Saving the Co-op forum

We have enough members on the committee. This thread is left for its historical value.

Well, it must be that time of year again, because we're starting to get complaints again, and we're seeing more and more apparent abuses in the co-op forum.

I know that the co-op forum is very important to many of you, and I'm willing to do what it takes to make sure that this forum can continue to exist for the benefit of all who use it. Having said that, I'm not willing to allow things to continue on as they have been. We need to make changes in order to thwart those who would skirt the rules (or the spirit of the rules) or who over-do themselves and end up dropping the ball.

So, here is my plan: I want to change the way the co-ops are initiated. I will soon be making some changes to the system so that all incoming threads to the co-op forum are first applied for and approved by a secret committee of members. The committee will be made up of 5 (or so) members who have been active in the co-ops in the past and can be trusted by us admins to filter out the good guys from the bad.

The same rules will continue to apply, and you only get to host a co-op if the committee approves you.

I will setup an application page where a would-be co-op host will fill out the application. Once the group approves it, the threads in the co-op forum are automatically created.

So, I need a group of people who are willing to sit on this committee. The committee will be completely anonymous, and only myself and the other admins will know who sits on this committee. If you are interested, please PRIVATELY dmail me and let me know that you're willing to help with this. We will then select approximately 5 people to sit on the committee.

Please, if you care about the co-ops and you think you have what it takes to approve (or decline) new co-op projects, then dmail me.

I hope to have this change implemented during the coming week.

dave

This message was edited Aug 4, 2009 10:02 AM

Hi Dave,

Just curious, how are you going to be able to pick people without pre-conceived ideas of who is good and who is bad? Or do you want to ? I think if you get people who are experienced with the coops they will not be objective. But, maybe you want those people who already know.

I have never hosted a coop, but participated in a few, had very good experiences and a very bad experience. But I don't think I could be objective towards the one I had the bad one with.

After re-reading your post, it sounds like you want people who have a fairly vast experience with the coops.

I am not applying for the committee, I was just curious. Oh, btw, I did not complain about the bad one. : ) You said it all in "buyer beware".

Jeanette (Jnette)

I think you need people who have preconceived ideas of who's good & bad--in this case being objective would mean being familiar with a potential host's previous record on co-ops and judging them based on that. If someone ran a co-op and it didn't go well, then that definitely should count against them if they're asking to host another one. Most of the time it's nice to give people a second chance, but since it seems like the co-ops are always on the verge of being cancelled, the committee will need to do everything possible to minimize the number of bad co-ops so that everyone can continue to enjoy them.

Dave,
When I first subscribed, I avoided the co-op forum like the plaque but now I am an active participant and have put myself out there trying to be a host. Why did I? To somehow payback and be more than a customer. Besides enjoying the people, the discussion, learning and getting great deals, somehow I felt like I owed something in return. But I am a little fearful because there is only a warning to enter at your own risk. Guidelines, policy, etc would be appreciated. Many thanks.
Rose

ecrane3: those are exactly my thoughts, as well.

I think it might be good to have a rule regarding how many co-0ps a new hostess can run at a time. I know in a recent one that went bad, the hostess was new and had more than one co-op going at the same time and I think that contributed to added stress on her. Maybe having new ones host with a more experienced one (kinda like having a preceptor) and then they could host a small c0-0p first, before taking on a larger co-op alone would help.
~Lenette

I've joined in on a couple of DG co-ops the past few years and was very pleased with them. I agree with ecrane's idea of organizers who are familiar with a host's previous co-op experience and we definitely need folks who can be objective. I sure hope the "kinks" can get ironed out so co-ops can continue to be a part of the DG family of forums, giving us all great opportunities at bargains!

I think I remember in an earlier discussion, someone suggesting feedback for each co-op. I know some folks don't like leaving negative feedback when they feel they've been "burned" in trades/purchases etc. At one time I think someone mentioned a generic feedback/rating system where the username of the person leaving the feedback wouldn't show up, so there could be no retaliation. There are so many different personalities that I can envision the feedback area getting out of hand with back and forth negative comments, like it has on some threads at times, unless it's made so that you can only leave one comment, and cannot post or change it after you hit send.

I hope once the new rules and regulations are set by Admin., and securely in place, the co-op forum can continue without any negativity.

I think Lanette's idea about limiting how many new hosts can run at a time needs expanding to ALL hosts. When you have 50 to 70 people involved in these things and everyone changing the amount of plants, the kinds of plants etc. the stress level is more than a person can handle and keep it straight. That is when you get upset and burned buyers and then the inevitable, complaints.

Just in the little bit I have been in the coops I have seen at least 2 good people burned out to the point that they no longer can participate. That is such a shame.

Maybe there needs to be a limit on buyers and how much they can spend, or how MANY they can buy, depending on the items for sale. Last night I was in one forum where the woman said she actually got burned for $400 in a coop. Maybe there needs to be a limit on how expensive you can go in the product.

I don't know how you could cover all bases, but there will obviously be one you didn't think of.

Jeanette

I hope that you can come up with a good, fun way for these to operate.

I really have no suggestions to add at this point, but I would like to say thank you to Dave and the rest for working to continue the co-op forum. I've been so afraid it was going to be history with the recent problems. I love the co-ops, and so appreciate being able to continue partcipating in them.

So, thank you Dave and all.

I agree there should be a rule about hosting no more than one co-op at a time. No matter how organized you are, it could end up causing a lot of confusion and problems trying to handle two or more at once when there are sometimes many, many participants and multiple products in one co-op. I don't personally know of the problems that have arisen in past co-ops but it makes me wonder if the host was trying to handle more than one? I think a good common sense rule would be to host one, have it completed and then move on to the next. I don't know though, maybe there are folks out there who can quite easily handle more than one business at a time.

There were a lot of good suggestions and guidelines being discussed in the last "save the co-op forum" thread (when the forum was suspended and then re-opened on a trial basis). I'm sure that discussion will be useful to the chosen committee members.

Having a co-host or at least a backup person with access to all ordering and payment information is a good idea for any co-op, I think, because no matter how experienced the host might be, sometimes "life happens."

Dave, thanks for allowing restructuring rather than eliminating the co-ops.

Critter: The idea of a co-host is great! Two heads are better than one and it's always nice to have someone back you up if need be! Great suggestion!

I agree about "one at a time" although perhaps allowances could be made in the case of co-ops with longer time frames... the idea is to avoid having active co-op phases (ordering/discussion, payment, packing/delivery) coincide. If, for example, somebody organized a fall co-op to pre-purchase plants for spring delivery and than wanted to do a winter co-op for seeds, I don't think that would cause problems. That's why a committee is such a good idea, I think... they'll have the discretion to make decisions in cases like that, so common sense and not just rules can prevail.

However, everybody needs to realize that co-ops will still be "buyer beware." The committee's involvement will hopefully increase the likelihood that a given co-op will run smoothly, but there's still no guarantee.

I agree that this is a good idea, Dave. We do have many hosts here that I've seen run multiple (successful) co-ops and I am always amazed at their organizational skills and patience. But I do agree that limiting to only one co-op at a time is very important, there are just too many things that can get in the way and cause a co-op to go south in a hurry and if they are running more than one then the odds of both (or all) going bad are greater.

Dave, one thing that I would like to see happen when you start this, is when the host submits a co-op for approval is that she/he is unable to add more products after it has started. It seems that participants wanting more and the host trying to accommodate everyone's wishes makes the co-op either too large or too overwhelming for the host. The host should submit to the committee what they will be willing to do and not allowed to change it from there. It will keep the host from feeling pressured by participants.

For anybody interested in seeing the ideas that were generated when we discussed solutions and alternative for co-ops last winter, here is the last in a series of threads: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/924255/

Here's a categorized summary of the brainstorming that took place on those threads: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/p.php?pid=5804750 Note that this is not meant to be a list of all rules/changes/suggestions that should actually be implimented, it's just a list of the various ideas that were being tossed around. I hope the committee's list of guidelines is much shorter! LOL

Dave, I think this is a good idea and the use of experienced hosts as hosts and co-hosts will go a long way in limiting the problems. Thank you for working through this.

I am so very pleased that you are allowing the coops to continue even after some of the major issues that have recently occurred.

I like the idea of applying for a coop and then having an approval committee. I have of recent been involved in several coops with Notmartha as the host and Starlight as the vendor, and have never in all my years purchasing from coops been more pleased. These two were able to run several coops consecutively and did so by limiting the variety of plants available to purchase, along with a limited number of plugs available to purchase. They knew when to say stop and were not swayed by others asking them to add more.


As I have stated in the past, my gardens would not have the WOW feature if it were not for the coops.

Regards,
Debbie

We have something like this in place in our Games forum at the booktrading site I am in. There is a games moderator since there are book credits used for deposits when players sign up. Games hosts have to apply to start a new game and be members for a certain length of time. They can only have a certain number of games going at one time and in order to start another you have to have them completed, closed, all books mailed, received, DC is required on all shipments and all deposit credits returned to the depositor.

I'm all for safeguards that will help improve the overall satisfaction of all participants and hosts of the co-ops. This was a particularly difficult season with many factors including health and weather related issues that are definite wild cards that cannot easily be planned for. The backup/secondary host idea seems a smart one. Members have already been teaming up for many with posting/hosting, spreadsheet management and keeping communication going. I know the long time hosts must be getting worn out and wouldn't mind someone else spelling them for a few co-ops a year:)

I agree - limits have to be in place. Cohosts are another great idea. Feedback with coops was an issue. My understanding is only the host can leave feedback... correct me if I'm wrong. If the host has a relationship with the vendor then the feedback can be biased. Feedback from the participants should be allowed for the host and the vendor - this can be anonmously. We need to be able to evaluate the host and the vendor.

One other comment and I will get off my soapbox. I follow the 3 strikes rule but in coops I think it should be 2 strikes and you're out.

As you can read in my post...I'm very straight forward and I hate the little guy to think something is great but in reality he's getting the screws...just because he/she trusted someone. I get wholesale price list and can verify prices....I think that's the biggest SCREWING to DG"ers!

thanks for doing this guide line....maybe if people have to "tell" what price point they will sell at, maybe just maybe it will keep the co-ops honest..
In my day a co-op was people helping people, not doing it as an income!
my 3cents....

Jody

Glad to see a bit more structuring coming into place for the co-ops. I love the co-ops & want them to continue. I definitely agree with a pairing of hosts to run the co-op. If there's an inexperienced person they should be working with someone who knows the ropes & has been successful in their own co-ops. It's only fair to give newer people a chance to help the rest of the folks who always run the co-ops. Create diversity, improve management of the co-op & the idea of the committee is great. We should have some moderation & there should be some limits. JMHO.
Debbie

I agree with Debbie! This should work great!
Thank you so much for taking your time to do this for us.

Susan
=^..^=

One thing I'm wondering about is how this committee will remain "anonymous." Is is possible to set up access for committee members so they can post and Dmail as "co-op admin" the way I've had Dmail from DG "admin" or something? Even so, people have distinct enough styles that after some number of posts or correspondence from a particular committee member, their identity is likely to be an open secret.

Or will this committee not give interactive advice but only discuss among themselves (perhaps in their own limited-access forum) and either approve or disallow particular co-ops?

Maybe some sort of "form letter" approach for the initial approval or vetting process and only if necessary (hopefully not) dmailing the host for whatever reason in their own voice or on behalf of the committee.

Critter,

You may not be aware, or may not remember, but many years ago....I can't even remember how many now!! 6 or so...I created a Garden Angel Committee, which consists of several members who volunteered their time in helping me to select and approve members who wanted a subscription through the Garden Angel Fund. To date, those members are still anonymous, and the committee has done a wonderful job. A great success!

It is very easy for Dave to set up "private" forums that only certain members can see. There is one for the DG admins and the Plant Files admins. There, they (we) take care of issues that only relate to administrating the site. We can also send out emails from "admin" instead of one of us in particular.

The wonders of Dave's programming abilities are vast ;)

Indeed they are! I'm aware of other limited-access forums, since I'm in one. :-)

I figured there would be some way to send "admin" type Dmails and posts, but wasn't sure what it entailed.

I knew about the Garden Angel committee... but there's not a lot of back and forth discussion between committee members and applicants, is there? If the co-op committee has an advisory role, it may be hard to hold onto anonymity.

Do GA committee members change over time? Co-op administration could take a fair amount of time, especially before the process gets simplified and streamlined, and it might be good to pass committee duty around so nobody gets burned out.

I have to have a good laugh, Critter........you just announced that you are on a limited-access forum........so much for secrecy ........smiling........

Trish, how many members do you have in the Garden Angels? Are you saying that the coops would be limited to "members only"? Not open to all members of Dave's Garden? Maybe you lost me.

Just what do the Garden Angels do? How do you get into the "club"? It doesn't sound like something that is what Daves is set up, and meant to be. OR, is it connected to Daves?

I would think it would be set up where there was one spokesperson for the committee, only after there was agreement by this committee on an issue, and it would be under some "name" or whatever that Dave gave it but had no member name on the message. That person would, thru that name, be the only one to have contact with the requester.

Dave, I thought after the last time that it was agreed upon that you were simply going to respond to complaints that it was a "buyer beware" when joining the coops. What happened??

Jeanette

Jeanette,

It's buyer beware, but we still have rules that get broken or skirted around.

Moreover, there are people out there that simply shouldn't host co-ops.

Lastly, we need real guidelines and rules that are enforced by an anonymous committee who can carefully and thoughtfully guide the co-op forum in the right direction.

As for the Garden Angels, they decide who gets free subscriptions to DG, and they discuss each and every applicant thoroughly before making a decision.

Dave

What about the vendors, haven't there been some vendors that proved incapable of getting their orders out in a timely manner and were the sole reason for a co-op failure? Shouldn't they also have to be approved?

Jeanette,

The Garden Angel Committe was set up by me (I'm Dave's wife). Subscribers of Dave's Garden freely gave their money to help sponsor another member in times of need. Accounts were kept to know how much money was available for gift subscriptions. I founded it in 2004. Prior to 2004, when a member requested to have a free supscription to DG, I alone made the decision as to whether DG would give the free subscription. We decided that that arrangement wasn't always very fair (for example, if a member had many run-ins with the admins), so I asked for volunteers to vote. I chose members from different walks of life, and from a variety of different forums. There are 5 members, plus myself. While all of the members have been free to walk away at any time, they have chosen to stay. I have been the "spokesperson" every time, never has one of the committee members had contact with the recipients, or spoken up on the forums. Otherwise, you'd know who they are :) Also, if we had a large turnover in the committee, there would be a much greater chance of gossip and lack to autonomy.

I also want to mention that I have passed the baton to Melody in the last several months, and she now heads up the GAC.

We laid down some ground rules from the beginning- how we were going to base our vote, etc. Members have chosen not to vote a time or two because of personal feelings one way or another, and no gossip ever takes place. I've been very very pleased at how the GAC has voted and behaved over the years. I've never had to step in- although I was more than ready to, especially at the beginning when we didn't know how well it would work. In my opinion (for what it's worth), the whole committee has been VERY MUCH in the spirit of Dave's Garden- helping others out, but not letting people take advantage of the generosity of others.

All of that background info to the GAC, while I'm happy to provide it, really doesn't have much bearing on the current thought of co-ops. Only that we've seen this model work very well in the past. Any committee needs it's own guidelines on how it needs to function.

I'll squash any rumors for Critter- she's on a forum with the other writers that are on DG. They discuss articles that are currently being written so that no overlap takes place. No secrets there :)

trish

muttermutter...rumorsquasher!!...muttermutter...I'd thought up a really good one too...

Seriously. Thanks to all of you. This place is beautifully run and a joy because of it. Lurking and interested and too uninformed for more intelligent comment...Kelly

That is funny, Trish, that you said what Critter does........
I had already figured out that since she contributes so many good articles that it had to do with that one subject (smiling)

I always forget about the Angel fund and don't contribute........maybe we could be reminded every few months to contribute if we can.

I think this is a very good idea and I have been a vendor for 5 or more years. Always had great hostess and this last time a super co hostess as well.

D

Trish, Sorry to be OT, but please do an article or occasionally post something to remind us the Garden Angel needs donations, I did not know it existed and have paid for a subscription for a member that I knew was in need. Maybe list it as an option when renewing your subscription, or make a category for it on the page where we purchase gift subscriptions.

Many people do pay for individual subscription to specific individuals, and that works out great. The Fund was started when people wanted to just contribute, but didn't have anyone in particular in mind.

The Fund is well funded for a good long while, thanks to many individuals who contributed quite a bit a couple of years ago at several round-ups. If/when we ever need to boost funds, we'll be certain to let the membership know!

Great.......thanks, Trish!

I never knew about the Angel fund but glad to help out.

I would like to say that running a coop is very, very time consuming, takes a great deal of effort and often putting your own money up front. I learned the best way for coops to run was having a "team". Patrob is the spreadsheet person who has always been perfect at very detailed spreadsheets. Often Chris_lcf or 4paws would be looking over our shoulder and helping answer questions if they were online when Patricia or I were not. I was the order person, took funds, made payment and boxed and shipped the items. We worked as a team, often dmailing privately about issues that had come up. I think this is the best and really only way to run a good coop. Our coops have received rave reviews and I'm now cooped out. I made sure our items were correct, good condition and in one had everyone get a complete refund from Bloomingbulb for bad phlox. It was always a standard with our team to not let anything slip under the cracks.

I think having approval is the best answer to a long, on going problem with the coop thread. Thank you Terry and Dave for allowing them to continue.
Kathy

Sorry, I have been a member for 4 or 5 years and I have never heard of the fund. How about when you send out the note saying your membership needs renewing that you include a paragraph about it. Sounds like a very good program.

Kathy, you say you are now cooped out. What do you mean? How many have you hosted??

Jeanette

Jeanette,
I think I've hosted tons. I joined in 2003. It took a few years to get started but I've had probably 4 huge caladium coops at least, I've done tall phlox, glads, lilies several times, foxtail lilies, oh too many to think about. I ran 3 back to back one year. Look at my feedback. Patrob is a huge part of my success for keeping a healthy spreadsheet. It would be interesting to see how many I've hosted. I've had to work hard when poor plants were received but the companies always came through and made sure my participants were happy. I've just out grown doing them.