that would be welcome. Potioncat: I think this is a Yahoo related issue and Penapart Elf was the one who finally helped me work out the last of the details. When combining several posts into one answer,(where you cut and paste from several different posts) you need to use notepad to avoid getting a bunch of strange symbols in the final post. At any rate, she explained it much better, and it may have to do with the html button someone else commented on. You can tell, I don't have any idea what I'm talking about. But I can do a multipost single answer now. ;-) From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Wed May 25 12:57:36 2005 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 12:57:36 -0000 Subject: Quick query re: spoilers Message-ID: Hi! Are we going to have spoiler space and have people put "spoiler" in the subject line again? It worked nicely for OoP. I had no spoilers until I read the stupid dust jacket. Lesson for the future;o) I'm one of those who avoids them like the plague. I'm sure the Elves are already on top of this, but I was just wondering. Thanks! Ginger From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Wed May 25 14:08:44 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:08:44 -0000 Subject: Yahoo Help File In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Potioncat: > I think this is a Yahoo related issue and Penapart Elf was the one > who finally helped me work out the last of the details. When > combining several posts into one answer,(where you cut and paste from > several different posts) you need to use notepad to avoid getting a > bunch of strange symbols in the final post. At any rate, she > explained it much better, and it may have to do with the html button > someone else commented on. Annemehr: Maybe it depends on your browser? I cut and paste directly between two windows in webview, using Netscape, and never get any odd symbols. I'm set for "convert to HTML," for what it's worth... From whizbang121 at whizbang121.yahoo.invalid Tue Jun 21 13:59:22 2005 From: whizbang121 at whizbang121.yahoo.invalid (whizbang) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:59:22 -0000 Subject: two knuts Message-ID: If I may suggest, it might not be bad to keep the spoiler policy on the main thread in place for an extended period. Many people won't get the book or their translation right away. But, opening a sub forum, like this, particularly to discuss HBP spoilers during whatever period is determined for the main board, with the intention of merging the two when the spoiler period has ended, would give those who have gotten and finished the book quickly a place to beging discussing immediately. From cat_kind at cat_kind.yahoo.invalid Tue Jun 21 15:28:12 2005 From: cat_kind at cat_kind.yahoo.invalid (cat_kind) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:28:12 -0000 Subject: Spoiler Policy Message-ID: catkind: I really don't like the idea of having spoiler warnings after July 16th. I don't think anyone is going to be able to have a sensible discussion *in the middle* of reading the book without any spoilers at all. If people have for whatever reason not got around to starting the book, it seems likely they haven't got much time for discussion anyway. Are there really that many of us who're not going to be able to get hold of the book at all by the time the list reopens *and* have time on their hands *and* have something to say? I don't think so. On the other hand, having spoiler warnings will make the discussion very hard to follow. If you can't specify what you're posting about in the title of your post for fear of spoilers we'll have hundreds of posts a day entitled "HBP: The Ending" or whatever, which will be impossible to navigate, and make it far more likely that lots of individual posts will say exactly the same thing. Just my thoughts. catkind From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Tue Jun 21 16:32:38 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:32:38 -0000 Subject: Spoiler Policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "cat_kind" wrote: > catkind: > I really don't like the idea of having spoiler warnings after July > 16th. I don't think anyone is going to be able to have a sensible > discussion *in the middle* of reading the book without any spoilers at > all. If people have for whatever reason not got around to starting the > book, it seems likely they haven't got much time for discussion anyway. > Neri: Instead of deciding in advance when the spoiler policy will end, it is possible to simply decide not to decide, and end it according to the situation in the list. That is, once 90% of the posts will have a spoiler warning, it means the spoiler policy can be canceled. For those 10% that still haven't read the book by then, it's possible to have a non-spoiler policy. That is, any message carrying the prefix "OOP:" means it is safe to read. It is also possible to start both policies immediately after the publishing of HBP. That is, from July 16 *any* post must have in its title either the prefix HBP (any canon detail from HBP) or OOP (no canon detail from HBP). When members would encounter a message without any of these two warnings they will immediately know that this is a message that doesn't follow the spoiler policy, and therefore reading it is dangerous. It would also make it very easy for the list elves to identify these posts. Once the HBP posts are more than 90% of the total number of posts it is possible to cancel the HBP policy, but still leave the OOP policy on. Neri From kkersey at kkersey_austin.yahoo.invalid Tue Jun 21 17:15:03 2005 From: kkersey at kkersey_austin.yahoo.invalid (kkersey_austin) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:15:03 -0000 Subject: Spoiler Policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: First of all, may I respectfully suggest that the email addresses of the survey respondents not be listed with the poll results? Not because I think that anonymous voting is prefeable; it's just that after a few hundred (or thousand!) more list members vote, viewing the results is going to be next to impossible. I agree with Catkind that spoiler-free subject lines are a hindrance to navigating the list, especially when combined with the surge in volume that the list will certainly experience. When OoP came out, I very quickly became annoyed with repeatedly having to scroll past all the spoiler space, especially when vague subject headings made it difficult to choose which posts were likely to be of interest. There was no way I could begin to read everything! After a while, to be honest, I gave up even trying, and only recently came back to reading the main list with any sort of regularity. On the other hand, I do recognize that there are some list members who for various reasons will lag behind the majority of us in obtaining a copy of or reading HBP, yet still want to remain a part of the HPfGU community. I don't think any of want to be inconsiderate of their needs, but the purpose of the main list *is* to discuss the HP books, and when HBP is published, I think it should be fair game - all of it. Perhaps there are ways that those who wish to avoid spoilers can still participate in the HPfGU community after July 16 - for instance OT Chatter could be designated a spoiler-free zone or require spoiler space. That should not inconvenience those who want to discuss HBP on the main list, while still allowing members of the HPfGU community to stay connected regardless of their having been able to read HBP or not. Another option would be to create (yet another!) secondary list for those who are still waiting for HBP after July 16. The suggestions I'm making are, I'm sure, based on speculation on my part about what those who are wanting spoiler space are wanting from the list(s). I'd like to hear more specifics from those folks about what they are hoping for in terms of participating in the HPfGU community, and specifically the main list, during the first few weeks after HBP is released. (If there has been a discussion about this elsewhere while I was out of town, please just direct me there and forgive me for jumping into this without catching up on the other lists first.) As I mentioned earlier, I don't think the spoiler space thing worked so well last time around; certainly it didn't work for me. Myself, I can hardly wait to get my hands on a copy of HBP and also am looking forward to reading what everyone else thinks about it! Karen, whose vote is firmly for RAYOR, at least until I hear a compeling argument that changes my mind. :-) From sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid Tue Jun 21 17:30:56 2005 From: sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:30:56 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Spoiler Policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <006d01c57686$fbe2fee0$0400a8c0@pensive> When OOTP came out, i had not yet found HPFGU. i was on a small list, that had a lot of kids as well as some adults. I didn't read mail from that list for a couple days, till I finished the list. However, imagine my shock, when I did read mail, when i came to a post whose subject line said, OMG Sirius dies! Right in the subject line, written the very weekend the book was released. I already knew, because I'd finished the book, but there were several people who because of family and work obligations hadn't quite reached that far. That was completely unfair and inappropriate of that person to do, IMO. Yet, as someone who uses a screen reader, I admit that having to scroll through lots of repeated spoiler space in the body of messages is one big pain in the ... keyboard! I really don't know what a fair compromise would be, but I think there needs to be something. At least, the subject lines should say spoiler alert. I have the mail come to my inbox on my PC and don't read it on the web site, does the web site show part of the message without having to click on it to read it? That would be bad, I think. maybe, there could be a shorter time for spoiler warnings, several days, instead of two weeks? just a few idle thoughts and comments. sherry From sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid Tue Jun 21 17:34:39 2005 From: sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:34:39 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Spoiler Policy In-Reply-To: <006d01c57686$fbe2fee0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: <006e01c57687$8126bfb0$0400a8c0@pensive> I said: When OOTP came out, i had not yet found HPFGU. i was on a small list, that had a lot of kids as well as some adults. I didn't read mail from that list for a couple days, till I finished the list. Oops. i meant to say, I didn't read mail from that list till I finished the book! i had the mail sorted into a Harry Potter folder, so it didn't even come to my inbox and wouldn't be read accidentally. Sherry From betsyfallon at betsyfallon.yahoo.invalid Tue Jun 21 18:07:55 2005 From: betsyfallon at betsyfallon.yahoo.invalid (betsy fallon) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:07:55 -0000 Subject: Spoilers Message-ID: I think that no posts should be about HPB for the first week. Betsy From lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid Tue Jun 21 20:34:18 2005 From: lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid (lunalovegoodrules) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 20:34:18 -0000 Subject: Spoiler Policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: catkind wrote: > I really don't like the idea of having spoiler warnings after July 16th. Me meither. It's actually detrimental to the list to have any spoiler warnings at all, in any situation, right now and in the past and certainly in the future. 1 - Things the main list thinks need spoiler warnings are all over the front pages of almost EVERY FAN PAGE ON THE NET, most newspapers, and ALL the major HP sites, WITHOUT EXCEPTION. 2 - the percentage of posts written to the list after it opens not dealing with HBP issues will be minimal (if there are any at all) that aren't either a) FAQtual questions b) Off Topic 3 - why is the list closing again for 72 - 83 hours? 4 - on every fan site, a majority of people are actively seeking spoilers 5 - logically, why would anybody check the best HP group on the net thinking they wouldn't read anything about the HP book that everyone else is talking about, in and out of fandom? 6 - almost without exception, those calling for spoiler warnings are calling for them because of some conjectured, hypothetical, probably non-existant OTHER 7 - spoiler warnings are unsightly, or rather, lack aesthetic 8 - any cut-off is arbitrary In conclusion, the idea is silly, silly, silly. dan From kkersey at kkersey_austin.yahoo.invalid Tue Jun 21 22:14:58 2005 From: kkersey at kkersey_austin.yahoo.invalid (kkersey_austin) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:14:58 -0000 Subject: Reasonable expectations Message-ID: (Betsy, if you don't mind, would you elaborate on how you, personally, would participate if your suggestion to close the list to HPB discussion for a week were taken up? That seems to me to be a short step from closing the list entirely for that week. I'm just wondering what kinds of discussions would still be allowed, and who would be reading them.) I do understand that many people do not want to be informed of critical plot developments before they have had a chance to read the book themselves. Actually, you can count me in on that group! BUT, once I *have* read the book, I would like to have a place where I can encounter thoughtful, informed discussion - about the book I have just read and am excited about. Isn't that what the HPfGU list is *for*? It's entirely appropriate to close the list for a short period of time to give the moderators a chance to read the book themselves and take a breath before the deluge. But once the canon is officially out, it should be fair game for discussion. IMHO, of course. :-) Those who don't want to be subjected to spoilers have a wide range of tools and options with which they can protect themselves: emails can be automatically sorted into folders - and not looked at until the book is read; the group web page can be avoided; list delivery options can set to no mail, and so on. There is plenty of time to inform list subscribers of these options before July 16. This afternoon, after I wrote my earlier post, I started thinking about reasonable expectations. For instance, when I go to one of my favorite restaurants, which happens to be a BBQ place, I have the reasonable expectation that I will encounter meat. Now, I am a vegetarian, and this being Austin, there happen to be - on top of the usual - some really good vegetarian options on the menu. But it is a BBQ, so when I go there, I don't expect to not see anyone eating meat. I have a friend who will not eat there because she *is* bothered by the smells of meat cooking, and seeing platters of BBQ ribs, and so on. So, she just doesn't go there. My point is, I think it is a *reasonable expectation* that after July 16 there will be discussions of HBP on a Harry Potter email discussion list. Those who haven't read the book yet, whether by choice or hardship, have options for avoiding putting themselves at risk of exposure to information they don't want to hear - options that do not in any way affect others on the list. On the other hand, the "spoiler" tags that have been used in discussions of, for instance, Ender's Game on the OT list, are entirely appropriate and considerate. It's a HP list, not an Orson Scott Card list, so it's reasonable to assume that there are people on the list who have not read Ender's Game but who might not want to be ambushed by a spoiler regarding its ending. Once again, I'm most eager to hear from those who plan on participating on the main list between July 16 and the time they have finished HBP - what kinds of discussion they are hoping to see, and how those will be of interest to the group as a whole. I for one am willing to have my mind changed by a good argument. Meanwhile, I see RAYOR to be clearly the simplest, most fair option. Karen, again From krussell98 at ladykat64.yahoo.invalid Tue Jun 21 22:12:42 2005 From: krussell98 at ladykat64.yahoo.invalid (Kathi) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:12:42 -0000 Subject: Spoiler Policy Message-ID: My thought was that it might work for a few days (not more than a week) to post a chapter ## for the spoiler. Lets say someone has read up to Chapter 15 and wants to discuss an event that takes place there, they could put that in the subject or header, and let it be the warning. Another option would be to limit discussion to a group of chapters for the first few days. For example, Day 1 is chapters 1-6, Day 2 is Chapters 1-12, Day 3 is Chapters 1-18 , and so on until the end (I don't know how many chapters are in the book). That way within a few days (4-5 max) all posts would be RAYOR, but there would be at least a little safety for peeps who aren't caught up, and they could read earlier posts without fear of spoilers. Anyway - these are my half-baked thoughts. I'm sure ya'll can poke tons of holes into why they won't work, but I thought it was worth a stab. LK From lorelei3dg at lorelei3dg.yahoo.invalid Tue Jun 21 23:22:55 2005 From: lorelei3dg at lorelei3dg.yahoo.invalid (lorelei3dg) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:22:55 -0000 Subject: Spoiler Policy Message-ID: Having read through the messages here, I think RAYOR is indeed the best option. From an adminstrative perspective, it eliminates a lot of busywork trying to enforce any kind of spoiler policy, as well as avoids hard feelings from those who inadvertently read a spoiler that was improperly labeled. I understand that people read at different rates and some will finish well before others; even so, I can't help but think that HPfGU members will be champing at the bit to talk about the book. I would hate to be restricted to discussing only certain chapters in stages, especially if the discussion could be enhanced by relating to events in a later chapter. Lorel From madettebeau at miasbo.yahoo.invalid Tue Jun 21 23:51:48 2005 From: madettebeau at miasbo.yahoo.invalid (Maddy) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:51:48 -0000 Subject: Spoiler Policy Suggestion Message-ID: Hi everyone, One idea regarding spoilers after HBP is released, is to assume that all posts contain spoilers, and therefore have members label all posts which do not contain spoilers. For example, "[No Spoilers]" could be in the subject heading, and any post without it in the subject line, should be assumed to have spoilers. This is what an HP group that I moderate is doing, and I think it will work out fairly well. We have an automatic message sent out every two weeks to remind people of the policy, too, so that it will sink in. =) Maddy From jaynekranc at jaynekranc.yahoo.invalid Wed Jun 22 04:24:47 2005 From: jaynekranc at jaynekranc.yahoo.invalid (jaynekranc) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:24:47 -0000 Subject: Spoiler Policy Message-ID: I would prefer a RAYOR policy, but I can see holding off for a week or so. Not longer. Some sites are actually shutting down for a couple of days to let people read. Has that been considered here? if so, forgive me for missing it. I've had quite a day. Two weeks is absolutely too long in my opinion. Jayne From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Wed Jun 22 12:23:34 2005 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:23:34 -0000 Subject: Spoilers Message-ID: Hello, Ginger weighing in here. I agree with those who have stated that RAYOR is the best policy for all the reasons they gave, but I must comment on the question of whether or not spoilers should be used before. I am an avid spoiler avoider. I managed to be an active member of the list before OoP and avoid spoilers thanks to the good people of the list. The first spoiler I saw was on the dust cover of the book itself. Live and learn. I do agree that after the book is out that it is fair game for a HP discussion site. IMO, Ginger From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Wed Jun 22 13:19:50 2005 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 13:19:50 -0000 Subject: Spoiler warnings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: After reading these comments, I have to say that I think RAYOR would be the best policy for when the list reopens after July 16th. This list is so high-volume that we really do *need* specific subject lines and clean (read: unclutterd with "spoiler-space" babble) posts. The price we pay in list readability to make the list spoiler-safe is too high when the vast majority of the readership at that time want to discuss HBP. I took quite long (about a week) to read OoP due to the intrusions of RL, and I simply did not visit the list in that time. I certainly preferred to read OoP when I could rather than trawl HPfGU for spoiler-free messages. Naturally, *before* July 16, full spoiler policy needs to be in effect, in case the NY Daily News or the Sun manage to get a hold of an early copy. ~Annemehr From akhillin at anita_hillin.yahoo.invalid Wed Jun 22 13:37:32 2005 From: akhillin at anita_hillin.yahoo.invalid (Anita Hillin) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 06:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] two knuts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050622133732.77184.qmail@...> --- whizbang wrote: --------------------------------- If I may suggest, it might not be bad to keep the spoiler policy on the main thread in place for an extended period. Many people won't get the book or their translation right away. But, opening a sub forum, like this, particularly to discuss HBP spoilers during whatever period is determined for the main board, with the intention of merging the two when the spoiler period has ended, would give those who have gotten and finished the book quickly a place to beging discussing immediately. akh: I like this idea. I was around for the OOP discussion, and I had no problem dealing with the spoiler policy then, which was the two-week method. However, for those who would like to dive in (and having read OOP in 24 hours over the first weekend, I was ready by Monday), designating another list as the "spoiler" list would satisfy the urge to dissect. akh, who's almost convinced herself to do the "party" thing at the Evanston Barnes and Noble for HPB. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tonyaminton at tonyaminton.yahoo.invalid Wed Jun 22 13:40:15 2005 From: tonyaminton at tonyaminton.yahoo.invalid (Tonya Minton) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:40:15 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Spoiler Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would prefer RAYOR. What I have been doing with the list since before GOF is when I get the book I don't get near the list until I am done reading to book, with OOP I did 2 reads before checking out the list. So, I was 2 days away from the list, I even think the list was closed for a couple of days, that worked out really really well. Tonya From krussell98 at ladykat64.yahoo.invalid Wed Jun 22 12:03:10 2005 From: krussell98 at ladykat64.yahoo.invalid (Kathi Russell) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:03:10 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Spoiler Policy References: Message-ID: <00c601c57722$5be20660$3f8f3f44@Dude> I know what you mean, but I think for 3 days it would be tolerable. I know many people will blow through the book in a day, but many peeps like to savor the newness and drag it out :) I don't think it's asking too much to ask peeps to be considerate for just a few days. I think anything more than 3 days is unrealistic, and inconsiderate of those who have finished the book and are ready to start going over every detail, but a few days, heck, even 2, isn't asking too much, imho. Well, that's one of things about such a large group, there will never be a complete consensus. It's nice to be able to weigh in with our ideas and opinions, but ultimately, the mods will do what they think they can handle. You're right in that it would be a huge effort to monitor the posts. I'm sure they'll think of something. Can't wait for the book! The suspense is killing me :) Then we have another 2+ years before the final installment, and we can start this discussion al over again :) Kathi ----- Original Message ----- From: lorelei3dg To: HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:22 PM Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Spoiler Policy Having read through the messages here, I think RAYOR is indeed the best option. From an adminstrative perspective, it eliminates a lot of busywork trying to enforce any kind of spoiler policy, as well as avoids hard feelings from those who inadvertently read a spoiler that was improperly labeled. I understand that people read at different rates and some will finish well before others; even so, I can't help but think that HPfGU members will be champing at the bit to talk about the book. I would hate to be restricted to discussing only certain chapters in stages, especially if the discussion could be enhanced by relating to events in a later chapter. Lorel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPFGU-Feedback-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kkersey at kkersey_austin.yahoo.invalid Wed Jun 22 14:46:02 2005 From: kkersey at kkersey_austin.yahoo.invalid (kkersey_austin) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:46:02 -0000 Subject: How well the spoiler policy worked last time Message-ID: So, is anyone out there actually planning on visiting the main list between July 16 and the time they finish reading the book? We do have a way of seeing how well a post-release spoiler policy works: I just went back a took a glance at the post-OOP activity on the main list during the time that a no-spoiler rule was in effect (messages in the vicinity of 62000 and forward). Not suprisingly - almost *every* message had "OOP" in the subject line, and of those that didn't, it was most often the case that according to the rules it should have been there. Anyone who hoped to avoid spoilers on the main list at the time would have been sorely disapointed, in spite of the apparent good-faith efforts of both moderators and list members to follow the rules. The non-OOP discussion on the list at that time was almost totally non-existent. Scanning through about 300 messages I found one that was arguably off-topic (about the word "muggle" appearing as the word of the day somewhere) and a few messages about news reports that a few copies of OOP were missing some pages. Plus a good number of reminders from the admins about spoiler policy, of course ;-) So, who exactly is a post-spoiler policy on the main list supposed to protect? I just don't get it... Karen, yet again, sorry. p.s. I used the "summary view" when scanning through the archives, but even looking at just subject headings there were plenty of spoilers in the fairly small sample of 300 messages I glanced through. From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid Wed Jun 22 17:59:30 2005 From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (constancevigilance) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:59:30 -0000 Subject: Spoiler Policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I liked the way things were done for OOP. I DO like the idea of shutting down the list for a couple of days, but not for spoilage, for throttling. The first day the list was open after OOP, which was 46 hours after release as I recall, the list was getting 2+ messages A MINUTE!! The content of most of the posts were of low quality - excited babbling. I'd like to wait for a bit to allow the excitement bubble down into some quality discussion. OK. I'm wearing my flame-proof suit. Fire away. CV From mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid Wed Jun 22 20:08:04 2005 From: mgrantwich at mgrantwich.yahoo.invalid (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 13:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Spoiler Policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050622200804.38686.qmail@...> --- constancevigilance wrote: > I liked the way things were done for OOP. I DO like the idea of > shutting down the list for a couple of days, but not for spoilage, > for > throttling. The first day the list was open after OOP, which was 46 > hours after release as I recall, the list was getting 2+ messages A > MINUTE!! The content of most of the posts were of low quality - > excited babbling. I'd like to wait for a bit to allow the > excitement bubble down into some quality discussion. > > OK. I'm wearing my flame-proof suit. Fire away. You won't get any flames from me; I totally agree. The last thing I want is to wear out my DELETE key on hyper-excited ramblings about how someone was first in line and what costume they wore to the bookstore. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From seuferer at shanti_50130.yahoo.invalid Wed Jun 22 22:18:12 2005 From: seuferer at shanti_50130.yahoo.invalid (Lisa) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:18:12 -0000 Subject: My .02 on the Spoiler Policy Message-ID: I would personally prefer to have a RAYOR policy, and not see the list shut down at all. I am not a very active poster to the group, but I am an avid lurker. The thing is, for me, after I read OotP, I was *dying* for an outlet- -someone to talk to about new theories, what happened, etc., etc., etc., I live in a very small town, and have no one anywhere near me in geographical location who is remotely as big a fan as I am. I had OotP read by 6 p.m. Saturday evening after it came out... and I needed to TALK to someone about it! What was that veil thing, anyway. Is he really dead or just... 'in there' somehow? What about the mirror.... everything. My hubby reads the books, but he reads *slow*--it took him 2 weeks to finish it, and the whole time I felt like a pressure-cooker about ready to *BLOW* not having anyone to talk to about the book. Okay, I'm a grown up, I can deal with a little stress and anticipation, and be a good girl and not 'spoil' anyone. But at the same time, I would really like to have someplace "safe" that I can go to discuss the book the minute I've finished reading it. Preferably someplace amongst other intelligent individuals who love the books as much as I do. Even better if those individuals are adults, and people who I don't have to worry about "spoiling". No matter WHAT policy you use, there are going to be dunderheads who spoil themselves. I belong to one HP forum that had an entire forum dedicated to OotP immediately, with huge banners and all sorts of graphics "warning" not to enter unless you'd read the book or didn't mind spoilers, and even then there was the invariable person who stumbled into the forum... "awww.... man... I didn't know _______ died! I haven't read the book yet!" In spite of the fact that to get inside those forums, you had to click a link that said explicitly said what was to be found inside. I will respect whatever decision is made, and realize that no matter what, there is no way to make everyone happy. I would hope for a RAYOR policy for my own personal preference, but I'm a grown up. ;) I can handle following the rules. :) Shanti From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Thu Jun 23 01:03:19 2005 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:03:19 -0000 Subject: Why not a spoiler-protected sub-list? (was: two knuts) In-Reply-To: <20050622133732.77184.qmail@...> Message-ID: > --- whizbang wrote: > If I may suggest, it might not be bad to keep the > spoiler policy on the main thread in place for an > extended period. Many people won't get the book or > their translation right away. > > But, opening a sub forum, like this, particularly to > discuss HBP spoilers during whatever period is > determined for the main board, with the intention of > merging the two when the spoiler period has ended, > would give those who have gotten and finished the book > quickly a place to beging discussing immediately. > akh: > > I like this idea. I was around for the OOP > discussion, and I had no problem dealing with the > spoiler policy then, which was the two-week method. > However, for those who would like to dive in (and > having read OOP in 24 hours over the first weekend, I > was ready by Monday), designating another list as the > "spoiler" list would satisfy the urge to dissect. > Neri: >From the other posts around here it seems that those who won't read the book right away will be a minority, but still a minority that should be regarded. If so, why not reverse your suggestion and have an OOP sub-list that is protected from any HBP spoiler? This would be easier to monitor since the volume is expected to be low, it would be safer (a much smaller chance of a spoiler getting in by mistake) and it will be possible to keep for as much time as needed, even a month or three, while the majority of members will be free to post anything they like in the main list with RAYOR. Neri From heidi at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid Thu Jun 23 01:37:12 2005 From: heidi at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid (Heidi) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:37:12 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Why not a spoiler-protected sub-list? (was: two knuts) In-Reply-To: References: <20050622133732.77184.qmail@...> Message-ID: <5913e6f805062218376bdc66d6@...> On 6/22/05, nkafkafi wrote: > From the other posts around here it seems that those who won't read > the book right away will be a minority, but still a minority that > should be regarded. If so, why not reverse your suggestion and have an > OOP sub-list that is protected from any HBP spoiler? This would be > easier to monitor since the volume is expected to be low, it would be > safer (a much smaller chance of a spoiler getting in by mistake) and > it will be possible to keep for as much time as needed, even a month > or three, while the majority of members will be free to post anything > they like in the main list with RAYOR. That makes more sense, especially as it is impossible, given Yahoo's current configuration, to blend one list with another. The other option, as someone implied, would be to make OTC a spoiler-free zone where no discussion of the contents of HBP, which I keep writing as HBP, could take place, but people could talk about anything in the earlier books, if they wish. Also, both FictionAlley.org (at http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums) and an LJ community will focus on chapter by chapter discussions where you can't discuss anything from a subsequent chapter, so people can, say, talk about chapter 3 wihtout getting spoiled for 18. That's the kind of thing one can do with a forum setup but not on a mailing list. Heidi ** FictionAlley is selling wristbands to raise funds for the Katie O'Brien Memorial Scholarship - learn more, and order, at http://www.fictionalley.org/wristbands.html ** From krussell98 at ladykat64.yahoo.invalid Wed Jun 22 16:19:41 2005 From: krussell98 at ladykat64.yahoo.invalid (Kathi Russell) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:19:41 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] How well the spoiler policy worked last time References: Message-ID: <01f601c57746$31bc7ea0$3f8f3f44@Dude> Well Karen, I think you are ultimately right. I plan on staying away form the list until I've finished the book. It won't be a hardship, since I won't be able to put it down until I finish it anyway :) I read the list through digest version, so I'll just keep all the emails and read them as I get to them :) Just can't wait, just can't wait....... ----- Original Message ----- From: kkersey_austin To: HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:46 AM Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] How well the spoiler policy worked last time So, is anyone out there actually planning on visiting the main list between July 16 and the time they finish reading the book? We do have a way of seeing how well a post-release spoiler policy works: I just went back a took a glance at the post-OOP activity on the main list during the time that a no-spoiler rule was in effect (messages in the vicinity of 62000 and forward). Not suprisingly - almost *every* message had "OOP" in the subject line, and of those that didn't, it was most often the case that according to the rules it should have been there. Anyone who hoped to avoid spoilers on the main list at the time would have been sorely disapointed, in spite of the apparent good-faith efforts of both moderators and list members to follow the rules. The non-OOP discussion on the list at that time was almost totally non-existent. Scanning through about 300 messages I found one that was arguably off-topic (about the word "muggle" appearing as the word of the day somewhere) and a few messages about news reports that a few copies of OOP were missing some pages. Plus a good number of reminders from the admins about spoiler policy, of course ;-) So, who exactly is a post-spoiler policy on the main list supposed to protect? I just don't get it... Karen, yet again, sorry. p.s. I used the "summary view" when scanning through the archives, but even looking at just subject headings there were plenty of spoilers in the fairly small sample of 300 messages I glanced through. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Tue Jun 28 11:34:17 2005 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:34:17 -0000 Subject: Why not a spoiler-protected sub-list? (was: two knuts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Neri: > From the other posts around here it seems that those who won't read > the book right away will be a minority, but still a minority that > should be regarded. If so, why not reverse your suggestion and have an > OOP sub-list that is protected from any HBP spoiler? This would be > easier to monitor since the volume is expected to be low, it would be > safer (a much smaller chance of a spoiler getting in by mistake) and > it will be possible to keep for as much time as needed, even a month > or three, while the majority of members will be free to post anything > they like in the main list with RAYOR. I must say this suggestion has a lot to commend it. As well as the advantages Neri mentions, it is also easier to manage the long term implications. I think that to have a spoiler-free main list and a RAYOR 'sub-list' would lead to the tail wagging the dog. The sub-list would for practical purposes become the main list during the transitional period, yet new members would continue to join the spoiler-free list: we might , once the spoiler policy was lifted, end up with competing lists. Or the elves would be put in the position of summarily closing a list that had started to develop a life of its own. Doing this also, as I understand it, meets the need that some have for a space to go on discussing OOP and the earlier books while awaiting a delayed HBP, without making everyone else who wants to talk about HBP have to make major changes to their behaviour. I do wonder, though, what the actual experience of such a list would be: a dwindling band of the HBP-ignorant, experiencing successive losses as its members get the book and sign off with a "Yay! See you on the other side!" and then stop talking to those who are left. Personally, what I think we really need is not a spoiler policy, but a few people who are prepared to make the supreme sacrifice for the sake of community, and go on discussing the earlier books with the deprived ("HBP-challenged") *even though they have read HBP*. Because I think that's the real issue: people now in the thick of things will suddenly find themselves on the outside, whether they avoid spoilers or not, purely through geographical or other accident, and no doubt will feel this keenly. David From Schlobin1 at susanmcgee48176.yahoo.invalid Fri Sep 2 06:51:36 2005 From: Schlobin1 at susanmcgee48176.yahoo.invalid (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 06:51:36 -0000 Subject: Hurricane Katrina Message-ID: I wonder if any consideration has been given to ask members of this group to each donate $1 - $10 to a fund for relief for the people affected by the Hurricane. A paypal account could be easily set up -- and the funds could be sent to the American Red Cross --- Given that this is one of the largest yahoo groups on the web, the impact of JKR's fans could be awesome..... Susan McGee From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 3 00:08:27 2005 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:08:27 -0000 Subject: Susan's relief idea Message-ID: I agree with Susan. As one who has spent the last several days worrying about a cousin who stayed there (as a nurse-she's now been evacuated), I would be more than willing to donate. My only suggestion would be to add a note that more could be given if people were willing, leaving $1-$10 as a suggestion. I might also add that I know of one HPfGU member from that area, and I'm sure there are more than that. It would mean a lot to them if their HP friends were eager to help. Thank you, Susan. What a great heart you have! Ginger From Schlobin1 at susanmcgee48176.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 3 09:38:42 2005 From: Schlobin1 at susanmcgee48176.yahoo.invalid (Schlobin1 at susanmcgee48176.yahoo.invalid) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 05:38:42 EDT Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Susan's relief idea Message-ID: In a message dated 9/2/2005 5:09:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, quigonginger at ... writes: agree with Susan. As one who has spent the last several days worrying about a cousin who stayed there (as a nurse-she's now been evacuated), I would be more than willing to donate. My only suggestion would be to add a note that more could be given if people were willing, leaving $1-$10 as a suggestion. I might also add that I know of one HPfGU member from that area, and I'm sure there are more than that. It would mean a lot to them if their HP friends were eager to help. Thank you, Susan. What a great heart you have! Ginger Ginger, I am so heartened and delighted that someone has responded to my idea.....how would this work? Should one of us just post and suggest ito on the list? Susan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ms_petra_pan at ms_petra_pan.yahoo.invalid Sat Sep 3 19:34:57 2005 From: ms_petra_pan at ms_petra_pan.yahoo.invalid (Petra) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:34:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Hurricane Katrina / Susan's relief idea Message-ID: <20050903193457.33829.qmail@...> Susan McGee: > Should one of us just post and suggest ito on the list? Please read the following first before the List Elves have to send you a (H)Owler for being off-topic... Susan, earlier: > I wonder if any consideration has been given to ask members of this > group to each donate $1 - $10 to a fund for relief for the people > affected by the Hurricane. The List Elves have not made any decisions about this issue (which is also to say that I am not speaking on behalf of the team with this post) but I wanted to throw in my two knuts before you guys posted to Main. > A paypal account could be easily set up -- and the funds could be sent > to the American Red Cross --- True but why would our collecting monies and then sending the funds to the relief effort be better than donating directly to the Red Cross? > Given that this is one of the largest yahoo groups on the web, the > impact of JKR's fans could be awesome..... But given that making such an impact, albeit on behalf of a worthy cause, is not this group's raison d'etre nor why our list members join us, I do not see why this is a call to action that belongs at the main list. (But as always, my mind remains open.) The social activist in me is already well covered in terms of these activities with groups that I not only trust to collect my donations and get them to those in dire need, but also are set up to do this properly and efficiently. I know *we* are not out to scam people but I would encourage anyone to part with their money only with people officially partnered with the Red Cross and other verified relief effort leaders. Under Susan McGee's proposal, HPfGU would be playing the unnecessary role of middle man when the Red Cross does not need us to handle donations intended for their use in disaster relief: they are already set up to take donations themselves and have partnered up with others, Yahoo being one of them in fact (see http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3 ). I see our membership as being more than capable of altruistic actions without being exhorted by their fellow Potterheads. Hmm...a lump sum donated in the name of HPforGrownups would garner some publicity for us but since we are not publicity hounds, that would not be a reason to get in between donors and the Red Cross. So I'm all for people including a URL with their sig if they should wish to include one to the Red Cross's donation site - reminders are good - but only with an on-topic post to the main list. Heck, even seeing "I donated today...have you?" after fellow list members' sigs works for me. But as a list member, I desire HPfGU the entity to involve itself only with things HP or HPfGU related. Here are some lines attachable to anyone's sig: "To volunteer for or donate to Hurricane Katrina relief: http://www.redcross.org http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3 " Ginger: > I agree with Susan. As one who has spent the last several days > worrying about a cousin who stayed there (as a nurse-she's now been > evacuated), I would be more than willing to donate. I agree with your sentiment here and would only add that donations would get to your cousin's fellow victims more quickly if directly gathered by the Red Cross and its partners. > My only > suggestion would be to add a note that more could be given if people > were willing, leaving $1-$10 as a suggestion. Both the Red Cross and Yahoo has this covered nicely (*and* they take all major credit cards!). > I might also add that I know of one HPfGU member from that area, and > I'm sure there are more than that. It would mean a lot to them if > their HP friends were eager to help. Now here is something that could go on OTC: just how our HPfGU members affected by the hurricane are doing and whether we can send help, directly from member to member, instead of donating to the overall relief fund. They would benefit much more quickly, I would imagine. So, in terms of the various issues: * GATHERING FUNDS via HPfGU: my opinion is "no" whether the funds are filtered through the List Elves or anyone else. The Red Cross provides plenty of opportunities already; we would not be shoring up their efforts by getting in the middle. * OT-POST TO MAIN: my opinion is "no." Posting various URLs of official relief funds to OTC would be acceptable though. Petra (Penapart Elf when on duty) a n :) __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 5 16:41:02 2005 From: n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid (Mrs.) Lee Storm (God is the Healing Force) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:41:02 -0400 Subject: Treading Dangerously, Perhaps, But...Desperate Message-ID: <0IMC003QVRODY0UD@...> Dear List Elves, First, let me say that I respect those in the HP community who enjoy reading this "slash" type fanfic and it is their right to interpret characters the way they wish. Personally, I have a most difficult time reading posts that have to do with same-sex Ships and interpretations of characters that are, IMO, nothing at all the way they were written to be by JKR. I know this will probably take on more work, so I can certainly understand if you wouldn't want to think along these lines and, perhaps instead, let me know if there are places which meet the criteria I feel important. I'd really like to find a list where the members are true to the characters, recognizing that they are written as heterosexual, and working with the characters in the spirit in which they were written. I just can't deal with seeing folk think of Harry involved with another male, etc.; it's just so far from the true characterization that I find myself literally nauseated by it. If you know of a list/community which deals with truly straight interpretations of the characters, I would sincerely like to know! I'm sure I'm not alone in this as I have seen many requests for fanfic suggestions, including my own, seeking fic that is true to the cannon in it's interpretation of the characters. (I'm still looking for that, too.) Please help those of us who are straight find a place we can share with our families. With thanks, Lee Storm Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at ... (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at ... Walk beside me, and be my friend. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 5 21:00:41 2005 From: lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid (lunalovegoodrules) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:00:41 -0000 Subject: Hurricane Katrina / Susan's relief idea In-Reply-To: <20050903193457.33829.qmail@...> Message-ID: Red Cross. Everyone's doing it. Why spend time arguing on this list about it? Sheesh. dan From lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 5 21:15:26 2005 From: lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid (lunalovegoodrules) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:15:26 -0000 Subject: Treading Dangerously, Perhaps, But...Desperate In-Reply-To: <0IMC003QVRODY0UD@...> Message-ID: Lee Storm (God is the Healing Force wrote: > Personally, I have a most difficult time reading posts that have to do with same-sex Ships and interpretations of characters that are, IMO, nothing at all the way they were written to be by JKR. dan: I don't know what response you are seeking here. It looks like you are exclaiming to us that same sex doesn't exist in Rowling. Okay, you are free to exclaim this. > I know this will probably take on more work, so I can certainly understand if you wouldn't want to think along these lines and, perhaps instead, let me know if there are places which meet the criteria I feel important. Again, I don't know what you are saying here. What would be more work? Are you suggesting something? If so, what? What are "these lines" we may not want to think along? As for places that meet your criteria, I daresay Scholastic publishing would no doubt fit. > I'd really like to find a list where the members are true to the characters, recognizing that they are written as heterosexual, and working with the characters in the spirit in which they were written. I just can't deal with seeing folk think of Harry involved with another male, etc.; it's just so far from the true characterization that I find myself literally nauseated by it. dan: There are many takes on the Harry Potter universe, there is no single take on it, like some othodox church of Potter. Even if there was such an orthodoxy, there would be disenters a plenty, moreso than orthodox adherants. Also, you come across as if you were trying to insult the slash friendly list, because you can just ask, "hey, is there a heterosexual only sort of list you could direct me to?", instead of talking about how slash makes you ill, how it's so far from canon etc. etc. I suggest you just ask a simple question, without trying to offend people with discriptions of how some interpretions make you ill. It's more than a bit passive aggressive. > If you know of a list/community which deals with truly straight interpretations of the characters, I would sincerely like to know! I'm sure I'm not alone in this as I have seen many requests for fanfic suggestions, including my own, seeking fic that is true to the cannon in it's interpretation of the characters. (I'm still looking for that, too.) dan: Sorry, I don't know what you mean "truly straight" - is this opposed to something that is falsely straight? Honestly, I'm not being cute here. There are thousands of writers on fanfiction.net and fictionalley who swear their fiction is true to canon. It's a matter of interpretation. > Please help those of us who are straight find a place we can share with our families. dan: Again with the passive aggressive suggestion that family and gay can't be the same thing. I have absolutely nothing against my 9 year old son reading gay themed material (that isn't porn). You seem to think gay is porn by definition. If you want to find a hetero only list, that's fine. But don't insult the list in this passive aggressive way while you do it. dan From zanelupin at zanelupin.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 16:40:08 2005 From: zanelupin at zanelupin.yahoo.invalid (KathyK) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:40:08 -0000 Subject: Treading Dangerously, Perhaps, But...Desperate In-Reply-To: <0IMC003QVRODY0UD@...> Message-ID: Lee wrote: > I know this will probably take on more work, so I can certainly > understand if you wouldn't want to think along these lines and, > perhaps instead, let me know if there are places which meet the > criteria I feel important. > > I'd really like to find a list where the members are true to the > characters, recognizing that they are written as heterosexual, and > working with the characters in the spirit in which they were > written. KathyK: Hi Lee, I'm afraid I'm a little bit puzzled. Are you merely looking for recommendations for places to go for heterosexual interpretations of canon? Your statement that something "will probably take on more work" is what's throwing me off. Making recommendations hardly does that, so it seems you were meaning to ask something more. I was wondering if you could clarify? As far as any recommendations go, I don't have any. I am almost strictly a HPFGU HP fan, and have little knowledge of the HP fandom outside Y!Groups. KathyK From n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 16:59:47 2005 From: n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid (Mrs.) Lee Storm (God is the Healing Force) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:59:47 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Treading Dangerously, Perhaps, But...Desperate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0IMG003EJHVJXSG8@...> | KathyK: | | Hi Lee, | | I'm afraid I'm a little bit puzzled. Are you merely looking for | recommendations for places to go for heterosexual interpretations of | canon? Your statement that something "will probably take on more | work" is what's throwing me off. Making recommendations hardly does | that, so it seems you were meaning to ask something more. I was | wondering if you could clarify? [Lee]: Well, perhaps if there is none, pulling together a list which meets the criteria I mentioned. Please understand, this means no insult or disrespect to any of the HPFG lists; the elves are super and most of the folk I've met are super. But there are times when the slash refs just get to be waaaay too much. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at ... (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at ... Walk beside me, and be my friend. From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 7 20:48:22 2005 From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:48:22 -0000 Subject: Treading Dangerously, Perhaps, But...Desperate In-Reply-To: <0IMG003EJHVJXSG8@...> Message-ID: KathyK: > Are you merely looking for recommendations for places to go for > heterosexual interpretations of canon? Lee: > Well, perhaps if there is none, pulling together a list which meets > the criteria I mentioned. > > Please understand, this means no insult or disrespect to any of the > HPFG lists.... SSSusan: Would you be interested in starting your own Yahoo!Group, Lee? Or in working with others who feel as you do to start one? If so, it might be that you could use the OTC list to suggest the idea (gently, if I might recommend that, so as not to sound judgmental or as if there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality?). I'm thinking that you could, for instance, ask people to contact you offlist, and you could generate a list of those who are interested... or you could simply ask at OTC if there is already a site or group which purposely avoids slash. Several smaller HP-related Yahoo!Groups have been started by HPfGU members, without having any affiliation with HPfGU [Hans' HPforSeekers, Susan McGee's HP group for Over 40s, TigerPatronus' group (whose name escapes me just now), for example]. This could be a similar thing. Siriusly Snapey Susan