Comments on: Have SBS Yahoo groups lost all value? http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html Vlad Mazek on IT, Business and Technology Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:49:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Vlad Mazek - Vladville Blog » Blog Archive » Restraining myself from Yahoo Groups http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html/comment-page-1#comment-23416 Vlad Mazek - Vladville Blog » Blog Archive » Restraining myself from Yahoo Groups Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:42:29 +0000 http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html#comment-23416 [...] you’ve followed this blog for a while you know I’ve had my ups and downs with the Yahoo Groups system of woe is me but I won’t do anything about it discussions. For some that seemed [...] [...] you’ve followed this blog for a while you know I’ve had my ups and downs with the Yahoo Groups system of woe is me but I won’t do anything about it discussions. For some that seemed [...]

]]> By: martha s http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html/comment-page-1#comment-18673 martha s Wed, 20 Dec 2006 02:51:37 +0000 http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html#comment-18673 I'd say this clearly mandates a moderated sbs list. Please start one. /ms I’d say this clearly mandates a moderated sbs list. Please start one.

/ms

]]> By: ellis http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html/comment-page-1#comment-18672 ellis Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:55:59 +0000 http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html#comment-18672 As some on this blog it is news to me that sbs2k is moderated. I thought it was James's personal blog and Susan's PMS testing ground. I never cared much for the group because it sounded like a club and not an SBS technical board so I happily paid for smallbizserver.net Professional content, MVPs all over and a controlled environment that doesn't waste my time. It is a small price to pay as its easy to waste even one hour by replying to Yahoo groups. If you don't like it, fine. Goodbye. Either start something else or move to a better place like I did. I can't figure out why you care and why we should care about it. If I had a penny for every board that was filled with clueless morons and a dead moderator,,, As some on this blog it is news to me that sbs2k is moderated. I thought it was James’s personal blog and Susan’s PMS testing ground. I never cared much for the group because it sounded like a club and not an SBS technical board so I happily paid for smallbizserver.net

Professional content, MVPs all over and a controlled environment that doesn’t waste my time. It is a small price to pay as its easy to waste even one hour by replying to Yahoo groups.

If you don’t like it, fine. Goodbye. Either start something else or move to a better place like I did. I can’t figure out why you care and why we should care about it. If I had a penny for every board that was filled with clueless morons and a dead moderator,,,

]]> By: Tim Long http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html/comment-page-1#comment-18669 Tim Long Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:59:46 +0000 http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html#comment-18669 The discussion going on right now in the SBS List is a social and technological pattern that has been well documented and there is an excellent summary in Clay Shirkey's paper, "A Group is its Own Worst Enemy" (http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html). Most Yahoo groups fall short of the basic requirements for a successful online community and this "spirited discussion" about what should and shouldn't be allowed on the group is a perfect example of the result. You say that there is a cost to moderation (and I agree) but to some extent, that is the cost of doing business. In the long run, the cost of no moderation may be greater. For example, remember the MSSmallBiz group? Remember how that was supposed to deal only with "business" issues and not be a technical support group? Go there now and count how many technical support issues there are. Unless a group has a structure, they will eventually subvert themselves and go in an unintended direction. I recommend reading Shirkey's paper. The discussion going on right now in the SBS List is a social and technological pattern that has been well documented and there is an excellent summary in Clay Shirkey’s paper, “A Group is its Own Worst Enemy” (http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html). Most Yahoo groups fall short of the basic requirements for a successful online community and this “spirited discussion” about what should and shouldn’t be allowed on the group is a perfect example of the result.

You say that there is a cost to moderation (and I agree) but to some extent, that is the cost of doing business. In the long run, the cost of no moderation may be greater. For example, remember the MSSmallBiz group? Remember how that was supposed to deal only with “business” issues and not be a technical support group? Go there now and count how many technical support issues there are. Unless a group has a structure, they will eventually subvert themselves and go in an unintended direction.

I recommend reading Shirkey’s paper.

]]> By: Tim Long : A Group is its Own Worst Enemy http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html/comment-page-1#comment-18668 Tim Long : A Group is its Own Worst Enemy Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:26:59 +0000 http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html#comment-18668 [...] If you hang out in online communities long enough, you see certain behaviours happening again and again. Many of these behaviours have been documented over the last 40 years or so and are summarised nicely in the paper by Clay Shirkey of the same title. There is a lovely example going on right now in a group I participate in - the SBS List. Recently, there has been a discussion about whether the group needs moderation and how it has become too noisy and a lot of people who are posting have no idea what they are talking about and so on. People are even blogging about it. Well, group: pay attention. You are behaving exactly as predicted. Go read that paper and be enlightened. I've distilled a few of the interesting nuggets in the rest of this article to whet your appetite, but to really understand the issues, you need to read the paper. According to Mr. Shirkey, there are some common characteristics of online communities, for example: The likelihood that any unmoderated group will eventually get into a flame-war about whether or not to have a moderator approaches one as time increases. (paraphrasing) Groups tend to devolve from their noble purpose into a variety of 'basic urges' that subvert the original purpose of the group. Group structure is necessary to defend the group from itself. Group structure exists to keep a group on target, on track, on message, on charter, whatever. To keep a group focused on its own sophisticated goals and to keep a group from sliding into these basic patterns. Group structure defends the group from the action of its own members. Shirky says there are three basic things that you have to accept about online communities (and if you don't accept them, they will just happen to you anyway): You cannot completely separate technical and social issues. Members are different than users. A pattern will arise in which there is some group of users that cares more than average about the integrity and success of the group as a whole. [The Core Group]. This group will arise and find a way to express itself, even if not explicitly built into the technological framework. The core group has rights that trump individual rights in some situations. This pulls against the libertarian view that's quite common on the network, and it absolutely pulls against the one person/one vote notion. One person/one vote is a really bad idea if you want to get anything done. Finally, Shirkey goes on to explore design requirements for online communities. These are the things that are absolute requirements for large, long-lived online communities to work well (or at all). Things that should be taken for granted. I am really condensing these statements heavily so read the paper for more detail. Here we go: There must be an identity system ("handles") that is somewhat persistent and has some cost associated with changing identities. Identity is the basic requirement for having a conversation and linking what is being said now to what was said in the past ("who said what, when"). You have to design a way for there to be members in good standing. Have to design some way in which good works get recognized. The minimal way is, posts appear with identity. You can do more sophisticated things like having formal karma or "member since." You need barriers to participation. You have to have some cost to either join or participate, if not at the lowest level, then at higher levels. There needs to be some kind of segmentation of capabilities. It has to be hard to do at least some things on the system for some users, or the core group will not have the tools that they need to defend themselves. you have to find a way to spare the group from scale. Scale alone kills conversations, because conversations require dense two-way conversations. The fact that the amount of two-way connections you have to support goes up with the square of the users means that the density of conversation falls off very fast as the system scales even a little bit. You have to have some way to let users hang onto the less is more pattern, in order to keep associated with one another. Now, I have distilled out a few of the salient/controversial points but they will all make more sense if you go and read Mr. Shirkey's paper. Anyone who participates in, or plans to run an online community should definitely read it, If for no other reason that that it provides a useful platform from which to have the discussion about how a group should be run! I leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out how well Yahoo groups fit Shirkey's design criteria and what needs to happen in any one particular community.   Posted: 19 December 2006 23:24 by Tim Long Filed under: Opinion [...] [...] If you hang out in online communities long enough, you see certain behaviours happening again and again. Many of these behaviours have been documented over the last 40 years or so and are summarised nicely in the paper by Clay Shirkey of the same title. There is a lovely example going on right now in a group I participate in – the SBS List. Recently, there has been a discussion about whether the group needs moderation and how it has become too noisy and a lot of people who are posting have no idea what they are talking about and so on. People are even blogging about it. Well, group: pay attention. You are behaving exactly as predicted. Go read that paper and be enlightened. I’ve distilled a few of the interesting nuggets in the rest of this article to whet your appetite, but to really understand the issues, you need to read the paper. According to Mr. Shirkey, there are some common characteristics of online communities, for example: The likelihood that any unmoderated group will eventually get into a flame-war about whether or not to have a moderator approaches one as time increases. (paraphrasing) Groups tend to devolve from their noble purpose into a variety of ‘basic urges’ that subvert the original purpose of the group. Group structure is necessary to defend the group from itself. Group structure exists to keep a group on target, on track, on message, on charter, whatever. To keep a group focused on its own sophisticated goals and to keep a group from sliding into these basic patterns. Group structure defends the group from the action of its own members. Shirky says there are three basic things that you have to accept about online communities (and if you don’t accept them, they will just happen to you anyway): You cannot completely separate technical and social issues. Members are different than users. A pattern will arise in which there is some group of users that cares more than average about the integrity and success of the group as a whole. [The Core Group]. This group will arise and find a way to express itself, even if not explicitly built into the technological framework. The core group has rights that trump individual rights in some situations. This pulls against the libertarian view that’s quite common on the network, and it absolutely pulls against the one person/one vote notion. One person/one vote is a really bad idea if you want to get anything done. Finally, Shirkey goes on to explore design requirements for online communities. These are the things that are absolute requirements for large, long-lived online communities to work well (or at all). Things that should be taken for granted. I am really condensing these statements heavily so read the paper for more detail. Here we go: There must be an identity system (“handles”) that is somewhat persistent and has some cost associated with changing identities. Identity is the basic requirement for having a conversation and linking what is being said now to what was said in the past (“who said what, when”). You have to design a way for there to be members in good standing. Have to design some way in which good works get recognized. The minimal way is, posts appear with identity. You can do more sophisticated things like having formal karma or “member since.” You need barriers to participation. You have to have some cost to either join or participate, if not at the lowest level, then at higher levels. There needs to be some kind of segmentation of capabilities. It has to be hard to do at least some things on the system for some users, or the core group will not have the tools that they need to defend themselves. you have to find a way to spare the group from scale. Scale alone kills conversations, because conversations require dense two-way conversations. The fact that the amount of two-way connections you have to support goes up with the square of the users means that the density of conversation falls off very fast as the system scales even a little bit. You have to have some way to let users hang onto the less is more pattern, in order to keep associated with one another. Now, I have distilled out a few of the salient/controversial points but they will all make more sense if you go and read Mr. Shirkey’s paper. Anyone who participates in, or plans to run an online community should definitely read it, If for no other reason that that it provides a useful platform from which to have the discussion about how a group should be run! I leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out how well Yahoo groups fit Shirkey’s design criteria and what needs to happen in any one particular community.   Posted: 19 December 2006 23:24 by Tim Long Filed under: Opinion [...]

]]> By: ethomas http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html/comment-page-1#comment-18664 ethomas Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:28:59 +0000 http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html#comment-18664 sbs2k is moderated??? someone might need to excavate them from their grave because in addition to it being reduced to the dumb & dumber of sbs there are several members using that list as their personal blog. i'm still there but i just scroll through the thread titles as i select all to be deleted on weekly basis. sbs2k is moderated??? someone might need to excavate them from their grave because in addition to it being reduced to the dumb & dumber of sbs there are several members using that list as their personal blog.

i’m still there but i just scroll through the thread titles as i select all to be deleted on weekly basis.

]]> By: E-Bitz - SBS MVP the Official Blog of the SBS "Diva" : For the record... http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html/comment-page-1#comment-18661 E-Bitz - SBS MVP the Official Blog of the SBS "Diva" : For the record... Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:27:44 +0000 http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html#comment-18661 [...] to volunteer to moderate?    Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | live it! Published Tuesday, December 19, 2006 7:22 AM by bradley Filed under:News [...] [...] to volunteer to moderate?    Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | live it! Published Tuesday, December 19, 2006 7:22 AM by bradley Filed under:News [...]

]]> By: martha s http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html/comment-page-1#comment-18659 martha s Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:32:52 +0000 http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html#comment-18659 You've started your own share if I recall but I left long ago too. Not left per se, just switched to web only and haven't looked back since. I would like to see a moderated place to get SBS help but I will agree with you that the group is no longer the place for it. If you do start a moderated one please announce it here. It's sad. I remember about a year or two ago that place had some very impressive people. When they left so did any value of that community. I suppose the problems were always there its just that they were not as obvious because there were smart people in there too. Ever notice how presidential debates don't have 30 people involved? There is a reason for that. /ms You’ve started your own share if I recall but I left long ago too. Not left per se, just switched to web only and haven’t looked back since.

I would like to see a moderated place to get SBS help but I will agree with you that the group is no longer the place for it. If you do start a moderated one please announce it here.

It’s sad. I remember about a year or two ago that place had some very impressive people. When they left so did any value of that community. I suppose the problems were always there its just that they were not as obvious because there were smart people in there too.

Ever notice how presidential debates don’t have 30 people involved? There is a reason for that.

/ms

]]> By: kevinmiller http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html/comment-page-1#comment-18657 kevinmiller Tue, 19 Dec 2006 04:42:38 +0000 http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html#comment-18657 I had to register to post this: A M E N VLAD ! ! ! Our beloved SBS community is falling apart thanks to the endless fights and people have suddenly lost the ability to learn and use Google. You are spot on with all your comments. I had to register to post this:

A M E N VLAD ! ! !

Our beloved SBS community is falling apart thanks to the endless fights and people have suddenly lost the ability to learn and use Google. You are spot on with all your comments.

]]> By: Vlad Mazek - Vladville Blog » Blog Archive » Should IT Experts Be Held To A Higher Standard? http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html/comment-page-1#comment-18655 Vlad Mazek - Vladville Blog » Blog Archive » Should IT Experts Be Held To A Higher Standard? Tue, 19 Dec 2006 04:02:42 +0000 http://www.vladville.com/2006/12/have-sbs-yahoo-groups-lost-all-value.html#comment-18655 [...] « Have SBS Yahoo groups lost all value? | [...] [...] « Have SBS Yahoo groups lost all value? | [...]

]]>