Member Thoughts on Forum Structure?

Not to mess with a good thing, but we are doing some chin scratching regarding whether our forum structure best meets our members' needs. It is always a fine line between over-compartmentalizing and under-compartmentalizing. And just because a taxonomy makes sense, doesn't mean it will lube the dialog.

So....request members post their issues / ideas / likes / dislikes here regarding the current forum design. Post in this thread, and/or fling me a PM, or e-mail to webmaster@smallwarsjournal.com. Be as large or small in scope, critical or constructive as you like.

At this point I will not follow up on individual items. Part time management. Mostly because we need to look at the forest, not just the trees, and I don't want to weigh in too early on any particular tree. But please feel free to let the fur fly.

If / when we do make any changes, please rest assured that:
- no threads will be killed in the filming of this movie
- we'll do our best to announce it, minimize interruptions, and have it all make sense in the end
- no change for change's sake, only if it makes sense with a big payoff

I like the current setup. As an analyst/writer, I surf the web for a living, and yours is one of the easiest to pick through of the myriad of military related websites I visit each day.

I've got to agree with 120mm on this - the taxonomy is good. If I had any suggestions, they would lie more along the lines of a glossary (hey, my alphabet soup isn't the same as yours :)) and, possibly, the ability to create a "virtual forum" via the search function (something like everything relation to Afghanistan, etc.).

Marc

In my opinion, the forum system ain't broke...

Agree with my colleagues. I like general and content rich forum environments over pandering and short shrift "me too" posts. Since i use the "new posts" button the structure has little effect other than trying to stay on topic within the threads.

I think the structure is fine. Your membership is great too, but as every forum grows, so do eventually the trolls and other people who generally raise discontent. You may want to consider the appointment of a volunteer moderator or two to help you cull the herd as the thread count becomes unmanageable for 1 or 2 people. Here's some good advice from Mark Cuban.

Mark Cuban wrote:

Quote:

---

While Im up on my high horse, let me add some historical context. Social networks are not new. Go back 20 years to CompuServe and UseNet groups and then chat rooms. They all cycled through the same way. They were fun and exciting when you found people with like interests. People found the forum, group or room usually via referral. People involved learned, were educated, were entertained, whatever the forum offered. Then if the forum grew, as in any group, some participants became more popular than others, and others tried, but failed to become popular. Still, they tried to dominate conversations, and when they couldn't they tried different ways to game or sabotage the system. That pushed out the "purists" and original posters.

Then the spammers came. When the forum reaches the point where no one has a strong connection, the spammers and people trying to game the forum take over till the forum dies. Its what has become "The Ecology of Forums and Social Networks" . When a forum is open to everyone, eventually everyone shows up and the original attraction of the forum is lost. Someone has got to take responsibility for any open social network or the network will die.

Go to any forum that has survived a long time and you will find members or admins that police posts on there actively and ruthlessly. Myspace is a perfect example of a company that is figuring this out and trying hard to police what its participants do. Youtube, not so much...

---

I, like the rest of my esteemed collegues above, have no issue with the forum. It seems that while we have had a few nutcases run through here, none have stayed for a significant length of time. Except that I've been here since August. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RTK

....It seems that while we have had a few nutcases run through here, none have stayed for a significant length of time. Except that I've been here since August..... :D

---

Hey I'm still here too!

I'm pleased you all find that this works as is. And yes, pcmfr, we've got some moderators stepping up nicely. Sage advice you referred to.

Don't want to drag you all into too much meta-analysis -- keep nailing away primarily at the topics at hand, rather than the shape of the sandbox. But at risk of disrupting the love-fest, I'll tell you where our heads were when we got the thoughts that got us chin scratching to start with:

#1 - the core forum area, small wars theory and practice, seems fine and useful for what it is. You all confirm that.

But it didn't strike us that we had licked these two angles:

#2 - How do we organize to enable and encourage learned member dialog on ops other-than-OIF? Afghanistan is hard enough to keep on top of the threads. PI, Islamic Courts, Darfur, etc. don't seem to stand a chance. Where does a member post about those "smaller" wars now? You know we want to talk about them. Perhaps more niche a group, but where is that niche?

#3 - Can we better include and serve the history types, without becoming a dusty old history board? And is that true of any other "types." Like the state types, the media types, etc. Our taxonomy has largely been drawn from what the military is comfortable with.

Do not want to be all things to all people, nor a 40 line list of forums. But without scrapping our solid core (all our initial ideas maintain much of the status quo), we're thinking...

At a minimum, will probably bolt on a theater-specific section, and then encourage the use of the search function. Re the rest, glad to hear you think we've got it about right. If this jars any good ideas, please fling them our way. If you see us self-inflicting pain, scream.

I fully concur with our members' comments. Not an internet freak, but I have tried several motorcycle forums designed specifically for professional mechanics, dealers and aftermarket. None work as smooth as yours.

Well Done !

I think one approach to getting the smaller wars might be to break them down based on geography. Small Wars - Africa, Pacific Basin, and so on.

As for history, I'd rather see it broken down by historical period. Right now the background stuff is jumbled in with everything else, and can make it hard for people to find stuff that might relate to their specific interests or areas.

Like you said, this is done very well from a military perspective, but from a more academic perspective it can be hard to find the more background-y stuff. A wiki-type setup would cover a glossary, and while search is good I still have a bit of a bias toward a more "hard-wired" layout (must be the archivist/library worker in me).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

I think one approach to getting the smaller wars might be to break them down based on geography. Small Wars - Africa, Pacific Basin, and so on.

As for history, I'd rather see it broken down by historical period. Right now the background stuff is jumbled in with everything else, and can make it hard for people to find stuff that might relate to their specific interests or areas.

Like you said, this is done very well from a military perspective, but from a more academic perspective it can be hard to find the more background-y stuff. A wiki-type setup would cover a glossary, and while search is good I still have a bit of a bias toward a more "hard-wired" layout (must be the archivist/library worker in me).

---

Maybe we could combine some of these elements. Steve, you're right that a wiki type setup would work for a glossary, but it might also work for a theatre approach as well. I suspect that we could use a wiki page for a theatre introduction, with additional pages for history, geography, etc. I don't know if it would be possible to tie actual discussion threads to specific theatre pages, but that would certainly be nice if possible.

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Maybe we could combine some of these elements. Steve, you're right that a wiki type setup would work for a glossary, but it might also work for a theatre approach as well. I suspect that we could use a wiki page for a theatre introduction, with additional pages for history, geography, etc. I don't know if it would be possible to tie actual discussion threads to specific theatre pages, but that would certainly be nice if possible.

Marc

---

The secondary link capacity of WIKI's would make it possible to link to forum discussion on topics. One thing you might end up doing is assigning "editors" to the discussion sections. Editorship would be a great way to think of moderators too.

I would think you would leave a single page for theater and have subsections on the same page for history, geography, past conflicts, agents within the area, influences, economy, etc... You could hot link (web link?) within the discussions to either forum discussion or secondary WIKI pages.

For example you might have Western European theater, and have discussions of Germanic nations, maybe a discussion about the Fulda Gap. A secondary page or section on the original page might detail the tactical importance of the Fulda Gap and what it represents with sections on the page about the history, geography, past conflicts, agents, etc... of the area.


ETA: One thing I would start with is a comprehensive list of small wars. Prior to that I would have a comprehensive definition of what a "small war" is, and why it is different than a "war" in general.

Works for me, especially with editors :). One of the problems Wikipedia has had was with "drive by rewrites" causing a lot of problems. Assigning editors would certainly be a help.

Marc

On the basis of some prior discussion, I did some research and am lining up an install of MediaWiki, the engine behind Wikipedia. I have a few things to do before we get there, not the least of which is getting the next and long overdue SWJMag out the door.

So....

For those jazzed about a Wiki (like me), keep your pants on! Getting there, soon-ish, will slap up a Beta and recon pull our way through it. Yes, there are many issues there to resolve, will do so by fire. Those who have some specific knowledge or interest, please ping me off thread at webmaster@smallwarsjournal.com.

But at the end of the day, the forums here provide a special kind of interactivity.

I've got my answer from this thread -- they work pretty well as is, don't screw with the core. Maybe we'll tinker a little on the fringe. But don't mess with a good thing (my opening words this thread).

Agreed. I like wikis to a degree, but forums are still a better place for actual dialog as opposed to constant rewrites. I would also suggest that, for the most part, our glossary be "locked down" and not open to general edit/rewrite.

Just a random thought on a Friday afternoon.

We seem to be generating a lot of thought and spilled electrons on Information warfare. Anyone have any thoughts on whether this might be something to expand out to a full forum?

Marc

OK -- here's where we're at.

On the basis of the supportive thoughts here, and more by PM, we're leaving the core of the Small Wars Theory & Practice section alone.

But where do you put a post on Darfur? Or something about NGOs? The good design works for military functions and capabilities. But our scope needs to be larger.

So we'll add two new sections -- one conflict based, by AO; the other community-based, by interest group. And we'll keep the current Small Wars Theory & Practice section as the third main section, on military functions and capabilities.

We are putting the lipstick on this pig, and will roll it out in the wee hours when the board is slow, probably early next week. We hope that all of you will stay with us, and that this will help us grow well and get stronger.