![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 20 to 44 of 125. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 9:48:43
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2005, at 11:52:55
> They wouldn't be able to post on smaller boards that were full, but there would always be other smaller boards...
Right.
So it is about weighing the benefits people may get from reading (but not being able to post) to a particular board versus the benefits people may get from knowing their posts aren't viewable to non-posters and aren't googleable.
It isn't like people miss out on the benefits of reading altogether... There still are the other boards.
How about making them generally viewable when there are membership openings (so people can read the posts when deciding whether to join up). Then, when the limit of members is reached letting the group decide whether they want the board to be generally viewable or not?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 8:05:57
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on July 10, 2005, at 9:48:43
> How about making them generally viewable when there are membership openings (so people can read the posts when deciding whether to join up). Then, when the limit of members is reached letting the group decide whether they want the board to be generally viewable or not?
That would be a compromise, but it's not just people thinking about joining up that may benefit from reading...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on July 11, 2005, at 8:19:43
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 8:05:57
> but it's not just people thinking about joining up that may benefit from reading...
Well... To rearrange what you said slightly:
They wouldn't be able to read the smaller boards that were full, but there would always be other smaller boards...
Ok. I give up. Who else may benefit from reading?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 11:27:37
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on July 11, 2005, at 8:19:43
> Ok. I give up. Who else may benefit from reading?
Sorry if this is frustrating! People are sometimes interested in the topics that are discussed, or in the people discussing them, but not (at that time, anyway) in contributing to the discussion.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 18:41:05
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2005, at 11:52:55
Your trouble, Dr. Bob, is that you think groups of people and types of conversations are interchangeable.
People actually do want to respond to particular people or particular threads you know, once they read them and are engaged by *them*. Not by the idea of being able to chat, but by particular conversations.
Saying "there's another board over there" is not the same as saying this washing machine is in use, but there's another one on the next row.
People are not like washing machines. Conversations are not like washing machines.
It's come up in therapy, you know. When I wanted a fill in therapist for my therapist's absence. And we entered into long discussion ending in the conclusion that therapists are not like washing machines. A conclusion that works against both of us, actually.
There's no way I can get you to understand this concept. I understand that, and I'm sorry for it on many levels. But I thought I'd point it out.
Posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 18:44:28
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 11:27:37
P.S.
If boards are interchangeable, why am I wed to Babble? There are other boards out there.
But I love Babble, not other boards. I chose to post on Babble, not on other boards. I would not have been at all happy to hear that Babble was closed, but there were these other wonderful boards out there. It was here that Noa and Mair and KrazyKat and Sar and.... were posting.
Boards are not like washing machines either.
And as frustrating as they may be, neither are board administrators. (twinkly smile)
Posted by alexandra_k on July 11, 2005, at 18:47:17
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2005, at 11:27:37
>People are sometimes interested in the topics that are discussed, or in the people discussing them, but not (at that time, anyway) in contributing to the discussion.
Right.
So some people might be interested to read them.
But the posters might prefer that they didn't.
But it isn't just about that...
Its also for the benefit to the non-members.
It goes some way towards preventing the outside looking in effect as they get the urge to respond and find that they are prevented because there aren't any more places.I don't really see why you think it is more important to have people who can't post read. I don't really see how that outweighs preventing the outside looking in effect and the benefits posters to the small board would gain from additional safety.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 2:25:02
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on July 11, 2005, at 18:47:17
> Boards are not like washing machines either.
Are boards like shoes?
If you go to a place and the one you like is sold out, will you try another?
> And as frustrating as they may be, neither are board administrators. (twinkly smile)
>
> Dinah:-)
--
> I don't really see why you think it is more important to have people who can't post read. I don't really see how that outweighs preventing the outside looking in effect and the benefits posters to the small board would gain from additional safety.
>
> alexandra_kI'm not sure how to balance the different issues. But nobody would post if they couldn't read first...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on July 12, 2005, at 3:50:12
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy, posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 2:25:02
> But nobody would post if they couldn't read first...
I disagree. There are boards out there that require membership before you can view them. And I don't think the first few posters will have all that much to read before signing up. I think people would sign up to them in virtue of the other boards and in virtue of 2000 as an example of a restricted board. But even newbies. They might sign up just to see what it is like even if they never get around to posting there.
Weighing issues can be hard, I appreciate that. I just really don't think that people will benefit very much from reading them when they are unable to post.
I think they are more likely to benefit from reading the current boards that are already nicely organised according to topic.
I do agree that people are more likely to join if they can see what they might be getting themselves into.
And that is why I thought I offered a good comprimise...
You have said something before about how small boards could be more self-determining. That could be a good first issue to self-determine: whether the members of the board wish non-members to be able to view their posts.
That way you don't have to decide either way. You could let the members decide what they prefer.
Posted by Dinah on July 12, 2005, at 4:13:09
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy, posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 2:25:02
No, boards aren't like shoe stores, because people aren't like shoes either. And discussions aren't like shoes. I guess you see so many posters come and go that it might not appear that way to you. But nonetheless it is true.
(Actually that's a rather utilitarian view of shoes as well. It's like my husband when he sets out to buy a pair of brown shoes. Not like me when I see those really cute pink tennies with daisies on them. It's not really that I'm setting out to buy shoes. I fell in love with *those* shoes.)
As far as posting, I guess people would find Babble in general first. Then, for whatever reason, would decide they would like to belong to a small group. I think it would be acceptable to allow anyone who signed up to belong to *a* small group to read the different groups to decide *which* small group to belong to, although admittedly that leaves a slightly bad taste in my mouth. But a less bad taste than the alternative.
You know, you should look at this in a more positive light. If boards were like shoe stores, and people just went from one store to the next in the mall, it would be a lot easier for people to leave. And no one would have cared enough to meet in Chicago.
I've often thought it would be much easier if boards, and board administrators, were more like washing machines in a laundromat, or shoestores. But they aren't.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 12, 2005, at 4:16:41
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 12, 2005, at 4:13:09
Posted by Dinah on July 12, 2005, at 4:19:55
In reply to Re: are boards like puppies??? (nm), posted by alexandra_k on July 12, 2005, at 4:16:41
Posted by alexandra_k on July 12, 2005, at 4:44:20
In reply to Depends on how you view puppies. (nm), posted by Dinah on July 12, 2005, at 4:19:55
Posted by Dinah on July 12, 2005, at 4:51:29
In reply to Re: Indeed :-) (nm) » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on July 12, 2005, at 4:44:20
I noticed you didn't reply to my post on how I view puppies on Psychology. But I would say that how I view puppies is how I view boards and posters.
But that doesn't change my stance at all.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 12, 2005, at 5:03:12
In reply to Re: Indeed :-) » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 12, 2005, at 4:51:29
Yeah, I just thought we were looking for an apt analogy.
I like that... The contrast between how your husband (and most people I guess) look for shoes, and how you look at shoes. And puppies. And boards. And therapists.
You are very special Dinah.
:-)
I guess I'd want to say that in general (and I realise there are exceptions) but in general when you go see the puppies you just fall for all of them.
You get one and its once you get it home and get to know it that you get attached to it.
That it wouldn't be so very hard being told you couldn't have the one you picked from the litter. But It'd be much harder to give it back after 6 months if there had been some kind of mix up.
But... I think I hear what you are saying too.
I do.
And I'm lost for words.
I just know that if you fell for me I'd feel very special indeed.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 12, 2005, at 8:08:45
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy, posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 2:25:02
If I go to a place and they don't have the shoes I want I go home.
I don't settle for a different pair. And I wouldn't take the time to look for another store.
Posted by Tamar on July 12, 2005, at 18:53:56
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy, posted by Dr. Bob on July 12, 2005, at 2:25:02
> > Boards are not like washing machines either.
>
> Are boards like shoes?
>
> If you go to a place and the one you like is sold out, will you try another?NO! I’m a total girl from the ankles down. If I go to a place and the pink one I like is sold out, they try to offer me the black one. But I don’t like black shoes and besides, the pink shoes go with my favourite jeans.
So I leave the store politely and go sulk alone with ice cream.
Climbing out of the metaphor before it buries me…
Is this still about the privacy of small boards? I tend to think that if the small boards are supplementary to the main boards it’s a good idea for them to be hidden from the outside world. I suppose I don’t worry so much about them being visible to other registered babblers (like the 2000 board) because if a discussion comes up on Small Board X and I’m not a member of that small board I can request further discussion on Relationships or Social of whatever. And I think the main boards are sufficient to draw new people in.
To come back to the small town analogy, people in Community Y can hear news of Community Z with interest even if they aren’t living in Community Z. But sometimes people in Community Z don’t want their local news broadcast all over the nation, even if they don’t mind their neighbours in Community Y hearing about it. If you’re a journalist you’ll write the story on Community Z anyway, but it’s a human interest story and the gritty stories are happening in the big cities.
I’ve sometimes felt that a difficulty with being part of a small community is that people from outside don’t always understand (or in some cases even respect) the culture. And it can be very, very difficult for incomers to be accepted in an established small community. All sorts of cultural issues might arise if the membership of small boards has a purely numerical basis. But what other basis is fair?
> I'm not sure how to balance the different issues.
I can imagine. There’s ethics, sociology, philosophy… How is it possible to prioritize?
> But nobody would post if they couldn't read first...
>
> BobYeah, but can they post where they’ve been reading?
Tamar
Posted by alexandra_k on July 12, 2005, at 19:31:02
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy » Dr. Bob, posted by Tamar on July 12, 2005, at 18:53:56
To be fair to the shoe analogy I think it has quite a lot to do with how much you really need / want some shoes, versus how many other pairs of shoes you already possess and so how picky you can afford to be...
Posted by alexandra_k on July 12, 2005, at 19:32:09
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy, posted by alexandra_k on July 12, 2005, at 19:31:02
And in general... Girls are rather notorious for their tendancy to have rather a lot of shoes ;-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 13, 2005, at 0:10:51
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy » Dr. Bob, posted by Tamar on July 12, 2005, at 18:53:56
> Weighing issues can be hard, I appreciate that. I just really don't think that people will benefit very much from reading them when they are unable to post.
>
> alexandra_kThanks. My guess is that for every poster there are maybe 20 lurkers...
--
> (Actually that's a rather utilitarian view of shoes as well. It's like my husband when he sets out to buy a pair of brown shoes. Not like me when I see those really cute pink tennies with daisies on them. It's not really that I'm setting out to buy shoes. I fell in love with *those* shoes.)
I'm not sure it needs to be utilitarian. Wouldn't you be more likely to go back to where you've seen cute tennies than where you've seen brown shoes?
> You know, you should look at this in a more positive light. If boards were like shoe stores, and people just went from one store to the next in the mall, it would be a lot easier for people to leave. And no one would have cared enough to meet in Chicago.
>
> DinahWell, not all shoe stores are in malls... :-)
--
> If I go to a place and they don't have the shoes I want I go home.
>
> I don't settle for a different pair. And I wouldn't take the time to look for another store.
>
> AuntieMelMight you go back some other time?
--
> If I go to a place and the pink one I like is sold out, they try to offer me the black one. But I don’t like black shoes and besides, the pink shoes go with my favourite jeans.
What if they offered you a different pink one?
> Is this still about the privacy of small boards? I tend to think that if the small boards are supplementary to the main boards it’s a good idea for them to be hidden from the outside world... And I think the main boards are sufficient to draw new people in.
>
> TamarMaybe part of this is that if it's just large vs. small, I'd expect some people to prefer large and some people to prefer small. But if it's public vs. private, I don't know, would everyone opt for private?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on July 13, 2005, at 4:58:59
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy, posted by Dr. Bob on July 13, 2005, at 0:10:51
> My guess is that for every poster there are maybe 20 lurkers...
Spies!
They can still lurk on the current boards.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 13, 2005, at 9:43:00
In reply to Re: small boards and privacy » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on July 13, 2005, at 4:58:59
And lurkers may always lurk and never post regardless of the size of the board.
gg
Posted by gabbii on July 13, 2005, at 18:21:18
In reply to P.S. To Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 11, 2005, at 18:44:28
But I love Babble, not other boards. I chose to post on Babble, not on other boards. I would not have been at all happy to hear that Babble was closed, but there were these other wonderful boards out there. It was here that Noa and Mair and KrazyKat and Sar and.... were posting.
That's true for me too Dinah, and it brought back such fond memories.
My first post to Babble was because of a conversation you and Tabitha were having. It hadn't ever occured to to join a "Board"
but I *did* want to know you two, and happily it turned out that you were representative of so many other Babblers I adore.
Posted by Dinah on July 13, 2005, at 18:42:13
In reply to Re: P.S. To Dr. Bob » Dinah, posted by gabbii on July 13, 2005, at 18:21:18
I miss Tabitha. I'm glad she pops in now and again.
You brought back some fond memories myself.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 15, 2005, at 7:29:32
In reply to Re: P.S. To Dr. Bob » Dinah, posted by gabbii on July 13, 2005, at 18:21:18
> My first post to Babble was because of a conversation you and Tabitha were having. It hadn't ever occured to to join a "Board"
> but I *did* want to know you two, and happily it turned out that you were representative of so many other Babblers I adore.That's a good example of how it's important for others to be able to read...
Bob
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.