What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU

[cubfanbudwoman]

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.