Forum Format Poll - Feedback Requested

[TucsonJim]

Now that we've been experimenting with the forum for a while, we'd like to get your feedback on the format. As you have seen, each major section is broken down into four sub-categories. Operation, Maintenance, Repairs, and Modifications. Should we keep it this way, simplify it, or change it altogether? Can you please respond to the poll and in the comments so we can have your thoughts?

Note: The poll will remain open for one week and close on 7/10/19.

Thanks - Jim

Edit Test

[Paul & Deb]

Yeah, well, since I never go to the individual sections to read (my point being that I don't cruise the sections looking for posts) AND if I am posting a question they can sometimes be a combination of more than one sub-section, I would just have 1 category to post in.

[TucsonJim]

Yeah, well, since I never go to the individual sections to read (my point being that I don't cruise the sections looking for posts) AND if I am posting a question they can sometimes be a combination of more than one sub-section, I would just have 1 category to post in.

Howard and you are on the same page. And now I wish I could change my vote...

[TENN22]

Paul describes exactly how I use the forum also, so I agree that one category to post in would be much simpler.

[redspeed3]

In the days of really good text searches, I see almost no reason to have subcategories. Very detailed filing categories works well in the physical world, but is a burden in the electronic world.

[Canyonlight]

Paul has a good point. I originally thought the subs were nice to have but as others have shared, it is really not necessary and creates an extra step(s).

However, since I am not aware of why you very talented folks all decided to create subcategories (there must have been some good discussion and reasons) it would be interesting to learn your thinking as to why you all decided on this approach ?

Dan

[Country Campers]

Paul has a good point. I originally thoughts the subs were nice to have but as others have shared, it is really not necessary and creates an extra step(s).

However, since I am not aware of why you very talented folks all decided to create subcategories (there must have been some good discussion and reasons) it would be interesting to learn your thinking as to why you all decided on this approach ?

Dan

I believe , at least for me, the reasons for the sub groups were to keep the groups un-cluttered. Having all things mixed up into one area makes it hard to find an older post that you wish to re-read or reply to.
Using the search bar would help with this but not having enough info here yet it is kind useless to try that.
I could go either way on the subject but do think the sub groups will keep a little more organization to all of the groups, this is also why , I think , we do not have a "general" area for discussions.

Brian

[TucsonJim]

Rob, Brian, Howard and I had a ton of discussions on how to organize the forum during the initial phases. What you are currently seeing is what we came up with to keep the forum somewhat organized. Ad as for the "general" category that Brian mentions.... Ain't no way. I never want to deal with a general category again.

Jim

[Cate&Rob]

Good input from all. Thanks!

As the other moderators have noted, we discussed this at length early on and thought that the sub-categories would keep our technical content more organized. I really didn't consider the ability of the search tool to find things (as redspeed3 points out). Another thing that is changing my mind is how discussion doesn't necessarily stay within the sub-group where it was started. For example, a question about maintenance can lead into a discussion of a related modification, but the thread still lives where it was started in maintenance. To Paul's point in post 2.

Rob

[TucsonJim]

I discussed this with GDRV-Tom this morning, and he brings up some good points. If you didn't know, Tom is the guru who's been setting up the forum and making all the changes we ask for. I'm paraphrasing his comments below:

Many people will drop by the forum for information without creating an account. The four basic categories make it easier for them to pinpoint the topics they are looking for.

In addition, when a person is using a search engine, it is more visible to the search engine when there are more categories.

[boyscout]

I discussed this with GDRV-Tom this morning, and he brings up some good points. If you didn't know, Tom is the guru who's been setting up the forum and making all the changes we ask for. I'm paraphrasing his comments below:

Many people will drop by the forum for information without creating an account. The four basic categories make it easier for them to pinpoint the topics they are looking for. In addition, when a person is using a search engine, it is more visible to the search engine when there are more categories.

I disagree with GDRV-Tom on his first point. I have some experience in designing sites and a whole lot in using them, and my belief is that splitting all the top-level topics into the same four sub-categories makes the forum more-laborious to browse for people who are not searching for something specific (and thereby retards engagement and frequent use) and will result in more people not finding what they're looking for if they are looking for something specific.

For example, how many people are likely to come looking for Exterior Operation, or Repairs or Modifications? They may most often look for Exterior Maintenance, and wouldn't they thereby miss useful / interesting / engaging information in the other sub-categories? Slide-Out Modifications doesn't sound like a big drawing card for the site. Interior Storage Maintenance... what? Is that the annual reluctant emptying-out and mopping of the basement and cleaning of interior cupboards? We need a sub-category of threads for that? Etc.

Next, we know that many new posters will not be as dedicated to careful filing as GDRV-Tom may want them to be - heck, some users ignore the top-level topic titles too! So, as Cate&Rob has noted, discussions will frequently start in the wrong sub-category or or drift around into the other sub-categories - and even the top-level categories - and either the mods will be awfully busy moving stuff around or the sub-categories will degrade into a stew that eventually leaves the intended benefits of sub-categorization far behind.

This forum won't be very successful if it doesn't first and foremost engage people to keep coming back. Back to contribute, especially, since the mods and a handful of others here who are already giving a lot won't want to be such heavy contributors forever. Engaging people means making it easy to visit, browse around, and yes, search when needed.

Does the selected forum software - which is apparently missing some popular modern features - support tagging? If adding some organization to the top-level categories is fervently-desired, asking posters to tag their posts with Modifications, Repairs, Operation, and Maintenance could do that with nearly-similar effectiveness without burdening the process of simply browsing the site and keeping up with threads of interest.

I understand that the focus of this forum is intended to be more about technical advice and less about community, but IMO it's fanciful to think that sub-categorization is going to enforce that or constrain use to that. Isn't it worth noting that another RV forum some of us frequent is an excellent source of technical information, in part because it's also an extremely-robust and engaged community and a searchable resource when needed?

Finally, I don't understand GDRV-Tom 's assertion that the search facility will work better if the forum categories are more-granular as they are now. Unless that's an unusual limitation of this forum's software, both its own search facility and search engines like Google should have no trouble finding any post even if the current sub-categories were removed.

Advice, worth every cent that you've paid for it.

[TENN22]

I disagree with GDRV-Tom on his first point. I have some experience in designing sites and a whole lot in using them, and my belief is that splitting all the top-level topics into the same four sub-categories makes the forum more-laborious to browse for people who are not searching for something specific (and thereby retards engagement and frequent use) and will result in more people not finding what they're looking for if they are looking for something specific.

For example, how many people are likely to come looking for Exterior Operation, or Repairs or Modifications? They may most often look for Exterior Maintenance, and wouldn't they thereby miss useful / interesting / engaging information in the other sub-categories? Slide-Out Modifications doesn't sound like a big drawing card for the site. Interior Storage Maintenance... what? Is that the annual reluctant emptying-out and mopping of the basement and cleaning of interior cupboards? We need a sub-category of threads for that? Etc.

Next, we know that many new posters will not be as dedicated to careful filing as GDRV-Tom may want them to be - heck, some users ignore the top-level topic titles too! So, as Cate&Rob has noted, discussions will frequently start in the wrong sub-category or or drift around into the other sub-categories - and even the top-level categories - and either the mods will be awfully busy moving stuff around or the sub-categories will degrade into a stew that eventually leaves the intended benefits of sub-categorization far behind.

This forum won't be very successful if it doesn't first and foremost engage people to keep coming back. Back to contribute, especially, since the mods and a handful of others here who are already giving a lot won't want to be such heavy contributors forever. Engaging people means making it easy to visit, browse around, and yes, search when needed.

Does the selected forum software - which is apparently missing some popular modern features - support tagging? If adding some organization to the top-level categories is fervently-desired, asking posters to tag their posts with Modifications, Repairs, Operation, and Maintenance could do that with nearly-similar effectiveness without burdening the process of simply browsing the site and keeping up with threads of interest.

I understand that the focus of this forum is intended to be more about technical advice and less about community, but IMO it's fanciful to think that sub-categorization is going to enforce that or constrain use to that. Isn't it worth noting that another RV forum some of us frequent is an excellent source of technical information, in part because it's also an extremely-robust and engaged community and a searchable resource when needed?

Finally, I don't understand GDRV-Tom 's assertion that the search facility will work better if the forum categories are more-granular as they are now. Unless that's an unusual limitation of this forum's software, both its own search facility and search engines like Google should have no trouble finding any post even if the current sub-categories were removed.

Advice, worth every cent that you've paid for it.

^^^^^^^What he said^^^^^^^ I agree with Mark. If there was a "Like" button or an upvote button I would click it for this post. Well said Mark. IMHO it certainly seems the new software is a step backwards from what we have become accustomed to on other forums.

[howson]

^^^^^^^What he said^^^^^^^ I agree with Mark. If there was a "Like" button or an upvote button I would click it for this post. Well said Mark. IMHO it certainly seems the new software is a step backwards from what we have become accustomed to on other forums.

The "Like" button will be available soon. It was an unintended victim of a change to remove a "feature" that has no value (IMO) to this forum. I'm being vague on purpose--I have no desire to discuss the "feature".

I have no first-hand knowledge, but we've been told this new software has superior capabilities that make it much more viable to mobile platforms. These are "under the hood" changes that none of us will know about.

What's frustrating (to me) is the interface is different. Not better--different. It does the same things as the old forum, we just have to figure out how to do the same things differently. I can't begin to document how much I despise these types of interface changes. (Kind of like what Microsoft does all the time with Windows. So freaking frustrating.)

Again, no first hand knowledge but I've done my fair share of work building and using Microsoft Access (a database). IMO the only gain is the sub-forums will make the Advanced Search feature work better in this forum, but that assumes 1) the user can figure out how to use Advanced Search and 2) the topic is in the right sub-forum. There will be a percentage of threads (and/or posts) that end up in the "wrong" sub-forum. So be it.

I don't know the administrators but I can only assume they have the technical knowledge to back up the assertion that sub-forums are needed. I will trust they are right so we move forward with the current structure.

[boyscout]

Howard, I don't wanna start one of "those" debates any more than you do but I've gotta respond to your post.

...I have no desire to discuss the "feature". ... These are "under the hood" changes that none of us will know about.

I managed large software development projects and found that user feedback - even though a pain at times - was important to creating a product that people would use.

What's frustrating (to me) is the interface is different. Not better--different.

"Not better" is an understatement. Unless there are features not yet enabled, this forum's software is less-friendly and less-intuitive than many others.

... the sub-forums will make the Advanced Search feature work better in this forum, but that assumes 1) the user can figure out how to use Advanced Search and 2) the topic is in the right sub-forum. There will be a percentage of threads (and/or posts) that end up in the "wrong" sub-forum. So be it.

You've clarified the thinking in favoring sub-topic granularity for searches, but you've also expressed the problem with the thinking. The search facility is almost certainly capable of finding posts anywhere in the forum. Burdening the general browsing experience with so many sub-topics because it will sometimes result in a few less results in a search seems like a very lop-sided trade-off.

I don't know the administrators but I can only assume they have the technical knowledge to back up the assertion that sub-forums are needed. I will trust they are right so we move forward with the current structure.

Despite the user feedback favoring removal of the sub-topics Grand Design will "move forward with the current structure"? Wow.

[TucsonJim]

The more I look at this, the more I appreciate the sub-categories. These sub-categories were suggested by the four moderators when we were brainstorming the forum set up, not Grand Design. I think back to another forum and the over use of the "General topic" category. Many users would post their threads in this category and they were dang near impossible to find with the forum's search engine. And a new search engine was incorporated (with poor results) to try and help things.

And we (regular users and moderators) had to spend a lot of time trying to coach new members on how to use the search engine to find what they were looking for.

If I was a new member of this forum, and I was having a problem with electrical, the first place I'd look would be under Electrical - repairs or maintenance, not a Google Search or forum search tool.

My suggestion is that we run with the structure for a while to see how it works out and if it becomes burdensome, make changes as needed.

I am concerned that we have 288 members, and we received only 24 votes total (12%).

Jim