In article ,
lid says...

I quite agree, which was what I was suggesting. What I was saying is
that we are not *using/developing* a facility which we already have at
our disposal.

What makes you think it's "at our disposal"? None of us owns it.

It was always webmastered exclusively by Cormaic and that burden is
what he very understandably declined to continue, years back. That's why
it has never been touched since, because none of us can.


Some already have (brave people). Doesn't Janet sometimes write from
Gardenbanter?

No, never. Kay does.

Janet

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:21:06 +0000, Jake wrote:

On 7 Nov 2013 11:49:22 GMT, "David.WE.Roberts"
wrote:


So, please, where is the active and interesting discussion?


Example. Look at
http://thinkingardens.co.uk/articles...ristine-dakin/
which, incidentally, was picked up by Amateur Gardening who clearly
thought it would be of interest to their readership. Not the first time
AG has picked up something from ThinkinGardens.

Anyhows, scroll down and you will see the discussion that follows.
Scroll down to the bottom and you can submit your own contribution.

TG runs a moderation system and a first comment may take a couple of
hours to appear (say if you post while moderators are having lunch)
but once you're a regular it's a lot quicker.

ASIDE: For those unfamiliar with blogs often, and in response to the
fact that people access the web via all sorts of mobile devices these
days, a blog will essentially have two presentations, one with and one
without comments. Thus someone using up the bandwidth on their mobile
phone may iniitially only see the original post. But somewhere near the
top and/or bottom of the post there will be some "comment indicator"
which, when clicked downloads and displays the ensuing discussion and
affords the opportunity to contribute to that.

O.K. - thanks, got it now.

Uses tweets - the one I have looked at so far reminds me of a Facebook
post with a string of scrolling comments.

Not as useful looking to me as an online forum - I have discussed this at
enormous length elsewhere :-)

Cheers

Dave R

On 07/11/2013 14:03, Janet wrote:
In article , am
says...

Somewhat ironically, the site that does offer a means for people to
participate and post is the Garden Banter site! Much bemoaned by some of
the URG regulars for "stealing" posts made on URG. Those of us who
remain in URG could simply move and relocate there?!

For what? Its format is as bad as google groups, far less user-
friendly than Usenet, and it's moderated.

Janet


I think the way forward would be to create and use a phpBB forum. The
only downside I can see is that while you can post images in your posts
they have to be published on photo sharing sites first and then linked
to within the users posts, but that is essentially what happens on URG
anyway.

I think the largest problem is that Usenet is becoming less and less
known to younger generations. Many think that the "Internet" is just web
pages. The added complication of needing a newsreader to access URG is
just another obstacle (not counting Google groups which I've never used
but I gather it has a lot of bad press regarding usability).

Another issue with creating a web based forum would be who would host it
and who would pay for the hosting? There are some free forum hosts which
would probably suffice for the small amount of traffic URG experiences
at the moment, but beyond a few dozen posters they become impractical or
restricted.

--
David in Normandy.

On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 Janet wrote:

In article ,
says...

Cormaic ..still hosts
the URG web site.

Ok, so we have a URG web site. Why don't we use it?

Because "we", do not have a website. It's Tony's.
Right from the start, he maintained absolute personal control to his
own high security standards."We" never did have access to upload
material or remove anything from it. He did all that himself. Anything
"we" wanted on there, was submitted to Tony to vet and upload and
maintain. He's got no wish to do all that any more.

No, but he has handed that over to a couple of us. His only condition is
that we continue to acknowledge "Cormaic Web Design" at the bottom of
the page.

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 Janet wrote:

In article ,
says...

I quite agree, which was what I was suggesting. What I was saying is
that we are not *using/developing* a facility which we already have at
our disposal.

What makes you think it's "at our disposal"?

Because it is!

It was always webmastered exclusively by Cormaic and that burden is
what he very understandably declined to continue, years back. That's why
it has never been touched since, because none of us can.

Sorry, as I've just written, yes we can! :-)


Some already have (brave people). Doesn't Janet sometimes write from
Gardenbanter?

No, never. Kay does.

Ah, thanks for the correction.

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:18:21 +0100, David in Normandy wrote:

On 07/11/2013 14:03, Janet wrote:
In article , am
says...

Somewhat ironically, the site that does offer a means for people to
participate and post is the Garden Banter site! Much bemoaned by some
of the URG regulars for "stealing" posts made on URG. Those of us who
remain in URG could simply move and relocate there?!

For what? Its format is as bad as google groups, far less user-
friendly than Usenet, and it's moderated.

Janet


I think the way forward would be to create and use a phpBB forum. The
only downside I can see is that while you can post images in your posts
they have to be published on photo sharing sites first and then linked
to within the users posts, but that is essentially what happens on URG
anyway.

I think the largest problem is that Usenet is becoming less and less
known to younger generations. Many think that the "Internet" is just web
pages. The added complication of needing a newsreader to access URG is
just another obstacle (not counting Google groups which I've never used
but I gather it has a lot of bad press regarding usability).

Another issue with creating a web based forum would be who would host it
and who would pay for the hosting? There are some free forum hosts which
would probably suffice for the small amount of traffic URG experiences
at the moment, but beyond a few dozen posters they become impractical or
restricted.

Can I just point out that phpBB is just one ( and possibly not the most
modern or functional) set of discussion group software. Note I am not
knocking it.

IIRC there are some where you can include photos hosted locally (but the
overheads of storing large numbers of images can be significant).

I have worked with Joomla in the past, which is a Content Management
System [CMS] instead of just a forum, but it does include a forum
function. I think a CMS is probably what is needed because it can host
FAQ, general articles, links etc. to enhance the forum functionality.

However I strongly agree that if we need a web based graphically rich
discussion group then this kind of forum is probably the best way to go.

Unless, however, we can get some kind of commercial sponsor (a gardening
business, presumably) and/or require a subscription and/or take on
advertising to fund this then I am not sure how we would cover the cost.

Managing any source of funding (unless it is already part of a business)
would be a significant overhead.

Cheers

Dave R

On 07/11/2013 14:43, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:18:21 +0100, David in Normandy wrote:

On 07/11/2013 14:03, Janet wrote:
In article , am
says...

Somewhat ironically, the site that does offer a means for people to
participate and post is the Garden Banter site! Much bemoaned by some
of the URG regulars for "stealing" posts made on URG. Those of us who
remain in URG could simply move and relocate there?!

For what? Its format is as bad as google groups, far less user-
friendly than Usenet, and it's moderated.

Janet


I think the way forward would be to create and use a phpBB forum. The
only downside I can see is that while you can post images in your posts
they have to be published on photo sharing sites first and then linked
to within the users posts, but that is essentially what happens on URG
anyway.

I think the largest problem is that Usenet is becoming less and less
known to younger generations. Many think that the "Internet" is just web
pages. The added complication of needing a newsreader to access URG is
just another obstacle (not counting Google groups which I've never used
but I gather it has a lot of bad press regarding usability).

Another issue with creating a web based forum would be who would host it
and who would pay for the hosting? There are some free forum hosts which
would probably suffice for the small amount of traffic URG experiences
at the moment, but beyond a few dozen posters they become impractical or
restricted.

Can I just point out that phpBB is just one ( and possibly not the most
modern or functional) set of discussion group software. Note I am not
knocking it.

IIRC there are some where you can include photos hosted locally (but the
overheads of storing large numbers of images can be significant).

I have worked with Joomla in the past, which is a Content Management
System [CMS] instead of just a forum, but it does include a forum
function. I think a CMS is probably what is needed because it can host
FAQ, general articles, links etc. to enhance the forum functionality.

However I strongly agree that if we need a web based graphically rich
discussion group then this kind of forum is probably the best way to go.

Unless, however, we can get some kind of commercial sponsor (a gardening
business, presumably) and/or require a subscription and/or take on
advertising to fund this then I am not sure how we would cover the cost.

Managing any source of funding (unless it is already part of a business)
would be a significant overhead.

Cheers

Dave R


I know some members will baulk at this suggestion, particularly one
based in the Isle of Wight, but Sacha has such a business already. Maybe
such a forum would be both an interesting and a practical proposition
for her? Obviously there would be advertising relevant to her nursery
but maybe such a forum would be a brave venture into a new world. As an
offshoot to the site (linked to it) she could also have an online sales
site for her nursery - thus the more viable the forum became and the
more traffic, the more online sales she'd likely get from it too. I'm
just throwing ideas out there... I'm an ideas guy, so don't all pounce
on me! LOL

--
David in Normandy.

On 2013-11-07 13:09:58 +0000, Janet said:

In article ,
lid says...

I quite agree, which was what I was suggesting. What I was saying is
that we are not *using/developing* a facility which we already have at
our disposal.

What makes you think it's "at our disposal"? None of us owns it.

It was always webmastered exclusively by Cormaic and that burden is
what he very understandably declined to continue, years back. That's why
it has never been touched since, because none of us can.

Actually, he has no objection to someone else taking it over, if they
wish to do so. But they would have to liaise with him.

snip

--

Sacha
South Devon

On 2013-11-07 13:56:23 +0000, David in Normandy said:

On 07/11/2013 14:43, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:18:21 +0100, David in Normandy wrote:

On 07/11/2013 14:03, Janet wrote:
In article , am
says...

Somewhat ironically, the site that does offer a means for people to
participate and post is the Garden Banter site! Much bemoaned by some
of the URG regulars for "stealing" posts made on URG. Those of us who
remain in URG could simply move and relocate there?!

For what? Its format is as bad as google groups, far less user-
friendly than Usenet, and it's moderated.

Janet


I think the way forward would be to create and use a phpBB forum. The
only downside I can see is that while you can post images in your posts
they have to be published on photo sharing sites first and then linked
to within the users posts, but that is essentially what happens on URG
anyway.

I think the largest problem is that Usenet is becoming less and less
known to younger generations. Many think that the "Internet" is just web
pages. The added complication of needing a newsreader to access URG is
just another obstacle (not counting Google groups which I've never used
but I gather it has a lot of bad press regarding usability).

Another issue with creating a web based forum would be who would host it
and who would pay for the hosting? There are some free forum hosts which
would probably suffice for the small amount of traffic URG experiences
at the moment, but beyond a few dozen posters they become impractical or
restricted.

Can I just point out that phpBB is just one ( and possibly not the most
modern or functional) set of discussion group software. Note I am not
knocking it.

IIRC there are some where you can include photos hosted locally (but the
overheads of storing large numbers of images can be significant).

I have worked with Joomla in the past, which is a Content Management
System [CMS] instead of just a forum, but it does include a forum
function. I think a CMS is probably what is needed because it can host
FAQ, general articles, links etc. to enhance the forum functionality.

However I strongly agree that if we need a web based graphically rich
discussion group then this kind of forum is probably the best way to go.

Unless, however, we can get some kind of commercial sponsor (a gardening
business, presumably) and/or require a subscription and/or take on
advertising to fund this then I am not sure how we would cover the cost.

Managing any source of funding (unless it is already part of a business)
would be a significant overhead.

Cheers

Dave R


I know some members will baulk at this suggestion, particularly one
based in the Isle of Wight, but Sacha has such a business already.
Maybe such a forum would be both an interesting and a practical
proposition for her? Obviously there would be advertising relevant to
her nursery but maybe such a forum would be a brave venture into a new
world. As an offshoot to the site (linked to it) she could also have an
online sales site for her nursery - thus the more viable the forum
became and the more traffic, the more online sales she'd likely get
from it too. I'm just throwing ideas out there... I'm an ideas guy, so
don't all pounce on me! LOL

Thanks, David but no thanks! While I see the point you're making, my
personal view is that urg should remain advertisement free, with the
exceptions of sig.files rules already in place.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

"Nick Maclaren" wrote
Janet wrote:
jeanne says...
"Sacha" wrote

Sacha - just because not many here falls for your "thinking gardens"
bait,
then it does not follow that we as urglers are dying !
I am one of those who is quite happy with the status here as it stands.

Quite. I've been posting to urg for 15 years and it is ALWAYS quieter
in winter. Real hands-on gardeners are busy with wintergardening chores,
and interests they don't have time for in the growing season.

Nah. We just go dormant :-)



There is that aspect but from other Ngs it's obvious that Ngs are dying,
here we see few new posters only the old hands.
By coincidence I met a lady who allotment gardens this morning and we got
talking and I mentioned about Newsgroups, she had never heard of them. "How
do I get there" was her comment but she uses Web based mail, she does not
use an email client program. That is the problem, all the new internet folk
use web based mail so never see "Newsgroups" in Tools, and as I did all
those years ago, click it to see what happened.


--
Regards.
Bob Hobden.
Posted to this Newsgroup from the W of London, UK

On 07/11/2013 15:06, Sacha wrote:


Thanks, David but no thanks! While I see the point you're making, my
personal view is that urg should remain advertisement free, with the
exceptions of sig.files rules already in place.

The fundamental problem with advertisement free forums is they don't
have the finance to pay for the site or its bandwidth. This means either
asking members to pay a subscription fee and that is extremely unlikely
to succeed or to use free hosting, which may have limits on the
bandwidth anyway and include adverts by the host, over which the forum
operator would have little or no control.

There is no easy or palatable alternative to the Usenet based URG as far
as I can see and as most of us tend to agree, it is gradually slipping
into oblivion.

--
David in Normandy.

On 07/11/2013 15:16, David in Normandy wrote:
On 07/11/2013 15:06, Sacha wrote:


Thanks, David but no thanks! While I see the point you're making, my
personal view is that urg should remain advertisement free, with the
exceptions of sig.files rules already in place.

The fundamental problem with advertisement free forums is they don't
have the finance to pay for the site or its bandwidth. This means either
asking members to pay a subscription fee and that is extremely unlikely
to succeed or to use free hosting, which may have limits on the
bandwidth anyway and include adverts by the host, over which the forum
operator would have little or no control.

There is no easy or palatable alternative to the Usenet based URG as far
as I can see and as most of us tend to agree, it is gradually slipping
into oblivion.


I'll just add that I've just had a look at GardenBanter and the layout
is awful. There is no threading. Posts are just dumped one after the
other in an ad-hoc manner making it impossible to follow individual sub
threads.

--
David in Normandy.

"Jake" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:25:10 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

On 2013-11-07 10:33:42 +0000, David in Normandy said:

On 07/11/2013 00:43, Sacha wrote:


And there ARE good gardening blogs/web sites. Start with somewhere
like http://www.thinkingardens.co.uk where the discussion,
surprisingly about gardening topics, is active and interesting. Though
probably you won't like the layout or something.


I just took a look at that site but it doesn't appear to actually be
open to posts from the general public; unless there is some hidden
submission process followed by editorial review prior to publishing.
Such a site, while interesting, does not appear to be a place for
having an easy dialogue between gardeners.

You have to register, afair.

Slight correction - initial posts are by a mix of invitation or
submission for acceptance and, granted, they will not be from the
general public. However there is no need to register to comment on any
article - the site operates a pro-active moderation system so anyone
can submit a comment and a fair number of what I suppose are "general
public" - me for example - do participate. Some articles are more down
to earth than others.

That is the case with most blogs. As David (Rance) has pointed out, it
is only places like GardenBanter that offer any real "open discussion"
alternative and, of course, GB actually requires registration. One
possible plus point of this is that if you are a GB "member" reading a
post by someone, you can look up their profile to find a bit more
about them. How often have we needed to ask someone where they live,
how big's the garden, which direction and all that.

I will readily admit that if I put GardenBanter to one side there is
no "one place" replacement for URG. I'm not going to speculate on if
or how long GardenBanter would survive if it was not for URGlers
providing the GB members with the answers to their questions! OTOH,
without new blood URG won't survive and the million dollar question is
how we breathe life into the group.

We've enticed one lurker into the open. Any more out there? Please say
hello. We only really bite each other.

I lurk but I don't have experience and having read the comments in this
thread, it has been stated that people without experience are not welcome,
so I think it better I continue to lurk.


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Large amount snipped




We've enticed one lurker into the open. Any more out there? Please say
hello. We only really bite each other.

I lurk but I don't have experience and having read the comments in this
thread, it has been stated that people without experience are not
welcome, so I think it better I continue to lurk.

Now that would be a shame.


Been lurking for a long time now, just enjoying the gentle ebb and flow
of gardening topics, humour and general good feelings.

I'm what they call a silver surfer, and a silvered haired gardener who
sees the sense of "silly questions" I've asked a few in my time, and
learned a great deal from having them answered, but more importantly
expanded upon.

If anyone does not like the topic then why not feel free to introduce a
more weighty discussion, this is what groups are for surely.

Just my twopence worth.

On 07/11/2013 11:42, Jake wrote:
In one FAQ there is reference to using Armillatox to
kill vine weevil. Yep, lots probably use it for such purposes but
doing so is illegal and advocating doing so could have repercussions!

Not quite.
Using it to kill Vine wevil is not illegal. It's telling people that it
will kill wevil that's illegal, the same as saying that if you boil up
rhubarb leaves you can use the resulting liquid as an insecticide, so I
won't mention it.
David @ a greatly improved side of Swansea Bay