Input on forum organization?

[SWCAdmin]

We are planning a major upgrade to the board software. As we do that, it is an appropriate time to review the organization of the board and consider whether any changes to the forums might better meet Council members' needs.

It is easy enough for us to see which forums are busy and which are dead, and we'll take that into consideration. It is far harder to intuit which ones make sense to you, which ones don't; what forums you feel might be lacking, are too broad, or too narrow; whether they all work as a whole; etc. Please make your observations and suggestions in this thread.

Note that the point of a forum is to allow grouping of like-minded folks and/or their topics together to increase signal-to-noise ratio for people that frequent that area, e.g. window shopping the list of threads, or subscribing to the forum. The point is distinctly NOT to taxonomize and bucketize every last topic into an inch-wide cul de sac. Forum structure is a foundation but it works with various board features (including search, new posts, related thread suggestions, etc.) for managing complexity. If anything, we want to come out of any re-look with fewer forums, not more.

[Jedburgh]

I think that The Coalition Speaks area is unnecessary and should be eliminated. First, it implies that that rest of the forum is US-Centric, which I do not believe has turned out to be the case. Second, every single thread there could logically be slotted elsewhere on the forum.

We should be doing our best to ensure that a spectrum of national views and perspectives are provided in all topic areas (which has already been occurring quite a bit, as we have several very active non-US members) and not keep an area singled out solely for non-US viewpoints.

[Entropy]

Agree with Jedburgh about "coalition speaks."

I use the "new posts" functionality pretty muche exclusively, so categorization of threads only matters to me when I want to create one. For example, if I want to highlight something in the news about intelligence in Afghanistan, I have at least three possible categories to choose from.

In that regard, I think the "participants and stakeholders" section probably could use some consolidation. Also, I don't think it makes much sense anymore for OIF to have 5 separate topics while Afghanistan still only has one. Each should probably have perhaps 3-4 broad categories in my opinion.

If you want to make the board less US-focused, you could move the GWOT/ Iraq sections to their respective geographical section, but to me that's not a huge deal.

Overall though, I think you've a pretty good job of organizing so if things stayed as they are I certainly wouldn't be upset about it.

[jcustis]

Also, I don't think it makes much sense anymore for OIF to have 5 separate topics while Afghanistan still only has one. Each should probably have perhaps 3-4 broad categories in my opinion.

If you want to make the board less US-focused, you could move the GWOT/ Iraq sections to their respective geographical section, but to me that's not a huge deal.

Yup, it's almost amusing that the board was re-organized at the height of OIF, as we were headed into the surge, and Afghanistan was just that distant annoyance that no one really wanted to deal with quite yet. How things have changed.

I think the Afghanistan PTP forum should stay, because there are some tidbits there that can be an exceptional learning tool, and it could be populated with a lot more; more folks just need to know about it and get in there. I would be willing, if there was a standing announcement posted, to vet folks who would desire to gain access to that folder. I am a member of the Military/Law Enforcement forum of another large board, and the discussions are always fruitful and engaging. There is considerable self-policing, but the mods address any deviation from posting norms fairly fast.

My vettting consisted of providing a .mil address, as well as the phone number of my first supervisor. They never called him (Col Fitzpatrick) but through simple means, the numbers can be run to ground pretty easily. Other coalition forces would be a challenge that I'm not sure I know how to resolve, but Red Rat and some of his clan are already in there through personal contact with David, so maybe there are other tools to use for members from Commonwealth nations.

We could also simply steer clear of any sensitive material and simply narrow the focus down to PTP cycles, and the topics that should be relevant to deploying troops. I for one think our cultural awareness model has got it all wrong, and the forum could expand in interest to allow veterans to offer their two cents on what is important and what is just white noise in the training.

[Stan]

I for one think our cultural awareness model has got it all wrong, and the forum could expand in interest to allow veterans to offer their two cents on what is important and what is just white noise in the training.

Agree. We had a test trial and although several of us disagreed, the program went forward as it was. A shame as the point was to make it worth something for deploying troops in Africa.

You two have done an excellent job and this forum is a shinning example.

[SWCAdmin]

A clarifying note -- the Afghanistan PTP is a private forum restricted to members of a publicly joinable, moderated custom usergroup (see UserCP>Group Memberships). It was set up to support a small group project. The group leaders are evaluating the future of that forum and what content we might move into more public areas.

Concur, the Coalition Speaks in on our short list for hospice care.

The operational culture topic is a good one. At the moment, I guess threads on the topic belong in either AO-specific forums or Training & Education. Like the coalition aspect, I see the topic as so pervasive that a forum of its own is probably not indicated.

Please keep the comments coming.