At the risk of being unpopular
 

I'm concerned for the future of this group which I've enjoyed hugely
for 16 years. Some have been here longer than that. But given the
number of those who used to post and who lurk (I know of a few, not
many now) the response to the suggestion that we widen our horizons,
look at a blog and consider looking at others and discussing their
content, were - forgive the pun - seeds on stony ground. I don't know
if this is because of disinterest, complacence or a belief that urg
will continue into the mists of time. It won't. Compare it now to what
it was just 3 or 4 years ago. Facebook and Twitter are taking over in
a big way and while I do understand the resistance so many urglers have
to that and had it myself, those are the facts. Newsgroups are dying
as a result. Today, I have seen maybe 2 or 3 posts. The weather is
filthy, few people are out there gardening, nonetheless what has
happened here. Almost nothing. And, depressingly, I've received an
email from someone who says they rarely look at urg now, see fewer and
fewer posts that interest them and will not be renewing their NIN sub.
After all, people, we can't go on discussing when to harvest onions or
plant potatoes, or lily beetle for ever but that is, indeed, what is
happening.

So, I suppose that what I'm saying is that urg has two choices, either
look at fresh material, such as blogs or posts on Twitter from some
very expert gardeners, nurserymen, seedsmen, journalists and discuss
them here, or simply fade quietly into oblivion. If what the majority
choose is the latter, that's fine. It's happening right now, imo and
I'm very sorry to see it. But if the majority want urg to survive, we
do have to think about the big wide world that has overtaken
newsgroups. Really, we do. Before I'm attacked by the usual suspects,
I'd like to say that, either way, it won't affect me that much,
personally. I'll be sorry to see urg go but as long as I can keep in
touch with the friends I've made here, it won't be the wrench it would
have been a very few years ago. If the majority is determined to turn
its head away from gardening blogs, for example, so that we have fresh
material to discuss, so be it. How many more years can we discuss when
to harvest runner beans or plant garlic?
--

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

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On 06/11/2013 17:50, Sacha wrote:
I'm concerned for the future of this group which I've enjoyed hugely for
16 years. Some have been here longer than that. But given the number
of those who used to post and who lurk (I know of a few, not many now)
the response to the suggestion that we widen our horizons, look at a
blog and consider looking at others and discussing their content, were -
forgive the pun - seeds on stony ground. I don't know if this is
because of disinterest, complacence or a belief that urg will continue
into the mists of time. It won't. Compare it now to what it was just 3
or 4 years ago. Facebook and Twitter are taking over in a big way and
while I do understand the resistance so many urglers have to that and
had it myself, those are the facts. Newsgroups are dying as a result.
Today, I have seen maybe 2 or 3 posts. The weather is filthy, few
people are out there gardening, nonetheless what has happened here.
Almost nothing. And, depressingly, I've received an email from someone
who says they rarely look at urg now, see fewer and fewer posts that
interest them and will not be renewing their NIN sub. After all, people,
we can't go on discussing when to harvest onions or plant potatoes, or
lily beetle for ever but that is, indeed, what is happening.

So, I suppose that what I'm saying is that urg has two choices, either
look at fresh material, such as blogs or posts on Twitter from some very
expert gardeners, nurserymen, seedsmen, journalists and discuss them
here, or simply fade quietly into oblivion. If what the majority choose
is the latter, that's fine. It's happening right now, imo and I'm very
sorry to see it. But if the majority want urg to survive, we do have to
think about the big wide world that has overtaken newsgroups. Really, we
do. Before I'm attacked by the usual suspects, I'd like to say that,
either way, it won't affect me that much, personally. I'll be sorry to
see urg go but as long as I can keep in touch with the friends I've made
here, it won't be the wrench it would have been a very few years ago.
If the majority is determined to turn its head away from gardening
blogs, for example, so that we have fresh material to discuss, so be it.
How many more years can we discuss when to harvest runner beans or plant
garlic?


Come on Sacha,
You know that most of the older members know all there is to know about
gardening and have no interest in bringing in youngsters who are going
to ask dam fool questions and who may one day know more than we do.

At the risk of being unpopular
 

"Sacha" wrote...

I'm concerned for the future of this group which I've enjoyed hugely for 16
years. Some have been here longer than that. But given the number of
those who used to post and who lurk (I know of a few, not many now) the
response to the suggestion that we widen our horizons, look at a blog and
consider looking at others and discussing their content, were - forgive the
pun - seeds on stony ground. I don't know if this is because of
disinterest, complacence or a belief that urg will continue into the mists
of time. It won't. Compare it now to what it was just 3 or 4 years ago.
Facebook and Twitter are taking over in a big way and while I do understand
the resistance so many urglers have to that and had it myself, those are
the facts. Newsgroups are dying as a result. Today, I have seen maybe 2
or 3 posts. The weather is filthy, few people are out there gardening,
nonetheless what has happened here. Almost nothing. And, depressingly,
I've received an email from someone who says they rarely look at urg now,
see fewer and fewer posts that interest them and will not be renewing their
NIN sub. After all, people, we can't go on discussing when to harvest
onions or plant potatoes, or lily beetle for ever but that is, indeed, what
is happening.

So, I suppose that what I'm saying is that urg has two choices, either look
at fresh material, such as blogs or posts on Twitter from some very expert
gardeners, nurserymen, seedsmen, journalists and discuss them here, or
simply fade quietly into oblivion. If what the majority choose is the
latter, that's fine. It's happening right now, imo and I'm very sorry to
see it. But if the majority want urg to survive, we do have to think about
the big wide world that has overtaken newsgroups. Really, we do. Before
I'm attacked by the usual suspects, I'd like to say that, either way, it
won't affect me that much, personally. I'll be sorry to see urg go but as
long as I can keep in touch with the friends I've made here, it won't be
the wrench it would have been a very few years ago. If the majority is
determined to turn its head away from gardening blogs, for example, so that
we have fresh material to discuss, so be it. How many more years can we
discuss when to harvest runner beans or plant garlic?


I agree that Newsgroups appear to be fading away quite quickly now, I posted
to another Ng a few days ago a technical question that 3 or 4 years ago
would have had probably more than 10 knowledgeable replies by now, but I've
had nothing at all.
My understanding is that the old hands have gone to Forums instead but they
don't appear to be my sort of thing from those that I've seen and tried, too
disjointed somehow. I tried one again yesterday to try to get an answer to
my question but didn't like it at all. What they see better there than on
Newsgroups beats me.
I came off Facebook because I saw nothing in it only dire security defaults
which most don't seem to understand or even care about, even parents with
children don't seem to concern themselves. Having friends might have helped.
:-(
As for Twitter it sounds like a Tower of Babel which would not be my cup of
tea but I suppose I'll have to try it sometime. Perhaps I'll get into it,
millions seem to.

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

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On 06/11/2013 18:40, Bob Hobden wrote:
"Sacha" wrote...

I'm concerned for the future of this group which I've enjoyed hugely
for 16 years. Some have been here longer than that. But given the
number of those who used to post and who lurk (I know of a few, not
many now) the response to the suggestion that we widen our horizons,
look at a blog and consider looking at others and discussing their
content, were - forgive the pun - seeds on stony ground. I don't know
if this is because of disinterest, complacence or a belief that urg
will continue into the mists of time. It won't. Compare it now to
what it was just 3 or 4 years ago. Facebook and Twitter are taking
over in a big way and while I do understand the resistance so many
urglers have to that and had it myself, those are the facts.
Newsgroups are dying as a result. Today, I have seen maybe 2 or 3
posts. The weather is filthy, few people are out there gardening,
nonetheless what has happened here. Almost nothing. And,
depressingly, I've received an email from someone who says they rarely
look at urg now, see fewer and fewer posts that interest them and will
not be renewing their NIN sub. After all, people, we can't go on
discussing when to harvest onions or plant potatoes, or lily beetle
for ever but that is, indeed, what is happening.

So, I suppose that what I'm saying is that urg has two choices, either
look at fresh material, such as blogs or posts on Twitter from some
very expert gardeners, nurserymen, seedsmen, journalists and discuss
them here, or simply fade quietly into oblivion. If what the majority
choose is the latter, that's fine. It's happening right now, imo and
I'm very sorry to see it. But if the majority want urg to survive, we
do have to think about the big wide world that has overtaken
newsgroups. Really, we do. Before I'm attacked by the usual suspects,
I'd like to say that, either way, it won't affect me that much,
personally. I'll be sorry to see urg go but as long as I can keep in
touch with the friends I've made here, it won't be the wrench it would
have been a very few years ago. If the majority is determined to
turn its head away from gardening blogs, for example, so that we have
fresh material to discuss, so be it. How many more years can we
discuss when to harvest runner beans or plant garlic?


I agree that Newsgroups appear to be fading away quite quickly now, I
posted to another Ng a few days ago a technical question that 3 or 4
years ago would have had probably more than 10 knowledgeable replies by
now, but I've had nothing at all.
My understanding is that the old hands have gone to Forums instead but
they don't appear to be my sort of thing from those that I've seen and
tried, too disjointed somehow. I tried one again yesterday to try to get
an answer to my question but didn't like it at all. What they see better
there than on Newsgroups beats me.
I came off Facebook because I saw nothing in it only dire security
defaults which most don't seem to understand or even care about, even
parents with children don't seem to concern themselves. Having friends
might have helped. :-(
As for Twitter it sounds like a Tower of Babel which would not be my cup
of tea but I suppose I'll have to try it sometime. Perhaps I'll get into
it, millions seem to.

What I think is wrong is the way firms BUY the "likes" on facebook.
How often do you see "Like us on facebook for the chance to win £10.00"
OR
"Your chance to win one of 1000 burgers by liking us on facebook"
And many, many more examples.
As for twitter it makes me think of the 200 or so sparrows roosting in
one on my conifers,
A lot of noise and all trying to outdo the others.
No thanks
Not for me.
David @ a still blustery side of Swansea Bay

At the risk of being unpopular
 

In article ,
Bob Hobden wrote:
"Sacha" wrote...

I'm concerned for the future of this group which I've enjoyed hugely for 16
years. Some have been here longer than that. But given the number of
those who used to post and who lurk (I know of a few, not many now) the
response to the suggestion that we widen our horizons, look at a blog and
consider looking at others and discussing their content, were - forgive the
pun - seeds on stony ground. ...

I think that's mistaken - the reasons were not what you imply.

I agree that Newsgroups appear to be fading away quite quickly now, I posted
to another Ng a few days ago a technical question that 3 or 4 years ago
would have had probably more than 10 knowledgeable replies by now, but I've
had nothing at all.

That is unfortunately true. But the rot started quite a long time
back on the technical groups, when they were taken over by those
fanatics who use abuse as a form of argument. The trolls came later,
and the near-total loss of interest last - there was some causality,
but I cannot be sure of the importance of that.

My understanding is that the old hands have gone to Forums instead but they
don't appear to be my sort of thing from those that I've seen and tried, too
disjointed somehow. I tried one again yesterday to try to get an answer to
my question but didn't like it at all. What they see better there than on
Newsgroups beats me.

No way. That is claimed by the idiots who wanted to "move with the
times" and "be relevant to the modern Web-oriented younger generation".
The University of Cambridge did that for its internal newsgroups, and
the fora are all but moribund. I have seen that in a dozen other
contexts, too.

I came off Facebook because I saw nothing in it only dire security defaults
which most don't seem to understand or even care about, even parents with
children don't seem to concern themselves. Having friends might have helped.
:-(
As for Twitter it sounds like a Tower of Babel which would not be my cup of
tea but I suppose I'll have to try it sometime. Perhaps I'll get into it,
millions seem to.

There is considerable evidence that neither are used for anything
beyond wasting time, idle gossip and so on.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On 2013-11-06 18:59:26 +0000, Nick Maclaren said:

In article ,
Bob Hobden wrote:
"Sacha" wrote...

I'm concerned for the future of this group which I've enjoyed hugely for 16
years. Some have been here longer than that. But given the number of
those who used to post and who lurk (I know of a few, not many now) the
response to the suggestion that we widen our horizons, look at a blog and
consider looking at others and discussing their content, were - forgive the
pun - seeds on stony ground. ...

I think that's mistaken - the reasons were not what you imply.

I agree that Newsgroups appear to be fading away quite quickly now, I posted
to another Ng a few days ago a technical question that 3 or 4 years ago
would have had probably more than 10 knowledgeable replies by now, but I've
had nothing at all.

That is unfortunately true. But the rot started quite a long time
back on the technical groups, when they were taken over by those
fanatics who use abuse as a form of argument. The trolls came later,
and the near-total loss of interest last - there was some causality,
but I cannot be sure of the importance of that.

My understanding is that the old hands have gone to Forums instead but they
don't appear to be my sort of thing from those that I've seen and tried, too
disjointed somehow. I tried one again yesterday to try to get an answer to
my question but didn't like it at all. What they see better there than on
Newsgroups beats me.

No way. That is claimed by the idiots who wanted to "move with the
times" and "be relevant to the modern Web-oriented younger generation".
The University of Cambridge did that for its internal newsgroups, and
the fora are all but moribund. I have seen that in a dozen other
contexts, too.

I came off Facebook because I saw nothing in it only dire security defaults
which most don't seem to understand or even care about, even parents with
children don't seem to concern themselves. Having friends might have helped.
:-(
As for Twitter it sounds like a Tower of Babel which would not be my cup of
tea but I suppose I'll have to try it sometime. Perhaps I'll get into it,
millions seem to.

There is considerable evidence that neither are used for anything
beyond wasting time, idle gossip and so on.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

And that last sentence, Nick, explains why this group and others will
die the death. Of course, there's a lot of nonsense on Twitter and on
Facebook. There is on here, to when we're in a punny mood. Both can
be avoided quite easily by being specific in who you follow and by
ignoring or blocking those you don't wish to see, or to have follow
you. I speak as one who was vehemently anti joining either.
Eventually, I was persuaded/bullied by one of my daughters to use both.
My personal presence on Fb is quite slight and the Nursery has its own
'page' attached to that. On Twitter, I post as myself and I make
certain that we follow or we are followed by, only those relevant to
our interests. In effect, it is little different to a newsgroup but
it is much more widely used. I wouldn't announce my absence from home
on Twitter, but nor would I on here. ALL are open to the public gaze
to just the same degree. The only difference is frequency of use. I
post no private photos or infomation to my Fb account and I discuss no
private matters. BUT the stimulus is far greater because of the
frequency of use and the fact that most people on both are younger than
most denizens of urg. I'm not pushing for either as in abandoning urg
but I am saying that looking at blogs might, at the very least, makes a
welcome change from repetitive discussions on why someone's veg aren't
growing, why a lawnmower won't start, or why michaelmas daisies aren't
doing too well for the 5th year running. Perhaps we could consider
widening our horizons simply by reading what others have to say in
blogs. There is no commitment!
--

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

At the risk of being unpopular
 

In article ,
Sacha wrote:

There is considerable evidence that neither are used for anything
beyond wasting time, idle gossip and so on.

And that last sentence, Nick, explains why this group and others will
die the death. Of course, there's a lot of nonsense on Twitter and on
Facebook. There is on here, to when we're in a punny mood. Both can
be avoided quite easily by being specific in who you follow and by
ignoring or blocking those you don't wish to see, or to have follow
you. I speak as one who was vehemently anti joining either.
Eventually, I was persuaded/bullied by one of my daughters to use both.
My personal presence on Fb is quite slight and the Nursery has its own
'page' attached to that. On Twitter, I post as myself and I make
certain that we follow or we are followed by, only those relevant to
our interests. In effect, it is little different to a newsgroup but
it is much more widely used. I wouldn't announce my absence from home
on Twitter, but nor would I on here. ALL are open to the public gaze
to just the same degree. The only difference is frequency of use. I
post no private photos or infomation to my Fb account and I discuss no
private matters. BUT the stimulus is far greater because of the
frequency of use and the fact that most people on both are younger than
most denizens of urg. I'm not pushing for either as in abandoning urg
but I am saying that looking at blogs might, at the very least, makes a
welcome change from repetitive discussions on why someone's veg aren't
growing, why a lawnmower won't start, or why michaelmas daisies aren't
doing too well for the 5th year running. Perhaps we could consider
widening our horizons simply by reading what others have to say in
blogs. There is no commitment!

Hmm. Methinks that was a little above 140 characters :-) My point
about twitter is that it is inherently limited to semi-frivolous
uses for that reason alone. At best, it could be used to point
out a Web page.

My points stand, however, though perhaps I should have added
"marketing" to the list of uses. I am NOT, however, basing that
on hearsay, but on what the facebook users I know have told me.
There probably isn't any reason that it couldn't be used for
serious purposes (some other such systems, like linkedin, are)
but the reports I hear are that it isn't.

And I do look at blogs, fairly regularly, though I dislike the
one-way nature of them. That is why I don't run one myself - I have
never been particularly interested in rabbitting on without active
debate. My objection to this one was that it was painful to read
and I have a lot else going on.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On 06/11/2013 18:50, Sacha wrote:
.... or simply fade quietly into oblivion.

I suspect this is the likely outcome. I've participated on URG for more
than a decade in a somewhat on and off fashion, but the trend over that
time has been fewer posts and fewer members. A critical mass of
membership / posting is required for any group to prosper, be it on
usenet or a web forum. I think URG is starting to dip below the critical
mass necessary to continue. It is quite sad in a way and I don't know
what the realistic alternatives to it are. There is a lot of interest in
both vegetable growing and flowers / garden design which begs the
question - where are all the gardeners? Are they all diffused over the
internet now, each with their own blogs, their own websites or posts
lost on facebook or twitter? I honestly don't know.

--
David in Normandy.

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On 06/11/2013 22:14, Jake wrote:

But after many happy years of Usenet, URG is now the only group I
follow. And I too will ask myself the question "Is it worth it?" when
my annual Usenet provider account is due for renewal. The honest
answer is "Probably not."


You can always use one of the free usenet providers. Nowadays I use
EternalSeptember. I wouldn't dream of paying for a Usenet provider
account due to my extremely low posting on usenet nowadays.

--
David in Normandy.

At the risk of being unpopular
 

In message , Bob Hobden
writes
"Sacha" wrote...

I'm concerned for the future of this group which I've enjoyed hugely
for 16 years. Some have been here longer than that. But given the
number of those who used to post and who lurk (I know of a few, not
many now) the response to the suggestion that we widen our horizons,
look at a blog and consider looking at others and discussing their
content, were - forgive the pun - seeds on stony ground. I don't know
if this is because of disinterest, complacence or a belief that urg
will continue into the mists of time. It won't. Compare it now to
what it was just 3 or 4 years ago. Facebook and Twitter are taking
over in a big way and while I do understand the resistance so many
urglers have to that and had it myself, those are the facts.
Newsgroups are dying as a result. Today, I have seen maybe 2 or 3
posts. The weather is filthy, few people are out there gardening,
nonetheless what has happened here. Almost nothing. And,
depressingly, I've received an email from someone who says they rarely
look at urg now, see fewer and fewer posts that interest them and will
not be renewing their NIN sub. After all, people, we can't go on
discussing when to harvest onions or plant potatoes, or lily beetle
for ever but that is, indeed, what is happening.

So, I suppose that what I'm saying is that urg has two choices, either
look at fresh material, such as blogs or posts on Twitter from some
very expert gardeners, nurserymen, seedsmen, journalists and discuss
them here, or simply fade quietly into oblivion. If what the majority
choose is the latter, that's fine. It's happening right now, imo and
I'm very sorry to see it. But if the majority want urg to survive, we
do have to think about the big wide world that has overtaken
newsgroups. Really, we do. Before I'm attacked by the usual suspects,
I'd like to say that, either way, it won't affect me that much,
personally. I'll be sorry to see urg go but as long as I can keep in
touch with the friends I've made here, it won't be the wrench it would
have been a very few years ago. If the majority is determined to
turn its head away from gardening blogs, for example, so that we have
fresh material to discuss, so be it. How many more years can we
discuss when to harvest runner beans or plant garlic?


I agree that Newsgroups appear to be fading away quite quickly now, I
posted to another Ng a few days ago a technical question that 3 or 4
years ago would have had probably more than 10 knowledgeable replies by
now, but I've had nothing at all.
My understanding is that the old hands have gone to Forums instead but
they don't appear to be my sort of thing from those that I've seen and
tried, too disjointed somehow. I tried one again yesterday to try to
get an answer to my question but didn't like it at all. What they see
better there than on Newsgroups beats me.
I came off Facebook because I saw nothing in it only dire security
defaults which most don't seem to understand or even care about, even
parents with children don't seem to concern themselves. Having friends
might have helped. :-(
As for Twitter it sounds like a Tower of Babel which would not be my
cup of tea but I suppose I'll have to try it sometime. Perhaps I'll get
into it, millions seem to.

Reading recently that Facebook is leaking customers quite seriously.
I can't abide forums. Disjointed difficult to scan down a thread. Here I
can look at a subject line click down the OP and decide if it's of
interest and if not on to the next thread in a couple of ticks.
Newsnet delivers all the posts from all the groups I subscribe to in
nicely organised threads and I read them at my leisure. Unfortunately in
the rush to the bottom many ISPs no longer offer a news server, indeed
some are dropping e-mail.

--
bert

At the risk of being unpopular
 

In article ,
Jake wrote:

Hmm. Methinks that was a little above 140 characters :-) My point
about twitter is that it is inherently limited to semi-frivolous
uses for that reason alone. At best, it could be used to point
out a Web page.

Bypassing the 140 limit is easy.

By breaking its security or spewing out a sequence of minced-up
text? Neither attracts me - the latter because I have used several
such systems, and it's horrible to read. It gets REALLY horrible
when half a dozen people are doing it at once!

OTOH there's nothing wrong with
directing attention to a web page/blog where a discussion ensues.
Blogging is evolving and many blogs operate, in some senses, like URG.
Someone posts an opinion or something. Others respond. More and more
blogs are group efforts rather than simply individuals on an ego run.

Well, maybe. I have been involved with quite a number, since long
before they were called blogs. But they are far more attractive to
people with time to waste than those without, because of their
(lack of) structure. Newsgroups are bad enough.

Many posts here direct you to a web site (photo sharing for example)
and without first visiting that site discussion here would be
impossible.

There is a difference between providing reference material, and
requiring the discussion to be indirected.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

At the risk of being unpopular
 

In article ,
Jake wrote:

Bypassing the 140 limit is easy.

By breaking its security or spewing out a sequence of minced-up
text? Neither attracts me - the latter because I have used several
such systems, and it's horrible to read. It gets REALLY horrible
when half a dozen people are doing it at once!

Nope. http://www.twitlonger.com/

Which is no different from posting a Web reference to the posting.

Alternatively, you simply split a message into a few tweets; just make
sure that tweet 2 is sent as a reply to tweet 1, tweet 3 as a reply to
tweet 2 and so on. This preserves the sequence and, of course, when
you reply to your own tweets you actually "reply" to those to whom you
originally tweeted. Recipients simply "view the conversation" to see
the tweets in uninterrupted sequence.

And how do you stop other people's replies getting interleaved?
It is that which is the issue.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

At the risk of being unpopular
 

"Jake" wrote (big Snip))

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.

But after many happy years of Usenet, URG is now the only group I
follow. And I too will ask myself the question "Is it worth it?" when
my annual Usenet provider account is due for renewal. The honest
answer is "Probably not."



I've just spent some while looking through that Forum and found it
everything about forums I don't like.

No, if Ngs fold then I'll just do more Sudoku in the evenings and garden
quietly on my own.
--
Regards. Bob Hobden.
Posted to this Newsgroup from the W of London, UK

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On 2013-11-06 20:00:28 +0000, Nick Maclaren said:

In article ,
Sacha wrote:

There is considerable evidence that neither are used for anything
beyond wasting time, idle gossip and so on.

And that last sentence, Nick, explains why this group and others will
die the death. Of course, there's a lot of nonsense on Twitter and on
Facebook. There is on here, to when we're in a punny mood. Both can
be avoided quite easily by being specific in who you follow and by
ignoring or blocking those you don't wish to see, or to have follow
you. I speak as one who was vehemently anti joining either.
Eventually, I was persuaded/bullied by one of my daughters to use both.
My personal presence on Fb is quite slight and the Nursery has its own
'page' attached to that. On Twitter, I post as myself and I make
certain that we follow or we are followed by, only those relevant to
our interests. In effect, it is little different to a newsgroup but
it is much more widely used. I wouldn't announce my absence from home
on Twitter, but nor would I on here. ALL are open to the public gaze
to just the same degree. The only difference is frequency of use. I
post no private photos or infomation to my Fb account and I discuss no
private matters. BUT the stimulus is far greater because of the
frequency of use and the fact that most people on both are younger than
most denizens of urg. I'm not pushing for either as in abandoning urg
but I am saying that looking at blogs might, at the very least, makes a
welcome change from repetitive discussions on why someone's veg aren't
growing, why a lawnmower won't start, or why michaelmas daisies aren't
doing too well for the 5th year running. Perhaps we could consider
widening our horizons simply by reading what others have to say in
blogs. There is no commitment!

Hmm. Methinks that was a little above 140 characters :-) My point
about twitter is that it is inherently limited to semi-frivolous
uses for that reason alone. At best, it could be used to point
out a Web page.

And often, it is.

My points stand, however, though perhaps I should have added
"marketing" to the list of uses. I am NOT, however, basing that
on hearsay, but on what the facebook users I know have told me.
There probably isn't any reason that it couldn't be used for
serious purposes (some other such systems, like linkedin, are)
but the reports I hear are that it isn't.

And I do look at blogs, fairly regularly, though I dislike the
one-way nature of them. That is why I don't run one myself - I have
never been particularly interested in rabbitting on without active
debate. My objection to this one was that it was painful to read
and I have a lot else going on.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Of course. Life is often too busy for chitchat but I would say that if
one has time for newsgroups, one has time to look at two or three good
blogs and introduce topics from those for discussions here, too.

--

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

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On 2013-11-06 21:05:43 +0000, David in Normandy said:

On 06/11/2013 18:50, Sacha wrote:
... or simply fade quietly into oblivion.

I suspect this is the likely outcome. I've participated on URG for more
than a decade in a somewhat on and off fashion, but the trend over that
time has been fewer posts and fewer members. A critical mass of
membership / posting is required for any group to prosper, be it on
usenet or a web forum. I think URG is starting to dip below the
critical mass necessary to continue. It is quite sad in a way and I
don't know what the realistic alternatives to it are. There is a lot of
interest in both vegetable growing and flowers / garden design which
begs the question - where are all the gardeners? Are they all diffused
over the internet now, each with their own blogs, their own websites or
posts lost on facebook or twitter? I honestly don't know.

I think the various areas in which discussions can take place are now
so numerous that it's inevitable that something as 'narrow' as urg will
disappear. On Facebook alone, I read 4 gardening groups, each with a
different focus but the majority are very active, even while some are
quite specific in their interests. I think the danger with urg is,
dare I say it, a degree of "it's always been like this", so we all
rather like it, so we all go on this merry way. But truly, without
fresh input, newer and younger members or more interesting/contentious
subjects to discuss, it will do as it is now. Fade.

You're quite right in that the number of active posters has dwindled
alarmingly and I suspect that is because the run of the mill posts are
so repetitive, year after year and no new topics are introduced, or
rarely so. To me, it is very notable that the posts that generate most
garden interest are those where a plant ID is requested. Everyone gets
a chance to cudgel their brains and do what they can to search out
information. We rarely discuss garden design, for example and that is
a topic that could generate enough energy for a year! Good hedging ,
bad container planting, planted wellies good or anathema?
--

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

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On 2013-11-06 21:14:26 +0000, Jake said:

On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:50:07 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

I'm concerned for the future of this group

I've pruned the rest as you can read it in the original post and my
reply's long enough on its own

The truth is often unpalatable. Usenet is changing. URG is dying.
There is no new blood coming in to replace those who move on. In its
death throes, URG has changed from a gardening group to a less
focused, and predominantly male, social gathering.

Sacha refers to the reduction in posts. I archive the group each
month; I used to do it more frequently. The simple volume of posts per
month, measured by file size, has decreased by about 65% in the last
year. I also notice the all too plain disappearance of former regulars
and the less frequent posts of others.

Mention the weather and we're on (again) about how reliable any
forecast isn't. Spuds won't cook properly because of some nuance in
Internet Explorer which means the Firefox won't burn properly and so
the non-Chrome pan won't warm up during the Opera interval. We
exchange witticisms, thoughts about life, the world etc., with some
loose connection to gardening that often ends with the fourth post in
a thread. And at some point in a long thread someone won't like
someone else and we have a public exchange of "views".

We have the occasional bit of interest with the "guess the plant"
posts, unless incursion of advertisements which pay for the free photo
hosting sites diverts the discussion (again).

Then some innocent arrives from GardenBanter, survives the inevitable
discussion about what WE are (does Crowe still interject to say what a
bunch of nasties we are and that he's off on another cruise soon?),
might get an answer to a question and then disappears into a hole in
the rhubarb patch forever.

Then there are those who come other than through GardenBanter. The
difference is that they don't disappear permanently once their
question is answered; they drink wine on the patio for a few months
while thinking up a new question and return here. But much else is
simply repetitive.

Twitter is the only social media entity that I bother with but that
can, if used carefully, be productive. I would be lying if I said that
I do not find Twitter discussions about gardening issues far more
focused, interesting and productive than those in URG. I've never met
an URGler but have met quite a few people via Twitter; some I now meet
with regularly in both a gardening context and at more general social
events.

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.

But after many happy years of Usenet, URG is now the only group I
follow. And I too will ask myself the question "Is it worth it?" when
my annual Usenet provider account is due for renewal. The honest
answer is "Probably not."

Applause and a sad endorsement.
--

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

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On 2013-11-06 21:21:07 +0000, David in Normandy said:

On 06/11/2013 22:14, Jake wrote:

But after many happy years of Usenet, URG is now the only group I
follow. And I too will ask myself the question "Is it worth it?" when
my annual Usenet provider account is due for renewal. The honest
answer is "Probably not."


You can always use one of the free usenet providers. Nowadays I use
EternalSeptember. I wouldn't dream of paying for a Usenet provider
account due to my extremely low posting on usenet nowadays.

But that isn't the problem, David. Which is that, even while willing to
pay up until now, Jake sees no POINT in continuing to do so. URG no
longer holds the interest or attraction. He mentions the site
www.thinkingardens.co.uk I've also given that link two or three times
on here and I'd be prepared to bet than less than a quarter of urglers
have bothered to look at it. In fact, I wonder if anyone at all has
done so. Again, it's full of opinion and discussion, some of it from
well-known and expert gardeners, writers and designers. But I have yet
to see anyone, other than Jake or me, refer to it or any subject raised
in it. The conclusion one comes to almost inevitably, is that nobody
is interested enough in keeping urg going to look at or discuss other
sources of information or opinion. You say your own posting is low
nowadays but what none of us have done - until now - is as why and what
we can do about it. Of course, the obvious answer is that, if nobody IS
interested enough in keeping urg going, then it will simply fade away
and that is the prerogative of the users.
--

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

At the risk of being unpopular
 

"Sacha" wrote a message ...

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.

Pete

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On 06/11/13 17:50, Sacha wrote:

I'm concerned for the future of this group which I've enjoyed hugely for
16 years. Some have been here longer than that. But given the number
of those who used to post and who lurk (I know of a few, not many now)
the response to the suggestion that we widen our horizons, look at a
blog and consider looking at others and discussing their content, were -
forgive the pun - seeds on stony ground. I don't know if this is
because of disinterest, complacence or a belief that urg will continue
into the mists of time. It won't.

I'm guilty of being a lurker on here, largely because the group's
experiences are far wider than mine, but I'm not a youngster either. In
those regards I bring nothing to the group. Yet, why do I lurk here? The
answer is simple: it's because I find useful information on topics I'm
interested in! For example, there were a number of posts a few weeks ago
that talked about black spot, the sort that grows on patio paving, and I
realised that that is what I have. So, despite the gloomy nature of the
postings, I set about about finding a way to deal with it. It's very
early days yet, but I might have had some success. However, it will be
quite some time, possibly a year or two, before long-term success could
be claimed. My next step is to take some 'before and after' photos, to
show what could be done, but that's several weeks ahead. So, if this is
a success, I could report back to the group and thus contribute to the
knowledge-base. I suppose I'm saying here that there is more to this
group than might appear on the surface, and from my ~20 years on Usenet
that appears to be pretty much universal.

Another widespread concern is exactly what you say here, about what you
see as the decline of Usenet - it has occurred in nearly every group I
read. Yet, are things that bad? The Usenet server Eternal-September was
so named for a specific reason: up to 1993, Usenet was largely
restricted to Universities, and in that year it was discovered by the
wider internet community and as a result usage grew enormously - some
might say that quality fell as a result. Nowadays we have the
blogosphere, Facebook, Twitter, Ask FM, in fact any number of 'social
media' sites - none of which have Usenet's advantages and none of which
existed back then. It's inevitable that new things will come along to
replace the old, or at least compete with it. But that doesn't make them
better, even if it does make them more popular. If it came to a contest
between quantity and quality, I know which I'd choose. Here's some
uk-hierarchy usage figures:

http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

You'll see what might be the first signs of stability after some years
of steady decline, and it has been speculated that Usenet is getting
back the pre-1993 levels of usage. If this is in fact the case, then
perhaps your fears are largely unfounded, in that those left on Usenet
are the ones who want to be here, who see blogs, forums, FB and Twitter
as poor substitutes for the text-based, decentralised, advert-free
system we currently enjoy. But are FB and Twitter themselves set to be
dominant forever? I doubt it. I feel you may have over-egged the
doom-and-gloom, but of course only time will tell.

--
John Milner

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On 06/11/2013 23:43, Sacha wrote:
On 2013-11-06 21:14:26 +0000, Jake said:

On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:50:07 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

I'm concerned for the future of this group

Come on Sacha, we know this topic is just a plant to get something moving.

At the risk of being unpopular
 

I'm not going to quote from anyone's message but to just give a few
thoughts of my own. This will be quite long and if you get bored just
scroll down to the last couple of paragraphs where I have made a
positive suggestion.

URG is a child of its time. It's like the Fidonet which was the first
worldwide general means of electronic communication. The Fidonet died
because a better means of communication grew up, i.e. the Internet. The
Fidonet is still there, and people, mainly Russians, are still writing
software for it, but it is peopled now solely by those who want to keep
a museum piece going.

There were many reasons why people thought the Fidonet was dying, not
least some of the reasons which could be applied to URG.

So how is URG perceived by, say, the newcomer? Some of our biggest
mistakes are, for example, to criticise them for (a) coming to us via
Gardenbanter, or (b) calling URG a forum. Why is it necessary to do
this? By satisfying our own little perception of what URG is, the
newcomer will immediately feel that they are entering a place where they
must mind their P's and Q's. These things may irritate us but is it
necessary to say anything? What good does it do apart from making us
feel that we are "keeping up the standards"? Goodness, how petty!

Why can't we refer to URG as a forum because that's what it is, a place
where discussions can take place. Why shouldn't people use Gardenbanter
to post? Why do we refer to Gardenbanter as "stealing" our messages
where we should be grateful that it is making our messages available to
a wider public. What actual harm is Gardenbanter doing? None! So why
mention it?

Another thing which people say caused the demise of the Fidonet are the
flame wars. There are those who perceive that they are being insulted
and immediately respond, sometimes quite rudely. Most of us haven't a
clue what it was originally about but, by responding publicly, they have
made sure that a lot more people know that there is bad feeling. Here
again, the newcomer will be put off.

I can see why blogs and web sites are becoming more popular. It's
because they are "prettier", with formatting and illustrations. (That's
another reason why the Fidonet died.) In the right hands these can be a
revelation, in the wrong hands they can be even more tedious than a
straight text vehicle. Take the web blog that we had trouble with
recently. I can't help agreeing with a lot of what David Roberts said,
certainly in the context of setting the page out. You'll notice that,
even here, I can try to make my messages more readable by giving some
white space between paragraphs and not making those paragraphs too long.
I'm afraid that Sara simply wrote long blogs with no white space and,
frankly, I lost interest after a time.

But I was a casual reader. An avid reader wouldn't allow such things to
distract them, but how many casual readers have been put off by poor
formatting? It *is* important.

I've been reading URG for around eighteen years, I think. Even when I
started at least one of the stalwarts, Chunky, who helped create URG had
already left - I never saw any messages by him. And Cormaic last only
another five years or so before he found that his business left him too
little time to contribute. But Cormaic was a great encourager. It was he
that persuaded me to post a regular welcome message and he still hosts
the URG web site.

Ok, so we have a URG web site. Why don't we use it? Not much has changed
for years apart from keeping some of the FAQs up-to-date. In fact, it
probably suffers from a lot of the formatting and colour problems that
others have mentioned. It needs a good overhaul. We could keep a blog
going on that. There could be several blogs. Has anyone the vision to
make use of http://www.u-r-g.co.uk ? URG doesn't *have* to stay as a
Usenet group.

As I said, URG is a child of its time. It's twenty years old (that's an
age in Internet terms!) and it's now time to move on. It needs to
metamorphose into something more up-to-date. Well, how about it, folks?

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

At the risk of being unpopular
 

bert wrote:

Here I can look at a subject line click down the OP and decide if
it's of interest and if not on to the next thread in a couple of
ticks. Newsnet delivers all the posts from all the groups I
subscribe to in nicely organised threads and I read them at my
leisure.

this ^

URG isn't the only newsgroup I use, and they're all slowly withering
away, but Usenet is still by far the best way of following a
"conversation", imo.

--
Chris

At the risk of being unpopular
 

John Milner wrote:

It's inevitable that
new things will come along to replace the old, or at least compete
with it. But that doesn't make them better, even if it does make them
more popular. If it came to a contest between quantity and quality, I
know which I'd choose.

The Sun is Britain's best selling newspaper, by some margin.

'Nuff said.

--
Chris

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 09:21:39 +0000, John Milner
wrote:

I'm guilty of being a lurker on here, largely because the group's
experiences are far wider than mine, but I'm not a youngster either. In
those regards I bring nothing to the group. Yet, why do I lurk here?

We want more lurkers. Lurkers are keeping Usenet groups going. Lurkers
become questioners and contributors.

Steve

--
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

At the risk of being unpopular
 

In article ,
David Rance wrote:

URG is a child of its time. It's like the Fidonet which was the first
worldwide general means of electronic communication. ...

Like hell it was! Sorry, but that accolade must go to UUCP; while
it was little used outside of academia, that was simply because few
other people had computers that weren't tightly tied down. Even
Usenet (i.e. newsgroups as we know them) dates from several years
before Fidonet, and I have been using it in its previous form since
1979. By the time Fidonet appeared, UUCP had escaped from academia,
and the 'Internet revolution' had started. Google have stopped
making their history public, but their group archive dates from
1981. Fidonet dates from 1983.

But, yes, URG is a child of its time - I agree with Sacha, except
that I don't agree that the currently favoured alternatives are
a functional replacement or will continue to host reasonable
discussions in the long term. This is a social issue, associated
with the dumbing down of most forms of communication - I have heard
that things are somewhat better outside the USA/UK/etc. grouping,
especially in the Far East.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

At the risk of being unpopular
 

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.

--
David in Normandy.

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On 07/11/2013 10:47, David Rance wrote:

Ok, so we have a URG web site. Why don't we use it? Not much has changed
for years apart from keeping some of the FAQs up-to-date. In fact, it
probably suffers from a lot of the formatting and colour problems that
others have mentioned. It needs a good overhaul. We could keep a blog
going on that. There could be several blogs. Has anyone the vision to
make use of http://www.u-r-g.co.uk ? URG doesn't *have* to stay as a
Usenet group.


URG would be a good base to start from. As it stands the site is
read-only and has no features to support any dialogue. I've just looked
at Sacha's suggested site and that appears to have the same limitation
too - neither is designed for discussion. The u-r-g website would need
completely redesigning, perhaps with a phpbb forum being set up on it so
people could create threads and hold discussions.

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?!

--
David in Normandy.

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article ,
David Rance wrote:

URG is a child of its time. It's like the Fidonet which was the first
worldwide general means of electronic communication. ...

Like hell it was! Sorry, but that accolade must go to UUCP; while
it was little used outside of academia, that was simply because few
other people had computers that weren't tightly tied down. Even
Usenet (i.e. newsgroups as we know them) dates from several years
before Fidonet, and I have been using it in its previous form since
1979. By the time Fidonet appeared, UUCP had escaped from academia,
and the 'Internet revolution' had started. Google have stopped
making their history public, but their group archive dates from
1981. Fidonet dates from 1983.

I said that it was the first *general* means of electronic
communication. By that I mean available/affordable to all. UUCP may well
have predated it but UUCP was not available to all because of the high
cost of getting connected to the Internet, certainly in the UK, until
1992 when Demon first made it affordable here. You were in a privileged
position in academia that few of us could enjoy. Tom Jennings' Fidonet
was a do-it-yourself solution, springing off the back of bulletin
boards.

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On 07/11/2013 10:07, CT wrote:
John Milner wrote:

It's inevitable that
new things will come along to replace the old, or at least compete
with it. But that doesn't make them better, even if it does make them
more popular. If it came to a contest between quantity and quality, I
know which I'd choose.

The Sun is Britain's best selling newspaper, by some margin.

'Nuff said.


In that case could it be that we need more of these?
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/f...ps47995488.jpg

At the risk of being unpopular
 

David Hill wrote:

On 07/11/2013 10:07, CT wrote:

The Sun is Britain's best selling newspaper, by some margin.

'Nuff said.


In that case could it be that we need more of these?

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/f...ps47995488.jpg

Oh, what a lovely pair!

--
Chris

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 David in Normandy wrote:

On 07/11/2013 10:47, David Rance wrote:

Ok, so we have a URG web site. Why don't we use it? Not much has changed
for years apart from keeping some of the FAQs up-to-date. In fact, it
probably suffers from a lot of the formatting and colour problems that
others have mentioned. It needs a good overhaul. We could keep a blog
going on that. There could be several blogs. Has anyone the vision to
make use of http://www.u-r-g.co.uk ? URG doesn't *have* to stay as a
Usenet group.


URG would be a good base to start from. As it stands the site is
read-only and has no features to support any dialogue.

Quite! It was first designed by Cormaic before such facilities were
available.

I've just looked at Sacha's suggested site and that appears to have
the same limitation too - neither is designed for discussion. The u-r-g
website would need completely redesigning, perhaps with a phpbb forum
being set up on it so people could create threads and hold discussions.

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.

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?!

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

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

At the risk of being unpopular
 

"Sacha" wrote in message
...
I'm concerned for the future of this group which I've enjoyed hugely for
16 years. Some have been here longer than that. But given the number of
those who used to post and who lurk (I know of a few, not many now) the
response to the suggestion that we widen our horizons, look at a blog and
consider looking at others and discussing their content, were - forgive
the pun - seeds on stony ground. I don't know if this is because of
disinterest, complacence or a belief that urg will continue into the mists
of time. It won't. Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

You have a point Sacha. C ouple of NGs that I have posted to have declined
dramatically or gone to the wall. As you say, Facebook has taken over quite
a lot, and although I have jined it I can't say I enjoy uing it.

Nick who posts on this NG must surely have noticed the decline in
correspondence in the Walking NG - it is largely subscribed to by technical
questions about gear. A Fishing NG has just about finished, not having had
a bite for a couple of years. An American NG - at least largely subscribed
to by Americans, has slipped out of sight into Facebook.

I have often said I'm no gardener compared to the contributors to URG, but I
can sometimes offer suggetsions (though not intellectual gardening stuff)
and enjoy receiving advice whenever I need some. The "old hands" are needed
as reference points for us gardening dumbos.


Bill

At the risk of being unpopular
 

In article ,
David Rance wrote:

I said that it was the first *general* means of electronic
communication. By that I mean available/affordable to all. UUCP may well
have predated it but UUCP was not available to all because of the high
cost of getting connected to the Internet, certainly in the UK, until
1992 when Demon first made it affordable here.

UUCP predated the 'Internet' by some years, and relied on nothing
more than a telephone line and someone who was prepared to talk to
you. Cost was not the issue; the public's perception and lack of
nous was. By the time that Fidonet actually became 'general' (1985),
UUCP was quite widespread among the general public. No, I don't have
figures, but it wouldn't surprise me if UUCP didn't have more members
of the general public using it than Fidonet did until about 1990.
There were versions for MS-DOS by 1985. Of course, their users came
from different communities, so each was and is unaware of the other.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with gardening, so I shall stop here.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 23:18:50 +0000, Bob Hobden wrote:

"Jake" wrote (big Snip))

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.

But after many happy years of Usenet, URG is now the only group I
follow. And I too will ask myself the question "Is it worth it?" when
my annual Usenet provider account is due for renewal. The honest
answer is "Probably not."



I've just spent some while looking through that Forum and found it
everything about forums I don't like.

No, if Ngs fold then I'll just do more Sudoku in the evenings and garden
quietly on my own.

I've just looked at it and as far as I can see at first look it isn't a
forum at all.

It seems to be a site with links, plus contributed articles.
There is a section on garden reviews, but I don't spend my time visiting
gardens so that is largely wasted on me.
Others who do will no doubt find it a useful resource.

Certainly I can't find a register/login function.

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

"Mission Statement

thinkinGardens seeks to explo

The contemporary aesthetics of gardens
Gardens as they relate to other arts, and garden makers as they relate to
other artists
The value of gardens to non-gardeners
The importance of gardens to society
The relationships between gardens and contemporary philosophy including
scientific philosophy"

So this is a very specific resource for publishing articles on gardens
with a leaning towards artistic and social comment, as opposed to a wide
ranging discussion on gardening topics(which generally involves topics and
multiple responses).

"Though probably you won't like the layout or something."

Well, this looks like a bit of prejudiced pre-loaded bias - seeming to
suggest that if we don't like it then it will be for some trivial or
unimportant reason.

I don't dislike it, per se.
It just isn't relevant to me.

What I do dislike is people patronising me because I don't agree with how
they think the world should be.

Regards

David

At the risk of being unpopular
 

In article ,
says...

"Sacha" wrote a message ...

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.

Janet

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On 2013-11-07 10:39:36 +0000, David in Normandy said:

On 07/11/2013 10:47, David Rance wrote:

Ok, so we have a URG web site. Why don't we use it? Not much has changed
for years apart from keeping some of the FAQs up-to-date. In fact, it
probably suffers from a lot of the formatting and colour problems that
others have mentioned. It needs a good overhaul. We could keep a blog
going on that. There could be several blogs. Has anyone the vision to
make use of http://www.u-r-g.co.uk ? URG doesn't *have* to stay as a
Usenet group.


URG would be a good base to start from. As it stands the site is
read-only and has no features to support any dialogue. I've just looked
at Sacha's suggested site and that appears to have the same limitation
too - neither is designed for discussion. The u-r-g website would need
completely redesigning, perhaps with a phpbb forum being set up on it
so people could create threads and hold discussions.

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?!

Lol! Do you think they'd welcome us, David?! Your thoughts about the
urg site are good ones and may be a real option, if others agree, or
are interested in participating.
--

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

At the risk of being unpopular
 

In article ,
Janet wrote:
In article ,
says...
"Sacha" wrote a message ...

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 :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On 2013-11-07 09:15:32 +0000, Peter & Jeanne said:

"Sacha" wrote a message ...

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.

Pete

Calm your conspiracy fears; thinkingardens is nothing to do with me. I
know slightly the person who runs it and that is my sole connection,
along with a few replies I've sent there - perhaps 4 or 5. But if urg
is to rely on your infrequent contributions and help in advising
'drop-in' visitors with problems or who need a plant id, it is indeed
moribund.
--

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

At the risk of being unpopular
 

On 2013-11-07 09:32:19 +0000, David Hill said:

On 06/11/2013 23:43, Sacha wrote:
On 2013-11-06 21:14:26 +0000, Jake said:

On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:50:07 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

I'm concerned for the future of this group

Come on Sacha, we know this topic is just a plant to get something moving.

We need to get to the root of the matter.
--

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

At the risk of being unpopular
 

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. But I wasn't actually suggesting replacing
urg with such a site. I was intending to commend gardening blogs to
urglers so as to broaden the base for discussions here. It isn't my
intention to see urg close down in favour of a blog type format - quite
the contrary! I suppose what has struck me rather forcibly is that,
despite most newspapers carrying a weekly gardening column, or the many
blogs available, we so rarely take any of those subjects or themes and
talk about them here. I may be quite alone in this but my own feeling
is that our focus is narrow and repetitive. Having joined urg in 1997,
I am beginning to feel that there are only so many years in which one
can actually enjoy discussions about vegetables not growing, gluts of
plums and attacks of lily beetle, along with why lawn mowers won't
start. All these are certainly subjects for discussion but it is simply
my view that we've got rather stuck in that rut! Thank you for
considering this intelligently and helpfully, David. The matter is
surely worthy of some consideration or discussion, I think.
--

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