What's Our Real Membershp?

[dbhguru]

NTS,

  I took a look at our membership roster and when each member was last active, i.e. logged in. Of 524 membership entries, only 259 have been active this year in the sense of logging in. We're a much smaller organization than I've been telling others. I don't know how many members go to the BBS, but don't log in. I also have no idea how many non-members visit the website of BBS. It could be a lot. But when it come to the truly active members, I doubt we number over 100. If you look at the website, the BBS, and peruse the eNTS Magazine and Bulletin, you can't help but be impressed by the amount of material that's been generated. Thank you, the faithful.

  Ed may have a different take on the activity. He's in the best position to know how much activity is generated on our Internet infrastructure.

Bob

[edfrank]

Bob,

I think you are missing the boat on this one.  People can view the BBS discussions without logging in and can view the discussions without even joining the BBS.  I am sure that many more people view the discussions  than are represented by the numbers who log onto the BBS.  The number of really active members is likely around the hundred or so you suggest.  The same can be said of other groups.  They have a membership of so many people, of which only a small proportion actively participate in organizational activities.  How many of you are members of the Audubon Society and how many of you have logged onto their website in the last year?  I consider myself to be a member of the National Speleological Society even though I haven't logged onto their website for years.  I don't believe the proportion of active members is any different for this organization than for many others, if anything I think we have a higher percentage of active participants than most groups.  So you should keep citing the 500 members number as it is representative of our actual membership.  The system sends out notices to inactive members and I regularly get message from these people who are afraid they will be removed from the BBS membership simply because they have not logged on in awhile.

Look at the views of the Bulletin - the   Bulletin of the Eastern Native Tree Society, Volume 6, No. 4  had over 4871 views.  Many of them were people looking more than once, but that doesn't account for all of the numbers.  I don't know how many of those people downloaded the pdf file. People are looking at our BBS.  On our Facebook page we have 712 likes - if people don't want to see our posts they can simply click one button to stop hearing from us - so they are seeing posts made there and wanting to see them.  In the last week the data say we have a talking about of 219 meaning:

               

                       

                                               

talkingabout.jpg (20.2 KiB) Viewed 407 times

               

               

and a total reach of 1967 people:

               

                       

                                               

totalreach.jpg (10.73 KiB) Viewed 407 times

               

               

So people are aware of us and our membership is growing.  We have more members now on the BBS than we ever had on any of the other discussion lists, and our likes on Facebook are even higher.  We are growing, I just think you are letting your frustrations cloud your assessment.  I have not posted much in the last few weeks, so the numbers are not as high as they could be under normal circumstances.

Ed

[Joe]

NTS,

  I took a look at our membership roster and when each member was last active, i.e. logged in. Of 524 membership entries, only 259 have been active this year in the sense of logging in. We're a much smaller organization than I've been telling others. I don't know how many members go to the BBS, but don't log in. I also have no idea how many non-members visit the website of BBS. It could be a lot. But when it come to the truly active members, I doubt we number over 100. If you look at the website, the BBS, and peruse the eNTS Magazine and Bulletin, you can't help but be impressed by the amount of material that's been generated. Thank you, the faithful.

  Ed may have a different take on the activity. He's in the best position to know how much activity is generated on our Internet infrastructure.

Bob

though Ed gives a counter view - in so far as how many people may actually be reading these web sites - I suggest Bob is really getting at how many people actually contribute on a regular basis to the discussions and perhaps more important, how many get out there and measure trees, the core interest of the group....

just my view

Joe

[dbhguru]

Ed, Joe,

   Joe, you are closer to what has been on my mind. Ed, I don't doubt that people visit our site and gain benefit. You are in the best position to evaluate our overall impact and outreach. Patience is a virtue. I have to keep telling myself that.

NTS,

    The WNTS outlook has improved over the past few days as we have cemented our relationship with Great Old Broads for Wilderness, the San Juan NF, and a number of local folks of varying background who definitely are interested in what we do and want to help. The article in the Durango Herald has shown that. One must have patience - not one of my strengths. But also, it doesn't not pay to squander time and energy on lobbying the wrong groups. I'm taking stock of how I spend my time in recruiting efforts.

    One would think that the state champion tree coordinators would be logical NTS members - every one. One would think that they would collectively jump at membership with us. What do they have to lose? Nothing, and they have much to gain. A no brainer. Maybe so, but they have not beaten down any paths to our door.  Other examples could be given of unproductive efforts, but I, in particular, have to exert caution and not write off whole groups. For example, the forestry folks. Here, I'm coming to see that it is a question of strategy. Recruiting foresters by attempting to go through, say SAF or a state-level equivalent, is likely to produce nothing. However, individual foresters with a known interest in big trees is a group well worth pursuing. Individual foresters could be some of our most productive members especially in alerting us to sites and trees. The trick is getting in contact and dealing with them on a one-on-one basis. That's the key, and I think we'll gain traction in 2013 out here in Durango.

   One group that I'm writing off is the academic foresters - again, individuals not withstanding. I once thought the academics would be a good group to pursue. But they show little interest. What we do is very peripheral to their interests. It isn't about whether they are busy ot not. You find time for what is important to you, and avoid what isn't.

    The American Forests route is showing great potential. For years, we could get nothing started and now it's about to take off. Again, patience is a virtue.

   The LTI connection is growing rapidly. We're positioned to have a real partnership.

   The tree-climbers are an exciting group with many possibilities for collabration. Lots to be optimistic about here.

    Well, enough babbling for now.I'll save up some babble for tomorrow.

Bob


Bob