Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Member Thoughts on Forum Structure?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Groundskeeping Dept. SWCAdmin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    DC area pogue.
    Posts
    1,841

    Default 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

  2. #2
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    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
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  4. #4
    Council Member jonSlack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    156

    Default

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

  5. #5
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    Council Member pcmfr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    62

    Default

    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:
    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...

  7. #7
    Council Member RTK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Wherever my stuff is
    Posts
    824

    Default

    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •