Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: January ::
It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0042  Monday, 10 January 2005

[1]     From:   Stephen C. Rose <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 7 Jan 2005 04:37:46 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Happy With It As It Is

[2]     From:   L. Swilley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 7 Jan 2005 06:58:51 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion

[3]     From:   D Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 7 Jan 2005 11:18:09 -0600
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion

[4]     From:   JD Markel <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 7 Jan 2005 12:37:52 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion

[5]     From:   John Webb <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 7 Jan 2005 13:57:40 -0000
        Subj:   Re: It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion

[6]     From:   Todd Pettigrew <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 7 Jan 2005 10:41:06 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion

[7]     From:   Chris Gordon <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 07 Jan 2005 09:40:53 CST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion

[8]     From:   Louis Thompson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 7 Jan 2005 11:28:12 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion

[9]     From:   Kimberly Ellerthorpe <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 09 Jan 2005 23:48:40 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0024 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen C. Rose <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 7 Jan 2005 04:37:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject:        Happy With It As It Is

It's not broke. Best, S

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           L. Swilley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 7 Jan 2005 06:58:51 -0600
Subject: 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion

Dr. Cook should select the format that is the most convenient for him
and most respectful of his time.

L. Swilley

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 7 Jan 2005 11:18:09 -0600
Subject: 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion

D Bloom writes:

"He does, after all, have a life beyond SHAKSPER. Could it continue if
he decided he could no longer devote the time to it?"

Pronoun trouble (to cite one of my favorite quotations from Daffy Duck).

Surely the writer meant the "it" to refer to SHAKSPER. To have it refer
to life would raise existential questions much too serious for a Friday.

Cheers,
don

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           JD Markel <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 7 Jan 2005 12:37:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion

The terminology of the internet has not kept up with the mechanics of
websites and interactivity. The concept of "Blog" has become murky.  I
believe you are looking at blogs with chat functions as a possible
prototype or inspiration.

A blog, short for weblog, in its initial format was a personal,
non-commercial site in a calendar format.  The blogger posts opinions,
news, what have you in daily or weekly posts.  The first interactivity
with visitors would have the blogger post comments received by e-mail.
Example: "John X. says about my January 4 posting about Ophelia..." or
"Mary Z. sent me this link to a Guardian article with a differing with
my opinion on..."

The next step in interactivity was the addition of chat function to
blogs.  Added to the end of a blog post one finds a link like "comments"
or "discussion." Through that link visitors, open or registered, post
their own comments.  The chat is instant not mediated by e-mail.

A chatroom has various looks but generally participants supply the
initial post and others respond, collectively called a "thread."

Your webmaster certainly doesn't need this advice but if one wants to
ascertain the capabilities and looks of "blogs" it's not difficult.
Just go to any blog, they typical one will catalog in a sidebar links to
other blogs, you visit the next one, visit another one linked from there
and so on.

Shaksper.net has a sense of "chatroom" but I think the best term is the
older established "Discussion Group" which probably evolved from the BBS
format.

A chat function might diminish academic tenor.  The current format
compels a one a day response from participants.  Chat might promulgate
shorter posts less considered.  Chat may also promulgate flame wars.  On
the other hand, the instant interactivity might work well.   A chat
function is not esoteric and your comments suggest you sense its
possible downside thereby you have not immediately embraced it as many
others have.

Another consideration is not only the quality of interaction, but
degree.  Most people open their e-mail everyday.  If Shaksper dropped
e-mail notification interaction would rely on members visiting the
shaksper.net web page.  Daily interaction and notice would be lost, but
then, maybe that's not important.

Now you have e-mail interactivity and notice with discussions cataloged
at the website.  I suggest
some changes to the cataloging.   A simpler thread structure should be
implemented.  I.e., visit the 2004 catalog
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2004/index.html

If I wanted to read all the comments in the "Macbeth Characters"
discussion I have to click six different links segregated by date.
Perhaps all responses should be collected in a one link, one thread, IOW
"one click away."  If you wish to distinguish one thread as hotter than
another you might append a text function noting how many responses that
particular thread has received.  Such might obviate the utility of the
"Current Postings" link at the homepage.  Some sites use a fire icon to
denote heightened activity.

If I wanted to add a comment to the Macbeth Characters thread currently
I cannot through the catalog.  I believe I would have to have an e-mail
in my internet cache sequenced to the thread and therefrom respond - if
I saved one.  So, there's an example how a chat function might be
beneficial.  Shaksper.net is a unique situation.

Finally, I would add a homepage link and catalog page for threads in the
nature of "calls for papers" and "announcements."  Keep them in the main
catalog, but copy them to a unique catalog that interested users can
scroll without having to sift through the greater mount of textual and
performance threads.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Webb <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 7 Jan 2005 13:57:40 -0000
Subject:        Re: It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion

Hardy has created a unique resource, one used by many people who Hardy
probably feels are more important than himself. I can imagine him
feeling under a heavy obligation to maintain the daily service, even
when he has pressing demands on his time from other directions.

I think Hardy ought to find a few people to whom he can depute his
functions.

Whatever Hardy does, can it be done remotely, by someone else?

Hardy ought to be able to find a few people, from within this list, who
could do whatever he does, to give him the occasional break, and to
carry on with the processes, if and when he decides he no longer wishes
to do it himself.

This seems to me to be an ideal part-time voluntary post for a
Shakespearian student somewhere.

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Todd Pettigrew <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 7 Jan 2005 10:41:06 -0400
Subject: 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion

To me, one virtue of the listserve is the sense of community. I *belong*
to the list. I would have to *visit* a web site.

t.

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Gordon <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 07 Jan 2005 09:40:53 CST
Subject: 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion

I, too, am very happy with Hardy's hard work and the current format. I
am a member of a number of other discussion groups, which can be read
both on-line and  received as email (individual messages or digests),
and since Shaksper is also available in both formats I see no reason to
change. Many, many thanks to Hardy and best wishes to all for the new year.

Chris Gordon

[8]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Louis Thompson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 7 Jan 2005 11:28:12 EST
Subject: 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0033 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion

I am an infrequent contributor, but a daily reader. I wouldn't be so
attentive to a blog.

SHAKSPER has more presence the way it is. I do read political blogs. I
think everyone would adjust to a new format if that is necessary. The
question is: Is a change absolutely necessary?

You might find that a blog is more work than the current format and that
the essence of SHAKSPER had been lost.

Louis Thompson

[9]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kimberly Ellerthorpe <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 09 Jan 2005 23:48:40 -0500
Subject: 16.0024 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0024 It's Time for Another Meta-Discussion

I'm a lurker here, but if I might weigh in: I'd have no objection to the
list moving to majordomo (and saving Hardy $600 per year--yikes!), but
please don't move things to a blog format.  I barely keep up with my
friends' weblogs, I know I'd never be able to keep up with a list like
this on a blog.

Take care,
Kimberly

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.