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

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.

"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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

"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

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

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