This discussion has been closed.
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Wednesday, 19th October 2005
Just got in and trawled my way through Peta's thread - you've got to hand it to her, she's a brave girl.
But I've also been looking at the site called 'DNA hub' which gives an astonishing amount of the history and background philosophy of these DNA-type boards.
It reads like a textbook of a 'MSc in online communities' which I find positively scarey. Full of buzzwords like: clients. compelling communities. sticky communities. aspirational process. DNA development cycle.
I feel like we're part of an experiment. Perhaps this quote from one page will illustrate:
<>
And I thought we were just a group of people who liked nattering to one another.
One last question - perhaps Peet knows this - what prompted the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to buy up a failing dotcom business in 2001 and convert their own in-house messageboard system to it?
The concept of putting participation in ML on my CV boggles my mind.
, in reply to message 2.
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Wednesday, 19th October 2005
Bunny
I object to being called a 'punter'.
Ermintrude --
I object to all of it!
Among other things, I don't need the ´óÏó´«Ã½ honing my writing skills, thank you very much!
Who was it earlier on who said it was 'like walking through treacle - but not such fun' - or words to that effect?
Ermintrude --
I object to all of it!
Among other things, I don't need the ´óÏó´«Ã½ honing my writing skills, thank you very much! Â
Apparently, the style we can aspire to includes "Just fill out the form below".
- 'Just' is at best redundant, at worst patronising.
- Even American cousins may understand that R4/R3 listeners in general do not fill forms out, but in. How can the ´óÏó´«Ã½ not know this?
- It's not a form, it's a box.
- And, to cap it all, it's all redundant, 'cos the correct instruction 'Type your message in the box below' follows almost immediately.
Guano, guano, guano.
, in reply to message 4.
Posted by dean volecape (U1477030) on Thursday, 20th October 2005
Reply to Message 4 - posted by bunny
the idea that our writing skills are going to be improved by using a site whose 'designer' thinks that leaving out one word of a two-word programme title does rather stagger me!
, in reply to message 7.
Posted by dean volecape (U1477030) on Thursday, 20th October 2005
whoops, so staggered the sentence got dropped in mid air.
designer who thinks that leaving out one word of a two-word programme title
is not likely to confuse and obfuscate
does rather stagger me
sorry folks!
<< I object to all of it!
>>
Same reaction here. Obviously the reason why the Radio 4 posters in general find *dna* somewhat lacking lies in our ability to read and write already. Oh and our distaste for 'sticky' websites. petal
, in reply to message 9.
Posted by Lady Macbeϯh - not without mustard (U550479) on Thursday, 20th October 2005
Explains why I don't, then -
Defintions:
'An ordinary member of the public, especially a customer/member of an audience'
'Someone who bets mony on something'.
'A prostitute's client'
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.