[Air-l] Towards a taxonomy of list members

[Charles Balch Ph.D.]

The recent lurker discussion has been interesting but it might be expanded.

While we are reviewing list member taxonomies, should we also consider
active members? I've read with great interest the distinctions made of
active Wiki members such as trolls, vandals, fairies, and contributors.
Here's some categories for lists: "doppelgangers" maintain extra list
memberships so they can agree (or disagree) as if from many individuals.
"Avatars" do not use their own name (this might be further broken out as to
reason for not including the signature). "Zealots" keep making the same
point and don't appear to pay attention to others. "Snipers" focus their
content on correcting others. "Supporters" constantly give encouragement.
"Motivators" encourage others to do something. "Fishers" want to get some
information on a specific topic and seldom come back without a specific
need. "Librarians" provide helpful links to germane information. 

Since they have an administrative role, moderators might be a third phylum.
Some "leader" moderators provide direction to content. Some simply remove
inappropriate content or otherwise act as "gatekeepers." "Evangelists"
actively try to build the content and membership.

How about categorizing members who do not respond beyond the simple lurker?

Many list stakeholders may believe the majority of list recipients who do
not participate beyond their membership are lurking. I suspect that the
stakeholders are wrong. I don't think there is a way to tell which list
members are reading the content (lurking) but not otherwise participating
versus persons who just are not reviewing the content and may never even see
the content.

As a case in point, I've joined or been added to a variety of lists. It is
often easier for me to make the list disappear from my inbox by placing the
list sender on my spam list than to try to figure out how to unsubscribe
through "normal" channels. In many cases, adding a filter is preferable
because playing with a list can be like playing with a tar baby (I.E. a
request to be removed from a spam list can get you added to a dozen more
lists). Sometimes I use a filter because I'm just lazy. Either way, a filter
type of unsubscribe would not be caught by a simple list probe. 

How can we categorize participants who do not respond? Perhaps we could have
"skimmers" who just check the subject header. "Dippers" who read a paragraph
or two -- sometimes more. "Scholars" who read everything. "Misers" who have
ideas they might contribute but don't want anyone to steal their ideas while
very happy to use the ideas of others. "Ghosts" who don't read anything. 

Darn, I think I've got an interesting paper started here.  Anybody
interested in coauthoring?

Charles Balch Ph.D.
Professor of Computer Information Systems
Arizona Western College