Tweet
Thanks to the Biomch-L community for contributing to the discussion of list
quality. Receiving 48 replies, both public and private, shows that the list
subscribers value the list enough to ensure its continued development.
>>>>> "Ton" == Ton van den Bogert addresed the
biomch-l community on serveral issues related to the list. Below is a
summary of the replies the this call.
Ton> Dear Biomch-L subscribers, In private communications with the
Ton> Biomch-L moderators, several subscribers have expressed
Ton> concern about the decreasing quality of Biomch-L postings.
Ton> Please take a minute to consider the following things. It is
Ton> in everybody's interest to maintain a good quality.
Ton> 1. Don't waste someone else's time
Ton> It seems that, as more students subscribe, we see more trivial
Ton> questions being posted. Also, Biomch-L seems to be used increasingly
Ton> as a substitute for a trip to the library. This is abusing the
Ton> group. Consider this: if it takes 2000 subscribers 2 seconds
Ton> each to read your message and kill it, 4000 seconds are
Ton> wasted. If it takes you less time to do it yourself, DON'T
Ton> POST TO BIOMCH-L. Thanks to Rodger Kram
Ton> for pointing this out. And always use the Subject: line!
Literature requests are perceived valuable by most of the list memebers
who took part in this discussion. The negative opinions expressed center
mostly around the assumption that no prior effort was made into identifying
reference sources before posting to the list. Several members made clear
that this premise was indeed false.
Providing some indication of what research has been accomplished prior
to soliciting further references from the list can be helpful in several
ways. First, it prevents duplicating effort. Second, it may provide
a different (unique?) perspective on the subject. Third, it helps expand
the knowledge base of all those participating in the science.
To facilitate both those who value and those who do not value the requests
for literature all subscribers should make use of the subject heading in
their posts to the list. Make it absolutely clear that the message seeks
references on a topic:
Subject: LIT_REQUEST (Localized Muscle Fatigue) James Ashton-Miller
Ton> proposed splitting Biomch-L into two groups: a student group
Ton> and an 'expert' group. Subscribing and posting priviliges
Ton> for the expert group would be restricted to those who
Ton> 'earned' it. My first reaction is no, because it is nice
Ton> that students have access to the experts. However, if
Ton> decreasing quality leads to experts leaving the list (which
Ton> is happening), we clearly have to do something about it.
There was overwhelming support to *not* split the list into separate lists
along any line (student/non-student, commercial/non-commercial, etc.).
Robert Neal (NEAL@HMS01.HMS.UQ.OZ.AU) summed the issue up concisly:
"... I think that the splitting of the list would be absurd since one of
the principle tenets of lists is to allow interested parties access to
information."
There is nothing to stop an interested party from initiating a mailing
list to discuss their own favourite biomchanics topic.
Ton> 7. List moderation
Ton> One way to solve these problems is to start truly moderating the
Ton> list, i.e. every posting would be read by a moderator before being
Ton> distributed. This is technically possible, but would lead to
Ton> some loss of speed. Realistically, a moderator would examine
Ton> postings once every day, so every posting could be delayed by
Ton> as much as 24 hours, not including transmission delays.
There was also very little interest in actively moderating the list. Most
respondants appreciated the open forum and were satisfied with the way
that problems are currently resolved. All members of the list are
responsible for the quality of its content, and in this interest we
must continually provide positive guidance to new subscribers. Hopefully,
this discussion has resolved what material is deemed acceptable by the
list (for the meantime at least).
The moderators will be assembling a mini-FAQ for distribution to the
list on a monthly basis to inform both new and old subscribers of general
list netiquette and where to go for more detailed information.
Ton> 8. Usenet News
Ton> At the other extreme, we could start a Usenet newsgroup. News reader
Ton> software has the feature that it can follow 'threads', i.e.
Ton> discussions abouct certain topics. It can also delete an entire
Ton> thread with one keystroke. I realize that not everyone has access to
Ton> Usenet, but it is possible to have a bi-directional gateway between
Ton> Usenet and LISTSERV. Usenet will lead to more garbage, but
Ton> will make it easier to sort through it. Unless you are still
Ton> a LISTSERV user.
There was very little interest shown in feeding biomch-l to a USENET
newsgroup. This topic has been discussed previously amongst the
moderators, and in the general, we were not in favour of a usenet
newsgroup because their 'noise' level is generally higher than the present
'noise' level of biomch-l.
Thanks again to all who contributed to this discussion in one form or
another.
Regards,
M. F. Young.
Co-Moderator, Biomch-L
On behalf of the Biomch-L moderator team:
Christoph Reinschmidt
Michael Young
Pierre Baudin
Ton van den Bogert
Krystyna Gielo-Perczak
Michael Young, Instructor | Voice: (906)-487-3357
Mech. Eng. - Eng. Mech. Dept. | E-mail: mfyoung@mtu.edu (Internet)
Michigan Tech Univ. | http://www.me.mtu.edu/~mfyoung/
Finger mfyoung@florida.me.mtu.edu for more information and pgp key
quality. Receiving 48 replies, both public and private, shows that the list
subscribers value the list enough to ensure its continued development.
>>>>> "Ton" == Ton van den Bogert addresed the
biomch-l community on serveral issues related to the list. Below is a
summary of the replies the this call.
Ton> Dear Biomch-L subscribers, In private communications with the
Ton> Biomch-L moderators, several subscribers have expressed
Ton> concern about the decreasing quality of Biomch-L postings.
Ton> Please take a minute to consider the following things. It is
Ton> in everybody's interest to maintain a good quality.
Ton> 1. Don't waste someone else's time
Ton> It seems that, as more students subscribe, we see more trivial
Ton> questions being posted. Also, Biomch-L seems to be used increasingly
Ton> as a substitute for a trip to the library. This is abusing the
Ton> group. Consider this: if it takes 2000 subscribers 2 seconds
Ton> each to read your message and kill it, 4000 seconds are
Ton> wasted. If it takes you less time to do it yourself, DON'T
Ton> POST TO BIOMCH-L. Thanks to Rodger Kram
Ton> for pointing this out. And always use the Subject: line!
Literature requests are perceived valuable by most of the list memebers
who took part in this discussion. The negative opinions expressed center
mostly around the assumption that no prior effort was made into identifying
reference sources before posting to the list. Several members made clear
that this premise was indeed false.
Providing some indication of what research has been accomplished prior
to soliciting further references from the list can be helpful in several
ways. First, it prevents duplicating effort. Second, it may provide
a different (unique?) perspective on the subject. Third, it helps expand
the knowledge base of all those participating in the science.
To facilitate both those who value and those who do not value the requests
for literature all subscribers should make use of the subject heading in
their posts to the list. Make it absolutely clear that the message seeks
references on a topic:
Subject: LIT_REQUEST (Localized Muscle Fatigue) James Ashton-Miller
Ton> proposed splitting Biomch-L into two groups: a student group
Ton> and an 'expert' group. Subscribing and posting priviliges
Ton> for the expert group would be restricted to those who
Ton> 'earned' it. My first reaction is no, because it is nice
Ton> that students have access to the experts. However, if
Ton> decreasing quality leads to experts leaving the list (which
Ton> is happening), we clearly have to do something about it.
There was overwhelming support to *not* split the list into separate lists
along any line (student/non-student, commercial/non-commercial, etc.).
Robert Neal (NEAL@HMS01.HMS.UQ.OZ.AU) summed the issue up concisly:
"... I think that the splitting of the list would be absurd since one of
the principle tenets of lists is to allow interested parties access to
information."
There is nothing to stop an interested party from initiating a mailing
list to discuss their own favourite biomchanics topic.
Ton> 7. List moderation
Ton> One way to solve these problems is to start truly moderating the
Ton> list, i.e. every posting would be read by a moderator before being
Ton> distributed. This is technically possible, but would lead to
Ton> some loss of speed. Realistically, a moderator would examine
Ton> postings once every day, so every posting could be delayed by
Ton> as much as 24 hours, not including transmission delays.
There was also very little interest in actively moderating the list. Most
respondants appreciated the open forum and were satisfied with the way
that problems are currently resolved. All members of the list are
responsible for the quality of its content, and in this interest we
must continually provide positive guidance to new subscribers. Hopefully,
this discussion has resolved what material is deemed acceptable by the
list (for the meantime at least).
The moderators will be assembling a mini-FAQ for distribution to the
list on a monthly basis to inform both new and old subscribers of general
list netiquette and where to go for more detailed information.
Ton> 8. Usenet News
Ton> At the other extreme, we could start a Usenet newsgroup. News reader
Ton> software has the feature that it can follow 'threads', i.e.
Ton> discussions abouct certain topics. It can also delete an entire
Ton> thread with one keystroke. I realize that not everyone has access to
Ton> Usenet, but it is possible to have a bi-directional gateway between
Ton> Usenet and LISTSERV. Usenet will lead to more garbage, but
Ton> will make it easier to sort through it. Unless you are still
Ton> a LISTSERV user.
There was very little interest shown in feeding biomch-l to a USENET
newsgroup. This topic has been discussed previously amongst the
moderators, and in the general, we were not in favour of a usenet
newsgroup because their 'noise' level is generally higher than the present
'noise' level of biomch-l.
Thanks again to all who contributed to this discussion in one form or
another.
Regards,
M. F. Young.
Co-Moderator, Biomch-L
On behalf of the Biomch-L moderator team:
Christoph Reinschmidt
Michael Young
Pierre Baudin
Ton van den Bogert
Krystyna Gielo-Perczak
Michael Young, Instructor | Voice: (906)-487-3357
Mech. Eng. - Eng. Mech. Dept. | E-mail: mfyoung@mtu.edu (Internet)
Michigan Tech Univ. | http://www.me.mtu.edu/~mfyoung/
Finger mfyoung@florida.me.mtu.edu for more information and pgp key