Monday, December 20, 2010

why yes, I certainly DID have more productive things to do ...

But in an effort to avoid all of them I have spent the last half hour going through the listing of every post since the beginning of September.  A couple of interesting statistics ...

Of the 98 people on the posted list of 'contributors' to the blog, 67 have posted since August 31.  Quite a few of these have only posted once.  (Raises hand guiltily ...)

Quite a few people who used to post have left the blog, and I miss them all ... (mathsquatch! why did you go!)

31, obviously, haven't posted at all this term.  Most of these have never (to my recollection - I didn't go back over the whole archive) posted at all.  I think there may have been some confusion about what being a "contributor" meant initially, and people may have thought they couldn't comment if they weren't 'contributors'.  One hopes this confusion has now been cleared up.


  1. At the risk of starting yet another sciences vs humanities flame war, might I suggest that perhaps quantity of posts is not the only criterion to use when judging a member's contributions?

    I would prefer to keep someone who posted ONE kickass post a semester over someone who posted more frequently but less amusingly.

    If the issue is Blogger's arbitrary 100 contributor limit, might I suggest 2 possible solutions:

    1) People could email prospective posts to designated volunteers (I would be happy to be one of them).
    2) We could move to a less lame platform.

  2. Addendum to point 2), above:

  3. The original moderator and the current one both preferred Blogger to host the site, but WhatLadder makes an excellent post.

    People do email prospective posts to the College Misery site, and they occasionally appear.

  4. The problem there, Ladder, is that I suspect that there would be considerable differences of opinion as to what constituted a kick-ass post. De gustibus non disputandum, and all that.

    As for the limit of 100, I'm fine with axing those who have never posted anything. But beyond that, why bother? We probably don't need more than 5 or 6 posts per day, and we have that already. I just don't think there really are 100 people out there who will post something more than once a month on average.

    Right now I'd say there are about a dozen contributors--The Dog, Darla, Stella et al.--who account for most of the posts, another twenty or twenty-five people--like me, and The Beaker--who might post twice in a week and then go silent for three or four until the muse strikes again, or something catches our eye. Then there might be a handful who post once in a blue moon. Finally there are probably 35 or 40 who have never posted and likely never will. I don't think that is likely to change much, frankly, no matter who occupies the 100 slots. That said, if there are folks who think they want in, then Lelsie probably ought to feel free to delete some or all of the 35 or 40 non-posters. If they haven't posted by now, they likely never will. Every new person should get a three or four month window before they too are up for deletion to make way for anyone who believes they might do better. Rinse, wash, repeat.

    But for the most part, it is much ado about nothing. It ain't perfect, but I think it works well enough as is.

  5. "It ain't perfect, but I think it works well enough as is."


  6. This is highly UN-scientific -- and for that I apologize -- but I noted 20+ people whose names were not familiar. Here they are:

    Archaeo-lab-girl, Arete, Baltimore G@$%irl, Bioengineer, Bobbi, Enoch Soames, Faris Bueller, French Profeseur, Go cat, go!, Inarticulate Elucidation (love that name), Loquacious Lindsey, Lucy, Countess of Bedford, Misono Rottlepalle, Monda, Old School, Red Queen, Ricardus R, Rich, Selena Nightengale, Stew, Wylodmayer.

    The others I had a vague recollection. Forgive spelling; a quick scribble was the extent of this project.

  7. Bueller and Go Cat have definitely commented, if not posted. Wylodmayer and Misono Rotto (also a great name if you understand it) have both posted and commented, although not in a while.

  8. I can't even imagine doing all of that work! Thanks. I remember Red Queen, Wylodmayer, Enoch Soames, and Old School all posting, and for sure Lindsey, Lucy, and Misono (who's rather new).

    I'd hate to be the one to revoke privileges! Is there a level of involvement we need for people to stay? (This is why I post so much...that and I have a boring life...except for hubby...hehe.)

  9. @Whatladder
    Why should I have to kiss anyone's ass to make sure my post is good enough?

    If you create a blog with a 100 people, all levels of creativity, writing skills, senses of humor should be welcome. If one blogger thinks another blogger's post is lame he/she can either post a comment offering constructive criticism or ignore it.

    Lameness is in the eye of the beholder.

    Angry Archie sums it up very nicely.

  10. I'm pretty sure I've seen a comment or two from French Profeseur (I know a couple of French Profeseurs, so I noticed). Not sure about posts. And yes, Wylodmayer, Misono, Old School, Lindsey and Lucy have at least commented from time to time. I think I've also spotted Faris and Archeo-Lab-Girl, but I could be wrong about the latter.

    Generally, I'm in favor of quality over quantity, but a once-a-quarter minimum to retain posting privileges seems reasonable, especially since it's possible to submit the occasional post without being an official contributor.

  11. It should all be moved to Facebook. That's where I have a lot of fun.

  12. I figured if I posted the names I didn't recognize then others with better memories would step forward. But there's a line between posting and commenting, right?

    This has led me to think of old RYS posters. Bitchy Bear and Mid-Career Mike. I liked Mike. He took us for a ride, remember?

  13. Bitchy Bear has posted here. But I don't remember if Mid-Career Mike made the transition. Did he? He wrote one of my all time favorite RYS posts about the adjunct instructor he brought in from the cold. Beautiful post. It actually made me cry.

  14. I've never failed a class (okay, except that Chem one that I had to withdraw from). Let me fail on College Misery! Please! Please! Give me a big fat F and revoke my posting...oh. Wait. I gave them up. And you know what? I'm fucking ecstatic. Tomorrow, I will proudly wear my "F is for FAIL" t-shirt.

    Why, you ask?

    Because today I turned in (an hour late! An hour! The world stopped spinning!) TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY FINAL GRADES.

    And tomorrow, I will turn in another 60.

    I am thirty two and I am not a full-time staff member, but I taught 280 students in two different state schools this semester.

    and right now...I'm...uh...kinda drunk. Um, right, the Dog is off for walkies...

  15. Oh good lord. I am not suggesting some kind of rating system for posts, more that pressure to post once a week might not be the best way to get the best material.

    We seem to have a lot of angst about who is and who is not contributing, and I was trying to offer some suggestions, but clearly I missed the point which was to be all hand-wringy without actually solving the problem.

  16. @Dog: Say it ain't so! You're still going to comment, right? And keep us posted on your job search and/or the possibility of the cardboard university? And share pedagogical tips? I can certainly understand your exhaustion (I remember carrying a somewhat similar load as an adjunct, but can't remember quite how I survived it; it's all a bit hazy), but please, please don't disappear entirely; I'd really miss you.

  17. @Darla: Did Mid-Career Mike transmogrify, in a series of steps, into Middle-Aged & Morose? Or was that Middle-Aged Mark?

  18. Mid-Career Mike exists, but hasn't been around here for quite so time. Those temperate gulf breezes must make it hard for a guy to get on the computer.

    And I did want to add that before I turned the site over to Leslie K I did contact a number (2 dozen?) of folks who were officially correspondents here at CM, but who had never posted or only posted one time in the early days.

    Most wrote to say, "Hey, leave me alone. I might post again..."

    I didn't delete anyone because the waiting list to get on was never very long.

    You'd probably be surprised how many times people write in to say, "Delete me; I've had enough of this noise," only to email 2 weeks later. "Hey, ACTIVATE me again. What the hell is going on. I have lots to say!" That's fun, let me tell you!

    PS: I'm commenting today so nobody thinks I'm dead...

  19. Go ahead and remove me. I signed up because a spot opened up and I thought I might want to contribute. I still think I might in the future, but may as well give the place to someone who's more sure.

    I certainly don't want to feel like I'm under any kind of obligation to post.

  20. I certainly don't think there's any advantage to publishing frequently over occasionally; surely what we want is people to post when they feel inspired, and not otherwise. If 100 people each posted once every 3 months that would be a post a day, which would be thin, but not bad, frankly. I certainly couldn't read more than 3 or 4 posts a day. Frequency of posts at the moment looks great to me.

    On the other hand, if a 'contributing member' has not posted all semester long, and hasn't otherwise been heard from either, I don't think it unreasonable to cut them loose, particularly if there's a waitlist of people who want to become members.

    So I think what I'd suggest is a shakedown at the end of each semester. If there's anyone who has one of the 100 slots, but has not posted AT ALL, not even once, plus hasn't commented or otherwise shown any signs of life, and if there are people who DO want a slot, then the non-contributing no-shows could be eased off the list to make space. But so far it hasn't seemed to be an issue really.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.