![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 33 to 57 of 78. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on January 3, 2006, at 19:33:59
In reply to Re: IMshilotgtdomhO » LegWarmers, posted by NikkiT2 on January 3, 2006, at 10:41:34
> People also have a responsibility for their own safety.. its not other peoples responsibility.
do you think my suggestion makes what should be a matter of individual responsibility into a matter of other peoples responsibility?
i'm not quite sure what you mean...
could you explain a little more?
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 4, 2006, at 1:52:40
In reply to Googleability, posted by pseudoname on January 1, 2006, at 20:57:37
> the folk from google need to be able to view the posts in order to trawl them to make them into hits on google?
>
> alexandra_kI think so, yes.
> I think I see what you mean. Like Google Scholar does with journals? You search for words, and it returns a list of links and shows the snippets of phrases with those words as usual, but to read the whole page the phrases are from, you have to join that journal's site and log in.
>
> pseudonameGoogle Scholar may work that way, but Babble isn't a scholarly journal...
Bob
Posted by LegWarmers on January 4, 2006, at 8:22:23
In reply to Re: Googleability, posted by Dr. Bob on January 4, 2006, at 1:52:40
> > I think I see what you mean. Like Google Scholar does with journals? You search for words, and it returns a list of links and shows the snippets of phrases with those words as usual, but to read the whole page the phrases are from, you have to join that journal's site and log in.
> >
> > pseudoname
>
> Google Scholar may work that way, but Babble isn't a scholarly journal...
>Would you like it to function in a similar way ;)
Posted by pseudoname on January 4, 2006, at 8:50:17
In reply to Re: Googleability, posted by Dr. Bob on January 4, 2006, at 1:52:40
> Google Scholar may work that way, but Babble isn't a scholarly journal...
Google – regular Google that currently indexes Babble – uses the same approach as Google Scholar with many non-scholarly pay-access sites.
I was simply trying to give an example that you and Alexandra would've seen.
My point is that restricting public access to Babble does not mean that posts can't be indexed by Google.
There are many good objections to making Babble members-only, but loss of Googleability isn't one of them.
Posted by jamestheyonger on January 4, 2006, at 11:14:41
In reply to Re: Googleability » Dr. Bob, posted by pseudoname on January 4, 2006, at 8:50:17
"There are many good objections to making Babble members-only, but loss of Googleability isn't one of them."
While not to you but I suspect many people find babble via searching and given the size of the archives these searches most often hit the archives.
Bob seems to be hit conscious & it seems to me that one way this site is judged to be a success is by its ever increasing hit/pages served stats. I would suspect that if the archives are not searchable via google there would be fewer new users here.
Posted by pseudoname on January 4, 2006, at 15:57:12
In reply to Re: Googleability, posted by jamestheyonger on January 4, 2006, at 11:14:41
> "There are many good objections to making Babble members-only, but loss of Googleability isn't one of them."
>
> While not to you but [...]
> I would suspect that if the archives are not searchable via google there would be fewer new users here.There's a confusion here between two issues.
I don't think that the loss of googleability would be unimportant. I think keeping Babble searchable is very important. But as I've been explaining...
Babble can become a members-only site and STILL BE searchable via google. Public search of Babble is technically possible even if Babble becomes closed to public reading.
That is why I suggested we should put forward *other* objections if we want to oppose Babble becoming members-only.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 4, 2006, at 17:23:13
In reply to Re: Googleability, posted by jamestheyonger on January 4, 2006, at 11:14:41
so...
(to clarify)
the idea would be that posts would still be linked to google...
and that if you click to follow a link to a post or to a board (or possibly just to a post) then you either login to view it or...
you can join up!
so there could be a bit on the bottom of the login that says something like 'you must be a member of the site to view posts click here to register'
and then you get a link to the purpose of the site faq and multi guess quiz etc.
so...
still get hits off google.
and what you might find...
is that when people find a lot of hits to the site...
they may well register.
yeah there might be a few less new posters here that way...
yeah there might be a whole heap less lurkers here that way...
but are numbers the only consideration?
i don't think so...
Posted by pseudoname on January 4, 2006, at 17:50:37
In reply to Re: Googleability, posted by alexandra_k on January 4, 2006, at 17:23:13
> yeah there might be a few less new posters here that way...[...]
> but are numbers the only consideration?I disagree with the repeated implication that keeping Babble open is only beneficial to "numbers", whereas restricting access helps "individuals".
The openness helps ME, and I am every bit as much an "individual" as anyone else.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 4, 2006, at 18:05:06
In reply to numbers, posted by pseudoname on January 4, 2006, at 17:50:37
> The openness helps ME,
how does it help you?
Posted by pseudoname on January 4, 2006, at 20:12:22
In reply to Re: numbers » pseudoname, posted by alexandra_k on January 4, 2006, at 18:05:06
> > The openness helps ME,
>
> how does it help you?•They read me•
As I posted on Monday, part of what I'm doing at Babble is trying to help others. That's a significant objective for me here, since I have pretty slim opportunities to do anything like that (in mental health, especially) elsewhere in my life.I post hoping that at least some of my peculiar experience and obscure, hard-won information may be just what someone, perhaps years down the road, can really use. I construct many of my posts with just that outcome in mind: thorough references, summarizations of preceeding discussions, links to other threads, invitations to contact me even if years have gone by, etc.
Very, very few people will ever seek the particular information I can share, and their motivation to see what my anonymous dork-self has to say is hardly guaranteed to be intense enough to carry them through a seven-step registration process. A registration which will, of couse, compromise THEIR computer privacy.
If an outsider to Babble can't read my posts freely, the likelihood that the post'll ever have much effect is reduced. I'd say greatly reduced. Maybe some outsiders will join on the basis of a sentence fragment by me in Google. But I'm dealing with a very small consumer base to begin with. I can't afford to lose very many.
Some other contributors here, it's pretty clear to me, also get a lot from the idea of helping others. If the site is restricted, I expect their interest in posting here will be reduced, too, and THAT will hurt me.
•Care•
I'm often (not always) conscious that my posts will be available to the whole world for a long time. That thought in the back of my mind makes me more careful in what I post: I don't want to mislead people through careless wording or serious error, and I rush to correct my mistakes ASAP in the thread. AND I correct harmful errors in other people's threads that are YEARS old. I wouldn't feel much urge to do that if the archives weren't publicly available.This pressure to take care benefits me a little, since there's not much else where I feel any need to challenge myself intellectually at the moment. But it would probably benefit someone (if she exist) relying on one of my posts more.
•I like surfers•
Google searches are not the only way new people come to Babble. They come here by idly surfing links to the boards' index-pages, too. The meds board's index-page is the SECOND LINK in Alexa.com's mental health directory. That's #2 in all the web! I've seen links to Babble at personal homepages (like mine), Yahoo and other directories, articles, sites like John McWhorter's, and so on.Those static links bring surfers who already spend a lot of time online AND have general interest in mental health issues. They're EXACTLY the kind of people who end up contributing tons all over the Babble boards. Obviously, those people help me all the time, even if I never actually have an exchange with them at all.
•Open-ended•
I'm not saying those are the only benefits I get out of the openness, but they're the ones that are apparent to me tonight.Thanks for asking. :-)
Posted by jamestheyonger on January 4, 2006, at 22:08:42
In reply to Re: Googleability » jamestheyonger, posted by pseudoname on January 4, 2006, at 15:57:12
"There's a confusion here between two issues."
Sorry, I miss understood your post, I can see we
are on the same page.Well then, I think lots of sites are closed but have archives that are published. The archives trail the live list by some amount of time and are published without the e-mail addresses.
Many e-mail lists work in this fashion.Seems like that could work here, too.
Posted by AuntieMel on January 5, 2006, at 11:10:06
In reply to Re: Googleability, posted by jamestheyonger on January 4, 2006, at 22:08:42
This is the first place I ever posted.
As of today, it is the only place I ever posted.
Why? I'm internet paranoid. <hey, I do this stuff for a living> I don't want to put myself out there for the world, at least until I know what I'm getting into.
I would have NEVER registered for this site based on a google snippet. It only happened after months of reading the archives and getting a feeling that I was comfy here.
Posted by AuntieMel on January 5, 2006, at 11:15:40
In reply to Re: idea » Phillipa, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 18:20:39
"but that is only of use if I've remembered to logout when i leave... that helps me get the new indicators when i switch between computers."
It might help me get the danged music turned off, too. I have a 2cpu machine at work and that darn music pegs one of them.
Posted by jamestheyonger on January 5, 2006, at 12:34:56
In reply to Re: AuntieMel weighs in...., posted by AuntieMel on January 5, 2006, at 11:10:06
"I would have NEVER registered for this site based on a google snippet. It only happened after months of reading the archives and getting a feeling that I was comfy here."
So, based on my suggestion, which would not close the archives to public viewing, you would still of
registered here after you had read the archives for a while ?
Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 16:03:47
In reply to Re: how do you do that?? » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on January 5, 2006, at 11:15:40
> It might help me get the danged music turned off, too.
Ah.
I get to the site by typing:
dr-bob.org/babble/admin
Into the address bar. That way I bypass the dreaded (no offence) music. Actually... I don't need to do that because I have the sound turned off, but it can take a while to load the moving pic...
What you do...
Is you go into 'extras' and scroll down...
down...Until you get to the login or save cookies on the server option (I can't remember precisely how it is worded).
You can login and out that way...
Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 16:06:22
In reply to how openness helps ME » alexandra_k, posted by pseudoname on January 4, 2006, at 20:12:22
Hey.
I've been thinking about what you said...And...
I wouldn't want to take that away from you.
If I could foster that attitude...
Security / privacy probably wouldn't be such a problem to me (aside from the stuff I have already posted of course).
I think I go more for the
Say lots and you are bound to hit upon something sensible sooner or later
strategy.Sigh.
I am fairly reactive IRL...
I guess that comes through in my posting style...But I would like to be different...
And I suppose practice is the only way...
Posted by pseudoname on January 5, 2006, at 17:10:53
In reply to Re: how openness helps ME » pseudoname, posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 16:06:22
> I think I go more for the
> Say lots and you are bound to hit upon something sensible sooner or later
strategyLOL! Two responses:
(1) That strategy is what I do in my wirebound journal. But even it makes me nervous. Just TODAY, I started to write, "My new dose increase is making me dopey. I probably shouldn't drive." But I was afraid to write it in case I had an accident and later some lawyer or cop searched my notebook! Oh, funny. After a couple minutes I did put it in ... because the journal is worthless to me unless I can put any & every thought into it. If that's how you use Babble, I can seriously empathize with your situation. (Although, I have to say again, I don't think you've posted anything you can get SUED for ;-)
(2) You say lots that seems sensible to me. And your sensible output is not merely a function of overall volume.
> I am fairly reactive IRL...
What do you mean?
Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 18:01:56
In reply to say lots amp; see what sticks » alexandra_k, posted by pseudoname on January 5, 2006, at 17:10:53
> > I think I go more for the
> > Say lots and you are bound to hit upon something sensible sooner or later
> strategy> LOL!
:-)
> ...After a couple minutes I did put it in ... because the journal is worthless to me unless I can put any & every thought into it. If that's how you use Babble, I can seriously empathize with your situation.Yeah. That is fairly much how I use Babble. Not that I think Babble would be worthless to me if I did not use Babble like that (I could use Babble the way you do, for example). Maybe... I am rather foolish for using Babble the way I do...
But for me...
Shame.
Shame is a big thing for me. Shame that I have certain thoughts / feelings, shame that I do certain things. And rationally I know I *shouldn't* be ashamed. Or that a little bit of shame ain't gonna kill me or whatever. But emotionally... Well...
And when I post freely about my thoughts / feelings / rambellings / ravings / actions...
And people don't seem to cringe away from me in disgust...
Well... That is healing to me.
And helps me feel less ashamed.
But yeah...
That involves posting fairly personal things...
And that gives any one reading...
The power to hurt me very much :-(> (Although, I have to say again, I don't think you've posted anything you can get SUED for ;-)
Ah. I do not live in a litigious (however you spell that) society...
:-)
> (2) You say lots that seems sensible to me. And your sensible output is not merely a function of overall volume.Thanks. Though... I do believe that overall volume helps... But sometimes I worry about spamming the boards, yes...
> > I am fairly reactive IRL...
> What do you mean?Ideas / thoughts / feelings / behavings come fast. As fast and intense responses. I can bang out a fairly lengthy and detailed post at a rather rapid rate of knotts...
My academic writing is the same. I can bang out a fairly lengthy essay in a single night if I get into it.
Of course... In the latter context...
It must be edited and revised and reworked a little and structured etc etc etc.
And it only really comes together as a result of that latter process which is a fairly steady and concentrated effort...But the flurry...
Well...
That is how I post much of the time.
And...
It leads to stupid errors and ambigous phrasings and phrasings that aren't optimally sensitive at times etc etc.There must be a middle way ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 18:04:41
In reply to Re: say lots amp; see what sticks » pseudoname, posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 18:01:56
that is why i like philosophy...
it teaches me to be careful.
to be careful with what i say.
though i am not optimally careful much of the time...
but i think philosophers are supposed to be fairly steady and thoughtful by nature...
rather than as excitable as me...
(what is the difference between a philosopher and a raving loony??? perhaps...)
;-)
but maybe i'll learn to calm down :-)
i do hope so...
:-)
Posted by JenStar on January 5, 2006, at 20:12:11
In reply to IMHO, posted by NikkiT2 on January 2, 2006, at 4:10:30
this is a good point. I forgot that I only found babble in the first place by googling "Lexapro issues" and found tons of "Dr. Bob" site posts. That lead me in...I got hooked...and here I am. Ok, so I think we SHOULD still be google-able. HOpefully it will help newcomers find this site.
JenStar
Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 20:40:13
In reply to Re: IMHO » NikkiT2, posted by JenStar on January 5, 2006, at 20:12:11
> I think we SHOULD still be google-able.
er...
not sure whether that was just a general point or a response to my idea...
but the idea was that the site still be linked to google...
but people would need to register in order to READ the google links...
Posted by jamestheyonger on January 6, 2006, at 0:14:50
In reply to Re: IMHO » JenStar, posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 20:40:13
> but people would need to register in order to READ the google links...
>I am suggesting a variation on this, the archives are searchable and viewable without registration. To post and see the current board you have the register.
j
Posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 0:24:55
In reply to Re: IMHO, posted by jamestheyonger on January 6, 2006, at 0:14:50
why?
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2006, at 2:50:54
In reply to Re: Googleability » Dr. Bob, posted by pseudoname on January 4, 2006, at 8:50:17
> Google – regular Google that currently indexes Babble – uses the same approach as Google Scholar with many non-scholarly pay-access sites.
Really? I didn't know that. Can you give me an example?
Bob
Posted by JenStar on January 6, 2006, at 10:14:58
In reply to Re: IMHO » JenStar, posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 20:40:13
Yeah, at first I thought it would be good to make people register first to read. But the way I found babble was by reading FIRST, then registering. I "lurked" around a while before my first post, but I found the site very heartening and supportive before I even made my first post.
I thought about that a while, and weighed it against privacy issues. So I guess I think it SHOULD all be visible, in the hopes that some other lost souls might find their way here. :)
JenStar
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | 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.