Well, to be clear, if reading this is part of your daily enjoyment, I understand feeling that you have a stake in it. I mean, you would, you know? Of course.

I just don't believe lurkers have nearly the stake in it that I have, or the Terrible Core has, and such.

I'll listen, nod and have some sympathy, but ultimately, the people posting are what makes the place function (and disfunction, depending on your point of view).

We're gonna need a lurker poll.

Kidding aside, I think it seems like we're dissatisfying our lurkers more than it looks. It's only a couple comments. And only 7.4% of the respondents say they've never posted.

We're reacting to a few bad reviews of our work.

Heh.

I agree that some have more stake than others. I was just tickled to see them.

on the one hand this is me

if you're just people watching, it's freaky to walk up to the person and say, "hey, can you move a little to the left? It's easier for me to be amused by you if you haul your ass out of that sun glare."

On the other hand I feel uncomfortable saying I speak for board culture when I am still such a newbie myself.

Bureaucracy 5: Buffistas is perverse.

if you're just people watching, it's freaky to walk up to the person and say, "hey, can you move a little to the left? It's easier for me to be amused by you if you haul your ass out of that sun glare."

On the other hand I feel uncomfortable saying I speak for board culture when I am still such a newbie myself.

Extreme newbie (posting) here, but I'm confused by the hostility toward the lurkers. They were asked to vote. Their opinions were solicited. It was said if they didn't vote, then what did they matter. I fully expected those who lurked on a regular basis and read these things to vote.

The only question for people not posting, or not posting for a listed reason, question #4, elicited all positive responses. The lurkers love b.org.

Question #13, that contained the negative responses and comments, was lurkers and posters combined. I can only identify one negative response coming from a lurker. The comment about this seeming to be a closed community. Doesn't mean it's bad, just that is what it is.

The most negative comments of question # 13 (like comment 3 or 40) seem to have an insider voice. They imply they participate in other threads besides the social ones or one pointed complaint that sounds more personal than coming from a lurker.

I may be completely wrong, but I think the negative comments were coming from within the community of posters not from the lurkers. I would hate for the lurkers to be the scapegoats if that is the case. I think the lurkers identified themselves when they were offering an opinion and I think it was mostly positive or "go team buffistas."

And yes, I realize I pick really weird things to champion. Save the lurkers.

I predicted that some of the core comments would ping some of the lurkers. I don't know. I understand the point of view that active posters should have more clout than lurkers, but it doesn't really go with the current voting system. If you're going to make decisions according to the results of a vote, then a vote is a vote, you know? You can't start weighting the votes based on whose they are.

Well put.

I still maintain that if they have said anything ever, they are no longer lurkers. The lurkers are the ones with no impact other than hits. Not just posting, to me, but shaping and affecting in other ways delurks you. Donations, votes, poll responses.

The former lurkers surprised and delighted me. Even though I can't identify who said what, I can't unread what I've read.

From reading the comments on the comments I'm not getting the impression that there's irritation with the lurkers, but I am getting the impression there is that impression.

If it makes any sense.