Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

nafex - Re: [nafex ibiblio list] [NAFEX] NAFEX question

nafex@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: david.maxwell@dal.ca
  • To: nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [nafex ibiblio list] [NAFEX] NAFEX question
  • Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:03:15 -0400

I too have been a dues-paying member of NAFEX for some 30 years, and continue
to be. So
my comments are not motivated by the ability to get information free via the
Web, rather than
"paying" for it in NAFEX dues. I have been following this debate with
interest for a
considerable time, (long before it became apparent to the members of the
listserv that
NAFEX had actually divorced themselves from it). As well, I have
introspected a bit on my
own use of both the listserv and the new NAFEX website. (This is not say
that my actions
are any more valid than anybody else. But I suspect that I am probably
fairly representative
of many, if not the majority. And the fact that the majority of subscribers
to the listserv are
not NAFEX members supports this.)

I have in actual fact gone to the NAFEX website only twice - once to look at
it to see what a
fine job Deb was doing, (ie. a critical evaluation of the technical aspects
of the website itself)
(And, I would add that she really has done a superb job; she is a very
skilled webmaster, and
deserves a very hearty vote of gratitude for the immense amount of work she
has obviously
put into it.) The second time was when I was trying to get contact
information for NAFEX
executive members - information I could not get from the listserv, or any
other source.
Parenthetically when I tried to look at the Forum on the website I was
blocked by technical
issues, (ie. I was unable to get into it), so I really have nothing to
compare the listserv to. But
I suspect that even had I been able to access the Forum I would not in fact
use it, for the
same reason I virtually never use similar fora in other areas of my interest,
to wit that these
are all "pull technologies". That is, one has to log on and go looking to
determine whether
there is material of interest, or even anything new at all. A listserv is a
"push technology"; the
information is delivered to the end-user in a form which permits rapid and
efficient
assessment of the relevance of the postings, equally permitting one to stop
at this stage if
nothing of relevance is displayed. Call it sloth or call it efficient time
usage, if you want to
condition a response from me of explicitly logging on to the website,
followed by linking to a
forum, (a 2 step process), you are going to have to reward me with something
I cannot get
more easily elsewhere, with markedly less effort, and the reward is going to
have to be
predictable and consistent. (I am not going to go looking "just in case"
something new has
been posted.) So, at an absolute minimum, unless some form of email
notification of new
postings is implemented, this Forum is a lost cause.

Now, this is not necessarily a tragedy, (other than it having obviously
required an immense
amount of work on Deb's part, work which may have been mis-directed.) It is
my personal
belief that the information-sharing function is best served precisely by an
open listserv, such
as the present one. Personally I think the decision to divorce NAFEX from
this listserv, and
try to create what is arguably a competitor for the same function may not
have been wise.
(Another strike against the Forum is the increased technical complexity
inherent in it. It is
unusable to me because I can't get into it, and this flows from this same
complexity. Even
when Deb sorts out precisely why I can't get in, and fixes it, she will have
lost a substantial
number of potential subscribers who can't be bothered to pursue it, and she
will still have a
potentially unstable login process - unstable simply because it involves
several systems
which are expected to talk to each other seamlessly. (They never do))

So, my own bias would be to critically examine the functions which one is
trying to serve,
retain for the NAFEX website those things which can best be implemented in
this setting, and
leave for other technologies those things which are better performed through
them. (And this
includes things like Facebook, which I have no interest in using, but
obviously does serve
some useful function for some others.)

But I was not in any way involved in any of this, and it is wholly
inappropriate for me level any
criticism of those who were charged with making these strategic decisions,
and who I am
certain did what they in their best and wisest judgement thought most
desirable.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page