[Humanist] 27.1002 editorial matters

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Mon Apr 28 07:19:29 CEST 2014


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 27, No. 1002.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    Ken Friedman <kenfriedman at swin.edu.au>                    (35)
        Subject: Re:  27.1001 some editorial matters

  [2]   From:    Alan Corre <corre at uwm.edu>                                 (4)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 27.1001 some editorial matters

  [3]   From:    Andrew Brook <Andrew.Brook at carleton.ca>                   (13)
        Subject: Re:  27.1001 some editorial matters

  [4]   From:    James Rovira <jamesrovira at gmail.com>                      (68)
        Subject: Re:  27.1001 some editorial matters

  [5]   From:    "Robert A. Amsler" <amsler at cs.utexas.edu>                 (55)
        Subject: Re:  27.1001 some editorial matters


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 08:49:27 +0000
        From: Ken Friedman <kenfriedman at swin.edu.au>
        Subject: Re:  27.1001 some editorial matters
        In-Reply-To: <20140427071548.0F6C661B7 at digitalhumanities.org>

Dear Willard,

To me, this seems simple and practical.

As lists grow significantly, they develop new requirements. I see nothing
wrong in asking folks to identify themselves. It's very common on some
lists.

Hope to see you in Sydney -- lots of changes, lots of news to catch up on.

Yours,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor |
Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | University
email kenfriedman at swin.edu.au | Private email kenfriedman0 at gmail.com |
Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Academia Page
http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman

Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University |
Shanghai, China ||| Adjunct Professor | School of Creative Arts | James
Cook University | Townsville, Australia

On 14/04/27 5:15 PM, "Humanist Discussion Group"
<willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:

>        Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 08:01:44 +0100
>        From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
>        Subject: editorial matters
>
>Only a few here will know that some weeks ago the procedure for handling
>applications to Humanist changed, from an immediate admission to one
>involving an intermediate step in which the applicant has to reply to an
>automatically generated message. This step was taken because a flood of
>bot-generated applications was greeting me nearly every morning, forcing
>me to pick through them to find the genuine ones and delete the rest.
>But since the new procedure was initiated I've noticed that the number
>of those who respond to the automatic message is significantly less than
>the number who apply. On the one hand this can be viewed as eliminating
>those of insufficient determination, and so good; on the other it can be
>viewed as unnecessarily harsh, and so bad. I worry.
>
>I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter, both technical and moral.



--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 07:17:23 -0500 (CDT)
        From: Alan Corre <corre at uwm.edu>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 27.1001 some editorial matters
        In-Reply-To: <20140427071548.0F6C661B7 at digitalhumanities.org>

Happy landings, Willard.


--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:23:56 -0400
        From: Andrew Brook <Andrew.Brook at carleton.ca>
        Subject: Re:  27.1001 some editorial matters
        In-Reply-To: <20140427071548.0F6C661B7 at digitalhumanities.org>

Hello Willard,

Having to click on a link to confirm that one really has applied to join 
a website is pretty standard now, so I'd say that anyone not willing to 
do that is probably not too serious about being a member of Humanist.

Andrew

-- 

Andrew Brook, D.Phil.
Chancellor's Professor of Philosophy and Cognitive Science
President, Canadian Psychoanalytic Society
3A57 Paterson Carleton University
Ottawa, ON K1S5B6
Ph:  613 520-3597
Web: www.carleton.ca/~abrook



--[4]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 19:16:28 -0400
        From: James Rovira <jamesrovira at gmail.com>
        Subject: Re:  27.1001 some editorial matters
        In-Reply-To: <20140427071548.0F6C661B7 at digitalhumanities.org>


Replying to an automatically generated message seems like a simple enough
thing, but perhaps to make the process even simpler embed a confirmation
link in the message? I suspect the difference is between people trolling
for email addresses and those really interested in the list. I wouldn't
worry.

Jim


-- 
Dr. James Rovira
Associate Professor of English
Tiffin University
http://www.jamesrovira.com
Blake and Kierkegaard: Creation and Anxiety
Continuum 2010
http://jamesrovira.com/blake-and-kierkegaard-creation-and-anxiety/
Text, Identity, Subjectivity
http://scalar.usc.edu/works/text-identity-subjectivity/index



--[5]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:44:46 -0500
        From: "Robert A. Amsler" <amsler at cs.utexas.edu>
        Subject: Re:  27.1001 some editorial matters
        In-Reply-To: <20140427071548.0F6C661B7 at digitalhumanities.org>

A confirmation of a request by replying to an email is a normal part of
many transactions on the web; most common when used to recover account
access after a forgotten password, or to confirm a request to sign up to
an account. I'd consider such a request a normal part of doing business
over a computer, and I'd think anyone should.



More information about the Humanist mailing list