ACT bird books and replying to COG line

[Julian Robinson <>]

This is about "replying to COG line", not "ACT bird
books".

While I understand Ian's points about the dangers of inadvertently
replying to the list with a (sometimes very) personal communication -
most of us have done this at some time or other - the current system does
have significant side-effects that get referred to regularly by
frustrated users.  In particular the suggested and current usage
leads to the following time-consuming and unnecessary chores:

- when I ask a question on the list, I usually get most of the answers
privately (emails 'A' -- let's say 4 emails).  I also receive around
the same number saying "what a good question, thanks for posting it,
I feel so dumb asking questions on this list and no-one seems to answer
them" (emails 'B') and another group saying "can you tell me
what responses you got" (emails 'C').  

- then I need to collate all the answers and send them off to each of the
'C' s (emails 'D').

- then I should write a summary of what I learned and post it to the list
(email 'E').

All in all, 17 emails if I am diligent, and that's without replying to
the 'B's out of courtesy.

This is a heavy penalty for the advantage of saving us from a few
inadvertent emails that could be avoided by training ourselves, as
99.999% of other email lists have done.

In addition to above costs, perhaps even more significant is the number
of people who assumed there were no responses, or few, or who didn't
bother to write to me to solicit the responses, or who didn't want to
bother me, or who just didn't think they were particularly interested in
the topic but would have been fascinated to read what was actually said
-- if they had known.  

A good example of the latter is Geoffrey's recent response to Julienne on
Gang-gangs and King Parrots.  I saw the question and was interested
in the answer but my interest would not have been enough to write to
Julienne requesting the usual on-forwarding of answers, mainly because of
the inconvenience to her.  But I was delighted to see Geoffrey's
atypically public and very interesting answer that in passing filled in a
few gaps that I had pondered at one time or another.  The point is,
this on-list responding was a rare event that ideally should be the
norm.

Many people (sorry I know this is getting long, but it seems to be an
important matter judging by the number of emails of above type I've
received) will argue that multiple answers get out of control and clog up
the list.  To some extent this may be true, but it is EASY for
people to ignore the increased traffic just by not reading emails with
that subject header.   Skimming subjects is an easily acquired
skill.

Regarding on-list correction of people's mistakes -- for myself, if I
write to list that "I think this is a Gosshawk" spelt
incorrectly and identified incorrectly, I am perfectly happy for on-list
correction of both since importantly in this process other people of
similar skill level can learn something.  It would also, in this
example, save THREE people from writing to me to correct my spelling,
since the first of four would have been public.  And it would have
saved FOUR people from writing informationally so fully since they would
not have needed to duplicate what others had written.

None of the above prevents people replying personally (i.e. off-list) to
questions that clearly have no public benefit.

I don't know what the solution is to keep everyone happy, but there is
surely some message in the fact that although these exact problems exist
in all group email lists, every other one that I know of has opted to
remain in the 'standard' configuration and accept the higher volume (and
VERY occasional embarrassment) that results. It is possible that Canberra
Birdos are astonishingly different from other special-interest group
members, but I don't think so.  If we don't change the reply
mechanism, we really do need to work out a means of successfully
encouraging people to reply to questions on-list, as the cost in terms of
effort and missed information under the current system is actually very
high.

Julian

At 04:32 PM 29/09/06, Ian Fraser wrote:
> >wonder if it cannot be
> changed, so that replies go to the list by default...
> Oh no John, no John, no...  Sorry, but I speak as the leading idiot
> who was responsible for the compassionate list manager changing the
> system from that one, having embarrassed myself on more than one occasion
> by carelessly hitting reply and passing a private observation to the
> world at large. (Not that I was quite the only one!)
>
> Quite a few requests are only of relevance to the person asking, and it
> can be exasperating to have to read personal conversations which could as
> well be carried on in private. (And unless the Subject line makes it
> clear, we do have to check.)
>
> Also, for myself, I find it more courteous to reply privately to a
> question like Julian's most recent one, when I believe his "I think
> this is a ...." is wrong. I see no need to tell the world that. In
> that situation it's then up to Julian to choose whether to synthesise the
> information he has gleaned and pass it on. It's also up to others to
> signal that they are interested in the replies. I must say that one of
> the several things I like about this line is the consideration and
> courtesy shown (as evidenced, inter alia, by restraint) on on
> it.
>
> Having said all that, both you and Julian make good points - of course! -
> and I'm sure we'll all consider more carefully how to reply to what in
> future.
>
> Re the books - not sure that the wonderful Atlas is still in print, but I
> assume that Carol Macleay  (who runs the COG book
> stall) could tell you. See her too for Steve Wilson's truly excellent
> Birds of the ACT. Contact Philip Veerman directly (you'll find his
> address in your cog-line In Box) for his version of the GBS
> data.
>
> happy weekend birding all
>
> Ian



*******************************************************************************************************
This is the email announcement and discussion list of the Canberra Ornithologists Group. 
List-Post: <> 
List-Help: <> 
List-Unsubscribe: <> 
List-Subscribe: <>
List archive:

List manager: David McDonald, phone (02) 6231 8904; email <>