On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
> For a particular type of list, they do something very positive:
> chase away slackers and lurkers. If you're interested in having
> smaller lists of high participation, pestering people with
> reconfirmation requests makes it likely the less interested will
> just go away. For community lists, that's a very good thing.
Why? What harm do slackers and lurkers do? And what's the
difference between them? I don't even know for sure what a slacker
is, in this context, except that you seem to imply equating
participation with production. I distinguish them.
I seldom post any joke to my little list that someone else
hasn't sent me. There are a few people who are bountiful sources of
jokes, sending several per day; a few who send maybe one to five a
year; and quite a few -- maybe a majority -- who seldom or never
send any at all. (I suspect that those people forward to others,
though. And it may be that some refrain only because others beat
them to the same jokes, perhaps not by much.)
But all of the groups include people who keep resisting
purges, some of them all but instantly a/o with asseverations of
how much good the jokes do them. Meanwhile, there are enough of
the bountiful to keep the list at a level of activity that suits
most of us on it. And I very rarely see or hear a joke anywhere
else that my little list hasn't already carried.
I see no reason not to keep all my subscribers.
Am I missing a problem? Or are jokes somehow different from
the kinds of contributions to lists you had in mind? Or does the
worker just resent the drone? <grin>
-- Beartooth the Stubborn <karhunhammas (at) lserv.com>
Double Retiree, Linuxer's Apprentice, Curmudgeon On Line
Keep in mind that I have little idea whereof I speak.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
