|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 211 of 299:
| 
Apr 5 17:54 UTC 2005 |
Perhaps you need to address the newuser issue rather than the content of
existing users? Recruit some palatable participants if you think it is a
problem. The minute you start talking about a "private system" and picking
and choosing the members then you can just go scrap article 6 of Cyberspace's
incorporation (especially section 5.) I honestly don't see how a blog could
fit into computer "conferencing" if each "blog" has a squelch button held by
each author. That' is not conferencing; that is dictation.
|
mary
|
|
response 212 of 299:
|
Apr 5 18:11 UTC 2005 |
When a newuser first sees the general conference, they get to see
the first and last item only. It's a hello meant to not overwhelm.
It's then their choice whether to read the rest of the items, or
not. This wasn't seen as censorship all these years, but rather a
way not forcing newbies to read it all, in order. A default filter
does about the same thing, as far as I'm concerned. It gives them a
sample of the system then offers them choices.
I think what's really got some people itchy here is that they see
filters going mainstream. More people will be going that direction,
by *their choice* and maybe, just maybe, people with a lot to say
but not much worth reading, won't be making the cut.
|
slynne
|
|
response 213 of 299:
|
Apr 5 18:16 UTC 2005 |
I mean. If everything were up to me we would
1) maintain a completely free and open newuser
2) not allow anyone to delete another's posts under any circumstances
3) have all the really interesting users continue to post.
4) have lots of of new people coming along and staying because they
find the place really interesting
5) have the users love the system so much that they really want to
keep supporting it financially.
The problem might be that sticking to #1 and #2 might pretty much mean
giving up on #3, #4, and #5.
|
slynne
|
|
response 214 of 299:
|
Apr 5 18:18 UTC 2005 |
FWIW, I have tried my darndest to recruit people to grex. My hope was
that if there were even just 4 or 5 new interesting people, it might
make a big difference. I have specifically told around 30 people I know
online to check out grex. Not one of them liked it.
|
scholar
|
|
response 215 of 299:
|
Apr 5 18:25 UTC 2005 |
I've recruited at least one person!
|
tod
|
|
response 216 of 299:
|
Apr 5 19:14 UTC 2005 |
re #214
It's not our fault you're boring! ;)
|
richard
|
|
response 217 of 299:
|
Apr 5 21:22 UTC 2005 |
I also think that eliminating offsite email would help a good deal,
because many of these folks get all these extra logins for no other
reason than to have extra email addresses. If they cant get extra
addresses, they might not bother to run newuser so often. There really
is no reason for Grex to still be in the offsite email business
anymore, there are too many other places offering free email who do it
better.
|
tod
|
|
response 218 of 299:
|
Apr 5 21:39 UTC 2005 |
re #217
I would agree to limiting e-mail to members.
|
keesan
|
|
response 219 of 299:
|
Apr 5 22:16 UTC 2005 |
I send mail to lots of nonmembers who are using grex, including some curious
students just passing through who have questions about grex that I cannot
explain in a telegram. Limiting email to members would be as bad a limiting
bbs to members.
|
richard
|
|
response 220 of 299:
|
Apr 5 22:27 UTC 2005 |
keesan, I was suggesting limiting OFFSITE email to members. Everyone
who has a grex login would still have email, but only those who are
members would be able to send email offsite. Everyone would still be
able to send email to other grexers at their grex emails.
|
tod
|
|
response 221 of 299:
|
Apr 5 23:05 UTC 2005 |
I'm all for priviledged SMTP access.
|
keesan
|
|
response 222 of 299:
|
Apr 6 00:19 UTC 2005 |
We signed up several people with grex who had never used email and wanted to
try it out. Are you suggesting grex no longer serve this purpose, providing
a free way to learn about the internet? Email is what got me here in the
first place.
|
jep
|
|
response 223 of 299:
|
Apr 6 14:22 UTC 2005 |
I think the e-mail discussion is a separate issue. I see this
discussion as being what to do about the conferences, which are the
core of Grex.
|
keesan
|
|
response 224 of 299:
|
Apr 6 15:11 UTC 2005 |
Then most of grex's users never get to the core and just use email.
|
jep
|
|
response 225 of 299:
|
Apr 6 18:22 UTC 2005 |
That could be. I don't see them as interfering with those of us who
use the conferences, so I don't mind at all. Maybe someday they'll
join us.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 226 of 299:
|
Apr 6 19:08 UTC 2005 |
> I would agree to limiting e-mail to members.
I would *not*, until there were evidence showing that there are no more people
in the Ann Arbor community who have no ability to access "cyberspace" other
than via the dial-up to grex and using their grex e-mail account.
Perhaps there are indeed none, but I have no evidence yet. Plus there is no
real evidence that having free grex e-mail is a detriment to grex overall.
But I digress...
|
albaugh
|
|
response 227 of 299:
|
Apr 6 19:11 UTC 2005 |
Well, how about *this* alternative for newusers: Instead of having a twit
filter, to screen out the twits, how about having an "anti-twit" filter, whose
members are proven to consistently contribute positively to discussions?
Newusers as a default (or an option) could start with only being shown
responses from the civilized grex users, to get a good impression of the
place. Yes, I know, picospan doesn't implement this. But I bet that
fronttalk / backtalk *could*, if there were a groundswell of support... :-)
|
mary
|
|
response 228 of 299:
|
Apr 6 19:14 UTC 2005 |
"...only from civilized grex users..."
Now *I'm* getting itchy. ;-)
|
albaugh
|
|
response 229 of 299:
|
Apr 6 19:16 UTC 2005 |
OK, how about "house broken"? ;-)
|
keesan
|
|
response 230 of 299:
|
Apr 6 20:17 UTC 2005 |
My twit filter still works well. I had to add another another twit yesterday
and I still see items without real responses.
|
richard
|
|
response 231 of 299:
|
Apr 6 21:13 UTC 2005 |
The problem is that the TWITS don't know how often they are filtered or
how many people have them filtered. They post and see their messages
displayed and that is enough to keep them posting. So these filters
don't discourage the activity, they just allow other users to pretend
the activity, the problem, doesn't exist. Which isn't a solution at
all.
|
tod
|
|
response 232 of 299:
|
Apr 6 21:24 UTC 2005 |
re #231
Why would you discourage someone's postings? Stop trying to censor.
|
keesan
|
|
response 233 of 299:
|
Apr 6 22:24 UTC 2005 |
If you have a twit filter, do you care if the twits keep posting? The only
problem they cause is when you have to read people's responses to them.
|
naftee
|
|
response 234 of 299:
|
Apr 15 18:07 UTC 2005 |
ahaha
|
scholar
|
|
response 235 of 299:
|
Apr 15 19:56 UTC 2005 |
HEY I WANT TO KNOW WILL CLOSING NEWUSER STOP GREX FROM CRASHING FOR WEEKS AT
A TIME
|