We'd love your thoughts on online communities - please help us by completing our short survey

Call me a cynic but I hope this survey isn't a sign of further cuts in rspb expenditure and that the community forum is in danger of being considered for axing.   Hopefully the survey is to primarily help understand how the online community is being used and comparing it to other social media wildlife groups and to help improve the rspb community website.  

  I have seen so much change around the various rspb reserves and staff cuts,  it leads me to question the real reason for this survey.    Without a community forum many people seeking help, advice (sometimes urgent)  would be prevented in accessing that help and information.     I believe membership can often come from people dropping in on the community forum, reading posts, maybe having their questions answered or simply enjoying engaging in a like minded conversation about wildlife and sharing a mutual interest.      

I think this is the first time I have disagreed with you, Hazy. My views:-

1) I have looked at the ongoing RSPB accounts. I am not an accountant, but do know expenditure needs reviewing as a) it is a charity that relies on the goodwill of generous people to survive b) the proportion of money going on the core point of the charity’s existence needs bolstering, and ‘nice to have’ bits need trimming. 

2) The forum is underused and has been for years. Communities need moderation. That costs money. (See above). The community, imo, has cost more members than it has gained. Impossible to know, but no evidence to suggest otherwise. 

3) Very few of those using the community spend a bean on its cost. This has been the case for years, and incl people who had been members leaving the RSPB but still using the site! 

4) It is not the role of RSPB to answer queries. The role of the RSPB is protection/conservation of birds. Much of what is posted can be done on chat sites. Photos can be shared on dedicated/commercial social media sites. It shouldn’t be for generous members of charities to pay to provide chat facilities. 

5) Some of the ‘help and advice’ is inaccurate, misleading and/or wrong, and quite a few of the correct answers can just be found via internet searches of reputable sites. Clearly, not always the case, but many of those examples are just cases of people trying to bypass putting a bit of effort in to speaking to experts. Volunteering helps genuinely interested people learn new skills. 

6) The hierarchy/presentation of the site has never been right. The front page list format needs money spent on it to redesign. 

7) I bumped up a post of someone wanting to post a video. The data limit is an issue. 

8) There are other platforms the RSPB can and do use. Some use of the community is therefore duplication. 

9) Spam and T&C breaches are still relatively common.

10) I want as much of RSPB money spent on protection and conservation of birds. The more it drifts away from that goal, the more it drifts away from members and risks losing them, compounding the ongoing issue of income v expenditure which will deteriorate anyway due to several other reasons which I won’t add here. 

I reckon with a bit of thought I could add another 10 reasons why I don’t think the community should carry on. Obv, just my opinion, but it was worth a go 15+ years ago. Not anymore, and besides, tech has moved on. 

Yes, I take on board the very valid points you make Robbo and agree the format of the site has many flaws that has exasperated many members that have left the community as it is not keeping up with the technical upgrades it needs to work properly and understand that money is needed for those upgrades that could be better spent on direct action to help birds (as it should);    however, I do feel we need some form of a community that encourages people to join in and agree it is not rsbp's role to answer questions but was referring to community members who can assist;   I know incorrect advice can be given on occasion but it is often followed up with the correct advice by a more experienced member.    I guess I was really venting frustration after seeing so many cuts seen at recent visits to the various reserves where they have lost some incredibly knowledgeable experienced staff who were either offered redundancy or to reapply for a lesser grade job in cost cutting.    I know rspb is like any other business that has to make the most of its membership money;   I would always want it to go on conservation of birds/wildlife first but believe even a "wonky" website is better than none at all.    it would have been better in order to keep on top of spam or abusive posts had rspb have allowed one of the "experienced and trusted" members to have had limited administrative access for that purpose only to keep on top of spam.    Not people like myself but the  TeeJays/Robbos/Seymouraves  spring to mind.    

I filled in the very short survey. I noticed that one question was " Are you am member of the RSPB Birders Facebook group but there were no follow up questions asking for an opinion on that group. Just for the record it has to be the worst Facebook group that I am in - there is next to no moderation and as it's a Public Group it attracts a rather unsavoury element at times, quite often with long and meaningless threads. If that is to be the main way forward I would hope that Moderation improves as at the moment it appears to be more about number of members than quality of posts.

Just as I’ve heard that CEO of the RSPB has allegedly received a large pay rise. I’ve used the word carefully allegedly as I don’t know if that is true. Even if she is good enough to receive a large pay  rise. It does not look good if allegedly true with all the other redundancies at the RSPB. Someone i like who has been made redundant  and highly qualified and everyone liked her including families with children!

Yes I do agree with much of what you said. There are a number of other forum members on here can join but the moderation at least on one  Bird forum are very lenient and only rarely take action. But practically no spam as there are large numbers of moderators.

Filled it in, but not the best survey - having been on the receiving end of surveys for many years, the ticks are actually not very helpful, it's the comments that you need to make improvements & not many of the questions actually had a comment box (eg see Bob's comment about the FB group).

Re moderation - as Hazy suggests, there's no reason volunteers couldn't be involved in that, indeed I have volunteered directly to the team myself on more than one occasion (as an existing on-reserve Vol) but there always seems to have been a reluctance for some reason (which is odd seeing how some RSPB social media accounts are run by Vols)

Thanks for the comments.

Re 'self moderation', that would be an improvement on no moderation, or 'light touch' moderation. However, it opens up 'over moderation', 'conflicting moderation', 'a war between moderators!' etc. I know some things I've posted would have been 'moderated' by some contributors (rightly or wrongly). There needs to be an official arbiter. That has to be someone representing the RSPB brand. Self moderation would better address the more obvious stuff like spam and creating of multiple accounts by single users.....but isn't a complete solution....which would need money.

Other issues not listed yesterday incl:-

11) Too easy to set up multiple accounts. Banning doesn't prevent individuals posting.

12) There are over a million RSPB members. How many, as a percentage, make any use of the community? (i.e. have to pay towards something they don't use)

I agree tick box surveys have limited benefit. However, filling in boxes inevitably means 'suggestions/improvements' which = more money required. I probably would have chosen one or two different questions, but just having a survey is itself a survey....if RSPB gets back 20 responses out of over a million members, (and there's a probability that some responses incl non members who pay nothing towards to cost), that survey is successful in telling the charity something. (it provides another layer of confirmation if needed, that not many people are using the community).

There is no risk of the RSPB website being switched off. I am sure they're just looking at the community.

Re salaries, high earning data is in the accounts. Large charities benchmark as many people know. It isn't just RSPB that have high salaries at the top end of the organisation.

I do go back to the accounts though re what I would like subscription spent on. Everything that is not protection and conservation is lower priority. The more the increase away from that, the more pressure on membership numbers. Salaries are one factor in that. Familiarising with accounts, you will see others. With stock markets, for example, doing so well (comparatively and incl last few days or so), accounts will be looking better now than potentially in weeks, months or a few years from now. 

On a random visit, albeit a few days after the release, I noticed there was a survey.

If no one asks the questions, then organisations and businesses don't get the answers they need, so I'm more than happy to share my thoughts.

You cannot pigeon hole everything, it is not one box or another, there are multiple boxes on multiple levels, and trying not to be too cryptic, some boxes need to be variable in dimensions.

For those sorting the results to the questions, one thing I will add, I am seriously reviewing my social media activities the very little that I do these days to the point, do I need it. I've virtually abandoned Twitter (X never made the mark in my book), though my acc still remains, Facebook was ditched long ago, and BlueSky, was a pleasant environment at the start, but even that seems to be going down that slippery slimy route.

At the moment I find social media very depressing, power and money driven rather than practical. Anything more and I'll be in the cynical area, but then I am a cynical old soul these days.

Sorry to seem negative, but being increasingly locally hemmed in by the very things which are purportedly causing environmental issues whilst the things that are supposed to help the environment are removed, all in the name of progress.....

On the upside, nice to see many of the familiar friendly names, and a very valuable resource of knowledge, are still around    

I just think that this survey looks to me that the RSPB want to discontinue this forum. If I report something on this forum. If your lucky the post you report might be deleted within a few days or sometimes a post anyone reports can remain for weeks  If there is no full time moderators then I would say that the outlook for this forum is not good. I won’t be donating to any appeals as I feel very concerned that any donation won’t go to any appeal in full. With what has happened over the last two years, I wonder if any donation I’ve given has reached those appeals I’ve donated to. I said two years as Mark Avery was mentioning this situation up-to two years ago. Until I know what has happened in full with the full financial detail I won’t give any further donations for any appeals as I’m not confident about any donation to the RSPB at the present time.