At the risk of of offending people (so starting with the premise that no offense is intended to anyone), I've been thinking recently about how we value/appreciate those of our colleagues who are not prolific scholars and who may or may not be great teachers or administrative citizens, but who have a wealth of knowledge in their heads and are very generous about sharing it. One comes across these folks on faculties and at conferences - people who are genuinely interested in the scholarly endeavor and who read a lot and generously share their thoughts with others, but don't necessarily write much. I'm thinking a little bit about how we value these people in financial terms, although that's not my main objective. I'm more interested in how much collegial appreciation and prestige they get within their own faculties and fields. I've often had great comments on draft papers by people I didn't even know were interested in the area I was writing in (because they're not leading scholars whose work I regularly read), but who nevertheless have read a lot about it themselves. I suppose the main problem with people who read a lot and know a lot, but don't necessarily write a lot themselves, is that they can be difficult to find. If you're looking for comments on an idea or draft paper, you wouldn't necessarily seek them out if they're not on your list as people who have written in the area. Is there any way to increase the visibility/appreciation of these kinds of folks? I suppose if they engage in the blogosphere, that's one answer ie one way of finding someone who has thoughts on an issue but isn't regularly publishing scholarly articles. Anything else?