![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 36 to 60 of 104. Go back in thread:
Posted by tinaboo on April 6, 2002, at 9:01:13
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board, posted by Dr. Bob on April 2, 2002, at 19:37:48
How about opening a group (yahoo or something like that) for "old-timers reunions"
Anyone could post but the group could be mainly for the oldies who don't get to say much around here for various reasons?What would you all think of that?
I'd be willing to open one up.let me know how y'all feel about it.
tina
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2002, at 20:14:44
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board--POLL, posted by tinaboo on April 6, 2002, at 9:01:13
> I don't think the old timers would post exclusively to a board for old timers. I think it would be more of a connection for 'family' from times past. These folks would know each others histories a bit better than most and what some of us have been through without a lot of background details.
>
> SharRight, that would be the idea...
----
> This is a tough one. If we had added another Board the last time it was discussed, under any cutoff rule, we'd have excluded several people whom I feel very connected to and who are valuable and valued contributors. And really, my bond with them is stronger than my bond with some definite old timers who haven't been around for a long time, for whatever reason.
There's not going to be any way to take into account all personal connections. Unless old-timers could "sponsor" others, but that might be a can of worms...
> However, if the idea is to draw back into the fold people who have left, maybe it's worth at least a trial run. However would you, as Shar has suggested, create a date cut-off or require a certain length of participation as a pre-condition to joining the old timers? If the latter, would new people be added after they have been around for awhile?
>
> MairWhat about basing it on degree of participation? Like a frequent flier program? That would take into account length of participation, since the longer someone's here, the more they participate. And it would be an incentive to participate. Yes, new people would be added. At least as long as there weren't too many old-timers!
----
> I actually don't like the idea of an old-timers board, being something of a new-timer myself.
>
> WendyBut that was then, right? :-)
----
> After reading Wendy's post, I went back and looked at some of my prior statements and those of Greg on this issue, written almost a year ago. It was unclear to me whether the disatisfaction was with PB or PSB, and I guess when this issue keeps arising, I have trouble sorting out which Board we're talking about. After all people who might classify as old timers on PB might be relatively unknown to old timers on PSB. I can accept the concept of another Board more easily if I envision it as a hybrid PB/PSB Board which is not necessarily active all the time, but is there as a repository for messages that one old timer might want to post to another... Maybe it would be a way for someone who has left to reenter the group, or reconnect with people who helped them in the past. I don't know how to set something like this up or keep it to certain parameters. I'd hate to see it as a Board that certain people visited to the exclusion of the other Boards, but I think that when Greg wrote about this last June, he made some valid points about why the Board as it's currently constituted doesn't meet his needs.
>
> MairI guess I was thinking about a hybrid (or general) board, too. Without topic restrictions. And about the participation criterion being total participation, including all of the boards.
As far as public, my idea was anybody could still *read* the posts there, it would only be posting that would be restricted...
----
> I worry a little about the diluting of PB into too many boards
>
> Shelli> I look back and see that most of the real discomfort for me started when the board was split into two and then three. I think more dilution could be detrimental.
>
> tinaThink of it as diversity, not dilution? :-)
----
I went and took at look at degree and length of participation, using the registration data which starts in 5/00. As far as I can tell, those on this thread have posted 461 to 1193 times, starting as long ago as 5/00 and as recently as 6/01.
Overall, degree-wise, 36 posters have posted 500 or more times, 11 starting less than a year ago, 4 of those starting less that 6 months ago. 65 posters have posted more than 300 times, 17 starting less than a year ago, 6 of those starting less than 6 months ago. Length-wise, 109 posters started posting in 5/00, the 20 most active over 300 times each, the 20 least active less than 15 times each. Not all of those posters are still active.
Bob
Posted by Shar on April 7, 2002, at 12:35:13
In reply to Re: At some point, everyone becomes an oldtimer... » Shar, posted by tinaboo on April 6, 2002, at 7:51:32
I like the name Reunion Board. And I think it is a good idea.
An e-group is a hassle, one has to join and go thru a bunch of rigamarole to post. My idea was that people could take a look at the reunion/old timers board and touch base with friends or post, sort of spur-of-the-moment.
I don't think an old timers board would dilute the Babbles. The only possibility would be that people there would know they are talking to people who have been dealing with this issue for a while. Maybe more shared experience.
I think it is a fine idea.
Shar
Posted by medlib on April 8, 2002, at 2:04:35
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board, posted by Dr. Bob on April 2, 2002, at 19:37:48
Dr. Bob--
Is there really a need for definitions, restrictions or separate registration/qualification for an Old Timers board? None of the other PB boards have posting restrictions beyond the initial site registration. My concerns are 1)that any limitations will inevitably hurt or alienate someone, and 2)that such extra "hassles" may deter long absent or sometimes visitors from reconnecting.
Why not just set it up, describe its purpose and give self-definition (and simplicity) a chance? I think that most Old Timers will recognize and respond to others like themselves. And, if non-Old Timers wish to post occasionally to Old Timers as a group about Old Timers, where's the harm? Inappropriate posts can always be redirected; and limitations can be instituted later, if necessary, as Registration was. It seems to me that narrowly-focused boards have enough difficulties just sustaining an on-going dialogue. It's hard for me to imagine a new OTPB becoming "too popular" or "contaminated" by inappropriate posters.
Hoping that this one gets okayed for takeoff ---medlib
Posted by tinaboo on April 8, 2002, at 8:51:51
In reply to Re: Old Timers Board, posted by medlib on April 8, 2002, at 2:04:35
Posted by judy1 on April 8, 2002, at 18:39:01
In reply to Reunion Board, posted by Shar on April 7, 2002, at 12:35:13
I couldn't agree more- especially your point of sharing with those who you know have been going through the difficult times for as long as many of us have. Take care, judy
Posted by Lini on April 12, 2002, at 12:22:57
In reply to Re: Reunion Board » Shar, posted by judy1 on April 8, 2002, at 18:39:01
my two cents - i find the concept of an old timers board offensive . . . the thread seems to imply that OT's aren't that interested in what new people have to add, or that new people are "taking away" from their experience.
i just think that it categorizes further and therefor dilutes support. it's not like this online group is the only way people can connect, if there are only certain people you want to talk to - do a group email or use three way calling.
One idea that is used on Business Weeks' board is that you can choose to ignore posters, and only the people's messages that you self select show up on your screen - that way, one PSB, but individual preferences.
i just think that i have learned so much from both people that have been here a long time apparently and those that just found their way here that i would hate to add another administrative step to things - it's hard enough as it is to keep up on threads.
anyway, that's my take
Posted by Shar on April 12, 2002, at 15:21:11
In reply to Re: Reunion Board, posted by Lini on April 12, 2002, at 12:22:57
Posted by Greg on April 12, 2002, at 17:30:43
In reply to Reunion Board NE Ignoring PSB (nm), posted by Shar on April 12, 2002, at 15:21:11
MIC, uh hun?
NE? I have a serious case of the stupids today? Can I get a "please be civil" for calling myself stupid?
Love ya,
Greg
Posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 2:27:06
In reply to Re: Reunion Board, posted by Lini on April 12, 2002, at 12:22:57
Posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 2:41:17
In reply to I agree. Reunion Board offensive, segregation. (nm) » Lini, posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 2:27:06
Posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 2:44:03
In reply to Also, don't like idea of exclusion, losing OT info (nm), posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 2:41:17
Posted by Shar on April 13, 2002, at 12:15:12
In reply to Re: Reunion Board NE Ignoring PSB » Shar, posted by Greg on April 12, 2002, at 17:30:43
Greg, please be civil, you know there is a long standing rule about name calling, and you'll have to be punished now. I'll think of some way to punish you (I hope I can find something you won't enjoy too much) and get back to you.
NE is a Boolean operator meaning 'not equal.' Like an equal sign with a slash through it.
It is my shortcut way of saying a reunion board is not going to lead to people ignoring PB and PSB. But I couldn't fit all that in the title.
I don't think people talking to each other on a different board will ruin PSB forever. I do think it is useful to be able to talk to people you have a history with in a somewhat more focused environment.
Plus, everybody can read whatever's said there.
xoxo
YIC
Posted by Shar on April 13, 2002, at 12:40:59
In reply to Also, don't like idea of exclusion, losing OT info (nm), posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 2:41:17
Posted by Mitchell on April 13, 2002, at 14:10:34
In reply to Dr. Bob, the Old-Timers board?, posted by Greg on May 28, 2001, at 14:46:17
I've read the above posts, but I still don't understand what is supportive or educational about a public forum where, because of their status some people can only listen and not speak, but where others, because of their status in a group, can speak publically without having to afford others an opportunity to respond.
Posted by shelliR on April 13, 2002, at 15:39:06
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board, posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2002, at 20:14:44
<What about basing it on degree of participation? Like a frequent flier program? That would take into account length of participation, since the longer someone's here, the more they
participate. And it would be an incentive to participate. Yes, new people would be added. At least as long as there weren't too many old-timers!>
Under that criteria, bobb and some other other annoying (destructive) people who posted non-stop would be rewarded for flooding the board. I would rather see the longevity of posters be taken into consideration rather the number of posts. On a good (bad?) day someone going though a manic phrase could score about twenty posts toward frequent poster status. Well, anyone could.Personally, I rather see the focus go back to a reunion board: sounds less offensive and non-competitive with the other boards. And maybe even an open one. (Why would new people want to go to a reunion?)
Shelli
Posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 16:25:29
In reply to Not losing OT info...Everybody can read posts (nm) » Janelle, posted by Shar on April 13, 2002, at 12:40:59
That's not very nice or supportive. See Mitchell's post. ITA with what he has said regarding this aspect and couldn't put it any better.
Posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 16:27:13
In reply to Not losing OT info...Everybody can read posts (nm) » Janelle, posted by Shar on April 13, 2002, at 12:40:59
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2002, at 17:04:25
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board » Dr. Bob, posted by shelliR on April 13, 2002, at 15:39:06
> > What about basing it on degree of participation?
>
> Under that criteria, bobb and some other other annoying (destructive) people who posted non-stop would be rewarded for flooding the board.That's a good point. But people who were blocked could be ineligible or have their degree of participation reset or something...
> I would rather see the longevity of posters be taken into consideration rather the number of posts.
Hmm, I like the incentive aspect of a frequent fliers approach, but thinking of class-type reunions, you do get invited back no matter how active a member of your class you were...
Maybe the way to go would be in both directions. A single "frequent posters" board, whose members would change over time, and a number of "class of xxx" boards, whose members would be those who registered during those years?
> maybe even an open [board]. (Why would new people want to go to a reunion?)
People have all sorts of motivations. Why do unsupportive people go to support groups?
Bob
Posted by Mitchell on April 13, 2002, at 18:02:49
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board » Dr. Bob, posted by shelliR on April 13, 2002, at 15:39:06
> Under that criteria, bobb and some other other annoying (destructive) people who posted non-stop would be rewarded for flooding the board.Is it okay to make accusations about people who no longer maintain a user name on this board? What is annoying to one person might be educational to others. The archives contain numerous posts by people recognizing the supportive nature of the poster named here, and supporting continued contribution by a character who was eventually hounded out of the group.
Posted by shelliR on April 13, 2002, at 18:33:54
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board, posted by Mitchell on April 13, 2002, at 18:02:49
This was a guy (gal) who was censored over and over, but kept coming back under different names during the period he was blocked.
He was playing the board like a game without rules; it is hard for me to think anyone learned from him. And actually if he read my post he'd probably be happy his memory is still in tact.
But I will try to refrain from using specific examples and names of people who are not here to defend themselves in the future.
Shelli
Posted by Mitchell on April 13, 2002, at 20:37:50
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board » Mitchell, posted by shelliR on April 13, 2002, at 18:33:54
Posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 23:45:22
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board, posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2002, at 17:04:25
>mm, I like the incentive aspect of a frequent fliers approach, but thinking of class-type reunions, you do get invited back no matter how active a member of your class you were...
I do NOT like the frequent fliers approach - imho, it discriminates against posters who due to time constraints, illness, etc. are, for reasons beyond their control, simply unable to post frequently, even though they might want to.
Why should frequent posters be rewarded with their own special board just because they post a lot? IMHO, this hardly constitutes a reason for setting up a whole new, special board that would be exclusionary to non-frequent posters.
Sorry, but I just do NOT see any reason(s) whatsoever for fractionating (word?) what is a COHESIVE, solid and well-run system just the way it is. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
All you're going to do by creating some separate boards, each with limited membership, is divide the current COMMUNITY into factions and disrupt the nice, smooth flow of things.
JMVHO.
Posted by Mark H. on April 14, 2002, at 1:16:21
In reply to Re: More on Old Timers Board » Dr. Bob, posted by Janelle on April 13, 2002, at 23:45:22
I'm active in a home recording forum, and all posts show the person's on-line name, location (optional but interesting), when they joined the board (first posted), and how many times they have posted.
Contributors are identified as "newbies" until they've posted 50 times, I think, then "jr. members" until 100, when they become "sr. members." There are special designations for people with thousands of posts!
While the designations are not ALWAYS helpful (an old-timer turns sour, or a newbie arrives with tons of experience), in general it helps establish an immediate sense of where someone "belongs" in the community.
This helps in a number of ways. If a person is a newbie, longer-term members cut them much more slack when asking questions that may have been answered many times before or not be very well thought out. Likewise, if an old-timer starts spouting off, it's much more likely that other senior members will step in to tell him to "knock it off" and "take it easy" on newcomers.
As I said, it's not fool-proof, but it does help, and it's one possible altervative to further dividing the board.
If anyone cares to take a look at the layout and style, here's a link to an especially good thread on types of microphones: :-)
http://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27030
Best wishes,
Mark H.
Posted by Mitchell on April 14, 2002, at 12:14:05
In reply to Simple Alternative to Separate Board?, posted by Mark H. on April 14, 2002, at 1:16:21
Mark,
Do you know whose .php script that is? It seems to be a prefered script over the ultimateBBS. My guess is that the minimalist appearance and simplicity of the Matts perl used here will not easily be eclipsed by the flexibility of the php, but that php board does have some cool features - like buddy lists, private messages and ignore.
I wonder if there is a way to add member information to the Matt's perl. The data about number of posts is apparently stored somewhere in the system; I wonder if there would be a way to make it appear on posts, or to let readers access that data. But then, even if it is just minimal information about participation habits, that is more information about themselves people would have to offer to participate here.
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.