Oh my! I'm sorry that my response offended you. I thought I understood your post and your compliment; in fact, I thought that we had made something of a "connection" and, as a result, that I could take the liberty to make a little joke. I see that I still have a lot to learn.
Perhaps our disconnect is that you're formulating "the asset value of lurkers in the merger with go2net" and I'm looking at more of a societal-value model. I thought your asset value proposal was quite good. I understood that your model was retrospective and not prospective, and would have to be lest it generate a torrent of trash posting.
I guess I was so caught up in my own point about quality that I didn't sufficiently differentiate it from your point about asset value, but I'm still a bit troubled by Brad's contention (somewhat overstated for dramatic effect) that all posters are first class citizens because they contribute content, regardless of quality, and all lurkers (I vote for watcher) are selfish users and therefore not citizens at all. Your model modification acknowledges the asset value of us lurkers and I appreciate it.
I, in my societal model, would prioritize the pecking order as
1) posters of substantive content because that's what brings people in;
2) lurkers, because while they don't contribute content, they don't diminish in any significant way the accessibility of others to that content; and
3) posters of other than substantive content because they detract from the quick and/or agreeable access of others.
That hierarchy can work as a societal model to the extent that the society accepts it and the parties voluntarily restrain themselves from being part of the third group in the name of good citizenship. I understand that my hierarchy can't work as a asset valuation model for SI members in this merger for just the reason you state. In order to have a qualitative standard one needs to assign a person or persons as the judge of the quality. In this case, Brad and company would have to sort through all the posts and rate them, a situation that is as disagreeable to me as it is to you. There just isn't any way to make my hierarchy work in a valuation model because there's no acceptable or practicable way to separate category 1 from category 3.
Unlike most of the comments on this thread, my posts were never about money, as I stated, either the value of Brad's enterprise or any fees I or anyone else may or may not be paying to continue with SI. All I was ever trying to do is to stop being dissed for behaving in what I consider to be a responsible way. 'Nuf said.
BTW, I'm still trying to develop an appreciation for the "all posts are good posts" point of view this issue. Two posts yesterday. Completely non-substantive, just adding to the "glue" of the thread. Couldn't help feeling like I was littering, but I shall experiment a bit longer and see if my perspective changes. Hope my tentative steps won't further offend. |
