SHAKSPER 2002: PLEASE READ: Some Suggestions from the Editor

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@shaksper.net)
Date: 05/23/02 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1392  Wednesday, 23 May 2002

From:           Hardy M. Cook <editor@shaksper.net>
Date:           PLEASE READ: Some Suggestions from the Editor
Subject:        Thursday, May 23, 2002

Dear SHAKSPEReans:

My semester is drawing to a close; I have resigned as chair with only a
few remaining tasks to complete; and I am about to begin a year-long
sabbatical. I should be ecstatically happy were it not that I have been
plagued by questions about what I should so with the rest of my life and
is SHAKSPER still a viable venue for serious discussion of Shakespearean
topics (more about this issue in a future post).

In any case, I have been thinking (or, at least, last night, during a
fit of insomnia, I was thinking) about ways that SHAKSPER might be
improved and my job might be lighten a wee bit.

I will begin with an abbreviated summary of what I do to bring SHAKSPER
to its members.

*Several times a day I check the shaksper@shaksper.net account;

*I delete the sometimes hundreds of spasms and error messages and save
mail from members as named and numbered text files in a folder on my
hard drive;

*Usually, on the following morning, I begin by topic formatting posts
and digests for distribution to the members;

*I begin by inserting a header with the date and a volume and issue
number;

*For messages that are not related to any others I have received, I
format the From, Date, and Subject lines to create a consistent design
and then lightly edit them and add the Disclaimer;

*For multiple messages I insert the header, insert all of the messages,
format them, lightly edit them, and create a table of contents;

*Then I mail the posts to the listserv software for distribution.

Sometimes, I can prepare a single message in five minutes or so (but
this does not include any of the other time I spend managing the list
itself); digests, of course, take a significantly more time.

Let me make a few SUGGESTIONS that would lighten my workload and I
believe improve the quality of the list as a whole.


LOAD LIGHTENING SUGGESTION

If your full name is NOT included in the “From” line of your e-mail,
PLEASE sign your post with your full name so that I can cut and paste
and not have to either look up your name in the membership list or type
in your name myself. For example, if the name on your “From” line is
“7283smythe,” don’t just sign your name “Jane” – sign it “Jane Smythe”
so that I can cut and paste it.


LIST IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTIONS (Almost all related to sending messages
offline rather than to the list.)

CONGRATULATIONS: If you approve of something a member has written,
instead of sending the list a message like “BRAVO, I AGREE, HOW
WONDERFUL, MAGNIFICENT, SUBURB, GO GIRL, WELL PUT, and so on,” PLEASE
reply DIRECTLY to the individual poster. It may take you thirty seconds
to hit the reply key and type “Well, said,” but it takes me at least
five minutes to transform your e-mail into a post that really is
addressed primarily, if not exclusively, to the person being approved
of. In most cases, I would also suggest that short expressions of
disapproval also should be sent directly to the original poster.

THANK YOU: It is a common courtesy to express thanks to people who have
reply to a query you have made. Not to do so is thoughtless. One very
prominent Shakespearean told me that he once spent several hours looking
up the answer to a query someone had posted to the list and received no
expression of thanks for his work. My plea is that you offer your thanks
to those who responded to you INDIVIDUALLY and PRIVATELY, not through
the list itself. Direct individual replies, no matter how short, show
your thanks much more than an all purpose “Thank you all who have
responded to my question regarding . . .”

THE THREADS THAT NEVER SEEM TO END: I am sometimes amazed how long some
discussions continue. Undoubtedly, some threads lead to explorations of
equally interesting issues. Other threads appear to reach a conclusion
only to have a member respond to a point another member makes and
another seemingly endless cycle of I-said-You-said exchanges begins. I
am once again begging for some self-moderation. Please take some
disagreements between individuals offline, and when a thread begins to
wind down please respond offline.

PICK YOUR FIGHTS: This is yet another appeal for self-moderation. I know
some of you are bursting with excitement about the wide variety of
discourse that takes place on SHAKSPER, but please pick your fights
carefully. There really is no need for an individual to respond to more
than one or two topics a day. This does not mean members are forbidden
from discussing more than two issues; it just means that I ask members
to consider the number of contributions they make a day – sometimes the
traffic on this list is simply too much, and I do not want to lose or
not attract members because they are overwhelmed by the amount of
discourse that appears everyday.

If you have read this far, I appreciate your patience and attention.

Best wishes,
Hardy

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.


about SHAKSPER | current postings | submitted papers | browse SHAKSPER | search SHAKSPER
  
Copyright © 2001, Hardy M. Cook, design by Eric Luhrs. All rights reserved.