Todd Day <today@di.com> asks:
>So, what have you done with your list when the load gets too heavy and the
>old timers start grumbling?
Establish guidelines for postings, that are included in the "welcome"
message and reposted periodically (and perhaps excerpts also mailed to
frequent offenders). Here are my set of proposed guidelines for my
ballroom list that I posted to the list, soliciting opinions,
modifications, etc. By and large the guidelines were very well received.
I also got some good suggestions for a few modifications, which are not
yet incorporated into the version I'm attaching here; these included
things like:
- Check the FAQ if you are a new member before posting
- Make the subject line descriptive
Feel free to edit and use for your list if you'd like. The advantage of
guidelines that are somewhat formally adopted is that you have at least
a somewhat objective set of rules to point to. Furthermore,
"enforcement" can be by "peer pressure"--any member of the group can
send e-mail to the offender attaching the guidelines, and pointing out
the violation, and that removes some of the burden from the list
administrator.
Unless you have a very divisive and argumentative group (which does not
seem to be the case), it is unlikely that you will break out into a
"rules war."
Shahrukh Merchant
merchant@anuxv.att.com
================================================================
[Excerpts from my mail to members of the ballroom list]
THE PROBLEM
===========
As many of you have noticed, the traffic on the ballroom mailing list
has got to the point that it is reducing the effectiveness of the list.
There are two problems with this:
1. The more important one is it drives people away from the list who
don't have the time or inclination (or high-bandwidth user
interfaces) to handle the volume. Based on the increasing
subscription rate, there should be 500 or more members on the list.
In fact, the list membership is just at around 250, which is _less
than_ its high of 300+ several months ago. I see a direct
correlation between the volume and unsubscription rate--many people
actually send me e-mail telling me that that's why they unsubscribed.
Consequently, I think we all lose out by the reduction in the
number of participants (which is _not_ compensated for by the increased
participation of those remaining...). In a sense, the list is victim
of its own "success," if you measure success by volume of postings
(though I prefer to measure it in terms of the number of subscribers
and the quality of the postings).
2. Unlike a Usenet newsgroup, a mailing list--even an automated one--
requires a certain amount of personal administration, and it has become
burdensome. (To give you an idea, I get about 200 messages _per day_
related to the ballroom list; there are always 2-4 addresses generating
bounced mail on any day, and _each_ generates a message for _each_
message to the list.)
POSSIBLE OPTIONS
================
There are a few:
1. Start up the moderated ballroom list to supplement the unmoderated
one. This would address problem #1 above, but would actually exacerbate
#2.
2. Make "ballroom" a moderated-only list. This would be effective, but
I think many of us would miss the open forum of an unmoderated list.
It would also considerably reduce the transparency of the rec.arts.dance
(which would remain unmoderated) <--> ballroom list gateway.
3. Establish voluntary guidelines for mailings to the ballroom list that
would reduce the volume through some common-sense suggestions
without, one hopes, introducing an atmosphere of restrictiveness or
censorship.
I would like to try option 3 as it seems the least disruptive. Besides,
many people have voiced the sentiment that there is a lot of "noise" and
trivia on the list anyway, so perhaps there would be some other side
benefits to these guidelines.
[Some stuff deleted]
PROPOSED GUIDELINES (FINALLY)
=============================
[Each guideline is followed by an "editorial" on why I believe it is
appropriate.]
1. RELEVANCE OF SUBJECT: Only submit articles that are related to
ballroom or swing dancing or a directly related subject.
There seems to be a school of thought that the list is for discussion
on any subject whatsoever, as long as it is between ballroom dancers,
or as long as it stemmed from a subject that originally did pertain to
ballroom dancing. From day one, that has never been my intention in
setting up the list--even when it was on athena.mit.edu, the description
of the purpose of the list clearly stated, I think, its primary
purpose. In a previous era, when the volume was low, these digressions
did little harm and, one could argue, even added a certain amount of
congeniality. While I certainly do not intend to imply that discussions
should be limited to technical ones by any means--opinions, questions,
philosophy, social dynamics, music, etc., are all fine--it should
bear *some* relevance to the purpose of the list (ballroom/swing
dancing).
2. BROAD INTEREST: Don't send personal replies to the entire list.
The list has deliberately been configured so that replies by default
do NOT go to the whole list. If you choose to override the default,
please make sure that it is warranted, i.e., ask yourself if you are
including information that would be of interest to the list _in
general_. Even some information of general interest can be sent only
to the requester, if the requester promises to post a summary (see #3).
3. ETIQUETTE WHEN ASKING QUESTIONS: Request that answers be sent directly
to you, and offer to post summaries of responses.
Questions are fine--the access to a large number of people who might
answer them (though not necessarily consistenly :-)) is one of the
biggest assets we have in the list. However, they also have the
potential for generating a lot of list traffic with bits and pieces of
answers. A good way to "get the best of both worlds," and also for
those who ask for the information and presumably benefit from it to
"return the favour" to the list, is to offer to post a summary or
compilation of the information back to the list. E.g.,
"Where can I go ballroom dancing in Albuquerque, New Mexico?
Please send e-mail responses directly to me, and I will post
a summary of responses back to the list, combined with my own
observations and experiences when I return. I have checked the
Dancers' Archive, but couldn't find what I wanted--I will also
add the new information to the Dancers' Archive file and send
the update to Eileen." [Now *there's* a socially reponsible
posting!]
Not only does this reduce piecemeal traffic, but your compilation may
make an excellent article for inclusion in the Dancers' Archives, or FAQ,
or even so that other interested people can store all the pertinent
information in one mail message.
4. AVOID TRIVIA: Please refrain from trivial responses (usually
characterized by being 1-2 lines long).
This is not to encourage you to be verbose if you can make a point
concisely, but most 1-2 line responses of late have seemed rather
trivial. When one is asking several hundred people to go through
your message (and the dozens of lines of quoted material that
typically accompanies these trivial messages), would it
not behoove one to put at least a little thought into the content?
Examples of trivial messages (unless accompanied by some further
elaboration): "Me [sic] too!" "I'm not sure if I would agree with
that." "Ha, Ha!" "I was wondering that too."
These are probably appropriate if sent *just* to the original
poster, but it really does little more than clutter up mailboxes if
sent to the whole list. (Many _questions_ ARE 1-2 lines long and
appropriately so--this guideline is not intended to apply to
questions.)
5. SILENCE MAY BE GOLDEN: There is nothing wrong with a silent list.
OK, that's not an absolute for ALL lists. For example, for a startup
list, some continuous traffic may be desirable just so that the list
achieves critical mass of membership and volume, and does not die from
inactivity. It is quite safe to say that the ballroom list is in no
immediate danger of suffering this fate. On the contrary, there has
been an exodus of people who complain about the volume of
traffic, and the entire list suffers from the loss of their
participation.
6. PROLIFIC POSTERS: Don't feel that you need to respond to _every_
message on which you have an opinion.
A lot of good information comes from some of the most frequent
contributors, and it is not atypical that the majority of people on
the list are "lurkers," and are quite happy to remain so. But
sometimes one sees an abundance of messages from the same person
that fall into the "trivial" category (see #4) and it is then especially
annoying. One solution, if you really must add your two bits' worth
to _everything_, is to assemble these responses into a file, and post
it once a week. Even if you feel that you are making worthwhile
and well-considered statements with every posting, try not to dominate
the list with your own postings.
7. FLAMES (DON'T): Don't send flames* to the list. [*Attacks, usually
personal, typically going back and forth several times between the
same two people, ad nauseum.]
Just send it to the person you want to insult.:-) OK, so that
removes most of the "satisfaction" one gets from flaming someone in
public. Disagreements and controversy are fine and even healthy.
But when these degenerate into personal attacks and nitpicking, then
after the first round of disagreements has been aired, nothing new of
value to the list membership is usually provided, and it is only egos
that are being aired, and list members' patience that are being tried.
Some people like to flame-bait. Don't fall for it!
8. CONSIDERATION: Be aware of and considerate towards the _readers_.
Consider that when one posts an article, one is ostensibly doing it
either (i) for the benefit of the _other_ members of the list, or
(ii) to gain benefit from the other members of the list. In either case,
it seems that one should be considerate towards all these other
people. There are many little things you can do--here is just one
example:
+ Don't quote the entire article when mailing a follow-up note.
It is rarely needed since most people have seen the original. If you
must, do take the minute or two extra time to edit out all but the
most pertinent part of the original article. If your own contribution
is smaller than what you're quoting, you're probably quoting too much
[also see Item 4: Avoid Trivia]. If your mailer does not make it
easy to do this, don't subject everyone else to its limitations. Learn
how to save the file, edit it separately and read it back into your
reply. Some people still have 2400 baud connections to their on-line
services and this can make a _big_ difference!
Follow-Ups:
|
|
