From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth
Sent: 16 August 2007 08:47
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: When are we going to get another list? (was: RE:
[backstage] BBC iPlayer Protest tommorow, Tuesday 14th, 10:30AM, White
City)
Chris,
"Finally, remember that the noise is the signal. You can't post
too much. Deploy filters."
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html
For my sins, I've been involved with online communities since 1996.
During my university years it sometimes felt like I did little else.
There's one problem I've personally seen with the signal to noise
argument, it's that in a situation where there's huge amounts of noise,
ultimately people get fed up of filtering out the noise all the time,
and can't be bothered adding the signal - because it feels like, "what's
the point?"
Then there's the second problem - people who newly join a list, just see
the noise all the time, wonder where the signal is, then disappear off.
I've even seen communities wither away and die because of it.
Now sometimes signal to noise works - it helps a cohesive group of
people together. I'm on a couple of mailing lists where the noise helps
the community bond closer, so new people become new friends. (However
of course, it can make lists look a bit insular - which can make it
harder to join lists as a newbie)
It's also got to be said that the majority of people on a mailing list
don't post. I don't know the stats for this list, but I'm on a mailing
list of 300 people, about 20 of which post regularly. There's a lot of
readers, and occassionally some of them post, but mostly it's reading.
Why do people join a list and not post? Well to get the signal. So if
there's very little signal, you lose your incentive to remain a reader.
Sorry, but my own experience says signal to noise is NOT a simplistic
situation as some people like to think. When the noise works, it doth
good. When the noise doesn't work, it doth big harm.
