PBS on Facebook

Kirby Fong kfong@alumni.caltech.edu
Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:34:55 PDT
There's another way to deal with postings and photos, but I don't know if it'll work for PBS.
The American Daffodil Society moved from a mail server (like PBS) to a web based discussion
forum at http://daffnet.org/.  Anyone can read it, but only members can post to it.  Posts can include
multiple photos. Posts and photos are archived.  I just tried to search on cultivar "Gold Bond" and
got back a bunch of posts and their photos going as far back as 2003.  The forum is fairly new,
but all the e-mail and photos had been archived so they could be transferred to the forum.
Of course if you're not searching on a subject but just want to see photos of a particular
cultivar, you go to the daffodil photo database site at http://daffseek.org/.  It originally started
with cultivars, but species have been added more recently after experts have verified the
identities of the flowers in the photos.  The society does use Facebook and Twitter, as Tim
recommends, to get new people to visit its web sites (and hopefully to join).  Terms and
policies tell members they're granting the society a license to use the photos they post, but
they retain the copyright.  Anyone else who wants to use their photos must get the owner's
permission.  Since only members can post to Daffnet, we can assert the copyright on
behalf of the member as an overlay on photos before displaying them on the web site.
It seems to be working okay, but this is probably more work than PBS can afford.

     Kirby Fong

On Oct 17, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Tim Chapman wrote:

> The biggest disadvantage  PBS has vs other online venues is the lack of images as related to immediate topics.  FB and other forums excel at this.  The biggest problem FB groups have is the total lack of archiving and long term usefulness.  In some specialty groups amazing images are shown even new species to science and hybrids or variants never shown before.  These often disappear as older posts that can't be searched for and these extremely valuable posts and images are basically forgotten about.   PBS posts are archived and searchable.  For useful info the PBS wiki is THE source on the web. 
> Instead of trying to compete with the many bulb groups and numerous specialty groups. The PBS should use their Facebook page as means to attract new members of course but also pull from the huge FB base to enhance the Wiki.  It takes a bit more effort to add to the wiki than many are willing to do, however many people have no problem sharing their photos and knowledge. 
> We can encourage current members to post their photos to the FB page (either on topic photos, or just good photos they want to share). It should be stated that by posting photos you are giving permission to add these to the wiki.  Photos can be placed in genera photo folders and when somebody wants to work on the wiki they can pull from this resource. 
> Anyone choosing to work on a particular genus should be encourage to ask for help from these various groups as well.   For many plant groups the number of photos and species displayed on FB has far exceeded any other online source. 
> Just an example to prove the usefulness of FB:  I've come across about 6 new spp of Zingiber via FB friends and group postings etc. I'm in contact with the expert on this genus and have been passing info on these as well as trying to source material for him.  I've already gotten a few and have important info on them. They would have made there way to taxonomists eventually... In a decade or two, and without any collection data etc.    I've come across several other new species of gingers on FB often by accident just looking at friends stored photos.   It's a great resource if you use it well. 
> Tim Chapman
> _______________________________________________
> pbs mailing list
> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/

More information about the pbs mailing list