Hey guys,
I'm new here, but this forum has already proved to be a valuable resource. The only other place I go for San Gabriel info/news is Hundred Peaks Section's Facebook group.
Have you guys thought about creating a private Facebook group for this community?
Facebook group
No. I want a smaller number of larger groups. The community is already way too fractured as it is, for no good reason, I might add. I can rant about this for way too long, so I'll stop here, and say that I'm not joining any @#$ facebook group.
It's something I've been considering. But I haven't convinced myself of the value versus the effort required to implement and manage. It's easy enough to share a forum post on Facebook. But I don't know whether FB posts can be automatically fed to this forum. My main concern is taking new content away from the forum. There are already many FB groups that compete with this forum. Why create another one? I'd be more interested if there was a way to more fully integrate the FB group with the forum.
Why would facebook allow this? Their whole reason to exist is to attract users to show them ads. Why would they feed an external source with data? Oh, and when they go the way of myspace (and friendster and orkut), the data goes with them. Our current arrangement with myff is unideal, but at least we can take our data and walk away at any point.
I like that this forum requires effort to post here. This forum doesnt have an official agenda/mission that I know of, but has been a place where the user determines how they want to visit the mountains, rather than being told how to visit it ala modern hiker style. There are facebookers and instagrammers who do post to that same effect as here, but to find them is harder, and most often the posts are too vague for any real connection/understanding.
Along the same lines, I suspect facebook would take traffic away from here. You look at a the other sites that have a facebook and they link back to their website to try to restore the traffic, but Im dubious that its effective. Not to mention the additional work that Sean would have to do to moderate and maintain it..
Along the same lines, I suspect facebook would take traffic away from here. You look at a the other sites that have a facebook and they link back to their website to try to restore the traffic, but Im dubious that its effective. Not to mention the additional work that Sean would have to do to moderate and maintain it..
To get a link back to the FB group. I believe you can embed a FB post into a website. But I don't think there is a way to set it up to work automatically. I (or another admin) would have to do it manually for each post. Plus, the FB post would need to be made "public," as "private" posts can't be embedded elsewhere.
Assuming the FB posts could automatically provide additional content for the forum, would you still be opposed on other grounds?
Yes, but we would know that going in to the bargain. We have lost a lot of content already due to allowing users to embed photos from places like Photobucket and Flickr. And we rely on services like YouTube for video content. We value greater freedom of action here. Ultimately we therefore give up some control over the content. But isn't this worth it in the end?Oh, and when they go the way of myspace (and friendster and orkut), the data goes with them. Our current arrangement with myff is unideal, but at least we can take our data and walk away at any point.
Yes, we might lose the FB group's content one day. But perhaps some of it could be preserved in the form of screenshots or (copy&paste) quotes. Or maybe the FB group could be limited to certain types of less substantial posts to minimize future losses.
I understand that some of you really despise FB. I'm not a big fan, but I use it on a limited basis to keep up with friends and the rest of the hiking community. Perhaps there is a way to use it for the forum's purpose. Perhaps not.
Yes, and we shoud stop doing that. Touching more external services like facebook makes this problem worse. Let's use the other thread to talk about specific ways to mitigate the photobucket problem.
I'd say the mission was originally set down by Travis and Taco: simply to provide a place to discuss the San Gabriel Mountains. It has expanded a little based on members' interest in other ranges. But by sticking close to that original, non-political agenda, we've managed to keep this forum as a place for all types of serious adventurers.
I don't think you can argue with the fact that the biggest crowds exist at Facebook. And so that's where most of the traffic will be. So, my basic question is: Do we want to seek that traffic and why?Along the same lines, I suspect facebook would take traffic away from here. You look at a the other sites that have a facebook and they link back to their website to try to restore the traffic, but Im dubious that its effective.
I'm not into seeking traffic for traffic's sake. That is an ad revenue-based mentality. This is not a money-making endeavor. My focus is on content and membership, which go hand in hand. Would starting a FB group improve either the quantity or quality of the membership and thus the content as well?
I will not knowingly click on any url that even remotely acknowledges facebook. If I quit this forum so be it. I'm just an arm chair hiker at this point so I am not sure how this tips your scale.
I'm going to ramble a bit...
I've always disliked having to click a link to a TR on someone's blog. It leads to dead links and lost content. Why can't they just cut and paste the text of the TR into a post here. No lost content that way - except pictures maybe.
Dima makes a great point in that using photobucket (and Flickr! - which I am guilty of - although I pay an annual fee to host my pics there) to host pictures leads to lost picture content. I believe the text portion of the TR's is more valuable though.
Using the "attach file" to add pictures to a post is what I use sometimes but I vaguely remember that those disappear after a certain amount of time (1 or 2 years perhaps). So I am not sure myff hosting of pictures is a long term solution to mitigating lost content.
I've always disliked having to click a link to a TR on someone's blog. It leads to dead links and lost content. Why can't they just cut and paste the text of the TR into a post here. No lost content that way - except pictures maybe.
Dima makes a great point in that using photobucket (and Flickr! - which I am guilty of - although I pay an annual fee to host my pics there) to host pictures leads to lost picture content. I believe the text portion of the TR's is more valuable though.
Using the "attach file" to add pictures to a post is what I use sometimes but I vaguely remember that those disappear after a certain amount of time (1 or 2 years perhaps). So I am not sure myff hosting of pictures is a long term solution to mitigating lost content.
Would you dismiss any post on the forum originating from a FB group message? And would you quit the forum if we created an associated FB group?
My scale is tipped by the sound arguments of the members who post here. Besides, even if I wanted to create a FB group, I wouldn't do it without the support of the other admins.
I have, however, seriously considered a FB page to promote the forum. But I'm not even sure about that.
I'm not sure what causes an image to expire from the MYFF gallery. But I don't think the primary factor is time gone by, as there are images in the gallery that were uploaded by members back in 2008. Perhaps unembedded/unlinked images expire after a time of non-use. Sometimes people upload a picture but don't use it in a post.
Most likely I will dismiss it. If the FB impacts the forum positively then good. Whether i quit or not will depend on how negatively it impacts the forum. I am inclined (based on no facts) to think the impact will be significantly negative. How to measure the negative and positive impact will be subjective. Any attempt at establishing objective criteria will be subjective.
I'd rather see more eispiraten graffiti and litter in the registers on the peaks than resort to feeding the evil empire that is fb.
ask me how i feel about facebook. :q7: :q7: :q7:
And another argument: the search engines index public forums (such as this one) but not private facebook groups. I don't know about others, but personally, I feel strongly that trip reports and such should be available as publicly as possible.
-
Uncle Rico
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:48 pm
Since I'm guilty of doing this, I can answer that for you Beer Man. I started linking to my blog for two principal reasons. First, I was having problems posting pics and found that the easiest way for me to do that was from images posted to my blog. I've always found imbedding images through myff to be super clunky. Yeah, maybe I'm an idiot, but I can live with that if y'all can.
Second, I'm not satisfied that my style of TR is suitable for the forum in every instance. So I figure I can provide a brief summary and a few pics and then allow folks to wade through the rest of my word salad if they're so inclined.
Beyond that, I've never even given a thought to the potential for lost content on the forum. It has just never crossed my mind and didn't even realize that it may be important to anyone.
As for images, does anyone know whether you can imbed images into posts using Google Photos?
-
Uncle Rico
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:48 pm
Oh, and on a FB issue, I don't care either way FWIW, but it strikes me as unnecessarily redundant.
Nope. Google Photos doesn't provide direct or embed links. I've looked into a workaround using Google Drive, but couldn't figure it out. Too much of a headache.Uncle Rico wrote: ↑As for images, does anyone know whether you can imbed images into posts using Google Photos?
Correction. After digging through the support forum, it looks like older images were routinely expired from the gallery. But in 2012 they increased the disc space for the gallery, so that they wouldn't have to expire anymore images for years to come. The new owners, Tapatalk, have not said anything about the gallery. I'm hoping they plan to keep it going as a convenience for the forums. I doubt that disc space is as much a concern now as it was ten years ago.
You'd have better odds for a redditt cross-polination, but even then idk.Sean wrote: ↑ I don't think you can argue with the fact that the biggest crowds exist at Facebook. And so that's where most of the traffic will be. So, my basic question is: Do we want to seek that traffic and why?
I'm not into seeking traffic for traffic's sake. That is an ad revenue-based mentality. This is not a money-making endeavor. My focus is on content and membership, which go hand in hand. Would starting a FB group improve either the quantity or quality of the membership and thus the content as well?
Its not just the content, but the way its presented, because the content is about nature. Even if Facebook had easy to find quality content, you see what happens on the ground when that content reaches the masses when its not disclaimed. There is no way I would share a lot of the places I visit on a mass social media and then turn around and whistle in ignorance when I just craiglisted free stuff at someone's house.
Seems like at least a few of the more active members here are active here because they aren't active on FB. This forum is high quality chit, man! It's a prefered, and shall I say, almost elitist, forum. Keep it pure! lol
only halfway said tounge in cheek.
only halfway said tounge in cheek.
I like pet theories, and I have one for this topic. Perhaps the forum/blog crowd is different from the Facebook crowd in a very fundamental and irreconcilable way.
I have a background in a philosophy that greatly values integration. And when I look at a well-made forum or blog, with handpicked, neatly cropped photos logically placed between segments of literate prose, I see an integrated work, a good piece of media. And I'm drawn to it, I remember it, I want more of it, and I'm inspired to create some of it myself.
However, when I look at Facebook, I typically see a piece of disintegrated media. Even if the pictures have been nicely edited, they are bunched together in albums or small collections, while the accompanying text, often poorly composed, is set into a separate block of the post. Instead of an integrated article, I find myself looking at text here and pictures over there. It's more like reading an email with attached photos than viewing a magazine article.
Such a presentation ignores the basic values of integration and craft in media. But people don't care, because FB is primarily for indirect socializing. It's not about integrity and cohesion in content. Its essential structure promotes fleeting, unprincipled interest in media. The more rapidly you swipe through its content, the more clicks and page views it gets. Also such behavior becomes a habit, or even an addiction. It's the thrill of interacting with your smartphone and mastering new technology. Unfortunately, the price paid is the disvaluing of integration and craft in media, and the simple preference for bit-sized pieces that appeal to base emotions.
I have a background in a philosophy that greatly values integration. And when I look at a well-made forum or blog, with handpicked, neatly cropped photos logically placed between segments of literate prose, I see an integrated work, a good piece of media. And I'm drawn to it, I remember it, I want more of it, and I'm inspired to create some of it myself.
However, when I look at Facebook, I typically see a piece of disintegrated media. Even if the pictures have been nicely edited, they are bunched together in albums or small collections, while the accompanying text, often poorly composed, is set into a separate block of the post. Instead of an integrated article, I find myself looking at text here and pictures over there. It's more like reading an email with attached photos than viewing a magazine article.
Such a presentation ignores the basic values of integration and craft in media. But people don't care, because FB is primarily for indirect socializing. It's not about integrity and cohesion in content. Its essential structure promotes fleeting, unprincipled interest in media. The more rapidly you swipe through its content, the more clicks and page views it gets. Also such behavior becomes a habit, or even an addiction. It's the thrill of interacting with your smartphone and mastering new technology. Unfortunately, the price paid is the disvaluing of integration and craft in media, and the simple preference for bit-sized pieces that appeal to base emotions.
Damn Sean, that is well-said.
Yes I have a Facebook account and I also have put up some photo albums there but I have also noticed the disconnect between quantity and quality of pics from others. (probably me too...)
Too many people use it as a repository for their entire memory card rather than filtering out the 10-15 pictures that can help to illustrate the story being told.
Yes I have a Facebook account and I also have put up some photo albums there but I have also noticed the disconnect between quantity and quality of pics from others. (probably me too...)
Too many people use it as a repository for their entire memory card rather than filtering out the 10-15 pictures that can help to illustrate the story being told.
"Argue for your limitations and sure enough they're yours".
Donald Shimoda
Donald Shimoda