Main List Problems

[maria_kirilenko]

Hi,

I've been following this discussion for a few days now, ever since 
returning from my no-Internet summer holidays. Looking at what's been 
happening on the main list, I think I've started to understand how 
traveling by Floo powder feels. <g>

Some comments on the possible solutions:

Richelle wrote:
> Now, as for dividing up the main list into subcategories, I'm all 
> for that.  For example, I'm not a shipper at all.  If it happens, 
> this one hooks up with that one, fine, but I'm not all that 
> interested in that sort of thing.  

I don't know. I don't like this idea too much, and I don't think that 
it will work, really. 

You're proposing to split off SHIP posts. Others have suggested 
making separate lists for TBAY and FILK posts. But there are people 
who read all types of posts. And it's a bit unfair to make those of 
us on webview who read everything check several HPfGU Yahoogroups in 
order to keep up with everything.

Besides, there's this Sorting problem that will inevitably arise. A 
non-prefixed post can spin off TBAY and SHIP discussion, and the 
opposite is also true. For example, Elkins's Crouch nonology consists 
of eight TBAY posts and one TBAY SHIP post. Responses to these 
consist of several TBAY and several unprefixed posts. So you see, 
it's hard to predict where discussion spun off of any kind of post is 
going to lead.

Perhaps more important, though, is the fact that SHIP, FILK, and TBAY 
posts comprise only a small part of list volume. I quote from Cindy's 
message #17542:

> We could try to find some neat dividing line -– moving SHIP posts 
> or TBAY posts or FILKs to a separate list, but none of these types
> of posts really accounts for a significant part of list volume. 
> The last time I checked the stats, SHIP posts were less than 5% of
> list volume, and TBAY posts were less than 2%, IIRC.

Anyway, even though this solution addresses the volume problem, I 
don't think it's going to be very effective. And it doesn't address 
the rule-breaking problem, which IMHO is the more urgent one. 
---end this part---

I really like the idea of putting the list on read-only status for 
everyone but the Mods for as long as it's needed for the Mods and 
Elves to regroup. BTW, I'll be glad to help out if new elves are 
needed.

However, I *don't* like the idea of making a separate newbie or 
oldbie list, and I *don't* like the idea of closing membership for a 
while, for reasons that have been mentioned by other posters.

Also, I think that placing new members first on read-only, and only 
then on moderated status is a really good idea.

Judy asked:
> Several people have suggested that new members be placed on "read
> only" status for a certain amount of time.  Think back to when you
> first joined HPfGU.  Would you have been upset if we had had this
> policy?  Would you have left, or would you have stayed and waited
> to be able to post? 

Hmm. Lesse. I joined December 5, and posted on... er... the same day 
<irons hands>. I read all of the HBF and had no problems following 
the rules, though. But I'm sure that I wouldn't have left the group 
had I not been able to post for the first week or two. The strict 
rules of HPFGU, once I read them, have only increased my respect for 
the list. 

Some other comments:

Kelley wrote:
> There are *lots* of us who are biding our time; 
> guess since we've been waiting for three years to discuss OoP, a
> few more months is a drop in the bucket.

Creepy. You're almost quoting Voldemort. ;-) 

Constance Vigilance, about reading old posts:
> Gee, doesn't everyone do that? It took me a few months, but I did
> slog through all 45,000 posts on the list at that time, the ones on 
> the old group, too. 

<blush> All I ever did was read most of the Fantastic Posts referred 
to in the FAQs. I also read cross-referenced posts, and skimmed the 
subject lines in the archives to find interesting topics.

Maria Alena, offering a humble bow and volunteering her services in 
the sponsored Gryffindor common room scrub. <g>