Yes, but I think that "lookers" and "readers" are more methodologically neutral terms, than "active observers" on the simple base that it's rather hard to define the "activeness" of the observer. It's my "rough thought" ?1. Rough thought ?2. The fact, that a person looks at a page doesn't mean that he reads it (for example in the office, when someone simulates activity) and if he reads it doesn't mean that he do it regularily (for example, a person simply followed a hyperlink from a page, friend, etc.), like observer. And even if he observes it that doesn't mean, that he actually think about what they are reading (for example, youth fun portals with jokes, pictures, videos etc. Such content itself doesn't leave "enough room" for thinking. Unfortunatelly I can give only Russian examples of such portals). So, following that improvisation I can suggest the following "topology": looker -> reader -> observer -> active observer. That was just an improvisation. Don't take it too seriously. Best wishes, Alexander Semenov. On Tue, 08 May 2007 18:34:55 +0400, Roxanne Hiltz <roxanne.hiltz@gmail.com> wrote:

I like both "Lookers" and "Readers" but also like for a more formal term, "Active Observers" This means that they do read regularly, and that they think about what they are reading...

Roxanne Hiltz

...

Today's Topics:

1. we need a better word than lurking (Barry Wellman)

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/