Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] afuturist prediction

[Emlyn]

On 26/08/05, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> On Aug 25, 2005, at 3:02 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote in response to Eugen:

> >
> >> This is why shunning doesn't work online.
> >>
> >
> > If one is part of the noise and one is not being read then shunning
> > isn't going to work of course. If the people you like to talk to won't
> > talk to you *maybe* there is a reason.  Maybe you've pissed them
> > off.  It is very hard to shun someone that is already not paying
> > attention to you, so that is why I suggest coupling the tactic with
> > a database. I suggest *actively* using and processing the list. Keep
> > track of the interests of people you want to talk to. Repay good
> > posts with good posts.
> >
> 
> So why not track who has given up on reading your stuff?  The
> feedback might be a very good thing to have.  It is hard to calibrate
> ourselves without feedback.  It seems like you are only into positive
> feedback.  But that is insufficient for a  system to self-correct.
> >
> >
> 
> - samantha
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 

Maybe we could do with some kind of tool to help with this? If you
were going to design an automated tool to help track/identify who
responds to or ignores whom, and maybe other related metrics, how
would it work and what kind of features would you include?

That reminds me, some years ago Anders set up an online graph showing
the interelation between posts/postors, for fun I think, but it did
give clues as to quality, and highlighted who talked with who. Any
idea if that still exists?

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *