[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Moderation of list.
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: Moderation of list.
- From: Ana Maria Gallo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 12:10:59 +0000
- Message-Id: <199704161910.MAA17023@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Organization: Artemis/AMG
- Sender: "The Book Arts: binding, typography, collecting" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Re: Moderated vs. Unmoderated
Since I started joining lists, they seem to at various points in their
life display the characteristics summed up by the Light Bulb joke posted
earlier (which I also saw on several other lists... ).
The best anodyne to descent into list purgatory is a lively stream of
well written posts and replies. Brisk movement through topics usually
reduces the fluff replies that many subscribers find so irritating. When
something is getting flogged to death means the time is ripe for
introduction of a new topic: a well-written question, event
Like any non-virtual group, members set the tone. Especially the
'natural' leaders, subscribers who acquire list respect with their
throughtful replies, questions, and sharing of experiences. It is
usually a good post that pulls the group out of the mire.
Moderation might raise the signal to noise ratio should the moderator
want to put the time in. However, in my opnion, this list seems not to
suffer that greatly from bad form. Perhaps a clearly worded Signature
from the server on each posting, with archive link, owner mailto: link,
and UNSUBSCRIBE instructions, etc might cut down on the "get me off"
the list type posts. However, I'm on a list with such a signature and
incredibly, people still ask for the information.
Ana Maria Gallo