LAW-LIB: hybrid listserv proposal

LAW-LIB is a listserv where law librarians ask and answer legal questions and help each other find legal resources and trouble shoot unique legal reference questions. Currently the list administrator has raised the issue of whether a specific person should be banned from the list and great debate has ensued. What is problematic is that when a debate on a listserv happens it happens in your inbox. A typically amount of emails from LAW-LIB might be 6-12 in a day. The current debate has thrown this number into the range of 50-75 emails.

I wanted to raise a listserv idea that could be debated on a forum that is more conducive to discussion. The power of listservs is that they have a very strong connection with people because the email goes directly to them. The listserv participants are dealing with a "push" information system. My idea is to have a listserv that operates something like the game show Jeopardy in that things would have to be in the form of a question. The listserv would only be for questions. All answers to questions and discussion would be on a corresponding website. Each question sent to the mailing list would automatically be posted to the website. If you wanted to see the answer to a question or provide an answer you would go to the the website.

One of the most powerful thing about LAW-LIB is that many of the participants are law firm librarians that have unique access to information. These librarians are sensitive, and I think rightly so, to cluttered inboxes. LAW-LIB provides a direct connection with these valuable librarians and I think the proposal of a hybrid listserv/website would keep the advantages of a listserv while providing a forum for discussion that would be beneficial to all listserv users. I would be interested to have a discussion of this idea on LISNEWS.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

blah

Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you-oo?

Enough already

I'm disappointed with LIS news.

Even if Mr. Huttner is a supreme jerk, I fail to see the reasoning behind us publicly bashing him here. There are plenty of people on listservs that I don't like, but I prefer to spend my time in more productive ways, rather than flaming somebody. Furthermore, attention just feeds a troll.

I am politically the opposite of mdoneil, but I like reading his posts because they're so thoughtful. Everyone gets peeved at him too.

Are we bored with bashing mdoneil? So now we need another target?

Bashing

Bashing? What?

Read the comments!!! No one says anything about Huttner till he pops in here and announces himself. Mickey Mouse took a jab or two, everyone else is responding to something he said.

Plus this is a classic Internet situation anyway. The flames were dying down until you pop in with your high and mighty comment that you are oh so disappointed. If as you say "attention just feeds a troll." Why is the love of all that is right would you post any kind of response?

If you understand this post you will not try to respond to it at all.

Ron Huttner - Is It Me ?

Of course it's me. Who else ? And you are 100% correct. I should NOT have been hanging out on Law-Lib for so many years after I retired in mid-2003. But unlike many, I actually ENJOY helping people. I did it because (a) I liked it, (b) I was jolly good at it and (c) I wanted to keep my mind and my legal skills alert even after retirement. For MANY years I had an excellent website for lawyers known as "VidElex - See The Law". It used to get many thousands of hits every single day from all over the world. It was totally free. I never made one solitary cent out of it. I had NO "backer" and paid out of my own pocket to run it. Eventually, after a heart attack in 2000, I had no choice but to take it down because it was COSTING me a lot of money to maintain it. WHY did I do it for so long ? Because I was able to and got enormous satisfaction knowing just how many legal researchers found it extremely useful. But I now agree. Both Law-Lib and this List are places where some very nasty characters indeed hang out. And the crap on both Lists is, indeed now awful and intolerable. It's very sad. So I am playing bowls far more these days, and practising my trumpet with determination every single day. What's more, both my bowls and my trumpet playing have improved out of sight.

Ron Huttner LL.B (Hons)
(Retired) Barrister, Solicitor, Law Lecturer and Legal Researcher
Melbourne
Victoria
Australia

Ron Huttner

Is this you?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AWVJBFKATA6PB

If it is you say: I play keyboards, guitars, saxophone, clarinet, flute, guitar, trumpet and darbuka. I love World Music particularly, though any kind of music at all that is well played and well performed appeals to me. I have well over 2000 CDs, covering every conceivable genre from the most avant-garde jazz right through to opera. I suppose that jazz is my very favourite genre, as I both listen to it a great deal and play it ! Some of my favourite jazz artists are Rahsaan Roland Kirk, John Coltrane, Ben Webster, Gerry Mulligan, Michel Petrucciani, John Surman, Oscar Peterson, Gonzalo Rubalcaba, Dave Brubeck, Herbie Mann, George Melly, Diana Krall, Jane Monheit and Norah Jones.

Someone with these varied interest shouldn't be hanging out on LAW-LIB.

You are retired in Australia. You should be kicking back listening to jazz and lawn bowling not putting up with our crap.

I've Done It Too Now

See point 4 at http://www.mpiweb.org/CMS/MPIweb/Uploads/DocLibrary/1136860_7142

The number required for a representative sample was 346.

The number surveyed was 301.

Even if the concept of "close" has any meaning in this context, (and I cannot find ANY support for the view that it does) that is simply NOT "close" at all.

It is 13.006% BELOW the requisite number.

I regret the fact that you find my annoying. I am in no way trying to annoy anyone.

I am simply trying to get some TRUTH told and accepted about the "Mickey Mouse" survey results.

No more and no less.

Confidence interval

That is for a confidence level of 5. That seems a bit wide for me. I would think 3 would be more appropriate at 3 with a confidence level of 95. That would require ~800

You people all look like idiots to me because you are arguing about statistics and you don't have any idea what you are talking about. If the sum total of your argument involves searching for an online calculator to calculate sample size you are clowns.

The person that owns the list is not going to kick him off, move on already. Geez if you people need something to do I have an attic that needs cleaning.

Might I suggest a nice big glass of STFU, you are even annoying the annoying people here.

Hey sparky

Speaking of clowns the discussion on this thread has been dead for the last eight hours till you came along and went talky talky.

Sorry

Sorry I work for a living. Someone has to pay all those taxes that the government is giving away.

Nice of you to point out that you have no life and sit in front of the computer all day, too bad you don't have the guts to use your name and insist on hiding behind the cloak of anonynimnity.

Hey Sparky 2

You come on and drop a STFU without even looking when the last message was posted. You don't have to sit in front of your computer all day to know when the last message was posted you can also read the information. Amazing thing that reading.

Speaking of no life you post on here constantly. So when you are not working you seem to be here. So before you call the kettle black you might want to look in the mirror.

Constantly

I post at different times of the day, and often at night (I do have the occasional 3am conference call with India or the UK.)

However if anyone posts constantly it is you Anonymous.

You want it you got it - STFU.

You're just whinging because I called you out on the statistics above and made you look like an idiot talking out of his arse.

Oh, and by the way Mr. Math Wizard, 1:24PM was the post previous to mine. If you noticed you can change your comment viewing options to sort the chronologically.

Nice of you to make yourself look like a clown again. Marsey doats you simpleton.

Sparky 3

You were responding to the marzy doats post?? Oh, brother I didnt even look at the time on that one because it was a nonsense post.

You crap about the statistics didnt phase me at all. I didnt even read all your drivel about the stats. I plugged in the numbers in a calc and got a good estimate that a poll of 300 people gave a reasonable feel for a group of 3500. I do have a life so I wasnt going to waste more than 5 minutes with an online calc. For the love of god look at the big spiel you typed up about it, which I still havent read. WTF was all that?

STFU right back out you. Were both clowns Mdoniel. Anyone engaging in an internet argument is a clown. That is why I am anonymous. You like to put your clowness with your name. More power to ya.

Thats because

marzy doats is less nonsensical than all of mdoneils posts. there are too many bozos in his brain bus.

So now your comment that " I

So now your comment that " I am not going to walk you through the formula" has turned into I plugged the numbers into a caluclator I thought would give me the correct answer, but since I have no idea what I am talking about it will make me look smart on the interwebs.

Unfortunately those of us who do have a clue, and have enough guts to put our own names on what we say think you are nothing but an internet tough guy.

I bet you are a big hit on law-lib.

Formula

The "I am not going to walk you through the formula" was saying that I was not going to also go out and get the formula for him and work it all out. Talking about trying to look smart on the intrawebs you always come along with your I am a nurse, ninja, firefighter, librarians spiel that is nothing but "look at me" "look at me"

And you have the guts to post under your real name? What is it? Ron Huttner is Ron Huttner. Are you mdoniel? In a previous post you said your phone number was in the book in response to Ron giving his. Give your full name and number like Ron did. Mdoniel is no different than posting under Mickey Mouse or anonymous.

This is just getting silly

447-Matt

You can figure out what city I live in from other posts on LISNews. Feel free to call.

Point 4

The link doesn't work.

Gall

Thanks. You are a real charmer.

Yeah, but at least he did

Yeah, but at least he did his own Googling and other research.

Wow, how does it feel to be annoying on two different lists?

It Is Statistics

If I were polled I would say you are extremely annoying too. Not to mention rather silly. Can you not even give me a web link to the relevant formula ?

Gall

The gall of some people.

You posed this: NO valid conclusions can be drawn from the tiny percentage of responses actually received. Do some Googling or other research on the concept of a "statistically valid sample".

I go out and do the work and find a calculator and run the numbers and then you want me to go out and hold your hand to help you find things. Like you said, do some Googling or other research.

Math

That does not answer my question at all. What is the formula that gives one the figure of 346 ? Where does it come from ?
How is it derived ? To simply say "It's called math" tells me nothing useful at all

Ron Huttner
Melbourne
Victoria
Australia
rshutt@netspace.net.au
Phone: (61) 3 9509 381
NOT an anonymous cowardly slimeball at all

It is statistics

I am not going to walk you through the formula. The numbers I gave you are correct. Go figure it out on your own.

But mathematically I can tell you that if you have a pool of 3500 people and you poll 346 of them there is statistically a 95% confidence rate.

If I was polled I would also say your are annoying.

I have to call you on that one

I think you simply used an online calculator.

You fail to mention your confidence level and confidence interval.

What z value are you using?

What c?

There is nothing wrong with using those tools but you could have just shown the equation

To calculate sample size for a poll the following equation would be used.

ss = Z^2 (p) (p-1)/ c^2

since the population is finite you should correct by

corrected ss = ss/1+(ss-1/pop)

where z is from a z table (I did look that up)
p is the percentage picking a choice
c is the confidence interval
pop is the population

so doing it by hand on the back of an envelope with a population of 3500 with a 95% CL and plus or minus 3 pts the sample size is 818
of course the wider the confidence interval the fewer participants are needed. I got a number similar to yours (359) when I used a confidence interval of 5.

I am more more comfortable with a CL of 95 at a CI of 3 than 95 at 5.

It is math, but the math part is easy knowing what type of sample size calculation you need to do depending on the data type -variable or discrete, and the required level of confidence in the result and if the population is finite or not is very important.

There is a really good book about this called something like How Many People do I need by A. Fink (I remember the author [ a fink!] but not the title. If I do recall the title I will post it. I did a quick worldcat search but could not find it.

Math

It's called math. If you want to know with a 95% certainty what 3500 people think about something you need to ask 346 people what they think. 301 people responded so you have somewhere close to a 95% confidence that the survey of 301 people tells the feelings of the 3500 member group.

Sample Size Calculator

There were in fact 3500 "in" the survey. Not 301. The entire membership of 3500 was invited to respond. Only 301 of those invited chose to respond. Please tell me where you get your conclusion of a "95% confidence rate" from - i.e. the sample size calculator that you used and its methodology.

Survey

Of course one doesn't have to ask everyone. But any statistician will assure you that when you DO choose to ask everyone and get a "non-response" rate of over 90%, NO valid conclusions can be drawn from the tiny percentage of responses actually received. Do some Googling or other research on the concept of a "statistically valid sample".

Ron Huttner
Melbourne
Victoria
Australia
rshutt@netspace.net.au
Phone: (61) 3 9509 381
NOT an anonymous cowardly slimeball at all

Sample size calculator

For a 95% confidence rate for a population of 3500 you need 346 people in your survey. There were 301 in the survey so they were very close. I would say the survey is fairly accurate.

The Actual Figures In Relation To The "Mickey Mouse" Survey

I have just found the actual "survey" results as posted by "Mickey Mouse" on the Law-Lib List on 11 October 2007.
Out of a total List membership of 3500, a mere 301 bothered to respond. That is 8.6%. End of story. 91.4% of the List membership simply could not be bothered with it at all.

Survey

Isn't the point of a survey that you don't have to ask everyone?

Syndicate content