![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 414 to 438 of 536. Go back in thread:
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...
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 16, 2005, at 23:26:27
In reply to Re: how long people can keep their place » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on May 15, 2005, at 22:05:36
> some systems are better than others...
Does that mean you think it might be better to kick out people? It could be, I don't know, but it wasn't very popular before...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on May 17, 2005, at 0:07:33
In reply to Re: how long people can keep their place, posted by Dr. Bob on May 16, 2005, at 23:26:27
> But then if everyone suddenly decided to start posting again it wouldn't exactly be a 'small' board...
True, but no system is perfect:
> > some systems are better than others...
> Does that mean you think it might be better to kick out people?I prefered it when 'kick out' was in scare quotes.
:-)I just meant that given your purposes of having small boards that are small yet active I would have thought that that would have been a better way of ensuring they remained small yet active.
But maybe not...
>It could be, I don't know, but it wasn't very popular before...
Hmm.
But then the idea of small boards weren't very popular either...
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 18, 2005, at 0:53:23
In reply to Re: how long people can keep their place » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on May 17, 2005, at 0:07:33
> I would have thought that that would have been a better way of ensuring they remained small yet active.
Maybe, but if people think they might be kicked out, they might be less willing even to give them a try?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on May 18, 2005, at 4:51:30
In reply to Re: how long people can keep their place, posted by Dr. Bob on May 18, 2005, at 0:53:23
> > I would have thought that that would have been a better way of ensuring they remained small yet active.
> Maybe, but if people think they might be kicked out, they might be less willing even to give them a try?Yeah.
Maybe it would help to think of it as 'failing to renew ones membership' rather than being 'kicked out'.
But I take your point that you do want people to join up...
And I would prefer it if people didn't lose their place because of a hospitalisation or on holiday or have otherwise lost their internet access for a time.
And for whatever time x
there will always be the possibility of not being able to post for x+1Ok.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 22:36:17
Most people seem to not be so keen on the idea of small boards.
It has been suggested that people might be better able to deal with them (seeing as it looks like they are going to happen at any rate) if they were not publicly viewable.
The thought is that only members would be able to read the posts.
That way people who couldn't post to them wouldn't be able to read them either.
I guess people would be kind of 'taking their chances' in signing up. But they could wait a couple of weeks and then sign up to a different one if they liked...
That way there wouldn't be the 'outside looking in effect'.
What do people think?
Would this make the notion of small boards more palatable?????
Posted by partlycloudy on May 23, 2005, at 8:41:54
In reply to Small boards - only viewable by members???, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 22:36:17
I already feel isolated enough having a mental illness. I don't think being purposefully excluded from being able to view various small boards here would improve that feeling.
We're already a "gated" community in that you have to be a member in order to post - why compartmentalize us further?
I don't think that creating small restricted boards is a beneficial idea. Also, I post on multiple boards here, but not regularly. What I like is being able to contribute where I like, and when I like.
pc
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 9:24:16
In reply to Re: Small boards - only viewable by members???, posted by partlycloudy on May 23, 2005, at 8:41:54
Well, obviously I agree.
But given that small boards are a given, which Dr. Bob has told us they are, wouldn't it be better if they were also private?
That way they'd be more like IM's or Babblemails or any number of the other private off board contacts that already take place. And there wouldn't be the feeling of pressing your nose against a window you can't breach, watching friends enjoy conversations you are not free to join, and knowing they like it that way. My mother, for all her flaws, always taught me not to do that. If I was having a conversation in public, and someone I knew wanted to join in (and all Babblers are someone we know, right?), the circle was to widen. If necessary the topic could change, and further private communications could occur... in private.
But long before the book, she taught me "You Can't Say You Can't Play". My son's school has it as a school rule. In fact you aren't even allowed to *talk* about events where not everyone is invited, like birthday parties, in public. And the first rule I ever heard in my son's kindergarten was "Whoever you're called to be with by the teacher, you are absolutely delighted to be with that person."
From page 99 of "You Can't Say You Can't Play" by Vivian Gussin Paley.
["It's a private time with you and your dad," I suggest.
"Right. And sometimes you have times like that with your friends."
"No one would argue with the privacy of those occasions," I say. "But does the classroom qualify as private or public?"
A boy answers. "If he or she is your good friend you can invite them to your house. So, no. this isn't a private place."]
So that's my limited aim. Since Dr. Bob is going to go ahead with something I think is not such a good idea, it at least seems acceptable if he identifies what is public and what is private.
We all know off board contact goes on. And it might hurt knowing that xxx and yyy are Babblemailing, if you never get Babblemailed. But it seems to me to be an entirely different thing if you were to see the contents of the Babblemails and either respond on Social, where you're allowed (I always feel like a voyeur when I do that with 2000), or feel like you're not able to respond at all. Like your input is not welcome, because you aren't a member of the group that is included in the conversation.
It's against what Babble's about to me. Where even if good friends are discussing mangoes, perfect strangers are always welcome to drop in on the thread and add their mango experiences.
Posted by Nikkit2 on May 23, 2005, at 11:03:45
In reply to Re: Small boards - only viewable by members???, posted by partlycloudy on May 23, 2005, at 8:41:54
My reason for being "for them" is to be able to post somewhere where not all and sundry can read what I post..
Think I'd better follow up in an email before I get a PBC!
Nikki
Posted by JenStar on May 23, 2005, at 15:07:13
In reply to Re: Small boards - only viewable by members??? » partlycloudy, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 9:24:16
I agree with Dinah. It takes some courage for newcomers and sporadic posters to join into conversations with "seasoned" babbles who have relationships established and are comfortable with each other. It takes time and multiple posts to get people interested enough in you before you actually join the "inner circle" of whatever group in which you are interested.
I'm afraid that making small, private groups will drive many of the interesting posters here into seclusion with the others to whom they regularly post, and will lengthen the "breaking the ice" period for newcomers. I'm worried that many of the regulars will migrate to the smaller boards, leaving big holes in the other, bigger boards. If people like Dinah and GG and some of the other backbones of the community left to spend most (or even more) of their time in small groups, I think the rest of us would feel a bit isolated and lost.
But then again, I'm a sporadic poster and reader; I come in from time to time and drift away again. It's interesting to hear what the regulars have to say!
thanks for listening,
JenStarIt does feel kind of
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 23, 2005, at 16:21:13
In reply to Re: Small boards - only viewable by members??? » Dinah, posted by JenStar on May 23, 2005, at 15:07:13
> It does feel kind of
Did you want me to finish that Jen : )
how about..
cliquish at first, and small private boards might encourage that feeling, or encourage cliques, period. That's not to say that people are purposely being rude. It's just very easy to get comfortable and a little lazy and forget about the new babblers, who might feel they don't belong.
Anyway I agree with what Dinah had to say.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 16:44:26
In reply to Re: Small boards - only viewable by members??? » Dinah, posted by JenStar on May 23, 2005, at 15:07:13
Well, thank you. :)
I can't speak for anyone else, but others have spoken for themselves. The idea doesn't hold much appeal for many of the veteran posters, including myself.
The way I always put it is that I don't want to post somewhere where my friends, including the friends I haven't met, can't post.
But Dr. Bob seems determined to implement small boards, I would at least like to see them not be visible to onlookers who are not invited to join. But I have no real hope that my arguments will be convincing to Dr. Bob. :(
Hope hurts.
Posted by JahL on May 23, 2005, at 17:11:33
In reply to Re: Small boards - only viewable by members??? » JenStar, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 16:44:26
FWIW, I agree with you Dinah. I know this has been gone over time and time again, but I've got an emotional investment in this place - even tho' I don't post much anymore - and so I thought I'd offer my you my support.
Like Nikki, I was here when Babble consisted of just one board. One big community.
I'm disheartened by Dr B's ideas which will only serve to create a 'cliquish' environment.
Apart from anything else, it could do newcomers a disservice since there is every chance they will be deprived of the undoubted wisdom of some of our erudite regulars. As was pointed out elsewhere, it is inevitable that some group members will fall into the comfort zone of their own board and neglect the main boards. That's not a criticism of anybody - it's just human nature.
You wouldn't think it if you saw me, but I'm actually socially phobic, as are a lot of board members. Social rejection of any kind (i.e. not being invited to join a group) is anathema to such people. What happens to 'the kid no-one wants to play with'?
However, if Dr B does go ahead, as I'm sure he will, I have no problem with boards being kept from public viewing.
Just my opinion; I respect differing ones of course.
Cheers,
Jah.
P.S. Yes I do post on PB 2000 occasionally and yes I am a hypocrite!
> I can't speak for anyone else, but others have spoken for themselves. The idea doesn't hold much appeal for many of the veteran posters, including myself.
>
> The way I always put it is that I don't want to post somewhere where my friends, including the friends I haven't met, can't post.
>
> But Dr. Bob seems determined to implement small boards, I would at least like to see them not be visible to onlookers who are not invited to join. But I have no real hope that my arguments will be convincing to Dr. Bob. :(
>
> Hope hurts.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 17:30:13
In reply to Re: Small boards - only viewable by members??? » Dinah, posted by JahL on May 23, 2005, at 17:11:33
Well, I have to confess I'd like to chat with some people with 2000 who rarely venture off. I feel Shar's and Noa's absence keenly. I really enjoy Nikki, but manage to chat with her on some of the smaller boards and here on Admin. I see Racer from time to time as well. I know I could manage to track down Scott on PB proper, but I don't have all that many medication questions. I love to read Phil's posts. I'd like to get to know you better.
I don't think of it in terms of hypocrisy though. Just, as you mentioned, a sense of loss. I appreciate the support.
Pssst. Believe it or not, I have some social anxiety as well. So I'll extend an invitation to you personally to join me wherever you see me. :) Which on my more prolific days should be just about anywhere. lol.
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.