I agree with Robert on the topic Dennis raised, but on the mention of list
moderation, I don't mean to intrude on how others manage their lists, but in
so far as Webheads can be seen as a successful model, here is how we do it.
On Webheads, list traffic has never been moderated and has been going for
ten years with only minor hiccups. Occasionally we'll get spam mails but
the perpetrators are weeded out much more easily than the trouble of
moderating each message, resulting in greater immediacy, important in list
interaction, and the professionals who interact over the webheads list have
historically been polite and deferential to one another, completely without
Requests to join ARE moderated (and there is an automatic rejection msg that
suggests if you are turned down perhaps you need to try again with a note
indicating you are human, something other than "join me", a common msg from
Also, webheads messages are public. That is, if you visit
you will see that there
is a hyperlink to messages whether you are logged on or not; whereas at
messages is hyperlinked
only if you are logged in to Yahoo and enrolled in that group. There are
two advantages to making messages public. First, each message then has a
URL which can be shared, on Twitter for example. But most importantly, this
allows the list to generate an RSS feed which means that its traffic can be
followed in an RSS reader. This is only done when moderators have made
messages public, which also means that ANYone can read them, but that should
not be a problem on a list whose purpose is the sharing of information (at
least, has never been a problem on Webheads).
I'm sure good arguments could be made for moderating lists, if the list
might reflect on a workplace or contain proprietary information for example.
And both lists have been hugely successful in what they have set out to do.
My intent here is simply to explain how webheads does it, in case this
information is helpful.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Squires, Robert" <robert.squires@...>
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:39 AM
Subject: [evonline2002_webheads] FW: [learningwithcomputers] Skype
alternatives for voice in 1:1 distance teaching
LwC can take some time to approve messages, so I thought I would add this
here as well...
Yahoo IM, Google Talk and Oovoo all work well. The nice thing about Yahoo
and Google is that most people already have a Yahoo or Google account of
some sort. I think that audio quality is more or less the same. Google Talk
is a little cleaner in my opinion (less advertising) and it integrates with
Gmail. I would use OoVoo for multi-party videoconferencing (up to 6 people),
but most people don't have accounts, so it would have to be pre-organized.
Skype is still my number one choice.
Hi Dennis ,
I suggest inspeak and paltalk