537 members?

Do you know that now there are listed 537 members of this Tuning
List??

When I joined a couple of years ago, I believe there were only 300
members. Is that correct??

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> Do you know that now there are listed 537 members of this Tuning
> List??
>
> When I joined a couple of years ago, I believe there were only 300
> members. Is that correct??

That's what's listed. It's a shame that so few participate! It would
be interesting to hear from the other 510 or so...

----- Original Message -----
From: "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > Do you know that now there are listed 537 members of this Tuning
> > List??
> >
> > When I joined a couple of years ago, I believe there were only 300
> > members. Is that correct??
>
> That's what's listed. It's a shame that so few participate! It would
> be interesting to hear from the other 510 or so...

I get the impression that people are overwhelmed by the volume
and baffled by the terminology. They never get around to reading at all
or even responding.

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

--- In tuning@y..., "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32558.html#32560

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > > Do you know that now there are listed 537 members of this
Tuning
> > > List??
> > >
> > > When I joined a couple of years ago, I believe there were only
300
> > > members. Is that correct??
> >
> > That's what's listed. It's a shame that so few participate! It
would
> > be interesting to hear from the other 510 or so...
>
> I get the impression that people are overwhelmed by the volume
> and baffled by the terminology. They never get around to reading at
all or even responding.
>
> * David Beardsley
> * http://biink.com
> * http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

Hi David!

Any true evidence of that statement?? I think there is, possibly, a
large body of "lurkers" out there... judging by the private e-mails I
get from time to time. They are just a bit too "intimidated" to
respond... But that doesn't mean, necessarily, they aren't *reading*
the list. Otherwise, they would eventually unsubscribe, no??

In fact, there are even present "lurkers" that we know well and whom
I *know* are lurking. Wim Hoogewerf comes to mind. Hi Wim!

At least, several of the "lurkers" have communicated with me
privately... (I admit, not 500!)

It's the "silent majority..."

JP

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> Any true evidence of that statement??

No way to tell, just judge by comparing with other lists.

> I think there is, possibly, a
> large body of "lurkers" out there... judging by the private e-mails
> I get from time to time.

Most lists contain a fair portion of lurkers. This can't explain the
disparity of members vs. 'participants'.

> They are just a bit too "intimidated" to
> respond... But that doesn't mean, necessarily, they aren't
> *reading* the list. Otherwise, they would eventually unsubscribe,
> no??

No, and no. There is probably a good number that reads it, as well as
others that either have no email delivery and they don't need to look
at the web, or those that let them clog some inbox somewhere.

Tell you what: the best list I belong to is *much* larger than this,
and has entire communities of people that post. You can watch the
waves of correspondence change with generalized topic areas, and the
ensuing flow of information contains so many variety of (informed)
insights that it is staggering. When a list is dominated - for
whatever reason - or marginalized - by whatever constraints - it
becomes less valuable Than It Could Be.

None of the preceding diminishes the value of the Mother Tuning List.
But all things could be better, including our home. Much.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> None of the preceding diminishes the value of the Mother Tuning
List.
> But all things could be better, including our home. Much.

Make it so!

Although I pop in my head occassionally, I can define myself a lurker and,
yes, you're correct in both accounts in my case.

My primary purpose following the group is learning about the theory and
practice. As far as I think I have something to offer, I participate.

I think it would be great if this group and its spinoffs were transported to
a newsserver, so that the messages would be threadded and it would be even
easier to participate for members with 'restricted interest'.

From now on, I'll have to go online once a week for irresistable moneteral
reasons and consequently I'll probably have to change to "no mail" again
because there would be thousands of messages in a week, which'll make the
group imposible to follow for me.

I participate in two different newsgroups on private servers, generally
spam-free. I believe it would make this group much more efficient for us,
who are out of the regular contributors (ten people or so.)

Free public archiving is a plus for this group. However, this can still be
achieved if transported to a news server. We do it on NWC newsgroup
(messages are archived monthly on the Scriptorium website.)

FWIW,
Ertugrul

---
Decode address to reply:
ertugrulinanc-at-yahoo-dot-com

----- Original Message -----
From: David Beardsley <davidbeardsley@biink.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: 537 members?

> I get the impression that people are overwhelmed by the volume
> and baffled by the terminology. They never get around to reading at all
> or even responding.
>
> * David Beardsley
> * http://biink.com
> * http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

--- In tuning@y..., "Ertugrul iNANC" <ertugrulinanc@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32558.html#32599

> Although I pop in my head occassionally, I can define myself a
lurker and,
> yes, you're correct in both accounts in my case.
>
> My primary purpose following the group is learning about the theory
and
> practice. As far as I think I have something to offer, I
participate.
>
> I think it would be great if this group and its spinoffs were
transported to
> a newsserver, so that the messages would be threadded and it would
be even
> easier to participate for members with 'restricted interest'.
>
> From now on, I'll have to go online once a week for irresistable
moneteral
> reasons and consequently I'll probably have to change to "no mail"
again
> because there would be thousands of messages in a week, which'll
make the
> group imposible to follow for me.
>
> I participate in two different newsgroups on private servers,
generally
> spam-free. I believe it would make this group much more efficient
for us,
> who are out of the regular contributors (ten people or so.)
>
> Free public archiving is a plus for this group. However, this can
still be
> achieved if transported to a news server. We do it on NWC newsgroup
> (messages are archived monthly on the Scriptorium website.)
>
> FWIW,
> Ertugrul
>
>

A lurker! Welcome lurker! I *knew* you were out there... :)

Best to you!

J. Pehrson