co-op forum thought and question

In my opinion, the biggest problem with running co-ops is the lack of following instructions. I agree the forum is a mess. I try to post the same way with each co-op. ORDER thread in caps for the heading, not all words, just high points. The first post I try to make all instructions clear, this is an order thread only. I state clearly - check the first post of this thread first for updates which will be noted by ****** or some other symbol because I won't be posting instructions or updates all along the thread. Then I put a link to the CHAT only thread after I create it - immediately after starting the ORDER thread. Then another link for PAYMENT/SHIPMENT only.

If members would do one thing - read the first post each day and look for updates (I try to include the date I post the update) before hitting the end button or page down button to get to the bottom, it would help everyone.

I do not like chat on the order thread. One post per person and if you change it make a symbol to note the new add or delete. If you do that 4 times that is better than the host looking up and down the thread to view changes - I don't have time for that either. I think ORDER threads should be closed immediately after the last orders are taken. Then in the payment and shipping thread you would view your order, amount due, shipping details, dates, etc. If the order is wrong the participant should notify the host by dmail. But close the order thread and go to the next step - payment, shipping, confirming orders.

I don't know how to keep the forum clean. Several good ideas are suggested. The difference is who you are - if you are the host you have different needs than participants. You have to see it in 2 ways and tabs or colors could define that part. If the Host had command of deleting posts of those who post clutter on the order thread that would help. My biggest problem as I've stated, and Bill (caladium) agrees with me since we have discussed this often - no one reads and follows instructions.

I was sent here by Brigitte so I only skimmed over the conversation before posting so I'm sure I've not given enough thought to the issue at hand - cleaning up the forum. But I do know what problems I have with instructions followers. 4paws runs a tight ship and I have learned so much from her but I still make mistakes and learn from each one. I hope Dave can jump in and tell us what he can do or can not do to clean up the look and ease of use.

Kathy



This message was edited Mar 15, 2008 8:36 AM

I'd prefer to let admin continue to keep it's distance from the co-op forum until we can figure it out ourselves, then see what we want to ask for.

glad you're here, Kathy. You're a major co-op mover and shaker! :-)

We might want their input sooner rather than later, just so we know which options are feasible.

We don't know if different color threads are do-able.

We don't know if admin would be willing to take on the stickying and un-stickying of open order threads by host request.

We don't know if they'd be willing to create a second (preferably linked) co-op forum, because they'd probably get stuck with the added burden of moving threads from one forum to the other -- you know threads are going to get posted to the wrong forum, especially at first, until everybody gets used to the new format.

I agree Critter that they would probably be posted in the wrong place at first. But if Dave were to program it to where you had to 'mark a box' like

Order Thread (check here)
Chat Thread (check here)
Shipping Thread (check here)

& so on....

Then that check mark could direct the thread to the proper forum......

I'm not fond of the sticky idea, sorry. It seems having admin do that would consitute admin approval in some way, and it's maintained a clear separation from the co-op business. My intent was to suggest to not bother them until we had more of a consensus of ideas and thoughts by those concerned and the small group on this thread isn't representative of the co-op community yet, that's all. I'm sure someone in admin is keeping abreast of the thread, that's why it's in this forum, eh? :-)

Good idea, Brinda - it would be self correcting.

I'd rather see a different color for order threads than see them "stickied" -- but the sticky option might be worth considering if the new forum (especially with checkboxes to direct posts) or the color idea aren't feasible as far as admin is concerned. Sticky threads we know can be done with the existing system.

I'm not sure if the different colors is possible or not...since the thread titles are hyperlinks, their color is controlled by your browser, and I'm not sure if that's something that's easy (or even possible) to override.

I wonder if it's possible to have each co-op's various threads grouped together in a row, so they stay together. Kind of like Mellissa Ohio's list above, but not mixed up:

grass co op/chat
grass co op more chat
grass co op shipping
trees co op chat
trees co op more chat
trees co op orders
whackyhat co op
whacky hat co op chat
whacky hat co op payment thread

Clay, that's probably more of a programming trick than different colors would be.

We do get different colors for some of the threads on our watched lists and some people's names on posts -- I haven't exactly figured out the algorithm for that, LOL -- so I know different colors are possible. I just don't know how tricky it would be to flag threads with a different color (either by doing a checkbox or by searching for the words "OPEN" and "ORDER" in the subject field).

The reason you see different colors is because some links you've clicked on and some you haven't (or you clicked on them a long time ago and your computer has forgotten about it) On my computer, links I haven't visited recently show up in blue and links I have visited show up green, but that may vary depending on browser settings or which browser you're using. That's why I suspect it might be tricky for Dave to make certain things certain colors because he's going to have to override the colors that the browser wants to make things. But I know nothing about programming websites, so it might be really easy too.

well wouldnt the easiest way be to have 2 forums one for orders only and one one for EVERYTHING ELSE~!~

YOU can link the everything else stuff to your orders only forum!

Ah. I thought the blue and green links were a DG thing. I guess I just don't pay much attention to those colors... LOL

Dori, short of having to program a checkbox to choose which forum to post a new thread in, how easy do you think it's going to be to get everybody using a 2-forum system? People tend to resist change, even when it's good change. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that if there's a way to make a single forum work better that might be the way to go.

I think I've seen 2 ideas above that seem like they'd help a 2-forum system to work smoothly:

1. Set it up as a 2-in-one forum. New threads have a checkbox where you choose which forum they should be posted in.

2. Put a link at the top of the "co-op business" forum to the "co-op chat" forum, and vice versa. There are links to the trading primer at the top of the trading forums, so this may be do-able.

I'm not sure we're going to see anything implemented for a while, though, as admin seems pretty busy these days.

In the meantime, do you think it would help to have a "sticky" at the top of the forum with some general guidelines to unify how we do forum subject lines? Or even to have a couple of successful hosts post tips on organizing threads etc. for a successful co-op? Maybe we could start a "co-op organization tips" thread and then ask admin to "sticky" it. ?

There have been several threads giving tips. Perhaps someone could consolidate the information.

I think we've had a co op tips thread before--they're useful if someone wants to host a co op, but I don't think they are going to help in this situation.

It really is as simple as dori put it, two separate forums, if they can be one link and tabbed once you hit the link, great, if not, then I think two separate forums is the simplest thing to do.

I think we're making this more difficult than it has to be.

I do too. Right now we have a setting for "See only open/solved threads." Why not a few more of those? If every thread had to begin with QUERY, or CHAT, or ORDER or whatever, we could see only what we wanted to see.

It won't stop people from chatting on the order thread; I agree the host must enforce that, but since we can link among them all, it might make threads getting lost a little less frequent.

me, three.

I have a brainstorm for content, once we get through format. Needs tweaking, expanding...

What if there were one sticky with links to thread that hosts with experience and systems to write their rules and procedures and where others can ask them questions? Hosts could use that discussion to tighten up their systems format, making it clean, clear, and easy to follow or duplicate by other hosts. It would also result in hosts' rules in one place, so when opening a new co-op, it would be easy to link to that thread plus cut and paste all the information into the new co-op thread.

At one time I thought it would be good to have a form to fill out regarding the basic co-op information.

There's a thought... if that could be "see only open ORDER threads," there would be no need for a second forum, right? Because that would essentially create a forum-within-a-forum.

Enforcing no-chat rules and providing links to necessary business threads for payment and shipping information is still up to the host, as has been said.

I think a sticky with links to threads or with posts from experience hosts would be really useful. It would give both new hosts and new participants a good idea of what to expect and how to proceed.

I agree that putting key words in the title is essential.

Key words might be able to be easily built in to starting a post in the forum in the first place.
Which exactly?
QUERY (which closes immediately upon opening of the order thread, may need more than one, perhaps QUERY INTEREST, QUERY VENDOR, because both of those activities is essential and time consuming. Not all coops need both.)
ORDER (where all updates and links to other relevant threads are provided in the first post)
CHAT (close one when a new one opens)
PAYMENT
SHIPMENT
SHARING (for photos of the plants and gardens; this could be an excellent resource in itself to which GW might be linked)

I think those folks (hosts included) who want to talk extensively about the culture/use of a certain plant or product could be encouraged to start a thread in the relevant forum.

Thinking ahead:
Critter, I imagine you are keeping good notes of all this, so somewhere in the discussion, can you remind me to bring up the feedback system for GW for co-op vendors. I discovered, when I left feedback to bleek and eflowergarden, that I can only add on to my previous comment, thus not helping his rating at all. Meanwhile, 70+ gardening friends are thrilled to pieces with their recent deliveries, and eflowergarden is out of the top 30 because only I can leave feedback for the co-op. Not very fair.

This message was edited Mar 16, 2008 12:29 PM

Could SHARING be in with CHAT rather than separate? Sharing in and of itself will invite chit-chat, won't it?

I think also a SHIPPING/PAYMENT category. If so, separate or together?

You're right McGlory, I fixed it.
opps...the lovely lovely weather outside and all my fabulous spring flowers and happy worms and luscious dirt distracted me....

I like chit chat-but not on the business threads. It's like showing off new clothes or something, showing the blooms and gardens that result from the co-ops and the work.

4 paws said: " I discovered, when I left feedback to bleek and eflowergarden, that I can only add on to my previous comment, thus not helping his rating at all. Meanwhile, 70+ gardening friends are thrilled to pieces with their recent deliveries, and eflowergarden is out of the top 30 because only I can leave feedback for the co-op. Not very fair.

I believe you can designate someone who participated in the co op to leave feedback for Bleek. That would give him that extra feedback. I don't think that it's a set rule that the host has to be the one to leave feedback, just that only one feedback can be left per co op.

I'm not quite getting your vision of how the "sharing" threads would be linked to GW -- just not sure what you're proposing. I do think there should be some happy medium between only the host being allowed to leave GW feedback after a co-op (which, as you said, sometimes amounts to no additional feedback being left) and every member leaving feedback (which could result in an unfair bad rating in a co-op with double shipping, for example, where plants arrived in poor shape through no fault of the vendor's but just because of the time & distances involved). But that's an issue for another thread, I think. :-)

I like 4Paws idea of the coop organizer filling out a basic form regarding the coop information. The consistency of the form from one coop to another would be great. I don't often comment, but do participate in most all the coops and really get distracted when chat is intermixed with the order coop.

To me consistency of doing the same thing (as much as can be) for each coop is the key.

The sharing aspect was when plants bloomed and people showed photos. It often happens on the order thread, which is ok, too. It would only be of people in the co-op talking about the performance of the product and showing photos.

I understand what you meant by a "sharing" thread, but I didn't know how you thought the thread could/should be linked to the GW review for the vendor. ?

A "form" for co-ops would be great. having the same format for each co-op as Deb says would keep everyone in the groove. Like ebay, when you list items there you have a format that you click each box. Examples: Paypal accepted ____ Money Order Required____ Shipping cost ___ Shipping date from vendor to host ____

Another important issue is when participants place orders they need to place them in the same order as the Host has listed them. More than likely the Host has a spreadsheet with the items in alpha order and if the participant makes their list that way it's so much easier to add to the spreadsheet. Otherwise you're going back and forth trying to get the order right.

I haven't read the entire thread so sorry if I've mentioned something that has been said. As with all threads, it's had to read all comments and skimming for important info or things that stand out is what I normally do on any thread.

A simple format would be great and it would be something that hosts who have done more than ____ would put together for a draft and then share with the co-op forum for suggestions.

Something that is hard for me when I go looking for shipping dates of co-ops I'm buying from is having the threads all over the forum. I think if I opened a ORDER thread, PAYMENT/Shipping thread, and CHAT thread they should be all together regardless if the order thread is closed. After plants arrive and the shipping, ordering and chat is over, and each closed then it would fall back. If someone wanted to share lily co-op pictures that could be posted under the bulb forum months later when they bloom. I went looking for what I ordered from a co-op today. The payment thread was on top but the order thread which was closed was 2 pages back. I would like all the info to be together by link or something.

Kathy

Critter, if people posted results from the co-op all in one thread, it could reflect on the vendor and product line-and maybe whether or not to keep buying; things like true to name, viablility. Perhaps in GW, there could be a category for Co-op vendor and the score for that with stats like #participants/bulbs, plants, products/changes, shortages, etc.

It would be good to keep the business threads moving together. It is a drag trying to find order threads when shipping is two months after the order.

Oh, I see... how good a vendor is to work with for a co-op might be quite different from the usual customer rating. I'm at a loss about how to work that into the existing GW structure, but I'm sure somebody will have a good approach... :-)

that's why I thought I'd mention it. Great minds around here.

Can't people participating in a co-op go to GW on their own and enter information about the vendor's plants like they would any other plant purchase? This would be very different from the host's goal in dealing with a vendor during a co-op and shouldn't be in the same thread. After all if I buy something from a vendor I'm not barred from writing about them on GW just because others have already done so. So the host can do a GW report on a vendor saying "X was real easy to deal with and open to doing XYZ for our co-op. The plants arrived looking great though I thought they were a little on the small side". At the same time participants 1-15 (whatever # who choose to) can go to GW and separately enter I just got plants from vendor X and I thought they were great, lousy, so so and whatever else they think about them (though they should state they got the plants via a co-op and whether the plants were shipped directly to them or via a host).

MollyD

I believe there is some sort of mandate about only the host posting...have to find it-back to the work week today.

Yes but only in regards to the co-op. I don't think there is any reason that anyone who bought plants can't post what they thought about the plants in a different thread.

MollyD

But if there was a problem with the host getting the plants to you, it wouldn't be the vendor's fault. If you don't have an honest host, you wouldn't know whose fault it was. I think that's why the rule that only a host can post about a co-op was set in place.

The GWD has specific guidelines that are displayed whenever you are leaving feedback:

The fourth guideline is the one that limits feedback for a group purchase.

That rule exists to be fair and consistent for all vendors who deal with groups.:

If something goes awry, the vendor is only going to take one "hit" for their mistake, which is fair, because it was a single purchase.

By the same token, if all goes well, they should only get one "atta-boy" because it was still one purchase that was (in turn) redistributed to a group of participants.

Co-ops that are sent directly from vendor to participants probably shouldn't be run as co-ops because they really aren't a co-op. These are really more like a "discount" offered to DG members, and vendors can always use the Classified Ads to offer a discount or "special" to our members. As a bonus, that means vendors can receive GWD feedback from each person who takes advantage of that discount and orders from them.

I don't know what the answer is for the chit-chat stuff in the forum. We can only do so much programming-wise to influence human behavior ;o)

Thanks Terry. I thought I understood rule 4 correctly. ;)

http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/p.php?pid=4671173

As for the chit chat stuff, I really believe it goes back to the beginning, and What Dori asked for in the first place, just split off another forum to be used for ORDERS only. At first admin may have to come in and delete some threads that get started accidentally, but I think eventually they'd all get it.

yes that would be the easiest

Thanks, Terry, that makes sense.

Some co-ops have shipping from vendor to participant, but the co-op host does all the work of organizing the order (often with minimums or lot numbers that need to be met) and collecting the payments. That sort of help makes it possible for vendors to offer discounts to co-op participants. So those sort of fall into the middle ground, I suppose.

Terry, would it be possible to program the option at the top so that only open order threads were displayed? That seems like the simplest way to create a sort of forum-within-the-forum. I think having open order threads easier to find was part of the intent in making it possible to display only open threads, but all of the chat and other business threads still make it pretty cluttered.