[12533] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: No PACS-L Mail
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (morganj@iupui.edu)
Fri Oct 30 20:11:23 1998
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:04:40 -0500
From: morganj@iupui.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.96.981028221133.14683A-100000@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I've noticed the same decline of Pacs-l interest and traffic as Thom, and
also think it corresponded to the switch to a moderated system. I agree
with his suggestion that the addition of "don't reply to the list" to
messages dampened discussion. This was most often applied to the
technical message which had been the life blood of the list.
In addition I'm wondering if list moderation reduced the sponteneity of
the list: however assiduous the moderator, there is an inevitable delay in
posting messages. So while on unmoderated list I can see a reply within a
few minutes, it takes much longer with human intervention. Moderation
might produce a lively list if there was a 10-minute turnaround, but on a
world-wide list you'd have to maintain this turnaround time around the
clock. To do it effectively you'd have to have moderators taking
eight-hour shifts (presumably from different parts of the world).
The social mechanics of creating good discussion lists are fascinating. I
maintain two world-wide lists, one with lively discussion (5-60 messages
per day) and one almost dead (1-5 messages a month). Moderation would
make very little difference in the list with little traffic, but in the
lively list it would not only be a lot of work, but would inevitably slow
the list.
Jim Morgan
morganj@iupui.edu
