[CAUT] Forum format (was Re: Requirements for contributing/posting; RPT status

[Alan McCoy]

I've been thinking a lot about this stuff for awhile now, and more so during
this thread. Our listserves as they are now really do a decent job for
real-time learning and sharing. And that of course is what it they are for.
And after mulling it over again and again, I don't think a forum would
necessarily do a better job of that. What I keep coming back to though is
the idea of an online database, or repository, of collective knowledge and
wisdom, a wikipedia of piano technology, if you will. I think I have been
trying to shoehorn the listserve format into something it is not designed to
do. The two vehicles together would be more useful than either alone.

Pesky Al


-- Alan McCoy, RPT
Eastern Washington University
amccoy at mail.ewu.edu
509-359-4627
509-999-9512


> From: Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu>
> Reply-To: "College and University Technicians <caut at ptg.org>" <caut at ptg.org>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:27:05 -0600
> To: "College and University Technicians <caut at ptg.org>" <caut at ptg.org>
> Subject: [CAUT] Forum format (was Re: Requirements for contributing/posting;
> RPT status
> 
> Hi Alan,
> Is there an example of such an animal out there that you have been
> subscribed to and have found useful and amenable? As opposed to the
> "bulletin board" or blog formats where there is an initial
> "item" (could be an article, a product, whatever) and then a bunch of
> comments posted (which could be sent automatically to everyone who is
> involved). [With that kind of format (ie, on a web page with comments
> posted below something or other), I find that I am only interested in
> wading through if there has been, like on Amazon, a way for readers to
> say "this was useful," which makes it possible to "skip the crap"
> without wading through pages of posts.]
> Personally, I have my doubts that there would be enough interest in
> such a complex means of communication: You have to search for an
> appropriate thread before asking a question or posting an idea. What
> if nobody is "there" (nobody happens to be subscribed to that topic,
> or nobody you want to communicate with)? You start a new topic. How
> long before somebody else notices? somebody responds? I guess it is a
> good way of creating an organized archives, but I'm not so sure it
> works with "real people in real time." Maybe you have seen an example
> in real life that functions well, and can provide some testimony.
> I agree with Ron that an open forum like this (caut) means that I am
> likely to find things I didn't think I'd be interested in, things I
> would be unlikely to "subscribe to" as a topic, and discover that
> indeed I AM interested.
> And, frankly, the psychology of an open conversation among
> colleagues, even if much is just chatter, is more appealing to me.
> There is a sense of connectedness, which I have found psychologically
> very important over the years in this isolated and isolating profession.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
> fssturm at unm.edu
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 14, 2008, at 7:31 PM, Alan McCoy wrote:
> 
>> Well Ron there's nothing really limiting by using a forum structure
>> for the
>> conversation instead of a list server. The conversation would still
>> exist in
>> un-digested form. People would choose to reply to a thread or begin
>> a new
>> one, or not read it at all. The system would not in any way limit
>> what you
>> see or what you say. You choose what you want to pay attention to,
>> or not,
>> by subscribing to whatever you want to subscribe to, or not. The
>> organization of the threads, the conversation, is neither in your
>> control ,
>> nor not in your control. The organization of the conversation
>> reflects the
>> sensibilities of all who use it, and changes as the community of
>> users see
>> fit, dynamically and ongoing.
>