[Andy Carson]

Here’s a reworking of the numbers counting the number of “high profile threads” in each category. I arbitrarily defined “high profile” as threads that get more than 1000 views. Totally arbitrary, but there does seem to be a break at about this number between thread generally seen as “interesting,” and those seen as “uninteresting.” I wrote a bit after each set of numbers comparing this analysis to simply counting the number of posts. Most of the “take homes” are the same, but there is an important difference between the two techniques in the “marketplace” section

Draft Animal Power Network communication/Outreach
7 threads with >1000 views, or 0.3% of “high profile threads”
Most popular thread = 1816 views
-Identical result to “post count” technique

Our Member’s Map
1 thread with >1000 views, or 0.05% of “high profile threads”
Most popular = 7098 views
-Similar to “post count” technique

Draft Animal Power Front Office
51 threads with >1000 views, or 2.5% of “high profile threads”
Most popular = 10965 views
-This is more than twice as much interest as in “post count” technique. Apparently some people do read the rules! 🙂

The Front Porch
261 threads with >1000 views, or 13% of “high profile threads”
Most popular = 13061 views
-Almost identical to “post count” technique.

Community of Interest
185 threads with >1000 views, or 9.2% of “high profile threads”
Most popular = 18452 views
-Very similar to “post count” technique, a more detailed analysis shows a low level, but broad, interest in books that was not revealed in the “post count” technique.

Draft Animal Power
279 threads with >1000 views in horse section alone
637 threads with >1000 views, or 32% of “high profile threads”
Most popular = 83069 views
-Still the elephant in the room. 83,000 views… Wow! There are many “jackpot” threads in this category.

Equipment Category
264 threads with >1000 views in equipment category alone
359 threads with >1000 views, or 18% of “high profile threads”
Most popular = 13730 views
-Similar to “post count” technique. This category has fewer “jackpot” threads, but more of a general broad interest

Sustainable Living and Land use
274 threads with >1000 views, or 14% of “high profile threads”
Most popular = 15075 views
-Similar to “post count” technique.

Marketplace
201 threads with >1000 views, or 10% of “high profile threads”
Most popular = 13213 views
-This is over 3 times more popular than would be predicted by posts. Honestly, I would have expected the opposite pattern, where views reduce after the post gets old and most people think that the item is sold. Perhaps this means that the marketplace is just not a place that converts “readers” into “posters” as much as other categories do? Perhaps people simply want to do thier buisness privately? Perhaps there just isn’t much to say about someone selling something? Either way, it is nice to see that the marketplace does attract a large number of views, even though it might not generate lots of posts.

Draft Animal Powered Forestry International
29 threads with >1000 views, or 1.4% of “high profile threads”
Most popular = 10460 views
-Identical to “post count” technique

Associated Organizations, Sponsors, & Collaborators
11 threads with >1000 views, with 0.5% of “high profile threads”
Most popular = 3736 views
-Similar to “post count” technique

DAPNet BOD
0 threads with >1000 views (no “high profile threads”)
Most popular = 235 views
-Similar to “post count” technique

[Andy Carson]

Tim, they are posts inclusive of all threads in the category. As some threads tend to wander, I think total posts is the way to go.

I agree, Geoff, and I thought some about if I should quantify number of posts or number of views. You are right that the two don’t always go together. The member map is the best example. Lots of views, few posts. Still, I was interested obtaining this data for the purposes of seeing where we could recruit members from. I think most members would first view, then post DAP.com, then join DAPnet (if they get this far). In my mind, we get lots of viewers so tracking things people “just look at” might be missing the point. I think it is better to look at the topics that not only made people look, but made them engaged enough to actually do something about (IE post). It would be better to have both pieces of data though, jsut to see. Perhaps I will add this when I get some time.

[Andy Carson]

It is a good idea to use some video that might already be “out there,” but what seems to be appreciated by many people (including myself) is video with commentary from an expert explaining what is being down in the video and the rationale behind the approach. Text comments could be added to selected videos easily enough from home without refilming the whole clip. This is real, useful information that adds to our content in a documentable and (I think) interesting way. I have been doing some reading on how to attract and engage folks who may have found us online, and have come to the conclusion that importantant and exclusive content is the most important factor. This is especially true of video content and andthing that is interactive in real time. I appreciate links to youtube videos, and have followed some of them, usually forgetting what I wanted to see in the first place. Once in the youtube rabbithole, I rarely come back to DAP.com. I realize that we cannot be all things to all people, but if we usually send people offsite if they want video content, I think we are doing ourselves a disservice. I could be wrong, but let’s a make a couple pilot videos of our own and see how pupular they are. Man must measure, right?

[Andy Carson]

Perhaps we should think of the Lincoln woods project as a “pilot” for a video of this nature? There are certainly a lot of unknowns about how to do this, but I wanted to make sure others think this would be interesting…

[Andy Carson]

@Carl Russell 37761 wrote:

Nothing is truly sustainable without change… leave as many as possible options left for the future.

I generally think that biodiversity is important for sustainabilty as well, but within reason. It is interesting to note that extremely diverse systems are often very sensitive to insults. Tropical rainforests, for example, are famous both for thier biodiversity AND thier sensitivity to insults such as logging, erosion, climate change, etc. Something must be said for the sustainability of less specialized animals and organisms such as rats, raccoons, coyotes, deer, crows, pigeons, etc, that can eek out a living in a wide variety of environments (even semi-urban ones) and thusly have a higher degree of “sustainability” than tropical specialists that can only eat a leaves from a specific tree. This thought might be getting away from the origional topic of sustainability, but I just wanted to say that the presence of biodiversity, in and of itself, does not mean the system is sustainable in a changing world. I think there should be other aspects taken into account as well.

[Andy Carson]

I was digging through old posts and found this survey. I strongly urge all board members to read this survey and truly appreciate its implications. We can all speculate on what attendees would like to see, but this is merely speculation. This is the ONLY true test of what people want to see. Clearly, they want to know when the event will be held, and they want detailed, specific, educational information that goes beyond the obvious. Focusing on any other content is contrary to this survey, and contrary to what attendees actually want. I was not aware of this survey, and am frankly shocked at how some people want to focus on aspects other than what this survey directs. Please reread this survey. It is very important.

[Andy Carson]

@near horse 37718 wrote:

On a different note – it is interesting that after centuries of manipulating our environment and trying to “do it better than nature”, the best model for sustainability has been the natural ecosystems around us.

Although i appreciate nature (as defined by what the world was or would be without mankind) I think of it as merely a “best guess” as to what might be sustainable. Geoff, you are certainly right in pointing out that there are many times that mankind has tried to create sustainable systems and failed. One might make the argument that these attempts began when mankind began, perhaps 200,000 years ago. Are there models of sustainability in some cultures and peoples? This is certainly debatable… I think that there are examples of hunter-gatherer societies that have sustained themselves largely unchanged (at least in my opinion) for long enough to claim sustainability. It is unclear how long a practice must sustain itself to be “sustainable” however, and some might argue that even ultra modern farming practices are indeed sustastainable and have proven this over a few decades (I don’t personally agree with this). My point is that human attempts at sustainability are not doomed to fail, despite many historical failures. There are a few small successes and many that are debateable.

Nature is often put forward as the ultimate model of sustainability. I can certainly see this point, but isn’t the fossil record proof of natures failures to create sustainable ecosystems and living creatures??? I believe it is. These failures go back to the beginning of the earth, some 3.5 billion years (>17,000 times as long a humans). During this time nature evolve a multitude of organisms, nearly all failures at sustainability. There is little doubt that many organisms were victims of competition from animals and/or organisms that were better fit for climate changes, geographic changes, novel adaptations, disease, migration of new species, or a million other factors. The point here being that nature, in my option, is not always sustainable unless it adapts (or is allowed to adapt) to new challenges that will always present themselves in our ever changing world. These adaptations might include new species and the extinction of species less fit to the new environment. If we look at nature as a discreet and unchanging set of species and ratios of species, than it is demonstrably unsustainable in the long term and have been unsustainable for much longer than humanity has been around.

This is indeed a slipperly slope. I recognize that if one says that change is natural, than any change might put forth as “natural” and possibly “sustainable.” I do not see it this way. I think we (as a species) need to think about and test the sustainability of our impacts on the earth. I think we need to use common sense as well as a scientific process. I am more sceptical of systems and impacts that different greatly from the way that the environment was before mankind, but if thoughly tested and verified, I am open to considering these just as sustainable as systems attempting to emulate nature.

[Andy Carson]

I am so so sorry for your tragic loss, Kevin. I can only imagine how hard this is and is going to be. You and your wife will be in my thoughts.

[Andy Carson]

i think that sometimes it is OK to use a somewhat nebulous word like “sustainable” when you need to convey a give people a general idea of what you are motivated by. I agree that when you dig deeper, there will be differences in emphasis between different sustainable practices, but i also think there will be some agreement a cross the board. For example, I don’t see how anyone could argue that continuous corn production, with the its heavy fertilizer and herbicide use, and poorer yields when compared to rotation, is sustainable… I would guess many people initially have an idea of what “sustainable” means to them and assume it means the same to others. Once they learn that sometime it doesn’t include a consideration that is close to thier heart, they willpredescibed set of standards probably ask about that specifically. I think this is good all around as it opens up a discussion of specific actions/concepts and makes everyone look at a more comprehensive view with room for personal opinions/beliefs rather than a view that must conform to a predescribed set of “sustainable standards.” In short, I think that “sustainable” means “I have thought about how what I do effects the world around me and have chosen practices that reduce or eliminate negative impacts.”

For me personally, I think of sustainable in primarily ecological and economics terms. I feel that it is important to figure out a way to make practices that benefit the earth as a whole be profitable. I would rather have many people turn reasonable profits benefitting the earth to a reasonable degree, than to have very few people benefitting the earth and going bankrupt in the process. I’m a bit more pragmatic that way, I guess, or maybe I just see this as an issue with many “shades of grey” in many aspects. I don’t think about social justice much when i think about sustainability. Really, I don’t think about social justice much when I’m not thinking about sustainability either… I guess we all have our limits when it comes to nebulous terminology… 🙂

[Andy Carson]

@Tim Harrigan 37604 wrote:

So we use the term ‘networking’ quite freely as if we have a common agreement and understanding of what it means, but actually it can mean just about anything.

This is true. Perhaps I have a different view of what network is and this is why I have somewhat different thoughts about it. I generally think of networking as being “chummy” with other people or organizations in an effect to “court” them. Most people (and organizations) who are “chummy” avoid conversations about many subjects I consider important to myself and to our organization. This includes (but is not limited to), discussions involving life and death descisions involving animals, the mention of pain when discussing training aids like bits and goads, policy and politics, philosophical approachs to training/working with animals, philosophical approaches to how we impact the environment, what “organic” means, what “humane” means, and a million other topics that might offend someone or cause disagreement. I think that as an organization, we are brave in discussing these important topics and provide an important service. We have a plurality of opinions on most of these topics and I think representing these openly and honestly is important. I fear that if networking means “being chummy” we will stop discussing these and other important issues so as to not offend potential networking partners. So long at this compromising of our own viewpoints and our collective viewpoint doesn’t happen, I am not opposed to networking either, but I think a little worry about the potential of a compromised viewpoint (even to a small degree) is reasonable.

[Andy Carson]

Welcome, Steve, good to have you on board. I think you’ll find a lot of interesting info on this site and don’t be shy about asking questions if there is a topic you don’t see addressed.

[Andy Carson]

@Tim Harrigan 37567 wrote:

how do we translate additional networking more effectively from something additional to do, to greater efficiency in advancing our values and goals?

I see a clear and present danger in networking with organizations that do not share our values (or share only a small percentage). I recognize I am in the minority here and am willing to conceed the point. Conceed, but not necessarily conceed quitely :). I think it is important that everyone honestly speaks thier mind… Still, I think you (Tim) and I are on the same page in thinking of networking as a means to an end. I think that some think that networking is the end and think of education, as a means to network. Perhaps I misunderstand this point of view? This is a very different way of thinking than I am used to and I am honestly still ruminating on it. Right now, I keep coming back to the line of thought that without having some common concrete “real-world” goals we work towards I can’t get that enthused. I think we do have some goals out there, and am hopeful that the group will gel around a few.

[Andy Carson]

@near horse 37560 wrote:

As I’m reading it, rather than “process vs product” the process IS the product. In other words, the act(s) necessary to put together the field days, workshops etc (the fungal mycellium below the surface) are the true product even though they are manifest in a more visual “mushroom” – field days, workshops etc.

This is interesting and I think it does make sense. It is also encouraging because it means the process, perhaps, should be difficult at times and sometimes confusing. Get everyone together, set up an arbitrary goal, and you have a great teambuilding excersize… I am not saying the goal is completely arbitrary, but if parts feel a little arbitrary this way of thinking makes it feel better. I have already gotten to know a lot of other board and committe members and they have gotten to know me better… I will have to ruminate on this concept a bit. It is a good thought.

[Andy Carson]

Personally, I think that debating about if killing and eating your oxen is traditional or not is missing the point. I think the most critical thing to emphasize is that teamsters have the right to make thier own choices when it comes to end-of-life options with reguard to thier animals. They are uniquely qualified for these desiscions because they (and they alone) are close enough to the animals to know 1) if they are in pain, 2) assess thier current and future quality of life, and 3) are familiar with how these animal(s) can serve a purpose at the end of thier lives. I believe that the vast majority of teamsters (and certainly the ones in this example) consider these options carefully and do not make rash judgements. I see it as being no different from when someone who raises beef cattle decides to slaughter one of his/her animals. I think this is the way to present this argument. By including all cattle (indeed all animals) in the discussion, if reminds the general public that organizations such as PETA are against all animal slaughter, not just these. It reminds them that this is a slippery slope that will hit them in the stomach when they can’t buy a bacon cheeseburger.

For me personally, I will definately eat my oxen and/or sell meat. This is, in truth, one of the main reasons I chose to work with oxen instead of horses. The meat is worth a substantial chunk of change, which makes my working animal also livestock animal of substantial value. As a concrete example, I found that keeping horses (for power) and pigs (for meat) was less efficient in many ways than keeping oxen for both. This is a real advantage that oxen have over other animals, but it only reveals itself when you actually slaughter them. Personally, I think that if you are not eating the oxen (or selling the meat) they are not reaching or demonstrating thier greatest potential as complete farm animals. I understand not everyone feels this way, though… I have to admit that I have had people accuse me of being “cruel” for eating animals I know and raised. I couldn’t disagree more. I can ensure that the animals I know have a good life, open fields, fresh grass, a long life, and an opportunity to be of service. Contrast this with the lives of mass produced cattle in feedlots or industrial dairies…

PS. I like bacon cheeseburgers too… 😉

[Andy Carson]

@Carl Russell 37548 wrote:

Written by Philip Ackerman-Leist:
“It is time for more organizations and individuals to come forward to denounce the intrusive and unethical bullying orchestrated by these organizations.”

I couldn’t agree more. I believe it is critical and important that everyone voices be heard. I am still amazed that these seemingly fringe organizations had the power to accomplish what they did in this case. Proof, in my mind, that they are a force to take seriously. I can see the argument that animal ethics might be best taught one-on-one face-to-face between mentors/parents and students/children. This is the way I learned. Still, in the world today there are far too many people who are incredibly divorced from where thier food (esp thier meat) comes from for this model to be effective for a large enough number of people to matter. So many people will never need or meet a animal related mentor and their parents will never slaughter an animal for dinner. Unless organizations like ours speak up, the vast majority of the US will only ever hear the “PETA side” of the argument. I think by remaining publically silent, we are doing ourselves a big disservice. There are just so so many examples of seemingly “fringe” organizations adamantly protesting for an initially unpopular or “fringe” cause and, eventually, changing the collective mind of the nation/world when not faced with rational and public opposition.

[Author]

Posts