Very well put Joseph; quite impressive prose and insight. -TH
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Balderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From the perspective of someone who in his opinion is only just edging > into the "advanced" category in Flex, I've been a lurker for many years > but only just now gradually changing to a more active status on the list. > > To me, the volume of emails to the list was intimidating, until I > decided to manage my lists a little better through Thunderbird > filtering, and be disciplined about the time I take every day to review > the list, so it doesn't impact my productivity, much like I do every day > with the MXNA. > > So I'm not convinced that splitting up the list simply to make things > more efficient and the volume less intimidating for some people > outweighs the potential risks. I agree with Tim Hoff (16/06/2008 10:53 > PM) -- my concern is less for new users and lurkers than it is for > frequent posters who are the lifeblood of this community, having to > divide their precious attention from one list to however-many, which > would dilute the quality of all lists, and could ultimately lead to > abandonment by regular users on all lists. > > A community such as this must be a delicate balance between questions > and answers, new users and advanced users, lurkers and frequent > contributors. My concern is that for many, the formula works, our > numbers are steady, and there is still a huge number of A-list > participation. In attempting to improve the list, we could be killing it > -- so we need to be very sure of our data before proceeding IMO. > > > A FAQ would be very welcome, as would Doug's recommendation for most > commonly asked threads, as would tags, regardless of what the decision > is on the split. > > But I would request that FAQ links and tag keywords be indicated in the > signature of each email from the list, so that the many users who don't > use the yahoo list's web interface can easily find the info and know > what tags to use without having to switch between their mail client and > a browser, otherwise having a FAQ and anything else apart from the > emails is pointless. > > In fact, just having a FAQ and encouraging the use of tags could help > many with list post management, and provide this list the "boost" it > needs without taking drastic measures. This would be my request, and my > recommendation. In addition, we could even include in the FAQ some "post > management strategies," such as filtering, tagging and colour-coding to > help users manage the flow. > > And I would suggest an automated email generated by an algorithm with > some text like "You have not posted in ___ months..." or "You have now > unsubscribed..." followed by "please help us make flexcoders a better > community experience by telling us why you have _____" > > This would be a far less intrusive and intimidating follow up and data > collection method than an email personally send from a moderator, > especially one from Adobe. Some people might perceive such attention as > singling them out, and using an autogenerated email would eliminate the > manpower necessary to collect data on infrequent/unsubscribed accounts. > > If we do decide to split the list at all, I would keep the number small > just to make sure. My recommendation would be to split things into just > three lists: > flexcoders > flexnewbie > flexenterprise > > Even though the definitions are a little fuzzy, I think flexnewbie could > be defined as not the difficulty of the question but the experience the > user perceives themselves to be at, so there may very well be advanced > and newbie questions on both lists, and that's okay. Likewise there will > probably be some crossover into the flexenterprise list. I think it's > fair to say that questions involving a substantial amount of "Java/data > services/large teams/enterprise workflows" would qualify, without > requiring the definition of "enterprise" be defined with scientific > precision to participate. Too narrow a definition is a recipe for > failure, any new the list needs to be defined without being too > exclusive IMO. > > Thanks for listening, > > -- > _______________________________________________________________________ > > Joseph Balderson | http://joeflash.ca > Flex & Flash Platform Developer | Abobe Certified Developer & Trainer > Author, Professional Flex 3 (coming Winter 2008) > Staff Writer, Community MX | http://communitymx.com/author.cfm?cid=4674 > > > > Tom Chiverton wrote: > > On Tuesday 17 Jun 2008, Matt Chotin wrote: > >> Hey folks, let's calm down a little here, K? > > > > Aye. > > > >> 1) Let's get an FAQ going that can be edited by moderators or members of > >> the community. > > > > This would be a huge bonus, esp. given #3. > > > >> Center. But for now how about we just allocate a page off of the > >> opensource wiki. We can pick some moderators who can edit the page and I > >> will get them added so they can take care of it. > > > > Happy to be added, drop me a note if you are not aware of my adobe.com ID > > (it's not @halliwells). > > > >> 2) Some folks suggested that you either mark in the body or in the subject > >> something that indicates what you're talking about. Seems reasonable. > > ... > >> involved in the thread. The more people follow this convention, the more > >> efficient it will become. > > > > I would say that trying to tag the subject line is probably a good idea to try > > and encourage - new users should pick it up if they stay, and it'll help > > the 'old hands' too. > > I wouldn't suggest rejecting posts that lack a tag or anything though, before > > anyone suggests that, and I'd not want the FAQ to try and define a definitive > > list either - just see what people use. > > > >> 3) We can get aggressive on the moderation. Rather than just scanning for > >> spam, moderators can actually look at the posts by new users and decide if > >> they meet the general criteria for asking a question. If they don't, the > >> moderator can reject the post and point the user to the forum FAQ which has > >> posting guidelines. > > > > If the group agrees that we want to try and reduce first-post on-topic but > > pointless messages, *and the FAQ is updated* I'd have no qualms about > > pressing that big 'reject' button and sending the user a nice link. > > Maybe the group/Adobe could agree a boilerplate response. > > > >> 4) We can update the flexcoders FAQ (which is actually linked at the bottom > >> of every single post) to include the updated posting guidelines and remove > >> the common questions section so that the forum FAQ is only about forum > >> etiquette and the coding FAQ is about the actual problems. > > > > This is good separation. > > CookBook if it merits an article to itself, FAQ on xxxx.adobe.com if it's a > > few lines of code or non-code, and FAQ on Yahoo for using the group itself. > > > >> If we're all on board, send those moderators to me and we can get things > >> set up. And folks can start following the tagging convention instantly in > >> the meantime. > > > > Again, assuming the group is OK with harsher(?) moderation, I'm happy to start > > doing it as soon as the editable FAQ is up. > > In the past I've occasionally made a post on my blog in answer to a question, > > and then pointed the thread there, and I've certainly seen others doing the > > same thing - if the group was really keen to do better(?) first-post > > moderation and didn't want to wait for the FAQ changes. > > >
