Highest Number of Comments Yesterday

This blog has had its highest number of views (491) ever in the last few days (since its inception in 2009), perhaps due to the Colt Summit project?

I told Matthew that the fact that we have more views about Colt Summit (and collaboration/litigation) than “Naked ice climber scales frozen waterfall” says something optimistic about human nature ;).

As part of our blog reflection process, I am also considering the question “should we change the name of the blog?”. It appears that more of us are interested in topics broader than NFMA planning. Suggestions are encouraged.

Thanks to everyone commenting for the great discussion on collaboration, its perils and pitfalls. It would be nice if someone would send a post on their positive experiences with it.

4 Comments

  1. I have, in the past, posted examples of how various approaches to collaboration have resulted in many acres of restoration projects on national forests in the South. These projects generally use “above cost” timber harvest as a tool, not an output or goal. They are widely supported and the NEPA is not usually challenged However, most readers seem more interested, as your viewing statistics seem to bear out, in focusing on collaborative processes that are controversial and not universally supported. I have hoped that NCFP could be a forum for sharing and spreading the successful approaches, wherever they occur.

    Perhaps it’s just human nature to focus on the controversial. Certainly, with perhaps the exception of LOL cats on the Internet, the news media is more interested in the sensational and gory than in images of happy people doing good things.

  2. Jim, Thanks for sharing your experience. One thing I’ve observed over the years is that some of the people engaged in some types of ‘collaboration’ on national forests in the western US don’t want to tell their ‘story’ unless they have full control of the discussion and PR spin and can quell, or even outright censor, any debate or substantive critique of their specific ‘collaborative’ approach.

    Also, regarding the fact that this site had it’s largest number of views yesterday, the official site stats show that the biggest reason for that was the post concerning the new collaboration research from Dr. Burke, which wasn’t really some much controversial, as it was neutral and highly informative.

    http://ncfp.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/new-research-who-litigates-who-collaborates-and-why/

    Having said that, and as a new contributor/author at this blog, I certainly echo Sharon’s sentiments:

    “Thanks to everyone commenting for the great discussion on collaboration, its perils and pitfalls. It would be nice if someone would send a post on their positive experiences with it.”

  3. As you know Sharon, I was surprised that you and Martin named the blog “A New Century of Forest Planning”, and my first post was titled something like Oh No, Not another Century of FOREST PLANNING!. So, yes, let’s change the name. But to what? My earlier attempt to get folks talking was titled Forest Policy, Forest Practice. But that title didn’t attract all that much attention either. Maybe we ought to use the title of a good book, Forest Dreams, Forest Nightmares. But that might not do it either. So, like you, I’m open to suggestions. Still, I want to talk policy and practice generally and specifically. I wonder what others want to talk about.

  4. Hello, RE: Blog Traffic

    Just like to point out that while this blog had it’s highest number of page views in a single day ever on Wednesday (491 views), yesterday the site tied that number, with another 491 views. A lot of stuff must have come together in the universe to make that happen, proving yet again that anything is possible. Of course, thanks to those who are reading, commenting and sharing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>