"We are Luddites" - Peter George's article in RGQ 70 #1

I agree strongly with Peter George's analysis of the problems facing specialist plant societies like the NARGS, and have tried to initiate a debate about this on the AGS website with pretty limited success. I think debate is important because it brings more people together to think of new initiatives and focusses attention on what it is that is so important to us about the societies we belong to, which for me is stimulating new people to share in them. I disagree with Peter about the NARGS website which I find very stimulating and well put together and has enabled me to learn a lot about the plants and gardening that occurs in the States. The problem can be with new people coming in to such a site (forum), but whereas this is a valid criticism of the AGS site I don't think it is here - those who contribute have very varied experience and expertise and I for one have found that very inspiring.

The AGS and NARGS are very different; the former has a very strong ethos of exhibiting plants and a much lower profile on the value of our gardens. I have tried to argue that the latter are a strong resource and that more energy put into opening them around the country would begin to raise the profile of our more specialised form of gardening amongst gardeners in general. Even more effective would be combining efforts to fund and produce far better television programmes on plants in wild habitats like the mountains and deserts, showing the great drama of such places, which we all appreciate, with the often unexpected beauty and variety of the plant life. This is long term but I think has to come as a means of showing far more people in general of the wonders of the botanical world.

I am less convinced of the long term value of investing effort in the electronic communication that occurs between younger people - this is really somethng they create partly as a place for themselves away from the overriding strictures of an older generation. So any such adjunct to the NARGS really needs to come about by and for a younger group of members who are convinced of the value of the Society as it is now. More important is convincing people in general what a sensible activity gardening is (and especially linked to learning about plants in the wider world), and that actually getting your hands dirty has a lot more about it than spending too much time on the computer.

As Peter says once you start it is difficult to know where to stop! There is a nice article Lincoln Foster wrote in the AGS Bulletin Vol. 27, p.187 (1959), where he compares rock gardening in Britain and America, and it could easily be written now as then. At one point he comes up with the rather wonderfully worded sentence 'Serious horticulture is a form of sophisticated behaviour rather out of keeping with American enthusiasms.' But there must be scope to increase the sophistication of American gardeners!

An interesting topic.  I have not received my NARGS Quarterly with Peter's article in it, so I will reserve offering much feedback until the Quarterly arrives.  I have however, read a version of the article in one of the Berkshire Chapter NARGS newsletters.  I'm not sure what the thoughts and arguments are relative to using social network media to connect with younger people to potentially spark of interest in plants. Although as one who has young adult daughters who obviously do favor such communication venues, and with first hand observations on Facebook, I do believe it is worthwile to invest some time in these areas.

Some of you reading this are also Facebook (FB for short) "friends" of mine, others might use FB but we haven't yet connected. I have a love-hate relationship with FB (I will spare you the details why), but after almost dumping FB entirely, I finally acquiesced to its existence, popularity, and favored usage by both young and older participants.  There is much to interest rock gardeners and plant lovers of all types, albeit usually with less depth of meaningful discussion, but still a worthwhile avenue of communication.

Facebook has lots of "Open Groups" that can be joined; here are some that I joined or "subscribe" to.  I'm noticing a number of young people participating in these Groups!

Delosperma and other cold hardy mesembs
166 Members, 463 Photos  (relative young group, some familiar faces here, such as Panayoti Kelaidis, the FB maven that he is :D )
http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/304702516852/

Kniphofia
37 Members, 79 Photos  (PK is a familiar face over in this group too)
http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/267448319972883/

California Native Plant Society
2,282 Members, 233 Photos
http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/38417209275/

Flores Silvestres de Chile • Wildflowers of Chile
2,873 Members, 1,515 Photos
http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/47405455016/

Facebook also has "Secret Groups" that can be joined if one gets invited to join, or create your own group and invite friends, or make it an Open Group if desired.  I'm thinking of starting one on Epimedium (an Open Group).  Also, when using FB, it is very easy when opportunities arise to augment a particular discussion or photo-comment-thread, to post a NARGS Forum link that'll bring a larger audience into NARGS fray.  

NARGS does have a FB "page", it is here:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/North-American-Rock-Garden-Society/232300658503
...but it is not very active.  It would be better that it be a FB "Group" where people could belong to the group, with an active ongoing presence to a mega audience.

Quick correction to how I worded my above reply - where I said 'The problem can be with new people coming in to such a site (forum)', I meant 'for' new people... The big problem for the AGS, I think, is the strong expertise of the exhibiting community within the Society, which while it has always been such an essential feature of the Society is also intimidating and rather exclusive. The same is not true of the NARGS where expertise seems very freely shared. I think we have more to learn from gardeners in the States than vice versa.

I am really quite pleased that the discussion is now on the Forum. I have received about 25 email responses so far, and they have been both varied and interesting, as well as unusually helpful to me. I'll try to address all of the issues over the next few days, but today I'll start with the website.

The problems with the website are less it's current 'state' and capacity, as its lack of ability to accept change/upgrades. In simple terms, what we have is a site that simply cannot be upgraded without a 'redo,' and without the ability to upgrade the Joomla Content Management System, which is the 'bones' of our site, we are simply stuck. In addition, as the technology changes, we won't be able to add functionality without the probable destabilization of the site, leading eventually to a full fledged collapse.

So if we are to do the responsible thing with our internet presence, we must build a new site on a more robust (and upgradable!) CMS. I've asked for 10k in our 2012 budget for a new website, which if approved, will give us enough to do it right.

One of the younger members of the AGS strongly favours using Facebook for more communication with younger gardeners. After reading Mark's comments above I can see that it could be especially valuable for more specific discussion on particular groups of plants, and that would actually be a good way of drawing people into the much wider aspects of gardening we share on the NARGS Forum. I would also favour more information on propagation, perhaps with short videos, as I have seen elsewhere on the web, since this lies so much at the heart of gardening and yet is rarely examined in some detail.

One of the difficulties with FaceBook is shown by an attempt to follow some of Peter's links.... one can only view them if one is a registered user of FaceBook.

The problems of a site that needs upgrading to be "future proof" to some extent is one that many will sympathise with.... and one that the SRGC is also addressing.

IMYoung wrote:

One of the difficulties with FaceBook is shown by an attempt to follow some of Peter's links.... one can only view them if one is a registered user of FaceBook.

Maggi, I think you are referring to my FaceBook links  ;) 

Yes, it is true, you can only follow some FB links if you are a registered FB user.  Just checked the stats on FB membership, and they report over 800 million!  The point of the links, for those who have FB, is to illustrate the fact there is a growing community of plant-related topics out there, some of it certainly in the ballpark of expert rock gardening, and with some specialized topics, it could be embraced as a way to draw in young people who swear by FB... already seeing that happening.

Also, I keep finding truly amazing photo galleries on Picasa and Flickr, found one today from a woman in Korea that posted exquisite photos of many native Korean plants; exploring, linking, and engaging with these sites too, may draw in people from around the globe who have a love of nature, the mountains, and the wild plants they encounter.

McDonough wrote:

IMYoung wrote:

One of the difficulties with FaceBook is shown by an attempt to follow some of Peter's links.... one can only view them if one is a registered user of FaceBook.

Maggi, I think you are referring to my FaceBook links  ;) 

Yes, it is true, you can only follow some FB links if you are a registered FB user.  Just checked the stats on FB membership, and they report over 800 million!  The point of the links, for those who have FB, is to illustrate the fact there is a growing community of plant-related topics out there, some of it certainly in the ballpark of expert rock gardening, and with some specialized topics, it could be embraced as a way to draw in young people who swear by FB... already seeing that happening.

Also, I keep finding truly amazing photo galleries on Picasa and Flickr, found one today from a woman in Korea that posted exquisite photos of many native Korean plants; exploring, linking, and engaging with these sites too, may draw in people from around the globe who have a love of nature, the mountains, and the wild plants they encounter.

Oops, yes, they were yours, not Peter's.  :-[

Most Picasa and Flickr galleries are open to all, I think.

Peter's article in the Quarterly has many good ideas.  I particularly like digitizing the entire collection of the NARGS Quarterly.  The SRGC has done this and I have found the resource invaluable looking up old articles on plant exploration.

I do not think that the young people referred to "love plants and rock gardening as much as we do".  They are too busy communicating with each other and knocking into people on the street while they do it.  Gardeners are "doers" first and communicators second.  As we know, it takes a great deal of focus to be a successful rock gardener and there are so many competing alternatives these days for the attention of the younger generation.  That said, there now appears to be a swing back to real live events which may be positive for the appeal of the reality of gardens and participation at chapter meetings:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/01/post-digital-world-web

Personally I find the current NARGS web site excellent, especially compared with the former version. Members can interact on the wiki or the forum, post pictures and video and thereby create an online community and it is becoming more and more active. I am actually pleasantly surprised there are so many non-Luddites in NARGS.  If members want to start using Facebook they will and as Mark noted above the NARGS Facebook should be a "group".

In general I think we worry too much about expanding membership.  Either you want to join or you don't. One of the "complaints" from prospective members about our local club is that we use Latin names for plants.  It would be rather like someone complaining that a rowing club is always using boats.

I am with you most of the way David, but it's always great when you see your rowers winning gold at the Olympics!

I finally got my Rock Garden Quarterly and read the subject article; "We Are Luddites" (even though I'm not a Luddite ;D).  I can echo sentiments expressed above by other forumists, particularly in terms of Peter's forward-looking projects that make NARGS interests and resources more accessible to members.  But I do not sympathize with the depiction of NARGS being perched at the precipice of doom, gloom, and utter demise. :o

Nor do I share the dreary picture painted of the NARGS website.  With post-publication mitigating comments relative to the difficulties of the web site "backbone", regarding obstacles to flexibility in providing updates and adding new features, I'm sure that's true, as 3 years in technology terms equates to a human "generation", indicating technology obsolescence. Attributing "shortsightedness" to the NARGS.org website doesn't bode well for me; also perhaps not for those involved who expended huge effort to making it all happen in the first place. It might very well be time to update the site for technological reasons alone, much less so because of any inherent flaws or substandard design; it's a good web site. The awesome 2011-2012 on-line seed exchange ordering demonstrates its intrinsic value.

In the article's estimation of what works and doesn't, I cannot agree with "the [seed] Exchange became stale" (wasn't the surplus seed distribution implemented in these so-called stale years). Myself and a small army of unpaid volunteers gave up a good number of full weekend days preparing NARGS Seed Exchange orders for two years that NARGS New England Chapter handled the seed order fulfillment process; again in the so-called stale years.  Other chapters did the same.  It is stated the "Rock Garden Quarterly became a liability" on one hand, then cited in the same article as the only current NARGS function as a positive, described as an "outstanding quarterly publication".  I recognize the juncture in time being referred to here, but it is unfair to the monumental amount of effort in previous years. I have worked with all of the NARGS editors over the past +30 years that I've been a ARGS/NARGS member, and have had excellent experience with all of them.  I value each and every NARGS Quarterly bulletin that I have, and look forward to the day where this tremendous resource is digitized and made available to NARGS members, an inspired idea and objective in my opinion.

In the items of things mentioned as working (just one, the current NARGS Quarterly), there is no mention whatsoever of the very place you are reading this, the NARGS Forum, an on-line community for rock gardeners and plant lovers of all sorts, the "Facebook" for rock gardeners ;D  A little over a year ago, the NARGS Forum was opened up to any internet applicant, requiring a huge amount of work, the work continuing to this day where Forum membership applications need to be vetted daily and either accepted or rejected.  We have a "plugin" installed on NARGS Forum (thanks Hugh!) that automatically rejects approximately 100 bogus spammer registration requests each and every day, but many bogus registration requests still get through daily... each is researched (we have tools, but it is still time consuming), and we quietly do our duty each day to make all of this happen.  The NARGS Forum could be instrumental in increasing membership, it needs to be recognized and promoted.

To be continued...

Quote:

The NARGS Forum could be instrumental in increasing membership, it needs to be recognized and promoted.

That is very true. The Forum can be a terrific tool to enthuse readers and draw in members.

I would certainly echo Mark's comments about the value of the website and forum. I can only compare it with the other alpine forums and for me it is where I obtain the most solid and useful information, and it has a distinctive presence which is made by the contributors and hopefully will always attract new gardeners. The bigger problem is simply making far more people (gardeners or incipient gardeners) aware  of where gardening can really take you. In Britain hugely more people are members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (and have a very extensive knowledge of Natural History) than belong to specialised plant societies, or even the Royal Horticultural Society. In our perception of the Natural World plants do not hold the same cachet as animals, and this must be a reason why proper studies of plants in the wild are never televised. Unless and until there is some shift in this perception it seems unlikely that greater numbers of people will consider gardening as many of us do.

David may be right that in America there is less need to be concerned. For one thing as a country you have a wonderful flora which will always tempt people like me who would like to learn more about it. In Britain the AGS does have greater problems, to an extent because our Society is a lot less democratic in its make up and we do have very few younger people becoming involved, which to me is an extraordinary failing when you consider all the things that plants teach us. Even in the Czech Republic, which is renowned for its rock gardening (and seed collectors!) there is a decline in the alpine societies. It does seem that a huge amount depends on the individuals that inspire others, and as Mark says, contribute very strongly to the Societies.

Since the same problems seem to run across many different specialised societies, it could be a time to come together and promote much better tv programmes on plants, as I have said before. There are huge possibilities here varying from more ambitious ideas of looking at alpine plants across the world, to probably more realisable ones of the detective stories of searching for certain plants in dramatic situations, to actually building gardens with these plants, something that many of us find completely compelling. All of these could illustrate the out and out excitement of 'proper' gardening with plants.

I sympathise with Peter and those charged with running the Society because attracting new members can be such a hard task and many of us just take this as something that happens without much involvement from us. It will be very interesting to see where the discussion leads.

IMYoung wrote:

Quote:

The NARGS Forum could be instrumental in increasing membership, it needs to be recognized and promoted.

That is very true. The Forum can be a terrific tool to enthuse readers and draw in members.

As a further comment to this.... for the SRGC, five out of every six new members come via the website.

As an international club, the SRGC Forum has also become the equivalent of a "local chapter" where members separated by thousands of miles can find  common ground and convene for all the plant discussion and social interaction that is afforded to those lucky enough to be able to take part in chapter activities locally. 
Of course NARGS has an international membership too (witness the number of overseas members taking part in the forum) but with the huge land mass that is North America, the forum can be just a vital a meeting place for "home" members!

I must say that I'm pleased about the responses to my article. I have also received about 90 emails from members around the globe with a variety of comments, some of which are quite illuminating and candid. I am looking forward to the conversation continuing and I will comment here as often as I can, and try to address the responses a few at a time.

Let's start with the membership issue. We have an organization with somewhere between 2600 and 3000 members. We have about 2650 actual memberships, but quite a few are for multiple people, so that accounts for the uncertainty of our 'real' membership number. The primary areas of concern for me are two: first, our chapters, all found in North America, have a much larger aggregate membership than NARGS does. Second, our membership is aging, and our median age is moving 'up' as well.

The first issue is a simple one to describe, but a difficult one to address. In simple terms, there are literally thousands of people in the U.S. and Canada who are interested enough in rock gardening to join Chapters, but for one or more reasons, won't join NARGS. To me, that issue is the single biggest challenge confronting us today. I've spoken to hundreds of people about it over the years, and I believe that the problem is the result of two factors. First, the Chapters themselves are not 'selling' NARGS to the members. We have a number of Chapters where the total NARGS membership is as small as 5%, which is (to me, at least) absolutely unacceptable. We are offering our members a tremendous value, yet among our most logical 'demographic,' we can't persuade a majority of people to join NARGS. Second, we are offering benefits like the Speaker's Tour to Chapters that have no apparent commitment to NARGS, and whose membership is made up of people who have no financial stake in NARGS. It's not unreasonable to ask why NARGS is subsidizing speakers for Chapters that are simply not interested in promoting NARGS membership, and whose members simply won't join. Yesterday I received the membership list of a well established NARGS Chapter with over 100 members and I compared it to the NARGS membership list. I found that of the 105 Chapter members, 23 were NARGS members! And this Chapter is going to get a speaker from the 2012 tour, which we are subsidizing. Is that fair?

The second issue, aging membership, is also a difficult one to address. I've heard from a lot of people about this issue, and there are a couple of threads that run through all of the responses. One surprising problem is the difficulty new people have in getting integrated into Chapters. They join NARGS, go to a chapter meeting, are ignored, go again, continue to be ignored, and then stop coming. I personally experienced this when I joined NARGS in 1996, but instead of quitting entirely, I simply attended a different chapter where I was received much more enthusiastically. But it appears that I was the exception, and that far too many younger newbies are put off by the insularity of the Chapter members, and quit before they ever really have a chance to feel like family. The second problem is that younger people either don't have time for meetings given work and family responsibilities, or the meetings themselves are not all that interesting. I've suggested using video to capture and store lectures, etc. and using the website to stream them, allowing members to access programs remotely. And some of my other suggestions would offer potential for addressing the 'don't have time for meetings' issue, and perhaps would get us more members over time, particularly younger members.

I'll continue to post my thoughts, and please, continue to post yours.

The point about Chapters using NARGS's benefits without contributing is very valid.  But I wouldn't want to make a speaker tour unavailable to a non-contributing Chapter.  I am not at all suggesting that Peter implied this.  My point is, how can we make this more fair?
Maybe a set NARGS Speaker Tour fee,  that can then be adjusted with credits earned by the Chapter for contributing to the national Society.  Credits might be garnered by helping with the Seed Exchange, percentage of Chapter members that are national members, hosting study weekends, or helping in other ways.

-------------------
The younger generations in general are a lot more "sensitive" to offense (real or imagined) and more "needy" than older folks for the most part.  We can't change that or ignore it.  Our Chapter tries to seek out new attendees visiting at our  meetings, and also gives them recognition during the short business meeting, so that all have the chance to greet the guest(s).  It can be difficult to fit this in among all the conversation with people that we don't see, except at meetings, but we must make the effort.  As Peter says, it is very important.

--------------
I joined the National Organization right away, when I joined the Chapter.  I was daunted by the academic style of the Bulletins: except for the photographs, it all seemed greek to me, and I dropped the membership for a while.  But I think the new formatting of the Rock Garden Quarterly in the last year has address that successfully.

And now for something a bit different.  As I mentioned before, I'm not a fan of Facebook for a number of reasons, but have acquiesced to its dominance in the social networking front, and now "meet up" with a number of plant people and plant groups regularly.  Hint:  if you ever need to find Panayoti, look into some of the Facebook plant "Groups" ;D  Just joined another one tonight named "Hardy Stonecrops" with some excellent photos and discussion posted on sedums, sempervivums, orostachys and such. I wish these people would post as much on the plant forums such as NARGS & SRGC.

Once on Facebook and joining some FB groups, and accumulating some plantsy-type FB "friends", your Facebook "newsfeed" is filled daily with plant news, postings, and photos, mixed in with any and all other items that get auto-populated to one's newsfeed.  You might find the damnedest things showing up, it's a constant visual potpourri, with items that might pique one's curiosity, a constant ticker-tape of ticklers, although much of it frivolous blather.  Frankly, I'd much rather be in the NARGS Forum, where the repository of knowledge is forever growing and building a tremendous knowledgebase, unlike Facebook with its ephemeral "newsfeed"; after a certain amount of stuff scrolls by, in a couple weeks it's no longer retrievable (unless photos and content are posted to Groups or personal FB photo galleries).  But it seems, some people are really drawn to the Facebook experience, so again, I acquiesce.

Sometimes really interesting things get posted.  One such item, was a photo of unidentified cushion plants growing in black soil; a most compelling photo of surreal effect.  It was posted by Plantifleurs L'Univers, the photo entitled 'Rarefaction Italy', and a plant person on FB asked the question, what plant do you think these cushions are, with a reasonable guess of Dianthus.  To me, the plants had more of a Saponaria look, with the flowers at the perimeter of the cushions.  The puzzle was before me, so I sprung into action, bounded into Google, flipped to Images mode, and typed in keywords; something like saponaria volcanic Italy, and lo and behold, a similar image popped up of the same area, ends up being Saponaria sicula, a rare endemic species growing in black volcanic soil atop Mt. Etna, Sicily.  How cool is that.  

An image of my Facebook page, with the Plantifleurs L'Univers photo entitled 'Rarefaction Italy' on my newsfeed, to show non-Facebook users what the newsfeed looks like.

Facebook link (note: Facebook links might not work for non-Facebook folks):
Plantifleurs L'Univers photo entitled 'Rarefaction Italy'
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.105144526246201.8982.100002519622435&type=3#!/photo.php?fbid=209547339139252&set=a.105144526246201.8982.100002519622435&type=3&theater

Facebook link to Plantifleurs L'Univers super-duper amazing photo gallery!  (fantastic landscapes, some plants too)
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.105144526246201.8982.1000025196...

Flickr photo (this will work for everyone):
Saponaria sicula (Endemic flora of Mount Etna to 2.000 m)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luigistrano/6064835036/

2nd photo, close-up of Saponaria sicula and Senecio aetnensis:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luigistrano/6064835692/in/photostream/

The best advice I can give is a quote attributed to the late Steve Jobs.

“There’s a phrase in Buddhism, ‘Beginner’s mind.’ It’s wonderful to have a beginner’s mind.”

James

I wish this sort of open debate would occur on the AGS site because it is much needed. The comments that Peter makes about the NARGS Chapters apply similarly in the UK and there has been much discussion about Group members not joining the parent Society, and also the difficulty of new members integrating into Groups - this must certainly be true for younger people even with the best will in the world. One way I have tried to push to get round this is is to use our gardens as a way of introducing new gardeners to the Society. This has the benefit of being much more personal, and has the added benfit of raising money for the Groups. Another is concentrating more on propagating and selling plants, which again is essentially what new gardeners are most interested in. For some gardeners given the right initial stimulation it can be a very rapid learning curve to becoming completely fascinated by plants, and here the web and this forum must kick in to provide much more interaction.

James - I'm not so sure about Buddha; he justs sits there beatifically and doesn't do a great deal! But the beginner's mind does seem very apposite.

"One surprising problem is the difficulty new people have in getting integrated into Chapters. They join NARGS, go to a chapter meeting, are ignored, go again, continue to be ignored, and then stop coming."

Peter, I had the exact same experience when I joined my chapter and did stop attending meetings. If it wasn't for the then newly elected pres. of the group...Tom Clark....I would never have gone back. He was the only member who did welcome me and I'm sure others after he sent out a questionaire asking what in particular could be improved on in the chapter. As well as other pointed questions. I did let him know my personal experience with the group, and went back to a lecture I really wanted to see...he was so welcoming and I could see how he took my experience to heart. I am now good friends with many of the chapter members, but I was the one who had to make most of the overtures of friendship with the older members. And I know I am now more mindful of this when I see a new face in the group.

Tim wrote:

James - I'm not so sure about Buddha; he justs sits there beatifically and doesn't do a great deal! But the beginner's mind does seem very apposite.

I went to a Thailand New Years celebration when I was in college.  They were some of the most welcoming and happy people I had ever met.  Maybe the Far East has more to offer us than new and exotic plants...  Maybe more beatification is exactly what the world needs.

James

I honestly wish it was so easy. But it's not, and here are the problems.
1. Several chapters have simply moved away from NARGS over the past decade, and have little or no interest in being part of the larger organization. They haven't officially separated yet, but if there was a vote taken at the Chapter level, I could name as many as 5 Chapters that would vote to leave NARGS. And among those chapters are several that are both large and vibrant. They do benefit from NARGS to some degree, but what they get as a Chapter is probably not sufficient to increase their level of interest or involvement.
2. Our annual dues are $30. for North Americans, and $5.00 would not be even close to sufficient to cover the real costs of membership. I know that there are some people who can't afford $30 per year, but the truth is that 90% of the Chapter members who are not NARGS members are not in that category. They simply choose not to join. In the past year I've had to deal with several Chapter Chairs who refused to join NARGS, even though NARGS membership is a requirement to serve as a Chapter leader. In one case the Chapter actually had to pay for their Chair's membership, and it was certainly NOT due to poverty. As an organization, our dues are kept to the absolute minimum in order to make it easy to join, and when we find out about someone who is having a problem with the dues, which we do surprisingly often, we simply waive the dues for the year. But we're not going to lower our dues to $5 just to bring in people who have no real interest in NARGS. We might as well open it up to everyone on a voluntary contribution basis. I'm not sure how well that particular financial model would work.
3. If "training" Chapter Chairs actually was possible, we'd do it. But in general, most of our Chapters have tremendous resistance to ANY interference from NARGS. We have Chapter Chairs that refuse to even respond to emails from me or Bobby Ward, and we've actually declared a chapter 'inactive' this year, primarily because the Chair refused to communicate with us. Other Chapter Chairs with which I've communicated are just not interested in doing anything beyond having a few meetings a year, and every effort we've made to 'assist' them has been rebuffed or ignored.

I have on several occasions suggested to the Administrative Committee that we require, say, a 50% NARGS membership before Chapters could qualify for being on the Speaker's Tour, or one or two other requirements that could motivate Chapters to promote NARGS membership more successfully. It hasn't gotten any real support. Top down dictates in organizations like NARGS rarely accomplish anything other than alienation, and although it would certainly make ME feel good for a few minutes, it wouldn't accomplish our goals. My own Chapter, the Berkshire Chapter, barely has the 50% membership level, and even though I know every person in the Chapter, and have spoken to each one about the issue, they simply won't join. I truly cannot understand it, but that IS reality. So what we can do is try to improve the organization by making the Quarterly better every issue, improving the internet component, improving our speakers, improving the Seed Exchange, etc. If we make the benefits better, we should get more members. SHOULD!

Keep up the discussion.

A most excellent question Lis! :o

I hope it doesn't come down to that, as I do enjoy getting to NARGS Chapter meetings when I can.

Hearing the argument over and over again about people who say they can't afford a $30 per year membership; I find such claims astounding this day an age, where a typical doctor visit co-pay is $20, taking in a movie for 3 people is $30 (no candy or refreshments though, double it if one gets drinks and candy), a tank of gas is $30-$50 each fill up, a dinner for two at a restaurant is easily around $50 (if you're lucky, and no alcoholic drinks either), a visit to McDonalds for my family of four costs $22-$23 these days!  I took my pennies and loose change container to one of those machines at grocery stores that automatically counts the dumped in change (the machine charges a small percentage for this "lose change consolidation" process), and I had over $100 in small coins refunded as cash.  

Being unemployed recently for 17 months, I know first hand what it's like to carefully watch expenses, but my guess is that someone saying they can't afford $30 for a year membership doesn't want to afford a year membership.  The low cost for membership is a drop in the bucket; try ordering 25-35 packets of seed, or going to your local market and buying 25-35 packets of annuals and vegetable seed and see what it costs; double or triple or quadruple the annual cost of joining NARGS.

If NARGS was starting from scratch today I think we'd have some Chapters, but we'd be more careful about where we set them up and we'd be more specific about what each Chapter was responsible for, what they were going to be required to do to keep their Chapter status, what their benefits would be, and I am confident that we would require that every Chapter member first be a member of NARGS, and that they maintain that membership or their Chapter membership would lapse.

My Chapter, the Berkshire Chapter, has in its By Laws a requirement that all BNARGS members must first be a NARGS member. It is a By Law that hasn't been enforced for many years, and for us to start enforcing it now would create a real problem for the Chapter. And the wording does not require ongoing NARGS membership, just membership at the moment one joins the chapter. But that doesn't address the issue of 'why do we have Chapters?' Well, my guess is that we have them for more than historical reasons, and if we dissolved them we'd probably lose quite a few members. But more importantly, we'd lose the geographically centered locations where we have meetings, plant sales, lectures, etc. Without those activities, we'd lose a lot of our identity and eventually, our actual existence.

So again we return to the simple question of what to do about the fact that so many Chapter members won't join NARGS. Ron gave us one rather elegant suggestion, but I'd like more so I can present them as a package to the Board of Directors and see what happens at our meeting in Washington this March.

Peter wrote:

So again we return to the simple question of what to do about the fact that so many Chapter members won't join NARGS. Ron gave us one rather elegant suggestion, but I'd like more so I can present them as a package to the Board of Directors and see what happens at our meeting in Washington this March.

Peter, looking through this thread to find your reference, I'm wondering what previous suggestion by made by "Ron", I can't find said reference.

We experience many of the same problems here in the UK.
I have been the Secretary (and was the founder way back in 1986) of the East Lancashire Group of the Alpine Garden Society for over twenty-five years and in that time we have seen attendances at local group meetings rise from 35 to 150 and back down to 40.  Our membership has obviously got older, passed away, moved away, lost the ability to drive at night or simply lapsed. We have always retained a core membership with a great interest in exhibiting plants, we have encouraged garden open days, photography workshops, practical demonstrations, nursery visits and even created an alpine garden at our meeting hall in Ramsbottom.  We have always made a point of welcoming new members and visitors as eagerly as possible.
When we reached an attendance figure that literally filled the hall and made meetings difficult for members in wheelchairs, we decided to cease all advertising and reportage of meetings.  This proved a huge mistake and all efforts to recreate those heady days have proved fruitless.  During our twenty-five years of existence we have always emphasised to our members the privileges to be gained from membership of the main Society, but we have also realised that some people simply act as taxi drivers for their partners, visit occasionally when weather conditions allow, etc.
Our biggest problem is attracting the younger gardener and we need to start earlier by advertising in schools, colleges and universities.  We are very fortunate in that we can book excellent speakers with experience and charisma, but these same lecturers should be on the television, on YouTube and on video to promote our wonderful hobby to people who have never been lucky enough to experience the beauty of our plants for themselves.  The alpine and rock gardening hierarchy should be getting together to produce these visual aids before our hobby becomes moribund.

Sorry, Mark. RickR, not Ron.

My experience from running a local group of our AGS for over 20 years (and most Groups here are very small) is that the Group is like a microcosm of the parent Society - just a very few of us really keep it going. We do this because plants and the people we meet who share their experiences with us are just so completely fascinating. The Groups or the Chapters die when they lose these enthusing spirits, unless we are able to ignite the spark in new members. It is hard to believe that this fascination is not there in a new generation too (it would certainly be immensely sad if this were the case) and I suspect that we just have to go out and find them in any way we can think of. This is not something that most members want to think of or be bothered with, so it will just be the efforts of the few who see the importance of our societies who will force the pace. If this is the case then I see more communication between alpine societies as being of great value, with the prospect of really raising the profile of our way of gardening. I have written of this in the latest AGS Bulletin. As I write this I have seen the contribution from Cliff and agree very much with his comments, and am rather surprised that other figures in the AGS have not also joined in the debate. Individually we can enjoy our gardens and the benefits of the various societies, but there is nothing like discovering new people with that same excitement and that just takes personal effort. Just the four or five new faces who have joined our Group recently after opening our gardens for several years have somehow revitalised the Group, partly because of the very effort we have made to attract them. They are likely to be pretty keen gardeners and stay, perhaps tell friends, and so a virtuous circle begins. But this is from grass roots without a great deal of help from the parent society. And we may be an unusual Group.

My conclusions remain pretty much as they were when I started discussing this on the AGS website, and that is that propagating and selling plants is at the heart of any gardening society - new gardeners want to buy plants and make their own gardens, and perhaps make their own mistakes. As time passes the extraordinary wealth of plants that can be grown in different gardens, and the huge amount you can learn from others begins to become more and more important, but that is a personal journey.

These are tough times, and rock gardening is certainly a luxury, but I support efforts to maintain a vibrant society. As a sometimes poster to the Forum, I have always been treated with great respect and kindness and been given an abundance of useful information.  However, it does seem like there are just a very few people who use it regularly-- no one who attends my chapter?  Prospective and peripheral members should be able to find out what a great resource it is. 

My chapter has some fine lectures and a very good plant sale.  Unfortunately most of the presentations aren't actually about rock gardening.  Some bad decisions are made: a lecture about South African botanizing scheduled in the AM was switched at the last minute with a lecture about recycling junk in the garden.  At least 10 people left before, the now afternoon, presentation of South Africa.  Some of these people may have left the NARGS at the same time.  The seedling sale is grab and dash, and someone with beginner or intermediate level knowledge is going to be faced with trying to choose plants that he has no information about.

If I am going to acquire a plant, I should know that it is growable and that it's a keeper and any bad (weedy) aspects.  This is a gripe I have with the few remaining rock garden nurseries.  Many catalogs lack even the most basic information: moist, dry, or very dry.  I would encourage all Nurseries to attempt to address hardiness, soil type, moisture and temperature needs, difficulty and permanence.
I'm not happy when something is sometimes listed as a zone 5 and sometimes a zone 8.  I'm really unhappy, too, when I buy something and then decide it's a waste of space.  (The Gallery is a good resource, when the nursery does not provide photos, as can be a photo internet search.)

Some have said, if you don't know the plants, you shouldn't be trying to grow them.  I would suggest that attitude kills membership.

This site does have some good articles about: the best plants for different regions; but I want to see the next article; "OK, Now How About the Really Interesting Plants that You Might Grow".

Maybe someday this site could have maps  with members able to mark for a species, the location where the tried it, and results: died, survived for a while, or grew well. Obviously there would be limitations about how many species could be done, but only a small percentage of plant geo-profiles would be of great interest, anyways.  The NARGS gallery is a great resource, but it would be so much more helpful to have a location with every photo.  There are so many resources out there--would be so nice if we could share, rather than each site having to do all it's own photos etc.--maybe the best we could do would be to enter links into the gallery?

We need more good regional rock gardening presentations at chapters. We need more people willing to open their gardens, maybe for just one day every couple of years. We need to keep the seed exchange and regional sales as vibrant and robust as possible.

What can the rest of us "99%" do. I noticed that the NARGS LINKS has several dead links.  That's never a plus.  I personally think links to nurseries should be separated by mail order and no mail order; and should be separate by country as appropriate.  The is touted as a Wiki, but it seems that does not extend to things like links.  I really hate dead links, I'd be willing to "weed" them, who do I ask ?, can I?, will someone give me sufficient instructions?

Otherwise, I will contribute to the gallery, maybe will be able to contribute more to the seed exchange and seedling sale (someday), and if I build a new garden and it works out, I'd definitely try to write it up.

Charles Swanson Massachusetts USA
 

externmed wrote:

As a sometimes poster to the Forum, I have always been treated with great respect and kindness and been given an abundance of useful information.  However, it does seem like there are just a very few people who use it regularly-- no one who attends my chapter?

Charles, don't forget that I'm a member of your NARGS chapter :),  Jeremy Franceschi is also a New England Chapter member, and posts here occassionally. Jeremy has been very instrumental in the NARGS Wiki.  And Matt Mattus posts sometimes, but I know of his unbelievable job demands, perhaps crazier than mine; we all wish that Matt had more time to post here.  But I know what you mean, I too am surprised the majority of NEC NARGS members don't participate on NARGS Forum, some members rather stick with email-based Alpine-L instead.

Regarding your many other points and concerns, I think a place like the NARGS Forum does go a long ways towards fulfilling much of what you are concerned with.  If you're willing and anxious to volunteer in some fashion on the NARGS Wiki or web site, I'm sure your volunteerism would be welcomed.  So far as contacts, Peter George will surely know, you may want to send him a PM.

It is interesting that this same discussion on the SRGC website has generated a lot of response. A number of people, mostly younger members, have commented that they get most interest from the Forum and people they 'meet' there, and are not so interested in the traditional groups. Maybe as time goes on they will come together and make their own groups. I hope so because this way you meet some of the most remarkable people in the gardening world, who come as lecturers, and if you are lucky actually belong to the groups you are in, and there is nothing like that direct contact (Rick has made a similar comment on SRGC about sharing the history of the Chapter with new and younger members). Even more important is that such people take on some of the running of the groups, and throw in new ideas which give us the chance for a bit of arguement! Our particular Group has only some 40-50 members, but has been going for over 40 years, and was started by several unknown (!!) gardeners such as Jack Elliott and Rear Admiral Furse. You sort of feel that you don't want to give up on it! - but such characters are few and far between! They are also almost always people who started gardening young.

Hi Tim, I have seen and read with interest the similar topic that you started on SRGC "The Future of Specialist Plant Societies":
http://www.srgc.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=8439.0

I am a transcontinental forumist, as you are ;)

Meanwhile, some of the Facebook "groups" that I have joined or was invited to join, have rip-roaring activity, can barely keep up.  Even so, on Facebook I've been cross-posting pertinent forum-links when appropriate, maybe to get some to "come on over" to the forum venue.  Seems lots of people really gravitate towards the Facebook (FB) phenomenon; I'm of the opinion these sorts of diversions are just that, major distractions from having a more meaningful collective build of plant knowledgebase in a centralized forum.  In some ways, Facebook is like Ranunculaceae seed, ephemeral and short-lived, not a way to build a strong knowledgebase.  Yup, FB can be sort of fun and with instant gratification, but it's all so fleeting and discombobulated.  Just try to go back to something posted on Facebook a year ago, forget about it.  Regardless of its merits, or lack of merits, FB is a force to be reckoned with...dang!

And then there is still activity on the Listservs, sometimes in great surges.  I must admit, I do derive some amusement with the frequent yet fruitlessly repeated cries of "please don't reply with the entire email digest included", but to no avail, as those sorts of problems are simply intrinsic with email-based systems and will never go away, but of no concern whatsoever in the forum-style venues.  Listserv participants struggle, often complain, and regularly miscommunicate in those venues, spending much time trying to verbally describe a plant or situation (because photos are not allowed in the email-based system), whereas such concerns, and posting photos (each picture is worth a 1000 words, or so it is said ;)) on a forum venue is just an easy and basic thing to do.  I continue to scratch my head on the almost bilbical allegiance to textual-only listserv based mail forums and the negative projection about how forums-based venues are terrible. 

I do understand however, that many people still do not have access to high-speed internet connections, depending on where they are, in which case an email-based listserv can make perfect sense. I'm afraid some defenders of email-only based listservs do have higher speed connection possibilities, and may indeed be categoriozed as "luddites" (will probably get flack for that suggestion).

Don't forget Lis, here on the forum you have full edit rights to your own messages, and can modify or edit them at will.  So, if one writes something that is later felt to be embarrassing, go back and edit accordingly.  On the email-based systems, you can't take back what was sent out, typos and all. 

There is also the risk on email-based listservs, of sending what you think is a private message to a listserv member, when in fact it was sent mistakingly to the entire maillist... that happens all the time on a couple listservs that I'm a member of.  That sort of mistake is an easy one to make, and has potential to be very embarrassing, and once done, there is no way to fix it.  Listserv messages are indeed saved and go into a searchable archive, so they are not ephemeral like Facebook conversations.

Also, feel free to start a topic under the "Other" board (in the Miscellaneous section, at the bottom of the list of boards on NARGS), or the "General" board, to start a conversation.  There are topics such as the popular one on "Weather", that is not building any great knowledgebase of information, it is simply something gardeners like to chat about, myself included, the weather.  On the SRGC Forum they have some "social" types of topics, for example, one on Puzzles (often plant related, but not necessarily so), and one called "Yes, I'm so happy..." and an opposite one "Moan Moan Moan" for complaining about things, one on "artsy photographs", I think you get the idea.  On SRGC these are perfectly fine (often very popular) topics that the community of rock gardeners and plant lovers can contribute to... all in one place.  I'm sure Maggi can offer up a better description that I can about how the idea of "community" works on SRGC Forum.

Everyone needs to do what is comfortable for them.  In fact the reasons why Lis likes listservs tend to be the very reasons why I don't!  We are all different, and that's a good thing.

Lis wrote:

In a conversation [listserv] I learn from all the talkers, not just the one who takes the time to compose a well-reasoned argument.

A listserv is like a chat with friends, while a forum is listening to the experts and possibly occasionally chiming in if you are brave enough.

What I learn is not lost, at least not to me.

The casual conversation more prevalent on listservs is exactly that - casual.  Words are often vague or used in a sense not universally understood among the members.  Answers to questions posted are never complete.  And in fact, I need more courage to post on Alpine-L then here on the NARGS forum or the SRGC (where I still feel very new).  

Every time I have posted a serious question on Alpine-L, I get half answers that leave more questions unanswered.  Usually those ensuing questions include: what did that cryptic "answer" really mean?  For me, the problem with virtual casual conversation, as oppose to real conversation, is that it tends to be so laissez-faire.  Answers tend to be short and off-the-cuff, admittedly, a style that many people like, just not me.

A perfect example was my recent questions posed on allelopathy, which you, Lis, so graciously came to my rescue.  My "why" questions (plural), were answered with a single word ("no"). Thank goodness for you, Lis.  For me, the courage needed to post on Alpine-L is for the continual reintroduction of the same question, straining to pull any real and relevant answers out of the membership.  Sadly, I have found that the only way to do that is to communicate individually with members, which leaves all that good information out of the listserv loop.

I don't have a mind like a steel trap.  I do use the seach functions, and I find forums far easier to search than a listserv, not having to wade through enormous amounts of unimportant chatter.

As said, both forums and listservs have their uses, and everyone needs to choose for themselves.  Neither is necessarily better.
---------------------------------------------------------
I do want to reiterate, however, that no one should feel intimidated from posting on this Forum, be they expert or brand new.  As a reminder, an easy way to encourage the new gardeners is to post common names along with the botanical name.

Lis:

Alpine-L postings are archived.  The Search function is simple and works well so your postings can always be found ;D

http://mailman.science.uu.nl/pipermail/alpine-l/

It really is a unfortunate that Alpine-L is still used as it reflects technology of the late 1990s.  There are many good discussions there that would enhance this Forum.  We are too small a community to Balkanize.

Regardless of the limitations of Alpine-L, I think it is more intimidating to post there than in this Forum for the simple reason that essentially everyone subscribed reads your posts on Alpine-L.  On the NARGS forum your posts are mostly only read by those interested in the topic.  Plus you can soften your comments with pictures which everyone likes!

Quote:

the SRGC (where I still feel very new).  

Maybe quite new, Rick, but nice, shiny new, not strange, odd new! ;) :D

Quote:

I'm sure Maggi can offer up a better description that I can about how the idea of "community" works on SRGC Forum.

Mmmm, I  can try, Mark.........fact is the SRGC forum ( not the SRGS as is so often written in the listserv messages  :-X )  was begun as a way to give the world wide membership if the Scottish Rock Garden Club a place to convene for plant talk and for social gatherings which would otherwise be few and far between for most of us.  We've had the forum open to anyone from the beginning, on the grounds that if one is hosting a great get-together, the more the merrier and so it has proved to be. New membership to the Club comes  mostly via the web, even from UK folks who would also have a local group to attend.
 The chatty, conversational nature of the threads means that folks don't feel they need fifteen botany degrees to take part or that a "beginner's" question will be laughed at or dismissed.  
(I must say here that personally I have never liked the listserv system because "conversational" is the last word I'd use to describe them. I have never been able to search the archive effectively, either, I'm afraid).

Without doubt the threads on the SRGC Forum that are almost entirely "social" are hugely popular and the "human interest" aspect of the popularity of the forum in general is evidenced by the enormous numbers of "hits" that photos of people get, versus views or plants!

All that illustrates the value of the forum for making existing members feel more included in a club that is based thousands of miles away from a  great many of them and for bringing in new members to keep membership bouyant.  On top of that we have built a resource that is lead by the members who include some of the world's experts, posting alongside nwwcomers who have only just discovered "our" kind of plants and all can learn from each other and have all their posts and photographs archived there, searchable and accessible.
We do not restrict what type of plants can be discussed in the pages.... leading to an extension of interest for many members and the drawing in of others who discover new things altogether. We do not berate folks for "off-topic" posts... in fact there are, at times, considerable digressions... but that is how life is.... that is how conversations and social intercourse face to face happens. Not with each item in isolation. All that adds to make a friendly, welcoming forum with more plant and habitat photos and advice than one could hope to find in one spot... and all interactive so question may be asked, clarification sought and so on. ....  a proverbial 'win-win' situation.  

This topic is one that has become near and dear to my heart over the past six months or so (there might be slight exaggeration there!)

First let me introduce myself. I’ve been a member of the AGS since 2005, first getting involved via the Bedfordshire Group, which I will become the Secretary of in October and have since taken on a more active role. In July last year I became the Society’s Local Group Correspondent, charged with promoting and improving interaction between the local groups and the membership. When I’m not busy with AGS ‘stuff’ I am studying for my law degree, which I will be completing this year.

Much of what has been said here has been repeated to me by almost everyone I’ve spoken to. Local groups tend to be struggling and parent organisation membership is both falling and aging. The only way to reverse this is to get our message across to the wider public. Speaking from my own experiences of running the Bedfordshire Group’s local show, I know that adverts in newspapers are very expensive, but well worth the investment. Last year, thanks to a generous bequest, we were able to invest in two weeks adverts in four newspapers – turn out increased from twenty-five to 150, profits went up from £50 to over £200 and we recruited three new members. 

A much cheaper and potentially greater advert is websites. This is equally true for local groups as it is for the parent societies. I have encouraged all of the local AGS groups to consider developing their own website, whether it is by creating an independent site such as the Bedfordshire Group’s (www.bedfordshirealpines.com), or by taking advantage of the mini-sites that are offered by the AGS (http://www.alpinegardensociety.net/groups/local/websites/).

The AGS website can be criticised (and fairly criticised) for being Show-orientated. Whilst this is an important aspect of the AGS they will not be what a large percentage of the public will be interested in, at least to begin with. We need to showcase the other elements: the local groups, the publications, the seed exchange, the opportunities to travel and of course gardening. To try and accomplish this I have introduced a new diary, written by a nurseryman about what he grows and how he grows it. I’m hoping this will be more user-friendly than some of the other diaries, which are often quite technical. Also later this month I’m hoping to have the first article in a new ‘Garden of the Season’ section of the AGS site, which will be written by members about how they incorporate alpines into their gardens.

Facebook is a fantastic way to connect with younger people and I’d be interested in hearing about other people’s experiences with running gardening-related pages. I plan to upload photos from various AGS events to the Society’s page but beyond this I am bit stuck on how to develop the page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Alpine-Garden-Society/239451772739772).

Apologies for the missive, I’ll try and keep my future posts much shorter!

Welcome to the forum, Robert!

It's hard to find a gardener that rambles, and you are no exception.  Your entry is not massive at all. [Oops! I misread "missive"!]  Still, I am thankful for the time authors spend to produce such "prolific" writing on forums like this.  (You will find we have several such members here.)  I'm always grateful for all the information and insight, and usually end up hoping for more!  Again, Robert, you're no exception.

Please stop in, when every you feel the urge!

Maggi, thank you for an excellent summary!

Robert, I second the Welcome to NARGS Forum, and thanks for the thoughtful contribution to this topic.

David, I agree with your perspective, but allow me to add a bit more to the Alpine-L business. When Alpine-L moved to a new hosting location by Eric Gouda (because previous hosting location was retired), the full Alpine-L archives moved as well. However afterwards, the new hosting server software did not have built-in "search" functionality, so the ability to search 15+ years worth of messages was lost except by "hand picking" through messages one at a time. Each monthly archive can be sorted by date, author, & subject, but still requires opening individual email posts to read message contents. Many posts are hard to read, because the hosting location has difficulty formatting email messages correctly, with messages often appearing as a single line of text requires scrolling WAY to the right.

The full Alpine-L archive is available in the link David provided, here it is again:
http://mailman.science.uu.nl/pipermail/alpine-l/

Shortly after the Alpine-L hosting change, I took on Alpine-L list-owner responsibilities, as Eric was searching for a volunteer.  A few weeks after, I established a 2nd Alpine-L archiving solution called The Mail Archive.  As of January 22, 2011, this new archive service became available for Alpine-L messages subsequent to that date.  This secondary archive solution does have built-in searching (it is fast and effective) for any message sent after 01-22-2011.  It can be reached in the link below.  It also preserves readable message formatting, and has built-in message-thread links inside each message; very handy.  Whenever I respond on Alpine-L as list-owner, I always have all pertinent Alpine-L links in my signature block, including both archive venues.

For searchable Alpine-L archives starting 01-22-2011 until current:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/index.html

Listservs function in a simple linear way, subscribe to a maillist and you will get each and every message posted, whether of interest to you personally or not; it's just how it works.  The following selected Alpine-L message deals with the common complaint of listservs where too much mail is received, particularly those caused by off-topic email bursts which infuriate some participants, sending them running for the exits, sometimes unsubscribing.  I tried to use an analogy that describes the maillist conundrum:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00111.html

Besides my silliness in the link above, here's some actual suggestions for Alpine-L members to deal with too much mail and overflowing email inboxes:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00109.html

Thanks for the update Mark.  I didn't know the entire archive search capability on Alpine-L had been lost.  Shows how long it has been since I posted there. :-\

But all is not lost.  You can still search the full Alpine-L archives using Google.  For example if you want to see all postings on Lewisia tweedyi in 1997 you would use the following search string in the Google search window.

http://mailman.science.uu.nl/pipermail/alpine-l/:  site:mailman.science.uu.nl "lewisia tweedyi" 1997

Thus, if you want to find all Alpine-L postings of an individual you can search on any persons name.

David wrote:

Thanks for the update Mark.  I didn't know the entire archive search capability on Alpine-L had been lost.  Shows how long it has been since I posted there. :-\

But all is not lost.  You can still search the full Alpine-L archives using Google.  For example if you want to see all postings on Lewisia tweedyi in 1997 you would use the following search string in the Google search window.

http://mailman.science.uu.nl/pipermail/alpine-l/:  site:mailman.science.uu.nl "lewisia tweedyi" 1997

Thus, if you want to find all Alpine-L postings of an individual you can search on any persons name.

Thanks so much David; I haven't explored the advanced search options in google, your example is awesome and eye-opening, I am duly educated on a most viable way to search within an otherwise unsearchable site.  Not as easy as simply "googling", and it will elude many users who will not begin to have the savvy to do that type of searching, but it will be added to my arsenal of search tools; I appreciate the education.

By the way, I also submitted to another message-archiving site that Eric Gouda suggested, that would take the entire 16-year archive and index it and make it all searchable; they agreed to the request, but never enacted on the request and don't respond to email enquiries.  Would still like to find a site that would make the archives easily accessible, with the need to use advanced searching techniques. :D

Mark: Being a bit of a Luddite myself I am only just figuring this stuff out.

I have realized it is actually a bit simpler.  In the example to find all the Alpine-L postings on Lewisa tweedyi in 1997 you only need the last bit of the string in the Google search window:

site:mailman.science.uu.nl "lewisia tweedyi" 1997

David wrote:

I have realized it is actually a bit simpler.  In the example to find all the Alpine-L postings on Lewisa tweedyi in 1997 you only need the last bit of the string in the Google search window:

site:mailman.science.uu.nl "lewisia tweedyi" 1997

Cool.  It's even easier; no need for quotes.  And unless one is actually looking for information from a certain year, just omit the year, and it'll find all Alpine-L messages about keywords entered.  The following line works just fine:

site:mailman.science.uu.nl lewisia tweedyi

...and this line finds my specific 3 posts on Lewisia tweedyi:

site:mailman.science.uu.nl lewisia tweedyi mcdonough

Reminder folks: this can be entered right in the google search field, not in the URL address bar.

Well that works, well.
First try for Geranium farreri came up with this.

http://mailman.science.uu.nl/pipermail/alpine-l/2002-September/007150.html

Very interesting read  ;D

The advanced search capabilities of Google brings us back nicely to one of the earlier issues on this thread.

Along with many other NARGS members, I believe it would be a significant member benefit to have past issues of the Rock Garden Quarterly on the member-only area of the website. If these were pdf documents and not just image scans then they would not need to be indexed.  Wait a little while and Google will do the indexing for us and provide the search capability.  A powerful tool indeed for NARGS members.  We would then definitely not be considered Luddites. ;D

IMYoung wrote:

I must say here that personally I have never liked the listserv system because "conversational" is the last word I'd use to describe them. I have never been able to search the archive effectively, either, I'm afraid.
 

Maggi, you'll have to give Alpine-L Archives a whirl with the google "site:" searching capability that David brought to our attention, and see if that works for you. :)

In the Google search field, the syntax is:

site:mailman.science.uu.nl  keyword1  keyword2  keyword3 etc...

Example, to find all of your very own posts on Alpine-L, enter the following:

site:mailman.science.uu.nl  youngs

:D

@Helen, glad you jumped right in and tried it out!

The "site" option in Google searching can be useful to narrow google searches within a specific location, let's say even for NARGS Forum.  Now, NARGS Forum has full search capability, and the contents of the forum is fully searchable both in the forum and from Google, but of course Google searches will look elsewhere and may include too much. To do a google search that only searches a particular site, use narrowed syntax like googling the following... it looks within NARGS and find anything on Allium cernuum... cool.  The results might refer to a text-only archived versions of the message exchange, so I think it is still best to search from within the Forum.

site:nargs.org/smf Allium cernuum

In Peter George's article, technology initiiative #3 sounds fascinating, maybe Peter can tell us more about this idea. 

In short, the suggestion is to build a database of plant photographs, then, using software that can "recognize" similar items (plants in this case), members seeking the identify of a plant they photographed could upload their photo for possible automatic identification.  It's a cool idea if it works.

I would have thought this to be a pipe dream, had I not seen Picasa 3.5 software on my daughter's laptop.  The software is quite miraculous (moreso to someone of my generation than my college-age daughter).  With about 1200 photos of family and friends on her laptop, this software uses facial recognition to automatically scan and find any particular person (it will even find a face in a large group photo), and presents it zoomed in to the specific face being searched.  Playing around with this, it would find and group each person selected, within seconds, almost scary technology when you think about the possibilities. 

Here's a YouTube that shows how the Picasa software works.

I imagine that it would be more difficult with plants; could the software really tell a Townsendia daisy-like flower from an Erigeron daisy-like flower from an Aster daisy-like flower?  Facial features have a more limited set of characteristics to analyze than plants, where flower, foliage, habit, and many other characteristics is what determines a plant identification.

When you add in the GPS capability of the software, the location can often be the 'tiebreaker.' Bloom time, location, image and geology will, together, give you the capability of identifying almost any plant with a very high degree of certainty. We're not there yet, but it's only another year or so before we'll have the totality available at a reasonable cost.

I am happy to announce that our Minnesota Chapter now offers free membership to students.  I had picked up on the idea from a mention of same on the SRGC forum's counterpart to this thread.  When the idea was presented to our board, it was an easy sell.  Really, it's not like they could break the bank.  Most will want their newsletters sent through email, so there is no postage or printing.  That even a small percentage would become active members would be well worth it, in our opinion. 

Now we just have to find them...  We're working on that, too.  :)

RickR wrote:

I am happy to announce that our Minnesota Chapter now offers free membership to students.  I had picked up on the idea from a mention of same on the SRGC forum's counterpart to this thread.  When the idea was presented to our board, it was an easy sell.  Really, it's not like they could break the bank.  Most will want their newsletters sent through email, so there is no postage or printing.  That even a small percentage would become active members would be well worth it, in our opinion. 

Now we just have to find them...  We're working on that, too.  :)

That's awesome Rick, keep us posted if you get some traction with this new initiative.

I've been thinking about this more, and the ability to use the web to find information is truly awesome. There has always been that debate about how this might influence the writing of books, but the way information is presented in these is so much more 'complete' that I could never see this happening. And books slow you down where the internet speeds you up! A place for both. But as ways of introducing new gardeners to the great pleasures and skills of alpine gardening neither can hold a candle against films that really tell stories of these plants in wild places (some of us might have quite 'wild' gardens too!). I think this has to be the way of introducing a new generation to the ideas of studying these plants and gardening with them, because it would impress much more effectively than any other.

The next step then is is to work out how those who have highly creative film-making talents can be convinced to collaborate with equally creative plantspeople and botanists to make such films. The important thing is to believe that high quality films of this sort would have an audience, and one in addition to the relatively small memberships of the specialist plant societies. There seem very many ways that this could happen, most particularly the immense drama of the places where these plants grow, the sense of exploration and discovery, and the great skills and artistic talents of many who grow them. There are the stories of remarkable individuals like Claude Barr, and in Britain Jim Archibald, which show the wide connections between travelling, studying plants in the wild, collecting seed, growing them in the garden, distributing them and writing about them. The more I have read about such people the more I realise that they hark back to all those famous gardeners of the past and have a much greater importance in our understanding of the world than many others because of the personal connections they make with so many other like minds.

So this is a sort of attempt to use the internet to see if there are film-makers out there who could see possibilities in looking more to natural landscapes and their flora (perhaps with a bit of fauna thrown in!) for inspiration and subject matter. In Britain we do have a very strong tradition of Natural History film-making but even so plants rarely become the focus of attention, which seems an extraordinary oversight!

I believe the seed distribution is both a big draw and a big turnoff for members.  On the plus side, growers like me tend to join plant societies that have big seed lists with lots of rare plants.  I don't join to socialize.  I guess that makes me a plant geek, right?  On the minus side, let's say I am trying to build up a stand of a certain rare species.  First, it is almost never offered.  Second, when it is offered, there may be four seeds in the packet, or the seeds may be dead or wrongly identified.  A lot of work goes into sowing these seeds before the problems are revealed.  Given those circumstances, can you see why it has taken me decades to get certain plants established?  Often, I have had to make an end run around the seed lists and find other sources.

I believe the solution is obvious.  If I were running NARGS, SRGC, NALS, etc., I would split off a small group of professional-level growers, and have them propagate rare and difficult plants from seed.  I would then sell the resulting seed at a premium in the distribution.  Advantages:
1.  Very rare seed would not be wasted, and would likely result in plants and more seeds;
2.  Very rare seed would become much more available to the membership;
3.  Rare plants would be preserved;
4.  Seeds from this program would be much more viable and true-to-type than seeds from the general membership, and you could put more seeds per packet, so growers like me would gladly pay a premium price;
5.  The growers involved would have a sense of ownership and personal pride that would very likely strengthen their commitment to the club;
6.  The general membership will be much happier when they can actually germinate the seeds from the seedlist, especially when they find that the plants are correctly identified. 

This plan could also be extended to not-so-rare plants which are in high demand.  Just get a good grower to make a commitment to grow some specimens in a place where they won't cross with closely related species.  And give the grower credit for his "product".  Advantage list is the same.

I am becoming more and more convinced that preservation should be a serious goal of plant societies, and not just lip service.  You can't distribute rare seed to the general membership and expect to succeed.  Let the experts build up the stock.  The alternative is to watch these plants disappear.

I believe the seed distribution is both a big draw and a big turnoff for members.  On the plus side, growers like me tend to join plant societies that have big seed lists with lots of rare plants.  I don't join to socialize.  I guess that makes me a plant geek, right?  On the minus side, let's say I am trying to build up a stand of a certain rare species.  First, it is almost never offered.  Second, when it is offered, there may be four seeds in the packet, or the seeds may be dead or wrongly identified.  A lot of work goes into sowing these seeds before the problems are revealed.  Given those circumstances, can you see why it has taken me decades to get certain plants established?  Often, I have had to make an end run around the seed lists and find other sources.

I believe the solution is obvious.  If I were running NARGS, SRGC, NALS, etc., I would split off a small group of professional-level growers, and have them propagate rare and difficult plants from seed.  I would then sell the resulting seed at a premium in the distribution.  Advantages:
1.  Very rare seed would not be wasted, and would likely result in plants and more seeds;
2.  Very rare seed would become much more available to the membership;
3.  Rare plants would be preserved;
4.  Seeds from this program would be much more viable and true-to-type than seeds from the general membership, and you could put more seeds per packet, so growers like me would gladly pay a premium price;
5.  The growers involved would have a sense of ownership and personal pride that would very likely strengthen their commitment to the club;
6.  The general membership will be much happier when they can actually germinate the seeds from the seedlist, especially when they find that the plants are correctly identified.  

This plan could also be extended to not-so-rare plants which are in high demand.  Just get a good grower to make a commitment to grow some specimens in a place where they won't cross with closely related species.  And give the grower credit for his "product".  Advantage list is the same.

I am becoming more and more convinced that preservation should be a serious goal of plant societies, and not just lip service.  You can't distribute rare seed to the general membership and expect to succeed.  Let the experts build up the stock.  The alternative is to watch these plants disappear.  Also, preservation and environmentalism are highly saleable among the millenial generation.