Forum restructuring

[Parrulo]

I have been thinking about this for a while but after a post by Brodeal the other day i decided to actually do something about it. I talked to the rest of the staff and to Dan and everyone seems to be receptive to the idea.

This is the current forum structure:
General
-Café
Road
-PRR
-General
-Games
-The Clinic
MTB
-General
Track
-General
Cyclo Cross
-General
Bikes & Gear
-General
Form and Fitness
-General
FeedBack
-About the Forum
-About the webSite

This is the new structure i proposed to the staff and Dan, any observations would be appreciated:

General
-Café
Road
-PRR
-The clinic
MTB/Track/Cyclo-Cross
-General
Cycling General
-General
FeedBack
-About the Forum
-About the Website

Now let me explain what would be done.

The 3 less active sections on the forum(MTB/Track/Cyclo-Cross) would be merged into a single section for all 3. Maybe we could name it Modalities or something like that so all types of cycling except road would be discussed there.

The Road General, Games and Fantasy, Bikes and Gear and Fitness sections would all be Merged into Cycling General. Is merging the Fitness section into those other sections too much? It could seem a bit out of place but i think being merged into a, hopefully, more active section could be good for the Fitness section and get some good discussion going.

Ok, what do you guys think?

 

[BroDeal]

Combine the MTB/track/cyclocross with general cycling. There is not enough traffic to justify a separate sub forum. Combine the two "about" forums into one feedback forum.

 

[the sceptic]

Good idea. What about making a seperate subforum for "other sports" under general? I dont know if there is enough traffic for that but I think it would be better organized that way, and just keep everything that isnt sport related under "general"

General
-cafe
-other sports

Road
-PRR
-the clinic

Other cycling
-MTB/track/cross
-Equipment
-Form & Fitness
-Fantasy cycling

Forum Feedback

I feel like I forgot something but I think that would be pretty good.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I have been thinking about this for a while but after a post by Brodeal the other day i decided to actually do something about it. I talked to the rest of the staff and to Dan and everyone seems to be receptive to the idea.

This is the current forum structure:
General
-Café
Road
-PRR
-General
-Games
-The Clinic
MTB
-General
Track
-General
Cyclo Cross
-General
Bikes & Gear
-General
Form and Fitness
-General
FeedBack
-About the Forum
-About the webSite

This is the new structure i proposed to the staff and Dan, any observations would be appreciated:

General
-Café
Road
-PRR
-The clinic
MTB/Track/Cyclo-Cross
-General
Cycling General
-General
FeedBack
-About the Forum
-About the Website

Now let me explain what would be done.

The 3 less active sections on the forum(MTB/Track/Cyclo-Cross) would be merged into a single section for all 3. Maybe we could name it Modalities or something like that so all types of cycling except road would be discussed there.

The Road General, Games and Fantasy, Bikes and Gear and Fitness sections would all be Merged into Cycling General. Is merging the Fitness section into those other sections too much? It could seem a bit out of place but i think being merged into a, hopefully, more active section could be good for the Fitness section and get some good discussion going.

Ok, what do you guys think?

pretty reasonable
could combine a 'Fitness & Training" section

 

[darwin553]

Good idea. What about making a seperate subforum for "other sports" under general? I dont know if there is enough traffic for that but I think it would be better organized that way, and just keep everything that isnt sport related under "general"

General
-cafe
-other sports

Road
-PRR
-the clinic

Other cycling
-MTB/track/cross
-Equipment
-Form & Fitness
-Fantasy cycling

Forum Feedback

I feel like I forgot something but I think that would be pretty good.

Agree about there should be a separate forum for "other sports".

 

[mewmewmew13]

While I'm at it could we please go back to the original 'old-fashioned' format??

like this?
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com

it was way more interesting to read

 

[Afrank]

Looks pretty good. Maybe another place for the fitness could be in the general section next to the cafe, and it could be more about fitness in general instead of just fitness as it relates to cycling.

 

[Parrulo]

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.

 

[Parrulo]

Yes the fitness part has been bothering me a bit.

Never considered the Fitness section a cycling only section but it is only logical that it would tend to that on a cycling forum.

Right now there is only one active thread on that section and it is the never ending crank thread which, being totally honest here, no one really cares about.

So with the level of discussion it has i think it's perfectly fine to keep it inside Cycling general and i also think it's perfectly fine to discuss all types of fitness there as well.

Also another point for those asking for sub sections on the General forum. The Café is the place to discuss everything, so what's the point to create sub sections there when you are already free to discuss everything on the café?
Besides will getting the real football thread and the aussie football rules thread and a couple others on a separate section make them any more active than the 20 posts per month( random number) they are averaging right now? How so?

 

[Ferminal]

If you wanted an 'other sports' forum it could be as a sub-forum to cafe-general.

Could also have the games/fantasy as a sub-forum of PRR.

Also, there is no need to have so many categories, only really need two, with PRR/Clinic at the top:

Professional Road
--PRR
--Clinic

Cycling General
--MTB/CX/Track etc
--General (inc Fitness/Gear)

Community
--Cafe
--Feedback

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Also another point for those asking for sub sections on the General forum. The Café is the place to discuss everything, so what's the point to create sub sections there when you are already free to discuss everything on the café?

Yes, exactly.

I prefer the classic layout Ferminal proposes. Have your core business (PRR, Clinic) at the top, and the community area, off-topic discussions and forum issues, at the bottom.

The only issue I have with his proposal is that current traffic doesn't warrant two "general cycling" sub forums, as BroDeal pointed out before. As it stands, it doesn't even warrant one. It could "all" be discussed in the PRR sub forum (MTB, CX, track) and the rest in the general discussions sub forum.

One general cycling forum could work, though. Typically, though, you only add sub forums when the # of off-topic posts in (an)other forum section(s) warrant(s) it. I'm not sure if that was the case this year.

 

[hrotha]

I never post in the MTB/Track/Cyclo Cross/Gear/Fitness subforums, but in my experience, merging forums only leads to a decrease in specialized (not the best word to use these days, I'm aware) posts, which are simply drowned in other discussions until it feels like they have no place there anymore. It's better to keep them separate. It's not like doing so costs you money or anything.

Similarly, I wouldn't recommend dumping everything into the Café. Yes, technically everything would suit the stated purpose of the Café, but you have to be a bit more pragmatic here. Fantasy games are a particular niche of the forum, and they can get annoying for people who aren't involved. You'll either overwhelm the general discussion with forum games, or make forum games less and less frequent until they no longer feel appropriate in that forum. Either way, it's a change for the worse.

I've seen this in many forums during the past 10 years or so. Streamlining the structure is fine and can certainly be done, but the urge to merge forums just because it makes sense logically always results in a decrease in activity, specialized discussions and forum quality in general.

 

[ebandit]

pro

in our modern era why do we have pro road racing?

would racing.....road
.....off road ( cx mtb track etc )
......clinic be more appropiate?

I definitely like the idea of less sub forums

Mark L

 

[RedheadDane]

Here's what I'd suggest:

Racing
- Road Race
- Track
- Mountain Bike
- Cross
- Clinic

( I guess that track, MTB and cross could potentially be merged...)

The Cyclists' Meeting Place
- Discussions
- Fitness
- Gear

Community
- Café
- Fun and Games
- About the Website
- About the Forum


Basically a place where we can talk about what's going on the the actual world of racing, including the clinic stuff.
A place where we can talk about more personal experiences with cycling.
And finally a place where we can just kick back, talk about something else than cycling, play some games and provide some (constructive) critisism.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

I never post in the MTB/Track/Cyclo Cross/Gear/Fitness subforums, but in my experience, merging forums only leads to a decrease in specialized (not the best word to use these days, I'm aware) posts, which are simply drowned in other discussions until it feels like they have no place there anymore. It's better to keep them separate. It's not like doing so costs you money or anything.

Similarly, I wouldn't recommend dumping everything into the Café. Yes, technically everything would suit the stated purpose of the Café, but you have to be a bit more pragmatic here. Fantasy games are a particular niche of the forum, and they can get annoying for people who aren't involved. You'll either overwhelm the general discussion with forum games, or make forum games less and less frequent until they no longer feel appropriate in that forum. Either way, it's a change for the worse.

I've seen this in many forums during the past 10 years or so. Streamlining the structure is fine and can certainly be done, but the urge to merge forums just because it makes sense logically always results in a decrease in activity, specialized discussions and forum quality in general.

Not true, in my experience. Deleting sub-forums that are essentially dead all year, if those are the norm (as is the case here) usually leads to an increase in overall activity, and hence, more experienced posters in the sections that people actually check for. A couple dead ones, no big deal, but if most of the front page looks like that...

I sure hope no one checks this board for expert knowledge on CX, or fitness, by the way. And, like I said, you can always add another sub-forum if there are too many (off-topic) posts in a certain section.


Good point about the games forum, though.

 

[thehog]

Wouldn't mind seeing a science or statistics sub forum. And politics.

Perhaps also a forum dedicated to speculation

 

[Ferminal]

Games forum is fourth most active in PPD terms

 

[Netserk]

Games forum is fourth most active in PPD terms

This order?

PRR
Clinic
Café
Games
Meta

 

[RedheadDane]

Hmm... thinking a bit more about this. Maybe the section I've called The Cyclists' Meeting Place could simply consist of two sub-forums:
- Personal stories (for, well, personal stories; whether they be related to where we ride, our equipment, or how to keep in shape.)
- Discussions (For the stories about how cyclists fare around the world.)

 

[python]

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...

 

[ebandit]

thoughts

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

 

[BroDeal]

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?

 

[Parrulo]

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.

 

[BroDeal]

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.

 

[Parrulo]

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?