![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 34. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by OddipusRex on January 19, 2003, at 22:10:13
And if you have what other groups did you use for comparison? Are you planning to publish the details somewhere? Or perhaps just share them with us?
http://www.ihealthcoalition.org/community/abstracts-conf2002.html#B7
Session B7:
Online Peer Support Groups in Mental Health
Robert Hsiung, MD, Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the University of Chicago, U.S.In online peer support groups, patients from different areas within a country -- or even from different countries -- work together to support and educate each other. Some groups are facilitated by mental health professionals, others by laypeople, others not at all.
In this session, three facilitated online peer support groups in mental health are examined. The different groups are visited, and samples of interactions at each are presented. The groups are then systematically compared in terms of activity level (overall, by topic, and by user), types of communication (questions vs. information vs. opinions vs. suggestions), and technical features (for example, the ability to search archives). Finally, group policies (regarding, for example, what types of messages are allowed and how the privacy of users is protected) are contrasted.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2003, at 10:23:52
In reply to Dr B have you been talking about us?, posted by OddipusRex on January 19, 2003, at 22:10:13
> And if you have what other groups did you use for comparison? Are you planning to publish the details somewhere? Or perhaps just share them with us?
I think it may be better not to be too specific about which other groups. I'm *hoping* to publish the details, yes. Stay tuned...
Bob
PS: That's how I got interested in readability...
Posted by Mitchell on January 20, 2003, at 21:17:01
In reply to Re: yes, posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2003, at 10:23:52
> PS: That's how I got interested in readability...Hmm... can you say more about that?
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2003, at 23:26:47
In reply to Re: yes, posted by Mitchell on January 20, 2003, at 21:17:01
> > PS: That's how I got interested in readability...
>
> Hmm... can you say more about that?I thought that was one way in which different groups could be compared. That might make a difference to prospective group members...
> > > The groups are then systematically compared in terms of activity level (overall, by topic, and by user), types of communication (questions vs. information vs. opinions vs. suggestions)...
But let me ask you, how do you think people decide which groups to join?
Bob
Posted by M. Lee on January 21, 2003, at 6:54:03
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2003, at 23:26:47
I found out about this site from the results of a google search.
I was looking for info about a particular topic and the results of the search showed info here.
After reading some post, I joined.
> But let me ask you, how do you think people decide which groups to join?
Posted by Mitchell on January 21, 2003, at 8:34:11
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2003, at 23:26:47
> But let me ask you, how do you think people decide which groups to join?
>
> Bob
I suspect much of the choice is guided by unconscious motivations. If a person grew up in an environment rich in conflict, a group where conflict exists side by side with caring conversation might be very familiar.If so, then one might see a correlation between the spread of conflict (administrative involvement could be a measure of conflict) and increase in numbers. The more difficult question would be whether increased population led to increased conflict, or whether the conflict attracted and reinforced the commitment of group members.
This analysis isn't intended to demean anyone's motivations. I think we return to these environments hoping to recapitulate some troublesome experience. Maybe we are hoping something that led to conflict in our memory will work out better if we try it again elsewhere.
> > > > The groups are then systematically compared in terms of activity level (overall, by topic, and by user), types of communication (questions vs. information vs. opinions vs. suggestions)...
>For me, efficacy is a more interesting question than why people join. I wonder how readability correlates with efficacy. I also wonder how readability correlates with conflict and with administrative policies.
It might also be worth an investigators time to review tools used for literary analysis. The taxonomy you suggest (questions vs. information vs. opinions vs. suggestions) might be all one could get their pencil around in one effort. But eventually, tools used in language and literature departments might contribute to a deeper understanding of how people use electronic publishing tools. Useful measures might include a count of first, second or third person voice, passive or active voice, and perhaps some regional correlation - some regions have different language patterns that might correspond with readability.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2003, at 21:41:03
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join? » Dr. Bob, posted by M. Lee on January 21, 2003, at 6:54:03
> I found out about this site from the results of a google search.
>
> After reading some post, I joined.Was it something about the posts that made you want to join? Did Google suggest other sites like this? Did you join them, too?
Sorry about all the questions! :-)
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2003, at 21:51:40
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by Mitchell on January 21, 2003, at 8:34:11
> I suspect much of the choice is guided by unconscious motivations. If a person grew up in an environment rich in conflict, a group where conflict exists side by side with caring conversation might be very familiar.
So that would suggest looking at how much conflict and caring there is. Which would be really interesting. But hard to assess?
> If so, then one might see a correlation between the spread of conflict (administrative involvement could be a measure of conflict) and increase in numbers. The more difficult question would be whether increased population led to increased conflict, or whether the conflict attracted and reinforced the commitment of group members.
That's an interesting idea, considering administrative involvement a measure of conflict, but there wouldn't be a consistent standard across groups (let alone within a group over time)...
Also, conflict might attract some people but deter others...
> For me, efficacy is a more interesting question than why people join. I wonder how readability correlates with efficacy. I also wonder how readability correlates with conflict and with administrative policies.
Efficacy is definitely the $24,000 question. And is starting to be looked at. How would you compare administrative policies?
> It might also be worth an investigators time to review tools used for literary analysis. The taxonomy you suggest (questions vs. information vs. opinions vs. suggestions) might be all one could get their pencil around in one effort. But eventually, tools used in language and literature departments might contribute to a deeper understanding of how people use electronic publishing tools. Useful measures might include a count of first, second or third person voice, passive or active voice, and perhaps some regional correlation - some regions have different language patterns that might correspond with readability.
Microsoft Word does tell you the % of sentences that are passive...
Bob
Posted by Mitchell on January 22, 2003, at 0:29:39
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2003, at 21:51:40
Thanks for returning challenging questions. I think in this post I was trying to support your deeper inquiry into how these processes work
> > I suspect much of the choice is guided by unconscious motivations. If a person grew up in an environment rich in conflict, a group where conflict exists side by side with caring conversation might be very familiar.
>
> So that would suggest looking at how much conflict and caring there is. Which would be really interesting. But hard to assess?Yes, at least quantitatively. Understanding motivations is probably much more difficult than measuring changes in behavior or perception. I still wonder if literary analysts haven't already developed some standard measures of emotionality in written works. I know lit scholars like to draw conclusions about personality and psyche from written works, but I don't know if the tools they use are applicable in a purely psychological inquiry.
> > If so, then one might see a correlation between the spread of conflict (administrative involvement could be a measure of conflict) and increase in numbers. The more difficult question would be whether increased population led to increased conflict, or whether the conflict attracted and reinforced the commitment of group members.
>
> That's an interesting idea, considering administrative involvement a measure of conflict, but there wouldn't be a consistent standard across groups (let alone within a group over time)...Well, yeh, its much easier to suggest research if one does not have to actually design and conduct the investigation. ; ) I am thinking per capita measurements - how many administrative actions per post, per member, per word ...
> Also, conflict might attract some people but deter others...
Or attract certain personality types and not others. Very hard to measure if you have little information about those who use the boards. This is like blind research, but in a different sense. Really, the more troubling concern for me is whether conflict from the board is contagious - if excitement started here might play out elsewhere. What is the half-life of ACTH?
Could be the other way too, though. Maybe people have conflicts here instead of with people they see f2f.
> Efficacy is definitely the $24,000 question. And is starting to be looked at. How would you compare administrative policies?
High bid for that answer on Ebay is currently $64,000. I thought you began to describe administrative styles in your Bestof? paper. (you just didn't describe alternatives sufficiently, for my satisfaction, and didn't objectively compare them, you just said why you prefer yours, as I recall).
I'm not well read into administrative approaches, but I think one main division would be between styles that ask, require, cajole or manipulate participants to control content and styles in which administrators control content by using word filters, removing posts and such methods. Enforcement actions per capita of posts yield some useful measure. Standard literary measures of administrative statements might be useful - are the statements orders or requests, are they informational reminders about group policy, or do administrators manage the site without interacting as much in the site's dialogue. You might have already considered measures like how many administrators per hit/uniquevisit/post/member or how many administrative hours compared to group activity.
> > It might also be worth an investigators time to review tools used for literary analysis. The taxonomy you suggest (questions vs. information vs. opinions vs. suggestions) might be all one could get their pencil around in one effort. But eventually, tools used in language and literature departments might contribute to a deeper understanding of how people use electronic publishing tools. Useful measures might include a count of first, second or third person voice, passive or active voice, and perhaps some regional correlation - some regions have different language patterns that might correspond with readability.
>
> Microsoft Word does tell you the % of sentences that are passive...
I'm not familiar with anything other than standard off-the-shelf grammar analysis tools like that, but I suspect I would find more advanced automated tools for analyzing language if I looked around some.
SM
Posted by shar on January 22, 2003, at 1:13:46
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by Mitchell on January 22, 2003, at 0:29:39
I posted here, initially, because of the quality of information, quantity of information (lots of activity, not just a few posts per day), and quality of interaction. Information would have beat interaction, had there been a choice to make, because I was interested in meds. It was a fringe benefit that people seemed to care about each other.
Interesting that the priorities have shifted back and forth over time.
Shar
Posted by M. Lee on January 22, 2003, at 6:41:51
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join? » M. Lee, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2003, at 21:41:03
> > I found out about this site from the results of a google search.
> >
> > After reading some post, I joined.
>
> Was it something about the posts that made you want to join? Did Google suggest other sites like this? Did you join them, too?
>
> Sorry about all the questions! :-)I was looking for info about medication and saw a couple of posts about experiences with side effects. Info that I had not seen elsewhere. I don't recall seeing any other "hits" on discussion forums. This is the first time that I have participated in a site like this. I have not visited any other discussion forum sites.
Ask, and ye shall receive ;)
Posted by OddipusRex on January 22, 2003, at 14:06:56
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by M. Lee on January 22, 2003, at 6:41:51
Here's a link to another study of online groups. Efficacy was measured with Depression scales and interviews at intervals. I didn't see any mention of a control group. Also wouldn't a self selected group of volunteers be more likely to be biased in favor of believing internet groups were useful? One of the groups studies was Walkers. I did not see the others named. The abstract and an article describing the study are online. The study itself is pay for view :(
http://www.mcmanweb.com/article-222.htm
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/159/12/2062
As for how people choose PB it would seem like the emphasis on meds would attract a group of people who were already diagnosed and probably on medication. There would probably be fewer posts from younger people who are wondering what is wrong with them. There would probably be fewer people who were believers in "nurture" vs "nature" Google of course would multiply this effect by sending more and more people here from seaches for specific drugs. People looking for just general information or support have a lot more sites to choose from so probably would be fewer in number here.
I wonder if like doesn't attract like too. Although there might be some change over time. You could do your reading level comparisons over time. Do the numbers become more similiar? Are people whose reading level is the same as the majority more likely to stay? You could simply count the initial subject of the first post. Was it specific request for information or request for support, etc. Are information seekers less likely to stay than support seekers? You might also look into whether the number of initial interactions or replies influences people to stay. Do people who get more responses tend to stay longer than people who don't? Do people who reply frequently to others stay longer than people who only post about themselves? You could estimate level of personal disclosure. Do people who tell their life story feel more invested in the place and tend to stay longer? Are people who are warned to be civil more likely to leave permanently or are people who are more emotionally invested here more likely to make emotionally charged statements that cause them to be banned? Well those are things you could count based on what you've got.
I think to really measure whether it was helping people to feel better or function better you would need interviews and rating scales like in the other study. And they would need to be carried out over time. But I guess you could measure support by number of responses and information by whether the specific question was addressed.
I think the idea of people being attracted by controversy is interesting but it would be hard to compare with other groups because most of them don't encourage or allow this kind of ongoing controversy. Also most groups don't keep these masssive archives.
Bob do you get permission from the other groups you study or do you think because it's posted on the internet you don't need permission? In that case why do PBers need to sign consent forms?
I really think the administrative style is less unique than the emphasis on drugs. I don't know of any large group that has ongoing involvement in the actual discussion with the administrator. Just the opposite in fact.
One thing that interested me from your article was the idea of "super posters". You could try to define the term and follow the career of these super posters. One advantage of looking at them would be that they would probably be willing to do in depth interviews with you.
> > But let me ask you, how do you think people decide which groups to join?
> >
>
>
> I suspect much of the choice is guided by unconscious motivations. If a person grew up in an environment rich in conflict, a group where conflict exists side by side with caring conversation might be very familiar.
>
> If so, then one might see a correlation between the spread of conflict (administrative involvement could be a measure of conflict) and increase in numbers. The more difficult question would be whether increased population led to increased conflict, or whether the conflict attracted and reinforced the commitment of group members.
>
> This analysis isn't intended to demean anyone's motivations. I think we return to these environments hoping to recapitulate some troublesome experience. Maybe we are hoping something that led to conflict in our memory will work out better if we try it again elsewhere.
>
> > > > > The groups are then systematically compared in terms of activity level (overall, by topic, and by user), types of communication (questions vs. information vs. opinions vs. suggestions)...
> >
>
> For me, efficacy is a more interesting question than why people join. I wonder how readability correlates with efficacy. I also wonder how readability correlates with conflict and with administrative policies.
>
> It might also be worth an investigators time to review tools used for literary analysis. The taxonomy you suggest (questions vs. information vs. opinions vs. suggestions) might be all one could get their pencil around in one effort. But eventually, tools used in language and literature departments might contribute to a deeper understanding of how people use electronic publishing tools. Useful measures might include a count of first, second or third person voice, passive or active voice, and perhaps some regional correlation - some regions have different language patterns that might correspond with readability.
>
Posted by IsoM on January 22, 2003, at 15:36:09
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2003, at 21:51:40
What first brought me to PB was searching for info on medication. I initially used PB a number of years ago for info on one med, but then returned about a year later to find info on Provigil, a new med for narcolepsy which I have. There wasn't quite enough info to answer specific questions I had about it or about adrafinil, so I joined in order to post my questions. I stayed to continue offering help & encouragement to others.
PB is not the only place I've posted questions on. I've also written personal emails to different services such as "All Experts" or "Ask an Expert" among others plus individual researchers or scientists. If I'm trying to find specific info, I'll persist until I have an answer. It was my original reason for joining here.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2003, at 19:29:48
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by Mitchell on January 22, 2003, at 0:29:39
> > So that would suggest looking at how much conflict and caring there is. Which would be really interesting. But hard to assess?
>
> Yes, at least quantitatively.Hmm, the idea of screening for negative words has come up, that might be a measure of conflict. And I suppose an analogous list of positive words could be used to try to quantify caring...
> Really, the more troubling concern for me is whether conflict from the board is contagious - if excitement started here might play out elsewhere.
>
> Could be the other way too, though. Maybe people have conflicts here instead of with people they see f2f.And both of those could happen with caring as well as conflict...
> > Efficacy is definitely the $24,000 question. And is starting to be looked at. How would you compare administrative policies?
>
> High bid for that answer on Ebay is currently $64,000.I realized later I had underbid, hmm...
> I'm not well read into administrative approaches, but I think one main division would be between styles that ask, require, cajole or manipulate participants to control content and styles in which administrators control content by using word filters, removing posts and such methods.
Yes, but I think it's unlikely to be either-or. And people can be asked as a group (for example, in a FAQ) as well as individually in posts. I guess, as you suggest, those posts could be counted... But not those that have been removed...
Also, administrative activity would depend on not only the site's administrative policies, but also its members...
> You might have already considered measures like ... how many administrative hours compared to group activity.
And if you make it hours, then another factor is how efficient the administrators are...
> > Microsoft Word does tell you the % of sentences that are passive...
>
> I'm not familiar with anything other than standard off-the-shelf grammar analysis tools like that, but I suspect I would find more advanced automated tools for analyzing language if I looked around some.Well, if you do, you could propose a project... :-)
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2003, at 19:58:35
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by M. Lee on January 22, 2003, at 6:41:51
> I was looking for info about medication and saw a couple of posts about experiences with side effects. Info that I had not seen elsewhere.
Hmm, that's an interesting angle, whether the same information could be found elsewhere...
> I don't recall seeing any other "hits" on discussion forums.
I suppose that could be quantified by a site's Google rank on a particular search, for example, Psycho-Babble given "lexapro" = 3. Or, Psycho-Babble given "effexor forum" = 8. But the latter depends on the second word, Psycho-Babble given "effexor group" = 73...
> Ask, and ye shall receive ;)
Thanks!
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2003, at 20:51:29
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by OddipusRex on January 22, 2003, at 14:06:56
> wouldn't a self selected group of volunteers be more likely to be biased in favor of believing internet groups were useful?
I think so, yes...
> As for how people choose PB it would seem like the emphasis on meds would attract a group of people who were already diagnosed and probably on medication.
Or at least thinking about medication...
> There would probably be fewer posts from younger people who are wondering what is wrong with them.
I do already collect a little demographic information that includes age, for example:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/stats/20020715.html
But I haven't tried to relate that to how long people stay...
> There would probably be fewer people who were believers in "nurture" vs "nature" Google of course would multiply this effect by sending more and more people here from seaches for specific drugs. People looking for just general information or support have a lot more sites to choose from so probably would be fewer in number here.
You can get an idea of what searches lead people here from the overall site statistics, for example:
http://www.dr-bob.org/stats/usage_200301.html#TOPSEARCH
> You could do your reading level comparisons over time. Do the numbers become more similiar?
How stable a group measure is over time is important. Breaking it down by poster, I suppose you could look for a relationship between their reading (writing) level and how long they stay...
> You could simply count the initial subject of the first post. Was it specific request for information or request for support, etc. Are information seekers less likely to stay than support seekers?
Lots of times people are looking for both...
> You might also look into whether the number of initial interactions or replies influences people to stay. Do people who get more responses tend to stay longer than people who don't?
I've wondered about that. But what exactly would you count as a response? Posts "in reply to" that post? Or posts with that poster's name in the subject line? Or any later posts in that thread?
> Do people who reply frequently to others stay longer than people who only post about themselves?
Would that depend on whether a post was "in reply to" another post, or on its actual content? Content is a lot harder to assess...
> You could estimate level of personal disclosure. Do people who tell their life story feel more invested in the place and tend to stay longer?
That definitely would be a content issue...
> Are people who are warned to be civil more likely to leave permanently or are people who are more emotionally invested here more likely to make emotionally charged statements that cause them to be banned?
Only a tiny minority of posters get blocked, you know... And sometimes they're the same people. :-)
> But I guess you could measure support by number of responses and information by whether the specific question was addressed.
Number of responses is relatively straightforward, once you define "response", but whether something was addressed is harder...
> Bob do you get permission from the other groups you study or do you think because it's posted on the internet you don't need permission?
If only existing publicly available data are studied, research can be considered exempt from some of the usual requirements...
> In that case why do PBers need to sign consent forms?
Partly because I have access here to information that isn't publicly available. Also, I want to be able to use quotes. Also, even if I don't need to, it might be better to.
> One thing that interested me from your article was the idea of "super posters". You could try to define the term and follow the career of these super posters.
What about their "careers" do you think might be interesting?
Thanks for all the ideas!
Bob
Posted by M. Lee on January 23, 2003, at 5:38:28
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2003, at 21:51:40
Does Microsoft Word also indicate the % of passive-aggressive phrases? ;)
I have this mental image of a Paperclip popping up and telling me to stop whining! :)
> > It might also be worth an investigators time to review tools used for literary analysis. The taxonomy you suggest (questions vs. information vs. opinions vs. suggestions) might be all one could get their pencil around in one effort. But eventually, tools used in language and literature departments might contribute to a deeper understanding of how people use electronic publishing tools. Useful measures might include a count of first, second or third person voice, passive or active voice, and perhaps some regional correlation - some regions have different language patterns that might correspond with readability.
>
> Microsoft Word does tell you the % of sentences that are passive...
>
Posted by M. Lee on January 24, 2003, at 23:13:13
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2003, at 19:58:35
> > I was looking for info about medication and saw a couple of posts about experiences with side effects. Info that I had not seen elsewhere.
>
> Hmm, that's an interesting angle, whether the same information could be found elsewhere...
>Actually, I began my search by looking for "info" ie. facts and such. But, I ended up finding something more important here.
The discussions here included first hand descriptions of experiences that I had been through. Or insight into experiences that I could relate to.
I also discovered that I was able to discuss topics that were difficult for me to bring up in face to face talks. Being able to participate anonymously gave me some practice at expressing feelings that I had been reluctant to bring up.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2003, at 20:22:38
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by M. Lee on January 24, 2003, at 23:13:13
> The discussions here included first hand descriptions of experiences that I had been through. Or insight into experiences that I could relate to.
>
> I also discovered that I was able to discuss topics that were difficult for me to bring up in face to face talks. Being able to participate anonymously gave me some practice at expressing feelings that I had been reluctant to bring up.Right, but the above would be true of any online group, wouldn't it?
Bob
Posted by noa on January 27, 2003, at 20:54:01
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2003, at 20:22:38
I found Babble through the site "Dr. Bob's Psychopharmocology Tips" which were very helpful to me in my search for what would treat my depression.
One day, I re-visited the Tips page, and saw the link to Babble. Apparently Babble had started up a few months earlier. That was in 1999.
I think because I had found the Tips site so helpful, that made Babble appealing to me. I also discovered quickly that there are a lot of empowered, knoweldgable people here. I also saw that there were the negative things, but I eventually figured out how to deal with that. Since then, Dr. Bob has done a lot to add info in the intro, faqs, etc. that hopefully people read when they first get here, because the caviats and the guidance can be very helpful.
Another appealing thing is that this site is maintained and improved a lot, and the participants have had a voice in how the site runs (although we know where the decision making power is) because Dr. Bob is open to feedback and problem solving, etc., through this page (PBA).
One thing I do wish regards the Tips site--it hasn't been updated since 99. While I love babble, I wish I could read anecdotal discussions among psychopharmacologists, because it is a different perspective than talking to other patients, which is also extremely valuable, of course. As you know there are things reported in anecdotal discuusions that have not, nor ever will, make it to the "official" literature.
Posted by Dinah on January 27, 2003, at 22:23:21
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by noa on January 27, 2003, at 20:54:01
>
> One thing I do wish regards the Tips site--it hasn't been updated since 99. While I love babble, I wish I could read anecdotal discussions among psychopharmacologists, because it is a different perspective than talking to other patients, which is also extremely valuable, of course. As you know there are things reported in anecdotal discuusions that have not, nor ever will, make it to the "official" literature.I think that would be a terrific thing, Noa. I wonder why it fizzled?
>
>
Posted by Dinah on January 27, 2003, at 23:51:41
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by noa on January 27, 2003, at 20:54:01
I probably found this place because of a search on whatever I had just been diagnosed with, or possibly some new drug I had been prescribed. Actually I think the site came up several times on google, which was intriguing because I did searches on obscure topics and Babble would be towards the top of the list of results.
I stuck around because of the really interesting people here. Willow and Mouse (with her wonderful post signoffs) and Dreamer and sar and Mair and Noa and Roo and Kiddo and AKC and Krazy Kat and all the others. I liked their conversations. I liked them.
I admired the knowledge of the medication board posters. Cam and Elizabeth and Medlib, all the others. I might not have understood one word in three, but I respected them.
I stayed long term both because of the posters and because I admired Dr. Bob and the way he administered the site with humor and kindness. I tend to stick to the more closely monitored sites on the web because of the tendency to unpleasantness and flaming and such that seems to come with anonymity. No, not true. The real life groups I have belonged to are the same way. :( Dr. Bob, may I clone you and send you to be president of a few local clubs?
But I'll bet a lot of why people decide to stay here depends on their attitudes to authority figures. I happen to be quite favoribly inclined to authority figures.
Now why does this site attract such intriguing posters? That I don't know. Perhaps you just lucked out with the first few, Dr. Bob, and they attracted the rest.
Pure chance. Can your study account for that?
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2003, at 1:26:03
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by Dinah on January 27, 2003, at 22:23:21
> > One thing I do wish regards the Tips site--it hasn't been updated since 99.
>
> I wonder why it fizzled?I didn't have enough time to keep it going. :-(
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 29, 2003, at 8:55:35
In reply to Re: why it fizzled, posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2003, at 1:26:03
> > > One thing I do wish regards the Tips site--it hasn't been updated since 99.
> >
> > I wonder why it fizzled?
>
> I didn't have enough time to keep it going. :-(
>
> BobYou didn't have time?! Hard to imagine. :)
Up attending to Babble at 1:30 in the morning? If you're not one of those people who needs very little sleep, then you need to start taking better care of yourself.
Dinah
Posted by Tabitha on January 29, 2003, at 14:23:02
In reply to Re: why it fizzled, posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2003, at 1:26:03
Speaking of the Tips site, my pdoc once sent me an exact cut-and-pasted tip from the site, for which he charged me his standard $40 email consultation fee. I hope you got your royalty check from him.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.