What's happening?

[skeptical1]

Financial considerations themselves would point to just creating a new yahoo.group, though I know the visceral dislike of the admins of palanth.com for that particular company. However, just look at the "traffic" this board has had after weeks of notices on planth-l, and compare that to the traffic planth-l originally had in either its first incarnation, or the revamped version that went live in april 99.

C. David Kreger
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com

I must agree with the above. To which I'd add the ongoing success of evolutionary-psychology, also still a Yahoo group. I've just recently been going through my personal archive of the old palanth-l posts. I really do miss it so very much: the discussions there helped form my thinking on so many topics.

Harry (Skeptical1)

[lagarvelho]

David and Jacques:

Anthropology and its related disciplines is not a high traffic topic, and likely won't ever be.

I would have to partially agree with David on this one.  First of all, unless you search for them, message boards are often hard to locate.  Even if you *do* locate one, it may be "buried" in some exotic Internet locale, and this assumes you know where to look in the first place.  A lot of people, even those reasonably familiar with the Internet, do not.  Second, once you've winnowed out the people who, no matter how knowledgeable they may be, actually have the motivation to *find* your message board,(which may take a considerable amount of time, even with a search engine like Google), you may not have very many people left.  Finally, if the topics don't "interest" for some reason, then potential participants will end up elsewhere.  I'm not saying a message board *can't* work, just that there are a lot of things stacked against one.  

The lack of moderation access to palanth-l as a consequence of Yahoo!'s incompetence or apathy aside, a much more viable option would have simply to place ample notice in messages to the group (as was done with the creation of this forum) about a change to a new group.

That's actually a rather good suggestion.  However Jacques I think explained why this couldn't be done(at least at present).  

Financial considerations themselves would point to just creating a new yahoo.group, though I know the visceral dislike of the admins of palanth.com for that particular company. However, just look at the "traffic" this board has had after weeks of notices on planth-l, and compare that to the traffic planth-l originally had in either its first incarnation, or the revamped version that went live in april 99. It is a functionality issue, and an ease of use issue.

Well, again, I would have to agree with David here(at least partially).  Any fool can set up a yahoogroup.  Any way they want it, pretty much.  Of course there are "issues" with Yahoo that are irritating, but it is *huge* and well-known.  That's one of the reasons for its "draw".  

I'm sorry if giving you the reason for the failure of this forum (and regardless of what you would like to be the case, this forum is fast going the route of many other message boards, newsgroups, etc, dedicated to anthropological subdisciplines: complete lack of use), particularly when you take out the admins, Mikey, Anne, and Daryl out of the picture, you have almost nothing going on here, I've somehow offended. And a 6-10 person chat board isn't the purpose of this board is it?

OK.  Conceded to David.  *But* --- and this is a big but, you see much the same pattern on any e-mail list.  The proportion of active "talkers" is always small in comparison to the vast majority of people who get on these e-mail lists and just lurk.  There are some e-mail lists where *I* just lurk, despite my "talkative" Internet appearance, simply because I don't know too much about the subject, but interesting discussions go on and I think I can learn something by listening.  I don't really see that there is much difference here.  In this sense, maybe there is hope for the administrators.  

I would contribute something of a "more paleoanthropological nature" but have seen nothing I felt interested in contributing. Crossposting discussions already aggravated me with all the yahoo.groups, so I won't do so here, and nothing really in my realm of interest that piqued any thoughts from me.

But they might pique the interest of somebody who doesn't normally "hang out" on yahoogroups. And theoretically, at least, it could have provoked some discussion.

I read these forums. I registered here soon after palanth officially "died". I simply finally found a topic I felt like contributing to, in order to give you an explanation why it wasn't going as hoped.

David, I think your critique is quite reasonable in some ways.  But OTOH, this forum hasn't really *started*, in a very real sense.  It may very well turn out as you say.  My experience with other message boards recently hasn't given me too much optimism, but I wonder if we shouldn't *at least* wait till the thing gets officially launched.  There *are* difficulties, no doubt about it, and in the end it may be wiser just to go back to something like Yahoogroups but with more "control" if that's possible.  In the meanwhile, I think the best course is probably just "wait and see".
Anne G

[lagarvelho]

Jacques:

Thanks for the comments. As ever your, your enthusiastic support is appreciated. As for the coming months, well, there is likely to be some stimulating developments. You, and all other interested parties, will be kept informed.

Your kind words are always appreciated.  I posted an extensive critique of the possible strengths and weaknesses of this format, which you might wish to read, a little earlier.

Hope it all helps,
Anne G

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

There is no reason for becoming melodramatic.

I did not think I was being "melodramatic". Just ever so slightly sarcastic, perhaps. Must have something to do with my poor understanding of English language nuances.

The question put forth in this thread was "why?" the forum was not being utilized to anywhere near the extent palanth-l had been in the past.

Mikey Brass, who initiated this particular topic, did not make any reference to "palanth-l". He just noted that the Forum had gone the way of the "Dodo", i.e., had become extinct. Clearly, from what I have read, he was just ringing alarm bells. And I thank him for that.

I gave an answer.

To a question that was not asked (see above). You obviously chose to read between the lines and, apparently, jump to pre-ordained conclusions.

Message boards are not a particularly viable form of communication outside of the high traffic topics like videogames, music, politics, etc. Anthropology and its related disciplines is not a high traffic topic, and likely won't ever be.

What are we doing right now? If I am not wrong, the present response is the 18th message pertaining to this most interesting topic which, as of this morning, has attracted the attention of 200 people

The lack of moderation access to palanth-l as a consequence of Yahoo!'s incompetence or apathy aside, a much more viable option would have simply to place ample notice in messages to the group (as was done with the creation of this forum) about a change to a new group. That would have given all the moderation access back, moved all the contributing members of the list to the new list, and wouldn't have resulted in the death of a reasonably function communication format for paleoanthropological discussions.

Well, you are right, to a point. A great suggestion that, given your apparent interest, you should have come up with months ago!

A message board simply doesn't work. My website has had over 100000 visitors in about 3 years, and a message board didn't work. The old Human Origins site's message board never went anywhere, with a couple posts every few weeks, half of which were from Anne G.

Well, sorry to hear about your own “message board” experience. As for your reference to “Anne G.”, you are right. The breadth of her interest combined with her admirable persistence in communicating can, indeed, play havoc in any analysis of traffic statistics!

Financial considerations themselves would point to just creating a new yahoo.group, though I know the visceral dislike of the admins of palanth.com for that particular company. However, just look at the "traffic" this board has had after weeks of notices on planth-l, and compare that to the traffic planth-l originally had in either its first incarnation, or the revamped version that went live in april 99. It is a functionality issue, and an ease of use issue.

I'm sorry if giving you the reason for the failure of this forum (and regardless of what you would like to be the case, this forum is fast going the route of many other message boards, newsgroups, etc, dedicated to anthropological subdisciplines: complete lack of use), particularly when you take out the admins, Mikey, Anne, and Daryl out of the picture, you have almost nothing going on here, I've somehow offended. And a 6-10 person chat board isn't the purpose of this board is it?

Talk about being “melodramatic”. As the Pope said to Napoléon: “Tragediente”.

But you are certainly right about the question of “functionality/ease of use”. We have been aware of the problem since day one and, as I briefly mentioned in earlier messages, attempts are being made to deal with it to the satisfaction of all. But one should not forget that this is to be arrived at in the context of a much larger project in which the Forum is to be an interactive extension or complement of the Journal. Admittedly slower than I (naively, perhaps) thought it would go and this for reasons that involve much more than just “functionality/ease of use”, I would, as I said earlier, rather view the present lull as one of a number of expectable “accidents de parcours” in what is essentially "work in progress".

I would contribute something of a "more paleoanthropological nature" but have seen nothing I felt interested in contributing. Crossposting discussions already aggravated me with all the yahoo.groups, so I won't do so here, and nothing really in my realm of interest that piqued any thoughts from me. A few posts of articles, someone posting half a chapter from a book, someone posting a review of an article I agree with; well, not much to comment on there.

I read these forums. I registered here soon after palanth officially "died". I simply finally found a topic I felt like contributing to, in order to give you an explanation why it wasn't going as hoped.

C. David Kreger
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com

Thanks again for your comments, and you will certainly will not mind if I respectfully suggest that your obvious concern for the life expectancy of the Forum would also be very well and constructively expressed by spending your time trying to talk about palaeoanthropology.

Yours,

Jacques Cinq-Mars

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Financial considerations themselves would point to just creating a new yahoo.group, though I know the visceral dislike of the admins of palanth.com for that particular company. However, just look at the "traffic" this board has had after weeks of notices on planth-l, and compare that to the traffic planth-l originally had in either its first incarnation, or the revamped version that went live in april 99.

C. David Kreger
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com

I must agree with the above. To which I'd add the ongoing success of evolutionary-psychology, also still a Yahoo group. I've just recently been going through my personal archive of the old palanth-l posts. I really do miss it so very much: the discussions there helped form my thinking on so many topics.

Harry (Skeptical1)

Comparing I. Pitchford's EP list to other Yahoo groups is like comparing apples with oranges (or, even, streetcars). If you were to spend a bit of time looking at other Yahoogroups lists dealing with things palaeoanthropological (sensu lato), you would find out that many of them are characterized by very low membership and/or traffic. As for the few exceptions (which shall remain nameless), they are essentially driven by a few, very hyperactive individuals. In other words, the mode of communication is but one factor in the success of such enterprises.

And waxing nostalgic about good old "palanth-l" adds nothing to the quality of the discourse, nor does it solve whatever problem the PALANTH-Forum may be confronted with. Not to mention that much of "palanth-l" relatively heavy traffic was very much the result of very few individuals who, to quote one the more famous contributors, spent an inordinate amount of time communicating and exchanging views while the vast majority of members, like in an American election, rarely bothered to vote. In this regard, have a look at your own contributions.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

David and Jacques:

Anthropology and its related disciplines is not a high traffic topic, and likely won't ever be.

I would have to partially agree with David on this one.  First of all, unless you search for them, message boards are often hard to locate.  Even if you *do* locate one, it may be "buried" in some exotic Internet locale, and this assumes you know where to look in the first place.  A lot of people, even those reasonably familiar with the Internet, do not.  Second, once you've winnowed out the people who, no matter how knowledgeable they may be, actually have the motivation to *find* your message board,(which may take a considerable amount of time, even with a search engine like Google), you may not have very many people left.  Finally, if the topics don't "interest" for some reason, then potential participants will end up elsewhere.  I'm not saying a message board *can't* work, just that there are a lot of things stacked against one.  

The lack of moderation access to palanth-l as a consequence of Yahoo!'s incompetence or apathy aside, a much more viable option would have simply to place ample notice in messages to the group (as was done with the creation of this forum) about a change to a new group.

That's actually a rather good suggestion.  However Jacques I think explained why this couldn't be done(at least at present).  

Financial considerations themselves would point to just creating a new yahoo.group, though I know the visceral dislike of the admins of palanth.com for that particular company. However, just look at the "traffic" this board has had after weeks of notices on planth-l, and compare that to the traffic planth-l originally had in either its first incarnation, or the revamped version that went live in april 99. It is a functionality issue, and an ease of use issue.

Well, again, I would have to agree with David here(at least partially).  Any fool can set up a yahoogroup.  Any way they want it, pretty much.  Of course there are "issues" with Yahoo that are irritating, but it is *huge* and well-known.  That's one of the reasons for its "draw".  

I'm sorry if giving you the reason for the failure of this forum (and regardless of what you would like to be the case, this forum is fast going the route of many other message boards, newsgroups, etc, dedicated to anthropological subdisciplines: complete lack of use), particularly when you take out the admins, Mikey, Anne, and Daryl out of the picture, you have almost nothing going on here, I've somehow offended. And a 6-10 person chat board isn't the purpose of this board is it?

OK.  Conceded to David.  *But* --- and this is a big but, you see much the same pattern on any e-mail list.  The proportion of active "talkers" is always small in comparison to the vast majority of people who get on these e-mail lists and just lurk.  There are some e-mail lists where *I* just lurk, despite my "talkative" Internet appearance, simply because I don't know too much about the subject, but interesting discussions go on and I think I can learn something by listening.  I don't really see that there is much difference here.  In this sense, maybe there is hope for the administrators.  

I would contribute something of a "more paleoanthropological nature" but have seen nothing I felt interested in contributing. Crossposting discussions already aggravated me with all the yahoo.groups, so I won't do so here, and nothing really in my realm of interest that piqued any thoughts from me.

But they might pique the interest of somebody who doesn't normally "hang out" on yahoogroups. And theoretically, at least, it could have provoked some discussion.

I read these forums. I registered here soon after palanth officially "died". I simply finally found a topic I felt like contributing to, in order to give you an explanation why it wasn't going as hoped.

David, I think your critique is quite reasonable in some ways.  But OTOH, this forum hasn't really *started*, in a very real sense.  It may very well turn out as you say.  My experience with other message boards recently hasn't given me too much optimism, but I wonder if we shouldn't *at least* wait till the thing gets officially launched.  There *are* difficulties, no doubt about it, and in the end it may be wiser just to go back to something like Yahoogroups but with more "control" if that's possible.  In the meanwhile, I think the best course is probably just "wait and see".
Anne G

Dear Anne,

Thanks again for your (somewhat !) positive contribution. I believe you are right in suggesting that a "wait and see" stance is the one that should be taken, and for the life of me, I do not understand what the fuss is all about. Regardless of its configuration ("message board" or "list"), the PALANTH-Forum has, so far, served palaeoanthropology relatively well and it already "contains" a fair bit of useful information which is systematically accessed by a large number of "lurkers". And as I said to someone else, it should be viewed as a component of a larger "work in progress".

My best,

Jacques Cinq-Mars

[Mikey Brass]

A lot has come from a simple short post of mine. Tempers seem to be getting a little frayed. With regards to my original post, both Jacques and C. David Kreger are partially right; in actual fact it was both a question (the subject heading) and an observational statement (the one sentence text body). Like Harry and David, I preferred the old palanth-l at yahoogroups and the solution to create a new yahoogroups list was, at least to me, an obvious solution. However, that is the past and this is the present. No amount of wishful thinking can change that this is the reality and the challenge is how to make this forum and website work.

Firstly, from looking through the subscription list the forum immediately currently has a different set of dynamics to it than did the old palanth-l. For one thing, regular palanth-l subscribers such as C. Loring Brace are conspicious by their absence. The challenge for the moderators of the forum is how to attract more students and, in particular, more scholars to utlise this place as an avenue for communication between themselves and as a way to help share their knowledge with the public.

Second, the content posted here. Sure I posted part of one chapter of my book and then a summary of a current debate on this forum. There is only one way to stimulate discussion and that is to post material, and even if only a couple of people respond but others read it privately perhaps just perhaps the information posted will be of some benefit somewhere to someone. In this, many people here share the blame - from the moderators for not attempting to stimulate discussion when the board went dead to other forum members (myself included) who took no action.

My third point is technical and one I have raised before. People have complained they cannot "e-mail in". Jacques is right that this would take a fair amount of programming time and personally I do not think it is realistic. However, there is a compromise which I believe would enhance this forum and make it more attractive. Whenever anybody writes a message they have the option of chosing the "Notify of replies" option and they receive an e-mail notification whenever any subsequent post is made to that particular thread. This notification e-mail is comprised of a set message with the relevant url. This notification e-mail can be improved and, according to a database web design expert who is a friend of mine, it will not involve extensive re-programming and neither will be increase bandwidth. Instead of the notification e-mail containing essentially a set text, the notification can be re-programmed to include the url of the new message and the text of said new message (in place of the current standard text). This way people can visit the forum, post in a thread and then be able to read via e-mail subsequent messages to the same thread and decide which ones they may want to respond to. It will save the readers time and they will be able to electronically store any e-mails which interest them on their own computers for easier search reference.

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

A lot has come from a simple short post of mine.Tempers seem to be getting a little frayed.

Yes, doom and gloom is usually quite attractive, even to scientific minds. And I am sure that an examination and analysis of such a tendency would make for a good EP thread. As for tempers "getting a little frayed", well, I do not think it can be read in my responses. I have just been my icreasingly old and increasingly humourless and snarky self. Although, I will go as far as to admit that my “visceral aversion” for what I call a CNN approach to discussion may well have surfaced again.

This said, thanks for your additional (lengthier) comments, and here are a few additional points and/or reiterations

With regards to my original post, both Jacques and C. David Kreger are partially right; in actual fact it was both a question (the subject heading) and an observational statement (the one sentence text body). Like Harry and David, I preferred the old palanth-l at yahoogroups and the solution to create a new yahoogroups list was, at least to me, an obvious solution. However, that is the past and this is the present. No amount of wishful thinking can change that this is the reality and the challenge is how to make this forum and website work.

For the sake of historicity, let me say that the decision to pull out of Yahoogroups was arrived at following lengthy discussions between the list owner and the moderators and the reasons for doing so were presented to the list. I should add, as a parenthesis, that by “moderators”, I am not referring to Dan Barnes who, for unknown reasons (to me, anyway), appears to have unfortunately disappeared in thin air. At any rate, it was decided that further reliance on Yahoo’s support was not worth contemplating and that a solution had to be found elsewhere. The PALANTH formula was then arrived at and, needless to say, enthusiastically endorsed by all plotters involved in the “coup” (including a number of list members). Early on, it became clear that the message board solution was far from ideal, from a communication point-of-view and that quite a few people had vis-à-vis this particular approach the kind of “visceral dislike” we had of Yahoogroups. I hasten to add, here, that many individuals shared with us their concern regarding the fact that the proposed solution would make their participation difficult, if not impossible, and this because of perfectly reasonable (technological and/or even financial) reasons. All I can say at this time is to reiterate, once more, that all efforts are being made to make things easier, and to add that this takes time and efforts, especially in the context of what should be viewed (has been planned) as a long term project that, as you well know, involves a lot more than just a “discussion list”.

In this sense, you are right. A posteriori bitching (my word, not yours) is not very constructive and what is important, i.e., the challenge you are talking about, is to deal positively with the “present” and come up with workable plans for the future of the project..

Firstly, from looking through the subscription list the forum immediately currently has a different set of dynamics to it than did the old palanth-l. For one thing, regular palanth-l subscribers such as C. Loring Brace are conspicious by their absence.

With regards to C. Loring Brace’s “conspicuous ... absence” (which is indeed unfortunate) I will just note that he has also been rather silent elsewhere, in other lists. Many other people have also been rather quiet, across the board(s), as it were. Presumably, they all have, at this time, personal and/or professional priorities that do not include spending an inordinate amount of time doing what we are presently doing. Anecdotal “evidence” like this can be interpreted any way you want. And I feel it is pretty much the same when it come to the interpretation of the difference in “dynamics” which, if it is to mean anything, has to factor in much more than just traffic density.
 

The challenge for the moderators of the forum is how to attract more students and, in particular, more scholars to utlise this place as an avenue for communication between themselves and as a way to help share their knowledge with the public.

Yes. It is pretty much what we are attempting to do with the PALANTH formula that is fairly clearly enunciated in http://www.palanth.com/preview/ and which will be further discussed in the Editorial of the Inaugural Issue.

Second, the content posted here. Sure I posted part of one chapter of my book and then a summary of a current debate on this forum. There is only one way to stimulate discussion and that is to post material, and even if only a couple of people respond but others read it privately perhaps just perhaps the information posted will be of some benefit somewhere to someone.

As made quite clear in our policy statements (which – this should not surprise you – have not been read by two thirds of the members, at the very best), there are very few formal restrictions placed on “content”. For obvious reasons (also discussed elsewhere), we have chosen not to go on with what I have called the “soft piracy” that was systematically practiced in palanth-l and now in other lists you know well. And there is no doubt in my mind that this has served to reduce the number of “pique-assiette” or spongers, if you like. Other than that, everything, light or heavy that can pass itself as palaeoanthropologically relevant and interdisciplinary (and that does not raise the ire of the moderators!) is welcome.

In this, many people here share the blame - from the moderators for not attempting to stimulate discussion when the board went dead to other forum members (myself included) who took no action.

As I may have said before, a lull is a lull – not to mention that the one some of you appear to be so concerned with happen to have straddled the 2002-2003 Holiday Season which was rather long. Annoying, yes, but certainly not very dramatic and ominous as some seem to think. In other words, I see no reason to persist in assigning “blame”. Especially where it does not belong. We all know it was my fault!

My third point is technical and one I have raised before. People have complained they cannot "e-mail in". Jacques is right that this would take a fair amount of programming time and personally I do not think it is realistic. However, there is a compromise which I believe would enhance this forum and make it more attractive. Whenever anybody writes a message they have the option of chosing the "Notify of replies" option and they receive an e-mail notification whenever any subsequent post is made to that particular thread. This notification e-mail is comprised of a set message with the relevant url. This notification e-mail can be improved and, according to a database web design expert who is a friend of mine, it will not involve extensive re-programming and neither will be increase bandwidth. Instead of the notification e-mail containing essentially a set text, the notification can be re-programmed to include the url of the new message and the text of said new message (in place of the current standard text). This way people can visit the forum, post in a thread and then be able to read via e-mail subsequent messages to the same thread and decide which ones they may want to respond to. It will save the readers time and they will be able to electronically store any e-mails which interest them on their own computers for easier search reference.

If I am not wrong, the option you refer to ("Notify of replies") has been brought up before by our PALANTH Administrator. And you are right, given the present circumstances, it is the next best thing to a full email solution which, as I have repeatedly mentioned, is being looked into.

That will be it for now, and thanks again,

Jacques Cinq-Mars