Hi Pinga,

Having heard some of the stories of current users it is hard to deny that WonderCafe.ca has been a benefit.  I don't believe that things which provide benefit should stop provided of course, those things aren't artificially inducing an undesireable end-point.  The benefit has to be beyond the scope of benefit to the institution.

I have heard little in terms of complaint of the actual environment of WonderCafe.ca.  We are not blasted with advertizing and what advertizing we have appears primarily in house so if the advertizing space is purchased that it the UCCAN robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The question then becomes what kind of advertizing would I permit and what would I reject.  Beggars can't be choosers right?  So there is the potential for advertizing revenue streams that actually alienate current users.  Quite frankly I have no idea of how the current advertizing impacts upon my purchasing.  I doubt I have ever clicked on any of the adverts.

At minimum I need threads to be self contained so that I can follow the progression of thought.  I know we used thread trees at United Online I found that a pain to navigate though it is better than nothing.

I like the separate forums as well, just because it keeps things neat and tidy and inactive threads don't get buried by unrelated activity.

While user fees help to offset revenue required to meet expenses I don't know if I would have continued with everything if I was paying for it.  I don't mind banging my head off a wall for free I'm not paying for the privilege of banging my head off a wall.

Not that every conversation here is an exercise in cranial mistreatment. 

Grace and peace to you.

John

I feel like I cannot post to FB questions about solving my problems about church, health, family, and relationships as others would know exactly who or what I was talking about.  I also would not be able to say how I really feel as it's not private.  With FB, I feel it doesn't have as good security features as WC does. 

I would like Wonder Cafe to continue.  I find the layout very useful.  Being able to transition from one thread to another and back again. Being able to move from forum to forum with ease.  We don't have to click on fifty million tree and sub tree branches to find what we want. The layout of Wonder Cafe's forums make even the least tech savvy person not feel intimidated when using it.

Should Wonder Cafe continue.... Yes in some form or fashion that holds true to the vistage we see and feel comfortable with.  I've run Bulletin Board Systems in the past so I do understand how much more efficient the way Wonder Cafe works is user friendly.  Things have definately come a long way since being a SysOp on one of those old forum boards.

I view Wonder Cafe as a diverse Congregation that meets people where they are, as they are. They are welcomed without any expectations.

Those are the minimum requirements I think any incarnation of Wonder Cafe would require.  As for my dream of Wonder Cafe.  That we will perhaps one day be a Cafe of Virtual Reality.  Where we have an Avatar that moves about in the cafe. Tables and chairs those avatars can sit at with a virtual cup of coffee or tea, and when they want to visit a forum their avatar walks up to and enters the door of that forum and they can then interact with whatever thread they wish.

This dream comes from such computer games I've played over the years like Star Trek Online. you create your character to look how you wish. and then you are able to move about in the game environment and talk either by text or voice with each other. You can sit in the game Lounge/bar or outdoors on a bench somewhere in a garden and chat with each other, or even walk side by side in that virtual environment just as if you were doing it in real life with someone.

That's my dream for Wonder Cafe. (my Wonder Cafe wish list as it were.)

(>-.-)> *Peace* ~ Beyond ~ *Peace* <(-.-<)

Steven A. Breeze

Amen, Sterton. Facebook by design also cannot be like this.

Like RevJohn, I am not sure I would have paid for the thumpings I sometimes took. Advertising on a site once was distracting, now it is the norm. All in all, the format is ok. For me, the quoting feature has never worked (user not interface) and really serves no use to me ( reading or responding). The Groups has never functioned or been used much. The same for Friends, Photos and Videos. Friends would work with a chat or instant message. The Church Search is something I have learned one time visitor folks have used. It is also something Google strikes upon when you know a church name and search. I am not sure what Books even is.

There are, for me , endless places for clergy to blog. The blogs are predominantly free and you can add one to your church website. I just find it a vanity feature more than anything. That may be because it never worked as a blog. It was just other space to post. A blog would mean one thread for A and all A's blog entries within.

The dream list would be chat or private conversation via IM.

All said, I think there are a number of unused things, or underused things, and some things that might be well used that are absent.

Should Wonder Cafe continue? It's been a beneficial forum for a lot of people, both from a faith perspective and for personal reasons. It's been an opportunity that I'm not sure I would have had anywhere else to really engage with people of very different beliefs - both from different points on the Christian spectrum, and people of other faiths and/or no faith. Where else do you find a forum where liberal Christians, conservative Christians, fundamentalist Christians, atheists, Wiccans, etc., etc. engage in a mostly (although we have our moments) respectful dialogue. The question is what form it would continue in.

I agree that Facebook wouldn't work. Twitter would be even more useless for this type of engagement. I'd like to see some other forum type environment established. John mentioned the old United Online, which I participated in, although which never had the same sense of community as Wonder Cafe, maybe because it was too overtly United Church and not welcoming enough of those outside the United Church. It also, I think, gained a reputation as being mostly for clergy, although as far as I know, lay people were welcome.

I'm guessing that if the UCC is pulling funding then funding would have to come through ad revenue. I don't think paid subscriptions would work. As others have noted, I can say without doubt that I wouldn't pay a subscription. Although I enjoy WC, things I pay for have to be prioritized, and I don't think WC would come high enough.

But should it continue? Of course it should. Whether it can continue in a meaningful way? That's the question.

For the kinds of discussion that I enjoy, as others have indicated, FB and Twitter don't cut it. They are okay for short, social posts but not for detailed discussions or lengthy, thoughtful posts.

What would be my bare minimum for a new WC forum?

• Threaded discussions with titles organized into topic forums (R&F, Pop Culture, etc.). This is where FB really falls down as a discussion board.

• Good rich text editor, preferably less quirky than the current one though I've grown used to the quirks.

• Easy to embed media (WC does handle this very well now, esp. with Youtube videos)

• Ability for admins to delegate some of the moderation work (deleting posts that violate T&C, investigating abuse reports, banning spammers), esp. if we are relying on volunteer admins

What would be my dream? Maybe I'm not very ambitious, but that about covers it. A few thoughts on some nice to haves:

• Wolfie's idea of a VR cafe would be nice as a social adjunct to the forums, but I find a text-based environment like a classic forum is actually better for in depth conversations since you easily read and re-read a post that interests you or that requires more thought. Interactive text chatrooms, including the ability to chat privately with a friend, would be a nice first step towards Wolfie's idea.

• Definitely would be nice to be able to have a blog, friend lists, private messaging, and other social features that we have now.

• Something that allows you to subscribe to a thread to get notifications of activity on that thread (most of the boards I'm on support some form of this).

In the end, though, just having a good, threaded discussion forum with some basic social features would meet the immediate need.

One more item that is not related to the technology: clear, well-written set of board rules (Terms and Conditions) with clear provisions for how they are enforced (deletion of offending posts/threads, suspensions, bans) and by whom. Should include an escalation path that starts with simple warnings before drastic actions like suspensions and bans are taken (unless its something blatant like a spammer, in which case they can be banned immediately).

Mendalla

My initial response is "SAVE THE DATA!'

The rest can be negotiated.

So true, ninjafaery

Thanks for point out something I left out of my post Mendalla...

In relation to entering the forums with your avatar in my mind I see our avatars reading a virtual screen with the discussions on them and then as we type a response our avatars type on a virtual keyboard or touch screen.  That's how I envisioned it.

Thanks again for letting me know I didn't explain it well.

(>-.-)> *Peace* ~ Beyond ~ *Peace* <(-.-<)

Steven A. Breeze

That goes to what I'm asking of Aaron, ninjafaery. What will happen to the forum database, and would the UCCan consider transferring it to someone else to import it into a carryover forum?

These things are not foolproof. Sometimes, I've seen posts detached from their user accounts after migration. But, they'd be there, and searchable.

The main problem is that this forum component of Drupal 6 is expiring and has never been a good forum solution, so exporting it to another, simple forum solution would be the ideal. Whether the UCCan would be interested in doing that, or if a group of users could do that and use the wondercafe.ca domain while it remain in control of the UCCan, I don't know. Either of those would work for me.

I don't think it should close down. But, I mostly wanted to say....hey, I remembered my password and was able to get back on !

Shawna

Of course I would like it to stay in what ever form can be worked out. The forums where the conversation takes place is something I would like to see stay. I hardly ever visit the blogs or the other groups.At one time we talked about having visitors start threads like the moderator, gretta vosper, the arrogant worms etc. I think it went nowhere.

I need the site to be secure.

I trusted the username, email address, IP info with the church

I would not that info to be shared with any other site without suitable controls re privacy.

I need to know the servers are adequately protected

I want to ensure folks aren't being spammed or hit with those who are ought to take advantage of the vulnerable

I like the content-heavy text-based message board format. I can not talk to people about important issues in real life (they do not seem interested). A chat room for discussion in real time would be a good feature. I do not want avatars and smiley faces to take up the whole screen like on other sites.

I haven't read the other responses yet.

I like the idea of making this interfaith, instead of just a UCCan site.  Share the costs, responsibility, marketing, etc. with other religious groups that are tolerant to one another.  We already have people of various faiths, I think it would increase diversity and bring some new life in.

I realize there could be some challenges on the admin, funding, etc side by joining with others.

How to securely run and host the new site is really the biggest problem, Pinga. Board software is out there and readily available so finding one to use isn't a problem. But where and how to host it? I'm thinking we'd need a hosting service to take it on or park it in a cloud (e.g. Amazon Web Services) but then we're into more $$$$. I don't have any thoughts because I work in a corporate environment where the parent company has it's own Drupal and Sharepoint servers that are secured internally. I've never had to deal with evaluating shared data centres and cloud hosting.

Then there's the administrative details. Do we set up Wondercafe, Inc. as a non-profit to host and run it, esp. if we're going to be generating revenue? Will we hire staff or run it volunteer?

Mendalla

I think it should continue. It's a great resource for those like me who are often sick and can not make it to church.

I have many suggestions but unlike REvJohn I am not going to bang my head against the wall. 

 If the GCO of the UCC is unwilling under any circumstance to keep WC alive, than we really should talk instead about Wondercafe 2, the sequel.  

Or an effective lobby to make the GCO reconsider the staffs decision to shut down the community.

It is clear that many WC members are sadened, shocked or surprised by the announcement that WC will close next year.

It is clear that there may be some ways to establish and maintain a "phoenix out of the ashes" kind of WC.  Certainly all kinds of technology exists.  And certainly there are qualified people who understand exactly what is needed,  and this a good discussion to have.

What I find difficult about this discussion is this:  it is very difficult to discuss the feasibility of creating a new way to keep this going without understanding the real costs of operationg it: the staffing costs (or contract work), the infrastructure costs and operations costs.  Without understanding this, it is not easy to understand how to generate revenue, whether it can be done only through advertising (and if so, then who is going to run that part - that'll be a F/T, and I assume that there will be some legal fees from time to time as well), or membership fees, which leads again to someone handling revenue.... and it snowballs.

There is also a possibility of getting grant(s) to start up, but there better be a good revenue generating plan starting up at the ssame time.  Granting bodies want to see that the project will be self-sustaining and continue once the grant money is finished.  That said, I bet there would be a way to get some funding to stsart up.

In order for me to understand better how a version of WC could continue, it would be good to have, at least, a rough understanding of costs involved, so that a plan could be drafted, at least in a fairly thoughtful, realistic way.  It does not have to be incredibly detailed, but it would be good to know realistically wwhat we are talking about.

I would like to see it continue.

My wish list includes a youth forum.

More categories.

Daily inspirations and/or devotions.

Just to name a few.

Should wondercafe continue?

Yes, by all means! And I would like the UCCcan to continue it, pretty much as it is. If some of its features remain underused, they can always be dropped. If money is the problem, I wouldn't mind the UCCan selling advertising space on WC and let the advertising revenue pay for it.

Like Alex, I don't always go to church on Sundays, and wondercafe has become my on-line church.

The DEO Lutheran congregation of Salmon Arm holds a Sunday morning discussion in their church building as an alternative to their traditional service, which takes place at the same time. I regard WC as an alternative discussion service that is available on-line for everyone.

I would like it to continue somehow.

The town I live in provides space on their webpage for community groups.  So each group has its own webpage and manages it, the town admin provide the domain names (I think that is what they call the purchased space on the net to have your stuff!)

Maybe the UCC or a thriving congregation could offer that to WC?

It would help if I had some puter smarts!

I wonder if there is another church type organization that would like a startup group, such as wondercafe to feed their own program.

I think of a larger church organization or cofunding from three united groups.

United Church of Christ

United Church of Canada

Uniting Church of Australia.

Host it at a cloud.  Funded by some %.

We bring the base user set and experience...and a pattern of accepting folks from all around the world.

virtual / global church community....how would that look?

I would like to see WonderCafe continue. It doesn't have to be complicated - just a simple place where you can post a thread and follow a conversation. I would be open to Pinga's idea of sharing with the United Church of Christ and Uniting Church of Australia. One thing I would not be open to is being forced to pay for it (although I would happy to voluntarily donate).

I will echo your comments, somegal.  I would like to see the cafe continue in some form.  I don't expect anything fancy - mostly just something that is easy to read.

I think that's actually a really good suggestion, Pinga. As "United" or "Uniting" churches (and there are others around the world) we should be seeking to work together in a variety of ways.

There is a depth of value this community brings.

Together we have learned to deal with sockpuppets and engage others on the existence of such.

We have had the worst kind of false account that manipulates, including financially and emotionally

We have experienced someone's darkest moments and the loss of that person to suicide

We have walked together, been supported and supported folks through their own losses, health issues and life-changing moments

we have discussed hard topics and grown in the process, listening to the others voices, being coaches through our own blinders

we have learned to walk together with folks who are different from us...sometimes learning to just ignore each other, but often learning how to dialogue

we have learned to have fun and form community in a way that is unusual in the online world , and I would say, real world as well.

That has value.

The question is if we can translate that commodity to anyone.

In putting forward a case for WC, the first question that needs to be answered for the top brass is: Is this being done by someone else already. The UCCan executive seems to think that keeping WC would just be duplication of FB (and WC is more expensive!). Answer: Posters above have responded that no, this is not the case - FB works for a chat, not a discussion that is at all lengthy or has any depth. I certainly couldn't post anything as long as the following on FB.

 Next question: should the national church be promoting these kind of quesions on a national basis at all? Couldn't these conversations be carried on at a congregational level (and why the need for electronic media at all?). Answers: 1) not all UCCan supporters are able to take advantage of the presence of a nearby congregation (eg can't attend because of conflicting hours or distance) 2) the opportunity for discussion is rarer than it should be in most UCCan congregations - let's face it, worship is not a discussion (that's not to say it doesn't have its own purpose - it's just not in the form of a dialogue)So this is a place for discussions that need to happen that aren't or can't happen within worship  3) Even if discussion happens at the local level, we are still taking to ourselves. WC exposes us to other points of view. While some make seek to use such a discussion to undermine the principles of the UCCan, I've come away from the WC believing that more than ever, the UCCan's voice is needed to present the moderate, thoughtful alternative to both religious and secular narrowmindedness.

Next question: isn't the WC used by a small number of posters? Why are we spending money to benefit so few? Answer: There are many more reading than posting. (In fact, why aren't there more posts from the upper reaches of the church bureaucracy? How threads are "seeded" needs some thought here - what are the issues that are being ignored? It's harder for a sockpuppet to prevail if there is too much weighty discussion going on, making it easier to ignore the extraneous sockpuppet noise) And simply reading can be beneficial too - much more useful (and thoughtful) than the UCCan web site. Most of the time, I simply don't have the time to follow an extended conversation that may go on for several days. Work, home and church responsibilities intervene. Yet I can identify at least two hymns that I've written that had their start with points raised (or how they were raised) on WC.

Now, the nitty-gritty about format of a forum alternative. I too think that a discussion format is what it is and that is of value to keep. More guest posts and invited commentators to start threads is something I would like to see. That should just be a matter of asking (or does the UCCan have nothing to say?)   I don't mind advertising (even if its purpose is to promote wanton consumption - perhaps that would provide additional material for a discussion on the "products" merits!  I would consider donating, although there would be more "bang for the buck" if it remained part of the UCCan and therefore eligible for charitable donations. The Observer has an analagous mission. How does it get funded (partly by donations/subscriptions, but doesn't some come from the Church itself) Maybe looking at that model might be someplace to start ? Finally, promotion is an issue. Some thought needs to go to how to make WC more visible. That's more than just a WC issue. There's a lot of noise in society. Finding a way to stand outside it or rise above it in a way that stays true to our principles (ie not saying something outrageous just to be noticed) won't be easy.

Agggghhh! Sorry for the long post. I'm just not very good at thinking in FB-style  "thought bytes"

I missed the announcement about an end to funding for Wondercafe.  I appreaciate the existing format, but could easily give up some features like the blogs (I hav enot blogged for months).  I would like information about the current costs for WC>

Thanks folks. These are good suggestions. I'll pass them on.

Aaron

Thanks Aaron - you are playing your difficult role extremely well.  Might I suggest that the people who made the decision to shut WC be asked to come here, sign on and meet us as we are?  How  can we communicate effectively when they stay hidden, sending bombshells into this congregation?

repeat post - sorry

thinking more about this today...  I would not mind the presence of ads on wondercafe (or its successor) as long as they were not for porn or gambling.  Is it a simple process to determine what sites are permitted to buy ad space?

I only want ads if they are for porn or gambling. lol

Look, I think the place should continue. I really don't think we get enough clicks here for Google Ads to make a significant contribution toward the upgrades necessary.

I believe the content should be moved to a new forum, where the UCCan doesn't have responsibility or admin control. I don't think the UCCan will agree to export the user list or the content, so that's probably out, but it's what I hope will happen.

chansen, agreed.  the click through rate and hit rate is probably way too low for any revenue stream.  I'm guessing that the advertisements for uccan publishing could be used to judget that.

I joined Wonder Cafe back in the day of the Bobblehead Jesus, when it just started. Somewhat miraculously, just a day or two ago, totally "out of the blue" I thought about the site again, triggered maybe because I was in the process of setting up a blog for our local church.

Anyway, I looked you up only to find the site at this critical point. Past critical really.

I feel perplexed. I don't know how the site has been doing but somehow I feel the real issue is not the mechanics of this feature or that one, advertising or no.

The question "whether to continue" is such a fundamental one. It cuts to the quick. People ask themselves that question in their darkest moments. Institutions do too. Just ask the folks at Blackberry:)

More importantly, it is the very same question many are asking about United Church itself. In a recent Observer article Kevin Flatt said, "The church is in dire straits, and we may be looking at the disappearance of the denomination."

I wonder. Where is such darkness and despair coming from?

Shouldn't the question be how to continue not whether? "How" is the question we ask ourselves when the going gets really tough to which we know Jesus will invariably offer a brilliant answer.

I am as mystified as anyone how you might proceed when closure appears to be a fait accomplis, announced as by fiat. Is anyone praying on the question and asking for guidance for those who have the authority over the decision?

I agree Justin. The question is how we can continue, not whether we can continue. As long as we are thinking "whether" we are doomed.

I do have more thoughts that I will put together when I am better rested....

That's a plan to do nothing while patting yourself on the back for helping.

I would like an answer from Aaron or another admin (if there still is one) as to whether or not they would export the forum content in a format that a new forum application could import, so that the conversations and the history could continue. Also, what will happen with the domain? Without knowing the above, I don't know what I could do, beyond registering a new domain and hosting a new forum with a similar list of sub-forums. If someone wanted my assistence with this, or would assist me, I'd do it. I actually have some virtual hosting space.

Something like that could be a possibility Chansen, but we would have to explore how it would work. The United Church won't be giving over (or selling) the information of the WonderCafe members, I am sure. I'm also sure they will keep the www.wondercafe.ca domain for a while at least.

Thanks, Aaron.

Even if the post content remained, but did not link back to a user account, that might be sufficient to give any new venture a searchable history so as to be a bit of a draw. We all search for old posts now and then.

O.k. lots of great input and ideas.

The stats of use are on the front page.  lets hear about how many registered users there are: How many post continually: and so on.  the cost-benefit ration has to be measured.  And yes, there is the line "where two or three are gathered...." and as much as that is worthy, there is a financial issue that has to be addressed. It is unfortuneate that things like the shut down are happenning when the Comprehensive review task group is in process.  Yet, I can understand the rationalle. Adieu mon ami.

There are like a quazillion registered users, but so many of those are fake that it's not worth counting. For the past three years or so, the site has received about 30,000-40,000 unique users each month - and that's considered pretty good for our audience. It's never been a question of whether or not WonderCafe was successful as a website. It has more to do with cost down the road I think.

Jim Kenney and I have both asked about the cost of running WC. 

This is an important piece of information if people are serious about moving forward and perhaps creating a new version of WC, outside of the purview of UCCan.

Even a ballpark figure would help people understand what it might entail to move forward and create a new meeting site.

Aaron tossed out a figure of $10-20K to upgrade the custom if they upgrade the system to Drupal 7 (the current supported release) over on FB. That fits well with my experience doing similar projects at work. He did not give any firm figures on hosting, admin, etc.

Mendalla

Thank you Mendella

In an organization the size of the UCCan I would think that 10-20K is a drop in the bucket. Would that not be a good investment in such a ministry as this? Where else can we have discussions with atheists and born again Christians with poor grammar? (not all born again Christians fit that mold for the record). Where else can we discuss standing strong with persecution alongside trying to decide the location of a roofer?

I personally have learned more from people in here than in some of my face to face experiences of church. I'm sure I am not alone in that. This is an important ministry.

But it's not the whole investment. As Aaron pointed out on FB, that's a cost that could be expected to come up every 3 years or so. And the ongoing annual costs (hosting, staffing, other licenses that may be required) could well be in 10K-20K range as well.

On principle, I agree with you on the importance of the Cafe and definitely support keeping it going.

However, a rethink about how it is run could be in order. A simpler software environment that is easier to manage and can be used "out of the box" without a ton of customization would be a good thing. And, no, FB isn't it. Doesn't thread or do sub-forums well which are necessary parts of a system like this.

And doing that may well require a "reboot" since it may not be possible to bring everything over from the current Drupal-based board.

Mendalla

While I too will be sorry to see the site shut down it is a topic that comes up here frequently.

It feels like every six months or so someone starts up a "are we at the end, no interesting topics....." Type of thread.

The site tracks visits but I assume it can't track time spent or threads visited. So while there are visitors there is no ability to see if anyone visiting but not posting gets anything out of the site.

I am guessing there are about 100 regular posters more or less and of those likely about 25 who really post and keep things going.

That makes $20,000 plus quite a lot of money to minister to a handful of people some of whom would despise the idea of being ministered to.