The discussion revolves around merging synchronous and asynchronous experiences in a community. Renato_Mendes feels there’s a gap between live discussions and platform interactions, and seeks ideas to make them complementary.
Renato_Mendes explains that their community is for writers, where they give feedback on written texts and discuss readings. Live discussions happen through Google Meet, while the Discourse platform is used for pre- and post-meeting exchanges and general discussions. However, live meetings seem to overshadow textual exchanges, rather than boosting them.
Renato_Mendes attempted an exercise to encourage members to post their feedback on the platform after a live meeting, but it didn’t yield the desired results. They acknowledge that there’s a cultural and behavioral aspect to this issue, requiring members to get accustomed to using the platform and understanding what they can share.
In my community, we have both synchronous and asynchronous experiences. Some members like it better live, others prefer the platform, and it’s okay, but I feel there’s a gap between these two channels (when we discuss a text live, no one will talk about it in the platform, e.g., even though I imagine this could deepen the discussion) Do you have any ideias on how to merge these experiences so they feel complementary? Do any of you have had a similar issue?
Do you mean that you’re like a book club when you talk about discussing a text? (Even if the text is a scientific paper on how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin)
Do you mean when discussing live that you organise Google meets or zooms etc as well as have the discourse platform available for people to exchange?
Are you saying that if you hold up synchronous meeting - AV? - that the topic does not also get any traction in the textual exchanges? Or that you want people to have opportunity to simultaneously talk and type?
We’re a community for writers, so we give feedback for the texts we write and discuss texts we read.
Live discussions happen through Google Meet, exactly, and we have the Discourse platform available for people to exchange before and afterwards – and also for discussions unrelated to our meetings (if we have a live feedback workshop, I don’t necessarily want them to re share feedback on the platform – they could talk about publishing processes, hardship on their writing processes, books they just read and want to talk about etc.). Live meetings are designed to foster human connection between them, while the forum is meant for discussions in general.
I don’t know what AV means, but yes, the live meetings “steal” the traction of textual exchanges (I had envisioned they’d boost them).
This last event I tried an activity of feedback writing for other members, so they could publish the feedback developed during our live meeting on the platform. I guided them through the process of reading, quoting most interesting parts, then writing first impressions, then deepening them etc. etc. They all liked the exercise, but no one posted it
I understand there’s also a cultural and behavioral aspect – people need to get used to having the platform always available, they also need to understand better what they could share there, 'cause it’s a new solution for this niche here in Brazil. But that’s a problem for another post hehe
