Moderators: vtdarrell, Moderators
wyandottecaver wrote:I do tend to let my sarcasm get the better of me and for that I apologize if I offended.
Bill Putnam wrote:click the members link and sort by number of posts. Note the large number of members and the relatively tiny group who account for almost all of the posts. Note that of 12,000 NSS members only a small fraction are members, and an almost insignificant number are active contributors.
I do not generally participate actively or regularly in these communities - I read and think about the material, and talk about it with friends, and post an occasional announcement or comment, but I do not often engage in a dialog in the online communities. I tend to be, for the most part, one of the "lurkers", watching from a distance, and emerging only infrequently to participate briefly before retiring to the shadows.
Wayne Harrison wrote:I've found the ratio of posters to members who don't post is about normal for most of the forums I've managed or participated in. [...] The majority of people lurk and don't post on forums. It doesn't mean they're not interested in reading the posts.
Look at the ratio of NSS members who vote in BOG elections or who attend conventions or who volunteer for NSS positions. I wouldn't single out Cavechat as being "broke" just because you chose to focus on it and ignore the rest.
wyandottecaver wrote:I also agree with you that those BOG and officer members who don't comment here are spared a critique of their positions because at least in terms of Cavechat they don't have any. Gordon may be the one exception who has received flak for NOT posting. The fact remains that this is a voluntary venue and if people choose not to participate then
You imply that the ratio of NSS Members to CaveChat Members and of CaveChat Members to active members implies something is broken. I also agree. But I think it is the same broken that results in 10-12% of members voting, even fewer contributing to the NEWS, the frequent plea for people to run for positions, and the number of folks actually reading the Business Pages. Like lots of organizations everywhere there are a few very active, interested folks and a lot of people who pay their dues, browse the NEWS and ignore everything else.
I will also agree that people sometimes receive a negative response to posts and that may well deter some or many from more active participation. That simply can't be avoided if you want to have a discussion board where things are discussed among people of varying viewpoints. I have seen DB's where the moderators took a much firmer stance regarding what constituted an "attack". They generally are much more polite and have very little discussion.
Bill Putnam wrote:You imply that the ratio of NSS Members to CaveChat Members and of CaveChat Members to active members implies something is broken. I also agree. But I think it is the same broken that results in 10-12% of members voting, even fewer contributing to the NEWS, the frequent plea for people to run for positions, and the number of folks actually reading the Business Pages. Like lots of organizations everywhere there are a few very active, interested folks and a lot of people who pay their dues, browse the NEWS and ignore everything else.
And you feel this is a good thing? Desirable? What? I see it as a problem. Noting that it is a common one in organizations does nothing to address it.
Low participation in Cavechat is also symptomatic of a problem - readers do not feel it is worth their time to post, and most NSS members do not feel it is worth their time to even read.
I beg your pardon, Wayne. I presumed that readers could distinguish fact from opinion on their own.Wayne Harrison wrote:Low participation in Cavechat is also symptomatic of a problem - readers do not feel it is worth their time to post, and most NSS members do not feel it is worth their time to even read.
Do you have some inner knowledge of how many cavers lurk on the site -- who visit but don''t post? You're stating something as fact that you'd have no way of knowing.
There's no evidence that changing the forum to require real names would increase participation.
Wayne Harrison wrote:Some cavers are well known by their monikers and are proud of them. They don't hide behind them to jump on other posters.
Bill Putnam wrote:Wayne Harrison wrote:Some cavers are well known by their monikers and are proud of them. They don't hide behind them to jump on other posters.
No reason why they can't or shouldn't continue to use them. I'm not suggesting that posts display the author's actual name - just that it (and/or their NSS number, if they have one) be visible on their profile, so that those of us who care to can look it up. What's so terrible about that?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users