The Internet and the Cactus Hobby

[tony_lb]

In fact, there are several *free* packages for setting up a fairly basic php based forum, as well as more dedicated solutions, so the labour involved in setting up an improved forum should not be too great.

As a newcomer to the forum, my first impression was (is?) of how old-fashioned the thing is, and how hard it is to pick out the threads covering topics you want to pursue. Easy with the more modern systems I'm used to.

Tony

[Chris43]

OK, Bill, do go for it and try to assemble a wants list - but I'd caution for a few reasons:

1. Justification - to emphasise that each "want" should also have a justification. Something like "sponsor the P&P of the seed/seedling exchange" onit sown isn't enough - why do so is also needed. Then people can take a position, else everyone will see a different aspect of why, and then a consensus view is probably rather difficult.

2. Everyone has an equal view - the more vocal shouldn't see their suggestions adopted just because they go on about it multiple times.

3. If we do reach a consensus view, or even a majority view on a specific suggestion, those who are against should shut up, and accept.

4. Decide whether its a Forum development or a full BCSS website, including the Forum, that you are targetting.

5. Do involve the designated BCSS IT Manager, Tony Mace, in this, as I'm sure he also has ideas for development, and would welcome some greater support, and this would certainly increase the chances of the wider Committee responding positively to porposals for change.

[Chris43]

Martin, yes I have offered to do such a role, but I haven't had any further communication as to how it should work, so that's why I'm saying to Bill do go ahead. Also, if we can get such a set of wants sorted by the AGM, then I'd be quite OK about you presenting it.

It is my perception that those who offered help in the past and didn't get a positive or even any response, weren't deliberately ignored. There have been a feeling of "smelly cheese" about some recent posts referencing being snubbed. I think that there really wasn't any sort of structure in the support of the Forum, and what was there was only occasional, and that wasn't enough. I hope that people can put this behind them and if they are serious about contributing to the development of the Forum, play a real and active part.

[Chris43]

Martin and Chris etc have referred to the putative role that Colin has suggested. However that develops we shall have to see. However, on all our behalf, I have been trying to tackle the resources that the Forum has available, and to understand the constraints. This is a sort of progress report.

It would appear that with the resources we have, we can work quite happily for a couple of years before we start to get into a position where we start to get within range of current contractual limitations.

It is complicated because the Forum is just one part of the BCSS website, which in turn is just one (an important one) of the domains managed within the cactus-mall, who of course obtain their server resources under a commercial contract.

But I think this gives us enough working space to be going on with, and I have little doubt that in 2 years time the overall contractual situation wil have changed and current limits will have been significantly raised.

Without wanting to inflame the matter any more, and plenty has already been said, the moderators will still seek to optimise the boards operation by removing threads that are sufficiently off topic that they have nothing to do with the Society's objectives - and these are clearly stated on the Home Page of the Society. Some may well have passed their sell by date and if we have time then perhaps we'll move them out as well. But it seems as though we won't need to do major surgery!

As to the costs, again because the Forum isn't specifically contracted for, it is difficult to establish. A couple of years ago, the BCSS paid ?150 for their services. Currently I believe it is ?200 but many other things have changed as well, so don't go thinking that the Forum costs ?50. It's one part of a basket.

I'm still trying to establish some more detail, on resources and costs, as there have been some misleading and contradictory statistics gathered, and they need to be explained. I'll post more as and when I have this.

[CactusChris]

Hi Chris,
I assume you mean this:

"The objectives of the Society are to promote the study, conservation, propagation and cultivation of cacti and other succulent plants."

That seems more than broad enough I guess - but a section for 'other - off topic' could be useful - this would be easy to prune later as it all does not fit the criteria I guess.



Chris




Chris43 Wrote:
>
> Without wanting to inflame the matter any more,
> and plenty has already been said, the moderators
> will still seek to optimise the boards operation
> by removing threads that are sufficiently off
> topic that they have nothing to do with the
> Society's objectives - and these are clearly
> stated on the Home Page of the Society. Some may
> well have passed their sell by date and if we have
> time then perhaps we'll move them out as well. But
> it seems as though we won't need to do major
> surgery!
>

[Chris43]

Yes, Chris, that is exactly the statement I meant.
To do as you suggest would, I think, need Society sanction, as it is spending their resources on something outside their stated objectives.

Possible, but currently out of scope. So feed it in to Bill as a "want" with due justification.

[iann]

Not directly relevant to this discussion, but most of the things people have requested in terms of the forum appearance and behaviour are quite possible with the existing forum software. That's precisely why it was upgraded. At present it is configured as nearly as possible to look likte the old one, to help with the transition.

[Chris43]

Thanks Ian. Its good to know, and reassuring that we don't necessarily have to consider another change.
Going back in time, it was a previous round of "this forum is old hat" type messages, that was, to a great extent, the reason for bringing the very back level software up to date.

[Apicra]

Hello again,

This is a stimulating thread that we ought to keep going.

I do not think that "a more modern" presentation of these pages will make much difference to most Forum users. However, I would agree that it is important for the Forum to be very easy to use, since many target recruits will have little experience of computers. But what is most important is improving the scope, depth and quality of the c&s information exchanged - that is what really attracts participants.

CactusChris suggests a number of changes which deserve more consideration:
1) sponsor the P&P of the seed/seedling exchange
The BCSS would have to do this for their main annual seed distribution, as well as the Forum distribution. Why tax everyone when only a minority want the seed/seedlings?

2) Buy disk space for a reference set of photos (donated) and manage a list of names/synonyms to help new and existing users
Many photo galleries have already been created by specialist groups to a far higher standard than the BCSS could achieve e.g. . Anything the BCSS attempts should either be new, or to a higher level of quality, than already exist in the Internet. How could the BCSS improve on the New Cactus Lexicon list of names/synonyms? Or are you asking if we can publish his work online?

3) Issue all BCSS members with a usernames and password for the forum as standard
Almost certainly impractical.

4) Publish all minutes and BCSS revised docs on this forum including the library list
Yes, good strategy, but most would of course belong on the BCSS web site, rather than the Forum. Bill, this one ought to be added to our Want's List.

5) Set up electronic round robins in a separate part of the forum
I don't understand - how does these differ from a Forum?

6) Have 'experts' replying to specific topics whenever they are raised (like membership but maybe specific plant groups as well).
Hmmm... I suspect the problem is that "experts" do not have time to hang out on this Forum, reading every thread, just in case one contains a question relating to their "expertise". The few that do are particularly welcome! They are probably beavering away elsewhere improving that expertise. How can this be overcome? It would be great if someone passed on specific questions to appropriate experts, but they would need an awful lot of network contacts.

In the case of BCSS Officials, as has been pointed out elsewhere, all have published email addresses. Perhaps our Forum moderators could point out that a Forum thread contains a question for them? No, this is just inefficient - the Forum (BCSS) member who asked the question should get in touch with the official directly and report back to the Forum as appropriate.

I feel there is scope here to get better expert input to the Forum, but can't quite see the mechanism. Maybe someone could arrange a programme of "visiting experts" to join for just one week and answer e.g. Mammillaria questions, then have an Aloe week, etc?

Best wishes,
Derek Tribble

[Chris43]

Derek,
Thanks for such a balanced review of the ideas floated.

Useabilty is key, and there is a balance to be struck between additional features and simplicity of use.

I agree with you on the other points.

I think the only way to get "experts" onto the Forum, is to keep the quality of input at a high level. I don't mean by that that the subject matter should be so highly advanced that only a would be expert would want to question an expert on it. I mean that people stick to the purpose of the Forum, and use it to share experiences, ask questions, show photos as examples or to amplify points. Getting sensible responses to sensible questions is the best way of expanding one's network of contacts.

I am by no means an expert, but some of the questions asked by people new to the hobby have had me questioning things that I'd sort of taken for read - and they weren't.

If we are so ill self disciplined as to fill it with all sorts of off topic messages, the "experts" will certainly not come and visit.