Just read the chat transcript and..

[Spyder]

with all due respect, feldon needs to learn to be quiet more. I started to think it was a chat with Feldon instead of a chat with Jim Sachs.

At any rate, for the next chat, perhaps it could be left to Jim to answer the questions being as that was what the chat was about.

Thanks.

[feldon34]

I actually answered less than I usually do, but I'll consider in the future leaving up the answering entirely to Jim.

It looks like there was enough interest from Jim and the chatters to have another chat in the future. We could do what you're talking about then.

Everyone reading this topic, if you would prefer a chat where Jim answers most or all of the questions, please reply here that that's what you'd like to see. If there's enough interest, then we'll try that.

I'm certainly open to suggestions on how to run the chat. Jim hasn't weighed in on how he feels about my answering the questions he has already given me a definitive answer to.

If we do a bigger announcement about the chat with more lead time, then we'll have probably 50-70 people chatting. In that environment, Michael and I will be too busy handling chatters off-topic questions to try to answer Jim's questions for him.

Honest opinions are appreciated!

[feldon34]

I just wanted to append my comments by saying that often, Jim gives short answers. Because we get to talk to Jim a couple times a month informally in the chat, Michael, grape_jellyfish, FishyBusiness, BeefJerky, and I know a lot of backstory about WHY Jim might answer a certain way.

For someone who has only been reading the forum for a short time, they probably wouldn't have all this information.

Spyder,

I wish you had joined us in the chat so you could have expressed your feelings.

[Jav400]

Spyder,

Your comments will be considered for the next scheduled chat. But, there are several factors that come into play, and things that you can't see from just the logs. Without going into all the background of how we did it, all those questions that you see were posted by me, after receiving them from the people asking them. Morgan, Jim, and I were all quite busy in this endevour, trying to give as complete of an answer as we could to every question asked. Sometimes we were trying to answer the same question posed by different people at the same time so we were actually responding to more than one persons question from our view point and trying to cover everyone. It is somewhat of a juggling act at times, but everyone there seemed to enjoy the process, and we look foward to having another scheduled chat in the future. Come and join us next time.

[hpman77]

I couldn't be at the chat, but the log seems to be great. IMHO, if feldon (or jav, or anybody) knows the answer, why bother jim answering everything? It's a chat with jim sachs, ok, but it doesn't mean he has to answer everything. It's not important if the name before the answer is jim, or feldon, or jav or whatever. The only important thing is the answer being accurate and right

[Spyder]

I wanted to attend the chat, but unfortunately couldn't make it. I didn't mean to offend with this post..it was just an opinion. Sorry if I offended Feldon!

[Coelacanth]

I missed the chat, but read the log. I would have to disagree with hpman77. While I think it's probably appropriate for Morgan to expound on some of Jim's short answers, it should only be in that sort of situation, AFTER Jim answers first. Morgan shouldn't be answering all of Jim's questions for him, even if he does know virtually all of the answers already. People want to hear it from the celebrity, so to speak. It would be like trying to chat with your favorite recording artist, and instead having virtually all your questions answered by his publicity agent. The agent might have the right info...but it ain't the same.

To Morgan's credit, I think that the majority of the time, he did it exactly right, expounding on Jim's answers.

But perhaps a suggestion for Jim would be: When you're being interviewed -- which is basically what this sort of thing is, an interview -- it might be more engaging if you could answer more questions with something other than "Yes," "Yep," "Never," and "Nope." Just a friendly suggestion.

[Jim Sachs]

Some questions only need short answers. If someone asks if a feature will be available in a future version, "Yes" or "No" pretty much conveys that I have made a decision about it. I'll leave the wordier explanations to the 10-fingered typists, like Morgan.

[Coelacanth]

Some questions only need short answers.

True...and some don't, but get short answers anyway.

[Jim Sachs]

Well, that's what this Forum is for - longer answers. In a real-time chat I must answer very quickly if the response is to have any chance of being near the question. I just re-read the transcripts, and I doubt I would do it much different.

[Jav400]

Sounds like Jim types about like I do. After being here more than a year, and on the keyboard that much, I have learned to type faster than I did before but I am in no way close to being a typist. I use more than 2 fingers but I am a long way from being able to actually type the way you are supposed to. Morgan is the only one who does that.

[feldon34]

It's not my fault!

I got a computer when I was 9. I'm 25 now.

70 with no errors for anyone who cares.

If people want, Jim can answer the questions and then I'll just footnote the hell out of the logs afterwards.

[Coelacanth]

Fair enough. I go about 80-85 WPM, but I can understand that many people can't keep up with that.

Actually, as far as the answering of questions goes, I don't see a whole lot of use for the chat format. The forum serves that purpose nicely. While chats have a more "personal" real-time aspect (but as Jim mentioned, that real-time aspect is also a limiting factor), the chats seem a bit redundant for the purpose of actually imparting information. Did I really learn anything new from reading the chat transcript? Something that hadn't been mentioned before in the forums or FAQ? Nope. But I guess that's not the main point of having a chat. The main point is the "personal" aspect of it.

....which brings me full circle to the other point I made: It's sort of hard to get the "personal" touch out of one-word "yes" or "no" answers. Of course, a lot of the questions were simple yes-no questions, too. A good interviewer asks more open-ended questions. But then Jim wouldn't be able type fast enough to really respond to a lot of open-ended questions. Hmm. Guess we're stuck then.

[feldon34]

The difference between this chat and most chats I've seen is that the celebrity or target of the chat usually has quite a bit of new information tucked under one arm that hasn't been shared yet, so it's all exciting and new.

In this case, as you say, most of what was discussed was already known. I don't know anyone who's asked about algae, nor did too many people know about the possibility of a Lionfish or that it might have moving gills and different behavior. I know I learned a couple things in the chat.

I don't know what future topics for the chat could be that wouldn't duplicate what goes on on the forum. I know we've had interesting chats about Jim's military experience, we had a chat with his daughter, an aspiring film student, and various other topics.

Coelacanth,

Some people are content just to have 'access' to the developer, the creator of such art as this. Some could say the forum is redundant, as I could just have an impersonal Frequently Asked Questions and reply to all other questions by e-mail.

[Jav400]

I think they are equally important. Sure, there are alot of people who enjoy being able to talk directly to the developer, and I agree that is a great thing. But, there are also alot of people who come in to get questions answered or to solve problems, and they are looking for help from someone who knows the answers.

If you look at the forum members, we have 300+, but there are not that many people who actually take the time to post something here. I have spoken to many people in the chatroom that have never posted anything on the forum, so, for them it is a very viable outlet to get direct information about what they want to know. Which is the point of having one. It can never be a bad thing to have several outlets for people to use to be able to gain information, and the chatroom has proven over time to be a very valuable part of the whole support structure.

[Coelacanth]

Some people are content just to have 'access' to the developer, the creator of such art as this. Some could say the forum is redundant, as I could just have an impersonal Frequently Asked Questions and reply to all other questions by e-mail.

If you read my post again, Morgan, you'll see that it agrees with everything you said.



Also, algae had been discussed here previously.

https://www.feldoncentral.com/forums...ighlight=algae

I'm not saying that things can't be discussed more than once, however.

[Jim Sachs]

When I was asked about algae, I thought that the question was about "nuisance" algae - the crud which has to be scraped off periodically.

As Coelacanth pointed out in another thread, there are other types of algae which resemble fresh-water plants, and these will eventually be included in the Aquarium.

[feldon34]

One more clarification on something that might not be evident to people who didn't attend the chat:

Most of the chat transcript is NOT in the sequential order as things actually happened. I have grouped questions and answers to each question (within 2-3 minutes). The questions were asked in the order shown, but the flow of the conversation differed a bit. If there is enough interest, I could show the logs of how the chat actually went. It's pretty hard to follow that way.

This might help or hurt my argument , but thought that fact should be made available to others.

[grape_jellyfish]

Well I might as well add my 2 cents...

I can't help but notice that the only people who have something to say about how it could be better, are the ones who were not there. I know you have all expressed your honest opinions in a polite way, and it is my opinion that the chat went very well, Jim has said he probably wouldn't do it any different if given the chance, and I see nothing wrong with the way it was conducted. All the people there were not only grateful to Jim for doing this, but also to Morgan and Michael. And like Coelacanth pointed out, it is the "personal" touch that people were there for, and if it is Jims style to give short answers, who are we to say it's wrong? If I am watching an interview of someone I admire, I would want them to be themselves, not change to suit someone else's taste. Anyway I would just like to thank Jim, Morgan and Michael for putting this together for us, I hope there are more in the future.

Grape

[feldon34]

With the exception of Keanu Reeves. That boy needs some interview coaching.