[gcd-membership] Membership Morale (was Re: Membership Pending)

[Lionel English]

Not to make light of anyone's health problems or burnouts, but perhaps we can use the membership committee to address things like the negative energy many of us have been experiencing.  If it's affecting us, it's probably affecting others.  So are there things we can do to restore a more positive vibe to the group?  Or to decrease a source of negative vibes?

 

--
Lionel English
lio...@beanmar.net

[Mike Nielsen]

I wonder if some of the "vibe" that used to exist on Chat has moved to other venues, notably Facebook.  I know Bob Baily and I chat there about the same as we used to on the chat list.

I'm not saying that's a good thing.  And I don't really know whats going on in the chat list since Dec, maybe that's not the location you were referring to.

As for negative vibes, I'll sidestep that question if you don't mind.... :)

Mike Nielsen

 

 

 

Atom: "They are replicating."

Aquaman: "Yes, and they are making more of themselves too!"

 - Batman Brave and the Bold Cartoon episode "Journey to the center of the Bat" 

---

From: Lionel English <lio...@beanmar.net>
To: GCD Board <gcd-...@googlegroups.com>; gcd-membersh...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, April 19, 2010 11:52:05 AM
Subject: [gcd-membership] Membership Morale (was Re: Membership Pending)

[Mark]

Some points that I feel might assist:

# Stop people bursting out with angry e-mails, i.e. "nip problems in
the bud early". Get them to express the reasons for their anger rather
than allow them to vent.

# Encourage our membership to take heed of others within the group by
having specific members manage areas of discussion (i.e. moderators
that quell situation)

# Stop any direct insults/abuse immediately, i.e. if someone becomes
abusive and ignores the direction of the group moderators, eject them
from the lists. Lets not fool ourselves into thinking that we can
quell all abuse through talking.

# Create simple contracts of conduct on the lists. (a somewhat OT
example but http://help.dal.net/dnh/mail-rules.php). This will
simplify the removal process.

# Look out for monopolists, people like this break groups.

In short encourage people to discuss and have people in control to
ensure that it is a discussion and not an argument.

Thanks
Mark


--
Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/gcd-membership-committee/subscribe?hl=en

[Mike Nielsen]

>>
>> In short encourage people to discuss and have people in control to
>> ensure that it is a discussion and not an argument.
>>
>

>I don't mind arguments; I really don't.  I just don't like nastiness.  It's possible to have a reasonable, >logic-based argument without resorting to testiness.  I used to be able to do that.  :(

>tony

We still like you anyway Tony.  :)

I don't really know what's happened to the civility.  It used to be "back in the day" that we were all friends.  I could be "snarky" with Tony, or even be a bit short with a response, and Tony and more importantly EVERYBODY else on the list knew that we were friends and not to read it with some argumentative tone.

We seem to have gotten large enough that we've fragmented into "cliques" for want of a better choice of words.  And maybe that's a fact of life once you get over X amount of people, most of them new, where the interpersonal relationships between two people are not known.

Now how you fix that, that's another story.  I know that the board has taken some flak for the new email rules.  But almost every message board out there has some code of conduct.  And if they don't they tend to fall into chaos fairly quickly as the trolls gather to exhibit their trollness.

I do not know if the new email rules will be enough to bring the lists back, but I also think that it has not been long enough for them to be given a fair chance.  

Mike Nielsen

[Tony Rose]

----- "Mark" <znx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 April 2010 17:52, Lionel English <lio...@beanmar.net> wrote:
> > Not to make light of anyone's health problems or burnouts, but perhaps we
> > can use the membership committee to address things like the negative energy
> > many of us have been experiencing.  If it's affecting us, it's probably
> > affecting others.  So are there things we can do to restore a more positive
> > vibe to the group?  Or to decrease a source of negative vibes?
>
> Some points that I feel might assist:
>
> # Stop people bursting out with angry e-mails, i.e. "nip problems in
> the bud early". Get them to express the reasons for their anger rather
> than allow them to vent.

How do we do that?  Outbursts, by definition are sudden and somewhat unexpected.

>
> # Encourage our membership to take heed of others within the group by
> having specific members manage areas of discussion (i.e. moderators
> that quell situation)

I'm not sure what you mean here.

>
> # Stop any direct insults/abuse immediately, i.e. if someone becomes
> abusive and ignores the direction of the group moderators, eject them
> from the lists. Lets not fool ourselves into thinking that we can
> quell all abuse through talking.

We've got an Email Conduct Policy:  hmmmmm.  Where are the board policies?

>
> # Create simple contracts of conduct on the lists. (a somewhat OT
> example but http://help.dal.net/dnh/mail-rules.php). This will
> simplify the removal process.
>



> # Look out for monopolists, people like this break groups.

Again, what do you mean?

[Tony Rose]

Did we get a copy of the e-mail that new sign-ups get?

I'm thinking that a short personalized note to each new person wouldn't be too terribly onerous if there was a three- or four-person group handling it.  Each message could ask if the person intends to index and to encourage them to do so.  This message could be in addition to the automated one.  The personal messenger could also offer to...introduce the new person on the chat list and start a message thread devoted to something the newbie is interested in.

this might have the added bonus of getting some nice chat going on chat again, which might improve morale.



tony

[Henry Andrews]

There's also a general problem of too many people being rubbed a bit raw at this point.  Sometimes now folks try to leave threads that they think are getting out of hand (at least for them), but then their "I'm done with this thread" message is seen as negative (and attacked as such) by others.  Or recently where I ended up annoying someone even when I was trying to actually be helpful.  Sometimes this is through clumsy phrasing, and sometimes folks just misread things.  There are so many reasons discussions can go out of control.

And really, it's just been an incredibly stressful past half-year or so.  Some of what we just need is time for everyone to recover.
-henry

[Tony Rose]

"Rubbed raw" is a good description of the way I feel.

So.

What could fix that?

Hmmm.  The only thing I'm coming up with is just what Henry said:  time.

And, sometimes, doing nothing is a good course of action.

Perhaps we should turn away from morale for a few days and look at membership participation in the lists and/or indexing


tony

[Henry Andrews]

I've definitely tried to both tone down and simply reduce in quantity my presence on the lists.  Taking two weeks or so off entirely (with only the rare off-list response to something) was immensely helpful.  I'm still recovering, but at least I feel like I'm recovering now instead of just slowly being ground down.

I think Tony might have the right idea about focusing more on participation.  Mark's discussion of moderation and rules brings up the point that we need to publicize the work the board did in this area (did we ever actually pass the full list rules?)  I know that by the end of the whole mess of expelling Mark Gordon no one really wanted to discuss the topic any further on any list, so I think it just kind of got passed and tabled.

But focusing on what we want out of the lists, and what sort of discussions we want to see, might help.  I don't want to get into the topic of moderation again.  I just can't take the attacks it draws from those who oppose any form of moderation right now.

thanks,
-henry

[Tony Rose]

At the risk of dominating the conversation...

I'd like to know more about the people that sign up and get user names.  We know that by far most of them don't want to index but what do they want they we might be able to help them with?  They want to look at the data, sure, but what are they doing with it?  Is it idle curiousity?  Are they doing research for an article?  For their own home catalog?  What do they want out of the GCD and what can we do to facilitate them getting it?

I think that my earlier idea of sending people personalized welcomes might be a way to get some of this sort of info.  Of course, not everyone is going to respond to an welcome e-mail, even if asked to and many won't give the kind of responses that will help fill in the blanks but I'd like to see more feedback from non-indexers on the whole shootin' match:  the web site, the search interface, the data arrangement, all that stuff.

I'm I dog-paddling in the wrong direction?  Are these the sorts of things that would help us get and retain more members participating in the lists and in indexing? 





tony

[Henry Andrews]

I think some people may find it annoying to get a request for information right off.  A lot of people just automatically register for everything that has a registration forms.  I think that because of the GCD's history as an organization where it required a lot of effort to get any sort of account in the past, there's a tendency here to read *way* too much into the signups.  For the most part, they're just background noise.

However, I do think you have a good point in here, Tony.  One thing that I think we might want to add is an "are you interested in contributing..." set of checkboxes ("contributing data", "contributing code", "other contributions", etc.).  Folks who check one should probably get a personal followup.  I considered doing something like this originally, but didn't (for reasons that I no longer recall).

Note that I would not have a checkbox that says something like "Are you interested in indexing?", because most people don't think of the term "indexing" like folks here do.  Our use of the term "indexing" is grounded in a certain history that people who just see a big collection of data (rather than a set of specifically formatted indexes) don't necessarily share.

thanks,
-henry

[Lou Mazzella]

the chat list is very quiet lately. Discussions are few and fairly short. I'm not really sure how to bring folks back to it. -Lou --- On Mon, 4/19/10, Mike Nielsen <rasta...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Lou Mazzella]

I will send an email to Jochen asking for a copy of the email. I like this idea. -Lou --- On Mon, 4/19/10, Tony Rose <tonyr...@comcast.net> wrote:

From: Tony Rose <tonyr...@comcast.net> Subject: [gcd-membership] new indexers To: gcd-membersh...@googlegroups.com

[Lou Mazzella]

I posted the rules to the lists after the vote. If we don't wish to discuss list morale at this time that's fine. In terms of membership participation... how do you feel we can encourage further participation from existing members? -Lou --- On Mon, 4/19/10, Henry Andrews <andrew...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Henry Andrews <andrew...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [gcd-membership] Membership Morale (was Re: Membership Pending)

[Lou Mazzella]

Should we send a survey of some sort to everyone that signs up for an account? or is it possible to include a couple of questions when signing up. Things like why they're using the data and how they discovered us? -Lou

--- On Mon, 4/19/10, Tony Rose <tonyr...@comcast.net> wrote:

From: Tony Rose <tonyr...@comcast.net> Subject: Re: [gcd-membership] Membership Morale (was Re: Membership Pending)

[Henry Andrews]

There are a lot of people out there who really seriously dislike getting email that is even sort of unsolicited.  I would really advise against any attempt at correspondence without someone specifically opting in via a checkbox expressing interest in contributing as opposed to consuming.  We do not want to get a reputation as email pests.

thanks,
-henry

From: Lou Mazzella <gloi...@yahoo.com>
To: gcd-membersh...@googlegroups.com

[Henry Andrews]

I'm afraid I don't have much in the way of help for this, as I'm mostly on gcd-chat just because I'm on the board and feel like I should be on all the lists.  I'd actually be happier encouraging more comics discussions (in a very broad sense) on gcd-main.  And let gcd-chat be for truly off-topic stuff like baseball, politics, and random pop culture stuff that's only peripherally related to comics.

But I know you've expressed concern over gcd-chat several times, Lou, so clearly you see it as valuable.  What sort of things would you *like* to see on it?

thanks,
-henry

[Lou Mazzella]

I would love for the main list to be a place for all comics related discussions, but when people have attempted to start discussions there recently that weren't directly related to either indexing or publisher history they were shooed over to chat, killing the thread. I'd like for us to really decided what belongs where. If we want chat to be a place solely for non-comics discussion then we need to state that and allow all types of comics discussions on main. I guess all I really want to see is active participation. People posting regularly and not being afraid to voice their opinions on any and all topics. -Lou

--- On Mon, 4/19/10, Henry Andrews <andrew...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Henry Andrews]

I'd support that.  I think the main/chat split is now out of balance since we have policy for the argumentative stuff.  Which I think has worked- with a few exceptions (at least one of them involving me), I feel that gcd-main has been less argumentative since folks got used to the split.  I'm pretty certain I have not shooed anything off to chat recently, although I may have done so absent-mindedly.  I don't really understand the confusion, though, as that's not at all a new policy, nor is it new for things to be asked to be moved to chat.

thanks,
-henry

[Lou Mazzella]

I think the confusion stems from the text of what we voted on when we voted to repurpose the main list. The Board voted: "That gcd-main be repurposed from being a general discussion list for all GCD business to focusing on the actual data and other comics-related material and discussions, plus basic requests for help and clarification." I can see where the confusion would arise as it looks to me from the wording that all comics related discussions would be allowed. For the record I voted against the repurposing. It seemed unnecessary to me at the time and I felt that it might lead to less participation on gcd-main.

[Henry Andrews]

I see your point about the confusion.  But I think in general that it happens because people would rather discuss more comics stuff in one place (you read what you want to see into things, often).

Do you feel that the repurposing has led to less participation on gcd-main?  And if so what do you mean by participation?  (obviously some discussions would not happen there because they would be happening on gcd-policy, but I don't think you meant simple message volume).

thanks,
-henry
(who, for the record, raised the motions for repurposing and, as far as main vs policy goes, is quite happy with the results).

[Lou Mazzella]

I think what i mean by an increase in participation is an increase in the number of different users posting. It seems that we have seen some new faces on main, but a lot of the older ones lurk or have left the list. I find that i rarely have much to contribute there as most of the discussions center around extinct golden age publishers whose output I've never even heard of.

[Henry Andrews]

So what would you like to see posted?  What are some of the sorts of discussions that you missed?  Art IDs?  Research into titles in various countries? 

As someone whose primary interests include extinct golden age publishers whose output no one has ever heard of, I'm thrilled that I can see these discussions without interference from arguments over whether all books objectively must have an editor or not.  I'm not trying to argue that gcd-main is doing fine and you're wrong, btw.  I'm just not sure that's a sign of a new decline in topics.  I think that taking the noise off to gcd-policy exposes the fact that gcd-main has been a bit thin on actual data discussions for a while.

[Mike Nielsen]

Well, I can't speak to the current discussions on the list, but it's always been a bit of a quandry on where a certain topic goes.  For instance when I was looking to clean up Silver Age Green Lantern indexes a few years back, I asked on main.  And when I got no usefull information I took it to chat, because the people that had the answers were on chat.  Bob Baily and Gene Reed specifically.

 

So sometimes a topic gets asked where the answer can be found.

 

Chat used to be where the guys that no longer indexed from the old flat file days hung out.  They were not interested in indexing discussions which were on the Main list.  And they would have discussions on whatever they wanted.

 

It was almost like Main and Editor were somewhat interchangeable back then.  And Chat was a different group of people having discussions.

 

So how do you reconcile all this?  I have no idea.  I'm just stating what I see of the situation that doesn't seem to be mentioned yet.  But it didn't seem like it was that hard to decide where a topic went.  If it was not comic related it went to chat.  If it was comic related it would generally start with Main and if appropriate at some point somebody would say "try the guys on Chat, they might know".

 

 

 

Mike Nielsen
 

 

 

Atom: "They are replicating."

Aquaman: "Yes, and they are making more of themselves too!"

 - Batman Brave and the Bold Cartoon episode "Journey to the center of the Bat" 

---

From: Henry Andrews <andrew...@yahoo.com>
To: gcd-membersh...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, April 19, 2010 8:42:52 PM

[Tony Rose]

The only people who need to get log-ins are those that are going to contribute, right?  So maybe a statement on the registration page that they are opting in?

tony
----- "Henry Andrews" <andrew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

[Tony Rose]

I'm not Lou but I've got my own answer.

Chat was where we used to create our sense of community.  It was where we talked about the aspects of comics that didn't have anything to do with indexing, as well as politics and Lost and other such stuff.  It was where we were fanboys as opposed to where we were scholars.

tony
----- "Henry Andrews" <andrew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

[Tony Rose]

I saw the word "and" as linking "actual data" to "other," implying that main was to be used to discuss indexing.  I assumed that the "repurposing" was not to move comics chatter TO main but to move policy OFF of main.

If I wanted to talk about why Steve Englehart's Avengers was the greatest super-hero comic ever, I would do that on chat; it isn't about indexing.  If I wanted to talk about who did the cover to Avengers #129, I'd do it on main; it's about indexing data.  If I wanted to talk about why Paty Cockrum's credits should always be "Paty Cockrum" and not "Paty" then it would be on policy; it's about the rules.

That's what I thought, at least.




tony

[Tony Rose]

----- "Henry Andrews" <andrew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> So what would you like to see posted?  What are some of the sorts of discussions that you missed?  Art IDs?  Research into titles in various countries? 
>
> As someone whose primary interests include extinct golden age publishers whose output no one has ever heard of, I'm thrilled that I can see these discussions without interference from arguments over whether all books objectively must have an editor or not.  I'm not trying to argue that gcd-main is doing fine and you're wrong, btw.  I'm just not sure that's a sign of a new decline in topics.  I think that taking the noise off to gcd-policy exposes the fact that gcd-main has been a bit thin on actual data discussions for a while.
>

I think we're well-served by having the policy noise on its own list.  What we're lacking now are conversations about comics that would allow a new-comer to participate at the same level as the old-timers and allow them to get to know the community and contribute to its tenor.





tony

[Henry Andrews]

As far as I'm concerned, that's all exactly correct, Tony.

But if folks think that now, with policy and main settled, we should rethink main vs chat, I think that's a reasonable question to ask.  As you point out elsewhere, we're missing accessible conversations about comics.  I think that having the two lists makes it harder (or at least more confusing) to have those accessible conversations in a place that new folks are likely to sign up for first.  There seem to be several folks who find it annoying to have to have some comics-related conversations on chat, and it seems to be discouraging them from having those conversations at all.

thanks,

-henry

From: Tony Rose <tonyr...@comcast.net>
To: gcd-membersh...@googlegroups.com

[Henry Andrews]

I don't understand the attitude that we should somehow tighten down the registration process.  I hear things from several people about trying to make the set of registered users closer to the set of indexers, either by going after the registered users more actively or by trying to discourage those who would not be indexers from signing up.  What's the point?  Let people fill out the form if they want to.  Work with people according to the interest that they show.  Don't make the site experience more difficult by discouraging registration, asking a bunch of questions, or peppering new folks with emails.  Just let them say they'd like to hear more.  A bunch of folks won't check the box, and will never index a comic.  So what?

thanks,

-henry

From: Tony Rose <tonyr...@comcast.net>
To: gcd-membersh...@googlegroups.com

[Tony Rose]

"Several folks" or Frank?

tony
----- "Henry Andrews" <andrew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

[Tony Rose]

I'm not trying to make the process any more difficult and I don't mind having people registered that might not ever visit the site again.  I'm trying to get at information that would help us target those individuals who need to be directed to where they can get the most of their GCD experience.  If they just want to search -- great!  If they want to learn from the masters -- great!  If they want to index comics -- double great!!  but right now, you don't want me to send them e-mail so I'm left with trying to find some other way to communicate with them.

[Henry Andrews]

Which is why I say just put one or two checkboxes:

[] I would like to contribute to the site

[] I would like to volunteer technical work for the site

or something like that.  Simple and targeted.

[Tony Rose]

----- "Henry Andrews" <andrew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>

Which is why I say just put one or two checkboxes:

[] I would like to contribute to the site

[] I would like to volunteer technical work for the site

>

or something like that.  Simple and targeted.

That suits me.  Provided you'll let me send a more substantial survey somewhere done the line.   :)






tony

[Mark]

On 20 April 2010 16:22, Tony Rose <tonyr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > ----- "Henry Andrews" <andrew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Which is why I say just put one or two checkboxes:
> > [] I would like to contribute to the site
> > [] I would like to volunteer technical work for the site
> > or something like that.  Simple and targeted.
>
> That suits me.  Provided you'll let me send a more substantial survey somewhere done the line.   :)

Opt-in is the only way to go, everything else would annoy users, imho.
Maybe we could have something turn up on your profile/main page when
you login?

I do agree though, simple clicking surveys are much more answered than
expansive fill the text fields :)

Thanks
Mark


--
Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/gcd-membership-committee/subscribe?hl=en

[Henry Andrews]

----- Original Message ----
> From: Mark <znx...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [gcd-membership] new indexers
>

> Opt-in is the only way to go, everything else would annoy users, imho.
> Maybe we could have something turn up on your profile/main page when
> you login?

This brings up a good point- it would be nice if the site was a bit more personalized for logged-in users. Nothing major, just a little panel that showed status like new announcements/surveys, how many books you have in your editing queue, pending queue, sent back from approval, etc. This would have to wait until the layout is redesigned, I think, as there's no good place to *put* it right now. But I think it could make the site experience a lot nicer. And give us a good place to do this sort of thing.

> I do agree though, simple clicking surveys are much more answered than
> expansive fill the text fields :)

Although we get all sorts of interesting things in the "interests" field. And by "interesting", I mean "completely random". Most of the time the interests listed have to do with comics. But sometimes they're about something else entirely. Which shows the other point about text fields vs checkboxes- it's good to give people some focus :-)

thanks,
-henry

[CArch...@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/20/10 10:58:35 AM, andrew...@yahoo.com writes:

I don't understand the attitude that we should somehow tighten down the registration process.  I hear things from several people about trying to make the set of registered users closer to the set of indexers, either by going after the registered users more actively or by trying to discourage those who would not be indexers from signing up.  What's the point?  Let people fill out the form if they want to.  Work with people according to the interest that they show.  Don't make the site experience more difficult by discouraging registration, asking a bunch of questions, or peppering new folks with emails.  Just let them say they'd like to hear more.  A bunch of folks won't check the box, and will never index a comic.  So what?

thanks,
-henry

I would love to see some sort of expiration on some of the people who sign up but neither index or even sign back in for x period of time. If only a way to whittle through the list we have built up already.

I had a question about those currently listed under my name for mentoring.

1) Could there be a button that states, (not indexing) or something like that to get those who do not respond to mentee requests out of my mentee queue since its clear they will not be indexing.

(here they are:
Vaughan Morgan-Jones
United Kingdom

Ekki Nax
Germany

MaGnUs
Uruguay

Robert Martinez
United States

Sascha Herpers
Germany

Michael C
Australia

Mark Crowther
Ireland

Casey Williams
United States

Nat Gertler
United States

Andrew Prentis
United Kingdom

Martin Pasko
United States

Does NOT include:
Jill Bradford
United States

2) What do I do with a new mentee who sends a correction, i send it back asking for a correction, and I never hear back from them, nor is it sent back. I am referring to creator Martin Pasko. He sent in a correction indicating he was the person who did the work on the comic. I sent it back to him asking to clarify, was he ghosting under someone else's name or was the credit wrong to begin with (and which he needed to leave a note in notes about why it was wrong). And he never responded back. He didn't discard it as best as I can tell, and he never responded to my emails.

I'd like to know what we could do in these cases. I hate to lose the possible correction, but its out of my hands currently.

my best
-Ray

[Mike Nielsen]

Ray, on a side note, what book was Pasko's credit from if you remember?  I probably have it, and with things finally somewhat organized I can probably find the book and let you know if it was just a bad credit from the original indexer, if it was credited to somebody else, or if it was not credited at all.

Thanks,

Mike Nielsen
 

 

 

Atom: "They are replicating."

Aquaman: "Yes, and they are making more of themselves too!"

 - Batman Brave and the Bold Cartoon episode "Journey to the center of the Bat" 

---

From: "CArch...@aol.com" <CArch...@aol.com>
To: gcd-membersh...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, April 21, 2010 2:31:59 AM

Subject: Re: [gcd-membership] new indexers

[CArch...@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/21/10 9:10:06 AM, rasta...@yahoo.com writes:

Ray, on a side note, what book was Pasko's credit from if you remember?  I probably have it, and with things finally somewhat organized I can probably find the book and let you know if it was just a bad credit from the original indexer, if it was credited to somebody else, or if it was not credited at all.

Thanks,

Mike Nielsen
 

Sorry Mike I have no idea, I don't have access to it once I sent it back to his queue.

my best
-Ray

[Lionel English]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Tony Rose <tonyr...@comcast.net> wrote:

----- "Henry Andrews" <andrew...@yahoo.com> wrote: 
>

Which is why I say just put one or two checkboxes:

[] I would like to contribute to the site

[] I would like to volunteer technical work for the site

or something like that.  Simple and targeted.

 

 

That suits me.  Provided you'll let me send a more substantial survey somewhere done the line.   :)

 

We could (eventually) set aside a place on a page (like the login page, or the indexing queue, or just a small spot on the front page) that said "Help us improve!  Please take this short survey!".  We could also post survey links (which can be set up fairly easily on sites like http://www.surveymonkey.com) on the lists, if we want to survey that audience.

 

But I agree that unsolicited direct email is not the best way to go about it.

--
Lionel English
lio...@beanmar.net