Are you a *LURKER*???
[[ We have removed and/or paraphrased postings for which we
were unable to obtain permission to use. ]]
Topic 16
By: Alan Leveton (psychal) on Thu, Feb 27, '92
151 responses so far
As official as it gets the participation figures are:
%of subscribers %of total postings
1 50
4 80
6.5 90
10 95
16 99
Thus 84% 1%
Could you as a fabled *L*U*R*K*E*R* show a glimpse of the pleasures
of lurking or the decision to lurk. I *GUARANTEE* that lurker
status will not be lost or denied any poster venturing forth in
this space. Maybe the topic will selfdestruct into the ether to
protect the identity of any and all who lift the tantalizing veil.
As a I'm curious about how the whole system works, not
just as seen by the hypermaniccybertypists...thanks.
151 responses total.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 1: Bob (solovay) Thu, Feb 27, '92 (00:34) 5 lines
I lurk partly because I'm shy, partly because I don't have something to say,
and partly because of procrastination. (I've been meaning to post to mow re
my activites to get in better shape for at least two weeks now. I definitely
want to shift to non-lurker status, but it has been surprisingly difficult
for me.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 2: Alan Leveton (psychal) Thu, Feb 27, '92 (00:35) 4 lines
Why would a lurker give up anonimity? If I could answer that I wouldn't
have put this question out. Maybe its not a pc word and causes
unintended insult. Yeah, it does have a disdainful sound to it.
Lets see if this looks better: Lurker :-). Nope, not fooled.:-(
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 3: Alan Leveton (psychal) Thu, Feb 27, '92 (00:39) 4 lines
Bob, thanks. Your message reassured me about this topic. As a
I found email helped, finding a greater variety of posters would
help me feel less like the last person at a full swing party of old
friends,with me casting about for a friendly face.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 4: M Normal (normals) Thu, Feb 27, '92 (11:32) 10 lines
Well I'm a lurker in some confs - I am fascinated by what I read but rarely
do I have anything to contribute to the discussions. I don't think there is
anything wrong with lurking - better than cluttering up the electrosphere
with empty postings.
OTOH, some people lurk because they don't feel comfortable posting...
especially as a new user it seem all too easy to make 'dumb mistakes' so it
seems safer just to be quiet until the interface is more familiar.
I've heard that on a BBS in Japan [TWICS?] lurkers are called ROMs - read
only members. Sounds nicer than lurkers.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 5: more virtual than thou (jrc) Thu, Feb 27, '92 (11:56) 2 lines
There was once an experiment with a lurker conference. Nobody posted.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 6: chimpanzee with a joystick (jstraw) Thu, Feb 27, '92 (12:13) 3 lines
If a ROM account on the well were to exist, should it cost more, less or the
same as a read/write account? And what of the write only accounts? (we can
think of several, can't we?) :-)
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 7: David H. Lawrence (dhl) Thu, Feb 27, '92 (13:39) 3 lines
I lurk because I hate to type and especially hate how my words look when I
see them written down. It feels like a lot of meaning and immediacy gets
lost in the process.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 8: Jim Rutt (jimrutt) Thu, Feb 27, '92 (13:50) 6 lines
Seems to me that in this "gift economy" we have here, lurkers ought to pay
more than posters. Maybe raise rates 20%, then rebate that increase back to
posters prorata according to activity or better still total readership of
ones notes.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 9: ghetto style (saunders) Fri, Feb 28, '92 (05:32) 23 lines
You can call me a LURKER,
But I ain' no SHIRKER!
I tour the WELL with
more-,more-, more-,
hit the spacebar!
*HIT* the spacebar!
Passssss, just pass,
Passss, I jus' pass,
The WELL needs me,
I'm a Well hard WORKER!
I pay the rent
with my on-line time!
(don' got a cent,
but I got to rhyme.)
You say, "Who dis dude?"
He the MAD BERSERKER?
I say, "No, No.
Don' mean to be rude,
I jus' a network SMIRKER!"
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 10: Nicholas Brawne (brawne) Fri, Feb 28, '92 (07:32) 6 lines
Lurker, how can you not be, this interface gives you so much to read, and
the only way not to lurk is to spend your days on the net so that the
'action' becopmes imediate rather than something past that you are then
trying to interact with.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 11: aaaa aaaaaaaa (aaaa) Fri, Feb 28, '92 (08:09) 25 lines
[[ mentions other names for lurkers on other systems, such as
'the dark people' (in Japan), 'Specs' (spectators) ]]
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 12: Cliff Figallo (fig) Fri, Feb 28, '92 (11:13) 3 lines
If you are a lurker on the WELL, you don't stand a chance of joining the
barter economy which trades time on the WELL for services. In that respect,
lurkers do pay. They are not rewarded and not represented.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 13: Gail Williams (gail) Sat, Feb 29, '92 (16:55) 14 lines
What a fine choice to simply listen --- with one's eyes --- even though
there are many rewards in posting, and learning the secrets of how your
words are read and misread by others. A salute to wise lurkers everywhere!
But there is a dynamic which interests and sometimes disturbs me where
conversations start to have a feeling of safety that they might not have if
everyone in the room made themselves visible.
This is where people like mandel, who is willing to keep expressing the
mainstream view in idealistic topics, are very valuable, if not always
appreciated for that function.
Lurkers who don't find any voices to agree with are the ones who could be
most valuable to us all if they post.... tho perhaps not most popular!
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 14: Hi, my name is Karen B., and I lurk... (karenb) Sat, Feb 29, '92 (21:30) 9 lines
> Lurkers who don't find any voices to agree with
Sometimes I don't post because so many others find their voices before I can
get my own responses together & coherent. And I don't relish the thought of
repeating, "#20 - Yes, #21 - no, #22 - YES" every time I read through a
topic.
I also get the feeling that, if I posted more, I'd pay closer attention to
some conf's and miss some great stuff in others, due to time constraints.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 15: Bob Jacobson (bluefire) Sun, Mar 1, '92 (09:33) 11 lines
Lurking unfortunately does not produce the vital sense of *engagement.*
It's the difference between walking around the quiet halls of a
museum, admiring the works of others, and being a participant in
an art salon, spattering paint and conversation. Time is the
demon that converts so many of us to lurkers...but we are fooling
ourselves if we mistake occasional presence, in a private way, for
participation and engagement. Citizens of the virtual world fore-
go a certain "democracy" when they remain merely bystanders and
not activists.
Thanks for this conference, hlr and m. It's about time!
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 16: Judith Burtnett (judithb) Sun, Mar 1, '92 (11:33) 7 lines
Yes. It's the difference between watching a nature show on TV and actually
being out there, smelling the flowers and feeling the breezes.
One thing I like about the WELL is the way each person takes her turn
speaking. No one is interrupted or shouted down by anyone else. As a
veteran of heated civil rights strategy meetings in the sixties, I really
appreciate this Picospan-enforced civility.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 17: Kathleen Creighton (casey) Sun, Mar 1, '92 (11:38) 1 line
There are other ways to do it here.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 18: Alan Leveton (psychal) Mon, Mar 2, '92 (00:56) 9 lines
Thanks Bob (solovay),Saunders, David, Nicholas,Karen and Bob J. for
getting into this. Talley in this topic is still heavy to oldtimers
commenting on their opinions about lurkers. *L*U*R*K*E*R*S*
*U*N*I*T*E* you have nothing to loose but your time money and security.
Old Garrison Keiller story of Shy people's convention.At the cocktail
party that opened the convention,no one wanted to get too close to anyone
else and no one wanted to intrude and no one wanted to be totally left out
so they found themselves standing in an immense circle looking straight
ahead.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 19: Bart Eisenberg (trab) Mon, Mar 2, '92 (09:19) 13 lines
OK--here's a comment from a new-timer (on The WELL since November). For me,
posting and interacting are the main events. Within my time constraints, I
post when I have something to say, or something to ask. I lurk too, of
course, but if the WELL were somehow suddenly transformed into a read-only
medium, I would drop out.
I've noticed that reading back-logs of postings is very different than
reading them day-by-day. The back-dated stuff feels a bit dusty, even when
it's interesting. It's like prowling through the stacks of a research
library. But the recent material feels fresher than today's
newspaper--because looming there is the opportunity to affect the
discussion. Implicit in the latest posts is the question: what do *you*
think.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 20: Jay Cross (jaycross) Mon, Mar 2, '92 (16:58) 14 lines
In some conferences, I'm 100% lurker. These are generally places like USENET
or Telecommunications where I'm a total novice, just there to try to figure
out what's going on.
In others, such as Cooking, Eating Out, or Berkeley, I occasionally join in
the conversation--these are areas where I feel I have something to say.
My on-line behavior parallels my style face to face. I'm generally reserved
in social situations. At work, I'm also quiet--unless I have a sale to make,
an employee to coach, a deal to cut.... This is also my modus operandi on
the Well: not very outgoing.
Interestingly, I _do_ enjoy writing. But WELLing seems more like
conversation than writing.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 21: %%% %%%%%% (%%%%%%) Mon, Mar 2, '92 (18:16) 12 lines
[[ says that he pursues 2 goals: one is to argue because he likes\
to, and the other is to disagree with people to make the
WELL more interesting. ]]
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 22: Gail Williams (gail) Mon, Mar 2, '92 (21:22) 4 lines
When you do it in a neutral, calm way, you keep topics going. On the other
hand, passionate and personal disagreements, (oh, I'll name no names: each
of us can fill in the blanks on this one!), can drive interesting people
away, or keep them from posting.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 23: Nicholas Brawne (brawne) Mon, Mar 2, '92 (23:20) 12 lines
As a trying to be convert lurker I often find it difficult to enter the fray
when the conversation seems to be dominated so much by a few individuals who
despite their own refrences to the contrary are obviously very much talking
the same language.
As a tring to be convert, the good thing about this medium is that there is
always space to put your two cents worth in, it may well be ignored, and
then you shut up and keep lurking, but at least the opertunity is there.
Allen mentioned above the metaphore of the party, I am not sure that this
realy holds true, for the reasons that I just briefly oulined above. I think
a lot of it has to do with how comfortable you feel with the medium, and
this is probaly something that only comes with time.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 24: Alan Leveton (psychal) Mon, Mar 2, '92 (23:56) 15 lines
when I came on on 1-13-92 Igobbled up what I could find out about
history and process. I put in some not-so-wise cracks to limber up.No one
reponded. I peeped up, but if ignored I wanted to give up. Email really
really counted. Hello, I know your name and that you're new, welcome.
Flashback to the movies: the new guy in the platoon beseeching the
oldtimers to learn his name because he's sure he's going to be wasted
in the morning and noone will know he's gone. I suppose its just the old
ego thing (oh..that again). Lurking depressed me. If i want to read
a book I want to sit in a chair not at this stupid toob.Feel happy
when people ask me questions. Best momemts so far: when a topic I
thought up keeps going. Write 532, Spirit 259. Felt good when people
were interested in getting my newsletter, when wrote about it
because he is a hero of mine and discovering heros her is a reall
possibility.................
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 25: Bart Eisenberg (trab) Tue, Mar 3, '92 (13:23) 17 lines
I think the WELL as a medium gives the advantage to people who can write
well, aren't afraid of debate, and are comfortable with a command line
interface. Beyond that, I really do think this is what Cliff described
hereabouts as a "postocracy" (however he spelled it.). Early on, I opened a
topic in the media conference. It got linked to politics, and is now
approaching something like 180 postings. Many of the posters have been on
for years. They seemed to care not at all that I was new among them.
Nobody wrote to welcome me in their ranks. They were too busy arguing,
which is as it should be. I agree with Mandel--if this were a fully
harmonious place, it would serve only to put insomniac WELLbeings to sleep.
By the way, I don't think just because people don't respond to a posting
means that they've ignored it. Sometimes, I read something, digest it, even
agree with it, and have nothing further to say.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 26: Jim Rutt (jimrutt) Tue, Mar 3, '92 (14:08) 18 lines
I remember when I first came on the WELL, after sitting on my hands for a
couple of months then gradually starting to post. I definitely remember the
disappointment at not getting any response at all to my first few posts.
I think my "online personae" on the WELL ended up being at least partially
formed by the WELL ecosystem that requires a certain something to get
noticed. If you're gonna participate you need a hook. These hooks
seem to vary by conference - it can be real expert level knowledge in some
conferences, "beautiful letters" writing skills in another, outrageousness,
obnoxiousness and a talent for button pushing in a third.
Maybe there ought to be a "nice" conference, mainly for new users, but with
a few "nice" oldtimers (if there are any) hanging around - where every post
gets a reply of some sort, and you don't have to shout your way in. Might
have some interesting cultural effects as these people get their posting
feet under them without having to be "hardened" in the process.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 27: chimpanzee with a joystick (jstraw) Tue, Mar 3, '92 (14:44) 1 line
g upwithpeople
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 28: Hoover Chan (hchan) Tue, Mar 3, '92 (21:20) 1 line
I thought the entry conference was supposed to serve this purpose?
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 29: Pete Hanson (phanson) Tue, Mar 3, '92 (22:42) 5 lines
Yes and no re: Entry. It's really more of a welcome and tourist
information center than anything else. I try to keep it pretty small to
prevent overwhelming newuser's, so having general discussions of any
a general nature is sort of difficult. Fwiw, Carla Campbell and myself
try to respond to each and every response in the conference.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 30: Donald Peter Dulchinos (dpd) Wed, Mar 4, '92 (09:22) 8 lines
I was exclusively a lurker for more than a year when I first came on
the WELL - mostly downloading entire conferences, excited at the range
of discussions of items of interest that I had seen no where else - I
guess the WELL was functioning as a general interest magazine for a while.
Then i lurked a while longer while trying to figure out picospam. Now I'm
more active in some conferences, but lurk in others that are interesting
but which move too fast for my login schedule of twice a week (dictated
by cost consideration of long distance charges).
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 31: Jacques Leslie (jacques) Wed, Mar 4, '92 (09:28) 3 lines
You realize of course that the higher the number of responses in this topic,
the fewer the number of lurkers left. This is really the lurker-to-poster
transformation topic.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 32: Alan Leveton (psychal) Wed, Mar 4, '92 (17:33) 2 lines
Trance-formations are what interest me most. See Spirit 259 Postings
March 1-3
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 33: Alan Leveton (psychal) Thu, Mar 5, '92 (00:32) 3 lines
by special dispensation, a lurker need not relinquish professional
status by passing by here dropping a post by accident.This sacred
sanctuary.No futher obligations expected nor implied.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 34: Karen E. Babich (karenb) Thu, Mar 5, '92 (01:53) 7 lines
Does this mean that, if we accidentally post somewhere else, we can somehow
come back here and obtain an indulgence for posting? Or does it apply only
here in vc?
> #26 (?) needing hooks to get responses to your postings
Yes!Of course, some folks are born writing hooks (where's Barry Manilow when
you need him?), and some are better in some confs than others.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 35: Marc A. Smith (msmith) Fri, Mar 6, '92 (19:54) 17 lines
I am a very newuser (I signed up when I found out I could get to the Well
through the INTERNET) and I lurk alot. I think lurkings the only thing to
do for most of the conferences (Stuff on the other nets) that are technical.
I read these as a means of gaining access to topics that I couldn't
penetrate through journals (If I could even find the right journals). But I
see the point that it is only through posting that the circuit is closed,
that a conference becomes a real interaction. I think it is in this kind of
use, connecting with people you wouldn't or couldn't get to know without
places like the Well, that is the most exciting part of virtual communities.
Lurking seems uncommunitarian, but I don't think it really is. It seems to
be the highest form of virtual flattery.
But if lurking is a "problem", I think it is because the sense of
interaction with people through these things is fun and exciting and, well,
it seems important. So, I would say the solution is more MUD-like systems,
where "copressence" is more common. I might pipe up more if I knew I could
be "seen."
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 36: Gail Williams (gail) Fri, Mar 6, '92 (23:33) 6 lines
What a great post, Marc. Here you are "seen" even if our copresence is not
simultaneous. Two thinks you say ring true for me. Many technical
discussions already have folks asking better questions than I can conjure up
for specialized fields, and it's more fun to stay out of the way and sit
back. And yet the posting "closes the circuit" in fascinating ways, hard to
fully grasp vicariously.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 37: Alan Leveton (psychal) Sat, Mar 7, '92 (01:39) 7 lines
Rather than bog down in a typology of lurking and codifying it to insane
levels,I accept that you are *lurker* if you believe you are and that
posting here doesn't invalidate your identity. It is 'as if' a lurker were
maintains the identity despite, 'slips;','experiments' 'forays'.If you
ARE a purist,I still hope that this topic is the sacred sanctuary of the
lurker and that postings here will not be helagainst you if these matters
count with St.Peter at the cybergate in the etherium. Couage mon ami.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 38: Alan Leveton (psychal) Fri, Mar 13, '92 (00:01) 2 lines
Hello Lurkers. Lurkers of the World Unite ! Look at the star in the window
___________[*]__________________+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_ cemetary in snow.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 39: more virtual than thou (jrc) Wed, Mar 25, '92 (17:20) 5 lines
Lurkers who want to change their status and what/need some kind of
connection with "oldtimers" to do it might pick a few that seem nice
and email them with questions or just friendship. My general experience
is that you'll be surprised by the genial and useful responses.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 40: Alan Leveton (psychal) Wed, Mar 25, '92 (23:44) 1 line
>genial and useful............Yes (jrc) ;merit earned by you.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 41: Pete Hanson (phanson) Thu, Mar 26, '92 (10:40) 6 lines
Ditto what jrc said. I've had a number of new folks get in touch with
me (usually in my support capacity), and over time, become friends.
With only one exception I can think of, every one of them eventually
has moved on to be a regular poster on the WELL. I get a real kick
out of answering their technical, historical, and contextual questions,
and then a real warm feeling when I see them becoming well-personalities.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 42: Ankh (hank) Wed, Apr 29, '92 (19:44) 5 lines
When 'vc' opened up I decided to lurk in this conference for a long
while before posting; today was the day I posted a few things, tho'
some of the linked topics surprised me when I found myself in them.
It's an odd 'reprise' to be hanging back and reading a neat conference
and not posting. Kind of like having laryngitis but in a familiar place.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 43: Sharon Fisher (slf) Wed, Apr 29, '92 (20:17) 1 line
I'm confused. What place do you normally get laryngitis in, then? :-)
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 44: John Coate (tex) Thu, Apr 30, '92 (11:04) 2 lines
If this is a "postocracy" then I wish some people wouldn't stuff the ballot
box so much.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 45: demontiki (jdevoto) Thu, Apr 30, '92 (15:58) 8 lines
Sure. We all partition the WELL into the wise, helpful, humorous, and/or
interesting ones and the others, and wish the former would post more and
the latter less.
The only problem is that we all do that partitioning differently. The
art of what we're doing is to make this work without imposing our own
partitions - our own definitions of what's worth reading and what isn't
- on the whole trip.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 46: John Coate (tex) Fri, May 1, '92 (10:43) 2 lines
I'm not talking about imposing anything. I do notice that the people who
talk the most generally get the most defensive about this.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 47: demontiki (jdevoto) Sun, May 3, '92 (12:13) 6 lines
I'm wondering whether I should ignore the insult and try to keep having the
discussion, which is an important one, or whether I should just give up for
the time being; sometimes you can keep up a conversation under these
circumstances, but most of the time it isn't worth it: nothing constructive
comes of it and you just get your feelings more hurt the more you try to
engage.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 48: Cliff Figallo (fig) Sun, May 3, '92 (13:54) 2 lines
Try to find the common ground and go from there. It's the only way
to keep such conversations going.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 49: demontiki (jdevoto) Sun, May 3, '92 (17:12) 3 lines
Yeah, but sometimes I think it's better to just drop it. Not permanently,
but for the time being until the emotional landscape has reconfigured
itself. Sometimes actively pursuing it just seems to make matters worse.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 50: John Coate (tex) Mon, May 4, '92 (13:22) 4 lines
I wasn't insulting you jeanne. Don't take it so personally. Please. And
don't forget, you've clobbered me many times about this or that. I'm not
trying to get personal. I expressed a concern I have and then made an
observation.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 51: Sharon Fisher (slf) Mon, May 4, '92 (14:11) 2 lines
It sounded like one to me, but then of course the way it was phrased,
anybody disagreeing with you was simply proof of your "observation."
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 52: John Coate (tex) Wed, May 6, '92 (13:01) 2 lines
ok fine. But I think the fact that some small group of individuals makes
the majority of all comments online is a sign of bad overall health.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 53: John Coate (tex) Wed, May 6, '92 (13:09) 1 line
because nobody is THAT interesting.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 54: John (boggs) Wed, May 6, '92 (13:25) 7 lines
Something like 5% of all publishers publish something like 80% of all books.
5% of a library's collection makes up 90% of its circulation.
There is nothing unusual about this.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 55: MicroTimes (microx) Wed, May 6, '92 (13:48) 2 lines
And as to the relative number of people who buy books/magazines
as compared to the people who create them...:-)
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 56: Sharon Fisher (slf) Wed, May 6, '92 (14:52) 2 lines
Do you think that if the 80% of posters suddenly stopped posting, everybody
else would start?
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 57: Bart Eisenberg (trab) Wed, May 6, '92 (15:03) 2 lines
The analogy would be more like 5 % of all working writers penning 80 of the
books.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 58: John Coate (tex) Wed, May 6, '92 (15:55) 4 lines
I think if the 10 people who make the most comments rolled it back by at
least half, it would be a lot easier to get around and the average quality
of comments would go up. And maybe it would be interesting just to see what
would happen. A voluntary program. For the good of all.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 59: Sharon Fisher (slf) Wed, May 6, '92 (16:39) 4 lines
10 by number of postings or total volume?
Post the top ten list, and see what happens. If the Well doesn't want my
money, I'll be glad to stop posting "for the good of all."
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 60: Sharon Fisher (slf) Wed, May 6, '92 (16:43) 2 lines
If I'm in the top ten, that is. I'm not at all sure that I am, especially
if you mean top ten by volume rather than number.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 61: Ralph Bedwell (ralf) Wed, May 6, '92 (17:23) 3 lines
Another category would be postings per conference. X number of postings
per week has a different impact on The WELL as a whole if spread over many
conferences as opposed to all in one conf.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 62: chimpanzee with a joystick (jstraw) Wed, May 6, '92 (21:26) 2 lines
I wanna see that list.
I don't wanna see that list.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 63: John Coate (tex) Wed, May 6, '92 (21:50) 13 lines
some people around here talk too much. That's my personal opinion. I've
listened to and put up with other people's opinions around here for years.
And I've felt behooved by my position to be as polite about it as possible,
even when my own character has been put down. I accepted it and I'm proud
of the way I conducted myself over those years. But now I feel more free to
express myself as a civilian if you will. I don't wish to slag anyone, but
I would be a liar if I said I felt otherwise. I don't like to offend anyone
and if nobody paid any serious attention to this little soapbox of mine,
fair enough. But I do feel it and it bothers me. I truly think that while a
place like this needs to have lots of good talk and the "regulars" are
essential and of course there are some who will say a lot compared with
others, some people talk way too much. Nobody is that interesting all the
time. not to me. So shoot me.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 64: Howard Rheingold (hlr) Thu, May 7, '92 (09:03) 8 lines
Glad to see you outside the tent, pissing in, John. :-)
Seriously, I think this conference in particular could benefit by your
opinions, now that you don't have to censor yourself because you work
at the WELL. So feel free, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm pretty bored with long screeds by certain people, but I just use
control-c and it pretty much doesn't bother me.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 65: chimpanzee with a joystick (jstraw) Thu, May 7, '92 (09:41) 4 lines
I have a problem with some peoples long-windedness also. I seldom do more
than scan a post longer than a screenful.
Most 50 line posts can be better stated in a screenful or less.
The exception are narratives, imported text and the like.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 66: John Coate (tex) Thu, May 7, '92 (12:46) 25 lines
what I miss is being able to move better around the WELL laterally. I'm
kind of a generalist and what I used to like the best was going around to
different conferences picking things up. It used to be that there was much
more concern for having high info content in a posting. The weird conf was
created largely as a reaction to this reality. What I've noticed over the
years is that some people want to make sure they have a comment somewhere in
every topic they run across. The sum total of this is a huge load of
pieces, short and long, that don't have much of that good potluck quality
where you try to bring a nice thing to the table either in the form of some
useful information, a good story, a review based on experience, a recount of
an actual experience, or even something that's just funny but was run
through a filter that is something like considering how it might go down if
you said it in person to a bunch of people who were listening. I've seen a
slacking off of a kind of discipline along those lines and the stats that a
few people make most of the comments proves it. So I think that a lot of
newer people don't get to experience the WELL at its best, partly because of
this.
I'd like to see fewer overall comments on the WELL. I'd like to see the
people who talk the most practice a little self control. I'd like to hear
more from people who don't say as much. Would they if there were less from
the most talkative people? I don't know, but maybe they would like the less
dominant forest animals who feel like they can come out when it's safe. An
imperfect analogy, but I wonder if we'll ever even get the chance to find
out?
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 67: Darlis Wood (darlis) Thu, May 7, '92 (13:10) 7 lines
I echo the opinion that it's *so* tiresome to come across those people who
just seem to feel that they have to say something in every topic they read.
"Oh, that's too bad." "Say, that's great." Stuff like that. But as I type
this I'm a little torn -- everybody wants validation, after all. But when I
read a conference thinking that there are new postings and all there is is
the electronic equivalent of "uh-huh" from the same person over and over,
it's tedious.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 68: chimpanzee with a joystick (jstraw) Thu, May 7, '92 (13:30) 1 line
what Darlis said ;-)
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 69: John (boggs) Thu, May 7, '92 (13:55) 4 lines
I don't think I agree with John about whether people who post less would
post more posted less (got that?). Hell, this isn't a real time
conversation. When you post you're not keeping others from posting, like
when you interject all the time face to face.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 70: Not His Real Name (rbr) Thu, May 7, '92 (14:08) 5 lines
Hmm. It would be cool to be able to assign a priority to your postings,
and to be able to filter postings based on priority. So at the "Ok to enter
this response?" prompt, you say Y most of the time (like if all you're
saying is "What she said.") and something else when you think you're saying
something important.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 71: John Coate (tex) Thu, May 7, '92 (14:20) 2 lines
I don't know what would happen was what I was saying. Maybe the two aren't
related. But I still think some people talk too much.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 72: roguish meme (pdl) Thu, May 7, '92 (14:26) 18 lines
It seems to me that one of the effects of being a Well user over a long
period of time, is that it increases the tendency to post whether one has
anything to say or not. (I know this is a big generalization, but that is
how it seems to me.) This might stem from users who started with the Well
when it was considerably smaller and it was possible to monitor the entire
board every day. It's grown so big that it is impossible to keep up with
every conference, or even most conferences. I guess my userdom in in its
adolescence, but I think it's a major problem that the vast
marjority of the subscribers seldom post at all. Frequent posters are often
articulate and I often enjoy what they have to say, but there are like
5,000-6,000 users now, I subscribe to read what people have to say and I
want to hear from some of those subscribers that aren't posting. I don't
know how to encourage more participation from lurkers, I think that probably
it would be a mistake to make any kind of official frequency policy, I'm
not certain that limiting frequent posters would increase non-participants
(slf's question from above), but somehow there's gotta be a way to
encourage non-particpants to join in and speak up.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 73: Ralph Bedwell (ralf) Thu, May 7, '92 (14:36) 3 lines
Yes, they seem like separate issues to me. It's not like a conversation
where only one person can talk at a time and one person can dominate the
action. Posting or not posting seems more like a personality trait to me.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 74: David Daniels (davidd) Thu, May 7, '92 (21:43) 5 lines
I'm one of those people on the Well who... read alot and don't write alot.
However on this subject, I recently ran across someone from the Institute for
Research on Learning (I think that's the name) and she had a whole body of
theory on what learning goes on at the 'periphery' of a community... through
observation. Interested?
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 75: Sharon Fisher (slf) Thu, May 7, '92 (23:19) 18 lines
This concept of "too many postings" reminds me of the line in Amadeus where
the Emperor tells Mozart his work is excellent, but it has "too many notes."
Well, Mozart says, just tell me which ones, and he'll take them out.
Similarly, I don't know that we could agree on how to define "too
many postings." Some people find "What he said" annoying; others find it
reassuring. Some people find one-line puns off the track; for others, that's
what they come to the Well for.
Alternatively, there's the guy who said that 50 percent of all his
advertising money was wasted; the problem was, he could never know in
advance which 50 percent it was. It may well be that 50 percent of any
given person's postings are crap -- or 80 percent, if you want to use
Sturgeon's Law. But you can't tell ahead of time. Moreover, to get a lot
of good ideas and thoughts, one has to be willing to put up with a lot of
clunkers along the way. Isn't one of the things said about Blair that he
had ten times as ideas as anybody else, but at the same time he posted ten
times more crap than anybody else? Perhaps we should look at it the other
way -- the reason he came up with so many good ideas is because he didn't
try to shut out the crap along the way.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 76: roguish meme (pdl) Fri, May 8, '92 (06:09) 22 lines
#75 brings up several reasons why I feel that the problem isn't so much with
people that are the frequent posters posting too often, but with trying to
come up with things that encourage non posters to post. I know that
everyone benefits from using the well in different ways and that lurking is
a valid activity - as someone who often lurks a lot, I want to hear from
more people, and a more diverse group of people than are currently posting.
What would facilitate this? I don't know, maybe several conferences where
only new users with less than a year's time could post - once you reach the
anniversary, you
're out. This would be different than the test conference, they would be
real conferences but they would offer a chance for new users to develop
their own relationships styles and threads without interference from jaded,
older users. A kind of virtual wading pool or training wheels. Sure new
users can do this now, but the advantage might be that they can relate
*without* any crusty, old users around that are already bored with certain
ideas or threads and have very thick skins. Maybe one of these could
include a private conference where they could discuss their new experience
on the well only with people who were also new (except for the host). These
newuser conferences might give the newusers a sense of confidence in their
understanding of this communications media that they find difficult to get
now. The newusers would have the rest of the public well at their
fingertips during this time, too.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 77: Sharon Fisher (slf) Fri, May 8, '92 (06:35) 6 lines
Is there any indication that new users really are put off by numbers of
postings from other users? I know that the sheer volume of the Well bothers
some people, and I have heard new users say they are intimidated by how
articulate people are (feeling they won't be able to measure up), but I
don't recall anyone saying they were put off by the volume of certain
people.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 78: Judith Burtnett (judithb) Fri, May 8, '92 (06:40) 1 line
David-- Please tell us more.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 79: Howard Rheingold (hlr) Fri, May 8, '92 (07:03) 2 lines
Yes, please, David, let's hear. Is this related to the "situated
learning" stuff that John Seely Brown has been writing about?
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 80: Jim Rutt (jimrutt) Fri, May 8, '92 (08:27) 20 lines
In various comments around the WELL about being a "new user", seems like
most of us that aren't "real old timers" went through a few months of
lurking mostly before we got our nerves up to jump in. For myself, I
remember how disappointed I was when my first two painstakingly written and
even correctrly spelled posts were completely ignored. I didn't post for at
least a week. Its hard to get heard at first. On top of that you see
"regulars" hacking pretty severely at each other, makes you even more
sensitive about the whole thing. You hope they won't take after *you* like
that! So if you wanna be a poster, unless you happen to a master of
beautiful letters, you end up being a bit noisier than you might like to
get heard, and then you have to learn to slash and bash to hold your
ground, especially if your point of view happens to offend some
sub-community's PC conventions. Not necessarily optimal, but reality.
As I said before, I think a "welcome wagon" conference would be a good idea.
Let people get their posting feet under them a little. Probably result in
more posters. I suspect it would also result in somewhat less "hard boiled"
electronic personae over time.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 81: Jacques Leslie (jacques) Fri, May 8, '92 (09:48) 9 lines
I think that's a great idea. (As I think I've posted elsewhere), I for one
have regretted that things like the True Confessions conference, which was a
formative WELL experience for many oldtimers, is essentially moribund, and I
can also see why oldtimers aren't interested in it any more. But perhaps in
a conference for newusers that sort of getting-to-know-you process could
unfold.
And yes, David, I too would like to hear more. What sort of community
is she describing?
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 82: John Coate (tex) Fri, May 8, '92 (10:29) 12 lines
I could easily lay out my list of who talks too much but I won't because it
would take things in a funky diredction. But in your hearts, you know who
you are.
Regarding new people and lurking, there isn't any way to draw someone out
if they haven't said anything yet because it's all voluntary. But when
someone new says something of interest, it's easy to send them mail and it's
easy to make your following comment be in relation to what they said, as per
what Rutt just mentioned about his early experience. This isn't a formal
process. It doesn't have inherant structure. It's individuals putting
their attention and energy in that direction. That's all this has ever been
anyway.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 83: MicroTimes (microx) Fri, May 8, '92 (10:36) 16 lines
Right. But I think that stuff works a lot better if it comes from
people who don't have a quasi-business interest in that user's connect
time.
I definitely like it if somebody I've never heard of sends me mail
saying they really like such-and-such, and i sent people mail like that
from time to time. I think that's a very good thing. I think carrying
the discussion deeper in email is also a very good thing. I think it
's very easy for staff and hosts (who have a vested interest of sorts)
to go overboard in this regard.
I think it's okay to be a lurker. I think it's okay to post a little
or a lot. I think any of those choices open some doors and close others,
just like life, and keeping some balance between the conflicting
imperatives is the name of the game.
ME
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 84: MicroTimes (microx) Fri, May 8, '92 (10:47) 18 lines
I hasten to add that everybody feels a little different about this
stuff and context is very important.
And that, as Jim's posting suggests, sometimes some fledgling poster's
stuff gets essentially engulfed in the tidal wave of whatever else is
going on, and it can make a big difference to send supportive email,
because sometimes the dynamics of the topic are such that the opportunity
for a responsive post is long gone by the time you read the newuser's
comments.
To me, though, the value would lie in the content of the response rather
than the simple fact that a new person was speaking up. In most contexts.
Learning something new or seeing a new perspective is, to me, interesting
and valuable, whereas the same old same old coming from a new userid
isn't, necessarily.
And all variant mileage is deserving of respect.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 85: Kathleen Creighton (casey) Fri, May 8, '92 (11:37) 8 lines
But haven't you ever read something posted by a new user and just instantly
wished he or she would go away?
Same song, 1,000th verse (at least mine is shorter than yours, Mary :-):
The WELL is not a place for unconditional positive regard.
That said, though, I think most of us are inspired from time to time to
send email about a particularly interesting post.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 86: roguish meme (pdl) Fri, May 8, '92 (11:52) 13 lines
Well, I've seen stuff posted by old users that I wished would just go away,
but the main issue for me is that so many people do not post. I agree with
tex in that I think that something is wrong when the vast majority does not
post at all. I do not believe this is a healthy situation. In addition to
the suggestions mentioned above about encouraging new posters, I just wonder
if there is some way that would encourage more people to post. Maybe there
isn't, but it seems like it's worth to at least try to come up with creative
approaches to conferencing that encourage participation. (Above sentence
should read worth it.)
Hey you lurkers, yeah you - what's your opinion? This topic is now
dominated by non-lurkers, but what do you, the marjority of Well subscribers
think?
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 87: Kathleen Creighton (casey) Fri, May 8, '92 (11:57) 3 lines
But that's online life. If you have x users, you're only going to have
a certain percentage who post (and it's probably roughly the same for
every system).
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 88: John Coate (tex) Fri, May 8, '92 (12:01) 6 lines
I agree that such comments should be related to content. Content is the
guts of the whole thing. But I have sent probably hundreds of such messages
to people over the years when it could be said that I had a professional
interest in it and nobody seemed to mind at all or even think there was
something phoney about it. Never has anyone given me a reaction like that.
If you mean it and you are genuine about it people can tell.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 89: Sharon Fisher (slf) Fri, May 8, '92 (12:14) 3 lines
What casey said. (:-) ) I don't think you'll find any online system with a
very high ratio of posters -- and I would submit that the Well's is probably
higher than most.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 90: John Coate (tex) Fri, May 8, '92 (13:25) 4 lines
oh sure, that ratio is always going to be pretty high. But it's important
to remember that those lurkers who are reading might get a bit bored with
hearing from the same few people over and over again if they don't have much
in the way of good content when you average out all their postings.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 91: Sharon Fisher (slf) Fri, May 8, '92 (13:40) 4 lines
John, I think if you're telling people that they should only post when they
have something scintillating and brilliant to say, you're only putting
*more* pressure on the new users, who have already said they feel
intimidated by having to say something intelligent to all these people.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 92: John Coate (tex) Fri, May 8, '92 (14:32) 2 lines
Not at all. I'm trying to tell the people who I think talk too much that
maybe they could back it down a little.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 93: David Gans (tnf) Fri, May 8, '92 (15:19) 1 line
Maybe you should name names, John, either here or in private email.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 94: Darlis Wood (darlis) Fri, May 8, '92 (15:50) 4 lines
I was going to say "I only post when I have something to *say*." I didn't
post that because I thought it sounded supercilious. But what I realized is
that that statement is true for everyone. What varies is whether we're
correct in our assessment of the contribution we're making.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 95: Cliff Figallo (fig) Fri, May 8, '92 (16:08) 6 lines
Another variable in here is that people will post, and will post more
relevant stuff, in places where their interests lie. The WELL is not all
that easy to navigate and I bet it will help when new users can find the
topics that really matter to them early in their memberships. Rather than
starting out in News or Policy, they will get their "WELL legs" quicker in
an area of special interest.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 96: Matisse Enzer (matisse) Fri, May 8, '92 (23:52) 2 lines
There will be w "WELLcome" conference soon.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 97: Pete Hanson (phanson) Sat, May 9, '92 (00:18) 7 lines
Which, unfortunately, isn't quite what was being referred to above.
WELLcome will be a combination of the soon to be defunct Entry and
Help conferences. The concept being discussed above with a "Welcome
Wagon" conference doesn't quite fit it with the scope of the WELLcome
conference. However, the idea of a "new users" conference where
folks could get there WELL-legs is something that should be at least
tried.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 98: John (boggs) Sat, May 9, '92 (07:50) 8 lines
All this talk about trying to get lurkers to speak up reminds me of what I'm
like at parties. I like to sit back, be quiet, and watch what's going on
around me. I really bugs me when some well meaning dolt comes up and tries
to *force* me to join in, because I'm not, by their definition, having fun.
Likewise, these lurkers are not, by your definition, getting what they
should out of the WELL. (Not that I'm calling you dolts... |) )
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
# 99: Kathleen Creighton (casey) Sat, May 9, '92 (09:10) 4 lines
But go back to Cliff's posting about the postocracy. You might be having
fun as long as things are moving in one direction, but what if your
fellow partiers decide it's time to tear down the walls and burn the
furniture? What do you do, leave?
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#100: John (boggs) Sat, May 9, '92 (09:47) 3 lines
Hadn't considered that.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#101: roguish meme (pdl) Sat, May 9, '92 (12:53) 22 lines
There will always be more lurkers than posters, obviously. But the Well
would be more interesting if the participation ratios were different.
According to the topic intro 1% of the subscribers post 50% of the postings,
16% post 99%, and 84% post 1%. The Well is different than other online
places that i've visited, it is much more focussed on interaction and
dialog, it seems that many people join it specifically to interact and
communicate - a larger pool of communicators would be more interesting for
everyone, including lurkers. I wonder how the participation ratios have
changed during the Wells growth. My guess is that early on, the ratio of
posters to lurkers was greater than it is now and that it has been declining
as it has been growing (this is all just my intuition, based on no
evidence). This medium is different than books, magazines, tvs -
it is not based on a passive audience receiving information from a source -
it is based on interaction. This isn't a question of extremes, which is why
I'm not convinced by (boggs?) party metaphor, it's not a question of trying
to make all or the majority of lurkers into posters or engage lurkers that
want to be left alone, it's about increasing the amount of interaction on
the Well.
It could very well be that there is not way to do this beyond the personal
things mentioned above, but i think it is a question worth raising and
discussing.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#102: Ralph Bedwell (ralf) Sat, May 9, '92 (13:59) 7 lines
> This medium is different than books, magazines, tvs - it is not based on a
> passive audience receiving information from a source - it is based on
> interaction.
True for some people, but obviously not for others (lurkers). For some,
maybe it *is* a passive medium, like watching a football game or geraldo on
tv. To some this may be "high camp" theatre.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#103: John Coate (tex) Sat, May 9, '92 (14:26) 5 lines
as Cliff pointed out, the "navigation problem" is just huge here now and if
there were better tools for that, maybe it wouldn't seem so important to me.
But you have yo move so much rock when mining for those nuggets these days
that the best way I can think to do it is to have some of the more
loquacious people back it down a bit.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#104: Doug Schomaker (doug1) Sat, May 9, '92 (19:19) 26 lines
A lurker speaks......
Act I.... Why I lurk
1. I've been using various online systems since 1988. The thrill of posting
for the sake of posting faded long ago.
2. I don't like perpetuating noise. If I have something original to say I
say it. If I have a question I just ask.
3. My introduction to the online world was the Compuserve CB Simulator. I
still prefer interactive chat over message bases. Message bases are
better for serious conversation, but often I'd just rather hang out.
I'm really looking forward to The Well implementing internet relay chat.
4. Sometimes my job burns me out to the point where I'm mistakenly perceived
as 'flaming' people in real life. Posting anything during these periods
makes almost as much sense as having a few beers and getting on my
motorcycle.
5. I became involved with someone I met online. What worked long distance
turned into an emotional disaster after we both moved to the bay area.
I still feel badly about it. Pursuing pretty pixels just doesn't
interest me the way it used to.
6. I write alot better in COBOL and assembler than English anyway !
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#105: Doug Schomaker (doug1) Sat, May 9, '92 (19:35) 40 lines
A lurker speaks.........
Act II.... What online systems provide for me
1. Business contacts and money.
I pick up PC consulting work sometimes just by logging on and typing a
little. This is kind of humorous because in real life MIS directors
everywhere stereotype me as an IBM mainframe kind of guy.
2. Traveling companions.
Last year I couldn't find anyone to go to Mexico with. After asking
around on Compuserve I located an intelligent young woman who was available
during her semester break. For safetys sake we agreed to meet in Boulder
first. We went hiking in the Rockies and checked out the Denver Art Museum.
On the second date she met me at the airport in Merida. We spent a few days
traveling around the Yucatan by bus before heading for Isla Mujeres and
flopping.
Two years ago I had nothing better to do than tour the continent by
motorcycle. After riding from San Diego to Jackson Wyoming via Vancouver
and Banf, a person I'd never met 'live' before put two sleeping bags and her
tent in the back of my Goldwing and we camped at Yellowstone for a week.
3. International junk mail.
Last summer I received unsolicited email from a russian engineer living
in Finland who wanted to know if I was interested in employing russian
scientists for five dollars a month. Nothing came out of it but the ensuing
two hour phone call was priceless. :)
4. Online systems make me feel more like a participant than a passive media
consumer.
When a well know science fiction writer sent me private email asking why
I praised another well known science fiction writers 'piece of trash' it
made the whole process of reading paperback novels more personal. He was
genuinely interested in why I could stand that particular book and was
trying to understand my viewpoint.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#106: Patrizia (pdil) Sun, May 10, '92 (09:42) 9 lines
Hear, hear...
I'd been on line for about a year when sonia made the rather apt observation
that the WELL is a type of vanity press. Up to that point I had been
over-enthusiastic and somewhat under-edited poster myself. Her observation
definitely tempered my enthusiasm. In a good way, I think.
The assumption in this topic seems to be that there is something _wrong_
with being a lurker. I don't see it that way at all.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#107: Doug Schomaker (doug1) Sun, May 10, '92 (10:21) 12 lines
Me neither, I'd go so far as to say you can lurk creatively and benefit
yourself and others by it.
For example, last night after my first well posts ever, while lurking I
noticed that one of the users had the same name as someone I was friends
with in six grade in Poughkeepsie NY. One quick send and I found out she
WAS the person I was friends with in sixth grade ! We talked on the phone
about what we'd been doing with our lives in the 20 years since we'd last
seen each other. Better yet, she's bringing our high school yearbook to
next fridays well party so we can look at it and laugh.
See y'all there...... =;)
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#108: roguish meme (pdl) Sun, May 10, '92 (16:18) 8 lines
I'm all for lurking - I spend most of my time here lurking. Here's the rub
though, I enjoyed reading and benefitted from doug's responses probably more
than I would have reading a previous posters comments. By stopping his
lurking for a brief moment, I feel that doug made valuable contributions to
the discussions. I especially like dougs comparisons of posting while in a
bad mood to drunk driving. Before I shuttup I'll just say that doug
demonstrated why I wish that more lurkers, however briefly, would interrupt
their lurking more frequently.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#109: Ankh (hank) Sun, May 10, '92 (23:00) 51 lines
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#110: Ankh (hank) Sun, May 10, '92 (23:06) 3 lines
Those who aren't familiar with the 'arbitron' tool might want to look
at the previous response. Just type !extract vc 16 109 at any prompt.
(I ran 'arbitron' against this topic and posted the output there).
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#111: chimpanzee with a joystick (jstraw) Tue, May 12, '92 (11:46) 2 lines
I just don't "get" lurking, this is an interactive medium. Why would anyone
pay the freight just to _read_ the WELL?
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#112: John Coate (tex) Tue, May 12, '92 (12:09) 1 line
lots of people do. all systems are like that.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#113: Jim Rutt (jimrutt) Tue, May 12, '92 (12:09) 9 lines
> I just don't "get" lurking, this is an interactive medium. Why would
> anyone pay the freight just to _read_ the WELL?
never could figger that one either.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#114: Cliff Figallo (fig) Tue, May 12, '92 (12:23) 16 lines
It's entertainment, for one. Some interesting conversations, some good
hassles, some charming interchanges and touching stories are all here.
It's hard information, too. You can find a wealth of information in the
weave of the technical discussions and political/economic discussion
on the WELL. The problem with all of this is that there are no tools
to find it all. Once such tools are developed, it may change the nature]
of the WELL to the extent that people will not have to read the entire
topic to get the information they seek. Your response regarding "widgets"
may be extracted along with all the other responses on the WELL containing
"widgets" by users who are mining for information on widgets. Your response
will still be there in the context of the topic, but in the searching
metaphor of the WELL, it will appear in a list of responses from all over
the system.
How this relates to the Zine situation where responses are also displayed
out of context.....should be interesting.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#115: MicroTimes (microx) Tue, May 12, '92 (12:39) 4 lines
The medium ALLOWS you to be interactive. It also ALLOWS you to
be non-interactive. How you use it should be up to you, essentially.
Some people don't like to talk. More power to them!:-)
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#116: Ankh (hank) Tue, May 12, '92 (13:23) 6 lines
Lots of people send me email asking for elaboration on, or cites to, or
offering tidbits re information that I post in public responses. Quite
often those are folks who read but don't post. I have the impression that
to many of them the WELL is like a panel discussion with easy access to
the panelists. Nevertheless I always nudge people to post their questions
along with giving pointers to sources.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#117: Patrizia (pdil) Tue, May 12, '92 (13:24) 4 lines
Some people watch soap operas; I read the WELL. They satisfy much the same
instinct, I think, delusions of grandeur aside... Many strong
characterizations. Frequent breakups and makeups. The occasional snappy
dialogue. The WELL has it all...
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#118: Sharon Fisher (slf) Tue, May 12, '92 (13:30) 1 line
No swiftly-growing children, though.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#119: chimpanzee with a joystick (jstraw) Tue, May 12, '92 (13:36) 1 line
no, actually less power to them
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#120: MicroTimes (microx) Tue, May 12, '92 (13:52) 21 lines
Not really. Talking is useful sometimes and not useful sometimes.
The power lies in having the wisdom to use the appropriate tool/tactic
in a situation.
It's not unrelated to the voting issue. There's something to be
said for the "don't post, it only encourages them" attitude, particularly
in some of the recreational flamefest areas.
There are plenty of people online who have essentially nothing to
say and say it at great length. The value of doing this is genuinely
debatable.
And among the people who DO post, some regard it as social, some
regard it as theater, some regard it as theoretical discussion, etc.
There are people who take it seriously and some who think it's "just
words" divorced from any reality.
It's very context- and people-dependent. There is very little inherent
in the medium that forces people to use it for one purpose and not
another. It's an open microphone, and sometimes silence is better, and
more appreciated.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#121: chimpanzee with a joystick (jstraw) Tue, May 12, '92 (14:11) 1 line
speak for yourself Sharon ;-)
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#122: Paul Belserene (paulbel) Tue, May 12, '92 (22:22) 26 lines
>I just don't "get" lurking, this is an interactive medium. Why would
>anyone
> pay the freight just to _read_ the WELL?
I don't actually know the answer to that question. I know it's not why
*I'm* here. But over the years I've noticed something in real life thta
might be an analogy.
I teach Creative Writing. Have for 12 years or so. I used to always say to
my classes that they'd get the most out of the course if they wrote every
day. And I still believe that's true. But a few years ago a woman ran into
me who I barely recognized. She'd been almost silent in one of my classes.
But she told me how much the course had meant to her, and how her writng
had improved because of it. Later another student re-enrolled. Another
previously quiet person. The equivalent of a lurker - all classrooms have
them - and this time I couldn't shut him up. And it was clear he'd grown a
lot since the first class, and absorbed a lot of what had been going on.
I still tell people that writing every day is the best way to get the most
out of me. But I tell them, now, in all honesty, that even if they write
nothing at all, or find they're too shy to seek feedback on what they
write, they will still benefit from the course if they give it their
attention and commitment.
Even though it's not my way, I can imagine that lurkers still benefit from
"participating" even if their participation aids me not one whit.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#123: David Gans (tnf) Tue, May 12, '92 (22:51) 1 line
I've learned a lot since I stopped posting so much.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#124: Patrizia (pdil) Wed, May 13, '92 (08:17) 2 lines
There's a difference between _self-expression_ (which is how I interpret
paulbel's "writing every day" advice) and communication.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#125: Paul Belserene (paulbel) Wed, May 13, '92 (16:20) 4 lines
Yes, Patrizia. Most of the "lurkers" in my classes *do* participate in in
the feedback processes. They are present and participating, just not
writing. Don't know how that translates here, where the *only* form of
communicating is writing.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#126: Patrizia (pdil) Thu, May 14, '92 (01:12) 1 line
And where writing is not always communication...
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#127: Kathleen Creighton (casey) Thu, May 14, '92 (05:40) 3 lines
Really.
But that it be two-way is not implicit in "communication", is it?
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#128: Patrizia (pdil) Thu, May 14, '92 (09:40) 2 lines
I would argue that "communication" is a two-way process, by definition.
Otherwise the transmission mode is called self-expression.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#129: jjjj jjjjjjj (jjjjjj) Thu, May 14, '92 (10:35) 14 lines
[[ Says he is a lurker and is amazed at where the people who post so much
get the time. he gets some chuckles from the topics about 'what did
you do when the WELL was down?' - it's funny to see how often the
phrase 'get a life' comes up.
Says that cost is a real factor for him, but that he wouldn't be
here after 2 years if he didn't feel comfortable here. ]]
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#130: Cliff Figallo (fig) Thu, May 14, '92 (12:59) 5 lines
Getting a life is a healthy alternative path for the WELL-addicted. But
systems like the WELL do offer an adjunct to the physical existence. You
should know that most heavy users either have many hours of use subsidized
by bartered services such as conference management and programming...OR
they are rapidly going into debt or eroding their savings.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#131: chimpanzee with a joystick (jstraw) Thu, May 14, '92 (13:15) 1 line
or they use sweeper
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#132: jjjj jjjjjjj (jjjjjj) Thu, May 14, '92 (16:24) 2 lines
[[ says that 'sweeper' the off-line reader written by a WELL user
has been a great help to him. ]]
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#133: Chris Hanson (chanson) Sun, Jul 12, '92 (00:46) 86 lines
I've been a mainline lurker for most of my existence on the WELL (over 2
years). I still lurk most of the time, although I *have* started to post
more frequently in the last few months.
I've got the usual reasons for lurking (i.e., shyness in this particular
medium (and in general, for that matter), self-consciousness, feeling
intimidated by other posters (or by the "tone" of a particular topic),
not being articulate/intelligent/eloquent/well-read/clever enough, not
having anything interesting to say, fear of being ignored, feeling like
I'm not part of the "in-crowd", etc.).
One particular thing that tends to keep me from posting "meaningful"
responses is that it takes a lot of time and effort for me to write them,
especially when it's so much easier to spend hours reading the flood of
responses from others. (This particular response has probably taken the
most time of any I've done, having evolved over the last few weeks.)
The problem with this is that, by the time I'm ready to respond, the
topic has drifted away from the particular issue or idea that I wanted to
respond to. Or, as in this case, the topic has been inactive for awhile,
and I wonder if it's now out-of-date, and whether or not there's still
"anyone here"; I get the sense that I'm throwing my posting out into empty
space.
Also, RE fear of being ignored and/or not having anything interesting
to say: I recently started two topics that I put a lot of thought and
effort into, but they haven't gotten anywhere, having received only
one or two responses in addition to mine. I'll accept that maybe there
just isn't widespread interest in the subjects and perspectives I brought
up; but it still tends to discourage me from posting in general. (On
the other hand, I *did* start the "Sublime Musical Moments" topic, which
is still going strong.)
HOWEVER: After mentioning all of the above, I don't think they are the
main reasons I lurk; after all, I could post lots of short responses, like
most of the "heavyweights" here do.
I think my main reason for lurking has to do with my fears of being
"noticeable" on the WELL, about having a "presence". When I post,
I'm no longer invisible; whether for better or worse, I've "disturbed"
the atmosphere in some way. People are aware of my presence, and of
some part of myself, even if small.
This has a lot to do with a much larger, more general issue: How much
does one want to be connected to the rest of the world, and in what ways?
Actually, the way it comes up in my mind could more accurately be stated:
How much, and in what ways, do I want to be *in* the world, *involved* with
it, and *noticeable* to others, rather than *outside* the world, as
invisible as possible, but *observing* it?
For most of my life, my modus operandi has been the latter. I've tended to
try to detach myself as much as possible from the world, and deal with life
and reality as if I were watching a movie or TV series. I've carried this
tendency into my participation on the WELL (which is especially suited for
this model, since it's much easier than in "real life" to remain invisible
and yet see all that's going on). This is one reason why I don't have a
.plan file (although there are others). And it's probably why I haven't
bothered posting in any of the "introduce yourself" topics yet.
Obviously shyness, and difficulties in relating to and feeling connected
with other people, are major factors here. But there's another major
factor: in order to be noticed by the world and to be involved with it,
I can't be completely "neutral"; I must have a "perspective" on life;
I must be "biased" in some ways. I must have opinions, feelings, meaningful
interests, fundamental values and beliefs, etc. (I find this very hard to
describe, but maybe a physical analogy would help: in order for an object
to be visible, it must have a specific color and shape.) And, of course,
caring about certain things or people also means I must deal with
*feelings*.
There's lots of issues at work here, including such things as:
identity, community, relating to others, allowing oneself to "feel",
dealing with fundamental values, beliefs, ways of seeing the world
and reality, etc. I've done a lot of self-analysis (and writing)
in regards to these issues, but I won't try to bring it all in here;
otherwise, this response would be much longer than it already is.
At any rate, I'm starting to try to change my way of approaching life,
at least partly by posting a little more often on the WELL (although I
certainly have no plans to become part of that top 1% that does over
half the postings). However, I do find it to be a slow, difficult, and
oftentimes scary process.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#134: Kathleen Creighton (casey) Sun, Jul 12, '92 (09:56) 1 line
Very eloquent. Thank you.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#135: Howard Rheingold (hlr) Sun, Jul 12, '92 (09:57) 2 lines
Thank you, Chris, for your thoughtful response. Please feel free to
post more of your thoughts, when you feel up to it.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#136: Minor Postocrat (presto) Sun, Jul 12, '92 (12:19) 2 lines
Yes, a very good, thoughtful and artfully expressed exposition of the
lurker phenomenon. I found a lot of myself in there.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#137: ..... ..... (..) Sun, Jul 12, '92 (18:06) 1 line
[[ says that he to found a lot of himself here ]]
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#138: Virtually Encumbered (mattu) Mon, Jul 13, '92 (13:21) 3 lines
That's a remarkable post. If more people put the time and effort into
posting that went into that one, a lot of problems would be solved.
Thanks, Chris.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#139: Paul Belserene (paulbel) Mon, Jul 13, '92 (16:42) 2 lines
Thanks for becoming so meatily uninvisible, Chris. I really appreciated your
post.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#140: Ankh (hank) Mon, Jul 13, '92 (23:23) 2 lines
Yes indeed. And responding to a topic that has been quiet for a long
while, in such a thoughtful way, revives the whole conversation.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#141: Chris Hanson (chanson) Tue, Jul 14, '92 (05:15) 81 lines
"Well, now I've done it."
Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate the comments, etc.
When I was composing #133, I had a couple of recurring messages from my
"inner critic":
1. "This is all just mental masturbation. You just love obsessing
about yourself. Who are you to foist your peculiar mental
characteristics on others? Instead of thinking and talking about it,
why don't you get out of yourself, and *do something*, *take some
action*?"
2. "You're being manipulative in order to gain attention and sympathy.
If you want `true' sympathy, if you want to try to relate more
meaningfully to others, then your contribution to the WELL should
be more than this self-indulgent whimpering."
Well, I'm not sure if the above are true or not. In some ways I feel
like they describe what I'm doing. On the other hand, I definitely
feel the need to discuss the things I brought up, and feel that I might
possibly have something interesting to say.
I'm a little hesitant to go into detail about the stuff I hinted at in
#133. I feel like I'm opening some pretty large cans of worms, stuff that
I've been thinking about and dealing with for years. In fact, I've actually
toyed with the idea of starting separate topics for some of these things
(although by now, some of the appropriate topics probably already exist).
At any rate, I'll think about this over the next few days (and, of course,
see how this topic goes) before I decide to go into a lot more detail.
However, there are a couple of specific things I'll mention now (btw, the
second one turned out to be much longer than I thought):
- I probably take the idea of making a "major" posting much too seriously.
Many others have mentioned how they've learned to take the WELL less
seriously over time (especially as they've increased their volume of
postings). Who knows, maybe I'll someday get to that state.
- One obvious reason why I don't post is that I often just don't feel like
I have much to say. I certainly feel like I have less than most of the
heavy posters here.
However, there's more to it than just the specific postings. Most of the
heavy posters (and, for that matter, many of the not-so-heavy ones)
come across to me as "having lives". I.e., most of you seem to have at
least some "meaningful" things in your lives that you are *passionate*
about, be it careers, adventures, interests, GD, etc. When I read about
all the books you're reading, all the various things you're interested in
(and seem to know a great deal about), the travel adventures you have,
the various events you go to and activities you participate in, the
achievements you've made in your lives, etc.; in general, when I get to
see what you're doing (and have done) with your lives, and how they are
(or appear to me to be) very interesting, exciting, fulfilling, and
meaningful, I feel very inadequate. I feel like I don't really have
anything interesting going on in my life, anything that I'm really
passionate about, and therefore I'm orders of magnitude below the rest
of you; I'm so far behind that I feel intimidated when it comes to
posting. (This is on top of the simple fact that this inadequacy
means I don't have nearly as much stimulating subject matter for the
WELL.)
(BTW, if it sounds like I'm beating up on myself, I don't think I am.
I believe this is an honest assessment of myself as related to many
of you, as based on the postings I've read while I've been here. OTOH,
I also realize that "we are our own worst critics", so I can't say that
my view of myself is truly objective.)
(Another BTW: I'm trying to translate intuitive, instinctive feelings
in my mind into abstract, linear, verbal descriptions, and it didn't work
as well in the above as I would have liked. I run into this problem a
lot, and it's probably another reason why I don't post much. I suppose
my right-brainedness has something to do with it; for me, verbal
communication just doesn't come easily. Now if only someone would
invent an interface that plugs directly into your brain, then I might
post a lot more (and probably take up much less space at the same time).)
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#142: Sharon Fisher (slf) Tue, Jul 14, '92 (07:15) 1 line
If we really had lives, we wouldn't be here.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#143: Howard Rheingold (hlr) Tue, Jul 14, '92 (09:03) 4 lines
Obviously, you have a talent for articulating your thoughts and
feelings in well-organized paragraphs, Chris. See if you don't
discover that your fears of posting fade a bit after you do a bit of
posting.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#144: Kathleen Creighton (casey) Tue, Jul 14, '92 (09:19) 8 lines
How you interpret what you see here is largely a projection, which makes it
easy to be "intimidated" if that's how you would approach a group of
people you didn't know personally in "real life". I can understand how
you feel about it, but meeting people face-to-face is a great cure for it.
WELLfolks tend to be quite bright, but in all other ways are very ordinary.
And there's a sort of online "hype" which makes things look better or more
interesting than they really are, IMO.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#145: ..... ..... (..) Tue, Jul 14, '92 (17:48) 15 lines
[[ says that there you only have to find a couple things to be passionate
about. he has found that as he posts more the more emotional
content he is able to communicate here.
says that he thinks that if you do more than watch TV you are probably
living a busy life. ]]
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#146: Chris Hanson (chanson) Wed, Jul 15, '92 (05:08) 38 lines
> How you interpret what you see here is largely a projection
> if you find a thousand people who are each passionate about one thing,
then it's easy to say to yourself "self, i'm not passionate about a
thosand things. there must be something wrong with me."
Good points, casey and om. It's very easy to forget how distorting this
medium can be.
> besides, we all only have 24 hours in one day.
There are some people here who, judging by their ubiquitous postings and by
the work and activities they say they do, sure seem to have much more than
24 hours in their days. I wonder what alternate universe they keep these
extra hours in, and how I could go about gaining access to these extra
hours.
Now that I'm posting more, I'm seeing my postings in (on?) the WELL more
often. Seeing my postings here, mixed in with the others, makes me feel
uneasy; it's the same kind of feeling I get when I see myself in photos,
or hear my voice on tape.
This reminds me of an Adair Lara column of a few weeks ago, where she's
talking about all the photos of herself, along with family and friends,
that she has around her house. This, I think, is a fairly normal custom
in our culture; my parents and other family members, and most people I
know, keep photos around their house and/or office. However, I find this
custom to be rather uncomfortable, *especially* if I'm in the photos, so
I don't do it.
I'm sure that basic self-consciousness is a large part of why I don't like
seeing pictures of myself (or seeing my postings in the WELL). But I think
I'm also uncomfortable with them because they remind me that I exist in
the world, within a context of some kind. I'm being defined as "something",
and as being related to other "things" in some way.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#147: Larry Moss (lsm) Wed, Jul 15, '92 (07:36) 9 lines
Nice stuff, Chris. A pleasure to read.
I found a bit of myself in your remarks about photos around the house --
I don't go in for that either, and I'm not sure why. I think though that this
medium is a bit different for me, since I feel just fine about seeing myself
here.
I was pretty shy with conferencing until I started to be self-revealing,
and in an easy way. Maybe you're doing the same thing.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#148: Paul Belserene (paulbel) Wed, Jul 15, '92 (08:09) 3 lines
I too have felt intimidated by the image I have of people here, Chris. There
are some pretty awesome people on the WELL. But on my screen, you're equal
to them. And your postings here are the meat of this topic, IMO.
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#149: <<::>><<:::>><<::>> (tvacorn) Wed, Jul 15, '92 (19:20) 6 lines
Chris, you make some interesting points.....
Robert Frost's term "risking spirit in substantiation" comes to mind.
Explore the gray scale a little. You'll find the range....
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#150: roguish meme (pdl) Thu, Jul 16, '92 (17:50) 7 lines
I'm glad that I finally checked back in here to find chanson's postings.
RE the Well as mental masturbation - mental masturbation should not be
stigmatized, it is a perfectly natural and common phenoma which serves as a
healthy outlet for all sorts of natural urges and desires. Unlike other
forms of masturbation, however, you will go blind if you spend too much
time on the well (from trying to read all that tiny ASCII).
Topic 16: Are you a *LURKER*???
#151: Gail Williams (gail) Sat, Sep 12, '92 (22:18) 18 lines
Nice stuff, Chris. I have noticed your posts before, and I like them.
It's possible to turn off the picospan conferencing software function that
shows you your own posting, tho I think it's part of the magic of the
medium. The self consciousness is natural. Having none is a disaster!
And I wouldn't call this mental masturbation. We move one another. It's
participatory. Profoundly sexy for those who love to communicate, but when
it's working it's more a contentious orgy than a safe circle of mutual
masturbation. When it's working, we pay attention to one another.
One of the things that's hard is to figure out how to deal with heckling
and ignorant bad reviews. Uh... I mean flame wars. The people who
honestly inhabit the same "space" run smack into those that want to poke
holes, let the air out, tilt at their pretty ascii windmills. Part of
the territory. "Hey, it's a screen... those must be teevee stars! "
Back to The Virtual Community Conference Page
Back to The WELL's Home Page
This document is maintained by web@well.sf.ca.us
Last Updated: September 22, 1994