![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 401 to 425 of 536. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on April 27, 2005, at 21:29:47
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 27, 2005, at 9:29:11
> I suppose those who *started* a small group would realize they would sit there very publicly and have their popularity voted upon by who might join in
Hmm. I guess I wouldn't see it as a popularity thing whether other people joined me or not. I would think they were deciding on whether they wanted to join a small board or not rather than deciding whether they wanted to join me in particular or not.
>thus risking public rejection and humiliation.
So I guess I wouldn't feel rejected or humiliated if other people didn't join in.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 28, 2005, at 0:35:27
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 2:28:44
> I can see that would feel safer, not having the whole world watching.
Okay, that has been worrying me and I have to say
EEP! DON'T SAY THAT!
The current boards aren't like that.
no
NO
I much prefer the 'illusion' of privacy :-(
Posted by Dinah on April 28, 2005, at 5:18:20
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on April 27, 2005, at 21:29:47
I understood from what Dr. Bob said that there would be more than one small group and that people would choose which one to join. Unless the groups had themes or something, that choice would presumably be based on who was already in it, or how fun they seemed or something. Perhaps I misunderstood. Perhaps it would just be one group at a time until it filled.
At any rate, as I said, I'm not going to worry about it.
The divider of glass aspect is of more interest to me, as it affects the Babble community as a whole.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 3:10:30
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 27, 2005, at 9:29:11
> > If people couldn't see what was going on in these groups, why would they want to join? How would they choose?
>
> I guess people would have to sign up to have a look. Lots of stuff is done that way on the internet.
>
> alexandra_kI guess. But I think there would need to be a limit on how frequently someone could switch groups.
> I suppose those who *started* a small group would realize they would sit there very publicly and have their popularity voted upon by who might join in, thus risking public rejection and humiliation.
>
> DinahI suppose. But posting (especially starting a new thread) is already like that, you never know if anyone's going to reply...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on April 29, 2005, at 11:48:04
In reply to Re: How would they choose?, posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 3:10:30
> I guess. But I think there would need to be a limit on how frequently someone could switch groups.
You could make it that you can only sign up to ONE small board. If you don't post for x amount of time then you lose your place. Then you would be free to sign up to another.
Posted by Dinah on April 29, 2005, at 12:16:17
In reply to Re: How would they choose?, posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 3:10:30
Are you actually open to the idea of making the private boards non-public? Or am I just setting myself up for a lot of anger if I even think it's possible.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 22:41:38
In reply to Re: How would they choose? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 29, 2005, at 12:16:17
> Are you actually open to the idea of making the private boards non-public?
I'm happy to consider it. But you know I can be hard to convince sometimes...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 3:31:38
In reply to Re: How would they choose?, posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 22:41:38
Then I'd best not try.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 10, 2005, at 11:50:37
In reply to Re: How would they choose? » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on April 29, 2005, at 11:48:04
> You could make it that you can only sign up to ONE small board. If you don't post for x amount of time then you lose your place. Then you would be free to sign up to another.
Sorry about dropping the ball here. What do you think a reasonable x amount of time would be?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on May 10, 2005, at 18:01:58
In reply to Re: how frequently someone could switch, posted by Dr. Bob on May 10, 2005, at 11:50:37
I guess it depends on how active you want the small boards to be.
How active they are would be determined by the number of posters to the board and the frequency with which they post.
2000 might give you some indication.
I don't know how many regular posters there are over there, or how active the board is in terms of how often the posters post to there.If you want it more active then I guess you would want either more posters or posters to post more frequently.
I don't know...
2 weeks sounds reasonable to me...
Posted by Nikkit2 on May 11, 2005, at 10:36:44
In reply to Re: how frequently someone could switch » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on May 10, 2005, at 18:01:58
What about when someone goes on Vacation?
In Europe 2 weeks is a normal vacation, 3 weeks my person minimum, 6 weeks about right *L*
Seriously.. can you do something that someone can put themselves "on hold" while holidaying? I'd hate to be thrown out of a group just cos I was having some fun!
Nikki x
Posted by alexandra_k on May 11, 2005, at 18:38:45
In reply to Re: how frequently someone could switch » alexandra_k, posted by Nikkit2 on May 11, 2005, at 10:36:44
> What about when someone goes on Vacation?
Couldn't you post a little something while on vacation?
Just enough to tell the rest of us what fun you are having?
Posted by NikkiT2 on May 12, 2005, at 1:45:19
In reply to Re: how frequently someone could switch » Nikkit2, posted by alexandra_k on May 11, 2005, at 18:38:45
I've only just noticed that I posted that to yo and not Dr Bob, sorry!!
And, well, I do tend to pop in briefly while away.. but my holidays don't always take me places I *can* get online! *l*
Though this year is gonna be the US, so me thinks that will be fine *L*
Nikki x
Posted by alexandra_k on May 12, 2005, at 4:06:43
In reply to Re: how frequently someone could switch » alexandra_k, posted by NikkiT2 on May 12, 2005, at 1:45:19
> I've only just noticed that I posted that to yo and not Dr Bob, sorry!!
Thats ok.
I probably would have said that anyway
:-)
> And, well, I do tend to pop in briefly while away.. but my holidays don't always take me places I *can* get online! *l*Yeah.
Thats a point.
Maybe there could / should be an exception for that.
Or maybe the time before you lose your place could / should be longer.
> Though this year is gonna be the US, so me thinks that will be fine *L*:-)
Hope you have a good holiday.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 13, 2005, at 3:24:12
In reply to Re: how frequently someone could switch » NikkiT2, posted by alexandra_k on May 12, 2005, at 4:06:43
> If you want it more active then I guess you would want either more posters or posters to post more frequently.
>
> 2 weeks sounds reasonable to me...
>
> alexandra_kNot too many posters, that's the whole idea... OK, one vote for 2 weeks...
> What about when someone goes on Vacation?
>
> In Europe 2 weeks is a normal vacation, 3 weeks my person minimum, 6 weeks about right *L*
>
> Nikki xHow long someone could keep their place if they don't want to switch is a different question... Before it was proposed that it be permanent:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050128/msgs/455774.html
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on May 13, 2005, at 4:11:17
In reply to Re: how frequently someone could switch, posted by Dr. Bob on May 13, 2005, at 3:24:12
> How long someone could keep their place if they don't want to switch is a different question...
Oh. Whoopsie. I think I misunderstood the previous question.
So the first question was how frequently people can switch between small boards...
And the second is how long people can keep their place on the small board without posting...
I meant two weeks in answer to the second question.
I was thinking that if only a limited number of people were able to sign up to the board then if they didn't post very frequently then the board could end up being full but not very active. So I was thinking that if people lost their place if they didn't post for x amount of time then another poster would be able to join the board and it would be kept active.
If people had places perminantly then the board could be full of posters who disappear.
But I can understand that people wouldn't want to lost their place if they went on vacation or had to go to hospital for a while or whatever...
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 13, 2005, at 22:44:20
In reply to Re: how frequently someone could switch » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on May 13, 2005, at 4:11:17
> the second [question] is how long people can keep their place on the small board without posting...
>
> I meant two weeks in answer to the second question.
>
> I was thinking that if only a limited number of people were able to sign up to the board then if they didn't post very frequently then the board could end up being full but not very active. So I was thinking that if people lost their place if they didn't post for x amount of time then another poster would be able to join the board and it would be kept active.
>
> If people had places perminantly then the board could be full of posters who disappear.The idea that came up before was that if someone was inactive, for whatever reason, for x amount of time, the limit could just be raised...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 0:10:34
In reply to Re: how long people can keep their place, posted by Dr. Bob on May 13, 2005, at 22:44:20
> The idea that came up before was that if someone was inactive, for whatever reason, for x amount of time, the limit could just be raised...
If you want to do that, sure.
But then you could end up with a small board that was full of posters who didn't post to it.If people lost their place if they didn't post for x amount of time then someone else could join up. And that someone else would either post regularly or lose their place and so it would go on... That way the small boards would be kept active.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 5:36:30
In reply to Re: how long people can keep their place » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 0:10:34
I guess I thought the x amount of time idea would kind of do two things:
1. If you lost your place if you didn't post for x amount of time then that would prevent the board becoming full of people who had stopped posting to it.
2. If you could only be a member of one board at a time then you would have to wait x amount of time without posting so that you would lose your place and then be free to sign up to a different board.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 5:37:18
In reply to Re: how long people can keep their place, posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 5:36:30
... so 2. would stop people switching between boards all the time. It would impose a minimum limit on how often they could switch between boards.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 5:39:28
In reply to Re: how long people can keep their place, posted by Dr. Bob on May 13, 2005, at 22:44:20
Sorry if that got all repetitive. I can't tell if that was clear or not.
>The idea that came up before was that if someone was inactive, for whatever reason, for x amount of time, the limit could just be raised...
Sorry, why?
Why raise the limit?
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 15, 2005, at 0:57:26
In reply to Re: how long people can keep their place, posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 5:39:28
> I guess I thought the x amount of time idea would kind of do two things:
>
> 1. If you lost your place if you didn't post for x amount of time then that would prevent the board becoming full of people who had stopped posting to it.
>
> 2. If you could only be a member of one board at a time then you would have to wait x amount of time without posting so that you would lose your place and then be free to sign up to a different board.But switching wouldn’t necessarily have to be contingent on losing your place. For example, you could have your place held up to 4 weeks, have to wait 8 weeks before switching, and be able to post right up to 8 weeks and then switch...
> >The idea that came up before was that if someone was inactive, for whatever reason, for x amount of time, the limit could just be raised...
>
> Why raise the limit?Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear, I meant the limit on the number of people on that board. It would be to make room for someone more active without having to “kick out” anyone...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on May 15, 2005, at 5:48:39
In reply to Re: how long people can keep their place, posted by Dr. Bob on May 15, 2005, at 0:57:26
> But switching wouldn’t necessarily have to be contingent on losing your place. For example, you could have your place held up to 4 weeks, have to wait 8 weeks before switching, and be able to post right up to 8 weeks and then switch...
Yeah. You could do it that way instead.
> I meant the limit on the number of people on that board. It would be to make room for someone more active without having to “kick out” anyone...Oh. Yeah. You could do it that way instead.
But then if everyone suddenly decided to start posting again it wouldn't exactly be a 'small' board...
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 15, 2005, at 21:55:31
In reply to Re: how long people can keep their place » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on May 15, 2005, at 5:48:39
> But then if everyone suddenly decided to start posting again it wouldn't exactly be a 'small' board...
True, but no system is perfect:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050128/msgs/456661.html
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on May 15, 2005, at 22:05:36
In reply to Re: how long people can keep their place, posted by Dr. Bob on May 15, 2005, at 21:55:31
> no system is perfect
Sure but some systems are better than others...
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.