Quantity VS Quality

[Steve]

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