Tree Forums | Ask an Arborist | Forums | Rating
Copyright 2010 - Review by M. D. Vaden of Oregon, USA Arborist. This page reviews arborist forums or tree forums online, where questions and answers can be posted.
These tree forums are sources of ideas, knowledge and tips. Some forums have homeowner assistance, but are not a substitute for hiring an arborist. The info below is an estimation for quality, compentency and user-friendliness of several forums. The competence factor is based on numbers of arborists on the forum, courtesy, experience, transparency, flexibility and professionalism. Plus speed of replies. All these tree or arborist websites have a forum somewhere.
One other site is worth visiting even though its not a forum: Online Seminars for Municiple Arborists. CEUs are available. Updated December 23, 2012. I included registered users from 2010, as a gauge whether participation is growing.
Numbers for registered members at tree forums are always higher than the actual participants who continue to visit. And Tree Word probably has the greatest chasm between actual participants and registered users.
Tree Buzz
www.treebuzz.comVery Good
Registered Users
6653 in 2012
4995 in 2010Excellent. Fine for almost any age Posting of photos available. Freedom for debate and some colorful language, but pretty darn clean. Arbtalk / Arb Talk
http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum
Registered Users
13,080 in 2012
5633 in 2010Excellent. Fine for almost any age. For politeness, this is by far my favorite tree forum: reason for double + + Posting of photos. Welcoming to USA arborists. Plenty of general tree information and more. Arborist Site
www.arboristsite.com
Registered Users
88,013 in 2012
48,779 in 2010Good. Recommended for age 15 and above Posting photos . One of the most visited tree service forums. Should boot more members, but remains tolerant.Seems to prioritize numbers over quality. UBC Botanical
Garden
www.ubcbotanicalgarden.org
Some topics archived now
Botanical more so than tree care
Multi-national posting common.
Registered Users
29,938 in 2012)
26,027 in 2010Excellent. Fine for all ages
If the whole site were trees, it would be an A +Posting of photos. Stems from a university education center. Some categories are archived now. This is an A+ forum for Japanese maple information . The Treehouse
Masterblaster's Lounge
http://masterblasterhome.com
Registered Users
516 in 2012
313 in 2010Some content hinges on crude or "R". Age 18 and enter with thick skin. Some polite users too. The tree care topics are not as prolific as the climbing, rigging and gear posts. Just upgraded this rating to B. Posting of photos. The atmosphere is like a tavern of tree forums. A melting pot of tree workers, climbers, etc.. The site does come across as a veteren-climber spot.. Garden Web
www.gardenweb.com
Look for the tree categoryPretty good, with isolated snarky remarks. Quite a few tree geeks and fanatics. Haven for sharing Japanese maple information and photos. All ages Posting of photos using HTML and image host. There are many categories. Find the forum specified as Trees Tree World
www.treeworld.info
Registered Users
13,498 in 2012
6711 in 2010Can be friendly on the surface. But has a negative undercurrent. Age 18 - 21 to deal with potential manipulation. For tree care interaction online, the closest thing to the Berlin Wall or Iron Curtain. Its not by accident that aborist interaction from abroad is limited there. Posting of photos available. Many a decent arborist joined this forum simply to leave for a better. Does not live up to its original promoted purpose. Video was a strength. Has a reasonably good amount of tree facts and topics. UK Tree Care / UKTC
http://www.tree-care.info
Due to thick advertising, that's the direct forum URLContent is clean. All ages. If replies were abundant, with arborist identification, this would be an easy B Slowest. Questions not replied to for up to 24 days. Hard to navigate. Thick with ads. Users too anonymous. Forestry Forums
13,631 in 2012No Longer Recommended This forum was added favorably once, even though it was more forestry than arboricultural. Following messages from that site's Administrator plus negative and abrasive posting by others there, it is no longer recommended or rated.