What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU

[cw22005]

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many of you know, Kneasy is no longer active on the HPfGU lists and 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.

<Excel file snipped from Feedback version of this paper>

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

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. 
<snip>
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. 
<snip>
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.