How many members do we have?

[Guest]

I think if we had gone with the suggestion of a self nomination and forum vote as I suggested when this first came up we would have perhaps avoided some of this.

 

That said even if we had gone down that route I don't think though we would have ended up with a different forum rep. Alan f, or Richard were the obvious choices and as Richard was the only one who actually stepped up a vote was not needed.

 

He has my support FWIW, as would have Alan if Richard hadn't stepped up.

[sueb]

I agree with Nb Densie. If I want my views represented I am happy to join an organisation that does that. As stated CWF is more like a newspaper and reporters don't attend. I am not happy with the way the forum is going as I don't want to be put in the position of having to either leave or accept that my views are the same as the forum.

Having said that I have nothing against Richard or his reporting back. It is a shame TT & the rest of the mags won't be represented

[RLWP]

I think if we had gone with the suggestion of a self nomination and forum vote as I suggested when this first came up we would have perhaps avoided some of this.

 

That said even if we had gone down that route I don't think though we would have ended up with a different forum rep. Alan f, or Richard were the obvious choices and as Richard was the only one who actually stepped up a vote was not needed.

 

He has my support FWIW, as would have Alan if Richard hadn't stepped up.

 

I am also uncomfortable at being apparently anointed as the chosen one. I would have preferred a lengthier and more involved process. The reality was things had to be done quickly, and I volunteered

 

Richard

[cotswoldsman]

I agree with Nb Densie. If I want my views represented I am happy to join an organisation that does that. As stated CWF is more like a newspaper and reporters don't attend. I am not happy with the way the forum is going as I don't want to be put in the position of having to either leave or accept that my views are the same as the forum.

Having said that I have nothing against Richard or his reporting back. It is a shame TT & the rest of the mags won't be represented

Journalists were certainly at the last NUF they just do not appear on the attendance list

[DHutch]

I think if we had gone with the suggestion of a self nomination and forum vote as I suggested when this first came up we would have perhaps avoided some of this.

 

That said even if we had gone down that route I don't think though we would have ended up with a different forum rep. Alan f, or Richard were the obvious choices and as Richard was the only one who actually stepped up a vote was not needed.

The intention was very much to go with a 'self nomination and forum vote' as would have been my preferred option, however as you have said in your own post, Richard was the only one who stood forward, in the time scale available or otherwise, and hence a vote was not possible.

 

However while I am working to formalise the process and give more notice for future meetings, Richard is probably the only one you cannot fault for this.

 

Journalists were certainly at the last NUF they just do not appear on the attendance list

Thank you for that information and clarification. As someone who has not been, and like Richard, presumed that the list of attendance was just that, am slightly surprised there is not a mention of there attendance.

 

Daniel

[jelunga]

Hear Hear!

Double here here. RLWP is a good choice. Always trust an engineer.

He will be our eyes and ears and will represent CWDF in the same way as the Boater Representatives on the CRT Council.

Actually, he will do a far better job than all of the (not) boaters reps on Council.

 

Please would the moaners stop moaning. If you do not want him to report back to you then dont read his report!

RLWP - I cannot understand why you didn't get

Robbin Evans' job

[larkshall]

To be honest, I want to have an appropriate level of credibility at the NUF

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/canal-and-river-trust-national-users-forum

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=58929

 

Richard

Richard, what on earth is the NUF, I know what the NFU is, but you have me beat on that one.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

Thank you for that information and clarification. As someone who has not been, and like Richard, presumed that the list of attendance was just that, am slightly surprised there is not a mention of there attendance.

 

Daniel

Though Tom from narrowboatworld never turned up to claim his name badge!!9

[luctor et emergo]

As an aside, I think. That you need to split those statistics in two, distinctly diffent, categories.

 

1) Opinion and influence.

This category needs the actual active members, in absolutes. If you say to a body that you 'represent' 1000 people (members here), than they need to be individual members, who can seen to be participating on the site. Citing the numbers that have only registered, and than never posted, can not be shown to be active members. Somewhat like paying a membership fee. Paying such a fee implies a current involvement. If you wish to use the membership registration of a free website as 'proof' of active membersip, there needs to be a physical manifestation of such members active involvement. I.e. Rugular posting.

For this category, page hits and visit numbers are faily unimportant, because it makes no differnce if those 1000 members that you say to represent, visit once a day, or 100 times a day.

 

Commercial interest

 

For demonstration commercial interrest, and opinion forming/distribution, visitor numbers and page hits are paydirt. Having a large number of registered usersn but only a handfull of daily visits, shows a website with no footfall, and subsequently no commercial or demographic interest or potential. On the other hand, a website with a large visitor number, and an even larger page visit number, indicates to outside parties that there is a large audience present, which can be used commercially, or for gathering and distributing information and opinion.

 

As a quick recap, from the earlier numbers, I would at a quick glance say that we have between 2000 and 3000 active members, and a fairy healthy page hit and visitor numbers.

 

Unfortunately I think that there is one big obstacle when you say that 'you represent 3000' members of this site. They are about as devided on most of the serious subjects as you can get... So if you were to be challenged along the line of 'so which side of the debate do your members support', what do you do??

 

Edit to add my appologies for butting in late, I blame last nights work, and todays daugther responsibilities.

Edited September 1, 2013 by luctor et emergo

[RLWP]

I agree with Nb Densie. If I want my views represented I am happy to join an organisation that does that. As stated CWF is more like a newspaper and reporters don't attend. I am not happy with the way the forum is going as I don't want to be put in the position of having to either leave or accept that my views are the same as the forum.

 

Sue, you are one of the people here that I respect , not because I always agree with you but because you take the time to let people know what you think. I would hate to be part of a forum where it isn't possible to express a contrary viewpoint - I have abandoned several fora because I voiced opinions that didn't match the group norms

 

One of the issues here is that the forum has grown. There are now (possibly) more members of this forum than in the groups invited to the NUF. I have posted this before, these are the attendees at the previous meeting:

 

Association of Pleasure Craft Operators

Association of Waterways Cruising Clubs

BMF Tourism

Boat Museum Society

British Canoe Union

British Horse Society

British Marine Federation

British Rowing

Canal Boat Builders’ Association

Canal World Forum

Commercial Boat Operators Association

Country Land & Business Association

DBA Barge Association

Electric Boat Association

Historic Narrow Boat Owners’ Club

Inland Waterways Association

National Association of Boat Owners

National Bargee Travellers Association

National Community Boat Association

Ramblers’ Association

Residential Boat Owners’ Association

Royal Yachting Association

Steam Boat Association of Great Britain

Sustrans

The Angling Trust

The Boating Association

Wooden Canal Boat Society

Canal Travel

Horse Boating Society

Sport & Recreation Alliance

Canal & River Trust Trustees

Canal & River Trust Chief Executive

Canal & River Trust Operations Director

Canal & River Trust Head of Governance Services

Not all of them are organisations like NABO with members and elected representatives. Some are (possibly) bigger than this forums membership, some are (possibly) smaller. Without knowing what the membership (whatever that means) is, it isn't possible to tell. I would still say we are as representative of waterways users as any of those groups

And, I would be disgusted if you felt you had to leave or tow a party line. I would leave too if the forum went that way

Richard

[DHutch]

Always trust an engineer.

I'm biased, but yes. Not that this had anything to do with choosing Richard, I might add!

[RLWP]

Richard, what on earth is the NUF, I know what the NFU is, but you have me beat on that one.

 

National Users Forum

 

Nuff said

 

Richard

As an aside, I think. That you need to split those statistics in two, distinctly diffent, categories.

 

1) Opinion and influence.

This category needs the actual active members, in absolutes. If you say to a body that you 'represent' 1000 people (members here), than they need to be individual members, who can seen to be participating on the site. Citing the numbers that have only registered, and than never posted, can not be shown to be active members. Somewhat like paying a membership fee. Paying such a fee implies a current involvement. If you wish to use the membership registration of a free website as 'proof' of active membersip, there needs to be a physical manifestation of such members active involvement. I.e. Rugular posting.

For this category, page hits and visit numbers are faily unimportant, because it makes no differnce if those 1000 members that you say to represent, visit once a day, or 100 times a day.

 

Commercial interest

 

For demonstration commercial interrest, and opinion forming/distribution, visitor numbers and page hits are paydirt. Having a large number of registered usersn but only a handfull of daily visits, shows a website with no footfall, and subsequently no commercial or demographic interest or potential. On the other hand, a website with a large visitor number, and an even larger page visit number, indicates to outside parties that there is a large audience present, which can be used commercially, or for gathering and distributing information and opinion.

 

As a quick recap, from the earlier numbers, I would at a quick glance say that we have between 2000 and 3000 active members, and a fairy healthy page hit and visitor numbers.

 

Unfortunately I think that there is one big obstacle when you say that 'you represent 3000' members of this site. They are about as devided on most of the serious subjects as you can get... So if you were to be challenged along the line of 'so which side of the debate do your members support', what do you do??

 

Edit to add my appologies for butting in late, I blame last nights work, and todays daugther responsibilities.

 

Good stuff!

 

This category needs the actual active members, in absolutes. If you say to a body that you 'represent' 1000 people (members here), than they need to be individual members, who can seen to be participating on the site. - So, IWA only represents members who turn up to meetings? When I was a member I never did, and I'll bet they claimed to represent me. In fact, I would have said that they did.

 

For demonstration commercial interest, and opinion forming/distribution, visitor numbers and page hits are paydirt. - This is absolutely true, and in many instances this would make us a very significant voice about waterways issues. On the other hand, it makes us totally different to any other and therefore hard to understand. 'We have 10,000 members', 'well, we have 12 million hits a month' is confusing if nothing else. Comparing apples and oranges is tricky*

 

Richard

 

*I like chocolate

Edited September 1, 2013 by RLWP

[DHutch]

As an aside, I think. That you need to split those statistics in two, distinctly different, categories.

- Opinion and influence.

- Commercial interest

If you say to a body that you 'represent' 1000 people (members here), than they need to be individual members, who can seen to be participating on the site. Citing the numbers that have only registered, and than never posted, can not be shown to be active members. Somewhat like paying a membership fee. Paying such a fee implies a current involvement. If you wish to use the membership registration of a free website as 'proof' of active membership, there needs to be a physical manifestation of such members active involvement. I.e. Regular posting.

For this category, page hits and visit numbers are fairly unimportant, because it makes no difference if those 1000 members that you say to represent, visit once a day, or 100 times a day.

For demonstration commercial interest, and opinion forming/distribution, visitor numbers and page hits are paydirt. Having a large number of registered users but only a handful of daily visits, shows a website with no footfall, and subsequently no commercial or demographic interest or potential. On the other hand, a website with a large visitor number, and an even larger page visit number, indicates to outside parties that there is a large audience present, which can be used commercially, or for gathering and distributing information and opinion.

Interesting take on it and I think some very valid points, although I still slightly question how 'active' some paying members of the other presented groups are.

 

I also fully agree that when you say you 'Represent CWDF' that means, you are a representative from, and reporting to, the members of the forum. Rather than being someone who is aiming or able to present the collated thoughts of the members and put them forward for consideration. Certainly not if, as is the case here, the members have not been approached for there considerations, on a topic or in general, from which a summary or view can be collated.

 

Finally no need at all to apologise for being 'late' which I wouldn't really say you where.

 

Daniel

[RLWP]

'Represent CWDF' that means, you are a representative from, and reporting to, the members of the forum.

 

I am very comfortable with all of that. What I am trying to do is come up with something to explain what 'the forum' is in a way in which it's significance (or lack of) can be understood

 

Richard

[DHutch]

What I am trying to do is come up with something to explain what 'the forum' is in a way in which it's significance (or lack of) can be understood.

And I am very supportive of you doing that.

 

In fact, consider the fact that you have not only put your name forward, but are taking the time to do so, to consider and consult the members while doing so, and generally are taking the meeting seriously, is very much to your personal credit.

 

Daniel

[luctor et emergo]

 

National Users Forum

 

Nuff said

 

Richard

 

 

Good stuff!

 

This category needs the actual active members, in absolutes. If you say to a body that you 'represent' 1000 people (members here), than they need to be individual members, who can seen to be participating on the site. - So, IWA only represents members who turn up to meetings? When I was a member I never did, and I'll bet they claimed to represent me. In fact, I would have said that they did.

 

For demonstration commercial interest, and opinion forming/distribution, visitor numbers and page hits are paydirt. - This is absolutely true, and in many instances this would make us a very significant voice about waterways issues. .. Snip..

Ahh, you did not participate, but I presume you paid a membership fee? They will use that as an indication of you wanting to be a member, even if not active.

 

And as for 'us' being a significant voice, I think that this website has some serious possibile ways to go. But they would involve serious, and commited, involvement, and some major changes, and as such I will leave any of such ideas to Dan to suggest and action.

 

On-line is the future.

[RLWP]

Ahh, you did not participate, but I presume you paid a membership fee? They will use that as an indication of you wanting to be a member, even if not active.

 

And as for 'us' being a significant voice, I think that this website has some serious possibile ways to go. But they would involve serious, and commited, involvement, and some major changes, and as such I will leave any of such ideas to Dan to suggest and action.

 

On-line is the future.

 

Yes, that would be enough for the IWA count count me as represented - and with my permission at the time

 

As for the second bit, I'm not sure you are right. This forum is already performing and providing a lot of things to it's members, like support, advice, friendship, somewhere to have a rant, sympathy, banters and so on. Maybe trying to make it a more conventional 'political' movement would be a mistake and continuing to be what we are, only more so is the future

 

And you have been missing from the unStable Bar for too long

 

Richard

[luctor et emergo]

I was not trying to make it a more 'political' movement. I think that this site has as yet untapped potential.

I know it is a 'discussion forum', and that obviously is it's strenght, and should never be lost. But, think outside the box for a moment. Would there be space for a little more involvment, a little steering of the sub-categories? Say the engineering forum, rather than a random posting of random questions, could be a one stop source for people looking to share thoughts, knowledge, ideas, and.. Opinions.

And I know what you think. It already is. It is to us, but not yet to everybody else outthere.

[RLWP]

I was not trying to make it a more 'political' movement. I think that this site has as yet untapped potential.

I know it is a 'discussion forum', and that obviously is it's strenght, and should never be lost. But, think outside the box for a moment. Would there be space for a little more involvment, a little steering of the sub-categories? Say the engineering forum, rather than a random posting of random questions, could be a one stop source for people looking to share thoughts, knowledge, ideas, and.. Opinions.

And I know what you think. It already is. It is to us, but not yet to everybody else outthere.

 

The short answer is yes - probably

 

Compared to forums like Ravelry, this is a very simple forum. Ravelry is divided into sections with their own interests and moderation. Some sections flourish and some collapse based on the members who participate, Ravelry as a who continues

 

It is also possible to lead a thread or discussion if you want - I did so recently

 

Richard

 

It is still your round in the unStable Bar. There's cake!

[Guest User]

I'm all for Richard attending on behalf of CWDF. Maybe I'm wrong but I see the role as representing (and reporting back to) the forum, not the forum members. So, as well as trying to define the number of active members (not sure if I qualify), it might also be worth reminding anyone at the NUF that asks, that CWDF is open to anyone to view, and free to register. It is very much the public forum for UK inland waterway boating. It is certainly the place where all manner of topical boating issues get a very good airing, warts and all. So if anyone wants a good slice of, say, opinion on CRT's policies then come look at CWDF.

[RLWP]

I'm all for Richard attending on behalf of CWDF. Maybe I'm wrong but I see the role as representing (and reporting back to) the forum, not the forum members. So, as well as trying to define the number of active members (not sure if I qualify), it might also be worth reminding anyone at the NUF that asks, that CWDF is open to anyone to view, and free to register. It is very much the public forum for UK inland waterway boating. It is certainly the place where all manner of topical boating issues get a very good airing, warts and all. So if anyone wants a good slice of, say, opinion on CRT's policies then come look at CWDF.

 

That's very useful - thank you. I like to think that CWDF is becoming essential reading for CRT senior staff

 

You'll be a wonderful daffodil

 

Richard

[luctor et emergo]

Cake? What cake?

 

Let's be fair unkle Richard, by the time I get to the bar, the cake will have been scoffed.. (They know who they are..)

 

The short answer is yes - probably

 

Compared to forums like Ravelry, this is a very simple forum. Ravelry is divided into sections with their own interests and moderation. Some sections flourish and some collapse based on the members who participate, Ravelry as a who continues

 

It is also possible to lead a thread or discussion if you want - I did so recently

 

Richard

 

It is still your round in the unStable Bar. There's cake!

Ok, seriously, yes, anybody can run a thread, but it will still just be a random thread, in random cyber space. If a respected engineer hosts an engineering forum, with the power to weed out the occassional b++loc+ks, it will become know as the place to go, rather than a random occassional hit.

[Québec]

Having ploughed through the thread, here's my ha'penny worth...not enough to purchase any cake!

 

Richard can represent CWDF, but he can't 'represent' the 'membership'. I represent my organisation at all sorts of meetings, but I cannot claim to represent the many thousands of clients/customers/users who use and benefit from the various services we offer. However, I can and do say that based on the figures and feedback we get, it is definite/likely/possible that.....etc. etc.

 

I realise it's probably just semantics, but 'members' isn't helpful. I would have thought 'users' is more accurate. There is a registered user base of x '000, of whom y'000 could be regarded as active users (based on whatever formula seems reasonable). Those active users represent (and that IS true is this context) a wide and vibrant constituency of individuals who use and care about canals and rivers and particularly, all aspects of boating on those canals and rivers.

[RLWP]

Yes, that's very useful. Clearly the users of this site are different to the members of a formal group. And many people do use the site for a multitude of reasons

 

It makes it easier to come up with some figures too as they can be read from the database

 

It also explains how it is impossible to 'represent' such a diverse group, yet allows me to point out subjects that are currently causing a lot of interest on the forum (I'm not talking toilet systems)

 

Richard

[Ange]

I think if we had gone with the suggestion of a self nomination and forum vote as I suggested when this first came up we would have perhaps avoided some of this.

 

I don't think so - that wasn't a practical suggestion given the time constraints, and I strongly suspect that the dissenters would probably have missed the thread anyway. Some of us (and I include myself) spend an awful lot of time keeping up with issues on the forum, many others dip in and out. The thread title may not necessarily catch their interest - something that can be a bit of a Catch 22 - I don't know what the NUF is so won't read the thread.

 

There will always be people that aren't happy and voice their unhappiness whatever process you go through, which is great because everyone should have a voice. We just have to balance that with the vast majority (myself included) who agree that Richard is the right choice.