On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Dave Malouf wrote:
> This is not a "design problem" but a "relationship problem".
If so, what's the solution? Mass list counseling? That's a lot of billable
hours for someone :-)
And do you think this is truly a 100% either/or issue -- that there's no
possibility a "design problem" approach might result in at least some
mitigating of the situation?
Hassan Schroeder ------------------------ firstname.lastname@example.org
I think what is so interesting is how such a small minority of problem creators are getting so much attention. The # of job postings are minuscule really compared to when we didn't have a job board at all.
So to be honest, we have already mitigated the largest amount of the problem and we are just talking about the long tail of people who are just never going to learn the rules.
Any remaining solutions IMHO would be costly in person and software:
Can we add content filtering for key words? yes. Would this alone stop the issue? of course not, so we'd still have a trickle, maybe slightly less than we have now. But the 2 posts a day (at most) are nothing compared to the 10-15 job posts we used to get. So we cut that in 1/2 (sounds big right?), we have 1 post a day. Hmm? doesn't feel significant though. Does it?
The other system interference that I think would have the largest effect is removing email as a means for starting threads. Not removing email in total. We can still reply, but job posting is always a new thread. Ergo, someone posting jobs would have to go to the site, and we could most effectively deal w/ things. E.g. we can read subject lines and interject at that point.
But here's the twist, @pauric is completely convinced that removing email (don't know how he feels about my suggestion of just removing it for starting) would "put the nail in the coffin" on this community.
Either solution would cost money to make happen. Money we don't have.
(PS. If I would point out a problem WORTH solving first, it would be how can we stop people from spawning false new threads b/c of the way they are replying. Why is this breaking for some people and not for others? Removing the quoted material? Even though it clearly states not to? Works fine for me the few times I do do it. But it is such a big hassle if you are a web site user, that this more than anything else I could see breaking the web site and would have to be fixed before we can go web-only or web-starting.)
>I think what is so interesting is how such a small minority of problem creators are getting so much attention. The # of job >postings are minuscule really compared to when we didn't have a job board at all.
Maybe so - but how many peoplee are still subscribed to the jobs list without realising? Clearly this has been the case for a number of us, since the original policy was to subscribe everyone by default, without telling us. Maybe it's this, rather than the occasional 'incorrect' post that's causing the problem? What about sending a message to everyone on the jobs list telling them that they are subscribed, and how they can unsub?