
Stalking The Wild Lurker
by Dave Bealer

Public message conferences are home to many species of creature.  A
few of these species have been studied in previous RAH issues as part
of the continuing feature, The Twit Filter.  Not all inhabitants of
the online world are twits, even though the message traffic in a
particular conference on a particular day might indicate otherwise.

The simple truth is that twits are people who actually post messages
in conferences, and people who post messages make up a small minority
of the online world (at least if any of the USENET newsgroup reader-
ship stats are to be taken seriously).  This not to say that everyone
who posts is a twit, because they aren't.  Nor is this an indication
that none of the people who never post, commonly called lurkers, are
twits.  It's just that we are spared from reading the twitticisms of 
those twits who choose not to post.

Lurkers are a very mysterious phenomenon in the online world, since
they are essentially invisible.  Only users who post messages can be
seen, and then only during the time they continue posting.  In this
manner each conference can be seen as a large theater or auditorium
where only the stage is lighted.  Only people who are on the stage
(posting messages) can be seen, both by each other and the audience
of lurkers.

The lurkers are safely hidden in their darkened seats, at least until
such time as a lurker chooses to ascend to the stage by posting a 
public message.  The lurkers in the audience may hold conversations
with each other, via private e-mail, regarding the activities on the
stage or virtually any topic they choose.  These private e-mail
conversations do not have any substantive effect on the dialogue
(read: argument) taking place on the stage, since only the direct
participants in the private exchange will even be aware of it.

The only two sure things about lurkers are that they exist, and that
they don't remain lurkers forever.  Lurkers either get tired of a
given conference (or the online experience in general) and quit, or
they are moved to post a message.  There are several reasons for
first messages posted by lurkers, the most common ones being:

  - The lurker has information (or an idea) pertinent to one of the
    threads currently taking place in the conference.  Although this
    is probably the best reason for someone to "disengage lurking
    device," it is, regrettably, not the most common reason.

  - A statement made in the conference challenges some sacred cow of
    the lurker in question.  The lurker feels the need to repudiate
    the foul person who has sullied the lurker's beliefs.
    Predictably, this is one of the most common reasons why people
    "de-lurk."

  - The lurker has a question that needs an immediate answer, usually
    for an important project (that was due two days ago) in a
    required course.  The question might, if the moon is in just the
    right phase, have something vaguely to do with the topic of the
    conference where the message was posted.  The moon is almost
    *never* in just the right phase.  

Lurkers posting their first message should not be confused with those
who can't be bothered with lurking.  These characters see an
interesting looking conference title and barge in, posting a demand
(usually in ALL CAPS) to be told "what goes on here?"  Even better
are the ones who "know what the conference has to be about" from the 
extensive research involved in reading the conference title, and
proceed to post messages on that basis.  These folks are classic twit
filter bait. 

Before anyone gets the wrong idea about lurkers I should mention that
lurking is often a *good thing*.  Users new to the online experience,
or who are checking out a new conference, should lurk for a while
before posting.  This directive is almost as important for your
online safety as that old saw, "look both ways before crossing the
street."  Determining what conversations are going on and what the
rules and customs for the conference are would seem (using common
sense) to be a basic prerequisite to posting messages.  It doesn't
always work that way.  Still, breaking this directive should only be
attempted by those wearing flame retardant clothing.

Experienced users can be lurkers too.  They may be too busy to pay
close attention to the messages and to write thoughtful replies, or
they may not be interested in any of the topics currently being
discussed.   This is perfectly okay, not to mention preferable to
demanding loudly and petulantly why no threads of interest to the
lurker are being discussed.  The sensible solution to this last
problem is to start a thread that is of interest.

This underlines the major difference between an online conference and
a real theater.  Only one person can speak at a time in a real
theater, at least if the performers want to be heard and understood.
Many people can sing at the same time, but they had better be singing
the same tune, or chaos will result.  In an online conference several  
conversations (threads) can be occurring simultaneously.  If you
don't like any of the songs being performed in a conference, get up
on stage and start one you do like.  If others find your song
interesting enough to join in, you've just started another thread.

In summary, lurkers aren't all that mysterious, since virtually
everyone is a lurker at one time or another.  There are about as many
reasons for lurking as there are lurkers.  As a child I was afraid of
dead people.  My father told me, "don't worry about dead people, son,
it's the live ones you gotta watch out for."  The same thing goes for
lurkers.  Don't worry about lurkers, it's the posters you have to
worry about.                                                    {RAH}
--------------
Dave Bealer is a thirty-something mainframe systems programmer who
works with CICS, MVS and all manner of nasty acronyms at one of the
largest heavy metal shops on the East Coast.  He shares a waterfront
townhome in Pasadena, MD. with two cats who annoy him endlessly as he
writes and electronically publishes RAH.    FidoNet> 1:261/1129
Internet: dave.bealer@rah.clark.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sound Byte:

Q:  How many IBM CPUs does it take to execute a job?

A:  Four: three to hold it down and one to rip its head off.

