On Fri, 30 Sep 1994 21:29:00 PDT
 
Museum Informatics Project <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
 
 <stuff deleted>
 
> I wonder whether the recent significant growth of this list (in
> members, not number of messages) is from people who are finding the
> subject is not their cup of tea (because they're not _that_ interested
> in museum stuff  -not because of the noise), so they signoff?
 
 <stuff deleted>
 
> Peter Rauch
 
 
Unfortunately we can't determine which "signoffs" are from people
who looked and didn't like, and which are from serious,
knowledgeable, museum professionals who are just too busy to sift
through the 100+ irrelevant messages a week.  Scope-of-interest
and signal-to-noise are really separate issues.  We shouldn't be
concerned if substantive postings are beyond someone's scope of
interest, but we should be concerned when the noise discourages
people who by their own admission "should be monitoring the
list."  How many people would like to monitor this list, but can't
afford the time it takes?  Where I used to work, there were at
least six (perhaps 10 or 20) interested individuals who couldn't
afford the time, for every one who has stayed on the list. As
large as this list is, it could (should) be several times
larger.
 
To be blunt, the amount of garbage on this list keeps it
from reaching its full potential as a vehicle for keeping the
museum community informed and sharing solutions to common
problems.
 
Yes, I am complaining, but am I wrong?  Moreover, I'm not
complaining so much for myself (I'm still here) as I am for the
people who gave up without saying why.
 
I think it's time to consider some alternatives.  General
admonitions to the readership aren't likely to fix the problem,
and there's got to be a better way.
 
How about two lists:  one a "museum-chat-list" where folks could
blather away, and the other a "museum-serious-list" with a
predominantly more substantive content.  I see two options for
assuring quality on the serious list:  a moderator -- i.e., all
submissions go through the moderator; or community enforcement
-- i.e., you get "spammed" with "flames" (off the list) if you post
junk.  Something to the effect of:
 
  There are 6,000 people subscribed to this list.  It takes
  the average person 10 seconds to: 1) open a piece of mail,
  2) determe that it's junk, and 3) delete it. Your bonehead
  message just cost the community 60,000 seconds -- that's 1,000
  minutes, or 16.7 hours.
 
    Have a nice day, moron.
 
 
Too radical?
 
Stan Blum
[log in to unmask]