ACQNET v10n006 (March 3, 2000) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/serials/acqnet/acqnet-v10n006.txt ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 10, No. 6, March 3, 2000 ===================================== Here is the next batch of comments concerning our proposed changes to ACQNET. In case you are a new subscriber and did not receive ACQNET 10:3, you can go to AcqWeb to see the issue that talks about proposed changes to ACQNET : the direct URL for this issue is: ftp://listserv.appstate.edu/acqnet/acqnet10/acqnet10.3 I said in the original announcement we would take comments until March 5, so please consider responding. What totally blows my mind is that ACQNET has over *1700* subscribers and so far I have received fewer than 50 responses. What are all you people doing out there? I suppose there must be a number of people who receive ACQNET but never read it! Or perhaps many people simply do not care? What gives? Although I must admit, if I receive another 1,000 replies between now and Monday I may regret it!! More next week! Thanks - Eleanor ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- More comments: Ian Fairclough, Yakima Valley Regional Library: Thanks for the posting on ACQNET changes. Will ACQNET also change its name? To, say, ACQ-L? I personally would find a new name helpful. Thanks for reading - Ian [ED NOTE: Good question! We'll have to think about this ...] Mary Buttner, Lane Medical Library, Stanford University: Eleanor, DIGLIB ( http://www.ifla.org/II/lists/diglib.htm ) is employing an interesting model you might want to consider. This moderated list sends a daily digest and the recipient replies to receive selected messages. Worth a look. Mary Jey Wann, Oregon State Library: I support the proposed change to a moderated list for ACQNET. In the past several years, ACQNET has dealt more with specific issues and questions than with general, big-pictures issues as it did previously. Seems like the immediacy of a moderated list is a better venue for specific issues, and also might lead to more discussion, ideas, opinions, etc. Cheryl Riley, Central Missouri State University: Do you have an idea about the number of messages we might expect to receive in an average week/month/or year? I would like to know the volume I might expect before I automatically change to another list. I certainly understand both sides of the issue and appreciate your willingness to poll the subscribers. [ED NOTE: I would not expect this change to bring us an avalanche of postings; I instead hope it would make postings more timely and relevant. We're still going to moderate and we will still pull related things together.] Rick Anderson, UNC-Greensboro: [On the subject of changing the name:] I'm afraid this would cause more confusion than it would avert. ACQNET-L works just as well, I think. Sheila Mangum, University. of North Florida: I'm definitely in favor of the moderated list format -- the sooner the better. Thanks for realizing that this change should be more useful and trying to do something about it. Judith Hopkins, SUNY-Buffalo: [Concerning changing the name:] I think Ian's idea is a good one. ACQ-L is fine with me; it is short, but includes the concepts of ACQuisitions and of a list Louise Merriam, Minneapolis Public Library: Love Acqnet--please don't change the name even if the format is different. I don't think a "break" is necessary, and would probably confuse more folks than it enlightens. Donna Packer, Western Washington University: I have really appreciated ACQNET, and am happy to see it continue any way that is useful to subscribers. In terms of answers to questions, one possible model is the business librarian's list: responders are urged to reply to the person who asked the question, who is then considered responsible for compiling answers and reporting them to the list. The subscribers and questioners are very good about doing this. Donna Alsbury, Florida Center for Library Automation: I subscribe to one list that has a volume/issue number assigned to each digest. This might solve the problem of continuing as a e-serial. [ED. NOTE: We can investigate this! Thanks] Marcie Kingsley, Western Michigan University: The proposed changes sound good, but I vote for keeping the name. Can we gracefully go from being ACQNET the electronic newsletter to being ACQNET the moderated list? As one of the oldest electronic sources for librarians, the title has a distinguished history. To change its name would be like changing the _Times Literary Supplement_... Floyd Zula, California State University, Fullerton: Yes, I can certainly appreciate how some flexibility should allow more in the way of spontaneity in the conduct of our information interchanges and that, in turn, ought to induce, or may induce, more people to contribute. I, for one, am pleased that there will continue to be some editorial control to prevent my occasionally free-ranging fingers from spamming everyone with obviously private messages. I would also like to thank you for your willingness to undertake this experiment. Marylou Hale, North Las Vegas Library District: Marylou Hale here. Just a quick note to catch you up and let you know why I'm interested in ACQNET again. I switched public libraries about a two years ago and now have the dubious distinction of being the head of Technical Services, Adult Services (including all Collection Development!), and systems (We are a small library and most of us carry more than one main responsibility!) I'm also head of the Technical Services group with our State Library Association. Technical Services was always my favorite and I'm sure glad to be part of it again. Any way, here is my opinion on your question. As you know, I've been reading ACQNET since its beginning so I do have a fondness for it. But as someone mentioned, we have come to expect quick responses in this age of technology. The format of ACQNET doesn't allow for that expected quick response. My only concern is that the messages will be stockpiled and hit my email all at once which is the case with one of my other moderated lists. We are in the business of allowing free flowing information and I believe that the new format will allow information that is critical to us in our working environment to be more timely. Add my vote to the "go for it" crowd! Ann Denton, University of Memphis: You have done a great job as editor of ACQNET. In the past I favored the serial format, but now I often delay reading an ACQNET issue because I anticipate that it will be long. Subscribers will find it much quicker to read and reply or read and delete a single e-mail. Thanks for soliciting readers' opinions on the subject. Thelma Diercks, University of Hawaii: "MOVING TO A REAL MODERATED LIST FORMAT" is a good idea for all the reasons you name. I'm for it. Aloha, Thelma Lee A. Krieger, University of Miami: Here's my 2 cents worth. This seems to me to be the best solution for reviving interest in ACQNET. Having a real list but still moderated, is the way to go to make it more dynamic yet keeping the topics focused. Keeping the ACQFlashes separate is a good idea too. Thanks for all your work on ACQNET! Geoffrey Smith : Thank you for consulting on this good idea. I hope you will continue to welcome items from the UK. [ED. NOTE: ACQNET has subscribers from many regions of the world and that only continues to grow!] Cecilia Harel, University of Haifa: Dear Acqnet Editors: I am not in favor of changing ACQNET to a discussion list format. I very much enjoyed the concise and to-the-point format of ACQNET, which enabled me to read items that interested me, and reply directly to individuals concerned with informative replies or questions. I do not like lists that clutter my mailbox with redundant and repetitive, and often trivial banter, regarding issues under discussion, and which force me to spend precious time each day browsing and cleaning my mailbox. While I can understand and appreciate your desire to make the editorial process less labor intensive, I hope it will not be at readers' expense. I think posting commercial messages as Acqflashes is a better idea than filing them on Acqweb, where one is apt to forget to look. I have been a regular reader and contributor to ACQNET, and have also required my Library School students to use it, and would be very sorry to see the format change. [ED. NOTE: I'm glad to see someone likes us the way we are! However, I sincerely expect the new format not to contribute to "clutter" - that is certainly not the intention.Please continue to provide feedback on what you think as we progress. As for the press releases, I will provide more b ackground on the challenges here as we receive more feedback.] Beth Jacoby, Health Sciences and Human Services Library, University of Maryland: Changing to a moderated list is a good idea. It will parallel the COLLDV-L, whose format I like because it gathers the answers to one question in one posting. Please keep ACQFLASH for job postings, conference announcements, merger announcements, etc. I don't want to have to go to ACQWEB to check for news items. Changing the name to ACQ-L (or whatever) would emphasize the change in format. ****** END OF FILE ****** Vol. 10, No. 6 ****** END OF FILE ******