Your Views

[ukwildlife]

I have been contacted 3 times off topic by individuals indicating the following position on reference material and articles which assists IDS and provides Natural History Resources by way of linksI would therefore like to ask the group their views ???? after all this is supposed to be a forum !! It seems a shame that some ones tuppence halfpenny is excluded on a subject of importance because of an issue of web traffic and the issue at hand mediated through a reference link in identying a plant or insect ! Where do you draw the line ?

Regards

Colin D

PS we too are a wildlife charity promoting conservation

[Wild-Woman]

Looking at your threads and posts I've noticed that you put lots of links to an external website. Now, I don't think there's anything wrong in that as such BUT I think you may have missed the point of how this website operates. We are very much into wildlife as you can see by the threads and posts, but we tend only to put links in when we are stumped between us and have gone googling to find the info we need. We could all just link to an external site and not bother to do any leg work but we try hard to solve each others queries and concerns before we do that.
Perhaps your links suggests, and I'm not saying this is so,that you would like to draw id business and members across into an external site.Perhaps if you joined in with our threads etc with 'gusto' as we all tend to do, then it indicates that you want to be a member and that you are amongst friends with a shared interest.Members with their own sites, maybe for other interests eg photography etc put direct links in for WAB and give us a nice 'write up' which is great and the height of good manners.
I hope you don't think that at any time I have been rude or have said anthing offensive but this is how I see it. Join in and have proper fun with us on the boards and I'm sure that you'll love it here and we all make new members very welcome. I have been here since Feb, I think, and I've never been in such good company.

All the Best. Wild-Woman

[Boddie]

Originally Posted by ukwildlife

I have been contacted 3 times off topic by individuals indicating the following position on reference material and articles which assists IDS and provides Natural History Resources by way of linksI would therefore like to ask the group their views ???? after all this is supposed to be a forum !! It seems a shame that some ones tuppence halfpenny is excluded on a subject of importance because of an issue of web traffic and the issue at hand mediated through a reference link in identying a plant or insect ! Where do you draw the line ?

Regards

Colin D

PS we too are a wildlife charity promoting conservation

I quite agree with you Colin.

It is a shame that the selfish actions of those that only use this site to promote their own has affected everybody. Those that continually include links to their own sites, do not contribute to these boards, and moan when something is done about it, with their most productive post to date.

I was disappointed when I could not upload a few images onto a thread last night for identification because the rules have been changed because of a few who have taken the mick.

Now everybody suffers because of a situation that I dared flag up a few weeks ago and was shouted down about. Why? Because I actually cared to give a toss.

after all this is supposed to be a forum !!

Dont apologise Julie. You are 100 percent correct. Some members know exactly what they are doing.

I think the changes are for the best and something that we will all have to get used to.

Thanks a million Colin

Andrew

[jezlee]

As I have a link to my own website in my sig line, I thought I'd better put my own point of view forward on this topic!

I started my own website purely and simply as a means of expressing my interest in A) wildlife and nature in general ... and B) photography .... and I know from emails I have received that other people have discovered my website and been able to identify things they have found in the garden, or if it is not on the site, to maybe point them in the right direction for an ID (since arriving on WAB, I have already been asked for a couple of IDs which I couldn't do, and I referred them here with a glowing recommendation!).

Putting my website in my sig line here was more a way of saying to like-minded individuals "Hey people, here's my little wildlife effort in case anybody fancies a look. I know it's not on the scale of WAB, but it never was intended to be - it's my little hobby and you're quite welcome to come and have a wander around."

I have referred to it occasionally on thread, with a link to the necessary page, when I have seen someone asking for an ID on WAB for an insect or plant that I have already identified on my site, which I would think is acceptable? After all, we are all here to help one another, aren't we?

Of course, I agree that linking of any any commercial site here on the WAB forums is to be frowned upon - that's not what we are here for. Or indeed, "poaching" of wildlife enthusiasts to another wildlife forum through excessive links on WAB morally shouldn't be allowed. On the other hand, if WAB is entertaining enough, friendly enough, and knowledgeable enough (which it is, on all counts) then I would hope that the bonds that are built up here would preclude people jumping ship mid-voyage in this manner.

In my humble opinion, I have felt at home here from my very first post, I'm slowly getting to know all the members and enjoy my time here immensely. I think it would take a great deal of persuasion now to make me go to another wildlife forum. This is home ....

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by ukwildlife

I have been contacted 3 times off topic by individuals indicating the following position on reference material and articles which assists IDS and provides Natural History Resources by way of linksI would therefore like to ask the group their views ???? after all this is supposed to be a forum !! It seems a shame that some ones tuppence halfpenny is excluded on a subject of importance because of an issue of web traffic and the issue at hand mediated through a reference link in identying a plant or insect ! Where do you draw the line ?

Regards

Colin D

PS we too are a wildlife charity promoting conservation

As one of the folk who contacted you colin I have to say I think you have misunderstood me - I and i hope no one else on here has a problem with you linking to external sites to help with an ID occasionally - but when all the post says in effect is "look at my site, a great place for Ids" that aint help, it's advertising.

Wouldnt it make more sense to just help with the ID yourself, uploading photos to WAB if necessary, and only link to your site on special occasions ?

[pxl8]

Boddie, think about this logically..

The old system was to attach images to a post. These images were taking up space on the server, couldn't be moved into the gallery except by hand and weren't searchable, etc.

The new system is to upload to an unmoderated gallery and then post the ID request with a link to the gallery image.

There's no loss of functionality for the users, and certainly not the suffering you would like to portrat it as. It does, however, have advantages for the site by cutting down on the storage space and workload for the admin team.

What you have failed to grasp is that none of the changes do a thing to prevent the actions that you believe caused them in the first place.

[Boddie]

Originally Posted by pxl8

Boddie, think about this logically..

The old system was to attach images to a post. These images were taking up space on the server, couldn't be moved into the gallery except by hand and weren't searchable, etc.

The new system is to upload to an unmoderated gallery and then post the ID request with a link to the gallery image.

There's no loss of functionality for the users, and certainly not the suffering you would like to portrat it as. It does, however, have advantages for the site by cutting down on the storage space and workload for the admin team.

What you have failed to grasp is that none of the changes do a thing to prevent the actions that you believe caused them in the first place.

Yeah I see what you mean. So why is UKWILDLIFE so upset?

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by pxl8

The old system was to attach images to a post. These images were taking up space on the server, couldn't be moved into the gallery except by hand and weren't searchable, etc.

The new system is to upload to an unmoderated gallery and then post the ID request with a link to the gallery image.

There's no loss of functionality for the users, .

I pretty much agree with you Pxl except that the new system doesnt allow thumbnails which makes the picture very big which does constitute a loss of functionality for anyone trying to use a dial up connection to view the forum.

It also does deal with the issue of people asking for IDs for picture then putting them on their own websites but not on the WAB galleries. under the new system they have no choice but to upload the images to WAB if they want them id'd here.

[pxl8]

Originally Posted by eeyore

It also does deal with the issue of people asking for IDs for picture then putting them on their own websites but not on the WAB galleries. under the new system they have no choice but to upload the images to WAB if they want them id'd here.

Hmm, I've attached an image to this post and I'm going to link to one:



The only thing that's changed is that WAB now asks people to use the gallery for their forum images. Until image attachments are disabled and the IMG tag only allows local host files the "official" method is really just an option...

[pxl8]

Originally Posted by Boddie

Yeah I see what you mean. So why is UKWILDLIFE so upset?

Judging from his post I would say it's a response to some PMs he received. His post was a bit confusing but from what I understood he's asking for views about linking to external sites for reference in assisting with IDs - I could be wrong....

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by pxl8

Judging from his post I would say it's a response to some PMs he received. His post was a bit confusing but from what I understood he's asking for views about linking to external sites for reference in assisting with IDs - I could be wrong....

I had a bit of a dust up with him about post spam a while back - leading to a lot of his duplicate posts getting deleted, I suspect that this is what he is refering too.

[pxl8]

Originally Posted by eeyore

I pretty much agree with you Pxl except that the new system doesnt allow thumbnails which makes the picture very big which does constitute a loss of functionality for anyone trying to use a dial up connection to view the forum.

One thought, rather than have the image inline in a post, it's perfectly possible to link to it instead, like this:

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/ga...age-12350.html

Which might be best for multiple IDs in a post.

Smaller images in posts would be nice but that would probably mean generating thumbnails for every gallery image

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by pxl8

Hmm, I've attached an image to this post and I'm going to link to one:

The only thing that's changed is that WAB now asks people to use the gallery for their forum images. Until image attachments are disabled and the IMG tag only allows local host files the "official" method is really just an option...

My understanding is that fairly soon you wont be able to link to images outside the site - due to a disreputable few changing their linked images to those with adult content at a later date. I know you would never do such a thing which is precisely boddies point - you will be suffering as a result of the actions of a few bimble heads.

Also I think the attachment function is going to be deactivated once stu is happy that the new system is working propperly.

[pxl8]

Originally Posted by eeyore

My understanding is that fairly soon you wont be able to link to images outside the site - due to a disreputable few changing their linked images to those with adult content at a later date. I know you would never do such a thing which is precisely boddies point - you will be suffering as a result of the actions of a few bimble heads.

Removing attachments seems sensible, removing external links doesn't.

There are often valid reasons for not wanting to put an image into the gallery and a link is the right way to go. Then there's problems with smilies, etc. in sigs and stuff like that. Loss of external images will be problematic for some users.

There are always going to be a few that abuse forums, that will never change. Letting them spoil it for the rest by reducing functionality will mean that eventually WAB will be plain text only, it's a slippery slope.

A good team of moderators is always going to be the best solution where problems are nipped in the bud with swift action to suspend accounts, block IPs, etc. using the admin tools available. It's a thankless, boring, never ending task I know but there really isn't another workable solution.

More importantly, this kind of thing should happen behind the scenes. If a post is wrong in some respect report it and let the admins deal with it. Replying, starting threads, or sending PMs is not just feeding the trolls it's telling them WAB is an "all you can eat" kind of place

[StuartDH]

Colin,

As you know, Wild About Britain aims to promote British wildlife and the environment, and naturally this extends to promoting relevant external websites.

At Wild About Britain, we provide a links section that displays hundreds of external websites with a linked title, description and a screenshot of their site. We have a comprehensive directory of listings to other wildlife websites around the UK, with a map to their location, full contact details and a link to their website. Our newspaper provides thousands of stories to external websites and organisations. Our forum has the facility for members to display their signature (after they've made 10 posts) and they can also display their website's homepage in their profile. All images in the gallery show the name of the photographer and it is linked through to their website's details in their profile. In short, I think we do quite a lot to promote other charities, websites and organisations.

Unfortunately, we still have a problem with some members wanting to receive even greater publicity for their sites. The charity's trustees, administrators and many of our members feel that we have started to suffer from an increase in spam and problems with some visitors adding multiple links to their posts.

As a result of the above, we have recently asked a small number of members to stop adding multiple links, posts and threads in the forum to promote their own websites. We have also found a minority of members deliberately flouting the rules on adding signatures to their posts, and abusing other facilities within the website, for the sole purpose of advertising their own (often commercial or unrelated) website.

Unfortunately, as some of these members have ignored our requests, we have now had to remove their links and delete some of their more recent posts. Some of the deleted posts have contained as many as 4/5 links to the poster's own websites, and whilst some of the links were certainly very useful, others have had no relevance to the topic. On the odd occasion we've even had to ban these members from the forum.

So I would like to ask you your own question. Where would you draw the line? We provide numerous opportunities for members, visitors and external websites and organisations to promote their website on Wild About Britain. We have chosen to draw the line on spam and multiple links that, in the opinion of our trustees, administrators, moderators and members, abuse the charity of Wild About Britain.

Kind regards

Stuart

[ukwildlife]

Thank you to all of you for your views

Some appear to make the issue more complicated than its is

The query related to posting links in messages to external web sites and reference material

Why is this necessary (in my opinion)?

Because

1. It keeps messages short
2. Provides where relevant vouchered and identified botanical specimens for comparision allowing the poster more time to focus on the message
3. Allows Choice If you do not wish to click on an external link then you do not have to do so
4. Provides educational material as a matter of choice to those who wish to obtain it

I received a number of emails from 3 individuals whom I am unsure if they are moderators or not that referred to "spam"

The links where directly relevant to the plants in question, I also have done some Beetle IDs of forum for people who have asked me to do that quite happy to give me time and knowledge . This necessitated putting a link on the Insect Site . Indeed the recent link on the to the Mic Scape Site dealt with a published article on butterflies which would serve many folk well who do not have the brass to buy expensive fields guides

The link was deleted - something you might expect , with respect in China or Pre War Germany. It is rather like having a wildlife text book and saying you can use it but dont read page 67 123 and 55 etc

I found Wild About Britain has limitted reference articles . What I do see is a captive market for advertising. I find it odd that book recommendations can be made and on line providers linked when something as simple as a link directly related to the thread is deleted

In the Charity we operate we believe strongly no one should make commercial gain from wildlife and creatures of this earth and where apropriate we take sponsorship most seriously

We also ensure in so far as possible all our wildlife material is put together withe the help and advise of experts , it is therefore a definitive wildlife resource in so far as we can possibly make it. It is most unfair to decry the many hours of volunteers who have contributed as anything less than that

From what I can see each Forum is a separtate section and therefore as I understand requires a posting on it to be made

I have noted WAB is a charity I would like very much the articles of association displayed on the site so people may have a clearer understanding about where WAB stands on issues of conservation , wild life protection etc In addition agendas and minutes if kept

I am sorry the post is so serious in Nature but I do think these points are worth addressing. Forums mean what they say - everyone should be involved . If people do not wish to reply to your thread or look at your link then they wont .

Some appear to think that I am annoyed not so - the UK Wildlife Portal has an anual user number of about 14,000 user log ons because people have chosen to use it - Including the educational section for the schools - given freely to all

I hope this helps you understand my concerns I certainly am not having "a go" at anyone but in balance I would feel most uncomfortable replying to a thread for example on a Hybrid where comparisions of variety could be seen on two site links offering good species or image examples

I would therefore feel it inappropraite to continue to make postings on WAB given the view to restrictions referred to and will exit the group - it is rather sad that the enthusiastic folk who appear post will be denied skill , knowledge and likewise the capacity to learn from each other

But I wish you all Happy Hunting and Good Weather

Colin D

http:/www.uk... - multiple links deleted

"Of all the plants that cover the earth and lie like a fringe of hair upon the body of our grandmother, try to obtain knowledge that you may be strengthened in life"

-Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948),

“ The company of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to that of those who think they've found it already ”

We have much to hope from the flowers.

-Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930)

[eeyore]

What a long post Colin - Its a shame you have decided to leave over this as I am sure you could have made a valuable contribution to WAB had you wished to participate fully - however I stand by my original position that posting identical links to your site without even trying to ID the thing in question on Wab is post Spam.

If all you wanted to do was to help with the IDs you could have easily uplooaded the relevant pics to the WAB gallery , IMHO the external links were advertising pure and simple. And comparing Graham and Stu to the Nazi regime is well out of order

oh and for the record I'm not a moderator - just a member who doesnt like to see WAB exploited, and I made this explicitly clear in my PM. I think the exact phrase was " Im not a mod so feel free to ignore me but...."

I wish you luck with your site and the best for the future

[ukwildlife]

Re Your Views


I made a post reflecting some oncern in regard to the moderation of external links I have noted that after given the matter some considerable time and thought the post has now been removed.

Our charitable group do not think that the modus operandum is acceptable behaviour
and will now make formal complaint through the Charity Commision

The post sought the views of a group on a topic that a moderator appears to be acting as judge and jury on, it will be intresting to see if this one reaches your PC and if not why not

Kind Regards

Colin D

[gmsmith]

Hi Colin, I might be completely of cue here, and may be talking a load of drivel, if I am then I appologise and I shall go my merry way and not interfere with this thread further.

My view of moderators and it is my view are the fact that they are judge and jury, this may be a bit strongly put ie JUDGE AND JURY. but certainly they use there judgement with regards moderating material to be used on a website, be it this or any other. As for the twelve good men and women of the jury, this would be impractical for people to sit and decide on what not, and what to, post. I personally am happy to let these people JUDGE my efforts. because without some kind of censorship, for want of a better word, the site would fall into dissaray. and what a shame that would be. Everyone has their opinion including moderators, and I trust their judgement, they do a fantasic job, and long may they do so. We all have an opinion and should not be slated for offering one, if someone thinks this post is absolute tosh, so what! I'm a big boy I've had my say, it would be a sad world if we all looked through the same glasses.

Again if I'm of track and missing the point, I usually do, I appoligise.

Geoff

[gmsmith]

Originally Posted by gmsmith

Hi Colin, I might be completely of cue here, and may be talking a load of drivel, if I am then I appologise and I shall go my merry way and not interfere with this thread further.

My view of moderators and it is my view are the fact that they are judge and jury, this may be a bit strongly put ie JUDGE AND JURY. but certainly they use there judgement with regards moderating material to be used on a website, be it this or any other. As for the twelve good men and women of the jury, this would be impractical for people to sit and decide on what not, and what to, post. I personally am happy to let these people JUDGE my efforts. because without some kind of censorship, for want of a better word, the site would fall into dissaray. and what a shame that would be. Everyone has their opinion including moderators, and I trust their judgement, they do a fantasic job, and long may they do so. We all have an opinion and should not be slated for offering one, if someone thinks this post is absolute tosh, so what! I'm a big boy I've had my say, it would be a sad world if we all looked through the same glasses.

Again if I'm of track and missing the point, I usually do, I appoligise.

Geoff

Told you, I did not see all the posts above. Derrrrrrrrrrrrr

[StuartDH]

Colin,

Please could you tell me the title of the post or thread that has been removed. We back up the site every 12 hours so we should hopefully still have it on file. Could you also tell me the name of the 'judge and jury' moderator - I realise that you may be refering to me, but this would help to clarify matters.

I have merged your most recent post with your initial 'Your Views' thread, which was also moved to the 'Wild About Britain website' forum from the 'Wildflowers, Plants and Trees' forum several days ago.

For reference, and to assist you in making your complaint to the charity commission, we are:

Wild About Britain
Charity Reg No. 1104184
7 Albany Road
Bramhall
Cheshire
SK7 1NA

Stuart Diston-Hunter
Charity Trustee, Director and Website Administrator

I look forward to hearing the Charity Commission's guidance on dealing with spam or accepting multiple links.

We will keep this thread open so that you can continue to make further comments, as we do not wish to be accused of infringements of freedom of speech, or any further comparisons with dictatorial regimes etc.

However, I would ask all other members to please take great care in posting any further comments that you make on this topic. As yet, I am unaware of any powers of the Charity Commission to intervene in this issue, but obviously we do not wish to do anything that may jeopardise the future of the charity, or lead to the forum being closed.

I will be happy to post the Charity Commission's judgement here in the fullness of time.

Colin, if you could send me the registered number and contact details of the Judy Woods charity, together with information about your position in the organisation, it would greatly assist us in dealing with the above issue with the Charity Commission. Please feel free to make use of the forum's PM facility if you wish this information to remain confidential.

Kind regards

Stuart

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by ukwildlife

Re Your Views


I made a post reflecting some oncern in regard to the moderation of external links I have noted that after given the matter some considerable time and thought the post has now been removed.

Our charitable group do not think that the modus operandum is acceptable behaviour
and will now make formal complaint through the Charity Commision

The post sought the views of a group on a topic that a moderator appears to be acting as judge and jury on, it will be intresting to see if this one reaches your PC and if not why not

Kind Regards

Colin D

Colin - You may like to consider this, a freind of mine who is a political refugee was on the site as a guest last night, he is now absolutely livid and says that your second to last post was "a pathetic insult which demeans the suffering of those who have really had their right to freedom of expression oppressed."

You may also like to ponder on the fact that he has said that he will be more than happy to express these views to the charity commision if necessary.

And finally the fact that this thread is still up and your user ID has not been blocked despite this behaviour goes to show that contrary to what you may believe WAb does not repress freedom of speech at all !

[Tormentil]

Originally Posted by ukwildlife

In the Charity we operate we believe strongly no one should make commercial gain from wildlife and creatures of this earth............

Good grief, does this include all the programmes David Attenborough made for the BBC !!!

Your ideals maybe laudable, but I for one, do not begrudge on penny the BBC makes from these programmes. They've probably done more than any thing else to promote interest in, and awareness of the plight of life one this earth.