Comments on: Confessions of a Less Active Lurker http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/09/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/ A Mormon Blog Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:02:51 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: By Common Consent » The 1% Rule http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/09/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99887 By Common Consent » The 1% Rule Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:29:24 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99887 [...] I haven’t been around since we emerged from the primordial slime of LDS-Phil, but nearly so. In the past few years I’d say that the 1% rule is being generous at best. Many, many more of us read and skim than comment, and many, many more of us comment than generate content of our own. I’ve wondered in the past why this is so, and others have as well (our own Karen hall has hinted at it in two separate posts, here and here). I’m not convinced that lurking is necessarily a bad thing, nor do I believe that everyone should get their own blogs going (though some should, I guess). The level of activity is an interesting concept, however. Let me throw out a theory, and you tell me whether you agree: the level of participation in the bloggernacle is roughly equivalent to the level of participation in the Church as a whole. [...] [...] I haven’t been around since we emerged from the primordial slime of LDS-Phil, but nearly so. In the past few years I’d say that the 1% rule is being generous at best. Many, many more of us read and skim than comment, and many, many more of us comment than generate content of our own. I’ve wondered in the past why this is so, and others have as well (our own Karen hall has hinted at it in two separate posts, here and here). I’m not convinced that lurking is necessarily a bad thing, nor do I believe that everyone should get their own blogs going (though some should, I guess). The level of activity is an interesting concept, however. Let me throw out a theory, and you tell me whether you agree: the level of participation in the bloggernacle is roughly equivalent to the level of participation in the Church as a whole. [...]

]]> By: fMhLisa http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/09/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99886 fMhLisa Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:28:57 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99886 Yes Ariel, I was facinated by that train wreck too. Even though I'd never really read BoH much, I couldn't take my eyes off the fall out. Go figure. Yes Ariel,
I was facinated by that train wreck too. Even though I’d never really read BoH much, I couldn’t take my eyes off the fall out. Go figure.

]]> By: DKL http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/09/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99885 DKL Mon, 13 Feb 2006 06:50:50 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99885 <b>gst:</b> <i>I can attest that DKL is one of the least Hitler-like guys I know.</i> Thanks, man. gst: I can attest that DKL is one of the least Hitler-like guys I know.

Thanks, man.

]]> By: Ann http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/09/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99884 Ann Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:56:05 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99884 Is Godwin's law limited to Usenet, or does it work in the 'nacle, too? Is Godwin’s law limited to Usenet, or does it work in the ‘nacle, too?

]]> By: gst http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/09/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99883 gst Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:08:36 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99883 I can attest that DKL is one of the least Hitler-like guys I know. I can attest that DKL is one of the least Hitler-like guys I know.

]]> By: Ariel http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/09/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99882 Ariel Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:52:38 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99882 FMH Lisa, I'm afraid you read DKL's version of my intent rather than my actual comment. (The misspelling of my name was what tipped me off.) I'm not actually interested in BoH at all- why would I want to read about Jen getting felt up when I already know it's fiction? But I <i>was</i> interested in the Bannergate situation- it was interesting to see how "nice" mormons attack each other when they feel that it's just. (That's one of the few things that the 'nacle shares with RS.) Honestly, I think the bloggernacle is already starting to split, and I think it is along the iron rod/liahona lines. There will always be people who read both kinds of blogs, but those who are happy where they are will stick to the thoughts with which they are comfortable. FMH Lisa, I’m afraid you read DKL’s version of my intent rather than my actual comment. (The misspelling of my name was what tipped me off.) I’m not actually interested in BoH at all- why would I want to read about Jen getting felt up when I already know it’s fiction? But I was interested in the Bannergate situation- it was interesting to see how “nice” mormons attack each other when they feel that it’s just. (That’s one of the few things that the ‘nacle shares with RS.)

Honestly, I think the bloggernacle is already starting to split, and I think it is along the iron rod/liahona lines. There will always be people who read both kinds of blogs, but those who are happy where they are will stick to the thoughts with which they are comfortable.

]]> By: fMhLisa http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/09/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99881 fMhLisa Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:30:05 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99881 Eric, In a way, you're illustrating exactly what I'm talking about. (Maybe. Or could be I'm just delusional, and as no one else seems as compelled by this idea as me, I'm leaning toward that possiblity.) It's not about traditional ideas of "hard" power (like banning or deleting), it's about impressions and behaviors that underlie our assumptions, that are so much a part of what we are that we don't see it. The fact that you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there, that fact that I can't explain what I mean clearly doesn't mean it's not there. It just means (if we're going with my theory here) that it's such a pervasive assumed foundational set of behaviors and beliefs that we never see it. Because it's just there. Always. Like the air we breath, taken totally for granted until it starts to stink or blow or get thick with polution. Eric,
In a way, you’re illustrating exactly what I’m talking about. (Maybe. Or could be I’m just delusional, and as no one else seems as compelled by this idea as me, I’m leaning toward that possiblity.) It’s not about traditional ideas of “hard” power (like banning or deleting), it’s about impressions and behaviors that underlie our assumptions, that are so much a part of what we are that we don’t see it.

The fact that you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it’s not there, that fact that I can’t explain what I mean clearly doesn’t mean it’s not there. It just means (if we’re going with my theory here) that it’s such a pervasive assumed foundational set of behaviors and beliefs that we never see it. Because it’s just there. Always. Like the air we breath, taken totally for granted until it starts to stink or blow or get thick with polution.

]]> By: Eric Russell http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/09/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99880 Eric Russell Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:25:42 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99880 What power do men have in the bloggernacle? What power does anyone have? Admin power to delete comments??? This is one of the strangest threads I’ve ever read. fmhLisa, I don’t think any constructive discussion of the issue you are trying to address can take place unless we know specifically <em>what</em> power we’re talking about. What power do men have in the bloggernacle? What power does anyone have? Admin power to delete comments??? This is one of the strangest threads I’ve ever read.

fmhLisa, I don’t think any constructive discussion of the issue you are trying to address can take place unless we know specifically what power we’re talking about.

]]> By: fMhLisa http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/09/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99879 fMhLisa Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:25:40 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99879 Okay, so I'm not denying that bloggernacle power/elitism is totally unimportant. Because clearly it's seriously low stakes. And you know what, I'm not a competative person. I have no personal interest in the question as far as me wanting to control or influence anything. (well not much anyway and certainly not intentionally) In fact that idea that I might have control or influence makes me want to crawl under a rock. But that's not really to the point of the question for me. I'm intersted in the if/why's more more as a reflection larger questions. I mean the very fact that it is so low-stakes, no one has much of anything to gain, and yet . . . it still all comes around to men having power. Why is that? What is it about us, our behaviors, our assumptions, our motives that makes things fall out into this recognizable male-centered pattern? (assuming it does) It's all very slippery and subtle, based in expected behaiviors, we don't notice we're doing it, we don't notice the results, because it's all exactly what we expect. But still I'm intersted in because until we do start to notice and understand, then the patterns are never going to change. Okay, so I’m not denying that bloggernacle power/elitism is totally unimportant. Because clearly it’s seriously low stakes.

And you know what, I’m not a competative person. I have no personal interest in the question as far as me wanting to control or influence anything. (well not much anyway and certainly not intentionally) In fact that idea that I might have control or influence makes me want to crawl under a rock.

But that’s not really to the point of the question for me.

I’m intersted in the if/why’s more more as a reflection larger questions.

I mean the very fact that it is so low-stakes, no one has much of anything to gain, and yet . . . it still all comes around to men having power. Why is that? What is it about us, our behaviors, our assumptions, our motives that makes things fall out into this recognizable male-centered pattern? (assuming it does)

It’s all very slippery and subtle, based in expected behaiviors, we don’t notice we’re doing it, we don’t notice the results, because it’s all exactly what we expect. But still I’m intersted in because until we do start to notice and understand, then the patterns are never going to change.

]]> By: annegb http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/09/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99878 annegb Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:47:25 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/confessions-of-a-less-active-lurker/#comment-99878 Blogs are way better than any Relief Society lesson I ever had. Although you shoulda been there when I shared how my skimpy red negligee made doing the bills ever so much less contentious. I know I've told that before, but it bears repeating. Blogs are way better than any Relief Society lesson I ever had.

Although you shoulda been there when I shared how my skimpy red negligee made doing the bills ever so much less contentious.

I know I’ve told that before, but it bears repeating.

]]>