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

[Alan McCoy]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for chipping in. I belong to a birding forum (new and not all that
active yet) and when someone posts a reply to one of my posts, I get an
email in my inbox letting me know. Then I go there live, as you say. So it's
kind of blend.

The IT part of forum is the main, significant downside as I understand it.
But I'm with Andy in advocating  an unmoderated, self-policed version to
minimize as much as possible any background computer whiz presence.

The idea of gradually building an online piane technology database (wiki or
some such content-management system) as Fred illustrated would be a nice
long-term addition to our lists. There is where downloads would be stored
and where the more significant content would be written and stored. Many of
us, maybe even most of us cut and paste stuff from the lists and save it on
our hard drives. Having an online version that is constantly being updated
is one way to share that information and keep it living and breathing. But
the real-time conversation would still live on our lists.

Back to work.

Alan

 


> From: Jim Harvey <harvey.pianotech at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "College and University Technicians <caut at ptg.org>" <caut at ptg.org>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:59:54 -0400
> To: "College and University Technicians <caut at ptg.org>" <caut at ptg.org>
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Forum format (was Re: Requirements for
> contributing/posting; RPT status
> 
> Fred/others,
> 
> I have no reason to soapbox one way or another on this matter, but
> what I believe Alan is referring to is not without precedent. And yes,
> it does involve a bulletin board "approach", but with more streamlined
> software than the old days. A subscription is often required to POST
> messages, otherwise usually free to browse.
> 
> There are plus and minus characteristics of such a setup. On the plus
> side, a hierarchy can be created to focus on certain types of posts.
> [Aside, long ago I generated a system that is useful for such a
> subdivision of topics/subtopics.] Moderator(s) can move posts to more
> appropriate areas, stop posting of certain threads that have wandered
> too far, outlived their usefulness (information since proved
> incorrect), restrict/lock out offensive users and/or behavior, create
> 'sticky' posts that do exactly as the term implies, and many other
> options. The users also have a bunch of options available to them.
> 
> Note the plural of the word moderators. Here is where the minus
> characteristics kick in. Andy Rudolph has always advocated an 'open'
> structure, with any policing, if any, done internally by the group.
> Hmm, kind of like PTG itself. Per Andy's model, this would preclude
> moderator(s), unless, paraphrasing Andy, someone wants to step up to
> the job.
> 
> The other, arguably significant downside and tradeoff to the power of
> these systems routinely mean you must "go there"... live... instead of
> having the latest traffic delivered to your inbox.
> 
> As one of many examples, I offer as an example a board that I visit,
> and one that all of us might benefit from at one time or another:
> <http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/>
> 
> That's enough for now, except that on a personal level, I do not like
> our existing archive search routine. It's true that anything can be
> found, but only if one lives long enough to wade through all the fluff
> and non-substance. This is typical of the Google engine however; eg; I
> want to know the maximum air pressure for my vehicle tires, and enter
> the appropriate search terms. On page two or three, I might find a
> snippet that applies, but not before wading through the two pages
> consisting of where to buy tires six states away!
> 
> Whoops! Sorry, hit a sore spot, and it's my own fault.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Harvey, RPT
> <harvey.pianotech at gmail.com>
> <www.harveypiano.com>