Disheartened Newbie

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

KathyK:

>Okay, so why am I posting this? Why have I given this the title 
>of "Disheartened Newbie"? 
>
>Well, the discussion of a "newbie list" is a start. As someone who 
>never asked, "What's up with the Thestrals?" and never would for I've 
>read the FAQs, I think I would shoot myself if I had to sit in a 
>group and read endless discussions on that subject or on Dumbledore's 
>gleam (discussions of which I now avoid like the plague). 

I don't like the idea, either, Kathy. As someone has already pointed out, 
"newbies" (a term I tend to avoid as I think it rather patronising) come in all 
shapes and sizes. Some leap, fully formed, onto the screen, immediately 
producing beautifully written, original, well thought out, well formatted posts that 
demonstrate that they understand our posting conventions. Others...well, 
others take more time. For various reasons. I don't think that all new members 
should be lumped together as a group.

<>
And the idea sounds elitist, no matter how it would be done. But 
that could just be the newbie in me talking. :-)

No. *I* think it sounds elitist, too. Let's face it, we are accused of being 
elitist on occasion simply because we moderate at all.

>Another thing I find disheartening:
>
>Although there seems to be a number of members who don't mind reading 
>posts about the same things and encourage us newbies to post our 
>thoughts, there are also a number of folks who do not seem as 
>welcoming of this sort of thing. To even read the discussions here 
>on OT about that make me feel I should just keep my mouth shut. It's 
>quite a slap in the face in a group where I've felt very welcome 
>until now.

There is no rule in this group about not revisiting old topics. Yes, it can 
become tedious for members who have heard it before and frankly, we are hearing 
it again at more frequent intervals. But we were all new once and I daresay 
most of us have at some point revisited an old topic that we thought we'd 
discovered for ourselves.

It's very simple. If you no longer wish to discuss or read about a particular 
topic, just don't open that thread.

But there is a big difference between reopening a topic of discussion and 
demonstrating that you have never looked at the VFAQs. Or noticed that your 
particular query was answered yesterday. Or even a few hours ago.

There has to be some give and take. All posters, new and old have to make 
some reasonable effort and older members need to understand that it is much, much 
harder on a list of over 10000 to avoid repeating subjects than it was on a 
list of 4000.
Newer members need to understand that it *is* hard for older members. When a 
list increases in size as much as this one has, inevitably it loses some of 
its intimacy

>And yet another:
>
>I've read from several members that they are selective in their 
>readings of messages. I have mentioned above that I do not read all 
>the posts, either. I generally go by which topic I'm interested in 
>at the moment. I see that some use this method, as well. 

Yes. Well, if you're not blessed with infinite time, the volume is so great 
that you *have* to be selective and this is a sensible way to do it.

>What I also read is that some folks only read posts from people they 
>know. Well if that's the case, I should just pack it up and call it 
>a day, shouldn't I?--Oops, there's some of that anger I mentioned 
>rearing it's ugly head. Some who have said this are people whose 
>ideas and theories I have a lot of respect for. 

It's another survival strategy, but perhaps more short-sighted.
But what I would say is that if you follow the list for some time, what you 
will find is that the group of core posters changes over time. There is a 
pattern, whereby new members join the group and post at a relatively high rate and 
then start to slow down, their places being taken by newer posters. I just 
looked at the most recent page of posts over on Main and I reckon that half of 
them are by what I would regard as "new" posters. They only get known, because 
they post. 

If you write good (or conversely bad! <g>) noteworthy posts, you will be 
noticed and you will be read.

>To think I am not given the time of day just because I haven't been 
>around for ages is upsetting. 

That's not the case. If I wrote on the main list, I'd probably be overlooked 
by most selective readers now because I *have* been around for ages, but 
haven't had the time (or, frankly the inclination, with the current volume) to post 
much recently. And I used to be a Very Frequent Poster. 

>Admittedly, I look for certain 
>people's messages, too. I will read them even if I'm not interested 
>in the thread because those people always have something insightful 
>to add. But I don't skip posts based on who wrote them. A lot can 
>be missed out on that way. 

Very true.

>Forgive me if I misinterpreted what people have said, but that is how 
>it comes across to this newbie.

It is always valuable to know how new members feel. Your view is no less 
valid just because you are new.

>And I want to thank the ADMIN team for doing their best to keep this
>list as high quality as possible while still making us new folks feel 
>welcome.

Thank you. I'm glad that has been your experience.

~Eloise

    
    



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]