![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 447 to 471 of 536. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 17:06:48
In reply to Re: Small boards - only viewable by members???, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 16:26:21
It is inevitable that some people want smaller environments. Some entire groups have moved themselves to other formats when they've gotten angry with Dr. Bob or another poster.
But what would be the possible benefits of making the posts of a private conversation public?
Posted by JahL on May 24, 2005, at 17:26:02
In reply to For me.., posted by Nikkit2 on May 24, 2005, at 4:30:00
Hi Nikki.
FWIW I do understand.
You, like me, are perhaps apt to speak your mind and unfortunately there is always going to be the odd poster who sees the opportunity for an argument. I was perhaps one of those people once; I would jump all over anyone trying to sell me psychotherapy. I'd like to think I've calmed down a bit since then...
An illustration; even though noone other than Scott really converses with me on the 2000 board, I had to post there recently because someone was on my case (I was disnissed as 'Mr Dopehead' because I choose to smoke MJ) and I was fit to flip. I have a real temper on me and my next post would've got me blocked.
As you say, there's nothing worse than having your heartfelt posts picked apart for no good reason other than someone's got too much time on their hands and is spoiling for a fight.
So I do understand. If people want small groups badly enough then I guess they'll happen.
Take care,
Jah.
> .... but unfortunately I can't face have my words completely misunderstood anymore..
>
> I try to post help, I can get critised.. I post in pain, and my words get bought to admin to picked over like some roadside carion..
>
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 17:36:27
In reply to Re: Small boards - only viewable by members??? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 17:06:48
> It is inevitable that some people want smaller environments. Some entire groups have moved themselves to other formats when they've gotten angry with Dr. Bob or another poster.
Sometimes it not anger though. For instance, in my case I wanted to talk to other women Babblers. I actually would have encouraged the women's group members to go to Psycho-Babble to discuss meds, psychotherapy, stuff like that (unless they were so uncomfortable doing that as to be painful).
> But what would be the possible benefits of making the posts of a private conversation public?
I can think of a few, though maybe some have come up before. One might be to make the posts searchable, just like they are now. Another might be to assure other Babblers that they aren't being talked about. A third might be technical; maybe private groups would be hard for Dr. Bob to set up and/or administer in the current environment. And I'm sure this has come up before, but if they're private, then will Dr. Bob still lay down the law, so to speak, or will the members police themselves? If they police themselves, the doctor will give up some of his authority. He's a nice guy and all, but sometimes it's hard to let go. And maybe he shouldn't for liability reasons. (Look what you let happen under your very nose!)
Like I said though, I haven't made up my mind on this yet. I do feel bad that it's causing you and others so much pain. Some of you have a lot more emotional capital invested in the site than I. It seems almost like you're already grieving for the way it used to be.
Posted by JahL on May 24, 2005, at 17:42:16
In reply to Re: Small boards - only viewable by members??? » JahL, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 17:30:13
> Well, I have to confess I'd like to chat with some people with 2000 who rarely venture off. I'd like to get to know you better.
Why thank you. Ditto. It's obvious to me you care deeply about this site. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that w/o PB I probably wouldn't be here today. I learnt how to self medicate here (I know Dr B disapproves, outwardly at least) and that's what's enabled me to at least function adequately and keep the gun in the cabinet.
> ...join me wherever you see me. :) Which on my more prolific days should be just about anywhere. lol.I've noticed! ;-)
J.
Posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 17:44:25
In reply to Re: Small boards - only viewable by members??? » Dinah, posted by JahL on May 24, 2005, at 17:42:16
Posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 17:52:17
In reply to Re: Small boards - only viewable by members???, posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 17:36:27
> Sometimes it not anger though.
Agreed.
>
> > But what would be the possible benefits of making the posts of a private conversation public?
>
> I can think of a few, though maybe some have come up before. One might be to make the posts searchable, just like they are now.The main benefit of searchable posts is for information, right? I would assume that if someone was looking for information, he/she would probably post on the medication page, or appropriate page. Unless you happened to have an expert in the small group.
> Another might be to assure other Babblers that they aren't being talked about.
I would assume that Dr. Bob would police the small boards with at least as much vigor as he does the larger boards. I trust him. Besides, if people want to talk about me, they probably can and do in babblemail etc. And hopefully they'd have something better to talk about.
> A third might be technical; maybe private groups would be hard for Dr. Bob to set up and/or administer in the current environment.
I'm sure Dr. Bob would enjoy tackling whatever technical challenge making private conversations private would entail. He managed Babblemail.
> And I'm sure this has come up before, but if they're private, then will Dr. Bob still lay down the law, so to speak, or will the members police themselves? If they police themselves, the doctor will give up some of his authority. He's a nice guy and all, but sometimes it's hard to let go. And maybe he shouldn't for liability reasons. (Look what you let happen under your very nose!)
I would hope that he would uphold the same standards he upholds everywhere.
>
> Like I said though, I haven't made up my mind on this yet. I do feel bad that it's causing you and others so much pain. Some of you have a lot more emotional capital invested in the site than I. It seems almost like you're already grieving for the way it used to be.
>
Not all objections are based on nostalgia any more than all splinter groups result from anger. :)
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 24, 2005, at 18:36:43
In reply to Re: Small boards - only viewable by members???, posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 17:52:17
> > I can think of a few, though maybe some have come up before. One might be to make the posts searchable, just like they are now.
>
> The main benefit of searchable posts is for information, right? I would assume that if someone was looking for information, he/she would probably post on the medication page, or appropriate page. Unless you happened to have an expert in the small group.Well, I just did a search on the Dr-Bob site on "effexor." I found posts on these boards: Medication, Withdrawal, Alternative, Eating, Faith, Grief, Health, Newbies, Psychology, Social, Substance Use, Writing, and 2000. You never know where people will talk about things.
> > Another might be to assure other Babblers that they aren't being talked about.
>
> I would assume that Dr. Bob would police the small boards with at least as much vigor as he does the larger boards. I trust him. Besides, if people want to talk about me, they probably can and do in babblemail etc. And hopefully they'd have something better to talk about.OK. That covers that reason, though maybe some would like to see with their own eyes that the private group is behaving. That would cut down on Bob having to defend himself on some "conspiracy" charges too. (I'm not saying they're justified, but sometimes people get upset and accuse him of being something like a despot.)
> > A third might be technical; maybe private groups would be hard for Dr. Bob to set up and/or administer in the current environment.
>
> I'm sure Dr. Bob would enjoy tackling whatever technical challenge making private conversations private would entail. He managed Babblemail.OK. Though there might be constraints that he has no control over. But I'll give you that.
> > And I'm sure this has come up before, but if they're private, then will Dr. Bob still lay down the law, so to speak, or will the members police themselves? If they police themselves, the doctor will give up some of his authority. He's a nice guy and all, but sometimes it's hard to let go. And maybe he shouldn't for liability reasons. (Look what you let happen under your very nose!)
>
> I would hope that he would uphold the same standards he upholds everywhere.Has it been decided that he personally would oversee civility on the private groups? If so, I'll give you that too.
> > Like I said though, I haven't made up my mind on this yet. I do feel bad that it's causing you and others so much pain. Some of you have a lot more emotional capital invested in the site than I. It seems almost like you're already grieving for the way it used to be.
> >
> Not all objections are based on nostalgia any more than all splinter groups result from anger. :)You're right, and I'm sorry if my remark sounded that way.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 24, 2005, at 20:45:38
In reply to Re: Small boards - only viewable by members??? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 17:06:48
> But what would be the possible benefits of making the posts of a private conversation public?
How would you decide whether you wanted to join or not if you couldn't read the posts / see the threads???
I think that was the main concern.
Hence:
1) A new indicator on the link so that Babblers can see how active the board is.
2) And / Or all or part of the title of the newest thread so that people who are thinking of joining can see the sorts of things that are discussed over there (and to make the levels of activity more apparant)
Posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 20:49:11
In reply to Re: Small boards - only viewable by members??? » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on May 24, 2005, at 20:45:38
How about just a brief statement of purpose, and a count of # posts in the last xxx days.
Posted by Toph on May 24, 2005, at 23:32:21
In reply to Re: Small boards - only viewable by members??? » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 20:49:11
I hope I'm not way off base here but these small boards, gated communities, private clubs, whatever, will the members have the authority to expell a member they don't like or block from the board an offending member who is uncivil, for example?
Posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 23:57:14
In reply to Re: Small boards, posted by Toph on May 24, 2005, at 23:32:21
Don't think so.
I think potential posters can vote in a popularity contest by deciding which group they want to join on the basis of who is already a member, but already existing members can not vote in a popularity contest by refusing to admit, or by expelling potential or current members.
Or that was my understanding at last count.
Dr. Bob could still block.
Posted by Toph on May 25, 2005, at 0:09:19
In reply to Re: Small boards » Toph, posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 23:57:14
Posted by alexandra_k on May 25, 2005, at 3:29:10
In reply to Re: Small boards » Toph, posted by Dinah on May 24, 2005, at 23:57:14
> I think potential posters can vote in a popularity contest by deciding which group they want to join on the basis of who is already a member,
So then you would want a list of all the members of a board available to non-members?
I mean, if you can't view the threads as a non-member, then how are you going to be able to see the posting names on the threads?
That would be additional information from a 'new' indicator...
Posted by Dinah on May 25, 2005, at 5:33:37
In reply to Re: Small boards » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on May 25, 2005, at 3:29:10
I was telling Toph what I believed was the last thing Dr. Bob said about how it *will* work, not my druthers.
Posted by AuntieMel on May 25, 2005, at 8:59:11
In reply to Kinda like Gore-Tex (nm) » Dinah, posted by Toph on May 25, 2005, at 0:09:19
Posted by gardenergirl on May 25, 2005, at 11:46:39
In reply to Re: Small boards » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 25, 2005, at 5:33:37
:)
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on May 25, 2005, at 11:47:32
In reply to Yeah, I had to think about that one for a minute. » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on May 25, 2005, at 11:46:39
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2005, at 2:23:57
In reply to Re: Small boards » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on May 25, 2005, at 3:29:10
> it is inevitable that some group members will fall into the comfort zone of their own board and neglect the main boards.
>
> JahI think if they'd be more comfortable on a smaller board, then it would be nice to be able to offer them that alternative...
--
> I don't really see the point if they are public, although I guess you would at least know that if you posted something, only X number of people could possibly respond.
That would be the point, there would be a smaller number of people interacting.
> I do NOT want to be someone with my nose pressed up to the glass wishing I were part of a group. And I WILL NOT be inside the window seeing the nose prints and wondering who stopped by.
>
> ggYou wouldn't need to press your nose up, you could just keep walking... And you could focus on who's inside instead of who's outside (as tends to happen in rooms with one-way mirrors)...
--
> that's what's enabled me to ... keep the gun in the cabinet.
>
> J.I'm glad it's in the cabinet, but what about giving it to someone else instead?
--
> > > what would be the possible benefits of making the posts of a private conversation public?
> >
> > One might be to make the posts searchable, just like they are now.
>
> The main benefit of searchable posts is for information, right? I would assume that if someone was looking for information, he/she would probably post on the medication page, or appropriate page.
>
> DinahIf the poster was looking for information, it might be better for them to post on an open board. But they might be looking for support and others for information...
--
> 1) A new indicator on the link so that Babblers can see how active the board is.
>
> 2) And / Or all or part of the title of the newest thread
>
> alexandra_k> [3] How about just a brief statement of purpose, and a count of # posts in the last xxx days.
>
> Dinah> [4] a list of all the members of a board
>
> alexandra_kI think the activity level and a list of the members would be the most helpful. Since titles might not be very informative and statements of purpose might be vague...
Bob
Posted by TamaraJ on May 26, 2005, at 14:06:06
In reply to Re: Small boards, posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2005, at 2:23:57
You know, Dr. Bob, I really just don't know how much of an appetite there really would be for small, limited participation/membership boards. I have said it before, and perhaps I am talking out of the wrong side of my anatomy, but I think that those who are going to "join in" will do so, but creating a cozier and perhaps a less intimating atmosphere won't necessarily persuade others to be more active. The 2000 board serves a unique purpose, and is a nice forum for the babble "pioneers" if you will. But, I don't feel slighted or shut out because I can't post there.
If the small boards do become a reality, I personally think that establishing topics for discussion or specific themes (more narrow than just "Social" or "Relationships") would make the concept a bit more palatable. Now, I don't want to be presumptious, but, Dr. Bob, I don't think you have completely made up your mind about the utility of small boards and whether it is truly in the best interest of the babble community to establish these forums. But, I am not a mind-reader, so I will leave it to you and others to continue the discussion.
Just my two cents.
Tamara
Posted by justyourlaugh on May 26, 2005, at 23:18:03
In reply to Re: Small boards, posted by Dr. Bob on May 26, 2005, at 2:23:57
to kid us..
i will drop out..drop off ...if you felt this was the way to go..how many lurkers would love to jump in? and do and still feel unwelcome?..
not my cup of tea...
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2005, at 10:14:53
In reply to try not.., posted by justyourlaugh on May 26, 2005, at 23:18:03
> how many lurkers would love to jump in? and do and still feel unwelcome?..
I don't know, but maybe people would be more likely to feel welcome at boards that weren't so busy?
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on May 28, 2005, at 12:48:02
In reply to Re: feel unwelcome, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2005, at 10:14:53
How many and how likely?
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 17:04:33
In reply to Re: feel unwelcome, posted by gardenergirl on May 28, 2005, at 12:48:02
People quite often say that they don't feel like they are part of Babble.
That it feels a bit like there are clicky little groups and you have to be part of a group to get a thread going.
It doesn't feel like that to me anymore. But it did feel that way for quite a while.
Maybe the difference is to do with how new you are and how frequently you post.
If you don't post for a while (a few days... a week...) then most threads are 'new' and it can be hard to get back into the swing of it again.
It probably won't make much of a difference to the posters who feel accepted here already.
But it could be the difference between staying and leaving for posters who don't feel like they are part of the more active boards.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2005, at 13:39:22
In reply to Re: feel unwelcome, posted by gardenergirl on May 28, 2005, at 12:48:02
> How many and how likely?
As many as there's demand for and pretty likely?
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on May 30, 2005, at 0:23:54
In reply to Re: feel unwelcome, posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2005, at 13:39:22
So you are just guessing or assuming?
gg
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.