THE CCNet SURVEY RESULTS
------------------------
1) Do you wish to continue your subscription
[237] yes
[ 6] no, please unsubcribe me from the CCNet
2) Do you wish to receive all CCNet messages
[196] yes
[ 41] no, I don’t wish to receive the “Letters to the
Moderator”
3) How long have you been subscribed to the CCNet?
[ 40] (17%) 1-3 months
[ 87] (37%) 4-12 months
[107] (56%) 1-2 years
4) I read the CCNet messages
[162] (70%) every day
[ 66] (29%) from time to time
[ 3] ( 1%) rarely
[ ] never
5) Please rate the following CCNet features in terms of how
relevant they are to you
(1= unimportant, 2 = quite interesting, 3 = very
important)
CCNet DIGEST
[ 3] ( 1%) unimportant
[ 94] (42%) quite interesting
[127] (57%) very important
CCNet DEBATE
[ 10] ( 4%) unimportant
[161] (72%) quite interesting
[ 52] (24%) very important
LETTERS TO THE MODERATOR
[ 74] (33%) unimportant
[125] (57%) quite interesting
[ 22] (10%) very important
6) How often would you like to receive CCNet messages?
[166] (76%) whenever they are posted
[ 28] (13%) every other day
[ 24] (11%) once per week
7) Which are your main research areas/interests?
(tick all appropriate boxes)
[162] (67%) SOLAR SYSTEM ASTRONOMY
[180] (74%) NEO research, etc.
[121] (50%) GEOLOGY, impact craters, etc
[ 67] (28%) BIOLOGY, evolution, origins of life, etc.
[ 96] (40%) PALEONTOLOGY, mass extinctions, etc.
[ 98] (40%) ARCHAEOLOGY, CLIMATOLOGY, societal evolution,
etc.
[132] (54%) SPACE SCIENCE, space exploration, etc.
[ 43] (17%) OTHERS: Interstellar & interplanetary dust
- public
understanding and Astronomy and Space Science Education -
astrophysics - meteoritics - international law - education
- science journalism - space craft engineering - social
sciences - media production - press agency -
8) With view of your scientific interests, how would you
categorise the CCNet?
(tick all appropriate boxes)
[170] (72%) very informative
[ 14] (6%) too much popular, too little hard science
[ 78] (33%) very useful for my research
[ 10] (4%) not really useful for my research
[113] (48%) I find the ‘abstracts service’ very helpful
[135] (57%) quite interesting for its news and information
[ 26] (11%) I don’t like the news items from the mass media
[ 9] (4%) should be strictly limited to NEO research
[ 25] (11%) too much chit-chat
[ 22] (10%) there could be more scientific debate
[ 13] (5%) Less posting of controversies.
[ 3] (1%) other comments…..
9) Are there any CCNet features which you find particularly
useful
and beneficial?
Features I find particularly useful and beneficial:
(a selection of responses from the questionnaires)
* When I read CCNet, I feel to be part of a scientific community.
* Puts me in contact with scientists around the world on an
informal
but very productive basis. Informs me about the latest
research.
The archive service is also very useful.
* Watching and learning from others' thought processes. I guess
that
means I like the debates best.
* unconventional (in the sense of not blindly following
mainstream
thinking), non compartmentalized (interdisciplinary), open
scientific debate
* As a planetarium director, I find "cutting edge" up
to the moment
postings most useful, particularly in hearing from those
with a
view that differs from the establishment
* the listing of titles & contributors at the head of the
mail.
* Hard scientific solar system news
* Abstracts service is particularly useful
* UPDATES ON IMPACTS, BOLIDES, ARCHEOLOGICAL CONNECTION
* All items that relate directly or indirectly to NEO research
* Discussion of issues of NEO science and policy
* Daily run-down of what is being done (and major issues in solar
system astronomy).
* postings of relevant fieldtrips/conferences/papers/abstracts
* notification of impact/sighting news. Topics on climatological
records and association to impacts. ALL NEO
news/discussions.
* It is the only list that I am aware of that covers ancient
impact
records and showers from a scientific and anthropological
/
archaeological point of view.
* I find the discussions related to the rationale for calculating
NEO impact probabilities very interesting, you know, the
ones
that started after XF11. The thinking of the
individuals
involved provides insight into the NEO impact problems,
both
scientific and from a policy standpoint.
* I enjoy reading about other academic fields (non-planetary
science) and
their take on the "cosmic connection".
* I am unfortunately not active in asteroid research as a
vocation.
It is still an active avocation and I do keep in touch,
but CCNet
thus is not of "professional use" to me.
10) Are there any CCNet features which you find particularly
inappropriate or unimportant?
Features I find particularly inappropriate or unimportant:
(a selection of responses from the questionnaires)
* Flame wars.
* TRASHING THE MPC
* Playground style arguments: oh no he didn't oh yes he did...as
in the
debate about public notification last year.
* Often too much material to digest. Many items that I am not
particularly interested in mixed with other items which
are of
great interest to me.
* There seem to be a lot of esoteric or catastrophistic messages
of
limited interest to most people.
* Mythology, archaeology, wild speculation, personal criticisms
* Marginal issues relating to press releases, though they are
occasionally useful
* Comments from narrow-minded folk wanting to narrow down the
discussion too finely.
11) How long does it take you to read the CCNet messages on
average?
[ 25] (10%) 3 minutes
[103] (44%) 5 minutes
[ 92] (41%) 10 minutes
[ 12] (5%) 10+ minutes
12) Would you like to see any changes to the CCNet format?
(tick all appropriate boxes)
[118] (53%) no, I like it just as it is
[ 12] (6%) yes, information should be limited to NEO
research
[ 23] (10%) yes, information should be limited to the
published list
of CCNet topics
[ 5] (2%) yes, I am only interested in
scientific abstracts and new
publications
[ 10] (4%) yes, I am not interested in the views of
individual list
members
[ 14] (6%) yes, it should include broad information
about all aspects
of neo-catastrophist research and space exploration
[ 41] (18%) yes, I do not wish to receive the LETTERS TO
THE EDITOR
[ 2] (1%) yes, in addition to the DIGEST and
the LETTERS, new
features could be added to the CCNet service such as:
13) Have you got any practical suggestions which you feel might
help improving the quality and structure of
the CCNet?
(a selection of responses from the
questionnaires)
* Encourage rapid reporting summaries/abstracts of up-to-date
pre-publication, observations and research - as is
actually
occurring.
* You could be a little more consistent in deciding what is a
"digest"
and what is a "debate". Maybe the communications
could be numbered in
some way, so that recipients would know if they had missed
one.
* I can't really see why people can't use the one-line
descriptors up
front to simply decide what they want to read, but perhaps
more
categorizing of topics and titles at the beginning of each
message
would help alleviate e-mail reading stress.
* Reports of a widely speculative nature should be limited in
length.
Let's hear those ideas, but make them concise.
* I am happy with the format, but I believe that the topics
should
stay as close as possible to neo-catastophic topics.
* I find some of the commentary highly speculative.
Supporting
evidence should be sited and used extensively, or the
e-mails should
not be placed in the digest.
* IT COMES OUT WAY TOO OFTEN. I AM BUSY WITH ME RESEARCH AND I
CAN'T
AFFORD THE TIME IT TAKES TO SCAN THROUGH THE MANY, MANY,
MANY
MESSAGES I GET FROM THE CCNet SERVICE EVERY WEEK. AS A
RESULT, I TEND
TO DELETE MANY OF THEM WITHOUT LOOKING AT THEM. TO BE
TRUELY USEFUL
TO ME THE CCNet WILL HAVE TO DISTILL ITSELF DOWN TO A
MANAGABLE
FREQUENCY OF MAILINGS.
* Less frequent e-mails, better focused to the main topics
* The scope of the CCNet (e.g.neocatastrophism) is
multidisciplinary by
definition. We should learn to carry the weight of
breaking
conventional barriers.
* IF THE PURPOSE IS TO PROMOTE SCIENCE, THEN THE CHOICE OF
MATERIALS
SHOULD BE MORE SELECTIVE. IF THE PURPOSE IS TO PROMOOTE
CONTROVERSY,
THEN THE PRESENT APPROACH IS PROBABLY ABOUT RIGHT.
* This is a technical complaint. I continue to receive
CCNet email
with all kinds of strange characters like =85=85
=20 =91 etc.,
that appears to be an artifact of your email agent.
[MODERATOR'S NOTE: I am currently trying to find out how
to solve
this technical problem]
* Perhaps it would be better to send just one mail per day,
divided
into sections, with a good index (as in the main letter)
up front so
one knows if one wants to scroll down to a particular
topic.
Receiving 3 or 4 mailings per day can get intimidating.
* YES, YOU MIGHT MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE LIKE A REFEREED JOURNAL,
ELIMINATING SOME CHAFF. MOST OF SUCH REFEREEING
YOU'D DO
YOURSELF ON THE FLY. DONT HESITATE TAKING SOME
AUTHORITY.
THIS IS YOUR INITIATIVE, YOUR THING. RUN WITH IT.
* I would like to see the CCNet be more limited to NEO research
topics,
but I wouldn't say that it should be "strictly"
limited. The *types*
of things that are are currently being posted are good,
but I would
like to see the number of non-NEO postings decreased.
* I like the broad scope that the CCNet has taken on. I disagree
with
the premise that it should focus only on its original
narrow list of
topics. I suggest that different sections be created...all
of which
are distributed...with the specific topic specified on the
subject
line.
* One expects the MODERATOR's job is to MODERATE: filter out
inappropriate articles/comments.
* IT IS VERY EASY TO SCAN THROUGH AND FIND WHAT IS USEFUL. I LIKE
RECEIVING EVERYTHING, BECAUSE I OFTEN FIND THINGS OF
INTEREST IN MANY
DIFFERENT FIELDS. SOMETIMES I FIND AN INTERESTING ARTICLE
ON
ARCHAELOGY; WHICH I READ SIMPLY BECAUSE I AM CURIOUS.
OTHER TIMES I
FIND REFERENCES ETC; USEFUL IN MY RESEARCH ON
METEORITES. IT TAKES
JUST THIRTY SECONDS TO LOOK EVERYTHING THROUGH AND DELETE
WHAT IS NOT
OF INTEREST. IT IS GOOD THAT YOU HAVE A TABLE OF CONTENT
AT THE TOP
THE MESSAGES. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD ADD A MINIABSTRACT
(TWO-THREE LINES)
FOR EACH SUBJECT WHICH WOULD MAKE IT EVEN QUICKER TO
DETERMINE WHAT
IS OF INTEREST OR NOT.
* Please do not narrow the scope. Aside from your communications
help
with my research, I believe the CCNet could be a critical
nexus for
an early, international, grass-roots alternative to
military &
big-industry approaches to understanding and advancing
interests in
space. You are not simply reporting on these topics, you
are helping
giving shape to their progress.
14) Would you be interested in reading in-depth interviews with
scholars and researchers on the CCNet?
[ 75] (34%) no
[144] (66%) yes
15) Do you sometimes use the CCNet internet archive at
……?
[ 16] (6%) frequently
[ 50] (19%) sometimes
[ 48] (18%) seldom
[151] (57%) never
16) Do you find the CCNet archive helpful for your research?
(a selection of responses)
* Yes, if the e-mail copy has gone astray! The new indexing
system is an improvement.
* Not as a researcher per se, but as a public presenter of
astronomy
and space science, CCNet is very valuable
* I tend to keep things I am interested in here and ditch the
rest--i
could use the archive more
* Didn't know about it, like to learn more.
17) What is your general view about this network? (Personal
comments are very welcome and will be posted
together with the
results of this survey)
* individul comments of list members can be accessed on the web
at
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ccwlmt99.html