They are watching us

It appears that through sewgirls.com you can read RCTQ!

I think sewgirls is just a "Links" site that has links to a variety of online places that would be interest of people who sew. (garments or clothing or home decor). It doesn't appear that they "capture" our words... just provide another way to see it.

At least that's the way it looks to me!

We have no way of knowing how many lurkers read the ng either, although we assume they are all perfectly harmless and love quilting as much as we do. And we tend to forget that all our utterances are archived. Once we hit "send", it's out there for posterity! Roberta in D

"Kate G." schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:rLWdnTy_CMJUa1nanZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com...

There's long been a rule of thumb in usenet that lurkers outnumber posters 10:1, and this has been confirmed by recent research:

Interesting! IMO the 10:1 rule applies to almost any organization though. Certainly all the clubs I've ever belonged to were kept going by about 10% of the members who did all the work. Roberta in D

"Melanie Rimmer" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news: snipped-for-privacy@pipex.net...

Interesting, indeed. As soon as I see a statistic, I have to roll it over in my mind to see if it applies. My guild has 55 members according to the official name and address list. I'm sure that there are more than 5 1/2 members doing the work. I wouldn't say that all 55 share the work evenly; I wouldn't even say that all 55 do something, but there seems to be a better level of involvement than that sorry 10% statistic. I wonder how it plays out with other groups.

--Lia

I suspect that the larger the group, the lower the percentage of active participation.

Julia in MN

----------- This message has been scanned for viruses by Norton Anti-Virus

-----------

Julia Altshuler wrote:

Sewgirls is where I found RCTQ! I was surfing, searching quilting forums and found them. Then I realized I could "enter" through google groups and then my boyfriend explained RCTQ was a "newsgroup". I thought it was a "sewgirls" quilting forum. Okay...so I'm kind of new to online forums and such... :)

Steph

I would agree with that -a smaller group means more personal involvement: it's harder to hide and get away with not doing anything. Most of the groups I have belonged to were over 200 members. Roberta in D

"Julia in MN" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:u5exj.8$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe07.lga...

Just playing devil's advocate here--

I should think it would also be possible in a large group for small contributions to go unnoticed. Maybe someone helps the group by giving a ride to someone who can't drive. Because there's no Official Carpooling Department, the contribution doesn't get counted-- but it does serve the group, and it is appreciated. I can think of countless other examples. The person who helps baste or bind or gives a quick lesson-- all things that add to the health of the organization/ guild but which go under the radar of the officers who plan the big activities that make it into the newsletter.

--Lia

There seem to be some that contribute for the attention that it brings. Then there are those that are doing because things need done and their ego doesn't need any boost so you don't hear about it.

There are a lot of things that need done in a guild that the general membership never has a clue about. Taria

Julia Altshuler wrote:

I have a sore eye (how'd that happen???), and I read this rather quickly

-- as "out there for posteriors". :S

Good points!

Julia in MN

----------- This message has been scanned for viruses by Norton Anti-Virus

-----------

Julia Altshuler wrote:

Oh sure. If you want a better idea of how many places carry the group as a web resource etc., just stick the group name into google and do a search. You get about 63,000 hits. Even if you discount 62,500 (about 99%) for people's webpages, statistics pages, people getting directed from other forums, any newspaper mentions, and googlegroups hits, that is a lot of places to read rctq.

NightMist

Several years ago, I replied to a thread asking about a sewing notion. Some one said she likes X brand. I then posted a link to the part of X web site that was political and very anti-social commentary. I did NOT comment on their message AT ALL!! I *did not* ask for boycott. I mentioned that I'd had success with brand Y. About two weeks later, the X brand people sent me an unsolicited e-mail stating they 'heard' from someone in RCTQ that I was trying to start a boycott of their product, but that I had failed and that THEY were in the right, and I was wrong and they would succeed, and on and on and so on. My post was attached to their message, and it was very clear that I had NOT made negative comment. This was an odd experience, very odd. This is a true story. The names were changed for obvious reason. PAT

They are watching, and sometimes get it twisted. I recently received an email reply to a post I replied to several months ago. The emailer cited me as the original poster, which I wasn't. Since it was weird I hit delete, but it did make me think about how long the posts and replies are archived on the web, and how public it all is. Debra in VA See my quilts at:

It was not a joking email, Jeanne. It was not a troll. It was unsettling. I did not laugh. P