Fixing the co-op forum

Terry-
If we moved co-ops to a commercial platform, would we be able to use a forum - similar to what I suggested on the alternatives thread? We're a chatty group, and the co-ops certainly engender a lot of posts. I really like the new format of interest, chat, order, shipping. Would we be able to retain that?
Surprisingly, some vendors won't pay the $5 - but that could be spread in the cost of buy.
The complaints are still an issue.

Sad to say, but I'm sure there are still going to be people complaining no matter what we do or what the rules are. I think Stormy may have hit the nail on the head. Peer pressure may be the only way to stop it. If 99% of the participants on a coop stay firm regarding the rules, the 1% who don't and try to cause problems, will soon feel the chill and go somewhere else. Hopefully.

Can a person block a specific other person from d-mailing them?

example: If someone starts to get abusive in a d-mail to me, can I block or "blacklist" that specific person from d-mailing me anymore?

New thought: On 1 of my other sites, I know if people break the rules of chatting...ie...cursing, abusive language, talking politics, etc...then they will "lose their chat" for 10 days. Sometimes longer.

I also think blocking the rule breaker from the coops for a particular time period is a good idea

Terry, can you explain exactly why pre-approval of co-ops did not work?

I've participated in several co-ops, but only one with live plants (few people plant what I do!). They've all been great and I've never seen any nasty comments, so I guess I've been lucky.

However, I really did take my chances, as all but one were run by DGers of whom I had no knowledge. Looking up feedback on their member pages was about all I could do beforehand.

I agree rules and guidelines should be short and to the point. These seem to me to be positive and not difficult:

An opt-in button or DMail agreeing to terms.
A host rating system based on previous successful co-ops, preferably stars under their name.
Minimum membership length to discourage phony sign-ups for vendors (past hosts grandfathered).
Mentors.
Spreadsheets.
Rotating committee with a restricted forum (though I see this is being questioned).
A list of participants who have been troublemakers in the past (to go to the committee).

What I haven't seen or my blurry eyes missed:

A warning system - three strikes and you're out - for hosts and participants.

Nice to see everyone working on a solution!






This message was edited Nov 10, 2008 10:40 AM

Yes, it's technically possible. I'm not sure of its feasibility.



No, and I really don't see Dave being willing to entertain this one. Your DG neighbors are a bit like your real neighbors. While it would be nice to selectively block some of them from our lives, we can't--they live right next door or across the street. It's best to learn how to get along with them, to the extent possible.

If someone sends you a less-than-polite dmail, drop it in your deleted folder and move on--if you don't respond, you don't give them the satisfaction of knowing they got your goat. If they repeatedly harass you with unprovoked, unsolicited messages, please let us know and we will investigate; virtual stalking isn't allowed here, any more than in real life.



People lied--that's the long and short of it. In one notable episode, a member put down the name of the nursery she was buying from. It was in her hometown, but it appeared to be a legitimate business, and there were no clues that she had any relationship to it, other than she knew the owner well enough to negotiate a deal.

After she absconded with a lot of money, we figured out that she was the nursery owner. She had falsified her real name, misrepresented her relationship with the nursery, but the information she provided to us passed the "sniff test".

That may seem a bizarre and extreme example, but you'd be amazed at what greed can do to motivate some folks. (And believe it or not, I'm generally an optimistic, "glass is half-full" kinda girl ;o)

Terry, thank you for the well thought, informative and positive post. I find all of your comments regarding committee members to be right on.

Confidentiality is a key component in the management of good organizations. We don't all have a need to know everything.

All members, vendors and DG must respect the rules. If a coop is not a win for the members, DG and the vendors, then it is not a successful coop.

I do not want to see coops pushed out to another venue. Good coops will help DG grow the paid membership and attract more advertisers.

Thank you Starlight and other members for all of your great info and efforts.

Though Terry has now made some of the issues much clearer, I am just not sure any of us have any true idea of the magnitude of problems that could and probably will be encountered by a committee.

Or there any other options to be considered besides a committee?

Terry makes a very good point - issues need to be dealt with quickly before they blow up; which to me supports 5 members as committee because at any one time, 3 would be more likely to be available to immediately address a situation. Number on the committee isn't as important as other aspects, however. :-)

If a $5 ad is all it takes to legitimize a co-op vendor, how much easier could it be? It's part of "overhead" costs, like the packing tape, etc.)

All the threads as they work now are great, imho (dbsmith explained perfectly why).

I don't like the idea of mandatory Paypal. I know plenty of folks who don't even have bank accounts, their income is so minimal, and do all their business with money orders. We may have hosts in the same position. As a host, I would not take paypal because of the fees, which were not simply computed. Requiring Paypal could inadvertantly restrict participants based on economic class. This would not be good community building, imho.

I've been following along and sitting on my hands, because I can't think of a solution, and I don't have any constructive ideas that might lead to that end.

I would, however, like to see more discussion of possible solutions that don't involve a committee.

Have those of you that offered to be on the committee really sat back and thought objectively about what kind of position that you would be putting yourselves in? Most times, it wouldn't be a comfortable place to be. I'm not saying that I'm totally against it, but I would suggest that before you get too excited about that path, please give it some deep thought. Think about how you feel and react when there's controversy and turmoil within your own family, or amongst your co-workers, and they look to you to fix it, and they all want it fixed THEIR way.

Just a thought...

I'm not real sure here, but it sounded like Terry was asking us to try to think of alternatives to the Committee plan.

Perhaps, just requiring co hosts, and a monitor to keep things civil would be enough...

Perhaps, having "members" being the bad guys isn't such a good idea, after all.

Sorry, Joan... cross post.

Personally,
I would still prefer to see a vendor sponsored/run co-op than a dg/host/hostess/committee run one. I think the orders would run smoother, plants would arrive quicker and if there are problems/complaints, they could be handled directly between the member and the vendor without getting other members/admin involved. The vendor would have to provide good service if they want to remain in good standing in the Watchdog. I would want to limited vendors to those in Watchdog with good standing of at least 1 yr. I don't think any honorable vendor would object to spending the $5.00 or whatever fee Dave sets in exchange for gain many new customers.
JMO.

There have been many solutions to different coop issues offered here that don't involve a committee. It seems that there have been 2 or 3 solutions offered for each issue raised.

Because someone also spoke of a committee on the same post, do not discount the various issue solutions offered within that post.

There is not one magic answer. Each issue needs to be addressed to improve the coops.

It appears that the biggest issue that needs solving where the administration is looking for an alternate solution is the handling of grievances.

Three solutions have been offered.

One is to ignore them.

Second is to respond with an email reminding them that coops are entered on a buyer beware basis.

The third solution offered was the formation of a member group to arbitrate the grievences.

With rotating volunteer staffing many people would be able to successfully serve on some sort of dispute resolution panel and be resiliant enough to still enjoy their DG experience.

Been thinking again, ya I know, there notmuch upthere, but I try.

I suggested at the begining on one of these posts that if a buyer or a host whoever the offender of not being cordial and polite be given a certain length of time-out from buyign or sellign on the coops, but not have it affect the other forums unless they start doign it in dmails or on other threads.

If folks see a co-op going bad with somebody, the first person to se it says stop. Folks on the coop could dmail Dave or Terry a dmail with the title WE HAVE A STOP ON THIS COOP . Kind alike a code. That way Admid coudl see right off there is a problem on one of the coops with somebody messign breakign the rules. Then there would be no need for a committe e cuz even if Dave got 40 dmails or a ,1000 , if he saw they were intiled with those words. He coudl only open one , delete the rest and remind that person of the accept agreement they signed and if they continued on with unacceptable behavior, there will be no further warnigns, no discussion, and your coop privalages will be revoked for this length of time.

I sure most folks would head a first warnign if they knew they may loose privagles for like 6 months or a year. And if they did lose privalages on the coops, when they came back I imagine they would be on good behavior and if not that shows that they are not going to change their ways and have privalegs permantly revoked. These I imagine are the folsk causing the problems.

If it in the rules of behavior in an accept button, that the word STOP on a coop means do not post til you see GO AHEAD or GREENLIGHT that would give admid time to intervien and hopefulyl only on a rare to none basis . If somebody forgot that abotu the stop. The next person who sees a post after the stop could put out a gentle reminder we are in stop mode, please don't post til we have the green light.

4paws, I agree that Paypal shouldn't have to be mandatory, but for persons who want to ignore the Buyer Beware notice, and still want some sort of money back guarantee, they can choose to participate in coops that offer Paypal.

What point is there in trying to make rules and vetoing every possible rule because of fear that people won't follow the rules? There will always be rule breakers.

They deserve the least amount of our energy, not the most.

Coops are a privlege to be awarded to good rule following members and vendors.

It doesn't seem that we should involve Dave or Admin in any oversight of the co-ops.

It seems that the more people who serve on a grievance committee over time, the better, for it will give each participant and opportunity to "walk a mile" and gain a new perspective on such positions. Ideally, such a committee would work itself out of business, more or less, as systems/expectations (rules) become routine. Members with longevity would be helping new members, making sure they understand the rules. Hmmm...perhaps in pushing that accept button, contact from an experienced member to follow up would be good.

Would the accept button be clicked for every co-op joined? If yes, that would remind folks every time what the expectations are.

When you go into a coop, no matter whether it paypal or not, unless it because the merchandise was not delivered from the vendor or and hopefully never again one of these a fraudulant co-op. Nobody shoudl be trying to go to paypal and get money back because it a buyer beware. Enter at your own risk, don't expect refund unless specified by host and vendor. If anybody just does somethgin like that because they dont liek what they got and it already been stated in coop that there no guareentees, well than that a sorry person, who has left a host stuck with their bill and no merchandise back.

I don't think we have anybody purposely do that, and hope we never do.

We have lot sof folks like 4 Paws said that don't have paypal. Some don't have checkign account sand use money orders. How a person pays should not be an issue.

Back to thinking about less admid dmails and the other problem. (scratching head)

That a good idea 4Paws. A reminder that even if they didn't read it and just clicked accept, they would at least have the rules in the back of their mind.

That is why Paypal has a resolution system in place. It is for buyer protection. I have used it for purchases on Ebay where I paid and did not receive merchandise. There are no guarantees that you will get refunded but they have a bit more clout with vendors.

Wow..a lot of good brainstorming here!!!

Ideas that I have really liked:

An upfront rating system for hosts/participants/individual co-ops.. "stars" or "thorns" for good or bad..and if one chooses to be in a co-op with someone with an "iffy" rating..well, then that's on them. I also think that a 3 strike rule should be implemented...if they host/participate in more than 3 co-ops that have a more than a certain percentage of negative feedback, that's it, it's apparent that they are not cut out for hosting/participating. (I say three because there can be things out of one's control..the mail service losing things, a bad shipment, computer problems, overestimating one's abilities)

Co-hosting, especially for newbies...there is A LOT of work involved, and I am guessing some people don't realize that until it's too late..I think it could also help keep would-be hucksters honest. I also first-time hosts should have a "cap" on what they can do..say nothing over $500/$1000 or a certain number of participants...that would keep potential losses at a minimum should they bite off more than they can chew.

An "I accept" button prior to entering the co-op. I agree with the KISS strategy on that as well...buyer beware, DG claims no responsibility, don't spend hundreds of $$ you can't afford if the co-op is dud, or you picked things that didn't ship well etc. If problems arise, admins can refer them back to that... I like the idea of an automated reply that is a copy of the agreement "signed" in reply to petty bickering complaints..and if they are persistent, well then that brings me to my next point..


I know that banning people from certain forums isn't really what you guys and admins want to do, but that might be the best and only way to keep that vocal minority that wants to ruin it for the silent majority at bay. We all know that there are now, and will always be, someone who isn't happy unless everyone else is unhappy..this is probably the only way I can see that would minimize their impact on the community. I have a sneaking suspicion those "problem children" cause trouble in more places than co-ops as well....so it might just be less of a headache in the end for all involved.


If vendor co-ops are an issue, and it's due to them needing to pay for the advertising, and it's too hard to police the shills, why not have a "co-op" fee that is implemented at the start of the co-op?(not interest..I think that would be too prohibitive in the event that not enough people are interested) Maybe even a subforum for "interest" threads and the fee paid upon entrance to to the actual co-op forum where orders are placed? I wouldn't mind splitting a nominal fee to participate in a co-op offering things I really wanted.

Just my 2cents..sorry it turned into a buck-fifty, lol

I've not participated in co-ops for some time, but enjoyed them when I did - ran a small one too in the way back machine here at DG :)

Would this idea / ideas be helpful to everyone?

(1) If co-ops were to continue, the Host/Hostess would provide a letter on the Vendor's stationery (no email) that says "I, John Vendor, do hereby certify that Sam Gardener has no ownership nor financial interest in John Vendors Flower Emporium and that Sam Gardener will receive no compensation whether financial or via personal discounts or tangible benefits by sponsoring the Co-Op for Dave's Garden." That letter would be scanned and placed as a "photo" at the top of each co-op before it can officially start.

Should they not be able to write and sign that simple statement, they would then have the option of placing a Classified Ad.

(2) If co-ops were to continue, they would be limited in number of participants by item type. Ex: seeds - they're small and easily transferrable so say 150 participants. Live plants - they're hard to repackage hence more complaints - limit to 50 participants. Bulbs - easier than live plants but harder than seed - say 75 participants. Sliding scale type of thing. This might streamline the co-op process, making them more easily manageable

(3) If co-ops were to continue, have one drop down box agreeing to Zero Complaints. Each participant agrees by check-off that they understand complaints will be deleted - period; not addressed by Admin in any way.

I don't like committees; just my personal feeling that human nature will allow gossip, veiled any way you like, but it will happen.

I'm still not sure why the Classifieds wouldn't work -, but that's just mho.

Starlight don't scratch too hard!!!! Very well put Artemis.

Paypal's buyer protection is most appropriate in those coops where items are ordered directly from and shipped by the vendor. Of course, it's very helpful in the case of fraud too.

DG must be getting all kinds of different complaints, not just about dead plants, small bulbs, slow shipping etc.

The one coop where I saw real ugliness involved what happened when members broke the order starting time rules of the coop. It happened twice in the same coop. When members got away with it in the first order segment, more members did in at the next segment. The host thought it was simply an error and let it pass in the am and then more people decided to jump ahead in the pm.

The host unfortunately was trying to be accomodating and the members took advantage of it. There were limited quantities to go around. When members who waited for the official time start politely voiced their dismay at missing out on items that went to the rule breakers, the rule breakers started posting all sorts of unpleasant and intimidating remarks.

Many feelings were hurt. Perhaps DG got a lot of mail on this one. The AUP already has rules in place to deal with people harassing and causing unpleasantness. There was no one policing the forum, this is where a moderator/monitor would have been really handy.

The fact that a coop host left DG yesterday may have a deterrant effect on more bad behavior.

I don't think the coops should be limited to the number of people. Some things folks only gonn abuy one of and you need so many peopel to make up a flat or to meet the requirements. Also, don't think it fair that if there enough product why should number 51 not be allowed to get a discount when others can.

but that leads me too:

Maybe limit the numeber of products that a person can list at one time for each coop?

Coudl be wrogn but think maybe some of th ebiggest problems come when there are too many items and flats of each. Maybe instead of offering twenty items at once, maybe ten instead and then when that coop done they can do another ten or something to that effect. That way liek somebody else mentioned , the packagign and shiping will go alot faster and mayebless confusion when ther eso many people. Lot easier to pack fiv eof the same item to 200 people than 15 at once to 200 people.

We gotta think to what is Dave capable of doing. Too many of this and thats and that may be a major headache for him. We don't want to overload him with havign to design alot more programs he has to watch dont clitch up.

I have no ide a abotu computer programming. But maybe somebody who does cna think of simpel ways to get evrythign rolle dinto one without alot of hassle for Dave to do and watch

critter: if anybody can fix this you are the best moderator. Thanks for trying and good luck everybody.

Lol.. I like your fifty bucks too Artemiss. : ) Guess we cross posted.

It seems we shouldn't expect anything from Dave, unless it's assistance with technical issues, in the matter of policing the co-ops.

It seems unrealistic to set restrictions about how many participants or types of plants offered per co-op. Guidelines, yes, but set in stone maximums? Realistically, a co-op could be rec'd, re-packed, and shipped out by a team, which means so much more product could be moved around than one person working alone. Advising rather than mandating.

It is my preference to (try to) give folks the benefit of the doubt regarding human nature and committees. I've worked with some excellent folks in the past who would never gossip or use such a responsibility to turn petty. The opposite is also true, but the latter doesn't mean we as a community cannot have the intergrity of the former.

This message was edited Nov 10, 2008 3:42 PM

Some of the things that I have written are copy and pasted from the sticky on top of the coop forum. I have changed some of the words and deleted some stuff. This is just a test to get others opinions and additions.




******** ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK *********

Over time, some co-ops encountered problems. Some organizers became overwhelmed and failed to send out everything in a timely manner. Others failed because the organizer was a fraud. Either way, people lost money. This could happen again in any coop.

I understand

It is the responsibility of each participant to act in a civilized, respectful and mature maner no matter what happens in the coop.

I accept I decline

It is up to each participant to decide how much they're willing to risk on any co-op they participate in. There is no "seal of approval" on any co-op organizer, so it is up to the participants to decide if they trust the organizer, and how much they can afford to risk.

I accept I decline

To be clear: co-ops are enjoyed AT YOUR OWN RISK .
There WILL be problems, and you are responsible for policing yourself to minimize your own losses. Buyer beware and proceed at your own peril!

I accept I decline


There will be no recourse for any loss of money or not receiving what you ordered.

Do not send complaints or statements to the administrative desks of Daves Garden about co-ops. They are strictly AT YOUR OWN RISK and Daves Garden will not be liable in any way for your voluntary participation.

I accept I decline

The administrative desks of Daves Garden will not reply to any mail sent to them about coops, so do not send them.

I accept I decline


Feel free to say whatever you like. My feelings dont get hurt easy. I am a pretty blunt person and I say things way too strong sometimes. I try to blame that on raising 6 kids. ( they make me nuts) I run a tight ship, I have lots of tolerance for mistakes but none for stupidity or being mean.

chris

I kinda like that three strike rule. After all, some states have a law, if you're convicted 3 times, you're considered an habitual criminal, and will spend the rest of your life in prison. We could do something similar!

We could rotate the offenders around to everyones houses and make them plant all the stuff we buy from the coops that they arent allowed in anymore.

Sorry, I couldnt resist.

Told you I have no tolerance.

Works for me (free muscle, I mean)

Chris, that looks pretty clear. Any declines mean no admittance to the co-op forum at all. Perhaps that can be a password enabled forum, only accessible after all those points are accepted, and admittance is good for a certain duration before re-accepting (and being reminded). ...

Chris, that sounds good to me. I do think
******** ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK *********
should be mentioned several times and at the top of each coop forum. That is because I don't think people read.

Dea, I see lots of good ideas. I agree that limiting the size and scope of coops is a sound idea. there is nothing to say that another coop with the same vendor can't be done. If smaller coops have better results maybe that would lead to less problems overall.

sounds good, but WHO does this enforcing? Sounds like a full time job for someone and Dave doesn't want to do it.

I think that the I accept form:

This should be at the entrance to an "order" thread.
The interest threads would be open for people to look.
If someone clicks on "I decline", it should take them out of the thread.

The tops of the Interest thread and coop thread should have a mandatory statement made by the person wanting to host that says something like this...

My name is _________. I want to start a coop with ________ company. I have NO financial affiliation with this company. I do not gain anything from being the host of this coop any more than any of the participants.


This message was edited Nov 10, 2008 7:32 PM

Took me too long to send that post.

9kitty, What enforcing? They have no recourse! Period. Go complain to the wall. DG should not respond, ever, to a coop complaint.
There should be a form d-mail that is sent out to anyone that does send something to admin. Refering them to the AT YOUR OWN RISK part.
In big bold letters on the bottom of admins mail it should say...This is a form mail and do not reply to this mail. They will not be seen.

Just discussed this issue with my DH... we don't know if this is even a viable solution, but thought I'd throw it out there, and see if anyone understands what I'm saying.

What say, Dave's Garden hires a part or full time employee to just handle coops. She/He could search out the vendors who will supply the best price for the plants/seeds/gardening supplies we want. The vendor would pay Dave's Garden a fee to help cover his/her salary to run the coop, and he/she would receive a percentage from each of us participants to also help cover his/her salary. All coops would go through this paid employee to offer the specials to DG paid members only.

I know that even if I had paid an extra 10% of my order on the coop I participated in, I still would have save a ton of money... given what all those 37 plants would have cost me on the retail market.
I don't know about some people, but I would gladly pay an extra .40 cents for a $4.00 plant, that would have cost me $12 retail.

Plus, a vendor would agree to pay the employee 10% of a $5000 coop that lasted a week to take orders... even if he had to pad the price a bit to cover that. We'd still save money: that $4 plant just became $4.80... still a deal in my book.

Thinking about your idea bj,

Who would do the packing and shipping of the coops?
Who would print the labels and shipping lists?
What happens if the plant dont arrive to the participants in good shape?

In a perfect world, that should be left to the vendor... in all reality, they're doing this to lure us as customers, so they should put forth their best foot to hook us at that point.

I'd say packing and shipping should be left to the vendor...
The employee could take the orders... present the order form to the vendor, along with the address labels.

This message was edited Nov 10, 2008 6:56 PM

Just got done reading the 204 post on the closing of co-op's I have to admit I was more than upset when I found out about it tonight.
Have not read this thread yet, but will do so in the morning, Rectifying the 2 main problems is going to be a hard one, but I know this family & I am ALMOST 100% sure it can be done.
As for the vendor situation I suggest the vender MUST be a member/involved with Dave's in some paying way, no this has nothing to do with profit for anyone. Safety net in a way, If I can read for myself from the vender what products I am buying, i.e. price, size, hardy zones ect I am more than likely going to jump in a Co-op if I am interested in that plant/product. Going by a list of names of things & having to find them myself I do not like.


As for the 2nd issue, WOW is that a BIG one to think about & will do my best to try to come up with some ideas to help us save the Co-ops.
:)Anita

Vendors who offer wholesale prices on, say, flats of plants are just not equipped to ship out boxes with 1 of this and 5 of that. A lot of co-ops rely on reshipping for practical reasons as well as maximum savings. This would have worked with some of our past co-ops, but not with many. But maybe coops just have to change in order to still work here.