On Feb 18, Mark wrote:
> I seriously propose that rara-avis-l consider
migrating from the now
> quite antiquated Yahoo Groups format to vBulletin or
another similar
> system that allows for far wider
functionality,
That sounds good, on the surface, but...
> including choosing the
> threads one wishes to subscribe to
I already do. It's a big thread called "Rara-Avis." Of course
not everything posted interests me here, but that's why there
are delete and scroll buttons on computers. And even with
Bill MIA, this is still a very well moderated list.
> having user profiles and avatars,
!!!! And golly gee, could we have emoticons too? Nothing
makes a post seem more well-thought-out and poignant than a
little yellow smiley face with a baseball cap on. Maybe we
could sprinkle some pictures of the Jonas Brothers around
too.
Seriously, though, I don't really need photos and bios to
know who you guys are. You are what you write.
> offering basic HTML coding for bold, italic, etc.,
offering emoticons,
> etc., etc.
Ooops. I spoke too soon. Having survived the first sweep of
desktop publishing, I've seen what the use of formatting in
the hands of self- indulgent "creative" types can do.
If your words need all those bells and whistles for emphasis,
you probably don't write very well or have nothing much to
say in the first place. The obvious example is TV news. They
have graphs, pie charts, flying pie charts, maps, sky cams,
magic pointers, etc., etc... and yet they're actually telling
us less and less.
Besides, some of use don't read Rara online. We still mostly
use e- mail programs. How much of that superfluous formatting
will get lost in the shuffle?
In your brave new world, are you proposing we e-mailers drop
off the list? Or be forced to access it only through the
web?
> Yahoo Groups has in my observation deteriorated to a
format
> for the clueless, with a very low signal-to-noise
ratio in most
> groups. Ours is an exception, but I think it's time
we got out of
> here.
So, it's not broke, but let's fix it anyway?
> I should add: one would also have the ability to
edit one's own posts
> (how many times have you wished to do that, bothered
by a mis-spelling
> or a mis-statement of fact?);
Or we learn to spell and double-check our facts before
posting? I'm not sure that in a forum where tempers sometimes
rise, that the ability to rewrite your posts after the fact
-- and possibly deny what you actually said -- is something
to which we should aspire. I mean, what are we?
Politicians?
> to send private messages through the
> board itself;
Huh? I can do that already. On the bottom of every post
there's a
"Reply to Sender" link.
> to do advanced searches
Better search functions might be the first real advantage
you've come up with. But there's so much unmoderated fluff on
most of those on- line forums that I rarely feel the need to
actually search through them. Fluff is fluff.
Like it or not, we've ever been really cutting edge. But
despite that, we've become the New York Times of hard-boiled
lists; the list of record, venerable and respected, proudly
black-and-white in a world of bright shiny colours. People
come here because of the content.
I don't think becoming some loud, winking blinking cross
between WIRED and TIGER BEAT is what most of us want to
become.
> to have "buddy" and "ignore"
> lists; and so on.
I tell you, you ought to get one of these new-fangled
computers with delete and scroll buttons. They're
great.
Or are you so convinced some people have absolutely nothing
to say that you want to permanently ignore them? Why, even I
once said something that was accidentally worth hearing (it
might have been a typo, though).
And, hey, I have buddies in real life.
> ...add tags; calendar events; post images; quote
only those bits of
> others' posts you wish to respond to...
Have beautiful women rub my feet while I write, a better job,
free beer, a faster car, a home for the family of man, etc.,
etc.
As for quotes, while you're shopping for a new computer, get
one that allows you to cut-and-paste.
I hear Macs are very good.
> I keep thinking of more functionalities those other
services offer.
> But you get my drift. I'm sure some of you belong to
boards like that.
I've seen a few. Most of them, though, are ranters and ravers
who behave like a bunch of schoolchildren.
In LORD OF THE FLIES.
> Not meaning to be belligerent about this :), but
with other web-based
> formats that are more advanced than the rather
primitive Yahoo
> Groups, you
> can have the very broad range of personalized
functionalities I have
> described, including the ability to receive emails
but **only** the
> emails
> you want to receive. Let me put it this way: if
formats exist (as they
> clearly do) that would allow rara-avis-l members to
do all that, what
> argument is there for us not availing ourselves of
them? I'm just not
> getting it.
Obviously. Most of us are here to discuss hard-boiled
literature, not wave around emoticons and embed photos and
sound files and the like. Formatting adds nothing to the
discussion. And most online forums of the type you describe
are large, sprawling messes. A million threads, sub-threads,
and sub-sub-threads all leading nowhere.
A well-moderated forum comprised of adults passionate and
knowledgeable about a topic beats all the avatars and
emoticons in the world.
> I disagree quite strongly with respect to
"efficiency," and I would be
> interested in hearing other viewpoints.
You have. And it looks like you've failed to convince most of
us.
> This shouldn't turn into a standoff
> between you and me; something very important is at
stake here, and
> members
> should have their say. I would be particularly
interested in hearing
> from
> those (who are surely out there) who belong to
groups such as those
> I have
> been describing. My experience with such forums has
been delightfully
> positive, and inspired me to put this proposal in
front of rara-avis-
> l. I
> think it is quite wrong to suggest that such groups
are necessarily
> "facebookish," which has a pejorative,
scornful-of-youth sound.
> Believe me,
> there are many such boards that deal with very
mature topics in a very
> mature way!
We already do that. And whether you like the connotations or
not, what you propose IS very "facebookish." I mean, avatars?
Emoticons?
> Evolution happens.
This isn't evolution. This is someone pounding the drum for
technology for technology's sake. Just because the technology
exists doesn't make it necessary. Or even desirable. Or
likely to be accepted.
> But I'll get off my soapbox now. Here's a
prediction: within two
> years from
> today (one year is more likely), the group will
either have migrated
> to the
> sort of format I describe, or been significantly
rivaled by a group
> that
> does.
Yeah, and we'll all have flying cars, just like the Jetsons.
And everyone will self-publish. And everyone will be reading
e-books. And the war in Iraq will be over. But all of those
things were supposed to have happened already. Years ago, in
fact.
This list isn't broken. If it comes to some sort of vote, I
propose we don't screw it up.
Because, bottom line, it's what we say that matters, not how
many extra toys we can graft onto it.
People get annoyed here when someone posts in all caps.
Imagine how well a post set in 12/14 fuchsia-coloured Old
English bold italic, with selected text in 18 pt. lime green
Stencil, in outline and drop-shadowed for emphasis, flush
right, and embedded with 47 emoticons and an animated avatar
will go over.
It's not that we're Luddites. It's that we're got a
low-tolerance for sham.
Kevin Burton Smith www.thrillingdetective.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 21 Feb 2008 EST