Log in:  

Register

Forum restructuring

Drop in, give us some feedback and talk to the team

Moderator: Irondan

thoughts

13 Dec 2013 11:44

python wrote: most attempts at restructuring/regrouping /reorganizing, unless it was a critical structural flaw, DON'T MATTER


a thought I had prior to reading python's post was..........surely what is more important than headings is the number of threads

firm moderation ensuring that discussions on similar topics are contained in the same thread

Mark L
User avatar ebandit
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,918
Joined: 02 Aug 2012 18:24

13 Dec 2013 14:37

python wrote:a lot of sensible ideas above ! but don't get me wrong, my personal experience - be it a corporate setting, scientific professional community or (any) sports-related forum - lead me to a firm opinion that most attempts at restructuring/regrouping /reorganizing, unless it was a critical structural flaw, DON'T MATTER...for someone satisfied, there will always be someone grumbling for the status quo, for any increase in content in clicking in one area, there will be loss of content or dilution in another...

i mean the changes may matter in a short term or in the eyes and minds of those behind the changes, but after a while everything settles where it was BEFORE, subject to a gradual, natural change as the community (and its members') interests, tastes and views will have evolved.

did this forum evolve for a big restructuring ? i don't know but i think the forum has to address other bigger problems to liven, broaden and invigorate the community.

such as leadership and spotty moderation...

again, i do not post much nowadays to claim that i know the pulse of most well, but i do read...


I disagree. A sub-forum has to have critical mass before people will regularly check it. There has to be new content on a regular basis. If people don't check it then they will not be incline to post. The worst thing for a forum is a user, who gets spare moment or two between work or whatever he is doing, checking one of his usual sites to find nothing has been added since the last time he checked a couple of hours ago. When that happens, the place gets moved to the check once a day set of sites. There are sub forums here that have become part of the check once a month set. Coalescing sub forums can at least make it so there are enough active threads that the sub forum needs to be clicked on to see what is going on instead of glancing at the front page to see no one has added anything in two weeks.

Traffic has to the guide for organization. Traffic trumps taxonomy. There are very active forums that have nearly everything in a single sub forum.

The other big problem here is the inane policy of putting everything vaguely about a subject in giant, unending threads that no casual reader wants to deal with. It reduces the apparent amount of activity. It may have been an easy out for the mods, but it is bad way to organize discussions. The mods created a culture here that is incapable of doing anything other that post incessantly to the same handful of threads. It blows mightily. For example, Gerard Vroomen had an interesting article on CN's front page about TV revenue. It is an interesting subject but it does not get its own thread. It gets a post or two lost in the sea of the general news thread. Who wants to discuss a specific subject in a mongrel thread about unrelated stuff?
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
User avatar BroDeal
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,318
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 00:41
Location: Above 5000 feet

13 Dec 2013 15:11

BroDeal wrote:I disagree. A sub-forum has to have critical mass before people will regularly check it. There has to be new content on a regular basis. If people don't check it then they will not be incline to post. The worst thing for a forum is a user, who gets spare moment or two between work or whatever he is doing, checking one of his usual sites to find nothing has been added since the last time he checked a couple of hours ago. When that happens, the place gets moved to the check once a day set of sites. There are sub forums here that have become part of the check once a month set. Coalescing sub forums can at least make it so there are enough active threads that the sub forum needs to be clicked on to see what is going on instead of glancing at the front page to see no one has added anything in two weeks.

Traffic has to the guide for organization. Traffic trumps taxonomy. There are very active forums that have nearly everything in a single sub forum.

The other big problem here is the inane policy of putting everything vaguely about a subject in giant, unending threads that no casual reader wants to deal with. It reduces the apparent amount of activity. It may have been an easy out for the mods, but it is bad way to organize discussions. The mods created a culture here that is incapable of doing anything other that post incessantly to the same handful of threads. It blows mightily. For example, Gerard Vroomen had an interesting article on CN's front page about TV revenue. It is an interesting subject but it does not get its own thread. It gets a post or two lost in the sea of the general news thread. Who wants to discuss a specific subject in a mongrel thread about unrelated stuff?


Do please tell when did any mod say that could have it's own thread?

The poster didn't think it was important enough to have it's own thread, if you did you should have made one.
User avatar Parrulo
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,232
Joined: 05 Aug 2010 01:42

13 Dec 2013 15:45

Parrulo wrote:Do please tell when did any mod say that could have it's own thread?

The poster didn't think it was important enough to have it's own thread, if you did you should have made one.


This site has fostered a posting style that creates 1000+ post threads. I have never seen anything like it. While some forums will confine a few topics to single threads so spillover does not disrupt the forum, here many many subjects are put into huge and unwieldy threads.

I only check the PRR forum on occasion these days. When checking that forum a day or so after Vroomen's piece was on the front page, I saw no there was no thread about it. The time had passed to start one. If a new thread had been started then maybe it would have gotten responses.
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
User avatar BroDeal
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,318
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 00:41
Location: Above 5000 feet

13 Dec 2013 15:50

So what do you propose, having a separate thread for each transfer rumour? Or should we return to those cool appreciation and depreciation threads we had back in the day?

And even while you say that, on the clinic 7 of the threads on the first page are Sky related. Does that really feel like too few threads on the same subject considering the Porte and the Wiggins threads aren't even on the first page?
User avatar Parrulo
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,232
Joined: 05 Aug 2010 01:42

13 Dec 2013 16:02

What I am saying is that when I see a thread titled "The XXXXX Discussion thread" with 4000 posts I have zero desire to click on that thread. If there was a thread like "XXXXXX Will Not Ride the Tour" then I might click on it.
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
User avatar BroDeal
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,318
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 00:41
Location: Above 5000 feet

13 Dec 2013 16:13

Big threads > Many threads.
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,927
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

13 Dec 2013 16:20

I'd say that no matter how you go about restructuring these forums the most important matter is that stuff related to professional cycling goes to the top!
Have to admit that I've never quite understood why the top sub-forum on a cycling forum is the one for non-cycling related talk.:rolleyes:
Aka The Ginger One.
User avatar RedheadDane
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,219
Joined: 05 May 2010 13:47
Location: Viking Land! (Aros)

16 Dec 2013 04:30

Netserk wrote:Big threads > Many threads.


I disagree. I prefer specific topics to a free for all where conversations overlap and the first response to a post might be three pages downstream. Many threads on the same topic are better off in one larger thread, but different topics deserve different threads.
User avatar pedaling squares
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 03:29
Location: British Columbia

16 Dec 2013 11:08

Yeah. Sometimes it seems like it would be a good idea with several threads for one race/stage.
Aka The Ginger One.
User avatar RedheadDane
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,219
Joined: 05 May 2010 13:47
Location: Viking Land! (Aros)

16 Dec 2013 11:40

Yeh, good to see this being discussed. I flagged it in the other thread. Personally I have never been a fan of such restrictions, but there is definitely a wider impact too. As BroDeal said, there is definitely a culture of anti-thread creation. I count about one legitimate thread created in the past month. What kind of relevant "forum" is that? How can it claim to have robust discussions on leading topics when there is no one generating new points of discussion? Or do I have to go looking in one of the generic threads to try and find something worth discussing? Where, the chances are I will only two new posts and none of them of any wider significance, or there might be, but you have to try and find out where it starts and what posts are relevant. With that sort of strike rate you might check it every few days, or only when you have found from another source that there has been an interesting development.
Ferminal
Veteran
 
Posts: 16,913
Joined: 03 Jul 2009 09:42

16 Dec 2013 12:45

pedaling squares wrote:I disagree. I prefer specific topics to a free for all where conversations overlap and the first response to a post might be three pages downstream. Many threads on the same topic are better off in one larger thread, but different topics deserve different threads.


This I totally agree with.

I just don't see the big problem in threads >2,000 posts.

***

When I look at the PRR forum, there's only two threads that might be merged, which is the 'WC Ponferrada 2014. Altimetry' and 'WC Ponferrada 2014 climbs profiles (in situ measurement)', as they fall under the same topic imho.

On the other hand it's really only (atm) in the general news thread that there are topics that deserve their own threads. In the other threads (page 1), I can't really see the need to have one of the discussions moved to it's own thread. (perhaps some of the S.A. races could have their own race thread though)

Do you(generic) think there is a problem regarding this in the PRR forum?

But then again the big problem with number of threads/too big threads, is primarily a problem in the clinic, methinks :/
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,927
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

16 Dec 2013 14:59

Parrulo wrote:The point of restructuring the forum is to reduce the number of sections in order to increase the activity on parts of the forum.

With that in mind, creating another section on a subject that only has a handful of threads that aren't even active on daily basis just doesn't make sense.

Brodeal you have a point with the lack of activity on the Track/MTB/cyclo-cross section, even after a merge. But i think that would make the General cycling section a bit too big and it would feel weird to completely give up on all modalities of cycling except road racing.

I guess we will need more feedback on that.

I can't say anything about the Feedback section as i don't know if Dan would want to merge those 2 sub sections. After all the forum and the website are 2 completely different things and activity doesn't really matter on those.


I personally prefer more categories. lack of posts on a thread just indicate marginal interests but why is that a problem? Putting more subjects into larger categories will likely reduce the little contributions because these threads will be harder to find. So what that track cycling generates 4 new threads a year. At least you can find them. Put them into a big general grouping and see even less conversation on the subject.
About the only thing I think that needs more attention is the clinic. Way too much crazy speculation and accusations without much evidence. I get that occasionally the clinicians guess one right but hey any rider racing 10 years ago was under suspicion..

I like the large number of relevant categories rather than general ones that lust become a big bowl.
User avatar Master50
Member
 
Posts: 1,163
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 13:52
Location: Vancouver Island

16 Dec 2013 15:58

Master50 wrote:I personally prefer more categories. lack of posts on a thread just indicate marginal interests but why is that a problem? Putting more subjects into larger categories will likely reduce the little contributions because these threads will be harder to find. So what that track cycling generates 4 new threads a year. At least you can find them. Put them into a big general grouping and see even less conversation on the subject.
About the only thing I think that needs more attention is the clinic. Way too much crazy speculation and accusations without much evidence. I get that occasionally the clinicians guess one right but hey any rider racing 10 years ago was under suspicion..

I like the large number of relevant categories rather than general ones that lust become a big bowl.


So ****ing what?

Are you afraid that riders will stop riding because of the accusations and speculation in the clinic?

I'd like you to articulate the actual problem in 'crazy speculation and accusations without much evidence'.
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,927
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

16 Dec 2013 23:24

Master50 wrote:I personally prefer more categories. lack of posts on a thread just indicate marginal interests but why is that a problem? Putting more subjects into larger categories will likely reduce the little contributions because these threads will be harder to find. So what that track cycling generates 4 new threads a year. At least you can find them. Put them into a big general grouping and see even less conversation on the subject.<snip>

I like the large number of relevant categories rather than general ones that lust become a big bowl.



Completely agree. I'm a roadie and a mountain biker, but have only a passing interest in CX and track. The way the forums are now, I can quickly see that there are no new posts in MTB in the last week. Merge MTB with CX and Track, and I might get 'tricked' once or twice into visiting the forum because there is a new post titled "race thread", but in the end I'll stop bothering entirely.

Master50 wrote:About the only thing I think that needs more attention is the clinic. Way too much crazy speculation and accusations without much evidence. I get that occasionally the clinicians guess one right but hey any rider racing 10 years ago was under suspicion..


Disagree here. I don't think there is anything that can be done structurally to improve the quality of posting in the clinic. Cast me out as a heretic, but most mods are just regular guys with too much time on their hands, and no particular expertise about what constitutes 'evidence'. I'm happy enough with my own 'sanity filter' that I'd rather live in a forum full of trolls and crackpots than one that is over moderated.
dsut4392
Member
 
Posts: 586
Joined: 10 Jun 2009 12:26

17 Dec 2013 02:51

Master50 wrote:I personally prefer more categories. lack of posts on a thread just indicate marginal interests but why is that a problem? Putting more subjects into larger categories will likely reduce the little contributions because these threads will be harder to find. So what that track cycling generates 4 new threads a year. At least you can find them. Put them into a big general grouping and see even less conversation on the subject.
About the only thing I think that needs more attention is the clinic. Way too much crazy speculation and accusations without much evidence. I get that occasionally the clinicians guess one right but hey any rider racing 10 years ago was under suspicion..

I like the large number of relevant categories rather than general ones that lust become a big bowl.


You are aware that The Clinic was created as a place to speculate about doping so that content would not burden threads on racing, right? Somebody's sore about accusations made about a rider he likes I think...:rolleyes:
[SIZE="3"]Not sure I even care anymore...[/SIZE]
User avatar ChewbaccaD
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,293
Joined: 27 May 2012 20:43
Location: Nevada City, CA

17 Dec 2013 06:37

Personally I also thinks it's a bit silly to "suspect" someone of doping as soon as they win something.
But the point, as has already been mentioned, is to keep all such speculation in one place. Nobody forces us to go there!
Aka The Ginger One.
User avatar RedheadDane
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,219
Joined: 05 May 2010 13:47
Location: Viking Land! (Aros)

17 Dec 2013 14:16

Maybe there should be a "we need more evidence" subforum
User avatar the sceptic
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,664
Joined: 21 Jul 2012 20:17

17 Dec 2013 14:47

Netserk wrote:So ****ing what?

Are you afraid that riders will stop riding because of the accusations and speculation in the clinic?

I'd like you to articulate the actual problem in 'crazy speculation and accusations without much evidence'.


I don't like the clinic but did you bother to read my perspective on simplification? or is all you care about is a place to accuse riders of doping? I see you like the clinic. Maybe a flatter structure is perfect for your simple perspective. Clinic/ other stuff. How is that for you? This thread is not about the problems with certain categories of discussion but whether a flatter organization is necessary. I don't think it is a good idea and to that even the clinic might benefit from a broader selection of subject areas within the clinic.
User avatar Master50
Member
 
Posts: 1,163
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 13:52
Location: Vancouver Island

17 Dec 2013 15:31

ChewbaccaD wrote:You are aware that The Clinic was created as a place to speculate about doping so that content would not burden threads on racing, right? Somebody's sore about accusations made about a rider he likes I think...:rolleyes:


Yes I know that and here is a quote from the forum rules You should read it. I only supports my particular point of view on clinic subjects. Discussion on AICAR, a positive test result, official investigation, are fair subjects.


"Proof of point, opinions, and common knowledge: you can't just say "we know Bobby the Bod is doping". You have to provide some proof using linked sources or verifiable material. Or, you can just state "in my opinion". If, on the other hand, it is in the realm of "common knowledge", then it is acceptable to make an unverified statement. Be careful - common knowledge would apply, for instance, at the time of this posting, to Lance Armstrong. But allegations of current doping, and current riders, would not be "common knowledge" at this point. To be common knowledge, the "fact" has to have been published, widely read, and widely agreed with. This point is particularly applicable in The Clinic."
User avatar Master50
Member
 
Posts: 1,163
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 13:52
Location: Vancouver Island

PreviousNext

Return to About the forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Back to top