Replies are closed for this discussion.
I just found this website. I looks great to me so far. I like the translation tool. :) As for your question:
We have an enormous number of Groups, many of whom are dormant. How might we regenerate particpation in more of them?
A quick thought. I am actually not familiar to this website enough to comment. But I am trying to contribute as a newcomer to thank you for your work.
It looks to me that the "groups" function separate members into smaller groups completely.
After I chose a couple groups, I landed on these group pages and lost the sense of the big picture. The groups I join in happen to be not so active yet. Actually there are so many groups and members and there should be some updates in some of them at any time. If somehow and somewhere in one page we could present the list of the groups (in the order of popularity), with one or two newly updated posts following the title of the groups, this might give a sense of the dynamics of the whole community. Rather than a sense of in-activeness brought by the few groups one chose to join in.
Maybe there are such things already. ... just try to comment. It is a great website!
a sense of in-activeness brought by the few groups one chose to join in.
... I think that the groups are REALLY important and need to be made a priority.
Having spoken to a number of new users I know that people get put off the site because they think that the discussions are too "high-brow" or "intelligent". Somebody came out with a great line the other day that I think really sums it up. They told me that they were about to post something when they realised that someone had already posted a reply to the discussion. On reading the reply they decided that what they were going to post was not clever enough and that they would "have to go away and do some more reading" in order to post a worthy response.
This is why I think that the groups really need to be developed so that we get smaller circles of people that feel happy posting whatever they like to one another. Without this we risk getting stuck with the same few people who are confident enough in their posts.
I can see how people think their comments are not "good enough" to be posted on the OAC especially when I read comments in reply to those of us, yes I count myself in the uneducated masses group, that are veiled put downs. We all communicate in our own way and should be able to feel free to do so as long as it is done within an anthropological framework.
Separating the masses from the educated hierarchy, IMO, will not achieve the result you desire Jacob. Instead it will cement a feeling in many that they are not up to a high enough standard to participate in certain areas of the OAC.Couple things:
Highlighting peoples achievements is already done in "This week on the OAC" The very first things I see when I come in is the good things people have been doing in the OAC. The brilliant thing about this one is it highlights serious and not so serious as long as it has something to do with anthropology. What an excellent way to attract non academics to Anthropology as an interest and possibly a future career choice.
That is an inflammatory accusation. Cite specific examples.Wow, you are a little sensitive. I would cite specific examples but, as the admin team know, the topics in question were deleted by the topic originator. May I just suggest you don't take things so personally, if my comment was directed at you I would say so as I am not one to hide my thoughts. Jacob Lee said:
But, let me say this: academics argue, and they find faults in other people's lines of reasoning. It's healthy, and it doesn't have to be taken personally. And yeah, when they see a line of bull, they call it. Why shouldn't they?My thoughts exactly. I don't want to drudge up recent history, suffice to say some know what I am referring to, and referring back to my statement above it is difficult for me to give you the proof you demand. I can say this however, take a look at my profile page and the comments contained there-in. Follow the obvious links and you will see in part, if the other side of the discussion has not been deleted, what I am referring to.