Hi John and every body,

I think their is a reason for this situation of the discussion group with
talkers and spectators.
It is as in a conference where a "table" argues and others watch.
On the other hand, people may like to publish a log and not argue on issues.
It will take sometime to have more people having both interests :
publishning+discussion interelated.
No?
Have a nice week end!
----- Original Message -----
From: John Robb
To: klogs@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 4:03 PM
Subject: [K-Logs] K-Logs vs. Discussion Groups


Dear K-Loggers (and especially David),

Here is my thinking on the differences between K-Logs and discussion groups.
I have been talking to lots of people recently about the state of their
discussion groups. To a person they have told me that they weren't what they
expected, and some have said they have been a disaster. I am fairly sure that
anyone that been exposed to an advanced K-Log system (with categories, RSS
subscriptions, and community functionality) would never opt for discussion
groups alone.

The reason for this is threefold:

1) Discussion groups, particularly threaded conversations are difficult to
follow. There is often a high degree of fragmentation as participants loop the
conversation into different areas.

2) The signal to noise ratio between good posts and bad posts is usually very
low.

3) The loudest voices often overwhelm the majority of participants. This is
perhaps the most important reason most discussion groups fail. This is a case
of the one bad apple spoiling the bunch.

K-Logs and discussion groups aren't mutually exclusive. Many K-Log systems
(like Manila) provide a discussion area and site membership for every K-Log and
Radio offers the ability of readers to post comments to each post (see
http://jrobb.userland.com as an example). An added benefit is that each site
owner can moderate (decentralized moderation) their discussion groups and
comments (by deleting off-topic or inane posts).

However, K-Logs offer much more than discussion groups alone, and fix many of
their problems:

1) K-Logs represent the thinking of a single mind. This often narrows the
range of subjects addressed. Further, it is possible to publish category
specific K-Logs. So, as a reader, I can select to read a single participant's
thinking on a specific subject (i.e.. Jon Udell's thinking on "collaboration"
see: http://radio.weblogs.com/0100887/categories/collaboration/ ). Further, I
can subscribe through RSS to this category specific K-Log.

2) The signal to noise ratio in K-Logs often remains high. Why? K-Loggers
can select the people they want to read through RSS subscriptions. There is no
requirement to read the K-Logs of verbose nitwits (there are always some in
every group). Additionally, community K-Log functionality can tell you through
traffic and subscription stats who the trusted sources are.

3) K-Logs provide a podium for every participant. Everyone has their own
site. No voice can be silenced. Additionally, people tend to post higher
quality information when it is attached to their name (every post they make adds
to their body of work). This is in contrast to the anonymous posting (or
posting under a handle) that many discussion groups allow.

Personally, I usually don't spend that much time on discussion group and opt
instead to post my thinking to my K-Log. The reason is selfish: I don't want to
spend time working on a serious post that isn't directly attributed to my name.
I am building a body of work with my K-Log and the benefits accrue directly to
me. A discussion post offers me little recognition for my effort. It is also
often lost on a stranded thread or in a blizzard of off-topic nonsense.

Sincerely,

John Robb
http://radio.userland.com





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
klogs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]