Timeline for Our 2 Critical Issues: Users and Participation
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 3, 2012 at 4:21 | comment | added | Duncan | @ColeValleyGirl - So ask more good questions. My point is asking more questions is that is what attracts the new people to the site. We are still bootstrapping up the content. All I am saying is everyone should ask more if they want the site to succeed. | |
| Nov 25, 2012 at 13:54 | comment | added | user104 | Duncan, I agree: we need to attract BOTH answerers (to get answers -- hopefully expert ones -- that make it worthwhile for questioners to keep coming back) AND a sufficient stream of good questions asked by people at all levels of expertise (to attract other questioners and answerers). We will not survive if we only get one or the other. But I don't think the answer is for us all to "Ask more questions" if the questions that are asked are not real and good. | |
| Nov 21, 2012 at 12:51 | comment | added | Duncan | I agree we need more experts. But I also think we need questions to be asked by non-experts like me. I'm egocentric like everyone else and consider myself to the 'target audience'. If you have to be an expert to ask a question, and experts don't ask questions, then you have a tautology of 'no questions'. Is this a site only for expert/professional genealogists or is this a site for people with genealogy questions? I'm not saying ignore the experts - I agree they are most important. I'm just saying don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 18:44 | comment | added | lkessler | @Duncan: I think you'll find those who are advanced/expert genealogists will tend to answer questions more than ask. And intermediate genealogists will ask more questions than they will answer. GeneJ is going out of her way to think up challenging questions to ask as examples, and I give her full credit for that. | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 17:08 | comment | added | Duncan | Since my comment on quality vs participation invoked controversy, I removed it. The main point was we need more questions to increase participation. | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 17:06 | history | edited | Duncan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1792 characters in body
|
| Nov 20, 2012 at 15:02 | comment | added | user104 | @lkessler, be a bit [more] discouraging if we stayed at 0% fulfilled commitment for the full three months, don't you think? | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 14:48 | comment | added | lkessler | @ColeValleyGirl: Commitment was: "I commit to participate actively in Genealogy & Family History for at least three months, especially during the private beta, and to ask or answer at least ten questions." Well, we haven't been 3 months yet, so technically nobody has fulfilled their committment, so they obviously evaluate "fulfillment" differently. | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 13:11 | comment | added | user104 | I also really don't want to get into willy-waving, but you might want to check the definition of "fulfillment"; I believe it depends on questions answered as well as asked. | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 13:08 | comment | added | user104 | I disagree: improving (or sustaining) question quality does not have to be at the expense of participation. Improving question quality should increase the participation of expert answerers, which will then make the site a more useful resource for questioners. | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 12:38 | history | edited | Duncan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 329 characters in body
|
| Nov 20, 2012 at 12:27 | history | answered | Duncan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |