![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 41 to 65 of 94. Go back in thread:
Posted by Adam on July 8, 2000, at 20:36:39
In reply to Re: Possible 2nd board, posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2000, at 16:29:00
Hmmm.
I'm not sure if I have any good ideas to contribute as to how this board should or might be organized in the future.
I do think, though, that something needs to be done. The board has gotten a bit unweildy of late. It used to be that I could follow a thread pretty easily, and though there was some redundancy in the threads, it was kept, just by virtue of the of the number of participants, to a reasonable minimum. Now in a matter of a week the number of topics can swell enormously, and often they are comprised of questions that have been asked numerous times before (is mirtazapine right for me? Parnate vs. Nardil? etc.) There's nothing wrong with being a newbie, and I certainly have contributed to the redundancy myself, so this critique is not in any way meant to insult or belittle new psychobabblers or their relative lack of information.
However, a LOT of useful information has been posted in the past, and there have been some very, very knowledgeable 'babblers who have contributed reams of great stuff that seems more or less lost to the ether now. I must admit I find it difficult to dig up old posts or find those particular nuggets of advice or lists of facts because the size of the archived information is becoming intimidating, and the question:answer ratio is growing at an accelerating pace.
I'll put my thinking cap on (if you'll pardon the conceit) to see if I can be a contributor to the process of change rather than a mere critic (assuming, of course, that such contributions are welcome). My oppinion: This place needs a major overhaul. Not because it's bad, but because it could be EXCELLENT given the wealth of smarts and experience gathered here. The latter especilly is just becoming increasingly diluted by the volume of posts. I fear many bright old-timers have moved on out of frustration with the redundancy, and sadly we effectively lose not only their growing experience and insight, but also (due to the challenge of mining for their old posts, not to mention the missed opportunity of those who are newcomers and never saw the old threads) their past contributions. I'm hoping the changes would allow all to contribute to and peruse the same space, but would somehow better accommodate the growning number of participants, and would also somehow minimize the loss of extant but essentially buried information, so that newcomers could benefit from it, and also not inadvertantly contribute to the swell.
A tall order, I know, but hey, I can dream!
Adam
> > > How long would you have to have been here to be on the oldie's board? What if you used to post a lot, but haven't been posting much lately?
>
> I don't know, I haven't thought about the specifics...
>
> > > What if I got picked for the board that I didn't want to use?
>
> Then you could just not use it! :-)
>
> > > What if there are certain people I would like to be on the same board with?
>
> Um, well, maybe start your own eGroup?
>
> > I like to be able to skim through & check people who I like to keep track of & don't think I'd have time if there were 2 boards.
>
> But wouldn't too many posts be too many posts, no matter how many boards they were divided up among?
>
> Bob
Posted by Adam on July 8, 2000, at 21:23:00
In reply to Re: Possible 2nd board, posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2000, at 16:29:00
P.S.
Do you use grad. students to help you? It's hardly an original concept, but I do think to myself that the Internet might become THE place to gather information, both for patients and health care providers, and that publically available databases will eventually completely supplant various references like the DSM and PDR (the latter, I know, can be viewed on the 'net, but what is available publically is no better than what you can get from lots of other sources, and to access the more extensive, albiet crusty, reference info. that I assume is a mirror of what one finds in the bound volume, you gotta pony up some cash and credentials). I envision a big, dynamic, constantly revised, well organized clearinghouse of useful info. about any particular drug, for instance (say the usual plus current info. in the literature about off-label uses, the most recent pharmacodynamics, robust list of potential drug-drug interactions that would automatically pull up relevant information as new, incriminating evidence became available), that could be broken down by specialty, indication, etc.
Not to say that Dr. Bob's should be the place for such services (unless you want them to be!), but I wonder if "in silico" psychology and psychiatry are not very much in our immediate future, and if the skills to not only adeptly navigate this extension of the fields but also contribute to it, might not be in VERY high demand. Hence, psychoinformatics becomes a specialty unto itself, practiced by those schooled not only in psychotherapy and/or psychopharmacology, but in also in managing and using databases, or maybe even web page design, linux and JAVA.
What I'm getting at is: This page might be quite a training ground, a great resouce for independant projects for those so-inclined to contribute to such endeavors, with an eye toward the future and what skills might be in demand.
Running this place has got to be a ton of work. Bringing out its full potential would be an enormous time sink for one person, I'm sure. Could turning a few smart and savvy grad. students onto the task every year full-time (meaning as a project or independant study) be a win-win situation for everyone? Are there even provisions in the educational structure of graduate and medical study for such endeavors?
> > > How long would you have to have been here to be on the oldie's board? What if you used to post a lot, but haven't been posting much lately?
>
> I don't know, I haven't thought about the specifics...
>
> > > What if I got picked for the board that I didn't want to use?
>
> Then you could just not use it! :-)
>
> > > What if there are certain people I would like to be on the same board with?
>
> Um, well, maybe start your own eGroup?
>
> > I like to be able to skim through & check people who I like to keep track of & don't think I'd have time if there were 2 boards.
>
> But wouldn't too many posts be too many posts, no matter how many boards they were divided up among?
>
> Bob
Posted by shellie on July 8, 2000, at 22:18:15
In reply to Re: Possible 2nd board » Dr. Bob, posted by Adam on July 8, 2000, at 20:36:39
> Hmmm.
>
> I'm not sure if I have any good ideas to contribute as to how this board should or might be organized in the future.
>
> I do think, though, that something needs to be done. The board has gotten a bit unweildy of late. It used to be that I could follow a thread pretty easily, and though there was some redundancy in the threads, it was kept, just by virtue of the of the number of participants, to a reasonable minimum. Now in a matter of a week the number of topics can swell enormously, and often they are comprised of questions that have been asked numerous times before (is mirtazapine right for me? Parnate vs. Nardil? etc.) There's nothing wrong with being a newbie, and I certainly have contributed to the redundancy myself, so this critique is not in any way meant to insult or belittle new psychobabblers or their relative lack of information.
>
> However, a LOT of useful information has been posted in the past, and there have been some very, very knowledgeable 'babblers who have contributed reams of great stuff that seems more or less lost to the ether now. I must admit I find it difficult to dig up old posts or find those particular nuggets of advice or lists of facts because the size of the archived information is becoming intimidating, and the question:answer ratio is growing at an accelerating pace.
>
> ...... The latter especilly is just becoming increasingly diluted by the volume of posts. I fear many bright old-timers have moved on out of frustration with the redundancy, and sadly we effectively lose not only their growing experience and insight, but also (due to the challenge of mining for their old posts, not to mention the missed opportunity of those who are newcomers and never saw the old threads) their past contributions. I'm hoping the changes would allow all to contribute to and peruse the same space, but would somehow better accommodate the growning number of participants, and would also somehow minimize the loss of extant but essentially buried information, so that newcomers could benefit from it, and also not inadvertantly contribute to the swell.
>
> A tall order, I know, but hey, I can dream!
>
> Adam
I was really excited to find a board where knowledge of new medications, combinations of medications, and information about medications was shared by very well informed and intelligent people. I don't mind the rest of the stuff, (hey, mary (john), how ya doing, gone snowboarding, etc.), but I didn't come to the board for that reason, and they do add to the total volume, if that's what you all are worried about.(And I must admit, I do enjoy many of the short humorous posts-they make me laugh--laughing is worth a slight increase in volume to me.)
There are lots of boards and chatrooms for friendships. But this is the only board I've come across where I have gotten help and support with medications and been able to share with others the information I have picked up from reading and friends, and my own experience. I have been really impressed at how willing more experienced babblers have been to share their knowlege with newbies.
So the redundancy about meds doesn't bother me. All boards are cyclical, people come and go, and there is generally a swelling at the juncture. Since I've been here (a couple of months) the people who said why they were leaving--related it to wanting to spend more time in their real life, opposed to their virtual life.
Many pdocs are often not as well informed as they should be, and will not go the extra mile that we, as patients, will go, to achieve the quality of life that is possible. That is why I think this board is so great. So I think that everyone in the future should have the same opportunity as I am having to learn about their treatment options. If they start with "nardil or parnate?", that doesn't bother me. I guess I'm saying to me it is worth the redundancy, because that is the main thing that I find on this board that is not redundant on other sites.
Check out about.delphi.com's depression board and you'll know what I mean. No one seems to know they have any options in helping to steer their own treatment.
btw, it might help redundacy if the search functions actually worked. I never seem to come up with anything even when I know it's there. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I seem to be able to work searches on other sites.shellie
p.s., this thread is fast becoming the ultimate sweller!
Posted by shar on July 8, 2000, at 23:42:37
In reply to Re: registration system and possible 2nd board » Sara T, posted by Oddzilla on July 8, 2000, at 15:32:07
> > Many bulletin boards have separate folders for different topics
I think that is a good idea. I think micro/macro is a good idea (it's usually obvious when a debate about societal influences or something is taking place)to me.
I wouldn't want an oldies board, because I think new people bring a lot of energy and reminders to this board. We get a chance to help someone (perhaps), and we may get reminded of something we've forgotten or learn something new that someone else knows.
IMHO of course.
s
Posted by KarenB on July 9, 2000, at 2:18:28
In reply to Re: registration system and possible 2nd board, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2000, at 2:52:25
Dr. Bob,
Take a look at www.drlaura.com/forum and see how she has her site set up. It's one forum with several different sub-forums, categorized by topic. Possibilities for Psychobabble may be something like... Alternative Methods, Medications, ADD/ADHD, Bipolar, Depression, Juvenile Philosophical Diatribes...
Thanks for being here and for all that you do to make this board available for our use.
Karen
Posted by Sara T on July 9, 2000, at 8:47:31
In reply to The short ones go to the 2nd board? , posted by shar on July 8, 2000, at 23:42:37
> > > Many bulletin boards have separate folders for different topics
>
> I think that is a good idea. I think micro/macro is a good idea (it's usually obvious when a debate about societal influences or something is taking place)to me.
>
> I wouldn't want an oldies board, because I think new people bring a lot of energy and reminders to this board. We get a chance to help someone (perhaps), and we may get reminded of something we've forgotten or learn something new that someone else knows.
>
> IMHO of course.
>
> sShar,
I agree. And I think of those people who have come here when they really needed someone to help pull them through a rough time. The people here are very bright, well informed, and empathetic. It's those very qualities in the "oldies" that helps the "newbies", I wouldn't want to lose that.
The idea of a grad student or other person to moderate this site could be very useful. Check out Compuserve's forums. The moderators there are very knowledgeable people and for the most part, the posters are also. The moderators can often help steer people asking for advice on how to find it either on this site or through other internat resources.
Sara T.
Posted by Cindy W on July 9, 2000, at 11:18:25
In reply to Re: The short ones go to the 2nd board? » shar, posted by Sara T on July 9, 2000, at 8:47:31
> > > > Many bulletin boards have separate folders for different topics
> >
> > I think that is a good idea. I think micro/macro is a good idea (it's usually obvious when a debate about societal influences or something is taking place)to me.
> >
> > I wouldn't want an oldies board, because I think new people bring a lot of energy and reminders to this board. We get a chance to help someone (perhaps), and we may get reminded of something we've forgotten or learn something new that someone else knows.
> >
> > IMHO of course.
> >
> > s
>
> Shar,
>
> I agree. And I think of those people who have come here when they really needed someone to help pull them through a rough time. The people here are very bright, well informed, and empathetic. It's those very qualities in the "oldies" that helps the "newbies", I wouldn't want to lose that.
>
> The idea of a grad student or other person to moderate this site could be very useful. Check out Compuserve's forums. The moderators there are very knowledgeable people and for the most part, the posters are also. The moderators can often help steer people asking for advice on how to find it either on this site or through other internat resources.
>
> Sara T.Dr. Bob, I appreciate all the work you do putting this board together, and frankly, I'm happy with it just as it is! It has helped me a lot. Having things in folders wouldn't get me to read some posts I read now and learn from.--Cindy W
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2000, at 14:10:26
In reply to Re: registration system and possible 2nd board » Dr. Bob, posted by Oddzilla on July 8, 2000, at 11:48:06
Oddzilla:
> this Odd being doesn't even have a credit card! At the risk of being dense do you mean people have to pay or just have a credit card?
Well, maybe the first step would be just to have a credit card. But some of you may remember that I've considered a payment system, too...
> What about a separate limited list for people who've been her the longest... There could be a separate unlimited list for new people... The unlimited list would also be open to people on the other list. People on the limited list who were uncivil could also be sent back to the unlimited list for a first warning and have to get back on the waiting list.
>
> If the second list was not accessible (to read) to the public it might be possible to attract people willing to pay for a safe place to post.Right, part of the idea of a separate board for "veterans" would be to reward those who stick around and participate. I'd expect it to be less cluttered and "safer" than the main board.
The idea would *not* be to restrict veterans to that board -- I agree, they have a lot to contribute (or else they wouldn't be veterans!) -- but just to give them access to a second board they could use if they wished.
Yes, I guess it would be exclusionary, but think of it as like a frequent flier program...
> I think trying to separate the political from the personal from the religous from the medical from the psychological would probably not work and just lead to more bickering about what board people should post on. Like which board would you post the movie reviews and recipes on? Part of the charm of PB for me was how wide ranging it could be.
Yes, my concern with a new board is overlap with this one. Maybe if a new one had to do with children the boundaries would be relatively clear?
----------------
Cass:
> > > > What if I got picked for the board that I didn't want to use?
> >
> > Then you could just not use it! :-)
> >
> You mean we could use either board?Right, if there were a separate board for veterans, they would be free to use it *or* the main board. The veteran board would just be an extra option for them.
> > > > What if there are certain people I would like to be on the same board with?
> >
> > Um, well, maybe start your own eGroup?
> >
> It sounds to me like you're sort of saying, "Get lost." Are you? Am I being overly sensitive? I think I'm always supportive here. Are you trying to get rid of me? Are you just trying to get rid of people?Snowie:
> I'm also getting very distinct "get lost" vibes from Dr. Bob.
Oops, sorry about that! No, I'm not trying to get rid of anyone, I'm trying to make room for everyone. It would just be too much for me to create separate boards for every group that wanted their own. Whereas eGroups is set up specifically to do that.
----------------
Adam:
> a LOT of useful information has been posted in the past, and there have been some very, very knowledgeable 'babblers who have contributed reams of great stuff that seems more or less lost to the ether now. I must admit I find it difficult to dig up old posts or find those particular nuggets of advice or lists of facts because the size of the archived information is becoming intimidating, and the question:answer ratio is growing at an accelerating pace.
This was the problem that gave birth to Psychopharmacology Tips. Something like that is a lot of work, though. Maybe the next best thing would be just to keep track of the most helpful posts on various topics?
> Running this place has got to be a ton of work. Bringing out its full potential would be an enormous time sink for one person, I'm sure. Could turning a few smart and savvy grad. students onto the task every year full-time ... be a win-win situation for everyone?
Hmm, what about turning you smart and savvy psycho-babblers onto it? :-)
Let's try an experiment. I've created a new eGroup called "psycho-babble-tips" (the name might be a little ambiguous, but "psycho-babble" was already taken!). eGroups lets members of a group create "folders" of links. Maybe we can use that feature to highlight particular posts on topics.
The psycho-babble-tips main page is at:
http://www.egroups.com/links/psycho-babble-tips
To see the folders of links that have been created, just click on "Links". I've created a sample folder on the topic of a possible 2nd board. Maybe each topic could have its own folder, and that would help keep things organized?
If you just want to see the links, you don't have to do anything else, they're public. If, however, you want to try your hand at creating a folder of links, subscribe to psycho-babble-tips from the main page (and register with eGroups if you haven't already).
Subscriptions to psycho-babble-tips will need to approved by me. I'm going to limit this to registered Psycho-Babble members, so please use the same email address that you used to register here. Make sure you create a folder for yourself so the top level of Links doesn't get too cluttered. In your folder, list only Psycho-Babble posts (those posts, of course, can list any page). Finally, URLs should include the archive, like in the Thread section of a post. If they don't, like in the Current Period section on the main Psycho-Babble page, they'll only work for the current period.
Whew! Any questions?
Bob
Posted by medlib on July 9, 2000, at 18:59:41
In reply to Re: possible 2nd board and links experiment, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2000, at 14:10:26
> Hmm, what about turning you smart and savvy psycho-babblers onto it? :-)
***I'd be glad to volunteer if I were savvy enough to figure out what you have in mind.
> Let's try an experiment. I've created a new eGroup called "psycho-babble-tips" (the name might be a little ambiguous, but "psycho-babble" was already taken!). eGroups lets members of a group create "folders" of links. Maybe we can use that feature to highlight particular posts on topics.
>
> To see the folders of links that have been created, just click on "Links". I've created a sample folder on the topic of a possible 2nd board. Maybe each topic could have its own folder, and that would help keep things organized?
>
> If you just want to see the links, you don't have to do anything else, they're public. If, however, you want to try your hand at creating a folder of links, subscribe to psycho-babble-tips from the main page (and register with eGroups if you haven't already).
>
> Subscriptions to psycho-babble-tips will need to approved by me. I'm going to limit this to registered Psycho-Babble members, so please use the same email address that you used to register here. Make sure you create a folder for yourself so the top level of Links doesn't get too cluttered.***What kind of folder--self-, drug-, or old topic-named, or what?
>In your folder, list only Psycho-Babble posts (those posts, of course, can list any page).
***By "page", do you mean the current board or a specific archived board? List how?
>Finally, URLs should include the archive, like in the Thread section of a post. If they don't, like in the Current Period section on the main Psycho-Babble page, they'll only work for the current period.
***I don't understand how to do that. Is there some significance to your inclusion of only some of the posts from this thread on your eGroup sample folder?
I use the web primarily for research, discovered PB from search results, and am unfamiliar with the workings of listservs and other types of boards. Hope I'm not the only one here so inconveniently naive.
If I understand this concept at all (and that's a huge IF), wouldn't it be simpler to enlist a popularity-ranking search engine such as Google to search the entire archives? This must be expensive, but I'll bet that babblers would be much more willing to contribute to such a specific expense than to pay for posting.
As helpful as the med expertise of babblers has been to me (and that's enormously), what I found so useful about the original Tips section were the experiences and views of other pdocs. Ideal for me would be an updated professional Tips section AND a total-archive search feature.
I would be happy to contribute time (generously) and/or money (modestly, I'm poor) to either or both features. (I'm exceptionally good and professionally qualified at organizing--except myself, of course.)
Regards---medlib
Posted by shar on July 9, 2000, at 19:46:05
In reply to Re: possible 2nd board » Dr. Bob, posted by KarenB on July 9, 2000, at 2:18:28
> Dr. Bob,
>
> Take a look at www.drlaura.com/forum and see how she has her site set up. It's one forum with several different sub-forums, categorized by topic. Possibilities for Psychobabble may be something like... Alternative Methods, Medications, ADD/ADHD, Bipolar, Depression, Juvenile Philosophical Diatribes...
>
> Thanks for being here and for all that you do to make this board available for our use.
>
> Karen
Posted by shar on July 9, 2000, at 19:52:37
In reply to Re: possible 2nd board and links experiment » Dr. Bob, posted by medlib on July 9, 2000, at 18:59:41
Whew! No Sys Admin here! If the e-groups thing gets setup, I will be happy to do what I can to help. I think I would need a list of how to do things, tho.
Step 1. Go to www.etc.etc
Is this Compuserve that Karen suggested?
Shar
> > Hmm, what about turning you smart and savvy psycho-babblers onto it? :-)
>
> ***I'd be glad to volunteer if I were savvy enough to figure out what you have in mind.
>
> > Let's try an experiment. I've created a new eGroup called "psycho-babble-tips" (the name might be a little ambiguous, but "psycho-babble" was already taken!). eGroups lets members of a group create "folders" of links. Maybe we can use that feature to highlight particular posts on topics.
> >
> > To see the folders of links that have been created, just click on "Links". I've created a sample folder on the topic of a possible 2nd board. Maybe each topic could have its own folder, and that would help keep things organized?
> >
> > If you just want to see the links, you don't have to do anything else, they're public. If, however, you want to try your hand at creating a folder of links, subscribe to psycho-babble-tips from the main page (and register with eGroups if you haven't already).
> >
> > Subscriptions to psycho-babble-tips will need to approved by me. I'm going to limit this to registered Psycho-Babble members, so please use the same email address that you used to register here. Make sure you create a folder for yourself so the top level of Links doesn't get too cluttered.
>
> ***What kind of folder--self-, drug-, or old topic-named, or what?
>
> >In your folder, list only Psycho-Babble posts (those posts, of course, can list any page).
>
> ***By "page", do you mean the current board or a specific archived board? List how?
>
> >Finally, URLs should include the archive, like in the Thread section of a post. If they don't, like in the Current Period section on the main Psycho-Babble page, they'll only work for the current period.
>
> ***I don't understand how to do that. Is there some significance to your inclusion of only some of the posts from this thread on your eGroup sample folder?
>
> I use the web primarily for research, discovered PB from search results, and am unfamiliar with the workings of listservs and other types of boards. Hope I'm not the only one here so inconveniently naive.
>
> If I understand this concept at all (and that's a huge IF), wouldn't it be simpler to enlist a popularity-ranking search engine such as Google to search the entire archives? This must be expensive, but I'll bet that babblers would be much more willing to contribute to such a specific expense than to pay for posting.
>
> As helpful as the med expertise of babblers has been to me (and that's enormously), what I found so useful about the original Tips section were the experiences and views of other pdocs. Ideal for me would be an updated professional Tips section AND a total-archive search feature.
>
> I would be happy to contribute time (generously) and/or money (modestly, I'm poor) to either or both features. (I'm exceptionally good and professionally qualified at organizing--except myself, of course.)
>
> Regards---medlib
Posted by MisterB on July 9, 2000, at 20:04:52
In reply to Re: possible 2nd board and links experiment, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2000, at 14:10:26
It's Dr. Bob's time to do with as he chooses, but I would think it better spent clearly defining rules for participation on this board than spent creating more exclusive boards.
In the other hand, the internet first was created primarily as a research tool to facilite interaction among scientists. In the evolving environment of personal use, it seems totally appropriate that anyone can develop their own mailing list and conduct an ongoing exclusive dialogue. From my perspective, problems would develop when this private converstation is published for public consumption. As a reporter and journalist, my effort has been to insure that the breadth and depth of perspectives in the community are fairly represented in public forums. An exclusive second board would not be unlike the many round-table conversations available on cable TV, but those conversations benefit from a production staff that is concerned with the fairness of the content.
My concerns about an elite, exclusive, second tier are not that such a tier is per se unfair, but that it might be used unfairly, as a badge of prestige, to exclude unpopular perspectives and to publically criticize participants on a lower tier. If those were to be the functions, I would suggest members of an exclusive dialogue keep their conversation private. If the only measure for participation was that old-timers on this board can participate in a new board, I would rather it also only be read by old-time members of this board. Otherwise, anyone wanting to respond might feel obliged to post responses to the exclusive board on the main board, or to create some alternate board, and invite an open-season of un-regulated criticism. My point is that excluding segments of the public from public discourse can promote extreme reactions.
The e-groups site idea is interesting, but my experience with e-groups is that their registration processes are a bit cumbersome. It took me several tries to get a handle registered to allow me to continue posting here - I don't know if my earlier handle was blocked, my ISP was blocked, my e-mail address was blocked, if there was just a glitch in the software, or if I was persistenly making typographical errors. With e-groups, a user has to navigate several pages to log on to the site - as I recall, one can't simply direct their browser to a URL to read the contents of a discussion.
The requirement that users have a credit card is particularly offensive to me. Many, especially those in lower income groups, cannot obtain credit cards. I refuse to hold credit cards for several reasons. A general argument against numeric identifiers is that they further erode our biological identity. Anonymous participation in electronic forums seems more natural to me ... as in nature, what you see is what you get.
The idea of grad students participating as moderators here seems like a good idea, though the countersuggestion that psychobabblers perform that function is also a credible idea. Telephone crisis lines are seldom any better than the training offered to the volunteer staff, whose skills are usually limited to empathetic listening and to directing callers to other resources. Volunteers on this site would presumably serve as moderators. To go further, and offer live assistance in directing users to other resources might be very helpful in some cases, but it might also encourage dependancy at a site that otherwise helps develop initiative.
Another problem is to determine what guidelines moderators would follow. Many users of this site might agree on a common definition of the term "civil" but participation in this board so far might be self selective in favor of people who can afford psychiatric care, who have sufficient educational development to participate in their own care and who have internet access. As participation in the site grows, even if we presume that the accepted idea of civility here is to be imposed on new participants, those who do not share the predominant background might need some clues as to the definition of civility used here.
I don't mean to suggest that a moderator would limit content. My suggestion for moderators would be that they respond to the way information was conveyed rather than to the information itself. I am thinking a moderator could be like an editor.
The post about humorous verbal terrorism contains a valuable inventory of rhetorical devices used to misdirect conversation. In a discussion such as this, identification of rhetorical devices can serve to preempt escalation of interpersonal conflict. A simple, timely identification of a rhetorical device, with perhaps a brief explanation of the hazards associated with that device, might help get a discussion back on track. For a person who suspects, as I do, that many biologically identifiable mental disorders are caused by social stresses and that those social stresses are often a result of deficits in interpersonal communication skills, an informed moderator can serve not only to help keep the board on track but also to provide therapuetic education for participants.
Posted by Oddzilla on July 9, 2000, at 20:30:58
In reply to Re: possible 2nd board and links experiment » Dr. Bob, posted by medlib on July 9, 2000, at 18:59:41
Hi Medlib-I'm glad you came back.
>
There's so much repetition if just the most relevant posts were put in the folder it would be much more useful than endless threads and the same answers and questions over and over. For instance there might be an Effexor withdrawal folder with the best posts about that topic, an Effexor success folder,an Effexor side effects folder, etc. I'm not sure how narrow each should be to be most useful. What do you think? Aren't you a Librarian? You returned just in the nick of time!It seems like it should be oriented towards being most useful rather than complete. The posts can be re-titled to make the contents clearer and more accessible. I would guess? that people would be able to add to any folder something they thought was relevant and had been left out.
If everyone worked on an area that had interest for them, it would naturally be tailored towards people who might be interested in the same area.
I would like to see a folder for some of the best posts for encouraging suicidal people because some of them have meant a lot to me .
Perhaps there could be folders for specific diagnosis or therapies,etc.I think the best part of having Babblers do it would be that we know what would have been helpful to us.
I think it would be possible to have the same post in more than one folder if it was relevant to both. At the same time a lot of repetition could be weeded out.
These are all my own impressions-they may not be what Dr. Bob had in mind at all.
I was actually thinking of more of a "Best of" version of whats in Babble for people who were too tired to try and search the archives.
I think the most valuable part of PB is the personal experience unless the information is referenced.
Do you think it would be a good idea for someone (like possibly you :-) to start an organized sytem of naming folders and then let people add to the ones they are interested in?
It's possible that I've totally missed the point(it sure wouldn't be the first time). Best Wishes O.
Posted by shar on July 9, 2000, at 23:50:42
In reply to Re: links experiment » medlib, posted by Oddzilla on July 9, 2000, at 20:30:58
If there were volunteers to search the archives and sort of sketch out what's there, that could help establish categories. I would be willing to take an archived period and analyze it.
We could ignore the personals, and focus on specific drugs, or specific situations (suicide), or hospitalization. Whatever the archives tell us. Sort of a content analysis approach.
Deciding what to include in a link, and what to leave out...that could get interesting. We could leave out redundancies.
I'll keep following the posts.
Shar> Hi Medlib-I'm glad you came back.
> >
>
> There's so much repetition if just the most relevant posts were put in the folder it would be much more useful than endless threads and the same answers and questions over and over. For instance there might be an Effexor withdrawal folder with the best posts about that topic, an Effexor success folder,an Effexor side effects folder, etc. I'm not sure how narrow each should be to be most useful. What do you think? Aren't you a Librarian? You returned just in the nick of time!
>
> It seems like it should be oriented towards being most useful rather than complete. The posts can be re-titled to make the contents clearer and more accessible. I would guess? that people would be able to add to any folder something they thought was relevant and had been left out.
>
> If everyone worked on an area that had interest for them, it would naturally be tailored towards people who might be interested in the same area.
>
> I would like to see a folder for some of the best posts for encouraging suicidal people because some of them have meant a lot to me .
>
> Perhaps there could be folders for specific diagnosis or therapies,etc.
>
> I think the best part of having Babblers do it would be that we know what would have been helpful to us.
>
> I think it would be possible to have the same post in more than one folder if it was relevant to both. At the same time a lot of repetition could be weeded out.
>
> These are all my own impressions-they may not be what Dr. Bob had in mind at all.
>
> I was actually thinking of more of a "Best of" version of whats in Babble for people who were too tired to try and search the archives.
>
> I think the most valuable part of PB is the personal experience unless the information is referenced.
>
> Do you think it would be a good idea for someone (like possibly you :-) to start an organized sytem of naming folders and then let people add to the ones they are interested in?
>
> It's possible that I've totally missed the point(it sure wouldn't be the first time). Best Wishes O.
Posted by quilter on July 10, 2000, at 0:06:59
In reply to links experiment--good idea and we could help? » Oddzilla, posted by shar on July 9, 2000, at 23:50:42
I'm so confused... but I guess thats about par for the course. Quilter
Posted by KarenB on July 10, 2000, at 0:34:33
In reply to Re: rules, posted by MisterB on July 9, 2000, at 20:04:52
Geeeeeeeeeeez.....CHOOSE ONE NAME!!!!!!!! That way we may all have the CHOICE to avoid your posts altogether...or to read them with unbridled enthusiasm for someone who has the guts and fortitude to go against the "system,"...OR to use as needed as a viable alternative aid for insomnia.
Choice. That's what I'm talking about.
Karen
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2000, at 8:42:36
In reply to Re: possible 2nd board and links experiment » Dr. Bob, posted by medlib on July 9, 2000, at 18:59:41
> ***What kind of folder--self-, drug-, or old topic-named, or what?
Maybe like my example, with a "title" that's the focus of the folder and a "description" with your name? A lot of this will be more clear when you actually try it, I think. (I hope!)
> >In your folder, list only Psycho-Babble posts (those posts, of course, can list any page).
>
> ***By "page", do you mean the current board or a specific archived board? List how?You'll see: you get to enter, for a link, in addition to "title" and "description", "URL" also. The posts could be from the current board or any archived board.
> >URLs should include the archive, like in the Thread section of a post. If they don't, like in the Current Period section on the main Psycho-Babble page, they'll only work for the current period.
>
> ***I don't understand how to do that.To include the archive of a current post? Maybe the easiest way is to go to the post, find it in its own Thread section, click on it there, and then use the URL of that page.
> ***Is there some significance to your inclusion of only some of the posts from this thread on your eGroup sample folder?
Not really. They were just the posts I was responding to before.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2000, at 8:57:53
In reply to Re: links experiment » medlib, posted by Oddzilla on July 9, 2000, at 20:30:58
> For instance there might be an Effexor withdrawal folder with the best posts about that topic, an Effexor success folder,an Effexor side effects folder, etc. I'm not sure how narrow each should be to be most useful.
Some trial and error is going to be inevitable. Actually, you can create folders inside folders, so one way to do it would be to have an Effexor folder with withdrawal, success, and side effects subfolders.
> I would guess? that people would be able to add to any folder something they thought was relevant and had been left out.
> Do you think it would be a good idea for someone to start an organized sytem of naming folders and then let people add to the ones they are interested in?
Hmm, I was thinking one person (or at least a small number of people) would take responsibility for each folder, but it could be more open, too. But if a lot of people work on (add to) a folder, they'll need to work together...
> These are all my own impressions-they may not be what Dr. Bob had in mind at all.
Don't worry, you got it! Think of Psychopharmacology Tips with a folder of links being analogous to a page of posts.
Bob
Posted by Wallabee on July 10, 2000, at 10:36:59
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob - Micro and Macro Boards?Yes, Shar, posted by Noa on July 8, 2000, at 9:48:04
I only discovered this board a few days ago.
I work as an executive director in the charitable sector and I have spent the past few years successfully leading community based organizations through periods of crisis (I actually think that in learning to live successfully with manic depression I have developed some formidable skills at coping with crisis/the unexpected) and growth characterized by:
* tension between the expectations of some "oldtimers" - particularly founding members, and newcomers - largely around the questions of "who are we" and "what do we want to be". Often the group's focus or purpose shifts or expands from that originally intended by the founder.
* issues of capacity and structure - how will we support growth, who will lead this growth, how will we govern ourselves, etc.
Dr. Bob, this is a wonderful site, and a tremendous achievement. As a newcomer I have yet to witness or be bothered by whatever issues gave rise to this thread in the first place. Nevertheless, many of the comments in the thread have useful suggestions for the site's improvement. Some suggestions I would make, based on my professional experience, if you really want to see the site maintain its vitality and become the best that it could be are:
* Be prepared to let go of the board as "your own",
* get help, lots of it. There are many people who work in the area of organizational development and specialize in and have a great deal of experience facilitating the transition this board is going through. I think you could find someone who would jump at the chance of doing it on the net. I am not in the US, so cannot give specific examples, but there must be established charities - actual organizations - whose missions would make them interested in lending a resource hand in supporting the board through this process of growth (perhaps some other posters have suggestions on who these might be). In canada the United Way maintains a service of volunteer consultants who help small organizations (or community groups struggling with the need to become organizations) deal with this stuff.
Some other observations:
* The first thing that struck me about this board is that it is way too much for one person, or even one person and a group of grad students to take on.
* It is truly a community resource, and belongs as much to the people who post here as to the university that hosts it, and you Dr. Bob, who founded and oversee it in a way that is not entirely clear (though that lack of clarity may just be because I have only taken a cursory look at some of the other pages).
* It is something sufficiently worthwhile that it should not be struggling for funding, and could receive sufficient philanthropic support if there was leadership and determination to find same (and that is not meant as a slight at you Dr. Bob, rather one more illustration of my point that this is just too much work for one person).
Sorry if my comments are not an instant fix, but I hope that they will be useful. Still IMHO
My non cryptic email is:
dymordecai@yahoo.com, but I check and answer them all.
Wallabee
Posted by Wallabee on July 10, 2000, at 10:41:20
In reply to some observations based on my professional exp, posted by Wallabee on July 10, 2000, at 10:36:59
didn't mean to imply grad students aren't people
lol
Posted by noa on July 10, 2000, at 16:05:24
In reply to and no, I didn't mean to imply . . ., posted by Wallabee on July 10, 2000, at 10:41:20
When I have visited the sleep apnea forum, I noticed that they have a page of "today's posts". If that were possible here, then we wouldn't always have to view all the threads. We could just check the "today's posts" page to see what is new. Your yellow "new" posts are terrific, but I think that with the skyrocketing volume, scrolling through to see what is new is still quite a job.
Posted by stjames on July 10, 2000, at 18:07:21
In reply to Re: links experiment, posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2000, at 8:57:53
>
> Some trial and error is going to be inevitable. Actually, you can create folders inside folders, so one way to do it would be to have an Effexor folder with withdrawal, success, and side effects subfolders.
Hmm, I was thinking one person (or at least a small number of people) would take responsibility for each folder, but it could be more open, too. But if a lot of people work on (add to) a folder, they'll need to work together...
>James here...
I like the way this is developing. I;ll take Effexor.
james
Posted by noa on July 10, 2000, at 18:36:51
In reply to Re: links experiment, posted by stjames on July 10, 2000, at 18:07:21
Ok, I checked out the links thing at egroups. I think I get it. It is indeed easier to understand when you see it.
The problem I am having is finding posts through the search function--I thought I would find some old posts to put in a folder . I would like to start a folder on thyroid related depression.
Posted by noa on July 10, 2000, at 19:32:23
In reply to Re: links experiment, posted by noa on July 10, 2000, at 18:36:51
I just created a folder and filled it with a bunch of links, mostly PB posts, and a couple of Mary Shomon's pages. It probably will need editing--ie, weeding, keep only the most relevent. But I wanted to see how it works. This is pretty cool.
Posted by Oddzilla on July 10, 2000, at 20:04:42
In reply to Re: links --Noa's Thyroid/Depression Links folder, posted by noa on July 10, 2000, at 19:32:23
> I just created a folder and filled it with a bunch of links, mostly PB posts, and a couple of Mary Shomon's pages. It probably will need editing--ie, weeding, keep only the most relevent. But I wanted to see how it works. This is pretty cool.
You're amazing- I'm still trying to decide on a subject for mine. It looks really good. BTW how do you keep your e-mail address from being posted
on the E-groups site? I don't guess it really matters, but nobody else's is showing. Best Wishes O.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.