BTW, your captcha system ate my comment once. That makes me sad.
(Sorry about that Chris!)
In case it makes it through at some point, I'll summarize my previous post:
1) The number of legitimate account requests should far outweigh the number of spammer accounts and subsequent spam to the list, making it more time consuming to moderate membership than would otherwise be the case. 2) I'm an admin of a couple Google Groups lists and Google does an incredible job of filtering spam and auto-blocking accounts tagged as spammers 3) The negative side effect of coming across as non-open -- even though a follow-up explanation proves this isn't the case -- far overshadows the amount of work required to block the accounts of any obvious spammers who have successfully made it through Googles spam filter (which I assume is the same filter they use for GMail?)
Extending the content of the post that never made it through, I would also think that there are others who -- like me -- saw the road block and decided it wasn't worth the effort. In my case I blogged about it and got responses from David and Chris (thanks!) explaining their reasoning and encouraging me to join the group. I noticed Sam Ruby made a point to bring the road block up in his analysis from a few weeks back, and Sam tends to have considerable sway in the opinions of others, *especially* in the OSS an open standards communities. So my questions would be:
1) How many people were swayed by negative comments in the blogosphere and chose not to join as a result? 2) How many people saw the road block without first being swayed not to bother taking part and either didn't blog about it, or did but their blog entry didn't get noticed? 3) Looking at the archives there's a 10 day span without a single post to the list. Is this because a lot of the folks in whom would be actively contributing chose not to because of the road block?
Obviously I don't know the answers, but if it was decided to remove the barrier I would certainly do my part in proselytizing this fact (with due praise!) both far and wide via a new post to O'Reilly News. My guess is that others would do the same, which might help spur some additional activity on the list that would otherwise not take place.
Thanks for your thoughts David. I don't know if you read through the complete thread on this subject, but at the time, the majority of vocalized votes (there were only 15 total authors) were to keep moderation in place:
I think there will always be questions about Option A vs Option B -- and neither are ideal (specifically: up front moderation of membership or allowing anyone to sign up but moderating their first posts to the list).
We chose up front member moderation because the join message also allows us to have an initial one-on-one "get to know you" exchange, just as you and I did, David, before you posted your message to the list. I've found this to be rather valuable so far and also reiterates the fact that moderation does not only serve to prevent spam, but to enhance the social foundation of the group.
I will offer that in my recent experience over the past week, EVERY message (about seven total) that was posted to the OPEN MEMBERSHIP BarCamp group was a spam message. We fortunately moderate first time posters and prevented the spam from hitting the list, but it meant that I had to go in and moderate/remove those postings AS WELL AS ban those members. This experience really left me feeling pretty down and hating on the world, so frankly, from a moderator's perspective, I'd rather be the person who greets people at the door and welcomes them in then the guy who has to go around and kick out the drunk party crashers who showed up and don't even know anyone and just want to drink my booze and piss in my plants.
I do want to continue to encourage conversation about this topic, even if it's not the one that we're here to discuss (we're talking about open, non-proprietary technology, not open/transparent governance/leadership) because I do still take your concerns about appearance and inhibition very seriously.
Chris
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:13 PM, M. David Peterson <xmlhac...@gmail.com>wrote:
> BTW, your captcha system ate my comment once. That makes me sad.
> (Sorry about that Chris!)
> In case it makes it through at some point, I'll summarize my previous post:
> 1) The number of legitimate account requests should far outweigh the number > of spammer accounts and subsequent spam to the list, making it more time > consuming to moderate membership than would otherwise be the case. > 2) I'm an admin of a couple Google Groups lists and Google does an > incredible job of filtering spam and auto-blocking accounts tagged as > spammers > 3) The negative side effect of coming across as non-open -- even though a > follow-up explanation proves this isn't the case -- far overshadows the > amount of work required to block the accounts of any obvious spammers who > have successfully made it through Googles spam filter (which I assume is the > same filter they use for GMail?)
> Extending the content of the post that never made it through, I would also > think that there are others who -- like me -- saw the road block and decided > it wasn't worth the effort. In my case I blogged about it and got responses > from David and Chris (thanks!) explaining their reasoning and encouraging me > to join the group. I noticed Sam Ruby made a point to bring the road block > up in his analysis from a few weeks back, and Sam tends to have considerable > sway in the opinions of others, *especially* in the OSS an open standards > communities. So my questions would be:
> 1) How many people were swayed by negative comments in the blogosphere and > chose not to join as a result? > 2) How many people saw the road block without first being swayed not to > bother taking part and either didn't blog about it, or did but their blog > entry didn't get noticed? > 3) Looking at the archives there's a 10 day span without a single post to > the list. Is this because a lot of the folks in whom would be actively > contributing chose not to because of the road block?
> Obviously I don't know the answers, but if it was decided to remove the > barrier I would certainly do my part in proselytizing this fact (with due > praise!) both far and wide via a new post to O'Reilly News. My guess is > that others would do the same, which might help spur some additional > activity on the list that would otherwise not take place.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your thoughts David. > I don't know if you read through the complete thread on this subject, but at > the time, the majority of vocalized votes (there were only 15 total authors) > were to keep moderation in place: > http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/t/328bc8fb270b57b2 > I think there will always be questions about Option A vs Option B -- and > neither are ideal (specifically: up front moderation of membership or > allowing anyone to sign up but moderating their first posts to the list). > We chose up front member moderation because the join message also allows us > to have an initial one-on-one "get to know you" exchange, just as you and I > did, David, before you posted your message to the list. I've found this to > be rather valuable so far and also reiterates the fact that moderation does > not only serve to prevent spam, but to enhance the social foundation of the > group. > I will offer that in my recent experience over the past week, EVERY message > (about seven total) that was posted to the OPEN MEMBERSHIP BarCamp group was > a spam message. We fortunately moderate first time posters and prevented the > spam from hitting the list, but it meant that I had to go in and > moderate/remove those postings AS WELL AS ban those members. This experience > really left me feeling pretty down and hating on the world, so frankly, from > a moderator's perspective, I'd rather be the person who greets people at the > door and welcomes them in then the guy who has to go around and kick out the > drunk party crashers who showed up and don't even know anyone and just want > to drink my booze and piss in my plants. > I do want to continue to encourage conversation about this topic, even if > it's not the one that we're here to discuss (we're talking about open, > non-proprietary technology, not open/transparent governance/leadership) > because I do still take your concerns about appearance and inhibition very > seriously. > Chris
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:13 PM, M. David Peterson <xmlhac...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> It seems my response sent via the web form on the list archives got lost >> in cyberspace. I notice this tends to happen quite a bit. Not sure why, >> but I assume this go round is karma related ;-)
>>> BTW, your captcha system ate my comment once. That makes me sad.
>> (Sorry about that Chris!) >> In case it makes it through at some point, I'll summarize my previous >> post: >> 1) The number of legitimate account requests should far outweigh the >> number of spammer accounts and subsequent spam to the list, making it more >> time consuming to moderate membership than would otherwise be the case. >> 2) I'm an admin of a couple Google Groups lists and Google does an >> incredible job of filtering spam and auto-blocking accounts tagged as >> spammers >> 3) The negative side effect of coming across as non-open -- even though a >> follow-up explanation proves this isn't the case -- far overshadows the >> amount of work required to block the accounts of any obvious spammers who >> have successfully made it through Googles spam filter (which I assume is the >> same filter they use for GMail?) >> Extending the content of the post that never made it through, I would also >> think that there are others who -- like me -- saw the road block and decided >> it wasn't worth the effort. In my case I blogged about it and got responses >> from David and Chris (thanks!) explaining their reasoning and encouraging me >> to join the group. I noticed Sam Ruby made a point to bring the road block >> up in his analysis from a few weeks back, and Sam tends to have considerable >> sway in the opinions of others, *especially* in the OSS an open standards >> communities. So my questions would be: >> 1) How many people were swayed by negative comments in the blogosphere and >> chose not to join as a result? >> 2) How many people saw the road block without first being swayed not to >> bother taking part and either didn't blog about it, or did but their blog >> entry didn't get noticed? >> 3) Looking at the archives there's a 10 day span without a single post to >> the list. Is this because a lot of the folks in whom would be actively >> contributing chose not to because of the road block?
>> Obviously I don't know the answers, but if it was decided to remove the >> barrier I would certainly do my part in proselytizing this fact (with due >> praise!) both far and wide via a new post to O'Reilly News. My guess is >> that others would do the same, which might help spur some additional >> activity on the list that would otherwise not take place. >> -- >> /M:D
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Thanks for your thoughts David. > I don't know if you read through the complete thread on this subject, but > at the time, the majority of vocalized votes (there were only 15 total > authors) were to keep moderation in place:
I did, yes. And I recognize this as a legitimate concern. I simply wonder if people are fully aware of the fact that with Google Groups you gain a lot of protection you don't otherwise get with the likes of Majordomo and other popular listserv-like software. If they're fully experienced with Google Groups and they still have the opinion that moderation makes sense, then fair enough. My vote is still -1, but 15 + -1 obviously still keeps the majority in favor of the blockade.
> I think there will always be questions about Option A vs Option B -- and > neither are ideal (specifically: up front moderation of membership or > allowing anyone to sign up but moderating their first posts to the list).
or Option C: not moderating anything and letting the backend system to the grunt work to keep the trash out.
> We chose up front member moderation because the join message also allows us > to have an initial one-on-one "get to know you" exchange, just as you and I > did, David, before you posted your message to the list. I've found this to > be rather valuable so far and also reiterates the fact that moderation does > not only serve to prevent spam, but to enhance the social foundation of the > group.
Fair enough. I can understand this. But wouldn't a "Hi, my name is ________ and here's why I'm interested in this group." as their first post accomplish the same thing? From my experience, if someone is posting to a list for the first time, and that person is someone in whom most other list members don't already know, the tendency to introduce yourself is a pretty natural first step.
I will offer that in my recent experience over the past week, EVERY message
> (about seven total) that was posted to the OPEN MEMBERSHIP BarCamp group was > a spam message. We fortunately moderate first time posters and prevented the > spam from hitting the list, but it meant that I had to go in and > moderate/remove those postings AS WELL AS ban those members. This experience > really left me feeling pretty down and hating on the world, so frankly, from > a moderator's perspective, I'd rather be the person who greets people at the > door and welcomes them in then the guy who has to go around and kick out the > drunk party crashers who showed up and don't even know anyone and just want > to drink my booze and piss in my plants.
Then change the question: "Hi, I'm Chris Messina, the list moderator. Everyone who would like to participate will be approved, but I'd like to get to know you a bit. Can you tell me a little bit about yourself?"
The above is 185 characters, so would make it through to 200 character limit. It puts a human face on the group, and gets straight to the point. "You're in. But I'd like to get to know you."
> I do want to continue to encourage conversation about this topic, even if > it's not the one that we're here to discuss (we're talking about open, > non-proprietary technology, not open/transparent governance/leadership) > because I do still take your concerns about appearance and inhibition very > seriously.
I believe the appearance is critical. Maybe it's possible to change the appearance while at the same time keep the hurdle in place by changing the question to something that makes it obvious this is an open group, while placing focus on the primary reason the question is in place?
Anyway, if enough people feel strongly that either the policy needs to change, or the wording updated (I know quite a few people have suggested this already, but I haven't seen any suggestions as to what it could be changed to. Thus my suggestion) no doubt they'll make their opinions known. So for now, anyway, as per your point, let's move on to the good stuff. :-)
I don't get time to participate here often, but I wanted to +1 this whole conversation. David, your suggestion for re-wording the entry question is an improvement IMO *and* a great example of honoring the intention of the question while finding a way to honor the prospective member.
Thanks for participating!
--Steve
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM, M. David Peterson <xmlhac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> Thanks for your thoughts David. >> I don't know if you read through the complete thread on this subject, but >> at the time, the majority of vocalized votes (there were only 15 total >> authors) were to keep moderation in place: >> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/t/328bc8fb270b57b2
> I did, yes. And I recognize this as a legitimate concern. I simply wonder > if people are fully aware of the fact that with Google Groups you gain a lot > of protection you don't otherwise get with the likes of Majordomo and other > popular listserv-like software. If they're fully experienced with Google > Groups and they still have the opinion that moderation makes sense, then > fair enough. My vote is still -1, but 15 + -1 obviously still keeps the > majority in favor of the blockade.
>> I think there will always be questions about Option A vs Option B -- and >> neither are ideal (specifically: up front moderation of membership or >> allowing anyone to sign up but moderating their first posts to the list).
> or Option C: not moderating anything and letting the backend system to the > grunt work to keep the trash out.
>> We chose up front member moderation because the join message also allows >> us to have an initial one-on-one "get to know you" exchange, just as you and >> I did, David, before you posted your message to the list. I've found this to >> be rather valuable so far and also reiterates the fact that moderation does >> not only serve to prevent spam, but to enhance the social foundation of the >> group.
> Fair enough. I can understand this. But wouldn't a "Hi, my name is > ________ and here's why I'm interested in this group." as their first post > accomplish the same thing? From my experience, if someone is posting to a > list for the first time, and that person is someone in whom most other list > members don't already know, the tendency to introduce yourself is a pretty > natural first step.
>> I will offer that in my recent experience over the past week, EVERY >> message (about seven total) that was posted to the OPEN MEMBERSHIP BarCamp >> group was a spam message. We fortunately moderate first time posters and >> prevented the spam from hitting the list, but it meant that I had to go in >> and moderate/remove those postings AS WELL AS ban those members. This >> experience really left me feeling pretty down and hating on the world, so >> frankly, from a moderator's perspective, I'd rather be the person who greets >> people at the door and welcomes them in then the guy who has to go around >> and kick out the drunk party crashers who showed up and don't even know >> anyone and just want to drink my booze and piss in my plants.
> Then change the question: "Hi, I'm Chris Messina, the list moderator. > Everyone who would like to participate will be approved, but I'd like to > get to know you a bit. Can you tell me a little bit about yourself?" > The above is 185 characters, so would make it through to 200 character > limit. It puts a human face on the group, and gets straight to the point. > "You're in. But I'd like to get to know you."
>> I do want to continue to encourage conversation about this topic, even if >> it's not the one that we're here to discuss (we're talking about open, >> non-proprietary technology, not open/transparent governance/leadership) >> because I do still take your concerns about appearance and inhibition very >> seriously.
> I believe the appearance is critical. Maybe it's possible to change the > appearance while at the same time keep the hurdle in place by changing the > question to something that makes it obvious this is an open group, while > placing focus on the primary reason the question is in place? > Anyway, if enough people feel strongly that either the policy needs to > change, or the wording updated (I know quite a few people have suggested > this already, but I haven't seen any suggestions as to what it could be > changed to. Thus my suggestion) no doubt they'll make their opinions known. > So for now, anyway, as per your point, let's move on to the good stuff. :-) > -- > /M:D
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Steve Ivy <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't get time to participate here often, but I wanted to +1 this > whole conversation. David, your suggestion for re-wording the entry > question is an improvement IMO *and* a great example of honoring the > intention of the question while finding a way to honor the prospective > member.
> I don't get time to participate here often, but I wanted to +1 this > whole conversation. David, your suggestion for re-wording the entry > question is an improvement IMO *and* a great example of honoring the > intention of the question while finding a way to honor the prospective > member.
> Thanks for participating!
> --Steve
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM, M. David Peterson <xmlhac...@gmail.com > > wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks for your thoughts David. >>> I don't know if you read through the complete thread on this >>> subject, but >>> at the time, the majority of vocalized votes (there were only 15 >>> total >>> authors) were to keep moderation in place: >>> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/t/328bc8fb270b57b2
>> I did, yes. And I recognize this as a legitimate concern. I >> simply wonder >> if people are fully aware of the fact that with Google Groups you >> gain a lot >> of protection you don't otherwise get with the likes of Majordomo >> and other >> popular listserv-like software. If they're fully experienced with >> Google >> Groups and they still have the opinion that moderation makes sense, >> then >> fair enough. My vote is still -1, but 15 + -1 obviously still >> keeps the >> majority in favor of the blockade.
>>> I think there will always be questions about Option A vs Option B >>> -- and >>> neither are ideal (specifically: up front moderation of membership >>> or >>> allowing anyone to sign up but moderating their first posts to the >>> list).
>> or Option C: not moderating anything and letting the backend system >> to the >> grunt work to keep the trash out.
>>> We chose up front member moderation because the join message also >>> allows >>> us to have an initial one-on-one "get to know you" exchange, just >>> as you and >>> I did, David, before you posted your message to the list. I've >>> found this to >>> be rather valuable so far and also reiterates the fact that >>> moderation does >>> not only serve to prevent spam, but to enhance the social >>> foundation of the >>> group.
>> Fair enough. I can understand this. But wouldn't a "Hi, my name is >> ________ and here's why I'm interested in this group." as their >> first post >> accomplish the same thing? From my experience, if someone is >> posting to a >> list for the first time, and that person is someone in whom most >> other list >> members don't already know, the tendency to introduce yourself is a >> pretty >> natural first step.
>>> I will offer that in my recent experience over the past week, EVERY >>> message (about seven total) that was posted to the OPEN MEMBERSHIP >>> BarCamp >>> group was a spam message. We fortunately moderate first time >>> posters and >>> prevented the spam from hitting the list, but it meant that I had >>> to go in >>> and moderate/remove those postings AS WELL AS ban those members. >>> This >>> experience really left me feeling pretty down and hating on the >>> world, so >>> frankly, from a moderator's perspective, I'd rather be the person >>> who greets >>> people at the door and welcomes them in then the guy who has to go >>> around >>> and kick out the drunk party crashers who showed up and don't even >>> know >>> anyone and just want to drink my booze and piss in my plants.
>> Then change the question: "Hi, I'm Chris Messina, the list moderator. >> Everyone who would like to participate will be approved, but I'd >> like to >> get to know you a bit. Can you tell me a little bit about yourself?" >> The above is 185 characters, so would make it through to 200 >> character >> limit. It puts a human face on the group, and gets straight to the >> point. >> "You're in. But I'd like to get to know you."
>>> I do want to continue to encourage conversation about this topic, >>> even if >>> it's not the one that we're here to discuss (we're talking about >>> open, >>> non-proprietary technology, not open/transparent governance/ >>> leadership) >>> because I do still take your concerns about appearance and >>> inhibition very >>> seriously.
>> I believe the appearance is critical. Maybe it's possible to >> change the >> appearance while at the same time keep the hurdle in place by >> changing the >> question to something that makes it obvious this is an open group, >> while >> placing focus on the primary reason the question is in place? >> Anyway, if enough people feel strongly that either the policy needs >> to >> change, or the wording updated (I know quite a few people have >> suggested >> this already, but I haven't seen any suggestions as to what it >> could be >> changed to. Thus my suggestion) no doubt they'll make their >> opinions known. >> So for now, anyway, as per your point, let's move on to the good >> stuff. :-) >> -- >> /M:D
Done. I've made this change -- hopefully it'll allay the former sense of "closed club" to one that invites new members... who knock on the door before entering. ;)
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 1:53 PM, David Recordon <record...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to the re-wording as well.
> --- > Sent from my iPhone classic.
> On Aug 16, 2008, at 10:01 AM, "Steve Ivy" <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't get time to participate here often, but I wanted to +1 this >> whole conversation. David, your suggestion for re-wording the entry >> question is an improvement IMO *and* a great example of honoring the >> intention of the question while finding a way to honor the prospective >> member.
>> Thanks for participating!
>> --Steve
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM, M. David Peterson <xmlhac...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> Thanks for your thoughts David. >>>> I don't know if you read through the complete thread on this >>>> subject, but >>>> at the time, the majority of vocalized votes (there were only 15 >>>> total >>>> authors) were to keep moderation in place: >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/t/328bc8fb270b57b2
>>> I did, yes. And I recognize this as a legitimate concern. I >>> simply wonder >>> if people are fully aware of the fact that with Google Groups you >>> gain a lot >>> of protection you don't otherwise get with the likes of Majordomo >>> and other >>> popular listserv-like software. If they're fully experienced with >>> Google >>> Groups and they still have the opinion that moderation makes sense, >>> then >>> fair enough. My vote is still -1, but 15 + -1 obviously still >>> keeps the >>> majority in favor of the blockade.
>>>> I think there will always be questions about Option A vs Option B >>>> -- and >>>> neither are ideal (specifically: up front moderation of membership >>>> or >>>> allowing anyone to sign up but moderating their first posts to the >>>> list).
>>> or Option C: not moderating anything and letting the backend system >>> to the >>> grunt work to keep the trash out.
>>>> We chose up front member moderation because the join message also >>>> allows >>>> us to have an initial one-on-one "get to know you" exchange, just >>>> as you and >>>> I did, David, before you posted your message to the list. I've >>>> found this to >>>> be rather valuable so far and also reiterates the fact that >>>> moderation does >>>> not only serve to prevent spam, but to enhance the social >>>> foundation of the >>>> group.
>>> Fair enough. I can understand this. But wouldn't a "Hi, my name is >>> ________ and here's why I'm interested in this group." as their >>> first post >>> accomplish the same thing? From my experience, if someone is >>> posting to a >>> list for the first time, and that person is someone in whom most >>> other list >>> members don't already know, the tendency to introduce yourself is a >>> pretty >>> natural first step.
>>>> I will offer that in my recent experience over the past week, EVERY >>>> message (about seven total) that was posted to the OPEN MEMBERSHIP >>>> BarCamp >>>> group was a spam message. We fortunately moderate first time >>>> posters and >>>> prevented the spam from hitting the list, but it meant that I had >>>> to go in >>>> and moderate/remove those postings AS WELL AS ban those members. >>>> This >>>> experience really left me feeling pretty down and hating on the >>>> world, so >>>> frankly, from a moderator's perspective, I'd rather be the person >>>> who greets >>>> people at the door and welcomes them in then the guy who has to go >>>> around >>>> and kick out the drunk party crashers who showed up and don't even >>>> know >>>> anyone and just want to drink my booze and piss in my plants.
>>> Then change the question: "Hi, I'm Chris Messina, the list moderator. >>> Everyone who would like to participate will be approved, but I'd >>> like to >>> get to know you a bit. Can you tell me a little bit about yourself?" >>> The above is 185 characters, so would make it through to 200 >>> character >>> limit. It puts a human face on the group, and gets straight to the >>> point. >>> "You're in. But I'd like to get to know you."
>>>> I do want to continue to encourage conversation about this topic, >>>> even if >>>> it's not the one that we're here to discuss (we're talking about >>>> open, >>>> non-proprietary technology, not open/transparent governance/ >>>> leadership) >>>> because I do still take your concerns about appearance and >>>> inhibition very >>>> seriously.
>>> I believe the appearance is critical. Maybe it's possible to >>> change the >>> appearance while at the same time keep the hurdle in place by >>> changing the >>> question to something that makes it obvious this is an open group, >>> while >>> placing focus on the primary reason the question is in place? >>> Anyway, if enough people feel strongly that either the policy needs >>> to >>> change, or the wording updated (I know quite a few people have >>> suggested >>> this already, but I haven't seen any suggestions as to what it >>> could be >>> changed to. Thus my suggestion) no doubt they'll make their >>> opinions known. >>> So for now, anyway, as per your point, let's move on to the good >>> stuff. :-) >>> -- >>> /M:D
> Done. I've made this change -- hopefully it'll allay the former sense > of "closed club" to one that invites new members... who knock on the > door before entering. ;)
> Chris
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 1:53 PM, David Recordon <record...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > +1 to the re-wording as well.
> > --- > > Sent from my iPhone classic.
> > On Aug 16, 2008, at 10:01 AM, "Steve Ivy" <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I don't get time to participate here often, but I wanted to +1 this > >> whole conversation. David, your suggestion for re-wording the entry > >> question is an improvement IMO *and* a great example of honoring the > >> intention of the question while finding a way to honor the prospective > >> member.
> >> Thanks for participating!
> >> --Steve
> >> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM, M. David Peterson <xmlhac...@gmail.com > >> > wrote: > >>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Chris Messina < > chris.mess...@gmail.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Thanks for your thoughts David. > >>>> I don't know if you read through the complete thread on this > >>>> subject, but > >>>> at the time, the majority of vocalized votes (there were only 15 > >>>> total > >>>> authors) were to keep moderation in place: > >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/t/328bc8fb270b57b2
> >>> I did, yes. And I recognize this as a legitimate concern. I > >>> simply wonder > >>> if people are fully aware of the fact that with Google Groups you > >>> gain a lot > >>> of protection you don't otherwise get with the likes of Majordomo > >>> and other > >>> popular listserv-like software. If they're fully experienced with > >>> Google > >>> Groups and they still have the opinion that moderation makes sense, > >>> then > >>> fair enough. My vote is still -1, but 15 + -1 obviously still > >>> keeps the > >>> majority in favor of the blockade.
> >>>> I think there will always be questions about Option A vs Option B > >>>> -- and > >>>> neither are ideal (specifically: up front moderation of membership > >>>> or > >>>> allowing anyone to sign up but moderating their first posts to the > >>>> list).
> >>> or Option C: not moderating anything and letting the backend system > >>> to the > >>> grunt work to keep the trash out.
> >>>> We chose up front member moderation because the join message also > >>>> allows > >>>> us to have an initial one-on-one "get to know you" exchange, just > >>>> as you and > >>>> I did, David, before you posted your message to the list. I've > >>>> found this to > >>>> be rather valuable so far and also reiterates the fact that > >>>> moderation does > >>>> not only serve to prevent spam, but to enhance the social > >>>> foundation of the > >>>> group.
> >>> Fair enough. I can understand this. But wouldn't a "Hi, my name is > >>> ________ and here's why I'm interested in this group." as their > >>> first post > >>> accomplish the same thing? From my experience, if someone is > >>> posting to a > >>> list for the first time, and that person is someone in whom most > >>> other list > >>> members don't already know, the tendency to introduce yourself is a > >>> pretty > >>> natural first step.
> >>>> I will offer that in my recent experience over the past week, EVERY > >>>> message (about seven total) that was posted to the OPEN MEMBERSHIP > >>>> BarCamp > >>>> group was a spam message. We fortunately moderate first time > >>>> posters and > >>>> prevented the spam from hitting the list, but it meant that I had > >>>> to go in > >>>> and moderate/remove those postings AS WELL AS ban those members. > >>>> This > >>>> experience really left me feeling pretty down and hating on the > >>>> world, so > >>>> frankly, from a moderator's perspective, I'd rather be the person > >>>> who greets > >>>> people at the door and welcomes them in then the guy who has to go > >>>> around > >>>> and kick out the drunk party crashers who showed up and don't even > >>>> know > >>>> anyone and just want to drink my booze and piss in my plants.
> >>> Then change the question: "Hi, I'm Chris Messina, the list moderator. > >>> Everyone who would like to participate will be approved, but I'd > >>> like to > >>> get to know you a bit. Can you tell me a little bit about yourself?" > >>> The above is 185 characters, so would make it through to 200 > >>> character > >>> limit. It puts a human face on the group, and gets straight to the > >>> point. > >>> "You're in. But I'd like to get to know you."
> >>>> I do want to continue to encourage conversation about this topic, > >>>> even if > >>>> it's not the one that we're here to discuss (we're talking about > >>>> open, > >>>> non-proprietary technology, not open/transparent governance/ > >>>> leadership) > >>>> because I do still take your concerns about appearance and > >>>> inhibition very > >>>> seriously.
> >>> I believe the appearance is critical. Maybe it's possible to > >>> change the > >>> appearance while at the same time keep the hurdle in place by > >>> changing the > >>> question to something that makes it obvious this is an open group, > >>> while > >>> placing focus on the primary reason the question is in place? > >>> Anyway, if enough people feel strongly that either the policy needs > >>> to > >>> change, or the wording updated (I know quite a few people have > >>> suggested > >>> this already, but I haven't seen any suggestions as to what it > >>> could be > >>> changed to. Thus my suggestion) no doubt they'll make their > >>> opinions known. > >>> So for now, anyway, as per your point, let's move on to the good > >>> stuff. :-) > >>> -- > >>> /M:D
Agreed, +1 to whole discussion...I love transparency, and strongly believe in making everything possible at least world-READABLE.
David, wrt your assertion that Google Groups is a panacea, I'd have to take at least partial exception there. The last two googlegroups before this one I've been involved with (Podcorps.org and Friendfeed-API) both had (or are having right now, in FF's case) issues with spammers. I find that sort of thing HIGHLY irritating, and once a spammer knows that their posts are successful, they often kick into HIGH gear, making the moderation a real chore.
I think that the uber-light moderation/approval that Chris is doing is well worth it. That being said, again, I think I understand your position, and I think it's GREAT that the discussion is occurring. Anyone with enough interest can easily see this thread, and make up their own mind about whether or not they agree with the position.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Ken Kennedy <kenz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David, wrt your assertion that Google Groups is a panacea, I'd have to > take at least partial exception there. The last two googlegroups > before this one I've been involved with (Podcorps.org and > Friendfeed-API) both had (or are having right now, in FF's case) > issues with spammers. I find that sort of thing HIGHLY irritating, and > once a spammer knows that their posts are successful, they often kick > into HIGH gear, making the moderation a real chore.
What I think is interesting is that of the three Google Groups that I am the list moderator of, two of them rarely have any problems with spam while the third -- while certainly not something I view as a major problem -- certainly has a bigger problem than the other two. So maybe it's just hit and miss? Of course, spammers probably target groups with the most members (which would obviously make sense) so maybe my 33 member group (which is the biggest group I maintain) isn't large enough for spammers to take notice.
Either way, I do agree that this is a good overall compromise.
I think that the uber-light moderation/approval that Chris is doing is
> well worth it. That being said, again, I think I understand your > position, and I think it's GREAT that the discussion is occurring. > Anyone with enough interest can easily see this thread, and make up > their own mind about whether or not they agree with the position.
- Original message - >Hi Ken, What I think is interesting is that of t...
Noted, David. My guess is that it is some sort of hit-or-miss thing, maybe coupled with searches for buzz phrasing or something. I certainly ack. that google does a better job than some other tools. I just think that the small roadbump is worth it, esp. if the purpose (ie, NOT to be exclusive...heck, I'm just J. Random Dude, and they let me in! *grin*) is made clear.
Sent from Gmail for mobile
On 8/16/08, M. David Peterson <xmlhac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Ken Kennedy <kenz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David, wrt your assertion that Google Groups is a panacea, I'd have to >> take at least partial exception there. The last two googlegroups >> before this one I've been involved with (Podcorps.org and >> Friendfeed-API) both had (or are having right now, in FF's case) >> issues with spammers. I find that sort of thing HIGHLY irritating, and >> once a spammer knows that their posts are successful, they often kick >> into HIGH gear, making the moderation a real chore.
> What I think is interesting is that of the three Google Groups that I am the > list moderator of, two of them rarely have any problems with spam while the > third -- while certainly not something I view as a major problem -- > certainly has a bigger problem than the other two. So maybe it's just hit > and miss? Of course, spammers probably target groups with the most members > (which would obviously make sense) so maybe my 33 member group (which is the > biggest group I maintain) isn't large enough for spammers to take notice.
> Either way, I do agree that this is a good overall compromise.
> I think that the uber-light moderation/approval that Chris is doing is >> well worth it. That being said, again, I think I understand your >> position, and I think it's GREAT that the discussion is occurring. >> Anyone with enough interest can easily see this thread, and make up >> their own mind about whether or not they agree with the position.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com>wrote:
> ... from a moderator's perspective, I'd rather be the person who greets > people at the door and welcomes them in then the guy who has to go around > and kick out the drunk party crashers who showed up and don't even know > anyone and just want to drink my booze and piss in my plants.
+1 for the Greeter social pattern
not sure what to call the antipattern delineated above: Bouncer? Party Crasher?
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Ken Kennedy <kenz...@gmail.com> wrote: > esp. if the purpose ... is made clear.
Which I believe we all agree is/was the key. I liked Chris's point regarding knocking before entering. It fits well into the reality of the situation. And while I maintain my -1 vote as far as having a moderated entry into the group, that vote doesn't include Chris's desire to get to know people first, something that, after hearing his reasoning, I wholeheartedly stand behind (which I guess really means that my vote is +1, though it's +1 w/ comments :-)). In this regard, there really isn't a better way to handle things beyond changing the overall tone of the entry question, something I commend all of you for standing behind.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Christian Crumlish <x...@pobox.com> wrote:
> +1 for the Greeter social pattern
It's an interesting and refreshing approach, I have to admit. Given Chris's experience, he obviously has a pretty clear understanding of what its like to manage large open advocacy group dynamics. It will be interesting to see if this style finds its way into open standards and open source bodies. My guess is that it probably will.
not sure what to call the antipattern delineated above: Bouncer? Party
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 8:42 PM, M. David Peterson <xmlhac...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Christian Crumlish <x...@pobox.com>wrote:
>> +1 for the Greeter social pattern
> It's an interesting and refreshing approach, I have to admit. Given > Chris's experience, he obviously has a pretty clear understanding of what > its like to manage large open advocacy group dynamics. It will be > interesting to see if this style finds its way into open standards and open > source bodies. My guess is that it probably will.
Well, it isn't an approach that scales, especially with fragmented identity (as a group admin, I can't just say "always let this person join all groups that I moderate), but I guess that's the point... it's low cost enough, for now, that the value justifies the overhead for me (or for the moderators/group owners).
Not all groups have/want that kind of initial personal touch, but again, each group is a bit different. I find that the personal touch up front can sometimes lead to greater retention over time (should the group prove productive and interesting) when so many things are competing for each of our individual attentions.
> not sure what to call the antipattern delineated above: Bouncer? Party >> Crasher?
> A combination of both, I believe. ;-)
I think Christian's "Greeter" nomenclature was fine. At least my first priority is greeting and background welcoming; the secondary role is to be the antibody when germs and other "viruses" show up.
Chris
-- Chris Messina Citizen-Participant & Open Source Advocate-at-Large factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org citizenagency.com # vidoop.com This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
|
