![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 503 to 527 of 536. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 23:54:30
In reply to Gee » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 15, 2005, at 10:12:09
> if the concern was that posters wouldn't know *which* small board to join, their could be a portal from the main boards to the small boards which could only be entered by altering your registration to mark that you wish to participate in small boards (which would expire if you didn't join a small board in a reasonable length of time). Once within the portal, those who wish to be part of the small boards could read all the small boards. Or whatever.
Part of the idea was to limit posters to one small board at a time, right? I know, more exclusion, but that way they wouldn't be spread as thin...
So if the idea is to require people to join in order to read, then:
1. Their decision to join can't be based on the discussion. Could it be based on the activity level and a list of the members? What about making information like that available to everyone?
2. If they do join, then they can read the discussion. Say they change their mind. How long should they need to wait before being allowed to switch? Since if they can switch right away, that's like being on both boards at the same time.
3. Or, say they join, but don't post. Could they keep their place? For how long?
> My concern has always been mainly for those who run across small boards through google search, or happen across them accidentally while going around Babble, and get smacked across the face with a "you are not authorized to post to this board, which is full" when they try to join in.
*That* has been your main concern? What if I just add, in the "post a follow-up" area, a reminder that it's a restricted board and that non-members will get an error if they click?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 16, 2005, at 4:21:40
In reply to Re: which small board, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 23:54:30
> > if the concern was that posters wouldn't know *which* small board to join, their could be a portal from the main boards to the small boards which could only be entered by altering your registration to mark that you wish to participate in small boards (which would expire if you didn't join a small board in a reasonable length of time). Once within the portal, those who wish to be part of the small boards could read all the small boards. Or whatever.
>
> Part of the idea was to limit posters to one small board at a time, right? I know, more exclusion, but that way they wouldn't be spread as thin...
>
I wasn't suggesting they could join more than one small board. You hadn't appeared too open to the idea that reading posts on small boards be limited to only those who could post on them, so I was trying for the next best thing. Since your stated objections to limiting the reading to those who could join in was based on the idea that people would not be able to decide which small group to join.> So if the idea is to require people to join in order to read, then:
>
> 1. Their decision to join can't be based on the discussion. Could it be based on the activity level and a list of the members? What about making information like that available to everyone?I wouldn't know if that would be the sort of information that people would like to have. You would have to ask the people who would like to join one.
>
> 2. If they do join, then they can read the discussion. Say they change their mind. How long should they need to wait before being allowed to switch? Since if they can switch right away, that's like being on both boards at the same time.
>
I don't know. What do you think is fair?
> 3. Or, say they join, but don't post. Could they keep their place? For how long?I would think that would lead to a lot of small dead boards, if they're allowed to keep their places. What sort of length are you thinking about? Could people specify a vacation in advance? Would one or two posts be enough to keep their spot open in a work crunch?
>
> > My concern has always been mainly for those who run across small boards through google search, or happen across them accidentally while going around Babble, and get smacked across the face with a "you are not authorized to post to this board, which is full" when they try to join in.
>
> *That* has been your main concern? What if I just add, in the "post a follow-up" area, a reminder that it's a restricted board and that non-members will get an error if they click?
>
> BobSigh. Sometimes asynchronous communication *isn't* easier. Sometimes it's easier with instant clarification. And hand gestures.
Do you remember how some people decided to post on Babble? Or on Social, if they came here for a medication search? Some people decided to come here based on conversations they found amusing or charming. And when they tried to join in, they were welcomed. That's a gracious, warm, charming, welcoming community.
If they came upon the same conversation on a restricted entry group, it would be equivilant to again trying to join in, but not being welcomed. Afterwards they might decide that this is not a particularly gracious, warm, charming or welcoming community.
So Karen Kay, for example, apparently brought many people to Babble with her delightful ways. People who later stayed and continued to post. Had Karen Kay been so delightful behind a glass door where others could see, but not join in, would the result had been the same? I think it wouldn't have been. Had Karen Kay been so delightful behind a closed door, her posts would have had no impact on new posters, because no one could have run across them.
And contrary to your theory, I don't think that people who were charmed by that conversation, but unable to join in, would be as thrilled being told that they couldn't be part of that group, but they could be a part of this other group instead, as you apparently think.
Plus, my guess is that the set of potential posters who don't post because their posts are googleable and readible by friends and family who might notice that they are posting on the site as they sit in their offices or family rooms is greater than the set of people who don't post because they find Social larger than they would wish.
How many people post on Social at any given time, anyway? Your proposed small groups were limited to 25, right? How many different posters are there on Social in this and the last archive? 50? 100? 200? Any benefits size wise to the new groups might depend more on stability and continued posting (longer than the typical poster now posts on Babble) than on sheer numbers. Posting stability on Babble has historically been low. People find they are spending too much time here. Or they get better. Or they get angry. People feel that if they don't keep up with the posts for a while, they don't know anyone when they come back. The latter could be something curable by small groups, offset by the fact that if many people do that, the group won't be active.
Posted by Dinah on June 16, 2005, at 4:24:23
In reply to Re: mentors, posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 23:54:23
> > Having volunteers on other boards ... would be recruiting people who would feel they have a special responsibility for greeting newcomers.
>
> Sorry, recruiting people from where?
>
> BobI was thinking something like "Hey people! I was looking for a group of posters who would like to volunteer to make newcomers feel at home on a regular basis. Would anyone like to be an official (or semiofficial) greeter for this board?"
I wasn't suggesting you go out on a volunteer hunt on one of those job search sites or anything. :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 22:47:57
In reply to Re: mentors, posted by Dinah on June 16, 2005, at 4:24:23
> I was thinking something like "Hey people! I was looking for a group of posters who would like to volunteer to make newcomers feel at home on a regular basis. Would anyone like to be an official (or semiofficial) greeter for this board?"
1. I would ask that regularly, or make it part of the introduction to each board?
2. After people volunteered, then what?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 22:48:03
In reply to Re: which small board » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 16, 2005, at 4:21:40
> You hadn't appeared too open to the idea that reading posts on small boards be limited to only those who could post on them, so I was trying for the next best thing.
Great, let's consider that?
> > their could be a portal from the main boards to the small boards which could only be entered by altering your registration to mark that you wish to participate in small boards (which would expire if you didn't join a small board in a reasonable length of time). Once within the portal, those who wish to be part of the small boards could read all the small boards. Or whatever.
So it would be OK for them to read a small board, even if it didn't have any openings, as long as they wished to participate = join some small board?
> Karen Kay, for example, apparently brought many people to Babble with her delightful ways. People who later stayed and continued to post. Had Karen Kay been so delightful behind a glass door where others could see, but not join in, would the result had been the same?
Maybe Karen wouldn't have chosen to be behind a glass door. And if she had, maybe that preference for herself would've been more important than bringing more people in. And either way, lots of other delightful people wouldn't be behind glass doors.
> contrary to your theory, I don't think that people who were charmed by that conversation, but unable to join in, would be as thrilled being told that they couldn't be part of that group, but they could be a part of this other group instead
Of course they wouldn't be thrilled, but maybe they'd stick around a little longer anyway?
> Plus, my guess is that the set of potential posters who don't post because their posts are googleable ... is greater than the set of people who don't post because they find Social larger than they would wish.
Hmm, those are independent issues, how large a board is and whether it's Googleable...
> How many people post on Social at any given time, anyway? Your proposed small groups were limited to 25, right? How many different posters are there on Social in this and the last archive? 50? 100? 200?
In Psychology in January, 2580 posts by 110 posters:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050219/msgs/468378.html
> Any benefits size wise to the new groups might depend more on stability and continued posting
Right, but continued posting might depend on comfort level, which might depend on size...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 17, 2005, at 23:43:00
In reply to Re: the next best thing, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 22:48:03
Dr. Bob!!!
A real conversation! I knew you could do it!
I think I'll enjoy feeling heard for a while before I reply. :)
Posted by Dinah on June 18, 2005, at 0:47:05
In reply to Re: the next best thing, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 22:48:03
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 2:17:18
In reply to (See how little it takes to make me happy?) (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 18, 2005, at 0:47:05
Posted by Dinah on June 20, 2005, at 23:31:21
In reply to Re: the next best thing, posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 22:48:03
> > You hadn't appeared too open to the idea that reading posts on small boards be limited to only those who could post on them, so I was trying for the next best thing.
>
> Great, let's consider that?
Ahhhh... Still basking. In fact, I rather hate to continue the conversation. Wait a second.Ahhhhh.... being heard....
Sigh. Ok.
>
> > > their could be a portal from the main boards to the small boards which could only be entered by altering your registration to mark that you wish to participate in small boards (which would expire if you didn't join a small board in a reasonable length of time). Once within the portal, those who wish to be part of the small boards could read all the small boards. Or whatever.
>
> So it would be OK for them to read a small board, even if it didn't have any openings, as long as they wished to participate = join some small board?That would be a definite step in the right direction. Since it would decrease the chance of someone stumbling into what looked like a situation where they would be welcomed, when in actuality they would not.
> > Karen Kay, for example, apparently brought many people to Babble with her delightful ways. People who later stayed and continued to post. Had Karen Kay been so delightful behind a glass door where others could see, but not join in, would the result had been the same?
>
> Maybe Karen wouldn't have chosen to be behind a glass door. And if she had, maybe that preference for herself would've been more important than bringing more people in. And either way, lots of other delightful people wouldn't be behind glass doors.I'm quite certain you are right. ;) But I should say no more...
> > contrary to your theory, I don't think that people who were charmed by that conversation, but unable to join in, would be as thrilled being told that they couldn't be part of that group, but they could be a part of this other group instead
>
> Of course they wouldn't be thrilled, but maybe they'd stick around a little longer anyway?To be blunt, why? My feelings were hurt when you slapped my hand over the party, and I've been here aeons and understood your position. If my hand were slapped first thing, why would I want to stay around?
> > Plus, my guess is that the set of potential posters who don't post because their posts are googleable ... is greater than the set of people who don't post because they find Social larger than they would wish.
>
> Hmm, those are independent issues, how large a board is and whether it's Googleable...Yes, and one argument is that non-googleable boards would kill two birds with one stone, since you have already gotten feedback that some people would prefer to be able to chat where there conversations weren't open for all to see. But the equally valid argument would be that two independent variables should not be altered at the same time if you are to measure the result on the dependent variable and come to reliable conclusions. (I'm studying chapter 1 for my CLEP, sorry.)
Soooo... let's see. Making the private boards private is still the considerate and polite thing to do. Hmmmm.... Maybe you could also start a PsychoBabble-NonGoogleable board. Where only those who are registered at Babble can read, and where posts are not googleable. That would give you another group where only the googleability and ability to read by non-Babblers would be the independent variable. To compare against private nongoogleable boards. And also against public googleable boards.
>
> > How many people post on Social at any given time, anyway? Your proposed small groups were limited to 25, right? How many different posters are there on Social in this and the last archive? 50? 100? 200?
>
> In Psychology in January, 2580 posts by 110 posters:
Wow!!! I know and like that many people? I am impressed! And yet Psychological feels so warm and cozy... What a testament to the warm and welcoming nature of Babblers.> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050219/msgs/468378.html
>
> > Any benefits size wise to the new groups might depend more on stability and continued posting
>
> Right, but continued posting might depend on comfort level, which might depend on size...
>
> BobAgreed, to a certain extent. I'm willing to concede that there are those who find the main boards intimidating. Even though I also personally feel that the risk involved is more than repaid by the benefits gained. But the point I am unwilling to concede is that there are more polite and less polite (polite in the considerate and thoughtful meaning of the word, not as in meaningless protocol), and more divisive and less divisive, ways of achieving the same goals, and that more polite and less divisive ways are far preferable.
Paying to be part of a private board seems like a good idea as well, especially since it would also allow you to dip your toes into another idea you've been toying with for some time. Except it is likely (and rightly so in some respects, you must admit) to initiate a firestorm from those who legitimately can't pay for one reason or another.
Posted by Dinah on June 20, 2005, at 23:32:19
In reply to Re: :-) (nm) » Dinah, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 2:17:18
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2005, at 2:25:35
In reply to Re: the next best thing, posted by Dinah on June 20, 2005, at 23:31:21
> > So it would be OK for them to read a small board, even if it didn't have any openings, as long as they wished to participate = join some small board?
>
> That would be a definite step in the right direction. Since it would decrease the chance of someone stumbling into what looked like a situation where they would be welcomed, when in actuality they would not.What about a notice at the top of the page? Keep reading only if you understand that you may not be able to post to this board, or something like that?
> > > contrary to your theory, I don't think that people who were charmed by that conversation, but unable to join in, would be as thrilled being told that they couldn't be part of that group, but they could be a part of this other group instead
> >
> > Of course they wouldn't be thrilled, but maybe they'd stick around a little longer anyway?
>
> To be blunt, why?Because where there's one charming conversation there are likely to be more?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 21, 2005, at 6:00:06
In reply to Re: the next best thing, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2005, at 2:25:35
Shouldn't have bothered.
And I was feeling so good.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2005, at 1:13:44
In reply to Sigh. Head against wall. » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 21, 2005, at 6:00:06
Posted by Dinah on June 22, 2005, at 1:36:14
In reply to Re: sorry, let's back up? (nm) » Dinah, posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2005, at 1:13:44
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2005, at 21:47:38
In reply to Happy to. How? (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 22, 2005, at 1:36:14
Posted by Dinah on June 23, 2005, at 7:11:48
In reply to Re: what was it I said? (nm) » Dinah, posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2005, at 21:47:38
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2005, at 21:58:32
In reply to Not a thing, Dr. Bob. Really. (nm), posted by Dinah on June 23, 2005, at 7:11:48
Posted by Dinah on June 27, 2005, at 7:46:17
In reply to Re: what happened then? (nm) » Dinah, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2005, at 21:58:32
Not a thing.
I tend to feel dismissed when minor points of my post are highlighted while the message is ignored. That may be your intention, but I realize that it probably isn't. Nevertheless, I end up feeling, at a minimum, frustrated.
I know you're a busy man, and I respect that. But I don't require an immediate answer to my posts. You can wait until you have the time to respond.
It just feels so lopsided, you know? I put a lot of time and effort into both my thoughts and beliefs, and my attempts to communicate them. And into trying to understand yours and others points of view as well. (If you'll notice, I conceded a point in that post.) And in trying to phrase my responses in terms that you might be more likely to respond to. It just doesn't seem like it's worth the effort sometimes.
Other times, like the response before this one, it did feel worth it. That's why I almost wanted to stop there. :)
I do know you can have animated interesting conversations. I also know you don't always have the time to do that.
If you want to go back, the best way I can think of is to go back to the last real post I made.
And to avoid me the hurt of having you ask which post, here it is.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/516381.html
(Incidentally, people aren't all that good at reading the top of the page. Especially if they reach a post through Google, which sends you directly to the post.)
I don't suppose it matters much on this topic anymore. But for future topics, I thought I'd say it anyway.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 27, 2005, at 15:55:20
In reply to Exactly what I said » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 27, 2005, at 7:46:17
> I tend to feel dismissed when minor points of my post are highlighted while the message is ignored.
Sorry, could you clue me in to what the message is?
> Incidentally, people aren't all that good at reading the top of the page. Especially if they reach a post through Google, which sends you directly to the post.
But when it sends you there, it sends you the top of that page, doesn't it?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 27, 2005, at 17:26:38
In reply to Re: Exactly what I said, posted by Dr. Bob on June 27, 2005, at 15:55:20
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2005, at 2:06:20
In reply to Re: the next best thing, posted by Dinah on June 20, 2005, at 23:31:21
> > So it would be OK for them to read a small board, even if it didn't have any openings, as long as they wished to participate = join some small board?
>
> That would be a definite step in the right direction. Since it would decrease the chance of someone stumbling into what looked like a situation where they would be welcomed, when in actuality they would not.Let me try this again. The key is them knowing what they're getting into?
> My feelings were hurt when you slapped my hand over the party
Sorry about that! Can you give me a link? I'd like to take another look...
> Psychological feels so warm and cozy... What a testament to the warm and welcoming nature of Babblers.
Babblers are great! But the same porridge can be just right for some and too hot or too cold for others...
> the point I am unwilling to concede is that there are more polite and less polite (polite in the considerate and thoughtful meaning of the word, not as in meaningless protocol), and more divisive and less divisive, ways of achieving the same goals, and that more polite and less divisive ways are far preferable.
I agree. So the goal is to come up with a more polite and less divisive way?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 18:48:32
In reply to Re: the next best thing, second try, posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2005, at 2:06:20
> > > So it would be OK for them to read a small board, even if it didn't have any openings, as long as they wished to participate = join some small board?
> >
> > That would be a definite step in the right direction. Since it would decrease the chance of someone stumbling into what looked like a situation where they would be welcomed, when in actuality they would not.
>
> Let me try this again. The key is them knowing what they're getting into?That's one key.
>
> > My feelings were hurt when you slapped my hand over the party
>
> Sorry about that! Can you give me a link? I'd like to take another look...N'important. I deserved it. But it still hurt.
>
> > Psychological feels so warm and cozy... What a testament to the warm and welcoming nature of Babblers.
>
> Babblers are great! But the same porridge can be just right for some and too hot or too cold for others...
>
Too true. But why let people smell or taste porridge that may be just right for them, but that they are not allowed to eat?> > the point I am unwilling to concede is that there are more polite and less polite (polite in the considerate and thoughtful meaning of the word, not as in meaningless protocol), and more divisive and less divisive, ways of achieving the same goals, and that more polite and less divisive ways are far preferable.
>
> I agree. So the goal is to come up with a more polite and less divisive way?
>
> BobYes, but from the thread below I would say that you don't appear to me to be all that open to that. I may be wrong, but in what ways are you trying to come up with a more polite and less divisive way?
I really do appreciate your trying again, and I do think you put time and effort into your answer. I don't feel at all dismissed, and I truly appreciate that.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 1:57:53
In reply to Re: the next best thing, second try, posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 18:48:32
> > The key is them knowing what they're getting into?
>
> That's one key.
>
> > the same porridge can be just right for some and too hot or too cold for others...
>
> Too true. But why let people smell or taste porridge that may be just right for them, but that they are not allowed to eat?Another key is that that would be traumatic for them?
> > So the goal is to come up with a more polite and less divisive way?
>
> Yes, but from the thread below I would say that you don't appear to me to be all that open to that. I may be wrong, but in what ways are you trying to come up with a more polite and less divisive way?By trying to keep the discussion open?
> I really do appreciate your trying again, and I do think you put time and effort into your answer. I don't feel at all dismissed, and I truly appreciate that.
I always put time and effort in, but that doesn't guarantee results!
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 12, 2005, at 4:19:10
In reply to Re: the next best thing, second try, posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 1:57:53
> Another key is that that would be traumatic for them?
I'm not sure I'd use the word traumatic. But hurtful certainly. Rejection hurts. Even impersonal rejection.
>
> > > So the goal is to come up with a more polite and less divisive way?
> >
> > Yes, but from the thread below I would say that you don't appear to me to be all that open to that. I may be wrong, but in what ways are you trying to come up with a more polite and less divisive way?
>
> By trying to keep the discussion open?The trouble is that keeping the discussion open without any real possibility of change only adds another layer of divisiveness to the first. Keeping the discussion open is only helpful if your mind stays equally open. Otherwise, it is just another way of frustrating posters, and in general it would be kinder to say "This is how it will be, and I am not going to change my mind. I hope you can live with my decision, but if not, I'll be sorry to lose you." or something reflective of the reality of the situation. False hope hurts.
>
> > I really do appreciate your trying again, and I do think you put time and effort into your answer. I don't feel at all dismissed, and I truly appreciate that.
>
> I always put time and effort in, but that doesn't guarantee results!
>
> Bob:-) I don't always *perceive* the same effort, but perhaps that is my perception rather than your effort.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 12, 2005, at 4:43:13
In reply to Re: the next best thing, second try » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 12, 2005, at 4:19:10
> Keeping the discussion open is only helpful if your mind stays equally open. Otherwise, it is just another way of frustrating posters, and in general it would be kinder to say "This is how it will be, and I am not going to change my mind. I hope you can live with my decision, but if not, I'll be sorry to lose you." or something reflective of the reality of the situation. False hope hurts.
(((Dinah)))
I'm sorry you have been and still are hurting over this.I agree about being open minded when having a discussion. Thats something that both sides need to do. There is the possibility of one person coming around to the other way of seeing it - but who comes around could go either way. Or maybe people will reach a comprimise ;-)
With respect to saying something along the lines of 'thats just the way it is and that is an end to it' I'm afraid I would leave if Dr Bob made frequent use of that. Thats just a little too much my mother. I need reasons. I need someone to try to explain their pov to me. I need to try to understand. Its when people won't do that that I struggle.
I guess you can't please all the people all the time...
Lets just wait and see.
Maybe we will bring him around yet.
Maybe he has something to say that will bring us around.
Maybe we can work out a comprimise.
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.