Cobweb run

[Stewie]

Hi all, had to delete link due to complaints about bikes being in the pictures

[silvergull]

Further to this, I was glad and impressed to see so many turning out, sorry that the link to photos was taken down, if you cannot photograph bikes in a bike related forum, where can you do so? This is really loopy! Surely it cannot be a security issue, as the bikes were not associated with specific named owners? ( unless I missed something, too late now to tell)

On another related matter, I was intrigued ( also annoyed and disappointed) to see the ' Surrey Off Road Biking Display and Stunt team ' out in force locally , ( Shere and surrounding-) and they are pretty good on one wheel, which I know were not TRF not only because they were better riders but they came through my village at the same time as the photo was being done- ie around 1.30 pm, and they did put on a fine show! Sad thing is, they looked the same as TRF, the locals will not be able to differentiate, so there remains a lot of work to be done on this score. Hopefully the TRF will continue to address this issue in future

So- Happy New Year, all the best- BC

ps, just checked the facebook page, where photos, some even with bikes are still visible.Even Santa gets a go on a bike, it seems, should this really be posted there? What is going on? Maybe someone from the Groups Officers could clarify a little?

[stevent]

Brian

Thanks. From what I've gathered from other posts, yes there was a specific security related concern.

Interesting to note there are flamboyant displays of riding prowess in Shere village centre. We obviously can't control other riders but just keep going with promoting responsible riding.

The Facebook Group description has just been updated. See separate post. It should be clearer what the Facebook Group is for and what is acceptable and what is not. We are experimenting with using Facebook to a greater extent, given how dead our forum has been and to promote an open and welcoming group for new members. With an open group of x-hundred people there will be an assortment of posts appearing. We will keep monitoring how it is used and reflecting on how we can improve it.

Thanks
Steven

[stevent]

Hi all, had to delete link due to complaints about bikes being in the pictures

Stewie - can we still have the none bike pics posted on here?

[silvergull]

Steve, thanks for your note.
re facebook, and security etc, I would have thought an open facebook page, ie non members able to access runs, photos etc it seems to me obvious that the page should be closed to non members, and be ' members only' , if only for security of bikes, but for other reasons too. it is simply not possible to know who is on this as if is, there can be no real control at all on this point. I have made these points before, and have made little progress on ths, thats true, but I am still a paid- up member, and thats is my view ( it may be just me, but there you go!) I would go further too, for the same reason, and make the forum closed to non members. I cannot see why fee paying members only have a little more access than the non members. So the idea that non members might join may work,but does it? Is there data on this? So far despite my having asked for this data, none has been forthcoming. ie how many non members join up, how many who take part in the saturday rides are non members, and how many of these join up, etc. I just do not see how the conclusions and policy are arrived at.

Re forum being 'dead' surely this too is largely due to the extended use of facebook, this is undoubtedly true, so you have the answer right there. Then there is the issue of closed and private whatsapp groups being operated, as we all now know, all related to this issue.
So I offer this as constructive feedback to yourself and your fellow officers, as requested, for open discussion.
Lets hope other members can and will speak up, and state their feelings here. There seems to be an overall feeling, based on private conversations I have had with members, some very recently, that the members' views are often largely ignored. cheers bc

ps, just tried to take a look at Lodden Vale, to compare, but the forum is closed to non TRF members. So It works for them! I believe Devon is the same.

[stevent]

Brian

Happy New Year.

Thank you for giving your views.

I’ll look to address the following points which I've picked out: (1) how open/closed we are as a group, (2) what platform we use to communicate (3) data analysis on whether we are getting people who come in via our open FB page to join (4) what you get for joining (5) private WhatsApp groups and (6) what other groups are doing

(1) how open/closed we are as a group - where you suggest - make the forum closed to non members - Lodden Vale, to compare, but the forum is closed to non TRF members. So It works for them!.

Going this far to close down our online presence may well have some benefits but I would worry that lots of people interested in trail riding would not find us. Our group would not have the flow of new members joining to keep it vibrant and alive. Other online groups will take our place - as we have seen in Hampshire - and the TRF becomes distant and obsolete. Steve S will tell you this is exactly what happened to Thames Valley TRF and you also see it with other motorcycle groups. I believe there is a need for a open, inclusive and welcoming online presence. It looks like Facebook is where there are a lot of people interested in getting into trail riding and where we can maximise our influence.

(2) what platform we use to communicate - FB v forum.

At the moment we have a facebook group which is open and a forum which has open and closed sections. So, a closed/private section is there, available to you and others to use, if you want to.

The forum vs FB issue has been rumbling for a while and I set out how I thought we should proceed in July, having listened to members (you can check back here: viewtopic.php?f=41&t=3255).

The approach we have adopted is to experiment, try new things and see what works and how people vote with their feet. Luke A has very kindly got involved as he believed we were failing to connect with members and potential members. He has taken the first Saturday idea and connected with people who we wouldn’t have otherwise.

The forum was quiet for much of 2019, well before Luke got involved and started experimenting with FB (which was October/November).
You make a fair point that traffic which would have come through the forum may now be displaced to FB but it was not the case that the forum was a hive of activity through all of 2019. I've been astounded by the success for the First Saturday (and yes have heard the murmurings that it is getting too big) but hats off to Luke for taking action and doing something positive for the group.

(3) data analysis on whether we are getting people who come in via our open FB page to join

I completely agree that we need to analyse our data to evaluate how effective our efforts have been. There are challenges here. Nobody volunteering to do it. Also that National TRF have temporarily stopped sending us up to date membership lists. However this analysis is possible - we can cross reference names, we can count the number takers on FB who have become members, we can more effectively police our one run then sign up principle. Before Christmas I contacted the new TRF membership Director Andrew Byatt to discuss general membership issues and today I have requested an updated membership list. However we really need help from some fellow members who are good with data analysis on this.

(4) what you get for joining - where you say “I cannot see why fee paying members only have a little more access than the non members.”

I agree we should enforce our one run then sign up principle - we shouldn’t be repeatedly taking guys out who don’t sign up. On my runs I’ve always encouraged prospective members to sign up. Events we run could/should be for members only. Again, help here would be great - we could be proactively following up with people who join our runs as prospective members to ask them to sign up and keep better track of whether they do or don’t.

I also think many people sign up not for access to the forum, but to know that their membership fee is contributing to the TRF fighting fund. The recent costly Warnford case in Hampshire shows our membership fees are being ploughed into local trails which many of us use.

(5) private WhatsApp groups

I don’t think anyone wants to stop anyone from using WhatsApp to arrange to meet up with their mates. There is no rule that TRF members are no longer allowed to organise private runs with their mates. I know you know there are many members who ride regularly and never ever post up their runs.

However I do agree that those who are leading the group should not to be pursuing significant undeclared competing interests which undermine the fellowship spirit of the group.

Its up to those of us who are trying to lead the group to make it as good as we can (and that means fun too) so people want to go on our runs and want to lead runs for us.

(6) what other groups are doing

Well it is often reported to me that paid up Surrey TRF members cannot penetrate other groups and give up trying. I don’t think we should go to those lengths to keep people out.

If there is good practice which is going on elsewhere which can work for us then we should consider it but we shouldn’t blindly follow what other groups without thinking whether it would work for our group. (I'm sure you are aware that some TRF groups are 100% Facebook)

I know the new national TRF Director for membership is keen to get a debate going amongst groups and group officers. I’m will also be following up with Graeme Collins, Chair of Lodden Vale, in the not too distant future.


One final thought on the forum. I’m still not sure whether it is sustainable as it requires a not insignificant amount of effort to administer. Tony Rowlands has done a fantastic job at this but having done so for some time, he is ready to stand back as soon as someone else steps forward. I’ll be posting up soon with more details on this and seeking help for the year ahead, I'm sure I'll be inundated

Hope that addresses some of your concerns and sorry it has taken me time to address your questions. If you want to discuss further you have my number and if others want to chip in, it'd be good to hear your views. Writing lengthy responses takes time but I am always reading and listening and think about what people and saying.

Steven

[silvergull]

Thanks for your reply, Steve.
a few points raised which need clarfication.
Warnford: I fail to see how this demonstrates how the trf keeps byways open. the trf officer involved totally mis- managed this, kept it more or less to himself, and instructed members not to write in. he also failed to noiify the wider membership of this case, until it was too late, and in the event, the trf lost the case. the costs incurred were not disclosed, probably in the tens of thousands. The same officer also wasted many thousands on supporiing repair of a perfectly good lane for PR reasons and loss of face to him personslly, a byway which was not under threat of closure, ( hydons lane) There are probably other examples, in the wider scope of thngs, but the two referred to above are 2 that surrey trf uses regularly.
Another point is that the majority of byways users are not TRF members, this much is known, so not really sure why the TRF are falling short here. We really do need to know how many actually join due to the recent efforts, surely it is a simple matter to ask each run to gather this, ie its only 5 or 6 to ask, ascertain who is who, and make a note of it, and compile this data centrally. a simple spreadsheet would do it. We could do this locally, on the day, rather than depend on national figures which by nature are always out of date, and do not gather the detail needed specifically anyway.
Facebook vs forum. the fact that many do not use facebook is not addressed, you suggest to vote with feet if not happy. Hardly a useful approach. You also seem imply that the forum is too tricky to manage, and hint also at possible closure. This would be in my view lead to total collapse of the group. I hope someone steps forward to help here. TR has done, and is doing, a good job for sure! But I fail to understand why the group offiecrs keep so silent on these policy matters?
I would still like to know how many on facebook are members and who the users are, and why damaging posts and unsuitable videos and photos are posted there, when we do not allow this on the open area of the forum . surely this is damaging to the trf and contradictory?
In conclusion, probably a good idea to get my walking boots dusted off, it seeems, and knit a new TRF bobbly for 2020.
cheers bc

[Faisal]

Gents,
just my feedback from using the events page for the first time from the face book page:

- difficult to know who is a member and who isn't when advertising rides, this in turn then makes prioritising riders difficult. I am assuming you are part of the group (800+) you are not necessarily a member? Looking at the feeds, it does increase the profile for the trf, but in turn may end up with more non members on a run, than members. Can the facebook events page address this?
- not sure how I can stop people accepting a ride once the event is full, accept deleting it - any ideas?
- a real pain trying to check the forum and facebook when managing rides

Personally I think the forum worked well for me anyway. Advertised rides personally for me should be in the members area - with a try before you buy option.

Just some constructive comments (not criticism!).

Cheers
Faisal

[silvergull]

Faisal- you re- enforce my point well, thank you! surrey trf has some 220 paid up members, many of whom are not active, (and many do not hsve facebook accounts or use facebook at all, incl me, ) the facebook page you say has 800 members, so the math is pretty obvious. There is also a very real security issue here, which was what extended this thread originally, as it is very possible or even probable that some of these 800 may have nefarious motives, we simply do not know. Its one thing encourage new members, but we really do need to know who is or is not a member at the outset of a ride, and of those who are not members on these rides, how many sign up, they are not supposed to do more than one ride as a non member, then subsequently they are supposed to either join up, or go away. but if no record is taken, we may be simply being used as a free ride guide service and facilitator, which was not the idea at all!
I just cannot get the group officers to see this, or accept this, (you will have seen the reply I had, its all a little wishy washy.) and do something about it. So thanks for your input. The monthly ride idea was a good one, as a committee member at the time I supported this initiative, but the structure and form was never really specified, and while it is a good thing in principle it needs to be managed, even more so now as it has proved popular.
cheers bc

[Faisal]

Yep got to agree with the security issue - don’t like the idea of people not affiliated to the club seeing where the rides are meeting and going.
Word gets around very quickly on Facebook.
I’m paranoid enough of my bike being stolen at the best of times!





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[boredus]

After reading this thread I have only just found the SurreyTRF page on facebook and asked to join.

It is fair to have an 'About the group' and advice offering but rides should not be published on there at all. A positive ride report on the FB page would be good publicity for the group, however 10 unannounced riders turning up on a closed ride because it was public for a while is not ok. I also do not want someone associating my van with me and my bikes. I live on the tri-counties borders so I am local, how long before some scoundrel sees my van parked up at home and realizes they saw it at an organised TRF ride.

We struggle with ride leads as it is and to then leave them with more admin work for a ride to note non members / members is not fair. I ride most weekends and was only recently thinking about looking in to run lead training to start helping out on rides but when helping/providing a ride starts to impact my busy work/home life balance, I will just ride on my own.

[silvergull]

(With regard to last to the last point, run leaders are supposed to collect the run fee at the beginnibg of each ride, be the riders members or not, so it is not a lot to ask at that point if the riders are members or not, there are only 6 riders max on any one ride, ( one being the leader, ) so that leaves just five, its not really a big admin job to do. In any case non members are supposed only to have one ride with TRF as non members, then they are supposed to join if they want to ride again with the TRF This is how it has worked for a long time, its fair, and easy to implement, so not sure why its a problem ? The other duty of the leader is to pay in the fee raised, again a small item of admin.We also need to be aure the run fees are boing collected, as this is the main source of funds needed to keep the group running. None of this is news. Cheers, keep that rubber side down. bc