Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Using Facebook ... "page" Or "group"


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 fred johnson

fred johnson

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1478 posts

Posted 26 July 2015 - 07:14 PM

Should a unit's Facebook presence be a "page" or a "group"?
 

Page

---- PRO - More visible than a group

---- PRO - Easy and automatic

---- CON - Can only wait for others to "Like"

 

Group

---- PRO - Provides a mailing list

---- PRO - Better notification as members are notified unlike "Likes" that will "probably" be notified.

---- PRO - Can invite people to be members

---- ???  - People have to be "accepted" as members

---- PRO - Better secured as only members see posts and other info

 

 

Any guidance would be appreciated.


  • 0

#2 WAKWIB

WAKWIB

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 509 posts

Posted 26 July 2015 - 08:13 PM

My thoughts are that a Facebook group is better in terms of privacy. I think BSA has put out some guidelines concerning social media. I'm thinking that they would go with the closed (admin. approved membership) model.

 


  • 0

#3 Scouter99

Scouter99

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 688 posts

Posted 26 July 2015 - 10:58 PM

My thoughts are that a Facebook group is better in terms of privacy. I think BSA has put out some guidelines concerning social media. I'm thinking that they would go with the closed (admin. approved membership) model.

The opposite is true: BSA policy requires that unit social media be public.

 

http://www.scouting....ocialMedia.aspx

"To help ensure that all communication on social media channels remains positive and safe, these channels must be public, and all communication on or through them must be public. This enables administrators to monitor all communication and help ensure there is no inappropriate communication between adult leaders and Scouts or between Scouts themselves. Therefore, no private channels (e.g., private Facebook groups or invite-only YouTube channels) are acceptable in helping to administer the Scouting program. Private channels and private communication put both the youth and you at risk. If you feel the information you seek to share via social media channels should not be shared in public, you should not share that information via social media."

 

We had a public page for about 2 hours.  As soon as I started tagging Scouts in the photos, friends of theirs started making crass comments about Scouts being fags in addition to your basic 4-letter words. 

Now we're in violation of policy because I scrapped the public page and made a private group.

 

One big issue with BSA's social media policy is that whoever wrote it doesn't understand BSA's Youth Protection Policy, specifically, they do not understand that 2-deep refers only to overnight camping trips, and that no-one-on-one applies to all situations.  So, the social media policy constantly refers to "two-deep" leadership when talking about PMs, email, IMs, etc.  Specifically, the policy requires a second person is copied in on any electronic communication because "two deep" is required. 

 

This position—whether its grounded in two-deep or no 1-on-1—also shows a basic ignorance about the nature of online communication.  A Facebook PM, an Instagram PM, Twitter DM, email, etc never go away.  Ever.  Never, ever.  If Joe Molester is going to mess with a Scout, his online messages and text messages are there forever, and he knows that.  Yes, there are dumb criminals and they do use social media, but sending a direct message to a Scout does not endanger the Scout and the evidence is there forever.

Making those messages forbidden does not protect Dudley Doright from false accusation, either.  Because those messages never, ever go away, they are false accusation proof.  Mama Moneygrubber cannot falsely accuse Dudley because the innocent messages are there exonerating him forever.

 

Superfluous CCs annoy parents.  There is no reason to copy mom on a text message that reads "don't forget your compass."

 

That snarky line at the end of the quote is stupid, too.  The decision to go private had nothing to do with the content we were posting, it had to do with the response of teenagers and 20-somethings.  I "feel" that the information should not be shared in public because the public are jerkwads, not because the content I was sharing (photos of camping trips) was some shady grey area content that I wanted to hide.


Edited by Scouter99, 26 July 2015 - 11:14 PM.

"The numbers in a Troop should preferably not exceed thirty two. I suggest this number because in training boys myself I have found that sixteen was about as many I could deal with - in getting at and bringing out the individual character in each. I allow for other people being twice as capable as myself and hence the total of thirty-two."

-Baden-Powell, Aids to Scoutmastership


iEmBJEs.png


#4 Scouter99

Scouter99

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 688 posts

Posted 26 July 2015 - 11:33 PM

As owner of a couple pages, I can also add that the utility is limited by your friends; that is, say you get a notification of a new like, but it's not someone you're personally friends with. There’s no good way to find out who it is. Your page says you have 100 followers, you pull up the list and you can only see 73. Next week you try to pull up the list, but Facebook has changed how to get to the list, so now you spend 30 minutes trying to figure out the new way.

Also, adults need to keep in mind that Facebook is dead for the 13-25 set, they don't use it precisely because it's not a place where they can get away from us, anymore.

Facebook and other social media are also bad choices for troop coordination in the first place, because their terms of use limit users to a minimum age of 13. That leaves out a large chunk of your troop unless you're promoting them breaking the ToS.
"The numbers in a Troop should preferably not exceed thirty two. I suggest this number because in training boys myself I have found that sixteen was about as many I could deal with - in getting at and bringing out the individual character in each. I allow for other people being twice as capable as myself and hence the total of thirty-two."

-Baden-Powell, Aids to Scoutmastership


iEmBJEs.png


#5 Cambridgeskip

Cambridgeskip

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 766 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 12:34 AM

Should a unit's Facebook presence be a "page" or a "group"?
 

Page

---- PRO - More visible than a group

---- PRO - Easy and automatic

---- CON - Can only wait for others to "Like"

 

Group

---- PRO - Provides a mailing list

---- PRO - Better notification as members are notified unlike "Likes" that will "probably" be notified.

---- PRO - Can invite people to be members

---- ???  - People have to be "accepted" as members

---- PRO - Better secured as only members see posts and other info

 

 

Any guidance would be appreciated.

 

I guess it depends on what you are trying to achieve.

 

If you are looking for a public presence to promote your troop then a public page is the way forward. If you are looking for some kind of forum to exchange ideas between members then a group is what you need.

 

Don't just think about being on Facebook because you need to be on it, consider what you are trying to achieve.

 

My group has two. We have a public page for publicity. We also have a closed group which is actually for parents, principally for them to arrange lifts and transport to camps etc.

 

You do of course have to abide by BSA regulations on this which I can't really comment on!


  • 0

#6 Gone

Gone

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1811 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 07:15 AM

Use FB as a brochure for your unit. The changes made to the service (many times without notice) are hard to adjust to. Also, depending on user settings they may not see things on your page/group in the manner in which you intend. For a free service it is okay, but we use it as a vitural brochure to raise awareness of who we are, nothing more.


  • 0

#7 Hueymungus

Hueymungus

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 177 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 08:06 AM

Have a Group.  Set it to Closed.  Only allow parents/scouts in of the Troop.  Have a webpage for publicity and other features.  Abide by the BSA Social Media guidelines.


  • 0

#8 T2Eagle

T2Eagle

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 692 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 08:24 AM

Scouter99,

 

For your Private Group do you have to monitor or, heaven forfend, "moderate" the posts your parents make?

 

The last thing I want is either political messages or cat videos showing up in the troop feed.


  • 0

#9 Scouter99

Scouter99

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 688 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 09:28 AM

Have a Group.  Set it to Closed.  Only allow parents/scouts in of the Troop.  Have a webpage for publicity and other features.  Abide by the BSA Social Media guidelines.

It's not possible to abide by BSA social media guidelines and have a closed group.

 

Scouter99,

 

For your Private Group do you have to monitor or, heaven forfend, "moderate" the posts your parents make?

 

The last thing I want is either political messages or cat videos showing up in the troop feed.

I have never had that issue, it's mostly me posting photos and links to news articles and getting 9-25 views from a group of 100.

If I do run into it, I'll simply remove it and remind the person tat I appreciate they wanted to share something funny or that they feel is important, but that the group is for Scouting things and that Scouting is apolitical.

 

Facebook just isn't a good platform, anyway, it's a bit of a ghost town, and young people don't use it.

If you do use FB, remind people to check "get notifications" so that they are alerted whenever something is posted, rather than relying on them to maybe see it in their newsfeed based on the algorithms.


Edited by Scouter99, 27 July 2015 - 09:30 AM.

"The numbers in a Troop should preferably not exceed thirty two. I suggest this number because in training boys myself I have found that sixteen was about as many I could deal with - in getting at and bringing out the individual character in each. I allow for other people being twice as capable as myself and hence the total of thirty-two."

-Baden-Powell, Aids to Scoutmastership


iEmBJEs.png


#10 Gone

Gone

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1811 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 09:53 AM

It's not possible to abide by BSA social media guidelines and have a closed group.

 

Yeah, that's an interesting policy they (BSA) has. On one hand they want you to protect kids against the Internet weirdos by not allowing (moderating) comments and posts to the FB page/group. On the other hand they want the group open so that there's no one-on-one contact electronically between adults and scouts (email, anyone?). I think it is totally possible to have a closed group AND abide by BSA's intention, were it not for this little snip-it from the social media page on the BSA website...

 

 

 

To help ensure that all communication on social media channels remains positive and safe, these channels must be public, and all communication on or through them must be public. This enables administrators to monitor all communication and help ensure there is no inappropriate communication between adult leaders and Scouts or between Scouts themselves. Therefore, no private channels (e.g., private Facebook groups or invite-only YouTube channels) are acceptable in helping to administer the Scouting program. Private channels and private communication put both the youth and you at risk. If you feel the information you seek to share via social media channels should not be shared in public, you should not share that information via social media.

  • 0

#11 perdidochas

perdidochas

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2167 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 10:35 AM

My thoughts are that a Facebook group is better in terms of privacy. I think BSA has put out some guidelines concerning social media. I'm thinking that they would go with the closed (admin. approved membership) model.

BSA has guidelines. Open groups are required. No secrecy. 

 

http://www.scouting....ocialMedia.aspx

 

 

SOCIAL MEDIA AND YOUTH PROTECTION

First, everyone should review and strictly adhere to the terms of service and existing guidelines outlined by each individual social media channel (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.). As is true for participation in Scouting activities, all Scouts and adult leaders should abide by the guidelines outlined in the Scout Oath and Law when participating in social networking. As with a Scouting activity, safety and Youth Protection should be a key focus. Staying true to the commitment of the BSA to be an advocate for youth and to keep children and their privacy safe, both online and off, should always be at the forefront of any considerations where social media usage is concerned.

To help ensure that all communication on social media channels remains positive and safe, these channels must be public, and all communication on or through them must be public. This enables administrators to monitor all communication and help ensure there is no inappropriate communication between adult leaders and Scouts or between Scouts themselves. Therefore, no private channels (e.g., private Facebook groups or invite-only YouTube channels) are acceptable in helping to administer the Scouting program. Private channels and private communication put both the youth and you at risk. If you feel the information you seek to share via social media channels should not be shared in public, you should not share that information via social media.


  • 0

#12 perdidochas

perdidochas

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2167 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 10:37 AM

The opposite is true: BSA policy requires that unit social media be public.

 

http://www.scouting....ocialMedia.aspx

"To help ensure that all communication on social media channels remains positive and safe, these channels must be public, and all communication on or through them must be public. This enables administrators to monitor all communication and help ensure there is no inappropriate communication between adult leaders and Scouts or between Scouts themselves. Therefore, no private channels (e.g., private Facebook groups or invite-only YouTube channels) are acceptable in helping to administer the Scouting program. Private channels and private communication put both the youth and you at risk. If you feel the information you seek to share via social media channels should not be shared in public, you should not share that information via social media."

 

We had a public page for about 2 hours.  As soon as I started tagging Scouts in the photos, friends of theirs started making crass comments about Scouts being fags in addition to your basic 4-letter words. 

Now we're in violation of policy because I scrapped the public page and made a private group.

 

One big issue with BSA's social media policy is that whoever wrote it doesn't understand BSA's Youth Protection Policy, specifically, they do not understand that 2-deep refers only to overnight camping trips, and that no-one-on-one applies to all situations.  So, the social media policy constantly refers to "two-deep" leadership when talking about PMs, email, IMs, etc.  Specifically, the policy requires a second person is copied in on any electronic communication because "two deep" is required. 

 

This position—whether its grounded in two-deep or no 1-on-1—also shows a basic ignorance about the nature of online communication.  A Facebook PM, an Instagram PM, Twitter DM, email, etc never go away.  Ever.  Never, ever.  If Joe Molester is going to mess with a Scout, his online messages and text messages are there forever, and he knows that.  Yes, there are dumb criminals and they do use social media, but sending a direct message to a Scout does not endanger the Scout and the evidence is there forever.

Making those messages forbidden does not protect Dudley Doright from false accusation, either.  Because those messages never, ever go away, they are false accusation proof.  Mama Moneygrubber cannot falsely accuse Dudley because the innocent messages are there exonerating him forever.

 

Superfluous CCs annoy parents.  There is no reason to copy mom on a text message that reads "don't forget your compass."

 

That snarky line at the end of the quote is stupid, too.  The decision to go private had nothing to do with the content we were posting, it had to do with the response of teenagers and 20-somethings.  I "feel" that the information should not be shared in public because the public are jerkwads, not because the content I was sharing (photos of camping trips) was some shady grey area content that I wanted to hide.

You can set up public pages so that approval for comments is required before they are made public. 

 

That said, we never tag photos on Facebook on our Troop facebook page. 


  • 0

#13 perdidochas

perdidochas

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2167 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 10:38 AM

As owner of a couple pages, I can also add that the utility is limited by your friends; that is, say you get a notification of a new like, but it's not someone you're personally friends with. There’s no good way to find out who it is. Your page says you have 100 followers, you pull up the list and you can only see 73. Next week you try to pull up the list, but Facebook has changed how to get to the list, so now you spend 30 minutes trying to figure out the new way.

Also, adults need to keep in mind that Facebook is dead for the 13-25 set, they don't use it precisely because it's not a place where they can get away from us, anymore.

Facebook and other social media are also bad choices for troop coordination in the first place, because their terms of use limit users to a minimum age of 13. That leaves out a large chunk of your troop unless you're promoting them breaking the ToS.

Our facebook page is primarily for parents, so they can see pics of their kids. 


Edited by perdidochas, 27 July 2015 - 10:38 AM.

  • 0

#14 perdidochas

perdidochas

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2167 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 10:40 AM

Yeah, that's an interesting policy they (BSA) has. On one hand they want you to protect kids against the Internet weirdos by not allowing (moderating) comments and posts to the FB page/group. On the other hand they want the group open so that there's no one-on-one contact electronically between adults and scouts (email, anyone?). I think it is totally possible to have a closed group AND abide by BSA's intention, were it not for this little snip-it from the social media page on the BSA website...

 

I follow the rules, in term of an open page. That said, I think a better rule would be that parents have to be able to get access to the closed group.   


  • 0

#15 Gone

Gone

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1811 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 10:41 AM

You can set up public pages so that approval for comments is required before they are made public. 

 

That said, we never tag photos on Facebook on our Troop facebook page. 

 

But how can you prevent Bobby's mom from tagging kids in photos? It gets very hard to manage that.

 

Our unit's policy goes a bit further than BSA. When we post photos we do group shots or action photos. We have told our parents never to tag or discuss their kids on FB. If THEY want to share on their page that's okay, BUT we as that they not use the "share" feature, but rather to download the photo and paste on their own page.

 

It is tough enough to manage the page itself, making sure parents (who may not know better) don't violate BSA policy is a huge job on FB. We avoid individual or small group pictures and take down any if we find they were shared in the wrong manner.


  • 0

#16 Gone

Gone

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1811 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 10:43 AM

Our facebook page is primarily for parents, so they can see pics of their kids. 

 

 

I follow the rules, in term of an open page. That said, I think a better rule would be that parents have to be able to get access to the closed group.   

 

That's why a closed group picture sharing service is better. It is the same as a private email list or website (i.e., SOAR) so it does not violate the BSA photo or social media policy.


  • 0

#17 Scouter99

Scouter99

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 688 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 10:57 AM

But how can you prevent Bobby's mom from tagging kids in photos? It gets very hard to manage that.
 
Our unit's policy goes a bit further than BSA. When we post photos we do group shots or action photos. We have told our parents never to tag or discuss their kids on FB. If THEY want to share on their page that's okay, BUT we as that they not use the "share" feature, but rather to download the photo and paste on their own page.
 
It is tough enough to manage the page itself, making sure parents (who may not know better) don't violate BSA policy is a huge job on FB. We avoid individual or small group pictures and take down any if we find they were shared in the wrong manner.

I give Bobby's mom supremacy in what's best for Bobby.  If she wants to tag her son on FB, she's the parent.  Just like if Bobby's mom calls and asks me to give Bobby a ride, I explain that it's a gray area, but she's Bobby's mom.

 

As far as tagging in general, if a Scout is on FB, his full name and photo are already on FB, tagging him doesn't change that or broaden it. BSA's brand guide (p 28) does state don't "give out" scouts' identifying information, but in tagging a photo one is not giving out anything that the Scout/family has not already given out.  If he's not on FB, then I don't tag him at all (because what's the point?). 


"The numbers in a Troop should preferably not exceed thirty two. I suggest this number because in training boys myself I have found that sixteen was about as many I could deal with - in getting at and bringing out the individual character in each. I allow for other people being twice as capable as myself and hence the total of thirty-two."

-Baden-Powell, Aids to Scoutmastership


iEmBJEs.png


#18 Gone

Gone

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1811 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 11:18 AM

I give Bobby's mom supremacy in what's best for Bobby.  If she wants to tag her son on FB, she's the parent.  Just like if Bobby's mom calls and asks me to give Bobby a ride, I explain that it's a gray area, but she's Bobby's mom.

 

As far as tagging in general, if a Scout is on FB, his full name and photo are already on FB, tagging him doesn't change that or broaden it. BSA's brand guide (p 28) does state don't "give out" scouts' identifying information, but in tagging a photo one is not giving out anything that the Scout/family has not already given out.  If he's not on FB, then I don't tag him at all (because what's the point?). 

 

On sharing the pic I disagree to a point. If Bobby's mom uses the "share" feature for a picture on FB she's taking a pic on the unit FB page and putting it on her timeline or wherever. That ties the scout to the parent and the unit, which gives anyone looking enough identifiable info to find the scout if they want. Our unit has concluded doing so would violate the BSA guidelines around personal scout info had taken steps to prohibit that from happening. I agree if mom wants to download the pic and post on her page NOT using the "share" feature she's entirely welcome to do so.

 

On tagging I totally disagree. The unit should not tag at all to avoid linking the scout with identifiable information. Out unit does not care if the scout is on FB or not. We will not be the ones to spread his information so we won't tag. If a parent wants to tag their kid (following our guidelines above) then they are welcome to it.

 

Our unit has taken the stance that we will ALWAYS guard against giving out ANY personal information related to a youth member (or adult member for that matter). If the scout or parent want to give out that info then they are welcome to....it is still a free country. ;) Limiting unit liability is the rule under which we operate.


  • 0

#19 Eagle94-A1

Eagle94-A1

    Been there. Done that.

  • Members
  • 1796 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 11:44 AM

My troop, no matter what national says, has decided to keep the FB group closed. The leadership, both youth and adult, do not want to deal with any problems that  open groups have, i.e. spammers, people making crude comments, ad nauseum.  Parents are on the page, unit leaders are on the group, those scouts old enough to have FB are on it, as well as the SE and DD. As soon as we get a DE, he will be on it.

 

This is especially relevent after what happened on both the council's FB page as well as a pack's page. On the council's page, one adult leader went crazy, after multiple attempts to go PM, and eventually got slammed by the leader he was critisizing. Same leader a year and a half later went on my pack's website and accused another troop of stealing Cub Scouts.

 

Again adult AND youth leaders discussed this.


  • 1

"Train 'em. Trust 'em. LET THEM LEAD!" William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt


#20 fred johnson

fred johnson

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1478 posts

Posted 27 July 2015 - 12:24 PM

My troop, no matter what national says, has decided to keep the FB group closed. The leadership, both youth and adult, do not want to deal with any problems that  open groups have, i.e. spammers, people making crude comments, ad nauseum.  Parents are on the page, unit leaders are on the group, those scouts old enough to have FB are on it, as well as the SE and DD. As soon as we get a DE, he will be on it.

 

I meant to ask about benefits of page or group ... public, closed or secret.

 

As for BSA rules ... IMHO ... BSA does not use precise language that matches Facebook terms.  When I see comments about no "private groups", private is different than Facebook's closed or secret groups.  Also by saying "no private groups", I am assuming some other type of "group" is okay.  

 

IMHO, "private groups" means we don't want an adult leader creating a communication channel for just him and one or more selected scouts.   I interpret "public" as public to the entire troop or at least a larger set that matches youth-protection rules.  Essentially, social media needs to continue the the youth-protection rules.


Edited by fred johnson, 27 July 2015 - 12:26 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


IPB Skin By Virteq