I do think we will eventually have to take up the question--
 

--of what to do about keeping the Braintalk communities alive, assuming they can be resuscitated.

My take on this is that while JL and others had done an admirable job at developing and nurturing the Braintalk boards, they have grown to the point that they need more than one person, or small group of people, to maintain them. There have been several outages, both large and small, over the last several years, and these need to be prevented, as the cost to the people who use the site--and with lurkers, linkers, etc., that rises into the hundreds of thousands worldwide--is enormous.

And I'm not just talking about the costs of not being able to interact--Braintalk is the world's largest neurological database, with info that cannot be accessed all in one place at any other website. As such, it is relied upon by doctors and researchers as well as patients and caregivers. Think of where THOSE people would be without JCC's Gluten File, Rose's B12 info, Mrs. Doubtfyre's supplement info--and the list goes on and on.

I have seen hints of a proprietary attitude about Braintalk among the moderators and JL occassionally; I suggest that once a board grows this big, even if one has originated it and nurtured it, one cannot morally say that one really "owns" it any more, even if one is within one's legal rights to still make that claim. Therefore, it might be prudent at this time for Braintalkers to urge that JL perhaps aid in setting up some type of governance board, beyond the moderators, and including technical experts, to prevent these outages from ever happening again. It may even be that the day-to-day monitoring of the site needs to be in the hands of such a board, which might even need to include paid staff, working at it full-time and with full-time responsibility. This would enable JL to pursue other projects, or travel, without that resulting in such long period of downtime if something fails.

Commentary is invited.

but how would the paid staff be paid?

Especially full time staff

Maybe donations for a back-up system..I dont know exactly what was involved for Dr John to create this website, but Ive noticed that it not only looks like the original BT but works smoother and faster than BT-1..There were several glitches in BT especially after some software updates, and people were complaining about BT being very very slow and some users could not get on the site at all..I was not surprised when it crashed

That's easy - ad revenue.

If John Lester approached the big drug companies and asked them for sponsorship, then I bet BT would have plenty of revenue to pay at least one staff member.

Think about it - the ads would be the same size as the google ads that have been at the top of BT for years, but instead of various ads from google they would be ads for medications that are specific to the forum - pain meds at the chronic pain forum, epilepsy meds on the epilepsy forum, etc....

Google ads pay next to nothing - but if all of braintalk was sponsored by a drug company (or several drug companies) we wouldn't notice a difference because the ads would be the same size and in the same place, but the income generated would be larger than the few pennies we get from google ads, and the ads would be more tailored to each forum (no more "donate your used car" stupid ads that make no sense on a health support forum).

If BT was sponsored by a drug company, John would still maintain comtrol, the drug company would get a tax write off for their donation/sponsorship because BT has a non-profit orginization status, and the BT members would notice nothing diffferent (other than different ads in the place where the google ads now are).

My 2 cents.

I like this idea.

It would be a help to get at least ONE fully paid full time worker. then it would mean John would have more time for his full time work.

anyone else got any other ideas to make up funds?

Glenn, I see that you have concerns about BT's future,.
 

BUT, I have to let you know, that I'd tried over a year ago by posting directly via BT pm's to those who could devise a fundraising plan apply for and get grant/corp monies: and not be beholden other than proof in the pudding! I've had extensive exper in non-profits and have help many via grants to same. The planning, board development, fundraising sides are all important to ensuring the best such a site can support. I RECEIVED NO/ZERO response! I believe that all the wonderful folks are soo busy here 'doing what they do' that long term survival is not an issue at any immediate moment.
Many BT folks have been adrift and the words on BT2 really home in on how much the site[s] mean to so many.
I recommend two things: One, put our dollars where our mouths are! -IF you can! The 'puters, software, maintenance, back-ups, expansions due to need all require warms bodies, and accessories to allow the warm bodies 'to do their thing!' Bodies and $ make this world go round.
TWO: As for boards: very old axiom-GIVE, GO [get] or GET OFF! While I've long been in contact w/many non-profit development assistance groups[for a long time], I've still a few names, and can refer descreetly to best advantage of whoever-whats to get the most bucks for the least effort. Good board/committee/fundraising members from the corporate or business sectors don't necessarily have to be inflicted-you know, some may just have a relative and want to 'help'. There are good people out there, and to not get and use the right kinds of smarts is plain out-crisis management [no insult intended to John or others]. IF you want f/t mods and all that entails, you need the GIVE a part of yourself to make it happen... And reserves for the ever increasing intrusions into such a big system.

In the end, Glenn, what I see you asking is for the 'institutionalization' of BT, as it is, and maybe can be. There are a LOT of folks all around the BT Communities who have resources that can be had for the asking...just need to point-em in the rite directions!.
OK I've told you I can help in the planning and development aspects. What about YOU or others?
Don't complain......DO! - j
DocJohn, and John L I think you may hear the strident sounds of BT withdrawal! SOoo?

[Sides, you really gotta consider that this is a WHOLE boodle cheaper than Therapy!] - good thoughts to all! - j

Growing up and out
 

This by far has been the most trumatic outage for so many of us. The last one we needed major equipment upgrade and through donations there was an abundance of funds there to hopefully to maintain the system. John grew up and expanded out from MGH to his new endevour that requires him to trvel.

I agree with so many, if there are 50,000 me4mbers to BT, there are easily that many lurkers and others that find our topics through searches.

So it makes sence to have sa taff, utilize ad's, it is a 501 3C, or whatever the non profit is, so it should be viable to have maintance for the system.

I also agree with the first poster of the moderators. I think John tries to rely on them, at many times they handle matters fine and swiftly. But, unless a moderator is familar with the board they would moderate; to know the regulars, from those who use more than one user name not for anonymity, but rather to troll, resulting in flaming. To not fully comprehend the family structure on each board, when intervention measures are taken to reslove problems,it can lead to harsh unsupported decisions.

We are growing out of a project to a major part of many peoples lives they count on.
I hope that the old information on BT can be safetly retrived, and still there valuable to so many in need of it, now and in the yeears to come.

Yes, like the B-12, the various others that had help from something not so known, something as small as a support wrap, to a recommendation to watch for harmful side affacts are so valuable.
Good post.

Board-ruled is a great idea!
 

It's true that there was no lack of funds the last time the issue came to the attention of the membership. Yes, the D___ C____s have oodles of money, and I don't want to start a debate on how or why they have so much nor try to describe to the innocent what is the extent of their powers. So, although DC do do some good with me-too drugs that don't take too much work, aren't necessarily safe, and produce huge short-term revenue, their neglect of other sectors of the market would put me outside the group of those willing to support them with their personal anguish and dreams.

Back to Braintalk. I totally agree that this is a system that has grown well beyond playing with avatars, and JL might not have realized what he was pledging when he made all those heartfelt promises. He will have to trust some staff as we have trusted him all these years. "I was travelling" can't mean that there were no telephones, fax machines, radios, or computers, or that the man was bound and gagged. Busy is something I have seen and been, and something no one should be who has not been able to trasfer his position of trust to others. I'm sorry John, you have done beautifully with your dreams, but, you see, they came to life, and they hurt and bleed and cry without their own kind. We'll still love you if you're not all-powerful any more [and by all-powerful I mean you can't do it all]. Not even God gets notice for that any more,[i.e., certain theological circles are tending toward an omnipresent but not omnipotent God, but that's another subject, LOL], LOL.

Jaye

What about charitable foundations?

Almost every millionaire has their own charitable foundation so that they can give away money to worthy causes and get tax breaks. I'm not just talking about the mega-millionaires or the famous millionaires (like Oprah and Bill gates and Ted Turner) I'm talking about the run of the mill average millionaires who no one hears much about because they aren't famous.... but they have money and they run charitable foundations to give money to non-profit orginizations for the tax break.

So what about finding a list of the millionaire-run foundations who give money away and asking any/all of them if they would be interested in supporting braintalk?

And let's not forget all the government grants that are available to non-profit orginizations.


BrainTalk could have gotten $$ and funding a long time ago -- but as someone else pointed out, there was no one looking for the funds, applying for funds, or doing anything about it.... now maybe that is because of time constraints, or maybe because there is no one in official capacity who knows how to do these things. If that's the case, then we need to find someone who knows how to do it and has the time to do it -- several BT members have expressed that they have time and ability, but to my knowledge no one in official capacity ever took any of these members up on their offers to help.

All I know for sure is that an orginization as large as BT with so many people who rely on BT should not be offline for so long. Whether BT needs funds to keep the software/hardware working properly, or BT needs funds to pay a staff, or both -- Braintalk needs to do whatever is necessary to ensure that a crash like this never happens again.

As a not for profit organization, BT has had a governing/working board for quite some time. It is my understanding (whether true or not) that David first "came on board" in the capacity of developement/fundraising.

A number of the recomendations that have been discussed, have been implemented. They were put in place as it became evident that JL would not be as accessable as he once was. I would be very slow to assume that the existing problems are driven by John's ego.........real or imagined.

What is clear is that apparently the community's technical needs were dependent upon one person, which is never a good thing if that person isn't as available as he or she once was. (I know this from personal experience, as I've been down that road myself.)

It's also a matter of priorities, as well as the technical complexity of how the forums were setup. It's easy (it took about an hour to setup these forums) to setup forums for a small group (10,000 or less members). But when you hit numbers like 50,000+ members, well, you definitely have to plan for additional technical resources (2 well-configured, hardy servers at about $300/month total would easily handle that). We have 1/5th the size of the community but have never been down for more than a day in 7 years.

I am happy to lend a hand (or technical hand, if need be) to help in any way possible in getting BT back up and running. JL knows me and my background, and he knows where/how to reach me if needs anything (he lives down the road from me!).

DocJohn

If it's to be a success, he also needs to reavaluate his moderators. Too many good people were banned, unwarrented for alot of them. No explanations were given by DH, just **Boom, your banned**. that isnt fair.

you got that right

MSWorld seems to be funded in large part by Berlex so certainly approaching the Big 4 would seem to be the order of the day.

To whomever started this place while the regular forums are down...Thank you.
Cherie

Who's Got the Database
 

I don't know anything about how John was running the site, but I do know how much I missed having it, even though I had not been posting much in recent months.

If John's "moved on" to other interests in his life, does anyone have the ability to get the database?

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sure has a lot of money they HAVE to give away, and soon. This is one really good cause for them---if there was someone to run the thing.

Mr. Lester HAS NOT moved on from BrainTalk. There is a new update at the BT site that gives a little more detail as to what happened.

The timing of the crash is why it's taken so long to get BT back up and running.

While I personally think BT needs a "mirror server" desperately, that is something that Mr. Lester has to realize.

I also think that he needs at least 1 person he can share the responsibility with. Only Mr. Lester can make this decision however.

What is a 'mirror server'???

A secondary or another server to function as a "mirror" or backup for the main server.

Bobbi is correct :)

A mirror server most likely would've kept BT online while the main server crashed and gets repaired.

It would depend on how the mirror was set up though...so it's not a 100% always work never fail solution.

Just a thought:

Since a mirror's purpose would be to function as a backup, wouldn't it cost less to have a mirror site running off hosting servers - as is this domain? Anything goes wrong with those servers (being used "as needed"), the repair cost falls to the host. Too, an advantage would be that the mirror site files could be accessed from anywhere ;).

It's generally far less costly, more reliable, and easier to maintain to lease servers at a large hosting facility that does this stuff for a living than it is to own your own server and be 100% responsible for it. There are exceptions to this rule, but they are few and far between unless you're a large corporation with a 24/7 IT staff.

Thank you, DocJohn. I thought so, yet was still in that wondering state of mind :D.

Too, it is very kind and generous for you to have established BT2 while our BT is getting back on its "feet" :cool:.

Proposal for BT 24x7 Site/Server Support
 

Many excellent recommendations have been suggested here! JL has done an outstanding job over the years supporting BT, but with 50,000+ members and thousands of posts every day, BT has grown so large that 24x7 support (or close to it) is a must! I had suggested (on another thread) that perhaps the site/server should go back to the MGH IT organization (from which it originated via the work of JL, as per my understanding). DocJohn’s comment above regarding leasing servers from a 3rd party hosting facility is also an excellent idea. One thing is certain though, if nothing changes at BT1, the question will not be as to if, but when the next server crash will be.

As it is possible that we may not be able to solve this issue here, I propose a new forum (or at least a thread) be added at BT1 (after the site is back up) to continue discussion as to how 24x7 support might be implemented. If the BT administration (JL, board members, mods, etc.) would choose to limit discussion to among themselves (due to practicality/logistics, etc.), I propose that a space be set aside on BT for periodic reports from the administration detailing plans, finances, logistical considerations, timeframes, etc. required for moving forward toward 24x7 site/server support.

I believe such action would go a long way in regaining the user community’s confidence in the reliability of BT. If the user community sees progress in this area and financing is an issue, I feel confident that the user community would be more than willing to help. BT is not like other boards where people discuss things like video games, sharing food recipes, etc., it is a community where people with potentially life-threatening medical issues share information, comfort, and support (and the best of its kind on the internet!). I believe keeping the server hardware/software in a basement/attic (as I understand is the case) with only one person holding the key will continue to place risk regarding the viability of the BT community.

P.S.
Please note this post has all positive intentions! As most of us, I am attempting to make positive proposals with specific details, similar to how a Project Manager would handle a business situation. :)

It doesn't seem like all that long ago that donations were made to upgrade Braintalk. Not long ago at all. I know one dedicated Braintalk person who contributed to that. Not long after that, this dedicated person was banned for reacting to someone who was obviously trying to stir up trouble. I doubt they will feel like contributing again, especially after that upgrade didn't last very long. Then again, maybe it's true that during that time after the upgrade Braintalk grew with a huge momentum

It would be nice to see it up and running again. With the lack of announcements in the last month I thought it was probably gone for good. And I had no idea this place was here until today.

Glad to see there are folks here with good ideas, because I don't have that expertise!

Highly Impressed
 

on following the link under DocJohns signature and finding the forums..

Meet the Moderators and Administrators!

Now that thread ...wow..that in my opinion is how things should be, more openess maybe in just who is who on Braintalk would possibly have prevented an awful lot of trouble. I have never been on forums/boards/groups before where the Mods hide behind a veneer of secrecy as they do on BT. Maybe a lesson could be learnt from Psych Central by BT admin.

Wow Stumps! That is pretty cool! WTG DocJohn, I like that!

See if this link works so they can see what Stumps is talking about...

http://forums.psychcentral.com/showf...b=5&o=&fpart=1

Yes ...the link works...I think it is fantastic, open and honest, for me it would give more of a feeling of safety, protection knowing who is who
Gillian

Eons ago BrainTalk was sponsored by MGH. But if I remember correctly they were not thrilled to have discussions other than those medically related be brought up. Finally JL broke the official connection. I believe it was when he switched to the vBulletin software (?). He did start selling merchandise to raise funds.

Sometime later I saw David's name. By that time I had more or less stopped coming so I was a bit confused about that.

I would suggest not ask a drug company. You may find that discussions of other drugs or alternatives would be sadly curtailed.

Getting a governance board would make everything more unwieldly in my opinion, not easier.

Instead of a set of mods trying to handle the entire BT communities, it is possible to set up mods for individual forums. Two for each forum should be more than enough. For the slower moving forums, mods could do double duty.

However, having someone(s) actually answer emails/PMs and direct them to the appropriate people would be highly desireable.

Great post. I agree.

Individual forum moderators may not even need full moderator privaleges, but could stay alert to any problems, try to resolve them, and correspond with the administrative moderators when necessary. Individual forum moderators would have an insight about the members involved, their 'record', and history of ongoing problems, if any. I would think an individual forum moderator should not have authority to ban, but might be given authority to delete or temporarily block a post in order for a quicker response to spam or something really offensive, until a higher level mod could respond.

And there should be some sort of method that if the majority of a forum felt the forum moderator was not acting fairly...there was some way to voice that. Of course, you can't make everybody happy all of the time, but the majority should be most of the time. No system is perfect, but I do think it is time to consider trying something a little different.

Cara

Be careful dat da horses head aint in yur bed Godfodder~Hah??

My 2 cents on Mods has always been this...

1. Moderators shoud be visible, not named by a number. We should know who they are.

2. A person who is a Mod should never moderate a forum that they participate in. They could alert another Mod to a problem that arises in the forum(s) that they post in for their health support, but Mods should not have to moderate or police their friends and foes - they should moderate forums that they don't visit and post in for support for their own health problems.

3. All Mod decisions regarding banning, warning, etc... should be made by a comittee of mods and/or admins.

4. Mods should be available to the members. Mods should answer questions, answer emails or private messages, etc... Yes, Mods get TONS of questions, emails, private messages and maybe time constraints make it difficult to answer everyone -- so if you don't have time to be a Mod who is available to communicate with members, then don't volunteer.... and if you are a Mod then make time to communicate with members.

I had a few other ideas rolling around in my head about mods, but it's early and I just woke up so the ideas are rolling around up there in my brain, but not rolling their way out :)

So, Umm, Err, DUH Mod rules should be established & public?
 

The majority of that is probably set out in the initial 'I agree' stuff, but the finer points are not.

Some folks really do not seem [to me] to truly respect others the way they should. All I can say is 'more's the pity'. I've learned as much from their contributions as from those more 'road wise' in the issues I have interest in. To those who have been banned, well, I know nothing of those issues. On the PN or BC boards, if I found someone disrespectful, I did a PM pointing out the aspects I found unpleasant-or, simply ignored that poster. I've never felt need to go to a Mod, Maybe the PN group while having intense issues, have less emotionally charged ones than others-tho I doubt it.

Golly! YOU GUYS! I do not like to have certain buttons pushed that I really do not need to have pushed at this time! Can't we all try for now to pretend to be the pseudo-functional COMMUNITY we are alleged to be?

GET POSTING ABOUT THE REAL-LIFE issue stuff & NOW! - j

Oh my here I go again.

There should be no mods on the forums. People do not need to have their words come out as being spoken by any moderators rules as to their value.

The moderators on BT as it existed were a complete disaster. They show this in all of the postings they used to enter with their many pseudonyms and some still do it.

One person somewhere on this site mentioned that mod 4 in his guise as firehorse was a great help in the epilepsy forum and this is true. But then they all were of help in the forums of their choice or of their particular condition.

It is when they went to the various forums where they were not aware of the members or of how they interacted that they broke down completely.

If they didn't like the message as they read it they took it out.

If they wqere sent there by someone they just took it out for no reason at all save someone disagreed with the content and invariably were not capable of finding the words to handle the situation and so as the godfather would say ratted them out by calling in the opposition.

If their needs were met they then thanked the mod who had done it as if they had an inside with them and a warning then albeit it unsaid was I have influence don't bother with me.

Some just liked the vicarious pleaure it gave them to have in their mind only a bit of power. So they ratted out anyone over anything.

If a member came back on after being banned for one thing they immediately informed on them. not for what they were now doing but because they were not heeding their false sense of control.

It truly was a sick environment for some.

If there has to be moderation and I don't think it can work it has to be done by the members themselves.

People have interactted forever and it is only this new area where we have to learn how to get along better and we will.

One person could and can be in control with perhaps two others to watch for spammers and advertisers and phorno etc and that does not imply they should be members. Exactly the opposite.

No one can be one two or three or even four people and keep their wits about them then interact with thousands of people. To me it is impossible.

Look at how many can't even get along with those in their own home forums

There are a lot of changes that have to be made and while all who have been banned are by far not as innocent as they claim neither are they as guilty as the mods made out.

David has shown he can not be reliled on to make decisions fair and decent and by the mods he has chosen he is incapable of making the right choices for Braintalk and if John doesn't see this by now then the show will be over.

I hope not

The moderator issue is indeed a complex one.

It sure would be nice if everyone just sort of self-moderated, showed restraint, tolerance, respect, and were able to diffuse potentially heating threads without any official moderation, etc., and that the only real moderator issues were simple ones of deleting spam, sales, and scams.

I see both pros and cons to having moderators who are participants, but the most important factor is probably one of personal characteristics.

I do think moderators have a tough job, and it takes special qualitites to be up to the task. I do think they are necessary.

Cara

If the moderators are coming from members within the community, then you are correct taht no matter what forum they moderate, they will be moderating people that they know from other forums, especially because so many people from different forums know each other from forum feedback.

However, even if a mod may know one or two people at the forum they are moderating that is vastly different than having that Mod responsible for moderating their "home" forum.

For example, if I were a Mod and my area of moderating was the gluten forum I would know you (jcc) because we have met in forum feedback (both here and at BT1), and likewise, if you were a Mod who was moderating the Chronic Pain forum you would know me from forum feedback.

But knowing a person is vastly different than having a vested intrest in the actual forum, and knowing one or two people is different than knowing the entire group.

Being a member of a certain forum topic creates relationships with everyone else that posts regularly on that given forum topic, and that's where the difficulties arise for both the moderator and the group.

No matter what the Mod does, the group would feel as if the Mod is 'taking sides' with friends, or the group would feel as if the Mod is 'taking sides' with foes to avoid the appearance of 'taking sides' with friends. It would be nearly impossible for a member of a group to assist with conflict resolution within that group.

My point is that by using members of BT as mods of BT there are always going to be times when a Mod knows someone that is in the group that they are moderating, but by making sure that the Mod is not allowed to moderate the group where they spend the most time will greatly cut back on problems.

I hope that all made sense.... my pain is a bit high today, so I apologize if I repeated myself or if my post needs double reading in order to be understood.

Liz

i agree. it's like when one person(s) on a forum don't believe in meds and another(others) do. having a mods who has such a difference of OPINION can bring that forum down.

liz...i chopped out the portion of your post that i wanted to reply back to. hope that is ok. :)

I think you make a lot of good points, and I have actually experienced a forum where I think the things you talk about have transpired~ I'm sorry you are having a bad pain day~

This is almost how we do things at Psych Central, with the only exception being that moderators are allowed to participate in any discussion they see fit. They are also encouraged to wield their power *very* conservatively and, when in doubt, discuss possible actions to take in the private administration forum.

I find people work best as moderators and administrators when they are internally motivated to do the work rather than externally (e.g., money). When people feel it's their "job" to do the moderation duties, it can be a good and a bad thing. Good in the sense that they have a different kind of motivation to do the work on the board, but bad in the sense that that motivation is harder to maintain.

I think both systems can work, I just think you need to be *really* savvy about online communities in order to understand the dynamics and complexity of the power structures and responsibilities before delving into it.

DocJohn

I agree. Internal motivation in my opinion is much better than external. There is more dedication and commitment to have the forum be successful