FACEBOOK GROUPS

They are cropping up all over Facebook : bigfoot, sasquatch, dogman groups. And most every founder, owner, administrator of those groups face the same problems.

First is the dilemma of who to let in; invite only, apply for membership, vet by questions, vet by profile, other group memberships, or just let them all in and sort themselves out. 

Some groups decide that the more members, the better. They're Numbers People. They judge the success of their group by the membership roll. Others like small intimate groups. Those from the same area, or the same belief system, or research group. Others are formed in support of one theory, and one theory only, please. Then you have the free-for-all groups : those that don't really know why they were formed except the founder wanted a group.

Regardless, at some point, whether at the beginning or a few days in, almost every group discovers that they need to provide guidelines and a few good rules to be followed.  There are many variations of these to be found among the groups.

Some prohibit posting about certain topics, or certain people, or certain events. Most have a rule or two about conduct within the group. 

You will find members who will agree with the rules and then obey them. There are those who agree and then bend or break them - some once; [is that a test or something?] others continually until they leave or are shown the door. And Administrators cannot escape the inquisitors. Those members who question every rule, every caution, every guideline. And push against those boundaries, bending, bending, until it is broken. And they are angry, or crushed, psychotic even, when removed from the group.

One of the major headaches for a lot of groups is the photograph issues. And thus the main focus of this post.

It is something that most administrators struggle with every day. They want to be fair. They don't wish to be judgmental. They want to give everybody an equal chance to show what the member thinks might be evidence of sasquatch, bigfoot, dogman in their photos. Sometimes, at first glance, it's not obvious what might be in that photo. Complicated, right?

Groups seldom wish to become the sponsor of a group where the "Squatch" family is proudly displayed and hailed. It is difficult to be diplomatic sometimes when being shown an obvious photo of a forest and it's captioned : "LOOK! All 10 of the family showed up to get their picture taken. I'm so THRILLED!"  And as much as others try, they only see trees, and shadows, and leaves, and brush. Maybe a rock. Maybe a squirrel. Or raccoon. Or bird. No large beings. No sasquatch. Not even the snout of a bear.

Members will present  Stump Squatch, Bush Squatch, Shadow Squatch, Rock Squatch, Pareidolia Squatch, Leaf Squatch, Branch Squatch and all the other cousins, uncles, aunts, etc. Now what do the administrators decide? How to approach what to do? 

Let's face it. We are not all experts. Sometimes we see something or someone in the photo right away. Other times, we're taking one last look at the "extra" photos on our drive, ready to delete, when we suddenly catch a glimpse of something curious in the photo. And we enlarge and look even closer. And discover that there was something there all along. So who is to decide who's the expert? Are there any experts?

And then you have the problem of deciding whose photos get posted. Once we start choosing, where do you stop? What becomes the guide? What can be fair? Can you really judge without prejudice? Face it, in each group there are some members that you love to see posts waiting for approval. You like their work. You like them. Then there are some who, for who knows what reason, may grate on your nerves. Are you going to treat both members fairly? Or are you going to be harder on the one that rubs you the wrong way? 

Perhaps there are some standards that can be set. We can set how often members can post. If a member suddenly bombards the group site with a couple dozen posts a day, then it would be reasonable to allow only a couple at a time. That would make sense, otherwise it would be their group, not yours. If a member goes on a weekend hike and takes dozens of photos and wants to share all 150 of them in one post, it would be reasonable to decline the post and ask that member to break the photos down and to make a smaller post. Perhaps suggest that they share the possible tree breaks or snaps in one post and maybe in a couple of days, share another category.

It would also not be unreasonable when the inevitable blurry photo comes along [or any photo, for that matter] to tell members that they must include an explanation with it; details of  the photo : when and where taken, what led up to taking the photo, an after photo from the same spot, explanation of what, if any other evidence or possible evidence they collected [i.e., footprints, broken branches, structure, glyphs, vocals, etc.], other witnesses. In other words, be prepared to defend your statement of something in the photo. 

It is also reasonable to use photographs and videos as teaching tools. But we must use caution here. It would not be wise for the success of any group, to come across "schooling" the members. [not by Administrators or other members]. There are softer ways of discussing things without the "I'm right and you're wrong" approach, or the "I'm an expert and I know about these things." For really, we have no idea of the extent of the knowledge our members have about these things. They can say anything about what they know and do; unless we know them personally, we have no real idea.

So before we tell someone that they have a photo of a bear print and you've only seen Yogi on tv, keep in mind that the person you're talking to just might be an experienced tracker and hunter.  The same with photos. Someone may tell you that they are an expert in breaking down photos and videos. Maybe they are. Maybe they're not. And having a You.tube channel does not make one an expert. Or make the video real. 

And it is not unreasonable to tell the members that they should be prepared to accept criticism and disagreement with dignity and politeness. Just as the critics should maintain dignity and manners when making their statements. And sometimes administrators need to realize that no matter how you handle these situations, if a member takes offense at not everyone seeing the "Clan in the Trees Reunion", and they either threaten to leave or actually leave the group, sometimes you just have to say "good by". Let them go. 

We need to exercise caution, both as administrators of groups and as members of groups. None of us are experts on sasquatch, bigfoot, dogman. Anything we state is our opinion, our belief, our theory, in our experience. And that's how we should state things. 

"In my opinion, your track looks like it may be a bear." 


"I'm sorry, but I don't see the bigfoot in your photo. I do see what looks like shadows and branches."

"IMO, I think your video may have caught a hiker cutting cross country between the hiking paths. It looks like that may be a backpack there, not an infant on the shoulders."

How much nicer and open to discussion are the more gentle statements. The statements that should be made. Our opinions, our beliefs, our theories, our experiences. 

Nancy

"I'll spark the thought; what you do with it is up to you."