where have all the experienced users gone?

[Uma Geller]

do you favor a ruby-beginner list or a ruby-advanced list split?

I favor a ruby-talk list and another, meta-ruby-talk list for threads
such as this
(me being a relatively new rubyist)

 

[Geoff]

In the back-channels I've heard the following reasons for why long-
time readers of ruby-talk cut back:

a) signal:noise ratio too low.
b) belligerent newbies.

I've been reading quite a bit about these properties of online
communities lately. There's a lot of material worth looking into if you
happen to have a bit of a deeper interest, like:

Clay Shirky's "A Group is it's Own Worst Enemy"
http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

Clay Shirky's "Group as User: Flaming and the Design of Social Software"
http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_user.html

Kathy Sierra's "How to Build a User Community: Part 1"
http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2006/12/
how_to_build_a_.html

Oh, and I'm definitely a Ruby newb myself, but I'm learning, and this
mailing-list/Usenet-newsgroup/forum has proven a fantastic learning
resource. I hope that, one way or another, that continues to be the
case.

Geoff.

 

[Trans]

Mailing lists and developer communities change. That's life. It would
be quite sad if this list didn't see a constant shift in those offering
guiding hands to newcomers.

Maybe a better question to ask is, Who are the *new* experienced users
on the list?

And if we can't find them, then there's a real problem.

There are some "up and coming". But that is a good question.

T.

 

[Trans]

Hi Tom (Guy is "ts" BTW) maybe the later, ruby-beginner might be too
negative, what you think?

Yes. that's possible true, although it might also be comforting to
those who are beginners.

Name not withstanding, the significant difficulty with a separate
mailing list is getting people to use it and for the purposes intended.
I have some experience in this. I once attempted to start a ruby-rcr
list. It was only mildly successful, but it was clear that it could not
flourish without wider support from the core community, so it
eventually evaporated (which is unfortunate as I think it's needed more
than ever now). A new vs. experienced split of ruby-talk will have some
of the same problems. Without committed support it won't work. And
ensuring that experienced users visit the beginners list is an added
challenge.

Having reread over all the posts to this thread here is the conclusion
I am drawing....

At some point the split may be necessary, maybe we are at that point.
But one of the great things about this list has been the cordial
intermingling of new and expert user. I think many would agree that it
would be nice if we could keep it that way. Perhaps we can find a way
to "upscale" the list to work better for both beginner and experienced
users alike.

In a post script, Jeremy McAnally had written,

"It would also be mildly entertaining to have an auto-answer FAQ bot
that parsed the language of a message and if it could decently figure
out what they're saying, post an answer pointing to a (currently
non-existent) Ruby FAQ..."

I realize that automated replies don't have the niceties of human
interaction, but I think something like this could go a long way toward
improving list usage. Rather then automated answers just against a FAQ,
automate them against the mailing list itself via the archives. An
automated answer could then provide a list of links to related old
posts. Even as an experienced user I would find this kind of
representation helpful! Also, with these automated replies, experienced
users who are already setting up "weak" list filters, could create
stronger ones based on whether a new topic received an automated reply
or not, and what the automated reply concluded about it. (In fact I
imagine a Bayesian filter would be part of the bots implementation.) I
think it would be better for us to try something like this, and see how
it fairs, before taking the leap to two lists.

What do others think? And also, is anyone up to the challenge?

T.

 

[Phrogz]

I've been reading quite a bit about these properties of online
communities lately. There's a lot of material worth looking into if you
happen to have a bit of a deeper interest, like:

Clay Shirky's "A Group is it's Own Worst Enemy"
http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

Clay Shirky's "Group as User: Flaming and the Design of Social Software"
http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_user.html

Kathy Sierra's "How to Build a User Community: Part 1"
http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2006/12/
how_to_build_a_.html

Having read those, I'd like to put that a little stronger:
1) I would request that all participants of this community read (or at
least skim) that last one in particular. To make it easier, here's an
short unbroken link:
http://rubyurl.com/YeY

2) I'd like to find a common spot that we could put something based on
the above (after we get some semblance of agreement on what it says)
that we could point new users and violators. Not really a charter, not
a mission statement, but some sort of creed of behavior. Something that
says "Be nice, be helpful, be respectful", but in more words and with
concrete do's and don't's and helpful examples.

There are very few experienced, long-time posters who I can think of
who would violate this creed. I feel that I've seen more than a few
semi-new-comers posting with serious attitude, and (in my opinion) it's
reasonably important that we don't just lead by example, but (as the
article says) take a zero-tolerance policy towards
abusive/high-and-might/asshole posts.

For the good of the community and national security. To fight the
terrorists. Won't somebody please think of the children?

 

[Peter Szinek]

Having read those, I'd like to put that a little stronger:

1) I would request that all participants of this community read (or at
least skim) that last one in particular. To make it easier, here's an
short unbroken link:
http://rubyurl.com/YeY

Great article! A real must read for everyone here (and for everybody who
is or planning to become a member of any community).
I could not agree more with this article because basically I put it to
practice here at ruby-talk - I begun to answer some questions, despite
of still being a noob myself - and I have learned a *lot* during this.
I am still just a beginner and the answers are maybe not the most
perfect, but anyway they are corrected by the 'adults' here and it is a
sure way to learn a lot.

2) I'd like to find a common spot that we could put something based on
the above (after we get some semblance of agreement on what it says)
that we could point new users and violators. Not really a charter, not
a mission statement, but some sort of creed of behavior. Something that
says "Be nice, be helpful, be respectful", but in more words and with
concrete do's and don't's and helpful examples.

100% agree.

There are very few experienced, long-time posters who I can think of
who would violate this creed. I feel that I've seen more than a few
semi-new-comers posting with serious attitude, and (in my opinion) it's
reasonably important that we don't just lead by example, but (as the
article says) take a zero-tolerance policy towards
abusive/high-and-might/asshole posts.

Well said. loop do { +1 }.

Cheers,
Peter

__
http://www.rubyrailways.com

 

[Edwin Fine]

I still like Eric Raymond's classic FAQ:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

 

[Trans]

Yes. that's possible true, although it might also be comforting to
those who are beginners.

Name not withstanding, the significant difficulty with a separate
mailing list is getting people to use it and for the purposes intended.
I have some experience in this. I once attempted to start a ruby-rcr
list. It was only mildly successful, but it was clear that it could not
flourish without wider support from the core community, so it
eventually evaporated (which is unfortunate as I think it's needed more
than ever now). A new vs. experienced split of ruby-talk will have some
of the same problems. Without committed support it won't work. And
ensuring that experienced users visit the beginners list is an added
challenge.

Having reread over all the posts to this thread here is the conclusion
I am drawing....

At some point the split may be necessary, maybe we are at that point.
But one of the great things about this list has been the cordial
intermingling of new and expert user. I think many would agree that it
would be nice if we could keep it that way. Perhaps we can find a way
to "upscale" the list to work better for both beginner and experienced
users alike.

In a post script, Jeremy McAnally had written,

"It would also be mildly entertaining to have an auto-answer FAQ bot
that parsed the language of a message and if it could decently figure
out what they're saying, post an answer pointing to a (currently
non-existent) Ruby FAQ..."

I realize that automated replies don't have the niceties of human
interaction, but I think something like this could go a long way toward
improving list usage. Rather then automated answers just against a FAQ,
automate them against the mailing list itself via the archives. An
automated answer could then provide a list of links to related old
posts. Even as an experienced user I would find this kind of
representation helpful! Also, with these automated replies, experienced
users who are already setting up "weak" list filters, could create
stronger ones based on whether a new topic received an automated reply
or not, and what the automated reply concluded about it. (In fact I
imagine a Bayesian filter would be part of the bots implementation.) I
think it would be better for us to try something like this, and see how
it fairs, before taking the leap to two lists.

What do others think? And also, is anyone up to the challenge?

I'm curious. Did anyone recieve/read this? I'm surprised no one has
replied to it, even if it's just to say "dumb idea".

T.

 

[Robert Klemme]

I'm curious. Did anyone recieve/read this? I'm surprised no one has
replied to it, even if it's just to say "dumb idea".

I received and read it - but since I could not provide good feedback...
It sounds like a good idea but I wonder how it will work in practice.
This might not be a problem in a newsgroup but for a mailing list this
automated reply could easily trigger spam filters etc. Generally I have
a tendency against stuff that automatically increases traffic but it
still might well be worth a try. Dunno...

Regards

robert

 

[James Edward Gray II]

I still like Eric Raymond's classic FAQ:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Definitely some good advice in there, but I don't care for the tone
of this article much.

James Edward Gray II

 

[Jeremy McAnally]

On further reflection, perhaps something at the gateway/server level
might be appropriate. Send a mail back that says something like,
"Check this FAQ, it may answer your question. If not, reply to this
e-mail with a blank body" or something. That way there's no
additional list traffic and it still gets the same thing accomplished.
OF course, you would really only want to do that if the algorithm was
pretty darn positive it knew the answer.

--Jeremy

 

[Vincent Fourmond]

On further reflection, perhaps something at the gateway/server level
might be appropriate. Send a mail back that says something like,
"Check this FAQ, it may answer your question. If not, reply to this
e-mail with a blank body" or something. That way there's no
additional list traffic and it still gets the same thing accomplished.
OF course, you would really only want to do that if the algorithm was
pretty darn positive it knew the answer.

Even though I like the idea, I somehow think it is not a good idea. No
one likes to be policed. You can't force the people to be educated if
they don't have the intention to... And the scheme of having some kind
of automatic validation before the post, though tempting, is dangerous:
most likely, and even if you invest a great deal of energy in the
algorithm, you'll end up with two effects:

* interesting people that get fed up being replied 'check out this
FAQ' 25% times they post something;
* 'loosers' (with lots of quotes, I don't have the brains today to
look for a diplomatic designation) that find a way to confuse the
algorithm and get their posts through.

Both are definitely not what you want. But I don't have a better
answer as well...

Hey, what do you think about adding inside the mail the 2/3 first
results of a google (or whatever) search on the mail subject ? So people
who post questions with accurate title might find an answer simply by
reading their own post ? (I know it somehow sounds dumb...)

Cheers,

Vince

 

[Devin Mullins]

Both are definitely not what you want. But I don't have a better
answer as well...

Well, the half-solution that was proposed awhile back... the listserv
adds a sig to every mail with one or two FAQ links.

 

[Tom Pollard]

Well, the half-solution that was proposed awhile back... the
listserv adds a sig to every mail with one or two FAQ links.

Whether or not a new list is created, this is a good idea. It would
be very helpful and minimally intrusive. It would almost make it
clear where the "official" FAQ was, and (I think) encourage
experienced users to flesh it out.

TomP

 

[Vincent Fourmond]

Whether or not a new list is created, this is a good idea. It would be
very helpful and minimally intrusive. It would almost make it clear
where the "official" FAQ was, and (I think) encourage experienced users
to flesh it out.

I seem to remember I proposed the idea, I can but support it ;-)

Vince